Forums » General » DID I miss something??

Messages for DID I miss something??

Comment Posted by Kelsey Oct 19, 2006 07:21 AM

Is there an explanation for why my previous post was taken down?

This is crazy. There was nothing offensive said about anyone other than those two brothers who deserved it.

I was stating the obvious with my other comments.

I'm quite taken back. Obviously I hit a nerve with someone, and I guess the executive doesnt feel like dealing with it.

NOW-I'm throughly pissed. It's not bad enough with what has happened in the past couple of weeks, but now we dont even have a voice.

so I ask again....

DID I MISS SOMETHING???

Comment Posted by Avengerman Oct 19, 2006 09:16 AM

Someone needs a hug!
Where's Laping when you need him?

Comment Posted by Kelsey Oct 19, 2006 09:26 AM

Email from Mark, requsting I post this for him:

First off, I would like to recognize and congratulate four quality gentlemen, Marlon Richards, Corey Hanssen, Suk Singh, and Ogo Okwumabua. Though it was unfortunate that they were only allowed to play two games at ToC for the Assassins they were great contributors and great teammates who consistently showed up for practice the entire year.

I have to agree with Kelsey and Mr. Singh, aka pippen33, there were many issues which showed be reviewed by Football Canada, Touch Ontario and the WTFL. The interpretation of the rules by various individuals leads to delicate questions concerning integrity and sportsmanship. Again, I would like to congratulate four quality guys as well as my teammates who made that tourny a real blast.

Let’s score this weekend
M.L.

Comment Posted by assassininexile Oct 19, 2006 09:59 AM

Kels,

It is to bad that the league has to censor truthful statements about tweedle dee and tweedle dum. I would have liked to read your thoughts on the stuation that occurred in the TOC, even though I sort of got brought up to speed(Bobby C). Good Luck in the finals.

Comment Posted by marcus Oct 19, 2006 10:25 AM

I would suggest you bring up your concerns with Cliff and Ed Laverty who were the ones actually running the tournament. Most of the people in the WTFL still don't know what TOC is.

Comment Posted by Kelsey Oct 20, 2006 09:08 AM

HEY TY-how the hell are ya buddy?? I thought my statements were fair and honest. To bad someone out there disagreed-or complained! TY-I'll give you a call tomorrow around 230-3, I'll have a sip out of the trophy for you!!

Marcus-I'm pretty sure that by now, everyone knows what toc is.

Funny that you mention cliff and ed. Cliff was only 25% of the vote at toc, 1/4 of the exectuitve. He did his part for us. The other 3, were Ed Laverty, and two Ontario guys.

SO thats 1 from Winnipeg, and 3 from Ontario.

I think one was from Landell; the team that supposidly complained about our sunparties guys. We found out later that the aforementioned tweedle dee and tweedle dum played a bigger roll in the whole fiasco-I mean how does a landell guy know who the sunparties are? especially when the "almighty toc roster" never made it out of someones gym bag.

NOW ED-I mean geez-ask Suk how hard it is to talk to this guy. They tried and tried and tried to speak to him, and all he did was walk away. SOO marcus-believe me when I tell you WE TRIED to bring up our issues, we tried the moment it happened, and kept trying all weekend. AND in fact are still trying....although my posts get taken down obviously because someone up there in internet land doesnt want this snowball to keep rolling.

if you ask me-it's bullshit.

Comment Posted by silver fox Oct 20, 2006 09:59 AM

A few comments from an old guy in no particular order:

(1) Good luck to all teams and participants in every division this weekend. I wish I was playing, but nonetheless, good luck to all.

(2) To be a part of leadership in our league takes some thick skin so to Cliff and all involved, my hat is off to you whether I agree with you all the time or not. I suppose we should all walk a mile in your shoes.

(3) It makes no sense to me why players can play on so many teams and specifically when teams are in the same division. So many questions and problems could be eliminated by simply keeping individuals on one team. I think it takes away from the credibility of our league, but that is just one opinion amongs many.
(4) Now to TOC:
Great weekend, with great competition, a true taste of Winnipeg weather (good and bad), and most importantly we showed the touch players around the country that we can play this game.
(5)To this novel about who plays and who doesn't, why wasn't this dealt with weeks/months in advance.....so simple, or better yet, just enter your own team!
(6)To the Assassins, our arch rivals nonetheless, I must say congratualtions. If I was a betting man, I would have lost money. You are good, but I did not believe you would have made it as far as you did so again, congratulations.
(7) Question for Kelsey.....Do you honestly think the added players would have made a difference? Who would you have replaced? Your guys collectively played well...tremendously well and it is a credit to all of them. The Canadians are a football machine....no shame in losing to that group.
(8) Another question that has not been brought up but did leave a sour taste in my mouth.....why would the Assassins lay down in the 3rd game of their pool? How many teams do you really know that would do that, especially in an "elite" division in a tourney of this magnitude......not good from any perspective.
(9)Don't be too hard on Laverty and the boys down east.....whether they were right or wrong in their assessment, these guys have put on some of the best tourneys I have ever been involved in down east.
(10)Lets correct some of these sticky issues going forward.....our league is simply too much fun to let it get dragged down by issues that could be dealt with well in advance.
(11)Man, I wish I was playing tomorrow.

Silver Fox (and getting even more silver)

Comment Posted by marcus Oct 20, 2006 10:06 AM

Kelsey, if the 3 were from Ontario that screwed you over then I direct you to post on the tfont.com site. Maybe they can do something for you.

Comment Posted by marcus Oct 20, 2006 10:10 AM

I agree with you Jim about the multiple players stuff. Even though my team is the one using all the guys from all over (and I play on 3 teams), I think it just causes more problems than it solves.

Comment Posted by Kelsey Oct 20, 2006 12:35 PM

I like this line Jim:

Lets correct some of these sticky issues going forward.....our league is simply too much fun to let it get dragged down by issues that could be dealt with well in advance.

I couldnt agree more with you. Thing is - we thought we had it all taken care of in advance.

To answer your question:
no. the canadians are the best team I've played against period. but a little help from a couple of studs is still a bonus.

good luck this weekend gentleman!!

Comment Posted by silver fox Oct 20, 2006 01:02 PM

Kelsey,

Fair enough..... Here's to hoping we'll meet again next year.

Comment Posted by gjk Oct 21, 2006 04:19 AM

"I agree with you Jim about the multiple players stuff. Even though my team is the one using all the guys from all over (and I play on 3 teams), I think it just causes more problems than it solves"

VERY well said..A player should play on one team PERIOD.
No is and or buts..
All these problems would not exist if this was the case.
A team that signs up to play Div. 3 shuold play players of the same
ability isnt that what a tiered levels are all about?
Its a joke having Elite players playing in Div. 3..I saw Elite
players playing in New Team Div..now thats sad...

Focus on one team....if you want to play more go play in the other league.

Personally this is the leagues way to create more team..aka.($$)...

My 50 cents

Comment Posted by spider Oct 21, 2006 11:22 AM

gjk

whoever you are.

what a loser!

Multiple team players provide teams with flexibility. The bottom line is is that it creates more teams and better teams.

Your comment is totally ignorant.

Yeah like a volunteer league is concerned with making money? NOT!

YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

Comment Posted by gjk Oct 21, 2006 12:07 PM

Ok will retract the $$$, I agree with you.

Multiple team players provide problems. (Have you read this thread at all?)

silverfox said:

"3) It makes no sense to me why players can play on so many teams and specifically when teams are in the same division. So many questions and problems could be eliminated by simply keeping individuals on one team. I think it takes away from the credibility of our league, but that is just one opinion amongs many."

Multiple team players provide teams that chose to play in a particular div. a unfair advantage.
They CHOOSE a div. that suits their abilty having players playing agianst them that are A LOT better than them isnt a level playing field.
Lets have the Bisons pick three Bombers to play on their team.
Silly isnt it?

YES IT IS!

I wont resort to name calling not my style :o)

Comment Posted by silver fox Oct 21, 2006 12:10 PM

To gjk:

Ignore the post above from "spider". You are entitled to your opinion and you presented it in a cordial manner. I don't know about the extra money comment, but that certainly does not make you an idiot.

Quite frankly it is the idiotic responses above that can knock this league down a few notches.

Darrell, if you really believe that a player should be allowed to play for 38 teams, then just have everyone meet at city park every Saturday and split into teams and play.....that has the same amount of credibility as what we do now.

To support your case, answer me this....how many leagues with any credibility at all allow this nonsense?. In your case as a high school coach, then why don't you lobby to allow kids from Tec Voc to play for Daniel when they play St. Pauls, and then let guys from St.Pauls' play for Oak Park when they play River East...and, when you get to the playoffs, pick three guys from whatever schools you want to play in your playoff game.

Now, convince me that makes any sense......and by the way, I won't call you an idiot!

Comment Posted by kirby Oct 21, 2006 01:27 PM

Darrell, are you on the exec? If so, when did calling WTFL members losers and idiots because they're expressing an opinion become part of the position? I would think it would be embarrassing to other exec members. If you're not on the exec, you're still an official and involved in other parts of the WTFL, so your name calling has no place in this forum. It's fine to argue your position as much as you want to or even criticize someone's idea or suggestion, but when you resort to name calling I wonder who really ends up looking like the loser or the idiot? Are you trying to intimidate people by calling them names? Because it does make people not want to express their opinions if they're going to get lashed out at.

You have to at least admit that there are pros and cons no matter what system is implemented. The opinion you gave above, somebody could counteract that by saying maybe more flexibility and more teams isn't necesarily a good thing? It's just an opinion, but I don't think anyone would call you an idiot over it. As for my opinion, if anyone cares or if it matters, is I don't know where I stand yet - but I understand all the points that have been made by others on this subject in this and other threads.

By the way, this subject should likely have it's own thread as it got completely away from Kelsey's subject.

(Also I don't know who gjk is - I wish we could make it mandatory for all forum members to use their full name or at least first name and last initial)

Comment Posted by spider Oct 21, 2006 11:41 PM

Kirby,

you don't know where you stand? ain't that the truth? Really? What a surprise? Isn't your butt getting sore from sitting on the fence all these years?

