WTFL Wpg. Touch Football League - WTFL

96 Posts

Just wondering, is there still a multi team rule in effect? I heard there was a vote on this or one coming up.

679 Posts

The rule hasn't been voted on yet. There are a number of issues with having the multiple player rule and a number of issues with removing the rule.

One thing is certain though. No matter what we do SOMEBODY will not like it.

96 Posts

Well, maybe it's time I give my yearly 2 cents on the issue.

What is the league achieving by allowing this rule to continue? What does the league get out of it? Every year it seems we have the same teams in every division, no teams move up because of conflicts, we're short refs every year, short fields every year. Is the added revenue worth it?

Why is it that every year, the divisional alignment doesn't change? Shouldn't the teams that win their division be forced to move up? Isn't that how teams are supposed to progress and the younger guys/teams get better? Or does it make more sense to pluck every team of their good players to play on higher divisions, basically preventing these lower teams from moving up and playing better teams and growing as a team because of scheduling conflicts.

This is just getting stupid in my honest opinion. The elite division for one will never see another team in the near future, simply because lower div teams have to go through the Division 1 first.......which consists of a majority of elite players. Division 1 teams can't move up because of too many conflicts, division 2 has loads of division 1/elite players preventing them from moving up.

Why are we doing this again? I thought it was to teach/coach the lower division teams, so to speak. It seems we're doing it for all the wrong reasons now. It's becoming more and more apparent why we are the only city/town in the country that allows this. I'm not sure if there's even another sport that allows this.

Perhaps somebody can give me an honest answer as to how this rule benefits the league.

57 Posts

I agree with Jeff. I think whole "coaching" angle was to get more revenue coming in. It does nothing to help the league. Bigger is not better if you do not have the infrastructure (i.e. fields) and employees (i.e. refs) to support it. I think forcing players to ref and having player conflicts makes the league look bad. I mean what other league does that? If you want more money coming in, abolish the Mutli Player Rule, this will limit the number of teams, then CAP the number of teams some more. What does this do? It will create a higher demand for the league and in the future the league can up the Registration as a result and pass on the money to our fine refs and secure fields. Oh...and then we can have a competitively balanced league as well.

679 Posts

I don't think it was really ever to get more revenue coming in. It was more of a solution to people who want to play on as many teams as they want without having to play in multiple leagues.

However, you guys both make great points. I also think if we truly cared about player/team development, there are better ways to go about that.

7 Posts

The multi-team rule served multiple purposes:
1. It created new teams at a time when the league was becoming stagnate and the other league was expanding;
2. It generated additional revenue for the league and forced the league to expand it’s administration and referee base;
3. It allowed upper division players to emerge from the shadows of their QBs and become QBs on other teams (the key for any competitive team in any division);
4. It allowed older players to play on younger teams and assist in their development.
That said, I feel it should be retained for at least one more year in some limited fashion to allow teams that will be impacted to transition to a one team rule.

57 Posts

I agree it should wait till next year.

679 Posts

More teams might mean more money coming in, but it also means higher expenses. If you look at the annual financial reports we don't make more money when we have more teams. But really, the WTFL isn't a for-profit league so this whole discussion about $$ doesn't really make sense.

96 Posts

The whole point of wanting more football, there is also two other leagues in the city if guys want to try out a different position. This is what us old timers used to do back in the day before this rule came in.

The point I'm making is the true purpose of the rule was to have more experienced players play at a lower division and help develop the game. That isn't always the case now. The lower divisions are flooded with teams with QBs/Receivers/DBs from higher divisions, all playing their regular positions. And then you get the lower division teams with a few studs, these guys get invited to play in the higher divisions, ultimately causing conflicts. A good young team like the Trojans for instance, these guys will eventually have a good number of their players in the higher divisions, ultimately preventing the team from moving up accordingly.

Also, don't get me wrong, there's definitely situations where the rule is working and guys are using the rule as it was intended and that's great. I just think that the amount of divisional conflict that it's causing far outweighs the positives.

25 Posts

I would say its time to abolish the multi-player rule..the league is bigger..unfortunately its just with the same guys on different teams..its just prevents
teams from moving up from the lower divs because elite teams recruit their best players (which we all do to some extent..to get better)unfortunately without the teams sticking together with their best guys it basically forces them to stay in lower divs..therefore keeping the same teams in elite and nobody ever moving up. We dont have enough refs or fields to keep up with the amount of players in the league..We should be after quality not quantity..in every aspect:players,teams,fields and refs.Nobody else in Canada does this or any sport for that matter...
just my 2 cents
Joey
Woodys

16 Posts

You would think that if there isnt enough refs they would obveusly put a cap on the amount of teams that play in each division or in the league all together like the PIT league puts 6 teams at a maximum per division. Or if league wants to "tweek" the rule like maybe players on 3-4 or more teams rather than just 2 or more, so that players can at least be on 2 teams and not ref.

