|
Let's go conventional and motivational -
Merge NFL into AIC (play KO Provs, outside AIC).
Northwest 16 = 6-team Div 1, 10-team Div 2.
Southeast 16 = 6-team Div 1, 10-team Div 2.
Div 1 = Play 11 teams once across both regions;
form 12-team table, top 4 to AIC Double Chance Playoffs, middle 4 to QFs, bottom 1 in each region goes down.
Div 2 = Play 9 teams once v own region; top 6 in each region to KO, with top 2 region SFs and other 4 to QFs; after 2 KO rds, we have NW & SE finals.
AIC Series
A) NFL Div 1 Final - 1st of 12 v 2nd of 12
B) 3rd Div 1 hosts 4th Div 1
C) 5th Div 1 hosts 8th Div 1
D) 6th Div 1 hosts 7th Div 1
E) Div 2 Final - NW champ v SE champ (both go up)
AI SFs
Winner A v (Loser B/Loser E, AIC QF).
(Loser A /Winner E, AIC QF) v (Winners B or Winners C/D, AIC QF)
omahant (USA) - Posts: 2570 - 09/07/2018 14:19:26
2120018
Link
0
|
|
Replying To omahant: "You make some good points, which I rebutt as follows -
US NFL - I view the structure as akin to the World Cup or Champions League with 8 groups of 4, except all play 16 matches, in lieu of 3 or 6. While the 3 or 6 is a common schedule played by all in a group, 14 of 16 matches in the NFL are also common to each team in a div/group. The two 'odd' matches are against teams in the same position in the prior year, so all 32 play a balanced 4x 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th placed teams. The 7-9 advancing in lieu of 9-7 is similar to World Cup - a group with 3x 1-2 teams will have one 2nd placed team advancing, while another with 3x 2-1 would send one (3rd) home - but is this still not fair ? You seem to support 'wild cards' here for the NFL and the World Cup a la Shara.
Tanking - In my 2x16 Conferences, I did suggest a Tier 2 Cup for 7th to 10th, 12th or 14th as well, which I would hope provides incentive to strive rather than tank. You have proposed 2x16 tiered leagues in the past with 6 of top 16 advancing - dead rubber risk should be similar after 6 of 15 rds as it is 6 of 12. In my Confs, I'd except the top third to strive for two byes, middle third to strive for top 6 and lower third for Tier 2 KO berths.
Only 2/few strong - As you have mentioned before, no format can overcome the lack of competitve depth problem. Currently, there is a top tier of 1, followed by another of 3 or 4 & 3rd of possibly 7.
Avoid Strong v Weak - Next season the 20th ranked team will play the top 4 in the English Prem League - but 21st plays none of them. This reflects a tiered structure - a line is drawn somewhere and could be beyond the competitive boundary (low Prem teams fight the drop as title ambitions are beyond them). My Confs attempt to blend this tiering, along with inclusion of teams 'beyond the bounds' as well (e.g. top rank v 24th) - I just happen to draw the line there. I try to design a structure that might last, rather than reflect that only one team is currently capable of winning national titles." The World Cup is different it doesn't have intra group fixtures. It's fine for it to have 8 ladders. In the NFL teams play against teams from other divisions. There's good evidence to suggest a division is weak when their divisional champ only has a 7-9 record.
Imagine a hurling system of say 6 east (6 teams from Leinster/Ulster and 6 from Munster and Galway. You have each easy team play each West team, it'd be quite conceivable that the best east team would only get 2 wins from 6 at best. Would it be fair for that division to have the same number of teams as the west making the playoffs. I really don't think so and then say the east champion making an All Ireland final. It means there's less repeat matches but why is that a big deal. The current system has flaws in that Munster is stronger than Leinster but at least when the 2 Provinces come up against one another the winner will progress. Semifinals could involve 3 and 1 and be merit based.