You are a bleeding heart. (hope that doesn't freak you out, oh,...sorry. Here I have some tissues for the man with the issues...)

Kirby, FYI - I am not on the executive! I ref a little. I have been in the league since 1976. I was around when the multiple team rule came up, a few years ago. I have contributed many ideas to the WTFL,Football Manitoba, and the Ultimate League Western Canadian Tournament. I do work as a volunteer to offer what I can to make football and touch football operate. I do work, not sit on the sideline and criticize without doing anything.I give freely of my time, to participate, have fun, and help out with football.

and Kirby, YOU can only be intimidated if you let yourself be. So get off the blame game, sympathy ploy. routine. sniff, sniff.

FYI - If you were around when the multiple team rule was discussed you'd have a litle insight. Spewing forth comments without knowing anything about it's history is speaking not from a position of intelligence.

Sure it's a democracy, say anything you want. However, when an un-named source, offers a comment, I have little respect for that. The WTFL has repeatedly asked posting members to post their name, not some obscure alias. My nickname is Spider. I believe if you click on my name it goes to my email. If you're going to post something at least have the guts to leave your name.

Now the comment, "The rule is designed for the league to make money??????" Geez! Yup, there's a legitimate voice of knowledge! The WTFL is bilking you the member out of thousands of dollars to pay it's executive. And yup it's you the little guy in z divison that's paying the freight. That's why the league introduced a"new team" div so new players could pay less, tryout the game with their friends, and then if they liked it, move up to the regular league.

The multiple team rule is a gold mine. Look there got the exec in all their Mercedes. Have a good winter planning meeting in Florida!!!

Does the Y2K guy have a name? Please! I have to respect an anonymous source???Uh, yeah, sure OK. NO!

Now- FYI- The Multiple Team rule...
The multiple team rule has many pros and cons. Period!
It does increase participation. Now, Kirby, I have no idea what you have ever organized, but for us recreational programers, participation is one of the top goals. I hear some of the exec, stating we have to drop teams! Because there are not enough refs or fields.

I know where they are comimg from, but clearly, have you ever heard of any organization limiting participation to solve a problem? Perhaps the solution would be to get more refs and fields. Maybe develop a field complex? Whatever.
Cutting teams is a horrible alternative.

Jim, you won't call me an idiot, but you already had...hmmmm! You're so pure

the WHSFL, in which I coach, has 3 divisions. Some schools have 2 teams. Some of those schools bring players up and down.It's developmental. Much the same as is the WTFL. Do I care if they bring down their top guns? A little. Does it piss me off enough to start whining? No not really. Maybe my team should try a little harder. What would I be complaining about? How good they are? or How bad we are?

Oak Park's catchment area at one time included Fort Richmond, Fort Garry, Charleswood, etc. Ever wonder why they are so good. Ya want to count the high schools in that area? Does that answer that question?

Playing against better players doesn't make you worse. Having higher level guys play at lower levels is only good for the lower level player. Personally, I would never want to play at a lower level, if I were a higher level player. What would a higher level player accomplish by it?

"Oooooh I scored a ton of points in a division of inferior skilled players. Oooooh am I good!" seems like a waste of time. Why not practice with your own div players, or a Bison or Bomber guys?

Like I said, the multiple team rule lets lower div guys experience the higher calibre play of a higher div., and then return to his own team and bring back what he has learned. Eventually, if the team develops, they in turn move up together, and improve the over all caliber of the league.

(Most of the new teams in new team division eventually move up, as they get better, whether or not they have upper guys, or just gain the experience after a few years.)

Now as far as the Elite div was concerned, again people making comments when they don't know the reason for the "rule." Well, first off, if the commentator had any knowledge, they would know that without some sort of "rule" to allow the lesser Elite teams to pick up players, there would have been only 3 teams in Elite.

Second, the other 3 teams would have been in 2nd, and half of second would not want to play them, and move to 3rd. The result would be that a bunch of "too good" teams would be playing at a lower level, thereby hosing all the divisions 3 -7.

Now for Christ's sake, would you want the league to encourage blossoming teams to stay at a comfort level and annihilate the competition every game, in that lower div, or would you want to encourage them to move up?

Well, I proposed that we move them up, divide elite into "A" and"B" and allow the new elite teams, to pick up players. Now picking up players does not result in the cataclismic example Jim Bell has inferred. Some players move, and some teams benefit. Some teams do not blend the new guys in.

However, my proposal did allow the Outsiders to move up, and play competitively with the Elite. Without my A/B Elite proposal, they would have not been allowed to pick up players to make themselves stronger. They would have probably lost the majority of their games and returned to B next year, thereby creating the same problem all over again.

Now, while I have not asked the Outsiders if they are staying in Elite, I would think they are. Now, perhaps just because the poor old aging Eagles were knocked out of the playoffs by the Outsiders, Mr. Bell is a little resentful, of "players playing all over the place" Well Mr. Bell, in case you haven't noticed, if you want a divsion where it's only you and the Assassins and that's it, and you'll get your butts kicked 80% of the time, I'd say my proposal works to your benefit. At least with a few new Elite teams, some of those newer players won't be able to catch ALL of your errant throws! :)

I do know it worked to the WTFL Elite Div benefit,and we had 5 competive teams up there. It DID work to 2nd div's benefit because it got the Outsiders out of there and enabled a new Champion to emerge. The Woodies came up from 3rd and allowed a new Champion to emerge from 3rd. Did the league improve? YES Did all the divisions have more equal competiton? YES!

Hmmm! so far this idea of player movement seems to be working. Improve league, more competitive play, improved players and teams......BAD IDEA??? I think not.

The Avengers, are terrific, as the new soon to be Elite Champions in the next few years. They (Jon?) has done a wonderful job putting together a terrific young team, that uses the benefits of the multiple team rule to their advantage. Without it, I doubt they would be as good,or that the WTFL would have such a great, up and coming team.

Jim,.....I don't want to be insulting:)but.....here's a suggestion ....next year, when you take your Eagles team down to 3rd div, maybe you can bring some Assassins, Outsiders, Avengers, or Sun parties guys down, and give your team some tips. oh yeah, and maybe get Kirby to call plays for you.

See ya at the AGM

Comment Posted by Crawdad Oct 22, 2006 05:41 AM

I was around when the multiple team rule came into place. Its intention was good. Develop new or inexperienced teams, encourage growth, allow players to play with friends and have a chance to move up, and even maybe promote expansion.
I think it has worked for the most part. We are at a point where expansion is working well...too well. Newer teams are becoming more experienced and competing well.
There are some problems with it. There is a fine line between the goal of teaching and stacking. Maybe we need to look at the number (allowing 3 upper players on lower teams...maybe drop it to 2 or even 1). Or maybe adjusting the definition of what or when a player becomes an upper division player.
My opinion is this I think we really need to look at the definition of what a upper division player is. I don't think a player who is historically a division 3, 4, 5 or new team player should be considered an upper division player the second they move up to an upper division. I don't think you can look at it from one year to the next and start fresh each year. If a player moves up who never has or maybe only has for 1 year...I am not sure that player should be considered an upper division player.
I think players who dominate or have played in upper division for a number of years should be considered upper division players if they move down. This will prevent so called stacking. Limit the number to 2 for upper division players to lower division teams. After all the goal for the rule was to teach and mentor new teams. Not stacking.
I hate using examples....because sometimes people take it personally. But I think it is necessary here. So I will just use Charger players as examples. Some examples of players who shouldn't be considered upper division players would be like Ian Falkenberg or Justin Steeves (same as some of the inexperienced players who where added to the Nomads and helped them to their great playoff run) who wanted to see the competition in upper division but had never played there before.
An example of players who should be labled as upper division players would be....well I am not sure any Chargers meet this criterea except for maybe Billy or Chad but they would be on the edge. Or if Perron, Billy, and Chad moved down to 4th division...the 3 of them would make any team down there better with or without the goal of teaching/ mentoring.
You may also have to look at how a player plays or fits into each division as well. Just because you have played division 2 for years with your friends may not make you a division 2 player. That player may be better suited to a lower division....so maybe they should be exempt from the rule. I don't know. Am I a division 3 player or was I and now would be more suited to division 4 or lower. I don't know. I think each situation needs to be looked at individually and even look at how the addition inpacts each team and division. Is their goal really to mentor and teach or to win at a lower level??
I know our exec is over worked and underappreciated but for this rule to work...it needs to overseen by someone (one or more people) who knows the league, the teams and the players.
I hope this comes across the right way. I mean no disrespect. I hope I have made some sense. Do with this what you please. Discuss, debate....or disregard. Just my opinion. I am not on the exec but have been. I am just a player rep (for the last year) who wants to see this rule used as it was intended and nothing more.

Brian
Chargers
#9

Comment Posted by Crawdad Oct 22, 2006 05:42 AM

I think Kirby was around when the multiple team rule came into place but I could be wrong.

Comment Posted by Long Island Ice-T Oct 22, 2006 06:00 AM

I think the 3 player rule is fine. I don't think we can easily define an "upper division" player any other way than it's currently defined. It introduces way too much grey area. And we don't need anymore of that.

My only concern with competitive balance would be allowing Elite level QB's playing in lower divisions. As far as I know, that is not happening. As a Div 3 player I would be more concerned with 1 Tim Shea versus 3 *insert great receiver here*. No offense to any of the big playmakers out there. :)

Vaughn
OC

Comment Posted by Crawdad Oct 22, 2006 06:47 AM

I think there is a lot of grey area as it is. More definition will still have grey area forsure. But the heart of the rule maybe better enforced.

I don't care if we stay at 3 players or not. Just want the rule to be used as it is intended and I think there are some occations where it isn't being used as such.

Brian
Chargers.

Comment Posted by DP Oct 22, 2006 10:54 AM

I think that the rule has pros and cons, but i think that if u are a player in multiple divs, you should be playing a different posistion in each div, it's not fair to come from playing qb in a higher div and playing the same position in a new team div, or vise versa! being a new player myself i see that this isn't only an issue in the new team div. I think that maybe having only 1 player from a higher div play in new team should be considered. and well i know that alot of people just like to play and want to play as much as they can..but playing a different postition in each of the different divs that u play on may be something to try for next year maybe 2 or three for the higher divs, but for new team it should be only 1 person so at least their is someone there to teach and for the newer guys to learn from!

