APA Nationals Rule Change Suggestion

hobokenapa

hobokenapa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
After winning a couple of matches at the APA Nationals, we were dismayed to see two of our players going up because we could not longer field five players 23 or under. All the hard work and practice before the event ultimately cost us, and none of us will be doing APA again which is a shame because we had a great time in Vegas for both 8-ball and 9-ball.

How about using the 23 rule on the handicaps you ENTER the event at, and then if you go up you still play at your current skill but for the 23 rule you use your entry handicaps (as long as you've had 20 games played)? Same DQ rule if you go up by two. I can't see how playing 24 is any advantage since one player is going to find it tougher. This way teams can really try at this tournament rather than being screwed as soon as you win a couple of games on the ridiculously easy tables, and get to the later stages with just four players. I saw so much discontent with the 23 rule, something should be done, although if the APA keeps raking in the cash, I doubt anything will. It just encourages mediocrity.

Thoughts?
 
hobokenapa said:
After winning a couple of matches at the APA Nationals, we were dismayed to see two of our players going up because we could not longer field five players 23 or under. All the hard work and practice before the event ultimately cost us, and none of us will be doing APA again which is a shame because we had a great time in Vegas for both 8-ball and 9-ball.

How about using the 23 rule on the handicaps you ENTER the event at, and then if you go up you still play at your current skill but for the 23 rule you use your entry handicaps (as long as you've had 20 games played)? Same DQ rule if you go up by two. I can't see how playing 24 is any advantage since one player is going to find it tougher. This way teams can really try at this tournament rather than being screwed as soon as you win a couple of games on the ridiculously easy tables, and get to the later stages with just four players. I saw so much discontent with the 23 rule, something should be done, although if the APA keeps raking in the cash, I doubt anything will. It just encourages mediocrity.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I completely agree. The rule should be applied based on the handicap at which players entered the event. You'll need to rally quite a few troops if you hope to get this changed, but this application of the rule is pretty ridiculous.
 
This also leads into a whole nother topic, your player got moved up after having a good couple matches? That's what I can't get it seems on APA if your lower players have a good couple matches well heck they have got to be moved up!! Don't worry that for 20 weeks prior they didn't win a match!!

JMO
 
poolbiz420 said:
This also leads into a whole nother topic, your player got moved up after having a good couple matches? That's what I can't get it seems on APA if your lower players have a good couple matches well heck they have got to be moved up!! Don't worry that for 20 weeks prior they didn't win a match!!

JMO
Click to expand...

Yeah our team got screwed prior to entering Nationals. In the time we qualified for Regionals we had two weak players move up because they won a couple of matches. By the regionals we could not play our 6, and the same thing was true for Nationals. Our 3's and 4's are very weak for their rating and got slaughtered by other players 3's. One other teams woman 3 ran the table after our 4 broke and did not sink a ball. That happens...i guess..but not with the english this girl was using. Very entrenched.

However I think that something would definitely be necessary when a 9ball team was DQ'd for having 5 players move up a skill level including one person going up 2. A little problem there. Not sure how they would handle that one with a handicap, guess they should be DQ'd.
 
The 23 Rule...

TAP, TAP, TAP...

I totally agree, if you qualify for Vegas as a Team...your SL's should be frozen at the Qualifier Level, or you should be allowed 2, (ie 25), Team Post for Vegas. I think doing the work for an entire session and being DQ'd in Vegas for Players going up in SL is ridiculous.

Personally I think the Team Handicap should be raised to 25 anyway. You put a Team together, work hard, and by week 10, you can't post 23! APA says this is done as to not shut out lower SL Players???...all you have to do is make a Team requirement to have SL2-SL4 on a Team roster. TAP has a 25 Team handicap and I don't see lower ranked players being shut out there? I also don't see Teams of SL5 Players winning everything?, (another APA fear).

my 2c-
 
IMO
I dont think it would work if they froze the levels for the event. Wouldn't that
give the teams and LOs who have been scamming the edge if not the nuts.