Whammo86 (Antrim) - Posts: 4207 - 09/07/2018 16:45:56
2120094
Link
1
|
|
Replying To omahant: "You make some good points, which I rebutt as follows -
US NFL - I view the structure as akin to the World Cup or Champions League with 8 groups of 4, except all play 16 matches, in lieu of 3 or 6. While the 3 or 6 is a common schedule played by all in a group, 14 of 16 matches in the NFL are also common to each team in a div/group. The two 'odd' matches are against teams in the same position in the prior year, so all 32 play a balanced 4x 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th placed teams. The 7-9 advancing in lieu of 9-7 is similar to World Cup - a group with 3x 1-2 teams will have one 2nd placed team advancing, while another with 3x 2-1 would send one (3rd) home - but is this still not fair ? You seem to support 'wild cards' here for the NFL and the World Cup a la Shara.
Tanking - In my 2x16 Conferences, I did suggest a Tier 2 Cup for 7th to 10th, 12th or 14th as well, which I would hope provides incentive to strive rather than tank. You have proposed 2x16 tiered leagues in the past with 6 of top 16 advancing - dead rubber risk should be similar after 6 of 15 rds as it is 6 of 12. In my Confs, I'd except the top third to strive for two byes, middle third to strive for top 6 and lower third for Tier 2 KO berths.
Only 2/few strong - As you have mentioned before, no format can overcome the lack of competitve depth problem. Currently, there is a top tier of 1, followed by another of 3 or 4 & 3rd of possibly 7.
Avoid Strong v Weak - Next season the 20th ranked team will play the top 4 in the English Prem League - but 21st plays none of them. This reflects a tiered structure - a line is drawn somewhere and could be beyond the competitive boundary (low Prem teams fight the drop as title ambitions are beyond them). My Confs attempt to blend this tiering, along with inclusion of teams 'beyond the bounds' as well (e.g. top rank v 24th) - I just happen to draw the line there. I try to design a structure that might last, rather than reflect that only one team is currently capable of winning national titles." A tier 2 that's a consolation prize that has no bearing on the following season's status is not a meaningful incentive.
The Premier league and Championship is not an appropriate comparison as they are just completely separate competitions whereas you are incorporating 25-32 into the main competition.
My 6 from 16 qualification suggestion is based on 2 merit based tiers. 6 from 16 where all the 16 teams are ranked 17-32 is a different proposition to 16 teams drawn from all 32 teams. Tier 1 has relegation to add to the number of meaningful games.
Whammo86 (Antrim) - Posts: 4207 - 09/07/2018 16:54:58
2120098
Link
1
|
|
Replying To legendzxix: "Connaught: Galway, Mayo, Roscommon, Sligo
Munster: Kerry, Cork, Clare, Tipperary
Leinster I: Dublin, Louth, Westmeath, Offaly
Leinster II: Kildare, Meath, Longford, Laois
Ulster I: Monaghan, Cavan, Armagh, Fermanagh
Ulster II: Tyrone, Donegal, Down, Derry
Remaining counties in a football McDonagh Cup with promotion/relegation to/from provincial championships.
- Provincial semi-finals in Leinster and Ulster.
- Provincial finals in all provinces.
- Top 2 from the 6 groups into Final 16
- 6 third placed teams to play off for 3 Final 16 spots.
- Football McDonagh Cup winner to take the 16th Final 16 spot." I don't like this one.
A tier 2 that only guarantees 3 games and only 2 non dead rubber games is not an improvement for the weaker teams.
I don't like a system that treats a small number of teams as 2nd class citizens.
A system of Provincial groups acting as qualifiers.
2 groups in each of Ulster (plus London) and Leinster.
1 group in each of Connacht and Munster.
Top 2 from each into Provincial playoffs and the All Ireland series.
Bottom 2 from each group eliminated.
8 other teams into Interprovincial playoffs for remaining 4 All Ireland places.
All Ireland 4 groups of 4 moving with top 2 in each moving to quarterfinals.
