Poker Forum > National Online League
The 2nd National Online League of Season 6
ian.ski309:
--- Quote from: AAroddersAA on September 16, 2012, 19:02:55 PM ---
--- Quote from: Gup9y on September 16, 2012, 18:35:48 PM ---
Option A. It was my first time playing and was a great experience. Keep it the same and lets hope it"s an exciting finish.
--- End quote ---
Between Wales and Scotland? If the format and the teams are the same that is what is going to happen. Although I think Scotland will win it somewhat more easily this time.
Personally I would like to see a format that gives everybody a chance. If you live in certain parts of the country you are out of the running before you start.
--- End quote ---
Totally agree Rodders.
If it"s left in it"s current format, it will be interesting to see how the numbers compare to last season. I suspect that there will be quite a few who just won"t bother which would be a shame.
GiMac:
--- Quote from: GiMac on September 17, 2012, 03:01:28 AM ---
Ok here is my tuppence. Personally I do not feel that those teams who made an effort to recruit new members to APAT and then actively encourage attendance should be penalised. Accordingly I would propose that some teams, who seem unable to get their numbers up, be amalgamated into neighbouring teams examples would be EMids/WMids, Ireland/Europe, East of England/London. Then numbers are more equalised. But if that can"t be done then option A is the only way that doesn"t penalise the enthusiastic & positive contribution by those teams who have driven up numbers.
--- End quote ---
Just for clarity if this was done using last seasons figures an example of combined numbers would be as follows:
EMids/WMids 35+47 = 82
EofE/London 54+34 = 88
Ireland/Europe 32+33 = 65
SE/SW 89+49 = 138
NE/Yorks 79+47 = 126
NW 94
Scotland 107
Wales 82
It"s not perfect but might be a viable option.
Of course an alternative would be for those smaller teams to recruit their non APAT poker playing friends to play for their team, like Scotland & Wales did. I also know that NE recruited via a local poker forum and doubled the size of their team during the season, and look how they stormed the 2nd half of the season.
Certain teams were desperate to keep their autonomy last year, but have then failed to deliver the numbers. It may seem harsh but I think those that are complaining should concentrate on growing their team, or they should lose it rather than penalising teams who have been actively obtaining new members. When you see the numbers in some teams with the pool of population they have to work with it"s quite frankly pathetic. I mean come on are you saying there are only 34 poker players who would play this in London, with a population of 9m?
AMRN:
Notwithstanding the fact that some teams/regions have done really well with recruitment.... part of the problem for some regional teams is that they have lost some of their regular local APAT players to the country teams.
The rule was amended to allow players to play in their home region or their birth region. Realistically, this just creates additional catchment for Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. I"m not asking that the debate be re-opened, but merely pointing out that when that debate was had, some of us identified that the rule change would significantly favour the country teams at the expense of the regional teams.
So...... Team England please!
Neither Option A nor Option B will keep players involved to the end of the season - there will always be a drop off as teams fall out of contention. Changing from current scenario to a new smaller team scenario will not fix this. However, playing in small teams of "mates" rather than larger regional teams worked really well in the recent competition, and could be explored further. BUT, it would of course negatively impact the attraction for individuals who show an interest in joining APAT.
Curlarge:
--- Quote from: GiMac on September 17, 2012, 03:01:28 AM ---
Ok here is my tuppence. Personally I do not feel that those teams who made an effort to recruit new members to APAT and then actively encourage attendance should be penalised. Accordingly I would propose that some teams, who seem unable to get their numbers up, be amalgamated into neighbouring teams examples would be EMids/WMids, Ireland/Europe, East of England/London. Then numbers are more equalised. But if that can"t be done then option A is the only way that doesn"t penalise the enthusiastic & positive contribution by those teams who have driven up numbers.
--- End quote ---
Gordon, valid points as always, BUT...the whole reason that Luton was disbanded as a team was exactly because of this. Waz was so successful in running the team that it was deemed that us and a couple of other teams had an unfair advantage. All that has happened is the the boundaries have moved and we have exactly the same result once again with 4 big teams and others that have little chance. So we either go back to how it was, or change it completely, hence option B been the only viable alternative.
GiMac:
--- Quote from: AMRN on September 17, 2012, 11:16:17 AM ---
Notwithstanding the fact that some teams/regions have done really well with recruitment.... part of the problem for some regional teams is that they have lost some of their regular local APAT players to the country teams.
The rule was amended to allow players to play in their home region or their birth region. Realistically, this just creates additional catchment for Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. I"m not asking that the debate be re-opened, but merely pointing out that when that debate was had, some of us identified that the rule change would significantly favour the country teams at the expense of the regional teams.
So...... Team England please!
--- End quote ---
Smoke screen alert!!!!!
You"ll be lucky if there are even 10-15 players who play for a team outside of where they live and that"s out of nearly 800 players who participated so that is a red herring and sorry but your argument also falls flat when Team London can only recruit 34 members from a population of 9m, or EMIDs only has 35 members from a 4.5m+ population, or WMIDS 47 with 5.4m, or South West 49 players with population of 4.9m, and Yorkshire 47 players from 5.5m. Yet the North East got 79 players from a 2.5m population pool.
Stop moaning and get recruiting!!!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version