League Re-Alignment

whataboutbob · 05-15-2007, 04:01 PM

Apparently there was a meeting last week regarding some re-alignment attempt of all the Divisions. Perhaps adding an additional division. Anyone hear about this?

Personally, I would like to see div 1 and the Prem cut down, making things more competetive from top to bottom.

Bronco · 05-16-2007, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whataboutbob

Personally, I would like to see div 1 and the Prem cut down, making things more competetive from top to bottom.

I agree, say any team with less than 20 points over the course of a 19 game regular season??

Oranje · 05-16-2007, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whataboutbob

Apparently there was a meeting last week regarding some re-alignment attempt of all the Divisions. Perhaps adding an additional division. Anyone hear about this?

Personally, I would like to see div 1 and the Prem cut down, making things more competetive from top to bottom.

This was debated last summer. The Div. 1 squads nixed the initial wave of changes. All self-interest, no vision.

Trundler · 05-17-2007, 04:44 PM

re: no vision

I think that is unfair. I believe the vision is shared. Many Div 1 teams felt the process was flawed. A separate premier meeting was held first and decisions voted on. A Div 1 meeting followed where it was take it as agreed to at premier meeting or not. Div 1 teams present at meeting voted 6 - 6 which defeated the proposal. Div 1 teams then asked for a joint meeting which was not granted. Hopefully a joint premier / Div 1 meeting is the approach taken this year to get these needed changes put through.

Oranje · 05-17-2007, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trundler

re: no vision

I think that is unfair. I believe the vision is shared. Many Div 1 teams felt the process was flawed. A separate premier meeting was held first and decisions voted on. A Div 1 meeting followed where it was take it as agreed to at premier meeting or not. Div 1 teams present at meeting voted 6 - 6 which defeated the proposal. Div 1 teams then asked for a joint meeting which was not granted. Hopefully a joint premier / Div 1 meeting is the approach taken this year to get these needed changes put through.

Fairness has nothing to do with it. The intent was to improve the product. What would a joint meeting have done? It sounds like Div. 1 was more upset that they weren't asked first.

Everyone was going to hurt, more teams were going to get relegated and less teams promoted while the leagues were improved. No one wanted the pain.

The AGM is on the 29th. Why not bring it up then under new business? WAB can tell you how receptive the chair is to suggestions at the AGM. I think we should ask him again about the wonderful website, eh, WAB?

whataboutbob · 05-18-2007, 03:18 PM

Well, it will come up at the AGM but I think the league exec wants to put something out before the AGM so every team is informed and it can be voted on at that time.

The points I see here is:
1. Improve quality of play. From what I hear, less teams in all Divs will give teams stiff competition; not 3 good teams, 2 decent teams, and 5 bad teams.
2. Every Div takes a hit. All Divs lose something. Prem 2-4 spots, Div 1 re-aligned with 1 less promotion for 1 year, but gains better teams from Prem, Div 2 loses as well, possibly half to a lower div.

I would like to see something like
1. 12 Premier
2. 10 2nd tier
3. 20 Div 1
4. 30 Div 2

bandcamp · 05-18-2007, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whataboutbob

I would like to see something like
1. 12 Premier
2. 10 2nd tier
3. 20 Div 1
4. 30 Div 2

Well, following your logic of more divisional parity...why would you ever suggest 20 div 1 and 30 div 2 teams? That's what the current scenario is and it sucks. Couple of good teams, several average and a few crap ones at the bottom. Is it that you're only concerned about the structure at the top? Because as a lowly division 2 player, I see the exact same problems in div 2...it's just that the soccer isn't as good. But it's no different.

Leftonly · 05-18-2007, 04:33 PM

I think trying to create parallels from other leauges that work would make sense:

1. Premier: 12 teams
2. Div 1: 14-16 teams
3. Div 2: 16 to 20 teams
4. Div 4: 20 to 24 teams

At the elite level the numbers should be trimmed, unfortunately that is reality, NOT everyone is going to make the cut, that is why in youth you have 1 Metro, 1 Gold etc maybe 2 silver's and then lots of House league team, same as in Hockey. The reality is the masses are in the lower, participation but still love the sport level and as narrowed as you can help them also, without sticking 30 to 40 teams together, the more they also enjoy the game. It makes me wonder at times how relatively successful brains in business and life, actually then just make dumb decisions to complex things. Look around at those who have done it before, trim the fat at the top levels for an improved product and tier the rest with a percentage increase in each division.

