Admin Notice Random Musings From The Desk of the Admin (Season 35)

[ClarkeM]

Are there any holes in this Barrybran philreich damicky?

Rd 1 and Rd 2 to remain as is.

If Kennedy Parker can populate Rds 3 to 13 based on the same principles as last season (normal round robin), incorporating the above rounds and then we implement the following to be injected mid-season, it should be problem solved:

Round A
2 v 3
4 v 5
6 v 7
8 v 9
10 v 11
12 v 13
Bye - 1

Round B
1 v 6
5 v 7
9 v 13
11 v 12
Bye - 2, 3, 4, 8, 10

Round C
1 v 2
3 v 4
5 v 6
7 v 8
9 v 11
10 v 12
Bye - 13

Round D
1 v 3
2 v 6
4 v 8
10 v 13
Bye - 5, 7, 9, 11, 12

Round E
1 v 8
2 v 12
3 v 11
4 v 10
5 v 9
7 v 13
Bye - 6

There's 4 extra games each (total 16 for the season)
There's 18 rounds 13+5
There's 2 bye's each
There's common sense

 

[damicky]

Are there any holes in this Barrybran philreich damicky?

Rd 1 and Rd 2 to remain as is.

If Kennedy Parker can populate Rds 3 to 13 based on the same principles as last season (normal round robin), incorporating the above rounds and then we implement the following to be injected mid-season, it should be problem solved:

Round A
2 v 3
4 v 5
6 v 7
8 v 9
10 v 11
12 v 13
Bye - 1

Round B
1 v 6
5 v 7
9 v 13
11 v 12
Bye - 2, 3, 4, 8, 10

Round C
1 v 2
3 v 4
5 v 6
7 v 8
9 v 10
11 v 12
Bye - 13

Round D
1 v 3
2 v 6
4 v 8
10 v 13
Bye - 5, 7, 9, 11, 12

Round E
1 v 8
2 v 12
3 v 11
4 v 10
5 v 9
7 v 13
Bye - 6

There's 4 extra games each (total 16 for the season)
There's 18 rounds 13+5
There's 2 bye's each
There's common sense

Looks ok to me …

BUT your last point about common sense ruined it

 

[TRUMAN#1]

What did I miss, besides the Fixture in shambles the day before the Round 1 match threads go up?

Is that what I am seeing here?

 

[ClarkeM]

Plus, use the "Heritage Round" or whatever it is to input into Round A and there's your fixture. As an example, here's the inputted data with every team having 2 home and 2 away rounds:

Round A
East Side Phoenix	Baghdad Bombers
Las Vegas Bears	Dragons FFC
Fighting Furies	Gumbies FFC
Gold City Royals	Coney Island Warriors
Mount Buller Demons	West Coast Wonders
Sin City Swamprats	Roys FFC
Round B
Gumbies FFC	Ophidian Old Boys
Dragons FFC	Fighting Furies
Roys FFC	Gold City Royals
West Coast Wonders	Sin City Swamprats
Round C
East Side Phoenix	Ophidian Old Boys
Baghdad Bombers	Las Vegas Bears
Dragons FFC	Gumbies FFC
Coney Island Warriors	Fighting Furies
Mount Buller Demons	Sin City Swamprats
West Coast Wonders	Gold City Royals
Round D
Ophidian Old Boys	Baghdad Bombers
Gumbies FFC	East Side Phoenix
Coney Island Warriors	Las Vegas Bears
Roys FFC	Mount Buller Demons
Round E
Ophidian Old Boys	Coney Island Warriors
Sin City Swamprats	East Side Phoenix
Baghdad Bombers	West Coast Wonders
Las Vegas Bears	Mount Buller Demons
Gold City Royals	Dragons FFC
Fighting Furies	Roys FFC

 

[Barrybran]

Are there any holes in this Barrybran philreich damicky?

Rd 1 and Rd 2 to remain as is.

If Kennedy Parker can populate Rds 3 to 13 based on the same principles as last season (normal round robin), incorporating the above rounds and then we implement the following to be injected mid-season, it should be problem solved:

Round A
2 v 3
4 v 5
6 v 7
8 v 9
10 v 11
12 v 13
Bye - 1

Round B
1 v 6
5 v 7
9 v 13
11 v 12
Bye - 2, 3, 4, 8, 10

Round C
1 v 2
3 v 4
5 v 6
7 v 8
9 v 11
10 v 12
Bye - 13

Round D
1 v 3
2 v 6
4 v 8
10 v 13
Bye - 5, 7, 9, 11, 12

Round E
1 v 8
2 v 12
3 v 11
4 v 10
5 v 9
7 v 13
Bye - 6

There's 4 extra games each (total 16 for the season)
There's 18 rounds 13+5
There's 2 bye's each
There's common sense

Five teams on a bye is common sense?