Dennis #9
Stealers

Comment Posted by spider Oct 22, 2006 11:44 AM

The Multiple Team rule has produced some interesting comments. It seems more thought has gone into this rule discussion, as thposts have increased, and with great suggestions,by Brian,Vaughan and Dennis.

The forum provides a great opportunity to present ideas. Great job! Keep it going,and by the time the AGM comes around, maybe the vote to modify from 3 -2 -1 player may be made. Keep in mind that New Team div, already receives extra consideration. Making morework to administrate it, might not be a reality. It's kind of a nofrills division, with its intent to provide teams with a taste for the game.

Just a comment re: Brian's ideas. I don't think the exec has anyone available to monitor anything. Who would want to do that tedious unrewarding "traffic cop" job? My experience tells me, NO one. (No one has in the past anyways.)Maybe Marcus has glanced at the scoring summaries and has noted players of concern. I would think that would be all we could expect of anyone though. As Vaughn stated, the rule definition does work, andis clear. Some may not like it, but that is another story. What we have works!? Doesn't it? maybe not to everyone's satisfacton (re.: perceived "stacking?")

My suggestion. - Get better. New Team div is for recreational purposes, not competitive. If you care so much about"winning" Move to a higher div, and get better players....Rec/ New Team division is for playing with your friends. The amount of wins shouldn't be a primary concern. (Of course winning games is fun,but so is just playing with people you like, when they are all having fun.)

One comment about the membership, to the best of my knowledge, is that stacking has not really happened, and that the team reps have monitored it. That was my experience over the last three years.

Understandably, over time someone might try and take advantage of it, but on the odd occassion when it did occur, I believe the Prez did step in , and veto a "move" Maybe that would be a recommendation for the rule...add "on a case by case basis." As your point, regarding a guy playing one year for a few games doesn't really make him a higher level player (at least as fars as increasing his skills significantly)I can see that.

However, I know that as a future potential exec member, monitoring rosters, would not be a job I would look forward to, nor would I even do it. So keep in mind the reality of your proposal. Is it doable? As we know, on any volunteer board, maybe half of the group does the actual work on a day to day basis, while the others just show up for meetings, offer opinions, and do a minimal amount of work. To task the exec with more "to do" things, is probably asking a lot.

But....it doesn't hurt to ask does it?

Remember, if you want the rule amended for the AGM, it must be written, submitted and made available to the members a month in advance of the meeting. Considering that the meeting is probably in/around December 1st ish, now is the time to formalize something, and maybe post it.

Comment Posted by silver fox Oct 22, 2006 11:48 AM

Darrell,

I just finished reading your paraphrased version of War and Peace and I think I will wait for the movie; it has to more exciting and a better use of time.

For those that want to read quickly and move on;

(1) Why are you no longer on the exec?????? Hmmm!
(2) Outsiders beat us fair and square.....call us old if you like but we bounced back quite nicely to beat the #3 rated team in Canada the next week,with 13 "rostered" Eagles players. I'm fine with that.
(3) Further to (1) above; pleae stay off the exec and just continue on continually flaunting your Assassins banner....you're a great ambassador.
(4) I'm surprised you haven't gone after a street named after your beloved team as you can't get through one email without kissing their collective----s.
(5) In terms of your arguments above, some are good and some are utterly useless. Could you just say or write something once without cutting into somebody? I actually laugh at it, but it certainly has no place in this league.....please go and write on the lawn bowling website and leave this league alone. You had your day in the sun!

Kelsey had actually started a good thread here but yet again it soured when....

Comment Posted by Crawdad Oct 22, 2006 02:55 PM

Here I will make this simple....I think the only thing that really needs to be done with the rule for the upcoming season is redefine who is an upper division player. It won't really make any difference to players who are moving down but will make it easier for players to move up without their teams having to worry about the multi team rule. My suggestion isn't perfect and won't need much monitoring...I don't think.

My suggestion is this. Definition of an Upper Division Player: An Upper division player is a player who has played 18 or more games in a higher division.

I would like to make 18 higher (maybe 36 or 54) but I don't think we have access to past years stats....(Marcus do you???). There still will be some loop holes like new bison players or retired players that return and maybe some others but I think this is a start.

It would be easy to monitor as all you would have to do is look at how many games a player has played prior to signing with a new team. Seems simple to me. It would promote players moving up...not down. It doesn't solve all the grey areas with the current rule and may not address alot of the concerns being raised.

I do also think we should lower the number of players allowed to move down from 3 to 2.

I would volunteer to monitor this myself but I am not sure what my status for next year is at this point. I am leaning towards not playing at this point. I am not going to be the rep for the Chargers (Rick and Chad are taking that on) next year and will wait for the spring to decide if or who I am gonna play for. I consider myself a free agent at this point. Not that I expect a tonne of takers.

Brian
Chargers
#9

Comment Posted by ging11 Oct 22, 2006 04:39 PM

Is all of this really necessary? I think that if you can get guys on your team that can and will help your team become better, both in skill and knowledge why not? Three guys are not going to dominate the division and if they do, then its time for the surrounding teams to either get smarter or get better. I think its good for the league and it also allows guys to play on more teams in a league they enjoy rather than going elsewhere.

Comment Posted by DP Oct 22, 2006 06:52 PM

Right but when you got three player (and this is not intended towards anyone im just saying)...when u got three players from an upper div team that play together and know each others tendancies in a higher div then come to down to new team..well you better believe that those three players can win that game.

and darrell...if New team was intended to be for a fun friendly rec teams that don't give a rats about scores and points...then maybe it should be called REC DIVISION then doesn't matter who comes on down if it's all for fun and the beer can flow after to...but we came into NEW TEAM as a NEW TEAM and you better believe that we cared about what our record was! it's a long season and alot of dedication was put into that season and when it comes down to finding out that all of a sudden this new guy is on the other team that has never played there before but he is from a high div and score 20 points in a game...well how fun is that!?

i don't think that there is a league in this city that allows players to (a) drop down lower that 1 div and (b) let's players play in so many different teams in different div.

Maybe a rec league should be created for those players who have the time and dedication to play on so many different teams...and not use it as an excuse to shaft the wife and kids!!

Dennis #9
Stealers

Comment Posted by ging11 Oct 23, 2006 01:29 AM

Whos the guy that dropped down and was scoring 20 points per game?

Comment Posted by Long Island Ice-T Oct 23, 2006 02:13 AM

"i don't think that there is a league in this city that allows players to (a) drop down lower that 1 div and (b) let's players play in so many different teams in different div."

You talking a league other than touch football? Cause that "other" touch league allows it.

Anyways...can we please start giving examples of how this rule hasn't worked this year? Everyone seems to be throwing out their opinions(which is good btw) but I think we really need to find some iron clad instances from this year where the rule has hurt competion. I can only speak for my Division (Div 3) which was the most competitive I have ever seen it. My team had 3 upper division players ,including the scoring Champ in 3 divisions, and we didn't make it to the finals. It was a fact that any team in that division could beat anyone else.

Comment Posted by theprez Oct 23, 2006 03:24 AM

Whew! Finally got through reading all these posts......I think I should play video games instead...much less time consuming.

Cliff

P.S. I will have some minor comments to post later. I will also have comments at the AGM, time/date to be posted soon.

Comment Posted by Crawdad Oct 23, 2006 04:27 AM

If I start listing examples....and there are a few....all it will do is ruffle feathers and people will get defensive.

All I want is the rule to be used as it is intended. I am not trying to make it hard for players to move down. I want to leave that alone. Just make it easier for them to move up.

Comment Posted by kirby Oct 23, 2006 06:40 AM

Darrell you're 2 funny, so where to start?

1) Darrell, my post was all about you calling someone an idiot and a loser. I've seen you do that a lot on this forum. Find me someone who disagrees. I’m betting that gjk has played less than 2 years in this league, is probably in his early 20's and had no idea that this is a not-for-profit league, in other words new to this league and the last person we should lash out at if we want to attract more young players. No matter - you don't call him or anyone what you did for posting an opinion on a subject that obviously people have very different opinions about. Call me all the names you want, what else you got.

2) Darrell, not sure why you would say it's not a surprise for me to be on the fence - I don't think I've ever taken that position on this forum before or in this league, heck I haven't even posted a lot on here. You made that up, what else have you made up?

3) Based on what I've read there's lots of concern over this subject. Darrell, if you want to know where I'm at - I'm fine with the current rule (although not the part about being on 2 teams in the same division, more on that later) of 3 upper division players, it has worked for me and has allowed me to play on more than 1 team and it is pretty clear. But apparently it doesn’t sit well for others and I see where they're coming from. A lot of valid points are being made whether it's to keep as is (3 players), modify, or no multiple teams allowed.

Some thoughts:
- I think the #1 reason guys want to play on more than 1 team is they just want to play more ball, plain and simple. It's not for stats and it's not to teach or develop other teams (although that may be the main reason in a couple instances, i.e. to teach).
- The teaching and developing part is just a by-product of wanting to play on another team (in a lower division)
- someone like me going up to join the Outsiders from the Hurricanes is way different than, say, someone like Jeff Kull joining the Hurricanes from the Outsiders. But there doesn’t appear to be any easy way of separating the 2 scenarios and classifying them as different.
- 3 players can definitely greatly alter the complexion of a team or game if they're moving down from an upper division team to a lower division team.
- An Elite QB playing QB in Div 4 (such as Morningwood) should likely be a no-no, even for 1 game. If it’s truly for just learning and developing, you can do that from the sidelines or in practice.

