Team Leagues Stink (Part II)

Team Leagues Stink (Part II)

Post by barenad » Fri, 04 Feb 2000 04:00:00


Can you explain how you're thinking standings would be
calculated?  I don't see how you can use just winning percentage.

Say I come and play 10 weeks and win 9 out of 10.  Charlie
Chumpchange on another team shows up once and wins.  His winning
percentage is better than mine, but I don't see how one could
justify giving him a higher league standing than mine.

You'd have to somehow combine total wins with winning percentage
and it could get complicated.

Then again, maybe I didn't follow your explanation clearly.

--
Dave <-- Could spot Charlie Chumpchange 4 games in a race to 7.

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

 
 
 

Team Leagues Stink (Part II)

Post by John Gatele » Sat, 05 Feb 2000 04:00:00

So, this is a more constructive rant than my
previous post.

Team leagues have 3 advantages:
1) New players
2) Camaraderie
3) Head-on-Head Competition.

New players are often afraid of joining a league without
a "support group" (teammates) to encourage them.
Team play allows more time for socializing than singles
leagues do. And, some people enjoy the "mano-a-mano"
competition from 1 team/person facing another team/person,
a la the superbowl. It brings in the e***ment you get
from your NFL team beating another NFL team, even
if you don't participate.
[Of these, I consider the first the most important, and in
fact the only reason I will continue to have a team league
format].

The drawbacks:
1) Teams fall apart, and have no-shows.
2) Good teams have too many players: you
only play 3 weeks out of 5 (or so).
The first is the worst. You've got a great team, you show
up for your match, and they don't. You don't get to play,
you probably have to pay the league for it, and it's no
fun. Or, you show up every week, the rest of the team
shows up when they feel like it, and at the end of the
season, you're the only one left, and can't play. (Yes,
I've had both happen to me, from both sides).
So you want to play, but you might have to make a trip,
or fall sick. That's why teams that play 5 matches/session
have 7 or 8 players. But, most of the weeks, you've got
6 people waiting on the captain deciding who is going
to sit out. Blehhh.

My solution (applies only to in-house leagues): forget
the 1-on-1 format and replace it by "if you show up,
you play". Your team won't play another single team,
instead, your team plays members from all other teams.
Your score counts towards your individual record and
your team record. Standings have to be done by ratios
instead of totals, of course.

The end-of-season tournament would be the
standard team-vs-team format.

So, you still get the advantages: new players are members
of a team, and get support from teammates, you still
get camaraderie, because you still have to wait around
for your turn to play, and what better to do than socialize
with your teammates, and cheer whoever is playing on.
And the end-of-season tournament gives the head-to-head
competition to those who crave it.

You avoid the disadvantges: if you show up, you play,
maybe even twice(in case of scheduling hassles). If your
team wimps out on you, you can still gain individual prizes.
You don't have to worry about paying for forfeits, because
there are none. (If your team or you don't play enough,
you don't qualify, and so sorry no prize money).

What do y'all think???

j

 
 
 

Team Leagues Stink (Part II)

Post by John Gatele » Sat, 05 Feb 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> Can you explain how you're thinking standings would be
> calculated?  I don't see how you can use just winning percentage.
> [...] Then again, maybe I didn't follow your explanation clearly.

I think I just left this part out of the explanation: in order to
qualify for end-of-season tournament or prize money, you
have to play a certain number of games. In fact, since I
am there every week and watching every week, this is
not a hard number, it is "enough that I know you are
playing at your ability". This applies to both individuals
and teams.

j

 
 
 

Team Leagues Stink (Part II)

Post by John Gatele » Sat, 05 Feb 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> Say I come and play 10 weeks and win 9 out of 10.  Charlie
> Chumpchange on another team shows up once and wins.  His winning
> percentage is better than mine, but I don't see how one could
> justify giving him a higher league standing than mine.

> You'd have to somehow combine total wins with winning percentage
> and it could get complicated.

After thinking about it, you are right. Ratios are ok for the
team scores, cuz there should be about 50 matches per
season. But for individuals, 7 to 10 scores is not statistically
meaningful.

So what I came up with was 5 points for a win, 2 points for
a loss, and 0 points for a no-show. This means that showing
up and losing for 2 1/2 weeks counts the same as winning
a single week, or that if you are 8-0, and your nearest
competitor is 7-1, if you don't show up the last two weeks
and they do, they'll outscore you even if they lose.

Thanks a lot for your comments!

j

 
 
 

Team Leagues Stink (Part II)

Post by John Gatele » Tue, 08 Feb 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

> So, this is a more constructive rant than my
> previous post.

> Team leagues have 3 advantages:
> 1) New players
> 2) Camaraderie
> 3) Head-on-Head Competition.

> New players are often afraid of joining a league without
> a "support group" (teammates) to encourage them.
> Team play allows more time for socializing than singles
> leagues do. And, some people enjoy the "mano-a-mano"
> competition from 1 team/person facing another team/person,
> a la the superbowl. It brings in the e***ment you get
> from your NFL team beating another NFL team, even
> if you don't participate.
> [Of these, I consider the first the most important, and in
> fact the only reason I will continue to have a team league
> format].

> The drawbacks:
> 1) Teams fall apart, and have no-shows.
> 2) Good teams have too many players: you
> only play 3 weeks out of 5 (or so).
> The first is the worst. You've got a great team, you show
> up for your match, and they don't. You don't get to play,
> you probably have to pay the league for it, and it's no
> fun. Or, you show up every week, the rest of the team
> shows up when they feel like it, and at the end of the
> season, you're the only one left, and can't play. (Yes,
> I've had both happen to me, from both sides).
> So you want to play, but you might have to make a trip,
> or fall sick. That's why teams that play 5 matches/session
> have 7 or 8 players. But, most of the weeks, you've got
> 6 people waiting on the captain deciding who is going
> to sit out. Blehhh.

> My solution (applies only to in-house leagues): forget
> the 1-on-1 format and replace it by "if you show up,
> you play". Your team won't play another single team,
> instead, your team plays members from all other teams.
> Your score counts towards your individual record and
> your team record. Standings have to be done by ratios
> instead of totals, of course.

Footnote: I put the proposal to a vote,
it passed, and we used it tonight.
The players loved it. We finished faster
than usual and everyone played.

j