We do that, we enter one of the best teams in the Nationals every year, from every level - Male, Female, Under 21, and we also start producing better teams that get promoted.

WAB - you must agree here?

gilly · 05-18-2007, 06:28 PM

League Realignment:

This is the same league executive that created the current problem by adding teams from the Fraser Valley League directly into the VMSL Premier and eliminating Division 3 all together. They went to an expansion model, now they are looking to fix their mistakes. I agree "trimming" needs to occur at ALL levels of the current model, but people must understand that this problem did not occur, the VMSL was a very good and competitve league until the powers that be made some changes. Maybe we should look at making changes at the executive level?!?!

Trundler · 05-18-2007, 07:43 PM

Oranje, the point of a joint meeting would have been to work out a mutually agreeable solution. There are many viable alternatives for shrinking the premier league.
Eg to get to 12 teams:
2 down, none up
3 down, 1 up
4 down, 2 up
Or to get to 10 teams:
4 down, none up
6 down, 2 up
Etc

3 down, 1 up was the only option on the table at the Div 1 meeting and the concern with that (as expressed at meeting) was that there are two parallel Div 1's. So promotion would come down to single playoff game … against a team you hadn’t played all year and at a point in season where you may have a bunch of suspensions / injuries. (Cry me a river, you say

)

Anyway, my understanding is that the proposed league restructuring involves creating a true Div 1A and 1B where winning 1B gets you promotion into 1A and winning 1A gets you into premier.
(I guess they will take the top half of each to make 1A and combine the lower halves for 1B?)

My two cents: Premier should not have two sides - it should be a single division with a home and away versus every other team. (This makes 12 teams still fairly hard to manage as it means a 22 game regular season.) A single group of 10 is what I believe it should go back to ...

Unfortunately, league structure is about trade-offs:
The more hierarchical levels, the more competitive parity within divisions
The flatter the structure, the faster it is for new teams to get promoted to the top.

whataboutbob · 05-22-2007, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bandcamp

Well, following your logic of more divisional parity...why would you ever suggest 20 div 1 and 30 div 2 teams? That's what the current scenario is and it sucks. Couple of good teams, several average and a few crap ones at the bottom. Is it that you're only concerned about the structure at the top? Because as a lowly division 2 player, I see the exact same problems in div 2...it's just that the soccer isn't as good. But it's no different.

I agree with the problems of Div 2 are the exact same problems as all divisions. A few good teams, a lot of shite teams that should be in another Division. That's why the best 8 or so Div 2 teams get amalgamated with the middle Div 1 teams in a "new" Div 1.

Very best Div 1 team goes to Prem.
3 worst Prem teams go to a 2nd tier grouping, call it Div 1a, with the next 6 best Div 1 teams and the very best Div 2 team.
The next 13 Div 1 teams and the next 7 Div 2 teams make a new Div 1b (or however many teams you want).
The rest go to a new Div 2.

However way you cut it, this way does make it more competitive for all teams.

whataboutbob · 05-22-2007, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trundler

My two cents: Premier should not have two sides - it should be a single division with a home and away versus every other team. (This makes 12 teams still fairly hard to manage as it means a 22 game regular season.) A single group of 10 is what I believe it should go back to ...

Agreed. Balanced schedule is the only way. 22 would still be manageable with all the new turfs going in.

Conductor · 05-23-2007, 12:38 PM

[COD "We do that, we enter one of the best teams in the Nationals every year, from every level - Male, Female, Under 21, and we also start producing better teams that get promoted."
E][/code]

We definitely do that last year in the open men's, and we sent two teams at Nationals!:eek

[QUO "WAB - you must agree here? "TE][/quote]

whataboutbob · 05-24-2007, 09:08 AM

Our only loss was to Firemen. We have NEVER lost to a team outside of BC.

evergreen · 05-24-2007, 11:58 PM

As div 2 team, i don't really like the re-alignment idea. the future year has div 2 teams playing 14 games whereas premier they're playing 22 games?? will this be reflected in the fees especially considering div 2 is played mostly on baseball diamonds. Not to mention the loss of "home and away" rival games, less chance of the top teams looking forward to rematches and the possibility of catching the top team for promotion instead of watching the rest of the shortened 14 game season of that team playing cakewalks. what's the point of the realignment i don't really get it; the premier teams getting what they want and the rest of the league gets the shit that's left over from them meeting their goal?
Div 2: same amount of shitty teams, less teams promoting, less games, no home and away, thumbs down all the way around!!

