Amateur Poker Association & Tour
Poker Forum => Online Archive => Online Poker => National Online League => Topic started by: Chipaccrual on September 11, 2012, 08:40:46 AM
-
Guys,
We are planning on commencing the 2nd league of the season on Sunday 30th September 2012.
But we have a bit of a dilemna in regards to the structure. We have two options that we have seen can work quite well for our players.
Option A
Keep with the regions format that proved a huge success during the first league, meaning 13 teams will compete each matchday for the 3,2,1 points system. We would look to keep/recruit captains were necessary and players would be asked to participate for either their local or hometown region.
Option B
Follow the smaller team format used in the succesful National Online Cup. In this case, we would have teams of between 4-6 (with only the top 4 scores counting). All players would earn points from 1pt for last place, right upto maximum points for the winner (max score being the number of runners). The top 4 scorers points would become the teams matchday total and that would be added to their running league total.
Whichever option we go for, the league will run for 15 matchdays, finishing in early February 2013, with added value seats for top teams and top individuals.
So, over to you. We need some quick feedback over the next few days as to which option you would prefer. If you say nothing, then you"ll never have a say.
We"re not putting it to the vote, but we"ll use the feedback as a basis for a decision.
All I would add is that we would like a competitive league that is well supported for existing and new players alike.
Many thanks,
Leigh
-
Option A
Positive - Has the benefit of keeping the indenity of the clubs that have been around for several seasons, albeit some a slightly changed bounderies. League was competitive as ever
Negative - Remains the issue of smaller regions being put at a disadvantage still, players may lose interest/motivation
Option B
Positive - Keeps everyone involved, great format, with smaller teams being more manageable, good team spirits too.
Negative - Loses the regional focus, as most regions get split into 2 or 3 "mini teams" so may dilute the club mentality and as a result going forward, maybe hard to pick this up again, which would be a shame
-
Option B for me
-
Option A but with more and better prizes for individual performance . This will keep players from all teams interested for longer. Option B if you just want to keep a cosy club with your mates as it makes it much harder for new players to APAT to join in.
-
B
-
A
-
Option A is like the one we had on Stars yes?
Well I really did like the online knockout cup, but I think this should be kept more like an inbetween the big ones. It would be nice to have it again, but is time for the big one now from my view.
So normally I would go for A, as it is more likely getting more Players in, as well as far I can remember it had more prizes as well, so there been prizes for the winner and the runner up as well for the first 3 individual players, and I think this is what attracts more Players
My only Prob is even though I would like Option A more, I can not play then :"( unless it is allowed that European Players join any region of their choice. Which would really be nice, as well in this case would only be 12 teams I guess. And we aren"t this many that suddenly a region gets overflooded. So please make this possible should option A win as I really would like to play and not want to sit here and wait till I have moved next year
-
Option A
Positive - Has the benefit of keeping the indenity of the clubs that have been around for several seasons, albeit some a slightly changed bounderies. League was competitive as ever
Negative - Remains the issue of smaller regions being put at a disadvantage still, players may lose interest/motivation
Option B
Positive - Keeps everyone involved, great format, with smaller teams being more manageable, good team spirits too.
Negative - Loses the regional focus, as most regions get split into 2 or 3 "mini teams" so may dilute the club mentality and as a result going forward, maybe hard to pick this up again, which would be a shame
how can option A be fair when teams have 3 times amount of players as other teams. the main reason the structure was changed for s6 was because certain teams had a huge advantage because of there team size, but what happened was scotland 107 players north west 94 south east 89 wales 82 north east 79 then 8 teams under 54/50/47/47/35/34/33/32
so definitly OPTION B for fair play
-
Option B for me!!
-
Option B
You can still keep the regional teams but in a "Team A, Team B" that does not mean your best players are in A then B and so on. Keep it to 6 players with 4 scoring, this giving you the option of not having the pressure of playing each week. This will make it a more competitive league as they will not be any domineering team in terms of numbers. Reduce the buy-in to $5, after the first 3 or 4 games players will start to drop off unless they have some points making it $5 may mean they stay around longer. Possibly have a different game something like have 2 NLH then a Omaha then 2 NLH then Stud. The disadvantage is that when the league gets going, they will be no room for new players to join unless some teams have 4 or 5 players.
If you have teams of 6 then the prize should be for 6 no matter how many points they have individual scored (It"s a team game)
-
Plus if you keep teams within a team then you would only have 13 captains to deal with instead of 30 or 40 different opinions on how the league should be run. :D
-
it makes it much harder for new players to APAT to join in.
Was going to say B, but that it a good point. So, undecided so far.
-
-
Option A for me too.
I was attracted my the relative anonymity of playing in a large team.
Playing option B will demand more proactivity and will put many newcomers off the league.
Additionally I was disappointed with my performance last year and dearly wish to do my bit for the team this time round.
Also I"m on holiday first two weeks so unsure what games I will play in early doors...this doesn"t matter much in a big squad but would be dire stuff if only 6 players in the team.
-
I was attracted my the relative anonymity of playing in a large team.
Playing option B will demand more proactivity and will put many newcomers off the league.
Option B for me. Really enjoyed the last Online cup.
However can see that this may put off newcomers to the league. If the brains can put their heads together to get round this somehow then its a winner.
Leigh.... Brains... x
(http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/anderson/thunderbirds/images/520_brains.jpg)(http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/202021963/WCOAP_2008a.jpg)
-
I think some are put of by A cause last time where we had it, have been this really huge teams like scots with 107 players or what it was, why not limit Option A to 50 or 40 players max a team, and if there is a region with more players, make a second team this region like Scotland A and Scotland B by example
The small team thing was fine as it was, going just over a few playdays
I think going 15 games with 6 players only is pretty tough
So as said before best would be doing both in exchange, we had small, now big, than small again
-
My only Prob is even though I would like Option A more, I can not play then :"( unless it is allowed that European Players join any region of their choice. Which would really be nice, as well in this case would only be 12 teams I guess. And we aren"t this many that suddenly a region gets overflooded. So please make this possible should option A win as I really would like to play and not want to sit here and wait till I have moved next year
Gina.. the North East team would love to have you if the decision is Option A... although wasn"t there a European team last time around? x
-
Great feedback guys, a few thoughts from me as this unfolds
With the regions option, what would make players want to play right up until the end of the league (assuming your team isn"t in the running for top honours) ?
The smaller team option B wouldn"t be Region specific. What would stop new players from joining a smaller team as opposed from joining a region ?
-
How about option A+B?
We have the same regions as last year as to keep the bragging rights and competitiveness -- plus so we can all see YORKSHIRE at the top of the tree -- but each region is split into splinter groups if you like. This way regions such as the Welsh (boooo) and the Scots (boooo x2) aren"t necessarily at a huge advantage by having 2/3 of the entrants on their side.
Have Option B for the main prizes etc and Option A for pure bragging rights, the fun element and the chance to see the greatness of the White Rose army shine through. Aye by gum.
-
Great feedback guys, a few thoughts from me as this unfolds
The smaller team option B wouldn"t be Region specific. What would stop new players from joining a smaller team as opposed from joining a region ?