4) Darrell, regarding the rule of having an A/B in Elite and allowing up to 3 players from A play in B (you know I hate that rule but I won’t comment on that part):
- If you’re not on the exec or on a team how could you propose the idea in the 1st place? Maybe I’m missing something here or maybe you were on the exec at the time? Just wondering. I mean, if you're not on the exec and don't play on a team what is your place in all of this?
- I believe the Outsiders were planning on playing Div 2 this past season. Without that rule 2nd is where we would have played. You say the Outsiders moving up to Elite allowed a new champion to emerge in 2nd, but it was the Woodies who won Div 2 last year, not the Outsiders. FWIW, if the Outsiders were in 2nd this year and if we didn’t pick up any Elite players, I’m sure we would have been in the thick of things with the Blazers and Mike B’s team, not creaming everyone.
- If there was an A/B in Elite how come the Avengers, who were part of the B group with the Titans and Outsiders, were allowed to pick up a player from another B team (the Titans)? Not that I care or that it affected us, but just wondering how that fit within the rule? Was the rule changed or was there an exception? Or was there really no A and B? And did he need to have 9 games played to play in the playoffs?
- And most importantly, (this part is not directed to Darrell) with the fact the league wanted the Outsiders in Elite, Why did the league schedule both Elite semi-finals at the same time on the 15th so that we couldn’t use our 2 players from the Sunparties??? In a time when we needed those players the most, we could not. I’m glad to have had a chance to play elite this year, but the wackiest thing and biggest disappointment of the year for me was when the league turned a blind eye to this problem. I said back in May on this forum that there could be problems with this rule come playoff time, and guess what, there was. So, did this rule really work??? I highly doubt it will be retained.

Comment Posted by Kip Oct 23, 2006 10:42 AM

One rule that we have in Team Handball is if a player from the B Division plays more than 3 games with an A Division team then they forfeit their roster spot on the B Division and now play for the A Division team. One added rule is that a B Division team has to be affiliated with only one A Division team to counter against them playing with a bunch of different teams. This way an A div. player can sometimes play on the B team if they are short on numbers to begin the season and vice versa for the B player. The B player can be called up to the A div. up to 3 times before he must be on the A team.

Now this could work in the WTFL if you say made a rule like only teams can be affiliated within 2 or 3 divs. apart. example---a div. 3 team can affiliate themselves with anyone from div 1 to div 5, but a div 5 team can only affiliate between new team to div 3. This could help lower div. players to play on an upper div. team once in awhile to learn a thing or two.

Just my stupid opinion.

Comment Posted by spider Oct 23, 2006 12:49 PM

Kirby, Great post! Glad I made ya laugh. Now we are even. I got nothing else. don't need anything. Just my opinion....just like anyone elses. Yea there were some weird goings on at the end of the year with that Titan guy and the playoff schedule. I assume the exec was pretty busy atthat time of year what with TOC on the door step. Your concern is apparent with many, from what I have read, and heard.

FYI I was on the exec, and contributed the Elite idea. Jimmy, I left the exec because I was intolerent of my hip pressure, and going to another event was not worth the aggravation. I also quit reffing over the summer for the same reason.....and what do you have against the lawn bowlers now???You're not in that league too are you???

Kirby,you don't have to be on the exec to make a contribution. Just do it!

Jim nice post! I know you need a win here, so, ok you win! Nice observation on the sun thing. Jim. Thanks. I guess it takes one to on one. Where you going?

Glad to se ya still have some spark....:)

and finally, Kip, that team handball rule has been in effect for about 15 years? and it still works? Might be worth setting up the "affiliation" system as a possible alternative, for the touch league. A div 1 QB in 4th is a little rediculous. Did someone actually do that?

Kirb, did you ever elaborate on the Div 1 situation you said more on that later(or was that just in reference to the same playoff time comment?) Hopefully, there would be more feedback regarding the Elite situation. I wonder what would happen if ya turf the flexibility of the player movement in that div? I think I know, though.

Comment Posted by Byatch Oct 23, 2006 08:41 PM

If we go with Kips Handball suggestion then all the teams will have some form of the Blazers in it.

Avengers, Avant Blazers, Pseudo Blazers,Blazers, Morning Woodzers...etc.

LOL

Good Suggestion

Thurston

Comment Posted by rd33 Oct 24, 2006 01:06 PM

I have mixed feelings over the multiple player rule as most. Nothing will ever be perfect. I am all for friends playing together and playing on as many teams as you like. The problem is when a couple of exceptions to the rule make a significant difference. Let's face it, Wayne Jackson is one of the best recievers in any league he will play in. If he has friends in Div 3 and that is the reason he is playing there then why not. It sucks that some of us can't cover him but that will happen when younger players come around against us older guys eventually anyways (just grab on, it may not get called and if you do it right there is no way it can be seen, this is touch! Is there a harder call for a ref in all of sports other than the charge in basketball. Ask Phil Samms.) It seems obvious that a position rule may come into effect but I don't like that either. Let's remember that we pay to play (and not that much compared to other leagues)to have fun, nobody has $$$$ signs as a motive. The executive and refs should be commended for their time and lets not make a big deal over a couple of exceptions.

Comment Posted by silver fox Oct 24, 2006 01:40 PM

I guess I am old fashioned when it comes to "change" on this issue, and here is what I mean by that. The Eagles broke into this league in 1989. We actually won the intermediate title in our first year for two reasons:
(1) We were all young and not a bad football team and we developed some confidence

(2) We may have caught a few teams off guard simply because we were new.

Our same core, probably 80% or more, stuck it out when we made the move to Elite. We got beat many times and beat badly some of the time, but when I look back this was part of the process in getting better and we eventually became one of the main stays in the Elite division. Keep your team together through thick and thin and you'll get better; you have no choice but to get better this way.I suppose my point is that your team does not become better by having guys play on several teams; as a matter of fact that might hurt your team and I think it hurts the league in many ways including:

(1) the scheduling concessions offered this year were ridiculous as a result of the above and this simply has to be done by a committee to eliminate bias and favortism....playing on multi teams should not even have to be considered when a schedule is drawn up in a credible league....and we do have a credible league
(2) come play off time there is a problem; for example, when the Outsiders played us and beat us in the playoffs this year, their next opponent was the Assassins...had J Kull been in town, who does he play for? Why put your league and team in such a horrible bind? Same thing could have been said for C.Hanssen, "Goose", etc.
(3) and all the arguments offered above

Perhaps "rd33" above is on to something whereby the real question is do we look at this from the point of view of competition and how this effects us locally and nationally as we saw here in TOC, or if it is strictly for fun then really there is no problem, and guys can play wherever they like. Personally, I think both goals can be achieved by keeping it simple.

I just think from a competition point of view that we really created a black cloud this year that resulted in a lot of questions which attack the credibility of the league.

I suppose this will be a key agenda item at the AGM, and I am sure it will be settled going forward.

Go Bombers.....Go Packers....

Comment Posted by jkull Oct 24, 2006 05:59 PM

Here are a few things that I have noticed over the last few years in the league.

1. There is a serious shortage of fields for touch football in the city

2. There is a serious shortage of refs for touch football in this city. Having any less than 2 refs is kind of silly, especially in the competitive divisions.

3. There is an issue in the first division as to who can play with who, who can pick up players from which team, and who is eligible for playoffs on which team. This needs attention.

4. There is an issue as to who can ethically drop a few division to play on a second team, and then when they do, which position should they be allowed to play.

5. Monitoring the rosters because of the multi player rule has almost become a full time job. Making sure that each team only has 3 players that play in upper divisions is a huge task.

6. Teams are somewhat prevented from moving up divisions because of conflicting rosters. IE. What do the Blazers or Aztecs do next year?

As much as I have enjoyed playing on 2 teams in the WTFL over the last 3 or 4 years, I really don't see how the league can realistically continue allowing players to play on multiple teams.

The main reason that the rule was brought in was to develop players in the lower divisions. Now, it seems that guys are just playing on a second or third team just to play. No teams are really getting better, rather adding guys from higher divisions to make them look like they are getting better. I think everybody would be amazed to find out how many players actually play on more than one team (pull those numbers Jeanson). I think that rather than the league actually growing, it is being watered down by the same players. It is basically taking away the quality of our product.

It seems to me that if you were to eliminate the multi team rule, you would essentially solve almost every problem that our league currently has. You would lose about 10 teams at least, which would then give the league scheduling flexibility, which is probably the biggest issue. You could force teams to move up or down without having to worry about who is on who's roster. You would make the executive's job about 100 times easier.

Think of it as crazy, but we are the only city in the country that allows this. If guys truly cared about developing younger teams, they could coach them. This seems to work in other cities.

My 2 cents. I don't mean to stir the pot any more, but it just seems too easy to fix.

Comment Posted by marcus Oct 24, 2006 06:18 PM

115 players or so that play on multiple teams.

Comment Posted by Mark Oct 24, 2006 06:37 PM

Here's my late night two-cents on this...

Being a team that has benifited from this rule the last year and a half I'd hate to see it go. No amount of coaching is going to help us bring in someone to play QB like we have gotten with this rule. Nerf would not be anywhere near as competitive without it.

While lack of refs and fields is a problem that has to be addressed eliminating this rule will reduce the number of teams but at the expense of a lot of players who want to play and had a friend from a higher division leading them.

The divison 1a/1b thing seems like it created a lot of problems and probably should be addressed but since I wasn't directly involved with it I can't say much more to it.

People want to play more. I know this directly relates again to the lack of refs and fields but it is a consideration. I've thought about joining a second team myself just to be able to go out and play more.

Its too late for me to think exactly what could be done but I definatly don't want to see this rule scrapped entirely.

Mark

Comment Posted by Crawdad Oct 24, 2006 06:58 PM

I agree with Kull completely....he makes sense. The goal of players moving down wasn't so you could have 115 people playing on 2 or more teams. It was so people could play with friends and mentor. Or so that is how it was brought up when the rule got put into place.

If your so interested in mentoring and teaching do that...even play during the regular season. If your teaching come playoffs the team shouldn't miss you that much on the field if you have done a good job all year.

I have put my suggestion for the rule change and will forward it to the exec for addition to the agenda. It would be helpful to know when the agm will be so I can know if I can make it as well...shift worker.

May also suggest...limiting the number of teams you can play on to two.