Vinnie · 05-25-2007, 12:26 PM

The re-alignment idea stems from 2 differnet ideas:

1. IT would allow the premier division to be an elite top tier division with the top teams involved. As it stands the bottom feeders in the premier divison are getting ass wooped. So condensing the division size would only have the best of the divison playing.

2. Having this wierd group system where there are play-off for relegation seems kind of bush league. It would be best to have 5 or six divisons of 10 teams (I've not done the math). This would allow for the top 1 or 2 teams to advance. The only downfall would be for new teams. They would have to win thier divison for 4 or 5 years straight before getting to premiere. Maybe that could be shortened by having the top team (that won promo) within a lower division play a specified team in the division that is playing 2 tiers above. If they win than they would be able to leap frog a division. Of course this would only be allowed for the bottom tiers, excluding the top 3

This also allows for a 18 game season excluding cup and tournament play.

My 2 cents

Fileh · 05-25-2007, 05:04 PM

I agree with Vinnie.

The realignment didn't address the major problems IMO:
- group system: There should be no division on the same level.
This applies to all levels: Premier / 1st / 2nd Division
Having different groups leads to disparity of level and competition on the same division. Draws to stablish the new groups.
It leads to strange relegation playoffs.
It prevents problems in case a team from an upper division folds
- Of course this leads to more divisions since we do not have the capacity for so many games.

evergreen · 05-26-2007, 10:02 AM

I agree; optimal would be to have 5-6 divs. Vinnie's concern of taking 5 years to move to premier i think is not much of one; that's what it takes to move up the ranks then so be it and a team would be proud of accomplishing such a task. If they want new teams in the league to be seeded better than just lumping them in the division 6; they could have an exhibtion game or 2 preseason to rank them better....
My greatest concern right now is playing a reduced number of games 14 in div 2 compared to div 3 18 games and premier 22 games????? we'd be done by the first week of December! time to move to burnaby league if that's the case!

dezza · 05-26-2007, 03:41 PM

The div 2 part of this proposal makes no sense. There is no benefit to div 2 as you still end up with 30 teams at that level (quality and parity of play does not improve). Basically they've restructured the whole division just so that the promotion/relegation numbers for div 1 work out.

If they only want to promote two div 2 teams from now on, then how about leave the current structure and have the three group winners play a round-robin, where the top two get promotion? Same for relegation, where the bottom two in the round-robin get relegated.

whataboutbob · 05-28-2007, 09:18 AM

The concerns you all have raised are a major concern. BTW the re-alignment proposal just came out last Friday.

From my gathering, the proposal of a 15 team Div 2 is just temporary (1 season) to get the teams in their rightful divisions.
As for stating Prem getting what they want, well, if you think about it, a couple of crap teams coming up from Div 1 every year and immediately getting relegated is actually in all Prem teams' best interests. As it stands right now, all established Prem teams will never be threatened with relegation.

In a couple of seasons, there will be a 12 team Prem, a 10 team Div1a, 10 Div1b, 2 - 10 team Div 2, and 2 - 10 team Div 3.

05-15-2007, 04:01 PM	#1 (permalink)
whataboutbob Member Joined: Jul 2001 Location: Steveston Posts: 1,471 TTP Friends: (0)	League Re-Alignment Apparently there was a meeting last week regarding some re-alignment attempt of all the Divisions. Perhaps adding an additional division. Anyone hear about this? Personally, I would like to see div 1 and the Prem cut down, making things more competetive from top to bottom.

05-17-2007, 04:44 PM	#4 (permalink)
Trundler Member Joined: Oct 2006 Location: Vancouver Posts: 5 TTP Friends: (0)	Re: League Re-Alignment re: no vision I think that is unfair. I believe the vision is shared. Many Div 1 teams felt the process was flawed. A separate premier meeting was held first and decisions voted on. A Div 1 meeting followed where it was take it as agreed to at premier meeting or not. Div 1 teams present at meeting voted 6 - 6 which defeated the proposal. Div 1 teams then asked for a joint meeting which was not granted. Hopefully a joint premier / Div 1 meeting is the approach taken this year to get these needed changes put through.