I think with Option A you get far more Players in like we had last time on Stars,
the Knockout cup was great and I really enjoyed it, but I found it a shame that it did not attract to many players
More Players normally means more prizes, correct me if I am wrong, as well a bigger cashpot
And more prizes and more cash are more likely to attract someone, old or new player to join, well in most cases, some might only play as a medal could be won ;)
-
Gina.. the North East team would love to have you if the decision is Option A... although wasn"t there a European team last time around? x
aww thank you Phil
I hope though that when Option A wins, the europeans are free to choose, and i hopefully could play with east midlands, this was the team i played first for when there was apat on betfair with 3 divisions
and yes ;D there was a European team and it was an interesting experience to play for them, as we had play days with only 2 or 3 players. It is not a secret as I had stated it before that I rather not play at all than to play there again. It wasnt much of a team, just a bunch of people from several countries, who not appeared most times. So I count playing for "Team" Europe as an experience I only need once in my life.
-
plus so we can all see YORKSHIRE at the top of the tree..
Yorkshire? Hang on.. just need to check... Yip...
Apparently the "North East" were the best team in the league last year*
*who werent an actual country ;)
With the regions option, what would make players want to play right up until the end of the league (assuming your team isn"t in the running for top honours) ?
Getting people to play as the weeks go by.. its either for pride or gain Leigh..
Gain.. A case of spreading the winnings further down the league (e.g. Premier league where each place means the difference of a few quid).. totally dependant on budget I know. Tough one also not to dilute the winners prizes. The longer the league in weeks, the greater the risk of people losing the love.
Pride.. if you are 1 out of 50 representing your region it means less than if you are 1 out of 6 (6 being a for example) representing your region. Players can easily take the line "oh well it wont matter if I dont play this week, theres plenty of others.. plus we"re out of it in the league anyway" if they are part of a huge group of players.. but being part of a smaller knit group / team its means more and will mean they"re more likely to play till the end.
x
-
Option A for me, like the "regional identity" and as has already been touched on, I think if you lost that it would be hard to get it back should the "option B" not turn out as hoped!
-
Option A for me, like the "regional identity" and as has already been touched on, I think if you lost that it would be hard to get it back should the "option B" not turn out as hoped!
Really? Would everyone forget where they live?
-
Really? Would everyone forget where they live?
Often.
But the beerbus is always at hand.
Urban Dictionary :
"A common method of getting home after a long night on the turps. Essentially means walking, however the state of intoxication means that you will usually have no recollection of the journey on the beer bus, but will instead wake up wondering how you got home, undressed and into bed.
Riders of the beer bus may also wake up with a memento of their travels, possibly a traffic cone or road sign."
x
-
I would like to opt for B..
My only worry though is that towards the latter part of the season with teams who are mid table and below are going to lose interest and the numbers are going to drop off.
Personally if I was in one of these teams I would play every game regardless of position, but it"s hard to keep everyone focused if they realise they have 0% chance..
Dunno if I"m complicating matters but just a thought, what about if when the season is 50% completed the teams are split into 2 separate leagues? So if there was say 50 teams competing the top 25 teams then form a new league and play on to the end of season, and bottom 25 do the same.. Or you could even then seed the teams to re draw, but I don"t know if this would complicate it to much.. I guess this idea is solely dependant on what added prizes APAT had in mind from the start? As you would have to have two lots of added prizes, or then have a playoff between the top two teams from each league for the single prize..
-
-
I like B best.
You could also have an ongoing players market for any new players wanting to join. Once it has 4 players a new team can be formed with the option of adding 2 more players. Missing the first few games would not be an issue in a league over 15 weeks but perhaps the new teams could have some points to kickstart if they join late?
I would also like to see the buyin dropped to 5 euros if plan B is chosen. In a team with only 6 players, points will be essential so it makes sense to register and blind away if you cant play. I wouldn"t mind doing this so much for a fiver but would be reluctant to throw a tenner away.
-
Great points from everyone so its time for my say,
Personally if A gets dropped then Apat will lose the numbers over time and eventually it could turn out to be a backward step for the forum. You have to keep the regions to keep the interest internationally.
I loved the national online cup so keep this in between the seasons to keep interest. It goes to show that even though my East Mids team came 8th in the National league we did manage to get to the final of the online cup.
I think a possible solution would be either go back to a two league format with relegation and promotion OR split the league into a champions/europa league format to make it fair to the bottom half of the teams but with obviously bigger prizes for the top league.
so i agree with A..B and hopefully with my solution C :-\
ps, MANY THANKS GINA FOR YOUR LOYALTY TO THE EAST MIDLANDS TEAM ;)
-
Great points from everyone so its time for my say,
Personally if A gets dropped then Apat will lose the numbers over time and eventually it could turn out to be a backward step for the forum. You have to keep the regions to keep the interest internationally.
"A" for me but will play regardless
-
Personally I"d def choose option B, as had more fun in this format, than the large sized regional teams that took place.
I don"t see any reason why numbers would be hit either, if a regional side is struggling and not going anywhere people would more than likely just stop playing, where you"d feel more keen to carry on playing in a smaller team with friends / family.
It would be necessary to also have a player market for those that may struggle getting 4 - 6 players, so noone is getting excluded. You could also have an option for new people to join your sides if they wished, during the cause of the campaign.
Overall a smaller team format is far mor equally balanced. One region has 20 players, one has 10. Doesn"t seem fair. Only way to stop that is by limiting number of people per region, but then you"re driving players away. With a smaller team format this wouldn"t be an issue. Teams are in an equal footing.
I think with a format of smaller teams also gives you more room to develop the league. Multiple divisions, promotion, relegation etc etc.
-
To be honest I really enjoyed the National League before it changed last year, though I must say it was mainly due to our brilliant Captain Waz. Last year I lost interest as there were not many in our team and I hardly knew anyone. If it is based on the previous format or something similar I would be interested in playing in the on-line league again.
-
A for me
Couple of points
1. Seems Scotland and Wales are being criticised for having too many players and this affects the league.. Given their population in comparison to the regions of England is the problem not the lack of recruiting by the regions. Paul did a great job getting people to play for Scotland. Population of London is greater than my wee country.
2. If you go for the small team format over that length of time, player availability may become a big issue if teams have players who cannot play every week.
Time for a compromise
-
To be honest I really enjoyed the National League before it changed last year, though I must say it was mainly due to our brilliant Captain Waz. Last year I lost interest as there were not many in our team and I hardly knew anyone. If it is based on the previous format or something similar I would be interested in playing in the on-line league again.
Very true, my team only had 33 players but tbh i think only less than 10 only played at all. Too many say"ers and not enough do"ers :( You guys and gals know who you are :-X
-
A for me
Couple of points
1. Seems Scotland and Wales are being criticised for having too many players and this affects the league.. Given their population in comparison to the regions of England is the problem not the lack of recruiting by the regions. Paul did a great job getting people to play for Scotland. Population of London is greater than my wee country.
2. If you go for the small team format over that length of time, player availability may become a big issue if teams have players who cannot play every week.
Time for a compromise
Perhaps a compromise could be regional teams, limited to x amount of players, but each region can have more than 1 team (A,B,C etc)? This way would seem to keep regional identity, develop more leagues because of the larger number of teams and keep peoples interest in more, because its more tight knit.
-
Good quote,
Like the premiere league having a limit to 25 players or with apat 20 players. This means Scotland and Wales could still have 5 teams. This could generate more payers to join the league and even new teams could join up to join the national league and merge as long as they play in the apat forum.
Years ago i played in the veterans footy league with 5 teams and now there are around 7 leagues of around 90 teams in total... get it? This could work.
Just think of a league with Scotland A & B, Wales A & B, the other national teams and any of the top national cup teams but with 20 Players for example ;)
-
i prefer b, as it was a much better tourney with equal numbers. I think teams of 6 or 8 with top 4 scoring works would prefer 8 i think as 15 weeks playing is a long time on 6 people.
