2009-10 New England TC Rules/Guidelines.

Whit Cooper · Post by **Whit Cooper** » Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:18 am

yo

I want to address the 3 match finals requirement.

I remember this being two matches with three rounds in the beginning of the season. Am I remembering in error? If not why was this changed? I see the post was updated on January 31st. Some of my players planned around this and now we are screwed.

Due to injury and this rule I wont be able to field a full roster at finals. Therefore our advantage of fielding more players at finals is nullified. Also, if I can only get nine(mini may not play) then we suffer again having to double our worst round. I know some will see this as whining BUT people have lives and families. I think the rule should be, make one home match and one away and you're in.

If this was changed mid season I am left nonplussed as to the reasoning behind the decision.

regards,

Whit

John Cooper · Post by **John Cooper** » Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:28 pm

Unfortunately, I don't think this rule was totally understood by everyone earlier on in the season, judging from the old post's talking about it (Current Team Roster's thread). I too thought the same thing, but they meant 3 separate challenges to qualify. Since the rules were not clearly stated as they are now, at the start of the season, there was some confusion.

Todd Lapham · Post by **Todd Lapham** » Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:42 pm

I think since it was poorly worded and we really didn't keep track of it, we just should say F it and let everyone play. As long as no one objects, I'm fine with it. What's everyone think?

John Cooper · Post by **John Cooper** » Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:00 pm

Lol, sounds good! :lol:

I wasn't trying to be an ass or anything. I just think for future seasons to avoid dumb misunderstandings, the rules should be stated and formally decided upon beforehand.

Gabe Miller · Post by **Gabe Miller** » Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:14 pm

Was this a:
F it...everyone should play regardless of how often they played this season...

or

F it..you should play if you put in a total of three rounds with both a home and away match...

I agree with option #2 but not the first.

Todd Lapham · Post by **Todd Lapham** » Sat Mar 06, 2010 1:35 pm

I meant option #2. I should've made that more clear.

Steve Solbo · Post by **Steve Solbo** » Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:25 pm

It was the same rule last year, as far as eligibility goes, I don't understand why this wasn't clear for people this year.

As far as I am concerned, let's let everyone play. 1 home challenge, 1 away sounds good to me.

John Cooper · Post by **John Cooper** » Sat Mar 06, 2010 2:54 pm

Wow, I thought Todd was kidding, lol.

Steve Solbo · Post by **Steve Solbo** » Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:30 pm

I'll let Todd hash it out. His call.

Matt Stroika · Post by **Matt Stroika** » Sat Mar 06, 2010 3:53 pm

Boo to changing rules now.

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Sat Mar 06, 2010 5:28 pm

whitmal wrote:I want to address the 3 match finals requirement.

I remember this being two matches with three rounds in the beginning of the season. Am I remembering in error? If not why was this changed? I see the post was updated on January 31st. Some of my players planned around this and now we are screwed.

I always knew the rule to be 3 matches (with at least one round at those three).

Steve Solbo · Post by **Steve Solbo** » Sat Mar 06, 2010 6:20 pm

Fu Man wrote:
whitmal wrote:I want to address the 3 match finals requirement.

I remember this being two matches with three rounds in the beginning of the season. Am I remembering in error? If not why was this changed? I see the post was updated on January 31st. Some of my players planned around this and now we are screwed.

I always knew the rule to be 3 matches (with at least one round at those three).

Atleast one Captain backing me up. Thank you Meow.

Titan Bariloni · Post by **Titan Bariloni** » Sat Mar 06, 2010 11:11 pm

Steve-O wrote:
Fu Man wrote:
whitmal wrote:I want to address the 3 match finals requirement.

I remember this being two matches with three rounds in the beginning of the season. Am I remembering in error? If not why was this changed? I see the post was updated on January 31st. Some of my players planned around this and now we are screwed.

I always knew the rule to be 3 matches (with at least one round at those three).

Atleast one Captain backing me up. Thank you Meow.

Not a Captain but I can say, the rule "was" clearly stated and discussed at start. It may have been updated or deleted or changed IDK.

was 1match at 3 challenges. I think we have 16 people qualified for finals after West T and we can't even bring all 16 to finals

Eric Kevorkian · Post by **Eric Kevorkian** » Sun Mar 07, 2010 7:30 am

I, too, have always (from the beginning of the challenges) thought that it was 3 matches in 3 seperate challenges.

Mike Dussault · Post by **Mike Dussault** » Sun Mar 07, 2010 7:42 am

objection!!!

Jesse Carrieri · Post by **Jesse Carrieri** » Sun Mar 07, 2010 7:53 am

either play with the rules in place or forget all the rules....what kind of Mickey Mouse operation are we part of here. :roll:

Captains should be responsible for knowing all the rules and informing their team accordingly.

