WTFL Wpg. Touch Football League - WTFL

1155 Posts

This forum is dead.

Suggestions for Next year?AGM is on a Thursday in November. Is that good or is a Saturday late morning better?

1.) Reduce " peripheral" teams. - rationale- less games to schedule, ref. We are the biggest league in the West, if not Canada. With that comes organizatonal problems
2.) All divisions pay same price. - rationale- less games to schedule, ref.
3.) Or modify rec div. 1 hour games, (like Indoor) 12 game season, 1 ref (it is "rec")
4.) Players that play on more than one team would be required to sideline or other 10 games,after taking ref clinic level 1.
5.) Bring back Spring Tournament June 20/21/22, featuring Div 4 5 6 Rec and Woman.
6.) make AGM attendance mandatory,(1 re per team) or face a $100.00 fine added to your next year's entry fee. Alsoif owed money, pick up at AGM
7.) Bud Spud and Steak, Pig Roast at tiajuana's registration Night. All teams must bring their certified payment, and there player insurance/registration forms with payment of 12 players minimum/team x $15.00, to that meeting. Pick up parking passes, souvenirs and year end banquet tickets (10 per team)
What else?

40 Posts

Cap the number of teams in the League?

679 Posts

I think everybody would agree that the demands on the league are currently greater than the resources available. (Let me translate for the people confused: This means we have too many teams for the number of refs/fields/volunteers).

You can't fix things overnight. Some ideas will take a few seasons to correct. Before trying to change anything, people need to understand that you can't make everybody happy. If you can make most people happy, or even piss everybody off for a really good reason, then you're going in the right direction.

Let me begin by pissing some people off:
1.a) Remove the multiple player rule.
This doesn't mean let people play on as many teams as they like. This means everybody gets to play on 1 team.
PROS: Simplifies the entire league. No potentially confusing roster scenarios. Enables the ability to divide the season into 2 halves where you can reshuffle the divisions. Some teams would have to fold because they wouldn't have enough players.
CONS: For the 10% of the league that wants to play on multiple teams(myself included), they would have to play in one of the other 2 leagues in the city to get their fix.

1.b) Since I know you won't remove the multiple player rule, then at least make each player pay $20 for each extra team that he/she wants to play on. For the last 2 years we've had over 100 players on multiple teams so you could bring in a lot of cake with that. And also make them each ref. I still like option (a) above better. It's easier to manage, and makes more sense.

2) Cap the number of teams in each division and cap the number of divisions in the league. This league isn't a "for-profit" league, so there doesn't make any sense in being bigger and bigger. Quality over quantity.

3) This ties into #2 above. Teams from a previous season can pay a non-refundable deposit several months before the season starts to hold their spot. Also, if they don't show up to the AGM they automatically lose their spot and they go into the waiting list with everybody else. So yes, next year it's theoretically possible for every team in the league to reserve their spot. It's ok, we know they won't.

4) Remove rec divisions or any division that doesn't pay the same rate. Make the entire league follow the same rules. Same number of refs etc.

5) Forget having year end banquets and stuff like that. Focus your energy on what most people want: A schedule that fits their schedule, good quality lined fields and 3 certified refs at each game. The rest is a bonus and should only be performed when the required stuff is done.

Other ideas that might not piss people off, but I'm ok if they do:

1) Change the insurance for a team to a flat rate. Figure out what the average team has and run with that. The UTFL does that and it's much easier to manage from both a team captain perspective and from a league perspective.

2) Assuming you can reduce the number of teams and number of games, it should be possible to free up some weekends in the summer. Those weekends could be good spots to host local tournaments for the people who aren't getting enough football in their diet. If you did one a month like they do out east, you'd easily get your bonus football in.

3) Pay refs what they are certified at/worth. If you are a level 3 certified ref you should get paid that rate regardless of what ref position you are doing. In my opinion, the WTFL refs are best refs in the country. (sure I've only played football in 2 provinces but that's besides the point). In particular, our experienced head refs are top notch, and when they are doing a back judge job they are still top notch. This also would hopefully encourage people to get certified at the highest level they can.
Note: I haven't done any math on this to see if it's feasible, but I know it's being done somewhere else and seems to work just fine. This would imply removing the reffing bonus for large number of assignments.

4) Reduce the season to 16 games.

