<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><br></div><div>Calling the party contribution a “tax” is a bit unfair lol. It’s an association benefit that some folks choose not to take advantage of but that others like. The reality is that everyone subsidizes something else in the league that may not be for them, but someone else takes advantage of. There are players who have never made the playoffs or very rarely do, yet there they are, season after season contributing to the prize pool that frequently goes to the same subset of players at the top end. They’re subsidizing the prize fund. Some folks really don’t want to own a pinball machine, (I know, go figure!), but get entered into the drawing anyway. The party isn’t any different, and clearly $10 a head isn’t covering the costs of it. When we came up with the cost years ago it was with the assumption that not all would likely attend. I guess we could go to a “a la carte” system for all of it but it would be an administrative headache trying to keep track of who is “in” for prizes, party and giveaway. That said, we could make all of those optional and really get bare bones with it. Something to think about. Does the size of the prize pool or trophies matter to folks?</div><div><br></div><div>The private feedback that I’ve gotten so far is that folks really hate the wide disparities in skill levels seen in the early weeks of the new system. It was not a fun experience for them. Unfortunately that’s the cost of doing business with the IFPA. If anyone has any additional feedback on that or other topics, I’d love to hear it!</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks!</div><div>Sergio</div><br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfSignature"><div dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On May 10, 2024, at 1:29 PM, Dave Hubbard via FSPA <fspa@fspazone.org> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, May 10, 2024 at 12:55 PM JL4ND via FSPA <<a href="mailto:fspa@fspazone.org">fspa@fspazone.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">+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.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">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: <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10_AhSS8sfh94rUmh96y90zxfaWhwVUeoF1LcZniHuoM/edit" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10_AhSS8sfh94rUmh96y90zxfaWhwVUeoF1LcZniHuoM/edit</a></div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">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).</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><span style="text-decoration:none;display:inline;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,255,255)">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. </span><br>
</div>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">Lastly, please get rid of automatic tiebreakers.</div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div> My god, yes. They needed to die long ago, and at least recent IFPA updates have made them unallowed for anything that matters.</div><div><br></div><div> --- Dave<br></div></div></div>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>FSPA mailing list</span><br><span>FSPA@fspazone.org</span><br><span>http://lists.fspazone.org/mailman/listinfo/fspa</span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>