It works though. Nice work.

 

[ClarkeM]

Five teams on a bye is common sense?

It works though. Nice work.

Yep. It's common sense when trying to fit 16 games of Qooty between 13 teams across 18 rounds.

EDIT: AND you don't want to have 7, 9 or 11 teams on a bye in the same round. 5 is as reasonable as can be AND it means we only have to have two rounds out of 18 rounds where we experience multiple byes in the same rounds. Meaning 16 rounds will have just the one bye and all rounds will have more teams playing than there are not playing. Perfect solution.

 

[Senor M]

Yep. It's common sense when trying to fit 16 games of Qooty between 13 teams across 18 rounds.

EDIT: AND you don't want to have 7, 9 or 11 teams on a bye in the same round. 5 is as reasonable as can be AND it means we only have to have two rounds out of 18 rounds where we experience multiple byes in the same rounds. Meaning 16 rounds will have just the one bye and all rounds will have more teams playing than there are not playing. Perfect solution.

Why have 5 teams on a bye at once?

Coming in & trying to throw your weight around on the Eve of the season is ridiculously silly. Why wasn’t this discussed over the past few weeks/months?

 

[ClarkeM]

Why have 5 teams on a bye at once?

Coming in & trying to throw your weight around on the Eve of the season is ridiculously silly. Why wasn’t this discussed over the past few weeks/months?

If only we had the fixture when we kindly asked for it, we wouldn't be sitting here Senor M and you wouldn't be taking a day off school. But alas, here we are.

Reasons are as above.

16/18 rounds are as normal rounds as can be.
Two rounds, which I suggest to be injected in the middle of the season, will have 10/13 teams have their bye in what is in effect of a Split Round. This reduces the number of rounds which have multiple teams on byes, it keeps the balance of having more teams playing than not playing and it satisfies two byes for every team without having to change and adjust dates as well as minimal impact on the regular season.

Unless you'd rather have three rounds with multiple byes, or alternatively, one round where 11 teams have byes and just the one match is played, I feel this is a fair balance.

 

[ClarkeM]

What did I miss, besides the Fixture in shambles the day before the Round 1 match threads go up?

Is that what I am seeing here?

The fixture took forever to get released and then when it did we realised that some teams weren't playing each other.

Easily fixed, there just has to be some compromises and I've suggested the above inclusion of 5 rounds, with each team getting an additional 2 home and 2 away rounds plus their bye. 3/5 rounds are in the normal format of 6 matches + a bye. The other 2 are in effect a split round with 4 matches between 8 teams while the other 5 have their bye that they're owed.

 

[Barrybran]

Why have 5 teams on a bye at once?

Coming in & trying to throw your weight around on the Eve of the season is ridiculously silly. Why wasn’t this discussed over the past few weeks/months?

Probably better asking this question of other people

 

[Senor M]

If only we had the fixture when we kindly asked for it, we wouldn't be sitting here Senor M and you wouldn't be taking a day off school. But alas, here we are.

Reasons are as above.

16/18 rounds are as normal rounds as can be.
Two rounds, which I suggest to be injected in the middle of the season, will have 10/13 teams have their bye in what is in effect of a Split Round. This reduces the number of rounds which have multiple teams on byes, it keeps the balance of having more teams playing than not playing and it satisfies two byes for every team without having to change and adjust dates as well as minimal impact on the regular season.

Unless you'd rather have three rounds with multiple byes, or alternatively, one round where 11 teams have byes and just the one match is played, I feel this is a fair balance.

As I said above— throwing out random scenarios the week of Round 1 is complaining for the sake of complaining. With each passing post your scenarios are getting worse & make less sense than what is existing.

The exisiting fixture format works with minor modifications, throwing the entire cart out this late in the picture is silly.

If you wanted to be involved in this you could have told your club rep your interest in November.

 

[ClarkeM]

As I said above— throwing out random scenarios the week of Round 1 is complaining for the sake of complaining. With each passing post your scenarios are getting worse & make less sense than what is existing.

The exisiting fixture format works with minor modifications, throwing the entire cart out this late in the picture is silly.

If you wanted to be involved in this you could have told your club rep your interest in November.

It's not complaining when it's offering solutions to problems that exist. It is complaining when your name is Senor M and you're trying to find any ounce of substance to try and criticise me when it's simply water off a duck's back.

