For the beginning of this discussion, see this thread:
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=216302
Let's get to the meat of the issue now.
Sure, I'll answer my questions.
1) Why does the APA have a (team) handicap limit?
Because if we didn't, the strongest players would form super teams and dominate the league until everyone else decided to quit.
2) Why penalize teams for exceeding that limit (usually preventing all 5 players from being able to play)?
That's not really the question, but instead of complaining that you're twisting the words I'll just answer it. We penalize teams for exceeding the limit because if we didn't, it would be pointless to have a limit in the first place.
3) If a team can endure an "excessive skill" penalty and still be competitive, what does that say about the APA team?
It says their skill levels could be higher. If they can be competitive with a handicap AND a penalty, they can be competitive with a bigger handicap.
Just in case you or anyone else reading this thread didn't notice, the answers I gave don't have to be APA-specific. The same answers apply to any handicapped league that strives to provide as level a playing field as they can. If you want to claim your answers would be different, fine, demonstrate by giving me your answers and we'll go from there.
Now, here's the part I was trying to get to. If a team can be competitive with a bigger handicap, then they should have a bigger handicap. If they have a bigger handicap, they exceed the handicap limit by a greater amount and are penalized again. Now ask the same question - can they be competitive with the new higher handicap AND the new penalty? If so, apply the logic again (you have to). Eventually they will no longer be competitive. I believe you said that yourself in your initial reply. You just left out the part about the handicaps being wrong if they can endure a penalty and still be competitive (this is also why you decided you needed to switch to tournament play, because in a tournament a team actually COULD get to the end of the tournament before they become non-competitive - we call those teams sandbaggers).
It's not rocket science. If you have to penalize a team for excessive skill, logic dictates that you MUST penalize them such that they are no longer competitive. That's the only way the turing machine of the previous paragraph stops.
But we're not done yet. So you have a team that's not competitive, they can still play, right? Sure. But so can the five APA players who exceed 23. Nobody ever says they can't play. USAPL's five players can play but can't be competitive. APA's five players can play but can't be competitive. That doesn't sound like such a HUGE BONUS to me.
To me, this looks like mumbo-jumbo. I haven't mentioned bylaws at all. In fact, the only rule I've mentioned is the 23 rule. For the sake of clarity, it's General Rule number 29 in the APA's Official Team Manual for League Years 2010/2011 & 2011/2012. How much more official do you want it to be? It comes from a book with the word "Official" in the title!
I've already mentioned the reason I want to keep this discussion focused on league play. In a tournament, it's possible that a team could come in so low that the cycle of penalize->raise->penalize->raise... won't catch up to them until they're very deep in the tournament. These teams typically are the sandbaggers, and I have no problem at all making them non-competitive as soon as possible. By the way, how low do you think they can be if they don't have to win anything to get into the national tournament? Good luck with that.
One other thing - how on Earth can anything be "more fruitless"?
http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=216302
Let's get to the meat of the issue now.
So let's try something a little different. Since my answers to your questions doesn't put the matter to rest, let's try this. You answer your own questions (substituting in APA). So here you go.
Sure, I'll answer my questions.
1) Why does the APA have a (team) handicap limit?
Because if we didn't, the strongest players would form super teams and dominate the league until everyone else decided to quit.
2) Why penalize teams for exceeding that limit (usually preventing all 5 players from being able to play)?
That's not really the question, but instead of complaining that you're twisting the words I'll just answer it. We penalize teams for exceeding the limit because if we didn't, it would be pointless to have a limit in the first place.
3) If a team can endure an "excessive skill" penalty and still be competitive, what does that say about the APA team?
It says their skill levels could be higher. If they can be competitive with a handicap AND a penalty, they can be competitive with a bigger handicap.
Just in case you or anyone else reading this thread didn't notice, the answers I gave don't have to be APA-specific. The same answers apply to any handicapped league that strives to provide as level a playing field as they can. If you want to claim your answers would be different, fine, demonstrate by giving me your answers and we'll go from there.
Now, here's the part I was trying to get to. If a team can be competitive with a bigger handicap, then they should have a bigger handicap. If they have a bigger handicap, they exceed the handicap limit by a greater amount and are penalized again. Now ask the same question - can they be competitive with the new higher handicap AND the new penalty? If so, apply the logic again (you have to). Eventually they will no longer be competitive. I believe you said that yourself in your initial reply. You just left out the part about the handicaps being wrong if they can endure a penalty and still be competitive (this is also why you decided you needed to switch to tournament play, because in a tournament a team actually COULD get to the end of the tournament before they become non-competitive - we call those teams sandbaggers).
It's not rocket science. If you have to penalize a team for excessive skill, logic dictates that you MUST penalize them such that they are no longer competitive. That's the only way the turing machine of the previous paragraph stops.
But we're not done yet. So you have a team that's not competitive, they can still play, right? Sure. But so can the five APA players who exceed 23. Nobody ever says they can't play. USAPL's five players can play but can't be competitive. APA's five players can play but can't be competitive. That doesn't sound like such a HUGE BONUS to me.
Oh, and I focused on National Tournament because that's where the official rules are defined... Trying to have this discussion based on league play could be even more convoluted because local bylaws can override some official rules. You'd be able to say whatever you want, and could be right. I'd be able to say whatever I wanted, and could be right. And we could both be saying the exact opposite things. Thus, it would bring forth no real conclusions, making this whole banter back and forth even more fruitless.
To me, this looks like mumbo-jumbo. I haven't mentioned bylaws at all. In fact, the only rule I've mentioned is the 23 rule. For the sake of clarity, it's General Rule number 29 in the APA's Official Team Manual for League Years 2010/2011 & 2011/2012. How much more official do you want it to be? It comes from a book with the word "Official" in the title!
I've already mentioned the reason I want to keep this discussion focused on league play. In a tournament, it's possible that a team could come in so low that the cycle of penalize->raise->penalize->raise... won't catch up to them until they're very deep in the tournament. These teams typically are the sandbaggers, and I have no problem at all making them non-competitive as soon as possible. By the way, how low do you think they can be if they don't have to win anything to get into the national tournament? Good luck with that.
One other thing - how on Earth can anything be "more fruitless"?