05-18-2007, 03:18 PM	#6 (permalink)
whataboutbob Member Joined: Jul 2001 Location: Steveston Posts: 1,471 TTP Friends: (0)	Re: League Re-Alignment Well, it will come up at the AGM but I think the league exec wants to put something out before the AGM so every team is informed and it can be voted on at that time. The points I see here is: 1. Improve quality of play. From what I hear, less teams in all Divs will give teams stiff competition; not 3 good teams, 2 decent teams, and 5 bad teams. 2. Every Div takes a hit. All Divs lose something. Prem 2-4 spots, Div 1 re-aligned with 1 less promotion for 1 year, but gains better teams from Prem, Div 2 loses as well, possibly half to a lower div. I would like to see something like 1. 12 Premier 2. 10 2nd tier 3. 20 Div 1 4. 30 Div 2

05-18-2007, 04:33 PM	#8 (permalink)
Leftonly Member Joined: Jul 2005 Location: Burnaby Posts: 42 TTP Friends: (0)	Re: League Re-Alignment I think trying to create parallels from other leauges that work would make sense: 1. Premier: 12 teams 2. Div 1: 14-16 teams 3. Div 2: 16 to 20 teams 4. Div 4: 20 to 24 teams At the elite level the numbers should be trimmed, unfortunately that is reality, NOT everyone is going to make the cut, that is why in youth you have 1 Metro, 1 Gold etc maybe 2 silver's and then lots of House league team, same as in Hockey. The reality is the masses are in the lower, participation but still love the sport level and as narrowed as you can help them also, without sticking 30 to 40 teams together, the more they also enjoy the game. It makes me wonder at times how relatively successful brains in business and life, actually then just make dumb decisions to complex things. Look around at those who have done it before, trim the fat at the top levels for an improved product and tier the rest with a percentage increase in each division. We do that, we enter one of the best teams in the Nationals every year, from every level - Male, Female, Under 21, and we also start producing better teams that get promoted. WAB - you must agree here?

05-18-2007, 06:28 PM	#9 (permalink)
gilly Member Joined: Sep 2001 Location: Abbotsford Posts: 246 TTP Friends: (0)	Re: League Re-Alignment League Realignment: This is the same league executive that created the current problem by adding teams from the Fraser Valley League directly into the VMSL Premier and eliminating Division 3 all together. They went to an expansion model, now they are looking to fix their mistakes. I agree "trimming" needs to occur at ALL levels of the current model, but people must understand that this problem did not occur, the VMSL was a very good and competitve league until the powers that be made some changes. Maybe we should look at making changes at the executive level?!?!

05-18-2007, 07:43 PM	#10 (permalink)
Trundler Member Joined: Oct 2006 Location: Vancouver Posts: 5 TTP Friends: (0)	Re: League Re-Alignment Oranje, the point of a joint meeting would have been to work out a mutually agreeable solution. There are many viable alternatives for shrinking the premier league. Eg to get to 12 teams: 2 down, none up 3 down, 1 up 4 down, 2 up Or to get to 10 teams: 4 down, none up 6 down, 2 up Etc 3 down, 1 up was the only option on the table at the Div 1 meeting and the concern with that (as expressed at meeting) was that there are two parallel Div 1's. So promotion would come down to single playoff game … against a team you hadn’t played all year and at a point in season where you may have a bunch of suspensions / injuries. (Cry me a river, you say ) Anyway, my understanding is that the proposed league restructuring involves creating a true Div 1A and 1B where winning 1B gets you promotion into 1A and winning 1A gets you into premier. (I guess they will take the top half of each to make 1A and combine the lower halves for 1B?) My two cents: Premier should not have two sides - it should be a single division with a home and away versus every other team. (This makes 12 teams still fairly hard to manage as it means a 22 game regular season.) A single group of 10 is what I believe it should go back to ... Unfortunately, league structure is about trade-offs: The more hierarchical levels, the more competitive parity within divisions The flatter the structure, the faster it is for new teams to get promoted to the top.

05-23-2007, 12:38 PM	#13 (permalink)
Conductor Member Joined: May 2002 Location: on the train!! Posts: 599 TTP Friends: (1)	Re: League Re-Alignment [COD "We do that, we enter one of the best teams in the Nationals every year, from every level - Male, Female, Under 21, and we also start producing better teams that get promoted." E][/code] We definitely do that last year in the open men's, and we sent two teams at Nationals!:eek [QUO "WAB - you must agree here? "TE][/quote] __________________ tomorrow where everyone lives to see another day!!

05-24-2007, 09:08 AM	#14 (permalink)
whataboutbob Member Joined: Jul 2001 Location: Steveston Posts: 1,471 TTP Friends: (0)	Re: League Re-Alignment Our only loss was to Firemen. We have NEVER lost to a team outside of BC.