-
A. Scotland for the win
-
it makes it much harder for new players to APAT to join in.
This is key in my opinion in pushing up members as we had a fair few join up during league due to all the boys talking about the league matches on Facebook etc
-
My personal preference would be B but will side with A for the following.
1. B would struggle to attract new players
2. B would be a problem with player availability
Think both of these have beenemtioned anyway.
I would like to see a change to the scoring of this event as it clearly favours the team with the most players (despite the best efforts to counter this)
My proposal would be that the point scoring system stays the same on an individual basis. This determines who gets the VA packages. However on a team basis, the top 3 players in the tourney score the 3 2 1 for their region. This would reduce the team dynamic in the latter stages.
-
Didn"t play nations cup.
Personally think this type (B) leads to small cliques which is not what I understood to be APAT ethos. Also I suspect a few teams captains will cherry pick which will lead to a few very strong teams (great if your in them). The remainder "weaker" teams, especially where they are "put" together, would probably just drop off ater a few weeks.
I prefer option A - as DWH103 said - add an ironman to keep interest/people in.
If possible also consider regular prizes, e.g hendon mob league has monthly winners.
Also creating group A + B for larger regions is also a reasonable call (with Random allocation)
I"d play in an option A type league, not sure about option B.
Tired, so hope the above makes some sense.....
-
Good quote,
Like the premiere league having a limit to 25 players or with apat 20 players. This means Scotland and Wales could still have 5 teams. This could generate more payers to join the league and even new teams could join up to join the national league and merge as long as they play in the apat forum.
Years ago i played in the veterans footy league with 5 teams and now there are around 7 leagues of around 90 teams in total... get it? This could work.
Just think of a league with Scotland A & B, Wales A & B, the other national teams and any of the top national cup teams but with 20 Players for example ;)
at least that would be fairer than having 4 or 5 teams having more than twice the amount of players and gaining a huge advantage
-
Didn"t play nations cup.
Personally think this type (B) leads to small cliques which is not what I understood to be APAT ethos. Also I suspect a few teams captains will cherry pick which will lead to a few very strong teams (great if your in them). The remainder "weaker" teams, especially where they are "put" together, would probably just drop off ater a few weeks.
You may be interested to know that the team "put" together from the leftover players won the bronze medals in the national cup
-
it makes it much harder for new players to APAT to join in.
This is key in my opinion in pushing up members as we had a fair few join up during league due to all the boys talking about the league matches on Facebook etc
There"s that Facebook again, whatever it is.
-
I like either format but the main thing that has been said is how to keep the interest with all teams until the last game of the season. How about after 2 or 3 games that the team (or teams) in bottom place(s) plays for double points. Unless one team still doesn"t score then it should hopefully keep the teams at the bottom closer to the teams at the top. How about also having a knockout competition at the end of the season with a handicap system based on positions in the league.
Eg.. Winners off scratch play the bottom team who have a 10pt start or more if we use format A with large teams..
Whichever format is used then I can lose gracefully at either of them... I will still be playing.. :D
-
Personally think this type (B) leads to small cliques which is not what I understood to be APAT ethos. Also I suspect a few teams captains will cherry pick which will lead to a few very strong teams
I can see this - could have random allocation centrally to avoid cherry-picking?
Given their population in comparison to the regions of England is the problem not the lack of recruiting by the regions. Paul did a great job getting people to play for Scotland. Population of London is greater than my wee country.
Half your team were living in London.
-
Didn"t play nations cup.
Personally think this type (B) leads to small cliques which is not what I understood to be APAT ethos. Also I suspect a few teams captains will cherry pick which will lead to a few very strong teams (great if your in them). The remainder "weaker" teams, especially where they are "put" together, would probably just drop off ater a few weeks.
You may be interested to know that the team "put" together from the leftover players won the bronze medals in the national cup
Variance ;)
-
Option B.....this will avoid Countries playing Counties.
Having said that, can you try and include some means where the final games do not include just the teams with a chance of qualifying / winning as happened in the early rounds of The Online Cup?
-
A lot of people seem to not like the huge regions and would prefer a more local scenario - not micro-teams but something in between that keeps the advantages of both.
How about regional teams, but smaller regions, maybe centred around an urban area that contains a B+M casino, such as Luton, Cardiff, Walsall or Stockton?
-
A lot of people seem to not like the huge regions and would prefer a more local scenario - not micro-teams but something in between that keeps the advantages of both.
How about regional teams, but smaller regions, maybe centred around an urban area that contains a B+M casino, such as Luton, Cardiff, Walsall or Stockton?
I see what you"re doing here ;)
-
-
Guys,
We are planning on commencing the 2nd league of the season on Sunday 30th September 2012.
But we have a bit of a dilemna in regards to the structure. We have two options that we have seen can work quite well for our players.
Option A
Keep with the regions format that proved a huge success during the first league, meaning 13 teams will compete each matchday for the 3,2,1 points system. We would look to keep/recruit captains were necessary and players would be asked to participate for either their local or hometown region.
Option B
Follow the smaller team format used in the succesful National Online Cup. In this case, we would have teams of between 4-6 (with only the top 4 scores counting). All players would earn points from 1pt for last place, right upto maximum points for the winner (max score being the number of runners). The top 4 scorers points would become the teams matchday total and that would be added to their running league total.
Whichever option we go for, the league will run for 15 matchdays, finishing in early February 2013, with added value seats for top teams and top individuals.
So, over to you. We need some quick feedback over the next few days as to which option you would prefer. If you say nothing, then you"ll never have a say.
We"re not putting it to the vote, but we"ll use the feedback as a basis for a decision.
All I would add is that we would like a competitive league that is well supported for existing and new players alike.
Many thanks,
Leigh
A would be good.
-
Option A with the same rules as before is almost certainly two league. Wales Vs Scotland for 1st and second and everybody else for third. Perhaps we would be surprised but I don"t see it being much more than that. I personally actually have no interest in playing in that again. Maybe removing the rule that players from all over the place can play for these "regions" if they claim to have been born there or to have once owned a sheep. Players should have to play for their local club, this has always been my belief.
Can we have captains and an NFL draft type system to select the players that could be cool and should create much more equal teams. Don"t know how logistically possible though. Or some other non-regional approach?
-
Not too bothered about wales and scotland having more people. The populations of most of the areas were the same so if they manage to get more players then that is credit to them isn"t it.
If you were only permitted to play for the region where you lived, then yes, that would be fine. That wasn"t the case - people could, basically, choose which region to represent regardless of where they lived.
-
Not too bothered about wales and scotland having more people. The populations of most of the areas were the same so if they manage to get more players then that is credit to them isn"t it.
If you were only permitted to play for the region where you lived, then yes, that would be fine. That wasn"t the case - people could, basically, choose which region to represent regardless of where they lived.
Not completely true. The choice was where you live or where you were born.
-
If you were only permitted to play for the region where you lived, then yes, that would be fine. That wasn"t the case - people could, basically, choose which region to represent regardless of where they lived.
I wish, but this wasn"t. People had to play of where they lived or been born. This was why suddenly a few people had to leave the teams they used to play for and had known people and had to built a team Europe, which is a huge region but not many players. Unfortunately I did not know any of this region, and most of them had the same prob, and most of them therefor not cared and could not bother to appear after a few games (started after the 2nd game). So region is not everything.
I think it is fine to choose a region of regardless where you live, but as I and others said before limit the amount of players, and if there are regions with lots of players just make more teams of this reason. Like 30 - 40 players a team, and than have Scotland A, B, C, D and so on.