Brian

Comment Posted by nomads Oct 24, 2006 07:11 PM

The guys that play on multiple teams like football period. I for the life of me can't imagine them doing that for the purpose of stats or ego. If you want to do something constructive as a league I think you should follow what the ASHL hockey league does and re-align the teams at the mid season mark. It works so well in that league.
Glen

Comment Posted by marcus Oct 24, 2006 09:31 PM

Re-alignment would be a good idea, I think Regina's touch league does that as well (but I could be wrong)

BUT....

How can you do that with the multiple player rule still around? Lets take this year for example, if you wanted to realign the league mid way you might be inclined to take the blazers and aztecs and throw them into div 1, we know that wouldn't work. With the amount of people playing on multiple teams I don't think you could realign anything.

Also, with the new team division's alternate structure (less money, different number of games) can you realign those teams too? I think this year there were a few teams in the NT that could've been put into div 5 at mid-season. Now you have to charge them more money half way though...what a mess.

Some ideas:
1) remove the multiple player rule
2) eliminate the new team divisions
3) add divisions 6 and 7 as needed (for the new teams that just got nuked in step 2) which have the same fees/games as the rest of the league
4) shuffle the divisions at mid-season to adjust teams who are in the wrong division
5) add 2 tournaments (say one in june and one in august) to add more football for the junkies and to hopefully help prepare teams for tournaments like labour day, TOC etc. These don't have to be large crazy events like TOC. They don't even have to be on a long weekend and open to non-manitoba teams.

I think the league should focus on quality not quantity. If we want to continue on our current pace, we need to have twice as many refs, twice as many fields, and more people on the executive.

Another suggestion which I think has potential (if you want to keep the multiple player rule) is to make every player who plays on multiple teams also have to ref a minimum of 20 games. I still think you want to cap it at 2 teams per player though. And the 3 player upper div player maximum per team should be reduced to 1 or 2.

Comment Posted by Long Island Ice-T Oct 25, 2006 02:53 AM

Looks like abolishing the multiple player rule is gaining steam.

Marcus, exactly how does a rule get voted in/out? Who has a vote? Executive only? Team reps?

Comment Posted by Mark Oct 25, 2006 03:12 AM

As far as I recall if a rule change is on the agenda for the AGM all team reps at the AGM have a vote. I think the vote needs 2/3 to pass, details are in the constitution.

Marcus if you want a test of your SQL skills can you figure out how many teams had players on them that used the multiple team rule?

I still think abolishing this rule entirely is a bad idea and not in the leagues best interest in the long run.

Comment Posted by Crawdad Oct 25, 2006 04:16 AM

A. Constitution
The Constitution of the League may be amended at the Annual General Meeting, or any Special General Meeting called for that purpose, by a twothirds (2/3) majority vote of the eligible voting members present, including members voting by proxy. The changes to the Constitution must be made available to all eligible voting members twentyeight (28) days in advance of the Annual General Meeting or Special General Meeting

Comment Posted by Crawdad Oct 25, 2006 04:17 AM

I sent this to Cliff yesterday to be added to the agenda for the AGM. I am all for admending and tweeking.

My proposal to admen the Multiple team rule is as follows for debate, changes for the AGM:

My suggestion is this. Definition of an Upper Division Player: An Upper division player is a player who has played 18 or more games in a higher division.

I would like to make 18 higher (maybe 36 or 54) but I don't think we have access to past years stats

I do also think we should lower the number of players allowed to move down from 3 to 2.

Finally, you can only play on 2 teams.

Brian Crawford
Chargers.

Comment Posted by mbender Oct 25, 2006 04:23 AM

As someone who in 2002 lobbied the executive at the AGM to implement this rule (ability to play on multi-teams) I was met with quite the back lash about the whole idea of who would be considered a “higher division” player and I see 4 years later there isn’t much change.

The whole idea behind this rule was so we could increase the size of the league period. Back in 2001/2002 when I did the old WTFL website and was a member of the executive there was only 4 divisions with a total of 27 teams in the league (After 2 folded mid way in Div 3, anyone remember the original replacements?? Maybe if they had that rule back then that team and the other one would of stuck around) I can remember Mr. Mazur and I having drinks with other executives and wondering how we could increase the membership of the league as the membership had declined over the past few years, Now thanks to the new team division(s), Women’s divisions and Yes that multi team rule there is over 70 teams in this league, not bad when you think about where we were just 4 years ago.

Before the rookies get all concerned about “ringers” dropping down divisions and changing the outcome of games, 1 - 3 guys all from elite might change the game if they played against you but that won’t happen as I can’t see 3 elite players wanting to play in NT, 1-3 guys from div 2 – 5 are not going to make or break your season either, they just want to play so why the fuss?.

Having some guys drop down so they can get in more time on the field or play positions that they don’t get a chance too on their 1st division team (Ryan Martin, Jon Palmerton, even Chris Matheson as QB’s) that’s the point of the multi team rule, so guys get more games and their experience at a higher level will rub off on other players. I even played Defense in a lower division and lead my team in interceptions (had to throw that in  ) but now the guys I played with know how to play different defensive formations and next year without me they will be a lot better on the defensive side of the ball thanks to someone teaching them a bit.

I think plenty of guys just want to play on more than one team as 18 games are not enough when your off for 3 weeks in between games. Like Kirby / Glen stated, it’s not about stats, it’s about playing as much as you can in the summer. Look at guys like Brian Mcknight (6 teams he played for across the city this year and he runs a business fulltime) Jon Franklin (4 teams in the WTFL) others like Damian Mckenzie (4+ teams in 2 leagues?) Sure they were part of teams that went to the finals this year but how many teams benefited by learning from these guys?? A LOT. The rule did a lot more good then it has done bad and if you want to abolish it then that really is too bad for those 110+ players who took advantage of it, fine tune the rule, tweak it but don’t get rid of it.

I think the thing that has to be totally addressed in the off-season and should receive the most attention is not so much this rule but the lack of referee’s in this league. I myself did 80+ games this year, I doubt I will do that many next season, throw in other referee’s who probably won’t do as much and we already had far too many games with only 2 officials (if not only 1) that means that we will have a referee shortage next year if the league stays the same or increases in size. Forget this business about capping divisions, Like I said I can remember 4 years ago when guys were scared we would only have 3 divisions if teams kept dropping, nobody is going to turn away potential teams away now are we? The AGM is next month and you get to voice your opinion there, Yes there is a problem with the 1a/1b division, definitely address that problem as it seems like it is a sore point ( I know nothing about it ), The scheduling had it’s problems for sure, next year hopefully it will be better, moving teams around mid season might be an option but then it will affect the multi team rule. Regarding the referee shortage, maybe bring back that option that if a member of your team referee’s X amount of games you will save on your registration, How many more years can Kelm and Rhoden do 150 - 200 games a piece ? burn out happens. If you nuke the new team divisions then 20 teams will have to start paying full rates and will need 3 referee’s compared to 2, that means even more referee’s will be needed.

There are plenty of valid points made and the executives hopefully will find good solutions,

Glad to see I am not the only long winded person.

Marty B

Comment Posted by oreo Oct 25, 2006 04:36 AM

I think this issue has been blown out of proportion.
For the most part, the multiplayer rule has worked out, and I think we should continue using it as it is written.

However, this year, a change was made to allow a player to play on multiple teams in the same division. This only applied to division 1.
This change generated a lot of problems, and should be seriously examined at the AGM.

Corey

Comment Posted by jkull Oct 25, 2006 04:51 AM

Well, as much as I like to play 80 games a year, it is taking away from the members who choose to play 18. If the league grows at the pace that it is on, there will be NO league anymore. All of the executive will quit because it is too large of a task to handle, just for the sake of volunteering.

Unless the league finds more fields, more refs, and more volunteers, we have to look at ways of making things easier to run. I don't think the executtive needs to be dealing with rosters and math formulas. They need to be concentrating on getting better, not bigger. I could care less if the league has 1000 teams, but if we only have 2 refs and crappy fields and crappy time slots, you are hurting the league, not advancing it.

I am in no way trying to say that our current executive is not doing a great job. They are just in a situation that they have no time or flexibility to make any changes right now. Either a cap on teams or getting rid of the multi player rule seems like the only solutions to me.

Comment Posted by spider Oct 25, 2006 09:45 AM

Marty,

You and I are still in agreement. The rule has worked out perfectly.

The Div 1 rule was made to allow borderline Elite Div 2 teams a chance to use elite players. That also worked out fine.

One team, one guy tried to manipulate and basically break the rule, and that created some controversy. If the rule was followed as stated, and decided upon by the exec, there would be no controversy.

Players playing on more than one team will hve games at the same time on occassion.

Those who wish to shootdown the adjustment to the Elite div ,multiteam rule, are asking for a return to the status quo.

If the league does nothing to encourage Div 2 teams to move up, and provide them with an opportunity to add more players to their roster in order to compete, the Elite division will revert to a 3 team division. Then following a season of getting schmucked by the other two teams one will drop out. You will then have a 2 team elite.

The 2nd div will have a number of exceptional strong teams, and basically have an upper group and a lower group.

I guess it doesn't really matter. However, if you want to promote the idea of a team getting better (AND CERTAINLY ELITE AND 2ND DIV MIGHT WANT TO)what other ideas do you have.

I can easily see the Outsiders and Titans returning to Div 2.

I agree though Marty. The multiple team rule is absolutely fine the way it is. Just because one guy or two, or one team thinks they were taken advantage of is no reason to change the rule. Maybe the problem is with that one guy or one team.

The suggestion to modify it to 2 guys still seems to allow for all the "intent" as the original rule, so I could see that being an easy change.

The Indoor rule, features that a QB can only play QB in one div lower.(but with an addendum, that exceptions may be made on a case by case basis.- i.e. father and sons teams) That may be something to consider.

As Todd said, keep the ideas flowing.

Comment Posted by kirby Oct 25, 2006 11:01 AM

Darrell why do you keeping saying the multiple team Elite rule worked fine? Why not use the opinions of the teams/players that were actually effected/involved in this rule or at least from other players in the division to guage the success/effectiveness of it?