05-24-2007, 11:58 PM	#15 (permalink)
evergreen Member Joined: Mar 2006 Location: vancouver Posts: 32 TTP Friends: (0)	Re: League Re-Alignment As div 2 team, i don't really like the re-alignment idea. the future year has div 2 teams playing 14 games whereas premier they're playing 22 games?? will this be reflected in the fees especially considering div 2 is played mostly on baseball diamonds. Not to mention the loss of "home and away" rival games, less chance of the top teams looking forward to rematches and the possibility of catching the top team for promotion instead of watching the rest of the shortened 14 game season of that team playing cakewalks. what's the point of the realignment i don't really get it; the premier teams getting what they want and the rest of the league gets the shit that's left over from them meeting their goal? Div 2: same amount of shitty teams, less teams promoting, less games, no home and away, thumbs down all the way around!!

05-25-2007, 12:26 PM	#16 (permalink)
Vinnie Member Joined: Jul 2001 Location: Dumpster Posts: 375 TTP Friends: (0)	Re: League Re-Alignment The re-alignment idea stems from 2 differnet ideas: 1. IT would allow the premier division to be an elite top tier division with the top teams involved. As it stands the bottom feeders in the premier divison are getting ass wooped. So condensing the division size would only have the best of the divison playing. 2. Having this wierd group system where there are play-off for relegation seems kind of bush league. It would be best to have 5 or six divisons of 10 teams (I've not done the math). This would allow for the top 1 or 2 teams to advance. The only downfall would be for new teams. They would have to win thier divison for 4 or 5 years straight before getting to premiere. Maybe that could be shortened by having the top team (that won promo) within a lower division play a specified team in the division that is playing 2 tiers above. If they win than they would be able to leap frog a division. Of course this would only be allowed for the bottom tiers, excluding the top 3 This also allows for a 18 game season excluding cup and tournament play. My 2 cents __________________ "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein

05-25-2007, 05:04 PM	#17 (permalink)
Fileh Member Joined: Jan 2007 Location: Vancouver Posts: 19 TTP Friends: (0)	Re: League Re-Alignment I agree with Vinnie. The realignment didn't address the major problems IMO: - group system: There should be no division on the same level. This applies to all levels: Premier / 1st / 2nd Division Having different groups leads to disparity of level and competition on the same division. Draws to stablish the new groups. It leads to strange relegation playoffs. It prevents problems in case a team from an upper division folds - Of course this leads to more divisions since we do not have the capacity for so many games.

05-26-2007, 10:02 AM	#18 (permalink)
evergreen Member Joined: Mar 2006 Location: vancouver Posts: 32 TTP Friends: (0)	Re: League Re-Alignment I agree; optimal would be to have 5-6 divs. Vinnie's concern of taking 5 years to move to premier i think is not much of one; that's what it takes to move up the ranks then so be it and a team would be proud of accomplishing such a task. If they want new teams in the league to be seeded better than just lumping them in the division 6; they could have an exhibtion game or 2 preseason to rank them better.... My greatest concern right now is playing a reduced number of games 14 in div 2 compared to div 3 18 games and premier 22 games????? we'd be done by the first week of December! time to move to burnaby league if that's the case!

05-26-2007, 03:41 PM	#19 (permalink)
dezza Member Joined: Feb 2005 Location: Vancouver Posts: 434 Images: 10 TTP Friends: (0)	Re: League Re-Alignment The div 2 part of this proposal makes no sense. There is no benefit to div 2 as you still end up with 30 teams at that level (quality and parity of play does not improve). Basically they've restructured the whole division just so that the promotion/relegation numbers for div 1 work out. If they only want to promote two div 2 teams from now on, then how about leave the current structure and have the three group winners play a round-robin, where the top two get promotion? Same for relegation, where the bottom two in the round-robin get relegated.

05-28-2007, 09:18 AM	#20 (permalink)
whataboutbob Member Joined: Jul 2001 Location: Steveston Posts: 1,471 TTP Friends: (0)	Re: League Re-Alignment The concerns you all have raised are a major concern. BTW the re-alignment proposal just came out last Friday. From my gathering, the proposal of a 15 team Div 2 is just temporary (1 season) to get the teams in their rightful divisions. As for stating Prem getting what they want, well, if you think about it, a couple of crap teams coming up from Div 1 every year and immediately getting relegated is actually in all Prem teams' best interests. As it stands right now, all established Prem teams will never be threatened with relegation. In a couple of seasons, there will be a 12 team Prem, a 10 team Div1a, 10 Div1b, 2 - 10 team Div 2, and 2 - 10 team Div 3.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)