[FSPA] League questions - player opinions wanted

[Dave Hubbard]

On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 12:55 PM JL4ND via FSPA <fspa at fspazone.org> wrote:

> +1 for end of season party to be opt in. Players who participate in
> multiple leagues during one season see no added benefit (no free guest,
> etc.) if the end of season party costs are part of dues. It is also
> unfortunate when scheduling conflicts prevent players from attending the
> party.
>

I hadn't thought about this, but you're right.  Those that play multiple
leagues don't see any benefit to the extra $10 tax, and since the party
dates aren't known until _after_ the seasons are long ended (what?) it's
impossible to know if you'll have a conflict, at which point your
contribution is just wasted.


> For the new FSPA league format, I enjoyed it. I do not think going back to
> the old format is the way to go but I have some suggestions. I put together
> a spreadsheet to show how Carpool Spring 2024 league A division would have
> looked like with points resetting after the qualifying period. I also
> considered drop 1 during qualifying meets and drop 1 during inter
> divisional play. This data can be found here:
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10_AhSS8sfh94rUmh96y90zxfaWhwVUeoF1LcZniHuoM/edit
>
> Some players at Carpool league this season complained about poor balancing
> during divisional play with points carrying over from qualifying weeks.
> Points resetting after qualifying meets seems to make sense if FSPA leagues
> continue with this format of play during the season (4 weeks of balanced
> pairing followed by 6 weeks of division ladder match play).
>

I'm mixed on this.  I can understand the reasoning behind wanting to reset
points, to flatten any RNG problem with some players getting an
inordinately high number of top players or bottom players, skewing their
points.  But I also wouldn't want there to be too few qualifying weeks,
which puts extra pressure on the beginning weeks.  There's probably a good
balance here, and 4x6 seems good.  Six "weeks that count" seems to match
the operation of other, independent area leagues.


> Ten weeks of balanced pairing, balanced game draws would be my preferred
> method of playing in league. Divisions drawn based on total points earned.
> No ladder system. But I understand there is a strong feeling of nostalgia
> towards the FSPA league formats from the past.
>

Being able to play everyone (or close as can be) would be great, but I
think I would prefer a system like Pinburgh where you slowly squeeze the
gaps between seeds.  Like in a theoretical 40-person league, week 1 might
be 1-19-20-40, week 2 would be 1-9-10-20, week 3 would be 1-4-5-10...
something like that that slowly converges to 1-2-3-4, 5-6-7-8, etc... at
week 10.  Not sure how you administer that with a variable number of league
players, and smaller leagues are going to break down.  Balanced throughout
is fine and arguably the most fair, but does have the potential to obviate
a week 10 playoff push if the top seed happens to draw 3 bottom feeders,
for example.


> Lastly, please get rid of automatic tiebreakers.
>

 My god, yes.  They needed to die long ago, and at least recent IFPA
updates have made them unallowed for anything that matters.

           --- Dave
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fspazone.org/pipermail/fspa/attachments/20240510/abccee75/attachment.htm>