· Sandbagging - No handicapping method is sandbag-proof. People say it happens more in APA than in other leagues... maybe that's true. But there's no reason it can't happen in a BCA or VNEA league. You can't rag on the league for TRYING... even if it's not foolproof. None of them are.
Nobody at the top of the food chain does anything to encourage it. If individual LO's let is slide or individual captains encourage it... well, lazy or dishonest people are everywhere. If they weren't in the really huge popular league... guess where they'd be? In your local BCA, TAP, or VNEA league probably.
· Not getting back as much money as promised: if the league makes a specific promise and goes back on it, or uses really deceptive wording in their ads... that's a legit complaint. I'm talking about stuff that's so clear-cut that you could file a lawsuit with it. If people are generally complaining because the BCA 'hypes up' vegas or whatever... quit whining, welcome to marketing. Detractors make it sound like a bunch of poor starry-eyed optimists are getting duped by false promises. They aren't. The average league player has done it before and knows what to expect (despite mongoose's situation).
Here's what they promise:
Pretty straightforward to me. Nowhere does it claim this is 100%, 90%, or even 20% of the total money they take in. Nowhere does it claim you personally are going to have a good shot at this money. It's just a few simple facts that you can take at face value.
· Pyramid scheme: As far as I know, I pay the same dues no matter WHOSE team I'm on. Me being forced to move doesn't generate any extra money, unless there's some team switching tax I'm not aware of. I pay the same 7 dollars a week whether I'm on the same team as last year or not. If you have 50 people, you are going to have 10 5-man teams no matter how they get rearranged.
Be intelligent people. You could argue the 23 limit actually costs the APA money in the short run. Does the APA want to break up regular teams who are a guaranteed steady source of income year after year? Would they really rather risk having people quit because they got 'too good'? Or because they can't play with their friends? Or because one guy got kicked off the team, and now the team is incomplete, and they never manage to work out a replacement so the leftover members can't play this year without a full team?
The APA doesn't want to risk any of these things happening, as these things cost them money (in the short term). In the long term though, it makes them money... amateurs sign up knowing they can get to play with strong players, and won't be the baby seals who get clubbed by a few powerhouse teams. Making amateurs feel welcome brings in more players and more players = more money. That's the only reasoning behind the 23 rule, and there's nothing wrong with it. The fresh amateurs are happy, and they far outnumber the 7's who decide to quit because of the 23 limit.
Nobody at the top of the food chain does anything to encourage it. If individual LO's let is slide or individual captains encourage it... well, lazy or dishonest people are everywhere. If they weren't in the really huge popular league... guess where they'd be? In your local BCA, TAP, or VNEA league probably.
· Not getting back as much money as promised: if the league makes a specific promise and goes back on it, or uses really deceptive wording in their ads... that's a legit complaint. I'm talking about stuff that's so clear-cut that you could file a lawsuit with it. If people are generally complaining because the BCA 'hypes up' vegas or whatever... quit whining, welcome to marketing. Detractors make it sound like a bunch of poor starry-eyed optimists are getting duped by false promises. They aren't. The average league player has done it before and knows what to expect (despite mongoose's situation).
Here's what they promise:
Pretty straightforward to me. Nowhere does it claim this is 100%, 90%, or even 20% of the total money they take in. Nowhere does it claim you personally are going to have a good shot at this money. It's just a few simple facts that you can take at face value.
· Pyramid scheme: As far as I know, I pay the same dues no matter WHOSE team I'm on. Me being forced to move doesn't generate any extra money, unless there's some team switching tax I'm not aware of. I pay the same 7 dollars a week whether I'm on the same team as last year or not. If you have 50 people, you are going to have 10 5-man teams no matter how they get rearranged.
Be intelligent people. You could argue the 23 limit actually costs the APA money in the short run. Does the APA want to break up regular teams who are a guaranteed steady source of income year after year? Would they really rather risk having people quit because they got 'too good'? Or because they can't play with their friends? Or because one guy got kicked off the team, and now the team is incomplete, and they never manage to work out a replacement so the leftover members can't play this year without a full team?
The APA doesn't want to risk any of these things happening, as these things cost them money (in the short term). In the long term though, it makes them money... amateurs sign up knowing they can get to play with strong players, and won't be the baby seals who get clubbed by a few powerhouse teams. Making amateurs feel welcome brings in more players and more players = more money. That's the only reasoning behind the 23 rule, and there's nothing wrong with it. The fresh amateurs are happy, and they far outnumber the 7's who decide to quit because of the 23 limit.