679 Posts

I don't think it's fair to block an entire team from joining the league (cap idea) if you are still going to allow people to play on multiple teams. Doesn't seem fair to allow a guy to play on 3 teams, but block a group of guys who aren't playing any football yet.

8 Posts

does anyone know just how many teams we are talking about losing should the multi team player rule be eliminated! i would guess not even 10. as seen by the indoor leagues, there is def more interest in this sport, so the issue of more refs and fields will continue to be the issue. i think the league should introduce the concept like a fantasy draft. 5 guys place a team in elite and begin drafting free agents to complete a team. you could make the cost as per player for this div. (might make the cut or not). it might spark interest!

679 Posts

Paul, I've had a similar idea for this, it's a neat concept. Basically every player would have to pay to be included in the draft and you're stuck with whatever team you get put on. Semi-pro touch football!

In practice though I don't think it would work. I think trying it for a single day tournament would be a way to try it.

111 Posts

I keep hearing about teams can't/won't/not able to move up. I have been in this league 25 plus years and teams don't move up very often. There is a multitude of reasons for this. the multi team rule has no affect on teams moving up or down. Teams that want to move up get better players and do (aka Sunparties who had multi team players in Div 1) but for the most part, nobody cuts their friend for the sake of moving up, they just want to compete for a title in the division they are in. As for the elite division Jeff, again the multi team rule does not come in to play. for 20 years before the multi team rule it was the same..3 or 4 teams were at the top and nobody else could touch them. Oh sure we put teams up there to make an 8 team division..but all that did was make those teams say next year we are not playing up there. This will never change, certainly not because of any multi team rule.

The multi team rule gives players a chance to play 36, 54 or even more gamess. That is what most of them want...they cannot get enough football. Heck, look at the growth of the indoor, these kids want to play. Do they say, I am not playing unless our team moves up a division...no..they put teams in lower divisions with friends etc. They just want to play. And to say we are not going to accomodate you, go play in another league?? Yeah, thats the way to do it, send them to play in another league. Expansion is good and we were catching up to the number of teams the last couple of years through work of the Board. Ie. reffing recruitment, fields etc. Now we seem to have a board that says "I don't want to do all that work, just cut the number of teams, thats easier" I guess we shouldn't have allowed the women's division in either, that has created too many teams.

And if the number of teams continues to grow without the multi team rule?? (You know this could happen as teams adjust..of course they will move down a division) then what...those who are spearheading this will just bale out.....sorry I can't do this. Seen that happen before.

Some thoughts....

Cliff Kitchen
Anvils
ATHF....
I mean just Anvils...er...just ATHF...er...I don't know...?

PS. Having been on the board for many years, the rule had and hasn't had anything to do with money. It was to do with expansion because we had the same number of teams and the same people every year. The league was dying and this rule along with others Ie. the recreation division, the women's divisions being others contributed to expand this league. Anyone who thinks that revenue was the reason we put the rule in doesnt have a clue what they are talking about( they should have been at a board meeting or two when board members were asking why we were charging the Rec div and Womens div so little??)

57 Posts

From a pure competitive stand point and the integrity of the game I think allowing Elite or Div 1 players to play in any other division than their ability dictates is ridiculous IMO. I have had 2 people, let's just say past their prime, who say they wish the MPR was abolished. They were/are competitive people and want to play with their buddies in a Div that best suits their situation. They get discouraged when Team X has 3 upper div players that sway the outcome of games. They just want the ability to compete on the same level as the division THEY picked to play in. And Yes, 3 upper div guys can sway the outcome of any games so please I don't wanna hear guys say it doesn't. I don't hear about this side of the argument enough.

I guess it's all moot now cause the MPR has been voted down.

46 Posts

RIP WTFL...........

5 Posts

What if the three upper div guys also have buddies on Team X they want to play with? What if these buddies were the guys that taught them how to play but are also past their prime? What if some of their buddies don't intend to or don't quite have the abilities to play div 1 or elite? Are elite or div 1 players not allowed to have friends in the lower divisions? Some of my best buddies I met through football and they are not all playing div. 1 or elite.

We are playing RECREATION ball... the whole point is to enjoy the sport, get together with guys and gals we don't get to see so often, let off some steam and get to run around a bit. I don't know if it is the intention of all who play to move up divisions and feed the elite division.