Whammo86 (Antrim) - Posts: 4207 - 09/07/2018 17:12:22
2120105
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Whammo86: "The World Cup is different it doesn't have intra group fixtures. It's fine for it to have 8 ladders. In the NFL teams play against teams from other divisions. There's good evidence to suggest a division is weak when their divisional champ only has a 7-9 record.
Imagine a hurling system of say 6 east (6 teams from Leinster/Ulster and 6 from Munster and Galway. You have each easy team play each West team, it'd be quite conceivable that the best east team would only get 2 wins from 6 at best. Would it be fair for that division to have the same number of teams as the west making the playoffs. I really don't think so and then say the east champion making an All Ireland final. It means there's less repeat matches but why is that a big deal. The current system has flaws in that Munster is stronger than Leinster but at least when the 2 Provinces come up against one another the winner will progress. Semifinals could involve 3 and 1 and be merit based." I think inter- v intra-group is a red herring.
At the end of the day, you want a structure that's fair and balanced - each team in a group plays a similar (preferably, identical) schedule and the team with the best record is the best 'on merit'.
The World Cup targets 'balance' with one team from each of 4 seeded/graded pots - the 2x5 Prov SHC does not - if it did, Dub or Off would be moved to Muns. The fact that Lein is intra-group doesn't counter the fact that it is weaker and easier to advance from - it's near 3 of 3 to advance in Lein, but 3 of 5 in Muns.
As an aside, given any arguments for fairness in World Cup play, the teams that qualify relying on the 'other' group's result in the 3rd group match, introduces a 'lottery' element that negates any argument for a sound structure - the imperfect Shara non-group approach would be better. As it is, would it not be better if after 2 group games per team, to have all teams still 'hoping' to advance to play head-to-head KO (destiny only in their own hands) ?
omahant (USA) - Posts: 2570 - 09/07/2018 18:12:00
2120121
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Whammo86: "I don't like this one.
A tier 2 that only guarantees 3 games and only 2 non dead rubber games is not an improvement for the weaker teams.
I don't like a system that treats a small number of teams as 2nd class citizens.
A system of Provincial groups acting as qualifiers.
2 groups in each of Ulster (plus London) and Leinster.
1 group in each of Connacht and Munster.
Top 2 from each into Provincial playoffs and the All Ireland series.
Bottom 2 from each group eliminated.
8 other teams into Interprovincial playoffs for remaining 4 All Ireland places.
All Ireland 4 groups of 4 moving with top 2 in each moving to quarterfinals." I support a standard being set in the championship. All 32 counties would still start off in the hunt for Sam Maguire. The group of counties not in the running for their provincial championship would be contesting a championship at their level with the winner awarded a Final 16 spot.
I have no problem either with 32 teams being in provincial groups if that's what the majority want;
Munster: 1 group of 6.
Connaught: 1 group of 5.
Ulster+London: 2 groups of 5.
Leinster: 1 group of 6 and 1 group of 5.
- 4 provincial runners-up drawn against 4 beaten semi-finalists from Leinster and Ulster in a play-off for the quarter-finals.
- 4 provincial winners to host All-Ireland quarter-final.
legendzxix (Kerry) - Posts: 7821 - 09/07/2018 18:33:49
2120129
Link
0
|
|
Replying To legendzxix: "I support a standard being set in the championship. All 32 counties would still start off in the hunt for Sam Maguire. The group of counties not in the running for their provincial championship would be contesting a championship at their level with the winner awarded a Final 16 spot.
I have no problem either with 32 teams being in provincial groups if that's what the majority want;
Munster: 1 group of 6.
Connaught: 1 group of 5.
Ulster+London: 2 groups of 5.
Leinster: 1 group of 6 and 1 group of 5.
- 4 provincial runners-up drawn against 4 beaten semi-finalists from Leinster and Ulster in a play-off for the quarter-finals.
- 4 provincial winners to host All-Ireland quarter-final." So the underlying question is - how many does one corral/ring fence under the upper stream - here, it is 32 with more mismatches (e.g. Waterford v Kerry/Cork) and a 12-team KO.