I like the thought though of what someone has posted earlier, where you live, have been born or owned a sheep, lol within second i would buy me a sheep in the east midlands :D
-
If you were only permitted to play for the region where you lived, then yes, that would be fine. That wasn"t the case - people could, basically, choose which region to represent regardless of where they lived.
I wish, but this wasn"t. People had to play of where they lived or been born. This was why suddenly a few people had to leave the teams they used to play for and had known people and had to built a team Europe, which is a huge region but not many players. Unfortunately I did not know any of this region, and most of them had the same prob, and most of them therefor not cared and could not bother to appear after a few games (started after the 2nd game). So region is not everything.
I think it is fine to choose a region of regardless where you live, but as I and others said before limit the amount of players, and if there are regions with lots of players just make more teams of this reason. Like 30 - 40 players a team, and than have Scotland A, B, C, D and so on.
I like the thought though of what someone has posted earlier, where you live, have been born or owned a sheep, lol within second i would buy me a sheep in the east midlands :D
(http://uk.pokernews.com/w/articles/4c5f/dd41e4c02.jpg)
-
If you were only permitted to play for the region where you lived, then yes, that would be fine. That wasn"t the case - people could, basically, choose which region to represent regardless of where they lived.
I wish, but this wasn"t. People had to play of where they lived or been born. This was why suddenly a few people had to leave the teams they used to play for and had known people and had to built a team Europe, which is a huge region but not many players. Unfortunately I did not know any of this region, and most of them had the same prob, and most of them therefor not cared and could not bother to appear after a few games (started after the 2nd game). So region is not everything.
I think it is fine to choose a region of regardless where you live, but as I and others said before limit the amount of players, and if there are regions with lots of players just make more teams of this reason. Like 30 - 40 players a team, and than have Scotland A, B, C, D and so on.
I like the thought though of what someone has posted earlier, where you live, have been born or owned a sheep, lol within second i would buy me a sheep in the east midlands :D
And I would be your shepherd Starshine
-
BEE
-
A for me
Couple of points
1. Seems Scotland and Wales are being criticised for having too many players and this affects the league.. Given their population in comparison to the regions of England is the problem not the lack of recruiting by the regions. Paul did a great job getting people to play for Scotland. Population of London is greater than my wee country.
2. If you go for the small team format over that length of time, player availability may become a big issue if teams have players who cannot play every week.
Time for a compromise
Yea was about to say the same , just catching up on the forum , and I read in this thread how much of an advantage Scotland , Wales etc had with team size , can i just say that we grew that size from nothing a couple of years ago through recruitment and promotion, to the team it was last year , and resent the comments of unfairness made.
Are we really going to go back down this road again , it seems that this discussion arises in between every league break and is becoming tedious to say the least. ,
Rant over , Option A for me ,
-
Would play option A when I could would not play option B at all.
-
Yea was about to say the same , just catching up on the forum , and I read in this thread how much of an advantage Scotland , Wales etc had with team size , can i just say that we grew that size from nothing a couple of years ago through recruitment and promotion, to the team it was last year , and resent the comments of unfairness made.
Are we really going to go back down this road again , it seems that this discussion arises in between every league break and is becoming tedious to say the least.
I was merely correcting shug"s assumption that team membership was based solely on where people currently lived, and thus was inherently fair, because all regions had a roughly equal pool from which to recruit. The assumption was incorrect.
Given that in scenario "A" the size of a team confers such a huge advantage, discussion of how to best ensure that the team sizes are roughly balanced and not in huge disproportion is perfectly on topic, IMHO.
We play to win the game.
If you think you can"t win even before starting the first game, what"s the point? And I believe that"s a fair question for anybody in the teams with fewer than 50 people in them to ask. And note that this is the exact same question as posed a while ago:
what would make players want to play right up until the end of the league (assuming your team isn"t in the running for top honours)
I"ve not seen anybody answer that question satisfactorily. I don"t have an answer either. Persuade me why I should play week 1.
-
Hey all, buzzing for league 2 to start and going as reigning champions. We welcome all challengers ;D
Not going to go into all the negativity surrounding team sizes etc. guys as it seems to be a recurring (nonsensical) theme. All I will say is why not put that energy into doing as Team Scotland and others have done and get recruiting and show APAT why it"s worth putting on new leagues and cups. Enjoy the tournies and keep with the APAT spirit. ;) Have a great weekend. ;D ;D
-
Not going to go into all the negativity surrounding team sizes etc. guys as it seems to be a recurring (nonsensical) theme. All I will say is why not put that energy into doing as Team Scotland and others have done and get recruiting
I read in this thread how much of an advantage Scotland , Wales etc had with team size , can i just say that we grew that size from nothing a couple of years ago through recruitment and promotion, to the team it was last year , and resent the comments of unfairness made.
Are we really going to go back down this road again , it seems that this discussion arises in between every league break and is becoming tedious to say the least.
APAT has asked for a discussion, which is why there is one. You can"t close it down because you don"t like what people are saying. I don"t recall seeing negative statements, as you claim, apart from your own. What I have seen is people putting forward constructive ideas.
And the idea that other regions can go and recruit members like Scotland supposedly did is unfeasible. They don"t have the inherent advantage that Scotland has of people who grew up there but live somewhere else wanting to play for them.
You would like to keep this advantage. You can post your views to try to achieve that, but other people are entitled to post theirs, whether you resent it or not.
-
I enjoyed playing both "online league" and "online cup".
I will be playing regardless of the format as long as it is run on Sundays only! I was able to play for the few Wednesdays in the online cup but will not be able to do the same through the winter months!
If I was pushed to declare which I preferred though I would pick the online cup. I think an improvement to this would be to have 6-8 man teams with the top 4-5 players scoring points.
However, this threat is about the online league.
I"m not sure there is any solution to the varying team sizes. You won"t be able to please all 500 odd people that are likely to play. Although, breaking down the regions into mini-teams of between 40-60 randomly drawn players could possibly work (late entries can be randomly added to teams that are short of the maximum players)!
Maybe if there was added value for the highest placed player in each region this would keep players of all regions interested in playing for the whole season (of course, this then goes against the initial idea of playing as a team. But just a thought!)
Ramblings over!!
-
How about this......
Have 12 teams, NOT based on regions but just named after random poker terms eg Big Slick, Squeeze Play, Royal Flush etc. Have a pool of players with the team captains submit a list of 10 players they want in their team, if two captains choose the same player then he chooses who he wants to play for. The remaining players are allocated at random between the teams and the same happens to any new players, this way the team sizes stay the same.
The following season the captains can name 10 or 15 players they want to keep, the rest go back into the hat.
-
How about this......
Have 12 teams, NOT based on regions but just named after random poker terms eg Big Slick, Squeeze Play, Royal Flush etc. Have a pool of players with the team captains submit a list of 10 players they want in their team, if two captains choose the same player then he chooses who he wants to play for. The remaining players are allocated at random between the teams and the same happens to any new players, this way the team sizes stay the same.
The following season the captains can name 10 or 15 players they want to keep, the rest go back into the hat.
I was always last to be picked for football in the school playground! :"(
-
For an exciting variation on that, you could allow captains to pick players for *other* teams - that way I might be one of the first to go, principally because I often turn out to be the kiss of death(*) :"(
(*) in some cases, literally - I had two horses in my work"s sweepstake for the 2011 Grand National: Ornais and Dooneys Gate. Died at the 4th and 6th fences, respectively.