Matt Stroika · Post by **Matt Stroika** » Sun Mar 07, 2010 8:00 am

Jesse Carrieri wrote:either play with the rules in place or forget all the rules....what kind of Mickey Mouse operation are we part of here. Captains should be responsible for knowing all the rules and informing their team accordingly.

And giving their players the required playing time.

Well put Jesse.

J_Disc · Post by **J_Disc** » Sun Mar 07, 2010 9:43 am

1 match in 3 separate challenges. That minimum was always very clear to me and I believe it was clarified multiple times. You can't change it now, that just wrong. It had an impact on the players used throughout the year.

ekap · Post by **ekap** » Sun Mar 07, 2010 4:01 pm

sumopirateninjaviking wrote:Was this a:
F it...everyone should play regardless of how often they played this season...

or

F it..you should play if you put in a total of three rounds with both a home and away match...

I agree with option #2 but not the first.

Just curious, under Option 2, would Fab qualify to play for Burgess in the finals?

Steve Solbo · Post by **Steve Solbo** » Sun Mar 07, 2010 6:50 pm

ekap wrote:
sumopirateninjaviking wrote:Was this a:
F it...everyone should play regardless of how often they played this season...

or

F it..you should play if you put in a total of three rounds with both a home and away match...

I agree with option #2 but not the first.

Just curious, under Option 2, would Fab qualify to play for Burgess in the finals?

Potentially, he'd have to make it down to Cranbury with us at the end of the month under option #2. Otherwise, no.

Either way, I don't care. Todd know's my vote.

Todd Lapham · Post by **Todd Lapham** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:11 am

Jesse Carrieri wrote:either play with the rules in place or forget all the rules....what kind of Mickey Mouse operation are we part of here. Captains should be responsible for knowing all the rules and informing their team accordingly.

Well said. I'm glad to see that most people knew the rule. Since that's the case we can't change it.

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:32 am

Todd Lapham wrote:
Jesse Carrieri wrote:either play with the rules in place or forget all the rules....what kind of Mickey Mouse operation are we part of here. Captains should be responsible for knowing all the rules and informing their team accordingly.

Well said. I'm glad to see that most people knew the rule. Since that's the case we can't change it.

applause

Stephen Ditter · Post by **Stephen Ditter** » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:45 am

Team Wick knew the rule at the begining of the season.

-sd

Jack Nickel · Post by **Jack Nickel** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 5:01 pm

Are we all clear with this (matches to qualify) because this whole "challenge" thing is becoming way to F'd up with all the opinions flying around. Stick with the core guidelines.

It has always been, to qualify for finals you need to play in atleast one match in three seperate challenges.

This is the reason alot of people didn't understand why Burgess would add a player that couldn't even qualify.
Not trying to re-open a can of worms but really, why bother??
Yeah I understand you have a roster spot to fill but that is completely optional. Team Wick only has 13 and that is more then enough.

Excuse me if I'm off base.

Todd Lapham · Post by **Todd Lapham** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:16 pm

Definitely not way off base. Fab was going to play for us next year, so why wouldn't we add him so he can get used to playing in team challenges? I was just making sure the majority understood the rule, which is the case.

Steve Solbo · Post by **Steve Solbo** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:28 pm

jack wrote:Are we all clear with this (matches to qualify) because this whole "challenge" thing is becoming way to F'd up with all the opinions flying around. Stick with the core guidelines.

It has always been, to qualify for finals you need to play in atleast one match in three seperate challenges.

This is the reason alot of people didn't understand why Burgess would add a player that couldn't even qualify.
Not trying to re-open a can of worms but really, why bother??
Yeah I understand you have a roster spot to fill but that is completely optional. Team Wick only has 13 and that is more then enough.

Excuse me if I'm off base.

Not off base at all. We are getting Fab some work, we play good teams to close the season, why not get him some "reps" you know?

Again, I made up the rule, I am glad the people are backing me up telling me they understood it as I made it. Thanks guys!

Jack Nickel · Post by **Jack Nickel** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 6:36 pm

Thanks Todd. If I really cared if Fab played this season or not I would have voiced my opinion months ago. To me, it is the only reason why it has been a question to begin with, "if you can't play enough matches to make finals why add to your roster". Bottom line is, from the origin of the Team Challenge the only player prerequisite for qualifying for Finals was to have played in three matches in three seperate challenges, but you might need to clarify with Yaskis if it matters. At this point I think everyone gets it.

Jack Nickel · Post by **Jack Nickel** » Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:12 pm

Right on Steve.
So you made up the rule 3 matches at 3 different challenges? I thought that dated back before your reign?

Joe Yaskis · Post by **Joe Yaskis** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:26 pm

That one match at three different places started last year and continued on to this year.

Clayton Davidson · Post by **Clayton Davidson** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 3:36 pm

Am I the only one who thinks that the b-pool food and drink money should be used for that, and not cash ctps? I thought the point of b-pool was to try and make it into the a-pool so you can get a shot at some team money and cash ctps.