I got more ideas, but I'm done for now. Feel free to delete this post, but please add it to the AGM Agenda.
Thank you.

57 Posts

Further to JaMarcus...

1. Given that the Multiple player rule will never die(I wish it would), at least cap it to 2 teams per player. More specifically, a player is only allowed to drop 1 division lower.

2. Agree with capping the teams. If we do this from here on in we can adjust the registration based on demand (Economics 101) for the future. Plus it will make scheduling refs a helluva lot easier knowing the amount of teams is fixed.

3. Agreed 100%.

4. Agreed 100%.

5. Agreed 100%.

96 Posts

I personally don't like the multiple player rule, mostly because it prevents the executive from doing the right thing.....moving teams up/down. There seems to be too many conflicting rosters that prevents the league from doing anything. What is the league to do with the team that wins division 1? All of these teams have the max amount of elite division players. If these teams were forced to move up, in all likelihood they'd probably fold.

Unfortunately the league is in too deep and they'll probably have to stick with it. Marc has the right idea though, that if we freed up more time on the weekends with a lighter scheduling load, it would open up more opportunity for local tournaments, a July long tournament...etc. Right now we can't even reschedule our own league games because of too many teams, too little days.

In response to Vaughn, the purpose of the multi-team rule was to bring experienced players to new teams to act as a player/coach. Limiting their ability to drop down more than one division basically eliminates the true purpose of the rule. I do however like the idea of limiting the number of teams to 2 max.

Capping teams, that's easy to do and definitely should be done. But, the women's side has seen some huge growth in the past few years. If they continue to grow, it will have to be at the mens expense.

Remove rec division definitely.

132 Posts

I had suggested that we limit the number of teams a player can play on last year at the AGM , but it got voted down. I am all for it and I myself play on two teams. Maybe this year I 'll have more backing :-)

44 Posts

Some good ideas in this thread.

If the multi-team rule is eliminated I would like to see a rule that allows a player from another division to spare for your team outside of playoff games. I would suggest a 3 game per season cap on that player playing for your team. It gives the teams some flexibility to field a team if they short guys without having to rely on a reschedule or giving up a default.

I also really like the idea that every team must send a representative to the AGM. Since this is a volunteer league I think it is asking very little.

679 Posts

Captainwoody, limiting the number of teams a player can play on doesn't help too much because the majority of multiple team people play on 2 teams.

Here's some rough numbers:
117 People on multiple teams:
2 people on 4 teams
15 people on 3 teams
the remainder on 2
(total league is around 1100 or so)

Why are these numbers rough? Some of these people are on multiple rosters, but only played a single game etc.

I was in the group that created the multiple player rule, and I've used/abused it as much as anybody. But there comes a time when you have to look at it and say "that was a bad idea". To my knowledge, nobody outside of Manitoba allows this type of thing. Are we to believe that we're that much smarter than the rest of the country? Maybe we are, but not in this case :)

For those of you who think the multiple rule is a great way to make lower division teams better by adding an experienced player to their roster, I would have to agree with you. However, look at it from a league perspective. What's the goal here? To build a massive army of good teams to do exactly what with?

I think you could accomplish the same thing with having more local tournaments here. Start with bringing 1 tournament back and then build up on that each season. Having a rec only tournament though is sort of stupid. We should also be offering the tournament(s) for all levels, especially since it's mostly the higher levels who will actually travel out of town to play in other tournaments and they could use the practice.

40 Posts

I like the Rec division. It's easier to recruit a team of busy people when the season is only 12 games long.

I also like playing on two teams. I think we are in too deep to change that rule, but making them ref sounds like a fine idea to me.

679 Posts

I think anytime you force people to ref though, you get lower quality reffing. It also doesn't solve the field issues.

What is the WTFL's purpose? To provide people with as much football as they want, or to provide them with football? I also like playing on multiple teams, but I'd rather play less games on higher quality/better location fields, with refs who aren't working 5 shifts in a row.

There are a few leagues that actually break their seasons into 2 seasons. So at the midpoint you could shuffle teams around to get the better fit. This is do-able, but not with the rule in place.

Having a rec division have less games is fine. Less games is easier for the league to manage.