-
How about this......
Have 12 teams, NOT based on regions but just named after random poker terms eg Big Slick, Squeeze Play, Royal Flush etc. Have a pool of players with the team captains submit a list of 10 players they want in their team, if two captains choose the same player then he chooses who he wants to play for. The remaining players are allocated at random between the teams and the same happens to any new players, this way the team sizes stay the same.
The following season the captains can name 10 or 15 players they want to keep, the rest go back into the hat.
love this idea
-
Not going to go into all the negativity surrounding team sizes etc. guys as it seems to be a recurring (nonsensical) theme. All I will say is why not put that energy into doing as Team Scotland and others have done and get recruiting
I read in this thread how much of an advantage Scotland , Wales etc had with team size , can i just say that we grew that size from nothing a couple of years ago through recruitment and promotion, to the team it was last year , and resent the comments of unfairness made.
Are we really going to go back down this road again , it seems that this discussion arises in between every league break and is becoming tedious to say the least.
APAT has asked for a discussion, which is why there is one. You can"t close it down because you don"t like what people are saying. I don"t recall seeing negative statements, as you claim, apart from your own. What I have seen is people putting forward constructive ideas.
And the idea that other regions can go and recruit members like Scotland supposedly did is unfeasible. They don"t have the inherent advantage that Scotland has of people who grew up there but live somewhere else wanting to play for them.
You would like to keep this advantage. You can post your views to try to achieve that, but other people are entitled to post theirs, whether you resent it or not.
I disagree - we grew Glasgow the season before from nothing , so this destroys your point here and i am all for discussion , just the repeated suggestion that we gained an unfair advantage due to team size gets a bit tedious
-
Option A
-
Option A for me.
-
How about this......
Have 12 teams, NOT based on regions but just named after random poker terms eg Big Slick, Squeeze Play, Royal Flush etc. Have a pool of players with the team captains submit a list of 10 players they want in their team, if two captains choose the same player then he chooses who he wants to play for. The remaining players are allocated at random between the teams and the same happens to any new players, this way the team sizes stay the same.
The following season the captains can name 10 or 15 players they want to keep, the rest go back into the hat.
love this idea
Me too. I haven"t replied on this thread because neither option A or B appealed to me anymore. But this idea is tops.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
What number of players did most "regions" generate last season?
-
What number of players did most "regions" generate last season?
spreadsheet of who was in what team/region
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsZm7g1dE_xpdGdmOHE3V2VaaVlGb0ctOGZLWUtfcWc#gid=0
-
I think we should try something leaning towards option B rather than A.
A lot has been said about keeping players interested, if you had 50 - 60 teams with 6 players surely no team could run away with the League.
Also, if your team is lucky enough to win something, at least with teams of 6 you will each receive a prize. How many of the 107 Scots actually received anything?
Whatever is decided, I will play because I like playing Poker.
What about an Individual Online League? ( no excuses about team numbers, people not turning up, etc )
-
I think you could do A and B teams for regions ? (obv more with the bigger teams) Agree a cap on the amount of players a team can have and as soon as they hit that total the team is complete. Maybe cap it at a maximum of 40 or 50 players, most regions will still just have the one team? Maybe have players state their first team they are eligible to play for and their second in order of preference. If their first choice is full up then it is down to luck to whether their second choice has already filled their alotted spaces with people that have had it as their first choice. With regards to the bigger teams i think preference would have to initially be given to those who supported their team throughout season one over players who are new to the league.
FWIW if you cap it at 40 or 50 players it encourages the teams who got slightly below that last time to introduce new people to APAT to fill their squad up and increase the evergrowing numbers of APAT members
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
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?
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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!
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!!!
-
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.
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.
Erm you can"t have a Team Luton in a regional competition. But I understand you all play in one regional team, which if it had another team amalgamated with it would make it stronger. So again this is a misnomer. With my idea you would get 8 super teams, as opposed to 4 strong and 9 weak ones.
I"m sure Des would have the figures but, live events aside, I bet this league was one of the best recruiting tools of this year and it would be a shame to break that.
-
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.
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.
Erm you can"t have a Team Luton in a regional competition. But I understand you all play in one regional team, which if it had another team amalgamated with it would make it stronger. So again this is a misnomer. With my idea you would get 8 super teams, as opposed to 4 strong and 9 weak ones.
I"m sure Des would have the figures but, live events aside, I bet this league was one of the best recruiting tools of this year and it would be a shame to break that.
This is not the case at all. Some of us have been put in the SE team, some in EofE and a few in EMIDS.
-
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.
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.
Erm you can"t have a Team Luton in a regional competition. But I understand you all play in one regional team, which if it had another team amalgamated with it would make it stronger. So again this is a misnomer. With my idea you would get 8 super teams, as opposed to 4 strong and 9 weak ones.
I"m sure Des would have the figures but, live events aside, I bet this league was one of the best recruiting tools of this year and it would be a shame to break that.
This is not the case at all. Some of us have been put in the SE team, some in EofE and a few in EMIDS.
Yes but this discussion has already been had, so I cannot see the reasons for raising it again.
As I understand it APAT are looking for a solution to the problem a few people seem to have which is having weak teams in the league format. I think my proposed solution, whilst not perfect, definitely goes a long way to resolving that issue, should lead to a more competitive league, thereby keeping players involved throughout the league and making it attractive for new players to join in.
Rather than raising previous issues and opening old sores, can we not try and deal with the matter at hand?
-
Yes but this discussion has already been had, so I cannot see the reasons for raising it again. APAT are looking for a solution to the problem a few people seem to have which is having weak teams in the league format. I think my proposed solution, whilst not perfect, definitely goes a long way to resolving that issue, should lead to a more competitive league, thereby keeping players involved throughout the league and making it attractive for new players to join in.
I can understand your idea, but personally I can just say, that putting Europe now together with Ireland, will stay the same what I already said, I would not play it at all. Some stated that it is to identify with the region, Europe is a bit to big as a region to identify with, and it does not get better when now ireland comes to it as well. And honestly ermmm Ireland is not my neighbour region lol, my neighbour region is Austria lol, and a lot of parts in England are closer to me than Ireland
So yes I honestly think as it is a team event, that feeling sort of well in the team, and being able to sort of identify with the team is important, making the regions now even bigger, I am not sure if this helps with it.
Well I shall sit and wait what happens. I love the idea Sugarfree posted, even though I would say each captain can pick 20 - 30 and the rest be put in random.
If it stays with the old regions, I just won"t play, but be there as a cheerleader
-
Thanks for all the feedback guys.
Announcement coming, errrrrrr, soon.
(I have been trained well)
-
I like the idea of getting 12 captains and letting them choose their teams. If it is possible I would like to see it done as a draft, as I don"t like the idea of just letting players picked by multiple captains just choose where they go as I think there would be a number of players (Dan Owston, George, Scouse, Paul McGuniess etc) who would be picked by almost all of the captain and they would likely all want to play for the same team, which would make perfect sense. So you could still end up with a superteam.
A better alternative in my view would be a draft where you start a thread, players can post on it why they should be picked complete with graphs and everything and then at a time when all the captains are available they could post on the thread selecting their team one by one. Railing this thread would be quite entertaining as well. This should lead to pretty balanced team"s. You would also reverse the draft order for each round so the person who gets the last pick in the first round egts first pick in the second round etc.
This should lead to well balanced teams and gives everybody in the community a more than less equal chance. Sounds like a logistically nightmare of course but Leigh is cleverer than me so might be able to get it done.
