Curt, try this on for size. This format is suggested to address; 1. Players that want to play together 2. Parity 3. Older guys that cant find a team to play on 4. Waivers 5. The animosity on the board 6. Attracting better players to the 40 division (yes I said 40)
We make the league an over 40 league. Teams that want to stay together can and that creates one division. Recruiting rules in that division stay the same. Anyone with a team that wants to join that division may. Then we create 2 divisions, say A & B, with the rest of the teams. You can either add a draft or not. Each team has the same number of players, say 13. By limiting the number to 13, weaker players will end up getting more playing time.
In the first year teams in A & B are assigned by a committee selected by the board. Come playoff time the winner of the B division plays the last place finisher in the A division in a best of 3 elimination round. If the B beats the A, the B joins the A division for the playoffs. Furthermore, if they choose, bump the A team to B and become an A if they choose to for the following year.
The board members who seem to have a problem with older guys mucking up the league can oversee the first division and the older board members can run the A & B. The 55 division continues unabated.
New players in the league would have to go through a tryout. (Rules on new players picked to be determined).
I think this solves a few of our problems; 1. Guys can still play together as a team without interference 2. Parity should be much better 3. Older guys dont get squeezed out 4. Waivers are forever a thing of the past 5. The board functions better without so much divide 6. The league attracts and keeps better players in the younger division
Interesting thoughts, Wayne. To clarify, how many divisions over 40 does this create? It sounds like 4 -- 40, A, B, 55. Or does this create 3 divisions: 40A, 40B, 55?
The piece about A & B that I like is that, as we can all see every week, ability and age do not always go hand in hand. The A & B system allows "better/more competitive" players to play together and against each other, while other players, be they more recreational, "weaker," older wanting to play in a second division, whatever, continue to have a place to play in a satisfying environment. Then again, last year's attempt at A/B in the 45 division didn't seem that satisfying.
I still can't figure out what group all this debate is trying to serve. Is it guys who only qualify for a division where they are 10 years or more older than the youngest guys (40-44 in the 30 division)? Or guys who want to be competitive in two divisions but not be 15 years or more older than the youngest guys (45+ in the 30 division)?
In any event, I agree that the 55 division should remain (or gradually age up). I've never heard any justification at all for eliminating the older division.
Curt,four divisions, same number of fields needed as this year. Rob, the first division would have whatever player limit, if any, that they proposed to have. The A division, at least, should have a limit, preferably, so that the managers would not take players that should be in the B division. The manager would just not take a player that he can't use, and it would force him to take someone he was sure wanted to play that he could count on to be there, especially at playoff time. If the manager chose unwisely he could find himself and the team in the B division the following year.
I think some tweaking of the relegation system used by the EPL would help the A-B Division idea.
Culturally, you'd have to overcome the idea that the A division is the "real" division with the "real" players and the B division is made up of talentless hacks who just don't try. Maybe naming the divisions something other than A and B would help?
While I like the premise behind capping the rosters of the "A" division, you'd be working against the premise that players who want to play together can. I don't see how you'd ever get that by the players.