Lets keep in mind though, 10% of the league actually plays on multiple teams. Sure this number would be higher if we didn't cap it at 3 per team, but 10% is still 10%. I'd be willing to make 10% of our league unhappy(including some of my teammates) in order to make the quality of the league better for everybody else.

1155 Posts

The multiple player/team rule really is a great rule. It allows inexprienced teams to pick up knowledge and talent and probably increases their competitiveness 50%.

This rule has also allowed a couple teams, or three or four to rank in the top teams in Canada. It has made the WTFL Elite Div into an incredible football division, with four excellent teams.

Other provinces are using multi -team/player rules. Two of Manitoba's players, plays with a team in Ontario, at all the Trillium Cup tourneys. Regina uses all-star teams. So did Vancouver women and Edmonton. Granted that was for Tournaments.

The W allows that all year long!!!not just tourneys.It just makes teams better.

Therefore, we are not the only league that allows multiple team players.(from a guy who has played in every province except PEI and NFLD)

However, it may be time to modify the rule and narrow down the options....Maybe only two upper div studs on a lower team. The intent is still prevalent. Older, experienced guys helping out newer guys, BUT.....less likely to be such a significant factor as the current three stud, policy.

The W picked up a ton of teams with the Rec/New Team league/reduced fee. That was my idea. Now it has worked too good. If we end that, so be it.

Glad to see there is some support for a shorter number of games/season. That will free up weekends. That will allow the opportunity to play a tournament

1155 Posts

OH yeah

How about not inviting back those teams that defaulted games. That priorized registration Marcus? spoke of also sounds good. Basically all the old established (returning teams have first dibs at a division,)

112 Posts

How about making sure there are 3 refs at all games where the Divisions have paid for it.
Almost all the games we played at Little Mtn this year it was either 1 or 2 fields in use (at least when we were playing) I'm sure better scheduling can be accomplished.
Rec Div is a good way to bring in some new teams, I dont think getting rid of it is the right move. They pay less, play less and get 1 less ref. (Though most times we get 2 refs anyway). Just cap the amount of teams in that DIV.
Also, not having Refs that are playing in the same DIV they are reffing would also be a bonus.

112 Posts

Also, not having Refs that are playing in the same DIV they are reffing would also be a bonus.

44 Posts

Less teams/games or more refs is the only way to make sure there are always 3 refs at a game and to have all fields at Little Mountain going on weeknights. I might have just been lucky this year but I noticed less games with 2 refs both when I was playing and reffing.

And I'd love to not ref in my division, but same problem as always, not enough refs.

23 Posts

how about combining some of the upper divsions, seems as though all the guys play on multiple teams, as well, they all play each other anyway during the season. Meaning do not Elite and Div 1 play against each other? This would drastically reduce the number of feilds and games and and refs needed, no?

23 Posts

how about combining some of the upper divsions, seems as though all the guys play on multiple teams, as well, they all play each other anyway during the season. Meaning do not Elite and Div 1 play against each other? This would drastically reduce the number of feilds and games and and refs needed, no?

23 Posts

anyone else find it odd, that as soon as we start taking about changes to the upper divsions, no one talks anymore. could it be that it was a good idea ?

1155 Posts

Hey Cmack. By combined, if you mean they play each other. Didn't we just do that a couple years ago, and all the lower div teams complained.

Seems like either way, people are bitchin?

23 Posts

do they not play each other during the season anyway, like the top few divisions?

1155 Posts

Sorry. Now I am confused ..Elite Div 1 and 2 all used to play each other. Was there 1 cross over still this year? Man this year seems like ayear ago?

Anyway, bitching did occur with in those 3 divs. The format this year was similar,but the teams seemd to accept "like" it??

Anyway it produced some good ball.

Just a note, I don't think the league has/had a problem with the established teams and their multiple players. I think there was more of a problem with the lower teams using multiple guys. and then second,.... Check out the defaults with the lower div teams. We will probably address that sternly at the next planning meeting following the AGM.

Not sure how we can do it, but the idea of a tournament is really something we should actually do. There is so much more fun to be had over a weekend with a bunch of people that like to play TFB. Regina, the Nationals are actually fun. Plus teams get really good competition..way better than league play.

I think Winnipeg is missing out not having a couple or certainly one tourney. I can get my "fix" at Regina and Nationals, plus others. However, for those that haven't experienced it.....I think you are missing some better parts of the sport! Food for thought?