Comment Posted by spider Oct 25, 2006 01:08 PM

Well Kirb, since I have been in the league for a long time as both a player and a ref and an administrator, I figure I have a pretty good feel for the elite div, and the league.

So far you and Jim didn't like the rule. It is my opinion the league should be proactive, not reactive. I happen to believe you only get better playing better players and teams. To get more teams in Elite I believe the rule accomplished that. To that end it worked fine.

Again,it doesn't matter to me,if the league or division goes away from it. However, like I said, what's YOUR plan to improve potential teams? I put mine out there. and what did not work? One team and one guy circumventing the exec's ruling? A couple of games where a guy's team played at the same time?

The multiple team rule philosophy among the exec has always been, if there is a conflict, the player has to choose. On occassion that actually has happened.
So because it happened, the rule doesn't work? I think not.

and I believe someone else has asked for specific examples of where there were problems. I certainly am totally ignorant of hearing about any others. tell me si vous plait. Obviously if there are, boot it!

Comment Posted by oreo Oct 25, 2006 07:54 PM

Darrell man ....
I played the entire season on the outsiders, and had to miss a semi final game due to a conflict.
You would think the league would have taken some measure to prevent this from happening.
No one really cares about the odd regular season conflict, but to have this happen in the playoffs. That is a different story all together.

What ever happened to the old crossover style games.
You know 2nd div has to play a couple games against div 1.
Div 3 has to play a couple games against div 2, etc, etc

Comment Posted by kirby Oct 25, 2006 09:15 PM

Corey, I think the main reason the cross-overs were dumped is because there were a couple 2nd division teams that did not want to play 1st division teams. So the league needed a way to put more teams in Elite because 4 was not enough if there were no crossovers. Now Darrell, what about "you can only get better by playing better teams"? Shouldn't these 2nd div teams want to have a chance to play a couple games each season vs 1st div teams?

Darrell, I think there is more than just Jim and I not liking the rule!

Comment Posted by spider Oct 26, 2006 03:53 AM

Hey Oreo,

Your beef with the playoff schedule is undeniable. You got jobbed by the scheduller and the league. Why different times could no tbe arranged...I don't know.In the past the league has always tried to accomadate teams. Therefore I am sure the boys did what they could. This schedulling conflict is an entirely different argument though.

Kirb, I entirely agree with the need to play higher comp and the cross overs allowed that. However, as the scheduller, I do know it is a nightmare to schedule. You have basically laid out the sched so every ome plays once a week or maybe twice, and then you have to fit the crossovers in,and all of a sudden someone now has 3 games in 5 days or 4 games in 7. I hated putting out that kind of schedule. And that was when we had 30 teams. Imagine the problem with 60?

I believe the exec will be implementing some policies regarding team limitations (schedule requests, multiple team players, teams in divisions, this next season) I am sure there will besome complaints *as there always is) So you and Jim have a problem. Build a bridge and get overit.

Still waiting for someone else to suggesta way to move up B teams toElite and keep the great competitive level Elite had this season. Someone wrote that the EliteA/B concept is toast for this season. I wonder, how lousy it felt beating a top teamlike the Eagles, or when the Avengers beat the Assassins?

The multi-team player rule in Elite allows for those former "b"teams to add players to be VERY successful in Elite. Outsiders beat Eagles and Avengers beat Assassins. Without th echance to add players would have they? Gee that sure makes for a bad scenario. On any given (Sun) day,anyone can beat anyone.....hmmmm that sounds bad for the league.

Oh contraire, I would think that wouldbe whatany league would want. Competitive balance. And hey when EVER could yousay that about the WTFL Elite Division?

Jim Bell calls me an Assassin, yet when I suggested this Elite A/B proposal, the one team that wouldbe threatened by it is the Assassins(and the Eagles)because it allows other teams to pick up guys. Hmmm? How does that make me an Assassin. That propsal was for the betterment of the league.

And you can not tell me that Elite wasn't great this year.(Titans exception, but they gutted it out to their credit and were competitive.)

Like I said, who else had a problem with Elite, and feel free to suggest something else that will encourage teams to come up, and not go 0-18. Comeup with abetter solutuion. I amall ears.

The multi- team rule works as is. There are exceptions as has been noted. Easily fixable in Elite. In the other divisions, do we change the concept because two guys felt they were victims? For two guys?

DP are you complaining about Jeansen? playing QB??? OH man. No offence to Marcus but.....that throwing motion is like the militia throwing grenades.
Marcus was he talking about you?

Comment Posted by avengers Oct 26, 2006 06:22 AM

I think part of the problem with moving the Div 1 playoff game was the fact that the Outsider's request was put in literally just a few days prior to the divison 1 game (meaning we would have to move other teams who had their set schedule in place for over a month). If the Outsiders had requested a change when the schedule came out then maybe something could have been done - but they waited for nearly 4 weeks before complaining. (and no I did not do the playoff schedule!). Also, I provided many suggestions to Marc as how to potentially relieve the conflict but none worked out so the game was played as originally scheduled. Kirby you should discuss with Marc before saying the league did not at least attempt to faciliate the Outsiders request.

And yes, Jeanson throws like a girl (I on the other hand throw like a wounded duck).

Jon

Comment Posted by jkull Oct 26, 2006 07:04 AM

Just for the record, our request was put in 2 weeks before our scheduled semi final game. I think the point made before is that the schedule should have not had those 2 game slated at the same time to begin with.

Comment Posted by kirby Oct 26, 2006 07:19 AM

I don't think it was just a few days when we first told the league. Cliff said to me we had to get permission from the 2 teams involved to move our game to another slot. League should have had the balls to just move the game considering the new multiple team Elite rule they introduced. There was at least one game on the Sunday according to Cliff that the teams playing in it weren't decided yet so that would have been an ideal slot to switch with.

And I wouldn't call it complaining. It was a kick in the face from the league, even though it was not intentional. My beef is not the initial scheduling oversight, that stuff will happen, but why they could not switch it with another game? They had no problem moving the finals up or down a hour due to the Bomber game, why could they not switch our 5pm game with a 3pm game???

If we had noticed it earlier we would have said something earlier.

Comment Posted by oreo Oct 26, 2006 10:55 AM

Agreed,
The league should have dealt with it immediately. It is not like they weren't aware of the situation.
I don't think it should have been left up to the outsiders to make arrangements to have the game moved.

Comment Posted by marcus Oct 26, 2006 11:29 AM

Kull and I tried for a few weeks to move the game ourselves because I knew that game reschedules are the responsibility of the teams involved. After trying all the combinations (which is impossible since half the league has a player who plays on the avengers who played at the same time as us) then we approached the league. The only way to do it was to get a separate field at 9am or something which didn't seem too likely either.

Outsiders went with the flow. I supposed we could've complained about it until somebody caved but this is how it goes. We knew going into the season that this could potentially happen (same with if we ended up playing the sunparties in the playoffs). It sucks but it's done and I don't think that will happen again.

Comment Posted by avengers Oct 26, 2006 02:02 PM

I think it should be the responsibility of the teams to get things done if there is a problem with the schedule. Cliff made the schedule so that all teams in each division played at the same time (easiest way of doing it and no teams within a division can complain about preferences).

A couple of emails to teams looking to switch takes 1 minute to do and anyone on the Outsiders could have accomplished that. Marc also makes a good point, if you played the Sunparties you were in the same mess regardless, if you lose to the Eagles your point is mute, how many contingencies do you want Cliff to make when designing a schedule? If you have multiple players on multiple teams conflicts arise, either don't use them or deal with it - my teams know my priorities, if the Avengers played the same time as the Blazers the Blazers are looking for a new QB (although I would make every effort to contact teams to see if they would move a game with my team). You take your chances when you have such players on your team. Plus you would have lost anyway ;}

Jon

Comment Posted by marcus Oct 26, 2006 02:10 PM

Right Jon, but somehow your 4 teams had no conflicts. Not that it mattered in the finals going 1 for 4 :)

I'm just surprised that the finals weren't at 7:45 on wednesday. How did you get your guys there on a saturday? :)

couldn't help it, it's too funny. Enjoy the offseason boys (or I'm sure I'll cya at the golf dome).

Comment Posted by avengers Oct 26, 2006 02:29 PM

Again - I had nothing to do with the playoff schedule. Outsiders can rest easy, you guys can skulk back to div 2 and beat everyone down and be happy about how great you are (Again I am joking!)

Jon

Comment Posted by rey Oct 26, 2006 04:50 PM

there is no beatin' down the Aztecs.

Brownridge for mayor.
We're taking him with us to Div 1 by the way.

Comment Posted by pfpicass Nov 02, 2006 01:03 PM

wow, crazy subject, but i feel inclined to add my 2 cents.

i dont think it takes a scholar to realize if you play on 2 teams in one div, it could cause a conflict and to hold volunteers of this league (schedulers and execs) accountable is ignorant! players should hold some accountability for this special rule.

div two was a two team race from the begining this year. i played on the bowflexors who used no higher div players and introduced 4 new players to this league. we enjoyed playing those tough games and we only grew confidence knowing the only teams that consistenly beat us this year was blazers and aztecs. however, if you eliminate the rule for the first div. and drop outsiders back to 2 div it would have been even more competitive and implement the cross-over rule. we would learn even more if played against sunparties, eagles, assasins..etc. we would know how close or far we are from getting to the elite. if feel the rule that was used this year only held teams back.

move top two teams of lower divs up and create div a and b winners. ex. (will use div 1 and 2 for this point) :

div 1
assassins, sunparties, avengers, eagles a-side
outsiders, titans, blazers, aztecs b-side

div 2
blowflex, woodies, torsion, a- side
portable junk, st v, no d b-side

and so on....

just a thought

i agree with the reduction of teams if we cant get the volunteers to ref or the fields to play on. the league is much stronger that way.

paul

Comment Posted by spider Nov 02, 2006 04:46 PM

Paul

That is the solution!

There it is. That is perfect. That works for everyone. Plus, your point on teams with multiple div players is bang on. Obviously there is bound to be some conflicts of over lapping games. Guys that play on two teams should be aware of that. Obviously the league should make an attempt to accomadate teams, but suck it up buttercup, sometimes those conflicts will occur.