Your prior idea cut off only the lowest 8 teams, had less mismatches (although some are still kept to accomodate a broad Prov 24), had a symmetrical 8x4 with fewer group/potential dead rubber games that leads to a mouthwatering KO Rd of 16.
There is no clear answer as to how many should be corralled - hence, those that argue for retaining one tier and those who prefer two/three.
As I said, for me - the latter above is your masterpiece.
omahant (USA) - Posts: 2570 - 09/07/2018 23:09:04
2120220
Link
0
|
|
Outside Ulster, the Provs are so boring - how about coralling only a Prov 16 ? Use the NFL as a Prov Qualifier - top 4 in each Prov form 4x4 Prov SF groups (L,U,C,M). Then, have a 2nd tier Prov 4 in Lein and Uls, along with another 2x4 from the rest [together, 4x4 pools (L2,U2,X1,X2)]. To avoid dead rubbers, top 3 from each advance with the Prov Final 8 getting byes. All 32 contest Sam.
AIC KO 16
4x Prov Champs host (4x Pool 2nds/ Group 3rds).
4x Prov RUs host (4x Pool 1sts/ Pool 3rds).
One hopes to please some of the people, some of the time - but still somewhat below critical mass, I suspect - you guys are tough, but smart !
omahant (USA) - Posts: 2570 - 09/07/2018 23:49:18
2120231
Link
0
|
|
Replying To omahant: "I think inter- v intra-group is a red herring.
At the end of the day, you want a structure that's fair and balanced - each team in a group plays a similar (preferably, identical) schedule and the team with the best record is the best 'on merit'.
The World Cup targets 'balance' with one team from each of 4 seeded/graded pots - the 2x5 Prov SHC does not - if it did, Dub or Off would be moved to Muns. The fact that Lein is intra-group doesn't counter the fact that it is weaker and easier to advance from - it's near 3 of 3 to advance in Lein, but 3 of 5 in Muns.
As an aside, given any arguments for fairness in World Cup play, the teams that qualify relying on the 'other' group's result in the 3rd group match, introduces a 'lottery' element that negates any argument for a sound structure - the imperfect Shara non-group approach would be better. As it is, would it not be better if after 2 group games per team, to have all teams still 'hoping' to advance to play head-to-head KO (destiny only in their own hands) ?" I don't love the hurling this year either but it isn't as bad as the NFL or US leagues in general.
In the NFL it is possible for a team with a 3-13 record to win their division. (3 wins each in divisional games and no team wins outside their division).
That's just stupid.
I don't mind teams having unequal schedules, it's not a big deal. Playoffs are there anyway to determine a winner because schedules are not fair.
I don't like teams playing games on a global level but being placed using a divisional ladder. It brings up those sort of stupid quirks where a really undeserving team progresses.
The hurling this year isn't as bad as that. Tipp who finished 4th in Munster can't really have complaints about being eliminated.
Yes Leinster is weaker that Munster based on past performance. It hasn't been proven through results yet that Wexford don't deserve a semifinal place. That's the difference. It's an externality from the competition that tells you that Leinster is weaker than Munster.
In American football the league results would tell you a 6-10 team shouldn't make the playoffs yet they can and they have.
Whammo86 (Antrim) - Posts: 4207 - 10/07/2018 13:09:35
2120360
Link
1
|
|
Replying To omahant: "So the underlying question is - how many does one corral/ring fence under the upper stream - here, it is 32 with more mismatches (e.g. Waterford v Kerry/Cork) and a 12-team KO.
Your prior idea cut off only the lowest 8 teams, had less mismatches (although some are still kept to accomodate a broad Prov 24), had a symmetrical 8x4 with fewer group/potential dead rubber games that leads to a mouthwatering KO Rd of 16.
There is no clear answer as to how many should be corralled - hence, those that argue for retaining one tier and those who prefer two/three.