I have provided sufficient minor modifications to fix the fixture. What in the cart has been thrown out? We have an even fixture, we have even number of byes, we have a reduced number of weeks with less matches and we have all 18 rounds as expected we would. It seems you're complaining for the sake of complaining Senor M and I for one am not only all for it, but I'm also more for calling out your stupidity . Never stop though, it's amusing.

 

[Senor M]

It's not complaining when it's offering solutions to problems that exist. It is complaining when your name is Senor M and you're trying to find any ounce of substance to try and criticise me when it's simply water off a duck's back.

I have provided sufficient minor modifications to fix the fixture. What in the cart has been thrown out? We have an even fixture, we have even number of byes, we have a reduced number of weeks with less matches and we have all 18 rounds as expected we would. It seems you're complaining for the sake of complaining Senor M and I for one am not only all for it, but I'm also more for calling out your stupidity . Never stop though, it's amusing.

You’re suggesting 5 clubs have a bye at once?

Yes— because that’s a good way to keep engagement up within the league across the length of the season.

You’re thinking about the fixture like it’s a professional sporting league, not one that runs on interaction between posters. Creating that much downtime will lead to more disengagement.

I can tell that you’re trying to help, I get that—- but you need to think about this for a bit longer than the 15 minutes it takes you to slack off at work.

 

[ClarkeM]

You’re suggesting 5 clubs have a bye at once?

Yes— because that’s a good way to keep engagement up within the league across the length of the season.

You’re thinking about the fixture like it’s a professional sporting league, not one that runs on interaction between posters. Creating that much downtime will lead to more disengagement.

I can tell that you’re trying to help, I get that—- but you need to think about this for a bit longer than the 15 minutes it takes you to slack off at work.

I sure am. They need to have their second bye don't they? Unless the Bears want 3 byes and the Wonders have 1? What's the difference whether they have a bye by themselves or they share it with others, right? In an 18 round season, it's inevitable that we'll share byes with others unless you went completely off script and created a dynamic league with alternate mid-week match dates etc.

Who knows, it could give way for those 5 clubs to have some fun like a mini tournament or, do as clubs would normally do and take the week off hence the bye. The bye that they need to have anyway. Yes I'm repeating because it seems you really don't get that they're already taking the bye for some reason.

You do realise every club gets two byes right? I'm not creating any additional downtime to what they'll already have during the course of the season. 16 matches, 2 byes. You're thinking about the fixture with a narrow-mind is all. And that's okay, we all have our struggles at times.

I'm still yet to see one solution you have offered - maybe it's because you have nothing other than the urges to keep complaining and rubbing off on me.

 

[dogs105]

Yep. It's common sense when trying to fit 16 games of Qooty between 13 teams across 18 rounds.

EDIT: AND you don't want to have 7, 9 or 11 teams on a bye in the same round. 5 is as reasonable as can be AND it means we only have to have two rounds out of 18 rounds where we experience multiple byes in the same rounds. Meaning 16 rounds will have just the one bye and all rounds will have more teams playing than there are not playing. Perfect solution.

You could play 2v3 in round b rather than a, and then Have 3 byes 3 byes, rather than 1 then 5

 

[ClarkeM]

You could play 2v3 in round b rather than a, and then Have 3 byes 3 byes, rather than 1 then 5

You could yes. It still leaves another round with 5 byes and it creates more rounds with multiple byes.

The minimum number of multiple bye rounds is two regardless of how you do it. That's why I wanted to stay at the minimum and knock it out in one punch and then we can return to normality to continue on the season with 6 matches, 1 bye..

Further, if you wanted to reduce the other round of 5 byes, then we end up with 4 weeks of multiple club byes and for what purpose?

Better to knock out all ten byes across two weeks and then move on with the rest of the season as usual.

And if they're back to back, not a bad little way to either take the week off as it is intended OR create some fun out of it! And from my experience in the league, the more clubs you can have fun with in any project such as a mini-tournament or whatever it is, the better.

 

[dogs105]

You could yes. It still leaves another round with 5 byes and it creates more rounds with multiple byes.

The minimum number of multiple bye rounds is two regardless of how you do it. That's why I wanted to stay at the minimum and knock it out in one punch and then we can return to normality to continue on the season with 6 matches, 1 bye.

Would atop the sooking about 5 byes though.

 

[dogs105]

You could yes. It still leaves another round with 5 byes and it creates more rounds with multiple byes.

The minimum number of multiple bye rounds is two regardless of how you do it. That's why I wanted to stay at the minimum and knock it out in one punch and then we can return to normality to continue on the season with 6 matches, 1 bye.

