POLL AMENDMENT #1 TO CONSTITUTION

[leftypower]

I definitely agree with the intention of the rule change...
But call me dumb, because I am missing something... If we accept the rule change, and we have multiple teams with a power ranking of over 32.5, then wouldn't the new rule say that all 32.5 teams move up??
what if, there are 3, or there are 2 but neither won the championship??
I just think the Moving up rule can be simplified to 2 criteria
1. Champion
2. Top power ranked of non playoff teams
sure there would need to be a tie breaker in after criteria 2... but it is still easier than what is and what is proposed... and does virtually the exact same thing...
I would add, that we should NEVER have only one team move up... It should ALWAYS be 2... and I am not sure if your proposal would ALWAYS have 2 move up(or when we have 4 move up, 4 should move up)...

Wasn't ignoring you input - just thinking about it. Milk - I'm not sure you appreciate just how difficult it would be for 3 teams to have power ranking over 32.5 that did not qualify under the 4 criteria above the new #5. That said, the first yr I was send down I had a pretty dominate team, but was unfortunate enough to be in the same division as the 2 most dominate teams. I ended with a 30 BD (higher than anyone other than those two) and did not make the playoffs. With your proposal I could have been in over a more dominate team. .... much as I'd like to agree (retroactive) it just wouldn't be fair.
Now it maybe worthwhile to modify Section iii if the majority agree it should always be 2 up and 2 down as a minimum. Right now it states "If the B League champion meets all the other criteria, only a single team moves up (and only a single team moves down). Otherwise, the other B League team with the top-most criterion also moves up. (In the unlikely event of a tie activity level will determine)". Modifying the portion that speaks to a single team. Take a look at that wording and if you want to modify that section we can put it to a separate vote. ...

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Wasn't ignoring you input - just thinking about it. Milk - I'm not sure you appreciate just how difficult it would be for 3 teams to have power ranking over 32.5 that did not qualify under the 4 criteria above the new #5. That said, the first yr I was send down I had a pretty dominate team, but was unfortunate enough to be in the same division as the 2 most dominate teams. I ended with a 30 BD (higher than anyone other than those two) and did not make the playoffs. With your proposal I could have been in over a more dominate team. .... much as I'd like to agree (retroactive) it just wouldn't be fair.
Now it maybe worthwhile to modify Section iii if the majority agree it should always be 2 up and 2 down as a minimum. Right now it states "If the B League champion meets all the other criteria, only a single team moves up (and only a single team moves down). Otherwise, the other B League team with the top-most criterion also moves up. (In the unlikely event of a tie activity level will determine)". Modifying the portion that speaks to a single team. Take a look at that wording and if you want to modify that section we can put it to a separate vote. ...

personally, I think the minimum HAS to be 2... at all times... why are we penalizing the 2nd team for being in a more(or less) competitive league...



and it doesn't matter how difficult something is, the point of the rules is to prevent it from happening or be prepared for when it does happen...

and it is very possible for there to be two 32.5 or better teams, where neither win the championship...

I just don't think this new rule changes ENOUGH, and it creates more problems if we get into an extreme case...

 

[Bandit]

Okay, I think you guys are ignoring the first part of the relegation section and that's where the problem is coming in. It doesn't say that every team that meets this criteria moves up, it says that two teams move up and this is the order in which that criteria applies. If any team meeting the criteria moved up, we could already have had more than two teams move up because you could have the Super Bowl Champion, the breakdown winner, the top seed, and the points leader be four completely different teams, yet nobody's had a problem with that wording in the past and it's never caused a problem:

VI. Relegation:
i. In normal circumstances, two teams will move up from the B league to the A league and two teams will move down from the A league to the B league. Teams moving down will be determined by power rankings. In the event of a tie, H2H will be the first tiebreaker, breakdown record will be the second tiebreaker, total points the third tiebreaker -- and if we still have a tie, activity level will determine.
ii. The two teams moving up from the B League will go according to these criteria:
1. Champion
2. Regular season breakdown leader
3. Top seed
4. Regular season points leader
5. Any team that ends the regular season with a power ranking of 32.5 or above

 

[MilkSpiller22]

Okay, I think you guys are ignoring the first part of the relegation section and that's where the problem is coming in. It doesn't say that every team that meets this criteria moves up, it says that two teams move up and this is the order in which that criteria applies. If any team meeting the criteria moved up, we could already have had more than two teams move up because you could have the Super Bowl Champion, the breakdown winner, the top seed, and the points leader be four completely different teams, yet nobody's had a problem with that wording in the past and it's never caused a problem:

VI. Relegation:
i. In normal circumstances, two teams will move up from the B league to the A league and two teams will move down from the A league to the B league. Teams moving down will be determined by power rankings. In the event of a tie, H2H will be the first tiebreaker, breakdown record will be the second tiebreaker, total points the third tiebreaker -- and if we still have a tie, activity level will determine.
ii. The two teams moving up from the B League will go according to these criteria:
1. Champion
2. Regular season breakdown leader
3. Top seed
4. Regular season points leader
5. Any team that ends the regular season with a power ranking of 32.5 or above

so you are taking out iii???

 

[leftypower]

@Bandit - nope I wasn't ignoring it, that's why I pointed him to Section iii. ....

 

[MilkSpiller22]

@Bandit - nope I wasn't ignoring it, that's why I pointed him to Section iii. ....

But here is the thing. If we do change section iii then we would be changing the whole criteria too as we can restructure it easier.

But I guess section iii is not up for debate at this point.

I will ask if we can shelf this vote to debate on section iii if that gets seconded.

 

[Bandit]

so you are taking out iii???

No I'm not taking out iii, because if there truly is only one good B league team then only one should move up. Adding the criteria of the power ranking above 32.5 insures that if there are TWO dominant teams in the B league that the other one doesn't get left out. That is all this amendment is built for. Last year instead of just EHB moving up, Trudem would have moved up also based on the new criteria of #5. If Trudem had finished a few power ranking points lower, then he (and all of the other playoff teams) would have needed to win the Super Bowl in order to move up to the A league.

 

[leftypower]

But here is the thing. If we do change section iii then we would be changing the whole criteria too as we can restructure it easier.
But I guess section iii is not up for debate at this point.
I will ask if we can shelf this vote to debate on section iii if that gets seconded.

No - Amendment #1 has already been passed by over the margin required to adopt. .... As I said earlier IF a minimum of 2 up and 2 down is the desire - I see very easy ways to modify Section iii to accommodate that without doing anything to the approved amendment#1. But I'm not gonna do it - you or someone else will have to put it forth.

 

[Chef99]

No - Amendment #1 has already been passed by over the margin required to adopt. .... As I said earlier IF a minimum of 2 up and 2 down is the desire - I see very easy ways to modify Section iii to accommodate that without doing anything to the approved amendment#1. But I'm not gonna do it - you or someone else will have to put it forth.

Damn, Lefty, I love it when you take charge!

 

[leftypower]

Damn, Lefty, I love it when you take charge!

Well, the gavel was hit at 16 FOR. ... no need to 'table'.

 

[leftypower]

Amendment #1 has been input into the Constitution thanks to @HaroldSeattle. i'll be off the board for awhile - need to just step away. ....

 

[FaCe-LeE-uS]

Sorry gents, I was outta service for a while. Got my vote in.

Love the new idea!