-
All this capping team numbers and picking teams is all very well in theory but it does not allow for people to join throughout the season, thereby excluding new members or not attracting any at all.
A fine example of a team that started small and ended up growing significantly with some really good results is the NE team. They started off with a small team but with a great recruitment drive by Scoop and some fine play ended up, i think, finishing in 3rd place and tbh if they had started the season like that would have been serious contenders for 1st place. they should be used as an example of a what can be done if people have the right attitude, enthusiasm, recruit, and remiind people to play etc etc. I know they are already gearing up for the next one and fully expect to challenge for the title.
-
Every one who wants to play, name down on a list.. Have X amount of teams say 8-10. Live draw or pre recorded on APAT stream.. Have two weeks of late registration once league starts.
Just throwing this option into the air.. Will play whatever is chosen ;D
-
I like the idea of getting 12 captains and letting them choose their teams. If it is possible I would like to see it done as a draft, as I don"t like the idea of just letting players picked by multiple captains just choose where they go as I think there would be a number of players (Dan Owston, George, Scouse, Paul McGuniess etc) who would be picked by almost all of the captain and they would likely all want to play for the same team, which would make perfect sense. So you could still end up with a superteam.
When the captains submit their 10 they have to put them 1 to 10 in the order they want them, so any duplicates go to the team that had them higher in the order. You would still have players having to choose but no chance of the superteam you suggest
but it does not allow for people to join throughout the season, thereby excluding new members or not attracting any at all.
Actually it does. Once the captains have filled their 10 spots, the rest of the player pool is put into a hat and drawn out eg Team one gets first player drawn out, team 2 gets second etc carrying on through until the pool is empty. If the last team to get a player is team 6 for instance, then the next new player would go to team 7, the next to team 8.
-
I like the idea of getting 12 captains and letting them choose their teams. If it is possible I would like to see it done as a draft, as I don"t like the idea of just letting players picked by multiple captains just choose where they go as I think there would be a number of players (Dan Owston, George, Scouse, Paul McGuniess etc) who would be picked by almost all of the captain and they would likely all want to play for the same team, which would make perfect sense. So you could still end up with a superteam.
When the captains submit their 10 they have to put them 1 to 10 in the order they want them, so any duplicates go to the team that had them higher in the order. You would still have players having to choose but no chance of the superteam you suggest
but it does not allow for people to join throughout the season, thereby excluding new members or not attracting any at all.
Actually it does. Once the captains have filled their 10 spots, the rest of the player pool is put into a hat and drawn out eg Team one gets first player drawn out, team 2 gets second etc carrying on through until the pool is empty. If the last team to get a player is team 6 for instance, then the next new player would go to team 7, the next to team 8.
Yes, in theory, the mechanics work but there is nothing for them to identify with and therein nothing to attract them to play. I think a lot of people really didn"t get what this league was all about last time. Some teams bonded as teams, chatted via facebook during games, before games and after games, had meetups etc etc, others just played as individuals who just happened to be part of a team. I think the former teams were more successful because of their approach, not only that but the way they approached the games and the buzz that this created between team members attracted new players to play. i had several friends who asked me what it was all about cos they picked up on some facebook comments and ended up joining and playing and I know I was not alone.
Please explain how exactly your proposed option would attract new players and create the same banter, buzz & rivalry there was in the last league?
-
Yes, in theory, the mechanics work but there is nothing for them to identify with and therein nothing to attract them to play. I think a lot of people really didn"t get what this league was all about last time. Some teams bonded as teams, chatted via facebook during games, before games and after games, had meetups etc etc, others just played as individuals who just happened to be part of a team. I think the former teams were more successful because of their approach, not only that but the way they approached the games and the buzz that this created between team members attracted new players to play. i had several friends who asked me what it was all about cos they picked up on some facebook comments and ended up joining and playing and I know I was not alone.
I wish I"d written this Gordon. Top post.
-
Should just keep it exactly as it was. Do not change a thing. Theres nothing unfair about it at all. So what if Scotland have twice as many as Ireland etc? Every region has the same opportunity to increase their numbers. It is a level playing field format with an equal opportunity to strengthen your teams. If you fail to do this then it is tough luck. Does not matter where you were born. You should have to play for the address that you register into the software with. This will stop people picking their favourite team, even if they were probably born on Mars!
Manchester United have many more fans than Swansea, but they still play in the same league and nobody moans about it. I cannot believe how many people are moaning about the numbers here. I do not care one bit and I am Yorkshire. But we are known to be a tough lot and I am confident that we can overcome the numbers and take anyone down, as long as a couple more of us can afford to buy in, which was my problem last year when I lost my job. Being behind does not bother me. The challenge and the pride mean more to me than losing by 70 points or so.
I think that if the buy in was lowered to $5 then you will automatically see a huge improvement in attendance at the end of it all.
Why not put on a decent freeroll for everyone with 100% attendance at the end of the season? Just an idea. Come on let,s keep it how it was, lower the buy in, and show the Scotts that they can be beaten, at the same time letting them benefit for all the work put in to building their team.
Great Spirit, I like it!!!
I kind of agree with the reduced buy in too, although it"s a fine line between making it worthwhile for some players to play and keeping it affordable for all.
-
Manchester United have many more fans than Swansea, but they still play in the same league and nobody moans about it.
Are they all allowed to play at the same time, or do they cap the number at 11?
-
This "they did well cos they had more players" argument is completely flawed.
How do people explain Wales coming 2nd with the 4th largest team and the North East finishing 3rd with the 5th largest team, not sure but I think Yorkshire was 5th with the 8th or 9th largest team?
The way I explain it is that they played as teams and not individuals. By that I don"t mean soft play, but bonded together as teams, which helped keep everyone interested, railing each other, dishing out banter to other teams, which meant people turned up each week. Team captains sent out messages to remind people to play, set up private games for team members to play together outside of the league, had a vibrant facebook page where people could post up for railers if they ran deep somewhere, set up meetups for those that lived near each other. It all adds up, but it takes some commitment from the captains.
I am just glad we had a captain in Paul Sefton who was prepared, imho, to go above and beyond for the team.
-
Details of the 2nd league have been finalised, I"m just waiting on a technical glitch to be resolved and I"ll post up the announcement.
-
Please explain how exactly your proposed option would attract new players and create the same banter, buzz & rivalry there was in the last league?
Attract new players...IDK, but then again IDK how they attracted new players with the previous format. Actually, not true, I was in Cork watching Frank go from table to table asking every player if the would like "to play for Ireland" and how their eyes lit up at the thought of representing their country. I assume the Wales and Scotland requests were met with something similar. I imagine Curly going round asking "How would you like to play for the South East, not including London" would not get the same reaction.
Banter and buzz.....I must have been in one of the latter teams as I don"t recall this although I believe that anyone can set up a facebook group and have it not region exclusive.
Rivalry......There was rivalry between Scotland and Wales, did any of the other 11 teams have a rivalry?
I get that you don"t like the idea, honest I do and I"m not trying to sell you on it. You just made up a problem on it that wasn"t there and all I did was put you right.
-
Please explain how exactly your proposed option would attract new players and create the same banter, buzz & rivalry there was in the last league?
Attract new players...IDK, but then again IDK how they attracted new players with the previous format. Actually, not true, I was in Cork watching Frank go from table to table asking every player if the would like "to play for Ireland" and how their eyes lit up at the thought of representing their country. I assume the Wales and Scotland requests were met with something similar. I imagine Curly going round asking "How would you like to play for the South East, not including London" would not get the same reaction.
