And how is that different from coaching him to dump during the session? If the team is going to put him through a compressed coaching session to raise his ability, then he should be certifying himself at the higher ability at the beginning of LTC. That is an overt act intended to hide the player's true ability.
Because the PLAYER isn't experienced enough in APA play to know that his coach is doing it to him . He'd KNOW if the coach was tellin him to dump , but he'll never know that the coach didn't tell him how to get out of a bad situation . ( although he might remember , and realize it a few sessions down the road . . . )The coach simply says to him "great ! We made the LTC ! Now we really need to buckle down & practice . . . ."
The coach is well aware of what he is doing . He now has a rated s/l3 capable of playing at a higher level - and as I said , unless you're capable of watching 20 matches simultaneously , you may not catch it at LTC . This is WHY people get raised in Vegas . . . . .
It's one of many reasons why, and it's still cheating. Cheaters will cheat, some will get caught, some won't, and it has nothing to do with how matches are scored.
We both agree that cheaters will cheat, and that they can get creative at times, and that it's sometimes hard to catch them. I'm not talking about cheaters. I'm talking about honest teams who want that three to be a three and play like a three and never get any better. That way, the six and the seven on the team can both play. This team clearly wouldn't put the three through a compressed coaching session.
Knowing that the 6&7 could possibly be beaten by equally skilled 6s & 7s (or the 6 could even be jumped by a 7) at LTC gives them the motivation to have the "improved 3" as a secret weapon . Clearly.
Except winning LTC is not their motivation. Playing together and having fun is their motivation. If they happen to win, good for them. Since they are an honest team, they will not try to gain an unfair advantage.
Good points, but you're mixing two groups now. There's the first group, players who are true beginners, who want to win but can't and for whatever reason don't improve enough that first session or two. For them, the choices are improve or quit. We want to reduce the chances that they will choose to quit.
Maybe that "whatever reason" is their coaches 'not coaching' as you suggested to establish them at a lower s/l . . . those first 10 matches are the critical ones , and as an LO , I'm sure your aware of that - they determine whether that new player stays at s/l4 where they started , drop to s/l 3 , or rise to s/l5 . If they drop to s/l3 during the 1st 10 matches , it may take quite a while for them to get to s/l5 . . . . or even back up to s/l4 . . . even though they'll deserve it after 'just a few' things are explained to them . . . like playin' defense isn't nig_ _r pool !
And what if it's not? Either way, they have the same decision, improve or quit. Actually, it's a three-way choice. Improve, quit, or accept things the way they are and continue. Our goal remains the same, reduce the chances that they will quit.
Then there's the other group, the one I brought up in response to your comment that people who can't learn from coaching must have terrible coaches. These people don't need to feel they are contributing. For them, it's a priority choice - improving and winning are not priorities for them. Yes, they try their best every time out, but the priority for them is having a good time.
Well , if they TRULY don't care , then they don't need a new scoring system to make them feel better , do they ??
I think that's what I said. I'm glad you agree. Now we can just focus on that first group.
When I typed "we", I meant all of APA. All teams at NTC would have used the multi-point system in the regular session, and the race-to-three system in playoffs, tricups, and LTC.
So , as APA LO was nice enough to point out , they would need to learn a whole different strategy in order to be able to compete in higher level competition ?
Seems that would be a handicap to newer teams who might not have had to play that system before . . . and I'd hate to be a new team trying to learn strategy at LTC - that's a rough proving ground . . .
Or maybe not. Maybe they could just try to win every match. All the time. Maybe that would work everywhere just as well as trying to manage points. But how will we ever know that? I got it - let's try it and see what the impact is, but instead of just switching wholesale, let's try it in just a few areas first. We might get our answer without disrupting everything, sort of like testing that spot remover on an inconspicuous area to make sure it doesn't change the color of the garment...
And it's not like teams would suddenly start trying to lose three matches but score more points to advance. It can happen, but the vast majority of teams will still be winning three matches, even if we use the multi-point system in playoffs and tournaments.
Why wouldn't they ? I have PERSONALLY seen MANY teams using this strategy in 9ball competition to 'protect' the handicaps of their mid-level players
Again with the cheaters. You seem to be preoccupied with cheaters. I certainly hope you are reporting ALL of the cheaters (by name) to your league operator. If you are, good for you.
Do you know of any HONEST 9-Ball teams who try to lose ANY matches?
We may in fact find out that the players hate it and it doesn't work, in which case we certainly wouldn't implement it. That's why we're doing the work.
Well , from the posts I'm seeing on Lee's forum , his players certainly don't like it . . . .
Actually, it looks like the ones who HAVEN'T tried it are reacting just like you are, while those who were willing to TRY a different system ended up liking it A LOT...
This means if we assign 5 points for winning the match, and give one point for a shutout or for losing on the hill, we wouldn't have the win-three-and-lose syndrome. A match could end 15-15, but the tiebreaker would be three matches.
still seems like an awful of work when the '1point per match' system isn't broken . . .creates more work for volunteer scorekeepers who already feel 'burdened' by having to keep score at all.
