[POOL] Proposed Rule Changes
McLain, Derek
mclaindr at anl.gov
Thu Dec 20 13:13:13 CST 2018
Personally, I also don't have any issues with the match-up changes. I also agree that in our case the extra charge won't change anything for us. If we don't have enough people we don't have enough people. I think playing twice is not a terrible solution, but opens the door to a team only fielding four players and having one play twice because it benefits them based on possible matchups instead of them actually not having enough people. I don't think a team would do that... but it seems like it invites abuse to me.
Derek
-----Original Message-----
From: mcs-pool <mcs-pool-bounces at mcs.anl.gov> On Behalf Of John Valdes via mcs-pool
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2018 1:01 PM
To: Moe <mcs-pool at mcs.anl.gov>
Cc: John Valdes <j-valdes at comcast.net>
Subject: [POOL] Proposed Rule Changes
Hi Team Moe,
What do folks think about the proposed rule changes (see Dean's email below)? Let me/the list know today or early tomorrow (Fri) so I give our vote to Dean.
Myself, I'm fine with the proposed match-up changes. As for the $5 make-up match penalty, I'm not in favor of that as that wouldn't prevent us (Team Moe) from avoiding a make-up match; if we're short players and have to play a make-up match (which thankfully we haven't had to do in a long time), it's because we don't have a player available (eg, players are out of town or the computers are misbehaving and we have to work late, etc), so regardless of whether the make-up match costs us $5 or $100, we won't be able to avoid it.
So the end result is that a makeup match will still need to be played on another night.
As a better solution, I suggested to Dean that instead the match could be played the same night, with a player from the team that is short players having to play twice. The team that has all their players can choose the player on the opposing team that will have to play the match, and the usual make-up match-up penalty would apply.
John
On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 07:34:06PM +0000, Bass, Dean Allen via mcs-pool wrote:
>
> Proposed Rule Changes - We are considering a few small changes. I went around last night to explain these to most of league, but in case you missed it, here is a summary:
> Change to the handicap table - while our handicap system is best I’ve seen, I feel there are some areas of inequity for which I have assembled a new proposed table. The purpose was to make the handicap differential slightly larger for races where the lower handicap only went to 1 game, and to introduce a 9:1+ and a 6:1+ category for the top two handicap tables. The 1+ designation would mean that not only does the player only have to one game, but they can take ball in hand one time during their match. They can only do it when it is their turn and they cannot do it on the 8 ball. This designation is only for the most extreme handicap differentials.
>
> Current
> Handicap Table
> Higher HC Difference Matchup Higher HC Difference Matchup
> < 10 0 - 19 2 : 2 10-39 0 - 10 2 : 2
> 20 - up 2 : 1 11 - 29 3 : 2
> 30 - up 3 : 1
> 40-69 0 - 10 3 : 3 100-up 0 - 5 5 : 5
> 11 - 26 3 : 2 6 - 14 5 : 4
> 27 - 53 4 : 2 15 - 21 6 : 4
> 54 - up 4 : 1 22 - 28 5 : 3
> 70-99 0 - 6 4 : 4 29 - 36 6 : 3
> 7 - 18 4 : 3 37 - 46 7 : 3
> 19 - 29 5 : 3 47 - 56 6 : 2
> 30 - 39 4 : 2 57 - 62 7 : 2
> 40 - 48 5 : 2 63 - 82 8 : 2
> 49 - 68 6 : 2 83 - 101 7 : 1
> 69 - 88 5 : 1 102 - 106 8 : 1
> 89 - up 6 : 1 107 - up 9 : 1
>
>
>
>
>
> Proposed
> Handicap Table
> Higher HC Difference Matchup Higher HC Difference Matchup
> < 10 0 - 25 2 : 2 10-39 0 - 15 2 : 2
> 26 - up 2 : 1 16 - 40 3 : 2
> 41 - up 3 : 1
> 40-69 0 - 12 3 : 3 100-up 0 - 9 5 : 5
> 13 - 30 3 : 2 10 - 19 5 : 4
> 31 - 60 4 : 2 20 - 29 6 : 4
> 61 - up 4 : 1 30 - 39 6 : 3
> 70-99 0 - 10 4 : 4 40 - 49 7 : 3
> 11 - 23 4 : 3 50 - 65 6 : 2
> 24 - 37 5 : 3 66 - 80 7 : 2
> 38 - 55 5 : 2 81 - 95 8 : 2
> 56 - 75 6 : 2 96 - 110 7 : 1
> 76 - 89 5 : 1 111 - 124 8 : 1
> 90 - 100 6 : 1 105 - 139 9 : 1
> 101 - up 6 : 1+ 140 - up 9 : 1+
>
>
> Make up matches - With the loss of one of the 9 foot tables, the makeup matches are more difficult to catch up on. So to further discourage makeup matches, we are suggesting that if a team does not have 5 players, they will be penalized $5 and the team they are playing would receive $5 (for the inconvenience). No money or payment would be required, it would simply be tallied and taken from or added to the prize money. The make up match would then be played with the regular match up and fees. If neither team has 5 players there would be no penalty. If a team has requested players for their team from the league, they would be allowed leeway.
>
More information about the mcs-pool
mailing list