Banter and buzz.....I must have been in one of the latter teams as I don"t recall this although I believe that anyone can set up a facebook group and have it not region exclusive.
Rivalry......There was rivalry between Scotland and Wales, did any of the other 11 teams have a rivalry?
I get that you don"t like the idea, honest I do and I"m not trying to sell you on it. You just made up a problem on it that wasn"t there and all I did was put you right.
there was plenty of rivalry between NE (just jocks with their heads kicked in), Yorks (Tight feckers), Scotland (Sweaty socks), Wales (Sheep Shaggers), NW (north west of where exactly?), SE (Southern poofs), I could go on but I think you get the point. Much of the banter went on in the chat box on stars itself, especially on the final tables. Which even if we didn"t make, we stayed to rail our fellow team mates, another part of being in a team.
I didn"t say there was a problem with your solution per se, as I said the mechanics are sound, I just asked you to explain whilst solving the supposed problem a minority of people have with the old format, how would your solution still retain the benefits the vast majority of us enjoyed of the last one. but instead you choose to denigrate the last one, I think that answers my question. Thanks.
-
Attract new players...IDK, but then again IDK how they attracted new players with the previous format. Actually, not true, I was in Cork watching Frank go from table to table asking every player if the would like "to play for Ireland" and how their eyes lit up at the thought of representing their country. I assume the Wales and Scotland requests were met with something similar. I imagine Curly going round asking "How would you like to play for the South East, not including London" would not get the same reaction.
^^This
I think this gets overlooked (conveniently by those that benefit) but is a critical factor. Personally, I play for the West Mids region, but only because I"m in the catchment (and have a few mates that also play there).... but it"s not the same emotional attachment that one gets when "playing for their country" - and that is why I never liked the rule change that created the country teams.... the playing field is uneven. Where is team England?
Not trying to re-open the old debate (before Gordon jumps down my throat), but it is an opinion. I will just get on an play whatever APAT put before us.
-
Not going to go into all the negativity surrounding team sizes etc. guys as it seems to be a recurring (nonsensical) theme. All I will say is why not put that energy into doing as Team Scotland and others have done and get recruiting
I read in this thread how much of an advantage Scotland , Wales etc had with team size , can i just say that we grew that size from nothing a couple of years ago through recruitment and promotion, to the team it was last year , and resent the comments of unfairness made.
Are we really going to go back down this road again , it seems that this discussion arises in between every league break and is becoming tedious to say the least.
APAT has asked for a discussion, which is why there is one. You can"t close it down because you don"t like what people are saying. I don"t recall seeing negative statements, as you claim, apart from your own. What I have seen is people putting forward constructive ideas.
And the idea that other regions can go and recruit members like Scotland supposedly did is unfeasible. They don"t have the inherent advantage that Scotland has of people who grew up there but live somewhere else wanting to play for them.
You would like to keep this advantage. You can post your views to try to achieve that, but other people are entitled to post theirs, whether you resent it or not.
Firstly for the record I resent nothing. Theres no negativity intended in my post and if you read it that way then hey ho. The negativity is in the whole ridiculous argument of team sizes (in my opinion) ;) it"s just getting boring. Secondly why wouldn"t we want to keep an advantage that WE worked hard to build from nothing through the same avenues available to everyone on every team?? It"s perfectly feasible for every team to build this way and I would urge everyone to do it..... we welcome the chase ;D
-
Attract new players...IDK, but then again IDK how they attracted new players with the previous format. Actually, not true, I was in Cork watching Frank go from table to table asking every player if the would like "to play for Ireland" and how their eyes lit up at the thought of representing their country. I assume the Wales and Scotland requests were met with something similar. I imagine Curly going round asking "How would you like to play for the South East, not including London" would not get the same reaction.
^^This
I think this gets overlooked (conveniently by those that benefit) but is a critical factor. Personally, I play for the West Mids region, but only because I"m in the catchment (and have a few mates that also play there).... but it"s not the same emotional attachment that one gets when "playing for their country" - and that is why I never liked the rule change that created the country teams.... the playing field is uneven. Where is team England?
Not trying to re-open the old debate (before Gordon jumps down my throat), but it is an opinion. I will just get on an play whatever APAT put before us.
Normally at the bar ;)
-
Oh, and I"m still trying to sort the technical glitch before i can announce any details. Just in case anyone was interested. ;)
-
Details of the 2nd league have been finalised, I"m just waiting on a technical glitch to be resolved and I"ll post up the announcement.
WEEEEE bring it on! ;)
-
Attract new players...IDK, but then again IDK how they attracted new players with the previous format. Actually, not true, I was in Cork watching Frank go from table to table asking every player if the would like "to play for Ireland" and how their eyes lit up at the thought of representing their country. I assume the Wales and Scotland requests were met with something similar. I imagine Curly going round asking "How would you like to play for the South East, not including London" would not get the same reaction.
^^This
I think this gets overlooked (conveniently by those that benefit) but is a critical factor. Personally, I play for the West Mids region, but only because I"m in the catchment (and have a few mates that also play there).... but it"s not the same emotional attachment that one gets when "playing for their country" - and that is why I never liked the rule change that created the country teams.... the playing field is uneven. Where is team England?
Not trying to re-open the old debate (before Gordon jumps down my throat), but it is an opinion. I will just get on an play whatever APAT put before us.
I would never jump down your throat fella. i loves ya too much. x
So how do you explain North West, North East and South East being able to recruit decent numbers but the others not being able to from, in some cases, much larger population pools? Personally I think it"s because they actually tried to recruit instead of moaning, but then I always try and look on the positive. :)
p.s. I notice how you haven"t bothered to reply to my reply to your other post which blew your theory out of the water, sigh. ::)
-
Attract new players...IDK, but then again IDK how they attracted new players with the previous format. Actually, not true, I was in Cork watching Frank go from table to table asking every player if the would like "to play for Ireland" and how their eyes lit up at the thought of representing their country. I assume the Wales and Scotland requests were met with something similar. I imagine Curly going round asking "How would you like to play for the South East, not including London" would not get the same reaction.
^^This
I think this gets overlooked (conveniently by those that benefit) but is a critical factor. Personally, I play for the West Mids region, but only because I"m in the catchment (and have a few mates that also play there).... but it"s not the same emotional attachment that one gets when "playing for their country" - and that is why I never liked the rule change that created the country teams.... the playing field is uneven. Where is team England?
Not trying to re-open the old debate (before Gordon jumps down my throat), but it is an opinion. I will just get on an play whatever APAT put before us.
Normally at the bar ;)
Serving obviously, cos they are lightweight when it comes to drinking. ;)
-
how would your solution still retain the benefits the vast majority of us enjoyed of the last one. but instead you choose to denigrate the last one, I think that answers my question. Thanks.
Let me spell it out.....It wouldn"t have to do anything to match the "banter", "buzz" or "rivalry" I felt from the last one....not denigrating, just how it was for me.
-
how would your solution still retain the benefits the vast majority of us enjoyed of the last one. but instead you choose to denigrate the last one, I think that answers my question. Thanks.
Let me spell it out.....It wouldn"t have to do anything to match the "banter", "buzz" or "rivalry" I felt from the last one....not denigrating, just how it was for me.
I genuinely feel sorry for you then, as you are really missing out. :"( :"( :"(
-
Not going to go into all the negativity surrounding team sizes etc. guys as it seems to be a recurring (nonsensical) theme. All I will say is why not put that energy into doing as Team Scotland and others have done and get recruiting
I read in this thread how much of an advantage Scotland , Wales etc had with team size , can i just say that we grew that size from nothing a couple of years ago through recruitment and promotion, to the team it was last year , and resent the comments of unfairness made.