As I said, for me - the latter above is your masterpiece." The tiered system I've suggested is my preference. I live in a democratic society however. If all 32 want to remain involved as they are, so be it.
In the 6 provincial groups of 6 and 5 teams, I would like to see the 3rd place teams remain in the hunt;
Qualifier Round 1;
6 3rd place teams, All-Ireland winner from year before and a second championship winner from the year before. (If one or both All-Ireland or second championship winner are also 3rd in their provincial group, grant them a bye to Round 2. If one or both of the All-Ireland or second championship winners have finished in the top 2 of their group, grant 3rd place team(s) a bye based on league ranking.)
Qualifier Round 2;
4 semi-final losers from Leinster and Ulster drawn against 4 Qualifier Round 1 winners.
Qualifier Round 3;
Provincial runners-up drawn against Qualifier Round 2 winners.
Quarter-finals;
Provincial winners drawn at home against Qualifier Round 3 winners.
Second Championship;
6 4th place teams contest quarter-finals. The 3 winners would join New York in the semi-finals. This keeps New York involved against teams of a reasonable standard, with the carrot of a qualifier spot in the following year on offer.
Should the All-Ireland winner and/or second championship winner from the previous year finish 4th in their group, they would enter the All-Ireland qualifiers. With less 4th place teams for the second championship, byes would be granted based on league ranking.
legendzxix (Kerry) - Posts: 7821 - 10/07/2018 21:40:34
2120547
Link
0
|
|
Bring on Shara, then ? - By strictly advancing teams with winning records, he weeds out the losing teams you mentiion.
Although, speaking of 'global' scheduling (e.g. US NFL with only 6 of 16 games/team played within a group/div), with Shara's absence of a group structure, he would have no two teams playing the same set of 3 or 4 teams prior to the KO stage (just a general equal schedule weighting of one opponent from each pot). While that seems even more chaotic, you'd be happy with the winning KO contingent - especially if KO net is wide enough ?
Actually, I like the Shara ideas - perhaps we agree on that ? - teams at least strive to advance as there are too many unpredictable/unknowns in last-round match results, prior to the KO stage.
By the way, Shara has a toe in the water - CONCACAF Nations League qualifying stage has deployed one of his format ideas - World Cup, or AIC next ? :)
omahant (USA) - Posts: 2570 - 10/07/2018 22:18:11
2120567
Link
0
|
|
Replying To legendzxix: "The tiered system I've suggested is my preference. I live in a democratic society however. If all 32 want to remain involved as they are, so be it.
In the 6 provincial groups of 6 and 5 teams, I would like to see the 3rd place teams remain in the hunt;
Qualifier Round 1;
6 3rd place teams, All-Ireland winner from year before and a second championship winner from the year before. (If one or both All-Ireland or second championship winner are also 3rd in their provincial group, grant them a bye to Round 2. If one or both of the All-Ireland or second championship winners have finished in the top 2 of their group, grant 3rd place team(s) a bye based on league ranking.)
Qualifier Round 2;
4 semi-final losers from Leinster and Ulster drawn against 4 Qualifier Round 1 winners.
Qualifier Round 3;
Provincial runners-up drawn against Qualifier Round 2 winners.
Quarter-finals;
Provincial winners drawn at home against Qualifier Round 3 winners.
Second Championship;
6 4th place teams contest quarter-finals. The 3 winners would join New York in the semi-finals. This keeps New York involved against teams of a reasonable standard, with the carrot of a qualifier spot in the following year on offer.
Should the All-Ireland winner and/or second championship winner from the previous year finish 4th in their group, they would enter the All-Ireland qualifiers. With less 4th place teams for the second championship, byes would be granted based on league ranking." YOU live in a democratic society - but DO I ? :)
Topic for another day - over a beer in NY maybe, if they'll still let you in -
TIP - it's advantageous if you have Norwegian heritage, you know ! Do you follow ? ....
That last idea of yours is not as clean / crisp- a la, if top 2, then best 3rd bye instead - if that, then Tier 2 byes etc.