I just returned from the nationals and played int he the 8ball nationals. We went 3-2 and played five totally different teams. The first team beat us and
had two players underrated yet our guys still had their chances. They have a team that will play 4 sl5s and a three. The 3 has no chance of being a three and that hurt them in the long run.
Out of the other team I thought each was rated correctly but each team did have a player move up during nationals with one team having 2 players move up.
How can it be that teams play for a long time and then after a match go up?
Its tough to understand but it happened to my team. We had a 5 that was
right on the line. We played him and he went up. It hurt our team but we did not lay down at all. In fact the guy played all rounds in regionals and
8-9 weeks during the season.

I think the APA has a tough task at hand when it comes to DQs and when to do so. There are probably some legit teams that get DQed and they should be look into more. Maybe if there really something odd in the ratings of a team that has been DQed then they can ban those guys from naitonals for a
couple years or so. Other teams get redflagged just for having players get better.
No system is perfect but after playing in this years event I did not see many well underrated players. I know that a team that should have been in the finals was DQed after some very odd rating issues. I did not see them play.
They not only were DQed but lost everything that they worked for up until then. They got zero $$ or trophies.

Raising it to 25 would be death to the lower rated players. Good Sl5s still domintated the 8 ball event in my opinion.

one observation...
I watched the semi finals of two teams tied 2-2. One put up a 6 and the other a 5. Its a 5-4 race and the SL4 wins the first two missing only one ball.
Quite a few innnings but neither missed more than one ball. All others were safes.
The scores ends up hill-hill after the sl6 dogged the out for the win. At that time the SL4 had missed 3 balls and the SL 6 2. Many defensive shots arose
that caused innings. At that point BOTH players were playing above their SL as well as both players had dogged it a bit. I could see then that either defensive shots are not marked in their leagues or something. Both were playing pretty good. Even the execution of the safes were good.
The SL 6 ended up winning a close match where both players played to SL7 ratings especially the SL 6 (even with the dogging).
I would have liked to have gotten the APA officials opinons on their play
compared to their SLs.

I had fun and would love to go again. I saw quite a few teams play poorly and quite a few people not play to their SLs. that was encouraging as I was
expecting the opposite.
 
hobokenapa said:
...

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
If the handicaps were fair, it wouldn't make much difference what the total ratings were. So, you could argue that the problem is really with the "Equalizer" system which doesn't.

The 23 rule is in fact perfect for a league like the APA as it encourages new players to be recruited. I don't think it should apply at the time of the major tournaments after surprise adjustments.
 
Bob Jewett said:
If the handicaps were fair, it wouldn't make much difference what the total ratings were. So, you could argue that the problem is really with the "Equalizer" system which doesn't.
Click to expand...

That's the exact point. Then it wouldn't matter if you had a team of 35, it'd be fair. I play in the Amsterdam Billiards League in NYC where I took my SL5s that I had to take off my APA team due to 23 into a team where we can't even make half the limit. Now we are all really trying improve, and are trying to raise our ranking, not get them down. This is an alien concept in the APA.

However, in the present format, a good SL7 does have an advantage, and so something like 23 is needed. Either raise the level, or make the 23 your entry handicap.
 
I honestly thing the APA should raise the handicap level to 25, or even 27.

i only say this, because, the problem in my area, is the leagues are not big, so you get some leagues are 6 to 10 teams, and its all people you know. So everyone knows what type of play to put up to beat the other team.

So you get alot of players who go up in handicap when they really shouldnt.

Or you do get some guys who really improve over a session or two, and get upto a 6 or 7 rating.

Now my big complaint is when my area had its qualifier to see who would goto Vegas, there was 1 guy who got moved up to a 6, and then his team had to forfiet a game every match, and he was telling me for the last two sessions he only won maybe a half his matches.

Then another guy who was a 4, got smoked by another guy who was a 6, and he got moved down to a 3.

And this was all in thier first match of the day.