Oh well. Anyone up for some pick-up ball?... meet you at Maples collegiate field... could even buy a round or two for after the game with the extra money I'll save on registration.

Kanwal.

(getting tired of destroying the integrity of the game on multiple teams for 17 years)

57 Posts

"What if the three upper div guys also have buddies on Team X they want to play with?"
Then play with yer buddies in the other 2 leagues in the city or play some "pick-up ball.

"We are playing RECREATION ball..."
So that's why you play in Elite? To get some exercise? Winning is not in the equation?
Sorry man. Ain't buying that from you. You are as competitive as they come. Some people like to have fun AND to win or at least have a level playing field.

5 Posts

No one should have to justify their reasons for playing football.

You're right Vaughn... I can play in the other leagues or play pick-up. If I didn't enjoy playing in the WTFL and enjoying playing with and against the players in the WTFL who play in the different divisions, I wouldn't care and would quietly go to the other leagues (which I do play)

THIS IS RECREATIONAL FOOTBALL... What are we "developing" for?

Elite is still rec football... no contracts...no pay...no winning bonuses.

Geez, I must care... I don't think I've ever posted 2 times.

Good conversation...

Kanwal
I'll post again in another 15 years.

96 Posts

There would have to be a reason why no other league that I know of allows this (other than the UTFL). The reason is there's no structure. Just like in any other sport.....hockey, basketball, spongee, if you really dig the game, you play in multiple leagues. Why would it be wrong for the WTFL to tell it's members that they can only play on one team? People are acting like the WTFL stole their lunch money, when in reality, it's now going to be structured like every other sport league known to man. I'm not quite sure how this would destroy the WTFL.

I understand that people would be somewhat upset about the rule due to issues with teams, but you cannot tell me in honesty that this rule makes any sense from a competitive and fairplay standpoint? I for one took advantage of this rule on many occasions, and I play about 60-70 games a year, I too have met most of my friends through football, but I'd obviously be the first one to say it was wrong.

18 Posts

what about the team captain just saying " sorry buddy your my good friend, but i need commitment for the majority of the season to play on our team " if your just looking to play with some friends maybe schedule a few scrimmage games then. If the only reason is for fun, playin an extra team or 2, ( or in my case 8 ) then it shouldnt be an issue.
most teams i joined were during the first few weeks of the season were after a few losses and were looking for players to make their team better ( again not sure why they call me? lol ).
But for rec football it does get pretty competatiive and the elite division should be the cream of the crop. but if their only looking for fun then why make the jump.
I like playing on multi teams but from a captains point of view they can always turn away players that cant commit full time due to playin 10 games a week. And if it is just for fun they should have no problem bringing in a buddy and learning the game together over a few seasons and build some chemistry, heck even bring out an entire elite team out to help coach you if you need the help. but 3 elite or div 1 players playing in div 5 or 6 isnt good for the game at all, ( at least i think so )

this is just a game, but its a game we all love and wait all winter to play and is a pretty big part of some players lives. In my opinion ( doesnt mean im right ) it should be up to the league to decide, example, if something silly happened and i started playing elite this year i shouldnt be considered to be in the same boat as jon franklin or tim shea as they are wayyyy better than me! it should be brought to the executives attention prior to playing.

All in all i think the players should be alowed to play wherever they wanna play but the teams they join should get a backbone and decide whats good for their team in the long run and not just a temporary fix to win a championship. i dont feel there is anything wrong with playing lower divisions with some friends but if the league feels the team is "stacked" just to win then it should be discussed.

thanks for hearing me out fella's im looking forward to hitting the feilds and gettin picked off by all of you!

Arthur Garand

16 Posts

so with all this talking and everything, is there an actual bottom line here that something, anything will be changed or will it just be like last year with the same rule...or if the league even has a way to change it in mind or not

132 Posts

The executive voted to not have the multi-team player rule for the 2009 season.

2 Posts

I have a question about this 1 team 1 player rule, I like it, but does it mean that you can't sub for other teams if you play on another or does it just mean that you aren't "On the team" so you can't play in the playoffs? If its the case that you can't sub where do we get subs (because only registered players that sign the waviers can play right?)

679 Posts

Hi Pat,

With the current rules in place you wouldn't be able to sub using a WTFL player from another team. We are trying to come up with something to address this and think we have something close, but it would still need to be approved at the next board meeting.

Whether or not a "sub rule" gets passed, it shouldn't effect your plans for the season as you should be setting up your teams not to depend on these players.

2 Posts

You're right, it doesn't, some guys from my work are going to put together a team in a lower tier and I told them I would sub with them when I could, I just wanted to make sure that I would be able to, I guess I won't.