I like your 'Prov 6x4 and Other 2x4' - really, all 32 are still in the Race for Sam - cutting off those 8 is a modest Prov exclusion (they have little chance anyway) to achieve a symmetric 8x4 - and those 8, playing for the 16th berth, could be awarded a trophy (although, more Tier 3/4, than 2).
omahant (USA) - Posts: 2570 - 11/07/2018 00:02:59
2120594
Link
0
|
|
What do you think of the following ? -
For a fresher start / greater pairing variety, I would have a 'Super 18' (NFL top 14, top 2 in Div 3 and 2 prior AI Tier 2 finalists) with 6 'Inter-Prov' groups of 3. Top 2 in each join 4 KO Prov Champs (played separately) in the AI KO Rd of 16 (Champs get byes if advancing twice).
'Other 14' Tier 2 (P O Se Cup) - with 4 'Intra Prov, where possible' groups of 3 and 1 'Intra Prov' two-legged pair.
3 best 2nds from 4x3 and 5 winners to POSC QFs.
2 Finalists 'go up' to the Super 18 the following year and earn the 2nd chance for Sam.
omahant (USA) - Posts: 2570 - 11/07/2018 02:12:23
2120600
Link
0
|
|
Replying To omahant: "Bring on Shara, then ? - By strictly advancing teams with winning records, he weeds out the losing teams you mentiion.
Although, speaking of 'global' scheduling (e.g. US NFL with only 6 of 16 games/team played within a group/div), with Shara's absence of a group structure, he would have no two teams playing the same set of 3 or 4 teams prior to the KO stage (just a general equal schedule weighting of one opponent from each pot). While that seems even more chaotic, you'd be happy with the winning KO contingent - especially if KO net is wide enough ?
Actually, I like the Shara ideas - perhaps we agree on that ? - teams at least strive to advance as there are too many unpredictable/unknowns in last-round match results, prior to the KO stage.
By the way, Shara has a toe in the water - CONCACAF Nations League qualifying stage has deployed one of his format ideas - World Cup, or AIC next ? :)" Yes Shara is a good format.
The differing schedules is not a problem for me.
In a regular knockout tournament the teams advancing to a round share no similarities in their schedule. It's still fair.
Shara is really flexible.
An idea I like is to have 2 tiers in football but that retain some open spaces at the start of the season. It can increase the number of interesting games for teams.
So something that would be good would be to have a 20 team All Ireland. 12 team tier 2.
Play a 6 game Shara schedule say (can incorporate Provincial championships)
Top 8 into quarterfinals
9-10 automatically retain their spot for next season
11-14 have a playoff round to retain their spot for next season
15-20 lose their spot.
Tier 2 finalists get a spot in following season's tier 1.
Following season:
14 teams in National League played as a 4 game Shara tournament progressing to semifinals.
Remaining 18 teams play a Shara tournament to qualify for the 20 team AI tier 1.
4 game schedule
Top 4 to Tournament semifinals and AI tier 1
5-10 play a 6 team playoff for remaining 2 places.
I'm really trying to maximize the number of meaningful matches here.
Whammo86 (Antrim) - Posts: 4207 - 11/07/2018 06:19:11
2120607
Link
1
|
|
If the GAA moved one step someway in Omahant's favour, they might expand the Super 8 to 12;
- 4 groups of 3.
- Provincial runners-up at home v qualifiers in first game
- Provincial winners v first game losers in round 2.
- Provincial winners v first game winners in round 3.
- Provincial winners to play provincial runners-up at home and qualifier team away.
- 4 group winners into semi-finals.
legendzxix (Kerry) - Posts: 7821 - 11/07/2018 13:17:57
2120692
Link
0
|
|
Replying To legendzxix: "If the GAA moved one step someway in Omahant's favour, they might expand the Super 8 to 12;
- 4 groups of 3.
- Provincial runners-up at home v qualifiers in first game
- Provincial winners v first game losers in round 2.
- Provincial winners v first game winners in round 3.