Great alignment for divisions for next year. That is bonafide perfect!!

Comment Posted by pfpicass Nov 03, 2006 07:18 AM

my example is used yesterday was a playoff format scenario if used this year

sorry if i confused

Comment Posted by avengers Nov 03, 2006 10:49 AM

The divisional alignment that Paul suggested would not work because of multiple players playing within the same division. If those players were forced to chose only one team then the Aztecs and Blazers would have to move down divisions. If players are allowed to play on both teams then you run into the same problems that occurred this year.

Jon

Comment Posted by spider Nov 03, 2006 12:57 PM

What problems? Players would have to choose if a conflict occured. Same as always

Move on.

Comment Posted by pfpicass Nov 03, 2006 01:25 PM

my example was not used for divisional alignment, it was a "playoff scenario" that could eliviate the problem of teams not moving up or afraid to try. it was evident that blazers and aztecs were too strong in div 2 and could very easily have competed with the bottom end of div 1. moving those teams up to create a b final in div 1 would make playoffs more competitive and not just div 1 but all divisions using this same alignment. at least half of the divs had 2 teams who seam to have ran with their divs.

if my memory is not too flawed, i believe both semi-final games finished early due to margin of victory in div 2, and was there not a team in the bottom div that did not even show up to their playoff game?
playoffs should be enjoyable for all teams and something to play for. what incentive is there for a team, if the reg season games were always a blowout or a big margin.

i believe this 3 higher div rule is a joke when the blazer team is made up of div 1 players who had no team to play on. they have all competed in a higher div. i excuse myself, so you have a team consisting of some avengers and former banditos who had no team this year and a couple of guys and 1 girl. okay, so you were able to avoid the rule.
aztecs had players from the freaks and doggs of the utfl who in fact were div 1 there and a couple of other guys. so, because they dont play in div 1 of the wtfl, they are only good enough for div 2?

i dont want this to seem like an attack. its meant to point the flaws of this system. i really did not mind playing against these teams i mentioned, i actually couldnt wait for the games. its just my opinion on how this post is trying to find a true definition of higher player rule and how to fix it. who gives a shit! if you want to stack then great. but if we want to encourage teams to "move up", this was my solution to it.

again, i only used div 2 as example only cause i competed in this div and really dont care how the rest of the league played out. pls noone take offense to this thread.

Comment Posted by nomads Nov 05, 2006 07:05 PM

Let everyone play wherever they want and then give the Exec. Cart Blanche to move teams around at mid season.(period)If you "women" have a problem with this then go play ringette.
Glen

Comment Posted by marcus Nov 05, 2006 10:24 PM

Then you'll have to remove the multiple player rule Glen, because you won't be able to move up a team because of roster conflicts.

Comment Posted by nomads Nov 07, 2006 06:10 PM

Marcus: If a player plays on 2 teams in the same division, I can't see where the problem would arise unless these 2 teams were playing each other in which case that player would have to play on 1 or the other.We actually have a goalie that plays for us the odd time and he is full time on another team in our division and nobody seems to have a problem. Where the problem would happen would be in the playoffs in which case that player would have to have x number of games to be eligible.I play hockey in the ASHL as well as a number of guys from our league do and this system works very good.
Glen

Comment Posted by marcus Nov 07, 2006 07:02 PM

That same system was used this year in elite and it didn't work out. Try again.

Comment Posted by rey Nov 08, 2006 04:21 AM

Glen, please talk to your speechwriters and have them work on their grammar asap. The concluding sentence above is atrocious.
It should read:

I, as well as a number of guys from our league, play hockey in the ASHL and this system works very well.

Your immediate attention is appreciated.
Thanks Glen,
Rey

Comment Posted by ging11 Nov 08, 2006 12:21 PM

I don't really understand why everyone is making such a big deal out of this. Football is a competitive sport right? Why do we need to baby the teams that aren't doing well? Why not just get better? If you do a divisional realignment then you're taking a team that has worked hard to get to where they are and throwing them in to a potentially season ending position. You could argue that that makes it more competitive and in some cases you would be right. However, what happens to the mediocre team that has a weak first half schedule, does well, then the divisions get realigned and now they're dead? Just leave the rules as they are. Remove the ability for a player to play on two teams in one division, allow teams to stay where they are and just play football like grown men. To use the Outsiders as an example, if I was in that division and they owned it year after year, I would want them to stay. You recruit, you practice, you get smarter, you get better and then de-throne them. There is much more pride in beating the best rather than crying so that they move up and out of the division.

Comment Posted by ging11 Nov 08, 2006 12:22 PM

Just so no one gets mad that I didnt leave my name, that last post was by...

Adam Gingras

Comment Posted by spider Nov 08, 2006 02:53 PM

Gingras

Where have you been??? It ain't the Outsiders(any team with Kull and Jeansen has to be good!)that's the problem, it's the dominoe affect of what happens with all the other teams.

The last three years teams like the Outsiders and Blazers REFUSED to move up! Were you at the registration meeting three years ago where the executive pleaded for the Blazers to move up but they wouldn't because they'd have to play the outsiders and were shit scared to!

We pleaded with them for an hour and a half, and in the end they stayed in 3rd, proceded to kick everyones ass, and a bunch of 3rd div teams complained.

A year later, both moved up, and guess what, both were competive in their NEW divisions, because they could recruit and use multi div/team players.

That's the facts jack!

Ya wanna move back to what it was a few years ago, and officially make it RETARDED??? and that's what retarded is...... Lets not have the league move backward, lets be progressive, and move forward. The only guys complaining about multi-team players are the guys who lost.

Multi-team players teams are great for the league. The Elite division has never been as competitive as it was this season. NEVER. (Yeah sure, two guys complained 'cause their team lost. Geez!!!!!)

The guys that should complain are the winners like the Avengers and especially the Assassins. That proposal of mine last year, allowed teams to stock up and go after the top teams. Those are the teams that stand to lose the most. But did you ever see them post a complaint about so and so stocking their teams with all these guys???? Never. (Well OK once!)

Wanna know why?

Because you only get better playing BETTER competition. So let those other teams stock up, or do you wanna return it to the way we were.

If so why play.

Here are Next year's division Cghamps.

Elite : Assassins
Div 2 Outsiders
Div 3: Aztecs
Div 4: Blazers
Div 5: Woodies
New Team (consisting now of 32 teams) South Side Trojans

That Elite Div was competitive!!! Hey, things change, the status qo changed up there. Adapt! There was free agency!!! Hmm must be bad. The NHL wants it, the NFL has it...Hmmm that is bad. The potential for a different Champion every year.

BAAAAAAD!!!!!

All ya have to do is recruit. All it means is that you have to replace guys who can't get it done with guys that can. And Hey, if ya don't want to fine. The WTFL has a division for older guys, or guys who have lost a step, find it and go play with your buddies.

And Gingras. Football may be a competitive sport, but this is Touch Football. Christ even the Assassins don't cut anyone.

Now let's get serious!

Competitive? Oh yeah right. How many practices does your team have a week? Send me a copy of your off-season training program. Competitive??? maybe if ya don't hurt someone's feelings.

Watch the Politically correct "website patrol" will condemn me for using the word "retarded" Sorry, it's a word, look it up!
Now c'mon Gingo, let's think of the consequences....:)

Comment Posted by ging11 Nov 08, 2006 03:15 PM

I think somewhere you lost my point of view. I DO support allowing guys to play on multiple teams. Hell I think its a great idea! I DO support recruitment. I agree that you shouldnt whine. If the Trojans stay in New Team, MAYBE they'll win (they didnt this year...we did..Six). I agree that you only get better by playing better competition. The only thing I didnt agree with was the divisional realignment, Spido.

We practiced at least every two weeks during last seasons off season. During the regular season, a few times and I played in NT1 (or as you called...the rec league where you should only be concerned about playing with your friends, not winning). I would prefer to practice twice a week. Its just not possible. I dont know much about the history of the league as this is only my third year, so I am going by what I am reading.

So I am not quite sure what you are going off about. I am for the most part in agreement with you. You do like to write though and I applaud your enthusiasm.

Go off in...3....2....1.....

Comment Posted by spider Nov 08, 2006 06:03 PM

Mistah G,

As I was trying to point out, Divisional re-alignment is always a concern. Plus the idea of competitive balance should be considered. Now the WT, doesn't place teams in divisions. The WT lets teams choose. Maybe that's the problem?

Maybe the Head honchos in their executive offices should just say who plays where. Naw I still can't get myself to go for it.

If you guys won new team, shouldn't you be movin up to three? and then SS Trojans would have a chance of winning it.

Then what's your suggestion for this divisional re-alignment? :)

Comment Posted by scott Nov 08, 2006 07:30 PM

Come on now D.
Blazers started in div 4, 2003 lost in final.
3, 2004 lost in semi.
3, 2005 won final.
2, 2006 lost in final.

We win the div three title one year, and get a poor rep. Not sure if that is just?

Scott

Comment Posted by kirby Nov 08, 2006 08:43 PM

"The Elite division has never been as competitive as it was this season. NEVER."

Darrell, no disagreeing here about that, but where your proposal fails immensely is come playoff time. Who wants to be without their 3 best players, (almost 50% of the starting offence in this instance) because either you're playing against them or they're playing on the field beside you at the same time?

Of course the top teams won't complain, because come the most important time of the season (playoffs) they will have all their players whereas as the team that is "borrowing" players won't.

Comment Posted by spider Nov 09, 2006 04:05 AM

Kirby,

You have two arguments. I fail to see their validity.
Your Playoff schmazel, regarding being shedulled at the same time, was rediculous. Whoever did the schedulling should be called to task. I agree, why couldn't either of your teams play at a different time. I think that problem is solveable.

The second problem, guys playing on two teams, and are not available for one team, due to a variety of reasons. This issue is unfortunate, but, it is one that the players face throughout the year. When this rule was first proposed, this issue was raised. The answer now is the same as it was then,....they would have to choose. Why the beef now?

If the loosing out team, can handle missing their "ringers" for a couple games, then no problem. (unfortunate, but those players chose to play for thir other team)If your team can not handle being "abandoned" don't allow those guys on the team in the first place.