Are we really going to go back down this road again , it seems that this discussion arises in between every league break and is becoming tedious to say the least.
APAT has asked for a discussion, which is why there is one. You can"t close it down because you don"t like what people are saying. I don"t recall seeing negative statements, as you claim, apart from your own. What I have seen is people putting forward constructive ideas.
And the idea that other regions can go and recruit members like Scotland supposedly did is unfeasible. They don"t have the inherent advantage that Scotland has of people who grew up there but live somewhere else wanting to play for them.
You would like to keep this advantage. You can post your views to try to achieve that, but other people are entitled to post theirs, whether you resent it or not.
Firstly for the record I resent nothing. Theres no negativity intended in my post and if you read it that way then hey ho. The negativity is in the whole ridiculous argument of team sizes (in my opinion) ;) it"s just getting boring. Secondly why wouldn"t we want to keep an advantage that WE worked hard to build from nothing through the same avenues available to everyone on every team?? It"s perfectly feasible for every team to build this way and I would urge everyone to do it..... we welcome the chase ;D
Sef, this is not aimed at you personally in any way whatsoever, this is exactly what we said about our Luton team before it all changed and we were told it had to change. If it"s OK now why wasn"t it OK then is my point? Our team was split into at least 3 if not 4 regions, the comradery we had has gone, although friendships remain, but half of my friends don"t play any more because the "team" element they enjoyed is just not there anymore.
-
Sef, this is not aimed at you personally in any way whatsoever, this is exactly what we said about our Luton team before it all changed and we were told it had to change. If it"s OK now why wasn"t it OK then is my point? Our team was split into at least 3 if not 4 regions, the comradery we had has gone, although friendships remain, but half of my friends don"t play any more because the "team" element they enjoyed is just not there anymore.
Since when was Luton a region of anywhere?
(Important User Advice: The above comment was made with my tongue fully in my cheek and anyone reading it should do so in the way it was intended and take no offence, as none is intended. ;) )
Seriously though, those that say that Scotland or Wales have an inherent advantage are simply talking complete and utter ******. Most of the other regions have the same if not larger population pools to choose from and if it was that hard, how come the north West, South East & North East have had no problems in recruiting & increasing their team sizes? Why not ask them, but i bet the answer will be they actively recruited instead of just moaning. ::)
(Important User Advice: This comment should be taken as read & any offence implied or indicated is fully meant ;) )
-
how would your solution still retain the benefits the vast majority of us enjoyed of the last one. but instead you choose to denigrate the last one, I think that answers my question. Thanks.
Let me spell it out.....It wouldn"t have to do anything to match the "banter", "buzz" or "rivalry" I felt from the last one....not denigrating, just how it was for me.
I genuinely feel sorry for you then, as you are really missing out. :"( :"( :"(
Missing out on on calling people "sheep shaggers" or "poofs"? I"m very happy to miss out, thank you very much
-
how would your solution still retain the benefits the vast majority of us enjoyed of the last one. but instead you choose to denigrate the last one, I think that answers my question. Thanks.
Let me spell it out.....It wouldn"t have to do anything to match the "banter", "buzz" or "rivalry" I felt from the last one....not denigrating, just how it was for me.
I genuinely feel sorry for you then, as you are really missing out. :"( :"( :"(
Missing out on on calling people "sheep shaggers" or "poofs"? I"m very happy to miss out, thank you very much
Yea you seem like the sort of person where banter would just fly right over your head. You probably sit frowning at the poker table too instead of enjoying yourself. Take a chill pill, relax and enjoy yourself fella. Thats what it"s supposed to be about. 8)
-
Not going to go into all the negativity surrounding team sizes etc. guys as it seems to be a recurring (nonsensical) theme. All I will say is why not put that energy into doing as Team Scotland and others have done and get recruiting
I read in this thread how much of an advantage Scotland , Wales etc had with team size , can i just say that we grew that size from nothing a couple of years ago through recruitment and promotion, to the team it was last year , and resent the comments of unfairness made.
Are we really going to go back down this road again , it seems that this discussion arises in between every league break and is becoming tedious to say the least.
APAT has asked for a discussion, which is why there is one. You can"t close it down because you don"t like what people are saying. I don"t recall seeing negative statements, as you claim, apart from your own. What I have seen is people putting forward constructive ideas.
And the idea that other regions can go and recruit members like Scotland supposedly did is unfeasible. They don"t have the inherent advantage that Scotland has of people who grew up there but live somewhere else wanting to play for them.
You would like to keep this advantage. You can post your views to try to achieve that, but other people are entitled to post theirs, whether you resent it or not.
Firstly for the record I resent nothing. Theres no negativity intended in my post and if you read it that way then hey ho. The negativity is in the whole ridiculous argument of team sizes (in my opinion) ;) it"s just getting boring. Secondly why wouldn"t we want to keep an advantage that WE worked hard to build from nothing through the same avenues available to everyone on every team?? It"s perfectly feasible for every team to build this way and I would urge everyone to do it..... we welcome the chase ;D
Sef, this is not aimed at you personally in any way whatsoever, this is exactly what we said about our Luton team before it all changed and we were told it had to change. If it"s OK now why wasn"t it OK then is my point? Our team was split into at least 3 if not 4 regions, the comradery we had has gone, although friendships remain, but half of my friends don"t play any more because the "team" element they enjoyed is just not there anymore.
Np mate luton n scotland v the rest then? Or would we have too many people? hmmmm lol ;)
I was still fairly new to APAT then but Believe it or not, we (Glasgow) were happy the way it was before aswell, our team were looking forward to going up to Div one after again building a decent team that got us there. Then it was that we had too many players (ring a bell?) We were made to start again and get another team together and we got on with it and did get another strong team together. I get what you are saying but Are we just gonna keep asking to change it to the point where we have capped teams and defeating all purpose of what APAT do?
My main point is that everyone has the same avenues to build new teams and forge new friendships and comradery which we have done first hand. So for some to say "they got more people that aint fair" is just poor losing IMO build to compete dont complain to deplete should be the new motto. lol ;D
-
Missing out on on calling people "sheep shaggers" or "poofs"? I"m very happy to miss out, thank you very much
In addition I certainly am not homophobic in any way shape or form, so request that you retract the insinuation that I am. Altho to be fair I am pretty anti animal cruelty and if you have seen any of the Welsh team you will know what I mean. ;D
-
how would your solution still retain the benefits the vast majority of us enjoyed of the last one. but instead you choose to denigrate the last one, I think that answers my question. Thanks.
Let me spell it out.....It wouldn"t have to do anything to match the "banter", "buzz" or "rivalry" I felt from the last one....not denigrating, just how it was for me.
I genuinely feel sorry for you then, as you are really missing out. :"( :"( :"(
Missing out on on calling people "sheep shaggers" or "poofs"? I"m very happy to miss out, thank you very much
Yea you seem like the sort of person where banter would just fly right over your head. You probably sit frowning at the poker table too instead of enjoying yourself. Take a chill pill, relax and enjoy yourself fella. Thats what it"s supposed to be about. 8)
In fairness, they are sheepshaggers n poofs so I dont see the issue!?!?! heehee
-
Thread locked, pending league accouncement.
Thanks for the comments everyone.
-
New league announcement (http://www.apat.com/forum/index.php?topic=12019.0)