- Provincial winners to play provincial runners-up at home and qualifier team away.
- 4 group winners into semi-finals." There's a simple way to do that but don't give an automatic birth to Provincial finalists.
24 Teams not making a Provincial final into qualifier round 1. 12 teams progress
4 Provincial runners up and round 1 winners into qualifiers round 2. 8 teams progress
Super 12s
Whammo86 (Antrim) - Posts: 4207 - 11/07/2018 14:30:27
2120729
Link
1
|
|
Replying To Whammo86: "There's a simple way to do that but don't give an automatic birth to Provincial finalists.
24 Teams not making a Provincial final into qualifier round 1. 12 teams progress
4 Provincial runners up and round 1 winners into qualifiers round 2. 8 teams progress
Super 12s" Yes, I like that. To your point, currently the Prov Finals 8 get outsized AI Last 12 berths, a disproportionate weighting that favours the Provs with less team quantities in particular.
In your good tweak there, the Prov Finalists are guaranteed only an AI Last 20 berth, and the Champs go to the 4x3 Last 12 (greater balance with the non-Prov Finals 24).
In my '2 Champs+6 Qualifiers', Prov Final losers and winners enter similar Last 24 and 14, respectively.
As the 'Super 12' losers in the four '1st rd group matches' have little chance of winning the group (making the SFs), however - I'd keep it more interesting for longer by having the group top 2s making the AI KO QFs instead - and then, 1st rd losers playing in the 3rd rd as well.
Overall, I'd prefer 'Super' expansion to 12, 15 or 18, rather than 16, as I prefer 'no dead rubber' 3-team groups that also allows for quicker access to the KO stage.
omahant (USA) - Posts: 2570 - 11/07/2018 17:56:35
2120787
Link
0
|
|
To: Legendzxix - you side-stepped my important question -
YOU live in a democratic society - but DO I ?
In case of doubt, check out today's NATO's proceedings :)
omahant (USA) - Posts: 2570 - 11/07/2018 18:09:14
2120791
Link
0
|
|
Replying To Whammo86: "Yes Shara is a good format.
The differing schedules is not a problem for me.
In a regular knockout tournament the teams advancing to a round share no similarities in their schedule. It's still fair.
Shara is really flexible.
An idea I like is to have 2 tiers in football but that retain some open spaces at the start of the season. It can increase the number of interesting games for teams.
So something that would be good would be to have a 20 team All Ireland. 12 team tier 2.
Play a 6 game Shara schedule say (can incorporate Provincial championships)
Top 8 into quarterfinals
9-10 automatically retain their spot for next season
11-14 have a playoff round to retain their spot for next season
15-20 lose their spot.
Tier 2 finalists get a spot in following season's tier 1.
Following season:
14 teams in National League played as a 4 game Shara tournament progressing to semifinals.
Remaining 18 teams play a Shara tournament to qualify for the 20 team AI tier 1.
4 game schedule
Top 4 to Tournament semifinals and AI tier 1
5-10 play a 6 team playoff for remaining 2 places.
I'm really trying to maximize the number of meaningful matches here." I really like this (plenty of ebb and flo for teams to find their own level- I add a minor tweak -
AIC - 20 T1 / 12 T2 - 6 Shara matches (incl Provs) - top 8 in each to respective QFs.
Top 12 T1 / 2 T2 stay/go up to AIC/NFL for next year.
NFL - 14 T1 / 18 T2 - 4 Shara matches - top 4 in each to respective SFs.
Top 14 T1/ 2 + 4 of 'other 8 in top 10' stay/go up to AIC for the next year.
As the Nike slogan goes - 'Just Do It !'
omahant (USA) - Posts: 2570 - 12/07/2018 14:15:18
2121009
Link
0
|
|
I was a bit rushed there -
AIC T1 - 20 with QF 8; and
T2 - 12 with SF 4.
omahant (USA) - Posts: 2570 - 13/07/2018 00:58:24
2121201
Link
0
|