That has always been the scenario with that rule.

From a developmental point of view, at least those guys played some games with the second team, and maybe what they brought, would have carried over. It has in some cases at least.

The problems your team experienced regarding schedulling are easily avoidable.

The problem of the "ringers" playing on two teams and having to choose, is just a fact.

Hey is there a rule that says they couldn't play for both teams during the same game? (hey I'm trying to think outside the box here) You know like in practice when the QB throws for both teams?!!

Scott.....quit whining. If ever there was a knock on your "family" it's that they seem to always play in a division below where they should. At least that's what a number of teams and team reps have said.

Personally, I like what your "family" has done. All that is left is to get a woman's version and a kids version in flag. Now , we know you guys are good, lets step up to Elite, get a woman's team and a kids team, and continue to blow the doors off the competition!

Comment Posted by kirby Nov 09, 2006 06:44 AM

Darrell, that's exactly why I'm saying this does not work when it comes to the playoffs - there's too high of a chance that you will be missing players to conflicts. This is different than just playing on a Div 1 team and a Div 3 team because there's an unlikely chance for any conflicts during the playoffs because each division plays in a different time slot and a Div 1 team never plays a Div 3 team.

Try getting the Blazers to move up to first, they'll laugh at you for that suggestion because they have 3 players playing on the Avengers. They would never do it.

I wonder how the Assassins or Avengers (or any other team) would have fared in the final game if they didn't have 3/7ths of their starting offence because they have players playing on another team in the same division?

Comment Posted by spider Nov 09, 2006 07:44 AM

Kirb,

If you are saying because they were Elite A vs. Elite B, a conflict is inevitable, I only agree if you are talking about Outsiders playing the Sun Parties. That would be where your overlapping guys would be forced to decide.

However the Avengers and Blazers have done it. We all know guys have first priorities and loyalties, and I would think that would be understandable.

Now if you are saying the league could not shedule the Outsiders and the Sun Parties at different times, I would have to disagree.

It's easy, you just pick an open date, or contact 3 teams to switch. As schedullers, Jon and I have done it many times. (Did it this past Indoor season one time. Albeit, the second request to change a game has not met with success. However, obviously no one wants to have that conflict. Sometimes it can't be facillitated, though. I don't know why both your teams had to play at the same time. and Yes obviously it is a piss off.

Your point here is understood. But this is just a one time example, that the league did not change for you. It is not a persistent problem. It is an anomoly. At least that is the way I see it.

To conclude, change the games when possible, but realize that if it came to be and the Outsiders and the Sun Parties, each from a different "sub-division" of elite met in the playoffs, one team would not have access to all of its players.

That makes things a little interesting eh? Who would choose to play where? Now obviously as the team rep, you know ahead of time where the guys loyalties would lie, and I would hope your team would be smart enough to recruit accordingly. Your team shouldn't depend on the "ringers" Just use them, Baby!

If the Avengers played in Elite A and the Blazers in Elite B, I bet they would consider it! Especially if the league says the Blazers are too good for 2nd div. Where they going to go?

And that is a great problem for the league. We are getting a bunch of 2nd div teams that can compete with the Avengers and Eagles and Sun parties. I think that is a credit to those players and those teams. That will definitly produce better league play, which will make those teams better when they play interprovincially. That will raise our standings in Canada, and make all those players better players.

I think that is great! See the TOC results. and the league play-offs. Those two finals Elite and 2nd, were awesome games.

And I think that is pretty cool! Don't you?

Comment Posted by scott Nov 09, 2006 09:11 AM

I think the three player rule is possibly the best rule the Wtfl has. Maybe we could look at having a div 4 and higher qb limit rule for the new team. Draft well, and get ready to play some ball in May! There would have to be a trophy for div1 and 1b though.

Scott

ps. Kirby,D,Aztecs,warm beer,Rey,Glens's monkies, Wtfl powder blue t-shirts.These things all suck.

I do want to put a few things on the table for Dec 2nd. What is the procedure?

Comment Posted by kirby Nov 09, 2006 09:18 AM

Darrell, you still don't get it....or at least you're not admitting to it :)

Judging by Jon's last post, I think you're the only one left that likes the idea of guys being able to play on more than 1 Elite team.

Comment Posted by jkull Nov 09, 2006 10:18 AM

Scott,

Do you have a powder blue t-shirt to complain about :)

I agree with Darrell in the sense that we were all aware of the possibilities of the teams matching up. The simultaneous games are avoidable, but I still don't think that most players in the elite division liked the idea of players playing on multiple teams. It was just my observation. I thought it worked out OK all season, with the exception of the playoff schedule.

As for the multi team rule, we all like it. We all love playing 80 games a year, but this year with 2 refs at the game....that sucks. The rule is starting to take away from the quality of the game. If the league sticks with it, I hope the new executive finds a way to solve their current downfalls - refs and field availability. Otherwise the league will continue to baloon as the fresh new legs in the league start playing on multiple teams.

Comment Posted by marcus Nov 09, 2006 11:20 AM

Why have 1a and 1b? In the past we had a 1b, it was called Div 2. Div 2 played some crossovers against 1 but had their own playoff stream. Bring this back.

Comment Posted by scott Nov 09, 2006 01:28 PM

Mr Kull, yes I do, but I wanted two. speaking of two, yep got the mug too..., if fact two.

Mr five team Scott

Comment Posted by scott Nov 09, 2006 01:41 PM

Congrats on the mug, don't think we spoke about that one. Of course, I didn't get the powder blue I most wanted.

I guess the Aztecs and Blazers will see the Outsiders and Titans in a very good div two next year. You can now end the thread.

Comment Posted by nomads Nov 09, 2006 05:46 PM

It's Story Time.
You know a long time ago 25 years or so I learned a very valuable lesson. And here it is. Before taking any advise from someone check the fruit on the tree of the person giving the advise. If you don't like the fruit then don't accept the advise. I'll break this down for the monkees. If the person giving the advise has achieved a goal that you would like for yourself then accept it, if not chuck it in the garbage. In the case of the ASHL Hockey league system I would defy anyone to say that their end result does not work. We have very competitive hockey in the league.
Glen
P.S. Check out my tree.Those of you who know me know my tree.

Comment Posted by scott Nov 09, 2006 07:48 PM

This is for myself and Glen to refer to, Monkey,Monkeys. Since we use one or the other in every post we make.

Later

Comment Posted by rey Nov 10, 2006 05:38 AM

Those of us (from the WTFL Football League) who have read your posts know that the fruit your twig produces tends to be a bit on the sour side.
A long time ago I learned that fruit sitting on the kitchen table for 25 years belongs in the garbage.

Comment Posted by marcus Nov 10, 2006 06:55 AM

There is no fruit left on that tree. The damn monkeys ate it all!

Comment Posted by nomads Nov 12, 2006 03:50 PM

I'd love to play poker against you guys. Your responses are seen coming before I even start typing.Typical 64 IQ thinking. It's not your fault.
Glen

Comment Posted by rey Nov 12, 2006 05:43 PM

that's the best thing about being stupid...self-awareness is simply not an issue.
at any rate, you keep serving them up and i'll keep swingin' for the fences. it's a tough life, sigh, but nobody said the home run king had to have the biggest bat in the clubhouse.

the only reason me scored so badly on youse i q test was because me don't like taking tests and all that. plus, me was nervous, and i forgot to use capitals.

also, if you add up all my personality's iq's, my total is well over 200.

Comment Posted by nomads Nov 13, 2006 05:24 PM

rey: good response. You have now moved up to 99 IQ
Glen

Comment Posted by pippen33 Nov 20, 2006 08:40 AM

im not sure it matters what you end up doing with this multiple player problem ...because its not like the league exec's enforce it anyway...they had clear rules this year about multiple players, but in the end let the teams ask eachother for permission to use ineligable players....i mean we played against a player in the semi's who the next week wasnt able to play in the finals....why was the decision about him playin left up to me or any other team member...im not a league exec....so before we make any new rules and regulations lets find some people who have the balls to enforce them...as a league exec you have to be able to make the tough decision...even if it means people gonna be sour wit you....so before any regulations are made lets start at the top.

suk

Comment Posted by spider Nov 20, 2006 09:02 AM

Hey Suk-ster,

You have a great point. I wonder why they messed wit you all.
All I know is I have lots of balls. So many, I can even sell some to you. Like I said earlier, If anyone is looking for a Wilson CFL composite ball, I have some on sale for $30.00. A nice Xmas present, so.....

Just an update, from what I've been hearing around the dome. The word is, the league is going to get very very tough on the Elite, New Team, multiple team rule, , and number of teams.

From what I hear, everyone better start planning on their divisions, pronto. And as far as Elite and 2nd, the talk is they are going (because of all the whining from some)back to the way it was. Elitism and only the strong will survive. I guess they want to weed out some of the "never weres" and deadwood.

New team is in for a modification, and re-classification. I doubt upper div players who want the stats will be down there again.

Of course this is all just the scuttlebutt from the Dome, but of course some of the execs are there, so draw your own conclusions. It's getting interesting

Comment Posted by marcus Nov 20, 2006 09:25 AM

Suk, I couldn't agree with you more. I argued against the player in question's eligibility and last time I checked the exec ruled he couldn't play. What happened after that is total horseshit.

Comment Posted by pippen33 Nov 20, 2006 08:21 PM

Darryl thanks for the offer...but my gonads are big enough

Comment Posted by nomads Nov 21, 2006 07:02 PM

What we need in this league is an absolute dictator with no accountability. That is the ideal. Everyone who disagrees with the dictator will be shot.Things would then run smoothly. I hereby would like to nominate Darrell as the absolute, seeing as how he has nothing better to do anyway and he is a nice dictator.
Glen

Comment Posted by spider Nov 22, 2006 03:18 AM

Thanks buddy!

Nomads play for free!

Bell

You must be logged in to post a new message.

Proceed to the signup page to create an account if you don't already have one or login if you already have an existing account.

Various icons used from the Silk Icons library.

www.redzoneleagues.com