So in the end your penalized for played well.

dave
 
That was my team in the semi-finals (we lost) Their 6 and my 5 played a great match and neither one of them looked anywhere near a sl7.


one observation...
I watched the semi finals of two teams tied 2-2. One put up a 6 and the other a 5. Its a 5-4 race and the SL4 wins the first two missing only one ball.
Quite a few innnings but neither missed more than one ball. All others were safes.
The scores ends up hill-hill after the sl6 dogged the out for the win. At that time the SL4 had missed 3 balls and the SL 6 2. Many defensive shots arose
that caused innings. At that point BOTH players were playing above their SL as well as both players had dogged it a bit. I could see then that either defensive shots are not marked in their leagues or something. Both were playing pretty good. Even the execution of the safes were good.
The SL 6 ended up winning a close match where both players played to SL7 ratings especially the SL 6 (even with the dogging).
I would have liked to have gotten the APA officials opinons on their play
compared to their SLs.

I had fun and would love to go again. I saw quite a few teams play poorly and quite a few people not play to their SLs. that was encouraging as I was
expecting the opposite.[/QUOTE]
 
Yes, this seems to be a conundrum to me....

If you keep winning, your SL goes up.

And to win the tournament, you need to keep winning.

But if your teams SL's go up, you are disqualified or the team can no longer play due to the 23 rule.

And you had to do a lot of winning to get to the nationals in the first place, so I suppose there would probably be a few players who were on the verge of going up in SL (I don't know how this part works - do they take the info from your matches prior to the tournament? i.e. If you would have gone up a SL back home with one more win, would you also go up in SL with just one win at nationals?
 
Here is a for instance as well...

There is this other guy in a wheelchair that was in my league. Now when he started, they made him a 2 or 3...because he was in a chair. I started as a 4. Yet I am in a chair as well. Go figure? Anyway, we play against one another 4 times. He beat me twice and I beat him twice. So in my opinion we play pretty even...I have the edge I think in experience, but he can run balls fairly decently. So he plays a local qualifier and ends up winning it, going up to a 5 in the process. Then he goes to Orlando to play in a Vegas qualifier, ends up winning that and going up to a SL6 in the process. Now he is toting around this big head syndrome since he is an SL6. I told him quite simply, anytime you wanna gamble with that spot...sure...bet...and bet HIGH...with me still being a four. I will take that 5-3 race and crush him like a grape. He has NOT improved that much at all. His defense is better than it was, but I am far better at running balls.

I have since quit the 8 ball league and about to start into an APA 9 ball league instead. I couldn't deal with how poor a judgement calls my team captain was matching up people. He kept putting our female 3 into pressure situations that she could not handle. Really poor decisions on his part. It cost us Money Cup and about 2k, as well as blowing the seasons point lead.

Shorty
 
If sandbagging were not such a rampant problem, it would be easier.

I would propose a slight mod to their handicapping system.

A longer cycle than 25 games for evaluation, but in the end, a player's rank can never go down ( maybe after a 2 year absence drop a level on return ).

IMO, this would help better players as well as less skilled ones by not throwing them to the sharks.

I HATE giving games to someone who should be at least a 6 and I HATE seeing a real 3 or 4 having to play the same guy who should be a 6.
 
The APA has the 23-rule to beget more APA players. That's how the leagues grow. Teams have to break up and form new teams and recruit newer, lower-rated players.

Now for the National tournies I think that they should freeze your s/l. I don't think snadbagging is as rampant as some people think, but you can catch a gear and play above your head for a few matches, and vice versa.

Barbara
 
Barbara said:
The APA has the 23-rule to beget more APA players. That's how the leagues grow. Teams have to break up and form new teams and recruit newer, lower-rated players.

Now for the National tournies I think that they should freeze your s/l. I don't think snadbagging is as rampant as some people think, but you can catch a gear and play above your head for a few matches, and vice versa.

Barbara
Click to expand...

Sandbagging in the APA is rampant and always has been. The 23 rule in the playoffs is the only thing that allows an honest team any chance of competing. I know of players who are fours and I was a seven and when we would gamble they had the best of it. Cincinnati one time back in the mid 80's, before the winning percentage rule came into affect, had 3 world champions plus the other 4 players were the best in the city and the highest handicap on the team was a four. When you are very good your cueball control can make the game last 12 innings and you still win.
I'm not saying that the 23 rule is a good number or not. 24 or 28 for that matter might be better but what I am saying is that the total team number should be the same for both league and play-offs. By raising the team total for play-offs allows the sanbaggers to stretch their legs when it counts.
Dick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top