And could do the same with 5v9 in D and E. Just depends whether the is a preference for 2 weeks with 5 and 2 with 1, or 4 weeks with 3. What does Senor M think?

 

[Senor M]

I'm still yet to see one solution you have offered - maybe it's because you have nothing other than the urges to keep complaining and rubbing off on me.

I provided my opinion & recommendations to my club rep and the committee when the Fixture was initially discussed. That’s been documented— I don’t think it’s necessary to repeat my opinion weeks later because you & your club rep don’t communicate effectively.

I sure am. They need to have their second bye don't they? Unless the Bears want 3 byes and the Wonders have 1? What's the difference whether they have a bye by themselves or they share it with others, right? In an 18 round season, it's inevitable that we'll share byes with others unless you went completely off script and created a dynamic league with alternate mid-week match dates etc.

Who knows, it could give way for those 5 clubs to have some fun like a mini tournament or, do as clubs would normally do and take the week off hence the bye. The bye that they need to have anyway. Yes I'm repeating because it seems you really don't get that they're already taking the bye for some reason.

But you don’t need 5 teams off at the same time, that’s why the current fixture has only 3 teams out with a bye.

Having another 2 teams absent from Sweet for the week is going to be detrimental for overall engagement.

While it is ultimately the responsibility of the clubs to keep their posters engaged, I don’t think having almost half the league on the bye at once is an effective solution.

If that’s what you wanted, it should have been presented to the clubs as one of the options when we voted on the fixture weeks ago.

 

[dogs105]

I provided my opinion & recommendations to my club rep and the committee when the Fixture was initially discussed. That’s been documented— I don’t think it’s necessary to repeat my opinion weeks later because you & your club rep don’t communicate effectively.



But you don’t need 5 teams off at the same time, that’s why the current fixture has only 3 teams out with a bye.

Having another 2 teams absent from Sweet for the week is going to be detrimental for overall engagement.

While it is ultimately the responsibility of the clubs to keep their posters engaged, I don’t think having almost half the league on the bye at once is an effective solution.

If that’s what you wanted, it should have been presented to the clubs as one of the options when we voted on the fixture weeks ago.

Perhaps he thought it would be common sense? Like every team playing every other team?

 

[Senor M]

And could do the same with 5v9 in D and E. Just depends whether the is a preference for 2 weeks with 5 and 2 with 1, or 4 weeks with 3. What does Senor M think?

I think that this is something that was discussed weeks ago & has already been voted on by the clubs. Did your club rep not keep you up to date?

 

[dogs105]

I think that this is something that was discussed weeks ago & has already been voted on by the clubs. Did your club rep not keep you up to date?

Why was a decision made to not have all team play each other then? Was this deliberate? I thought it was a **** up.

 

[ClarkeM]

I provided my opinion & recommendations to my club rep and the committee when the Fixture was initially discussed. That’s been documented— I don’t think it’s necessary to repeat my opinion weeks later because you & your club rep don’t communicate effectively.



But you don’t need 5 teams off at the same time, that’s why the current fixture has only 3 teams out with a bye.

Having another 2 teams absent from Sweet for the week is going to be detrimental for overall engagement.

While it is ultimately the responsibility of the clubs to keep their posters engaged, I don’t think having almost half the league on the bye at once is an effective solution.

If that’s what you wanted, it should have been presented to the clubs as one of the options when we voted on the fixture weeks ago.

I hear what you're saying however it's besides the point. Teams will have byes regardless of how you implement them. I disagree it will have such a negative effect on the league for overall engagement as you might suspect it will.

My solution is smash out 5 byes in one round and 5 in another round and the other 16 rounds are as normal as can be.

2 weeks of less engagement or 4 weeks of less, less engagement. I'll take the 5 weeks and turn it into a split round which keeps as many other rounds free from reduced matches as possible.

 

[dogs105]

I hear what you're saying however it's besides the point. Teams will have byes regardless of how you implement them. I disagree it will have such a negative effect on the league for overall engagement as you might suspect it will.

My solution is smash out 5 byes in one round and 5 in another round and the other 16 rounds are as normal as can be.

2 weeks of less engagement or 4 weeks of less, less engagement. I'll take the 5 weeks and turn it into a split round which keeps as many other rounds free from reduced matches as possible.

Did you tell your rep to put this forward?

 

[Grand Uncle Horace]

I think that this is something that was discussed weeks ago & has already been voted on by the clubs. Did your club rep not keep you up to date?

No-one plays the abjectly stupid persona as well as you.

Congrats.