Frequently Asked Questions
Addendum - Ladder Format: Revisited with 30 to 40 Teams
Last Updated: 2022-05-01

Question:

Were we correct in our assumptions that this format would be superior over a traditional ladder structure?

Background:

Per the conclusion on our inaugural season, it was determined that adjusting the format of the league to A, B1, B2, C1, and C2 (then eventually to A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, and C2) would be the way forward. Unfortunately, in the years following the club saw low membership numbers and so we were unable to test our theories.

However, we did eventually reach the 33 team milestone in the 2017-18 season and again in 2018-19. In the 2019-20 season, we exceeded our expectations and hit the league hard-cap at 40 teams.

Observations and Conclusions:

Note: Observations will ignore any issues arising from “imperfect” team numbers (such as improper round robin issues) that exist in all league formats. In this leagues case, perfect team numbers are multiples of six: 18, 24, 30, 36, 42.

A, B1, B2, C1, and C2
Pros:
  • Lots of movement between flights which certainly solved the primary issue we had with the modified ladder format in previous seasons
  • While there were now 12 teams instead of 6 competing for the same 2 spots to A Flight, the Overall Rank / Playoff Seeding was far less dependent on A Flight experience throughout the season. While unsurprisingly, the top 3 results in the league were held by teams who played all 4 series in A Flight, the rest was quite surprising. Looking at overall rank, here is the number of series spent in A Flight by each team:
    • A Playoff: 4, 4, 4, 0, 0, 2
    • B Playoff: 0, 3, 2, 0, 0, 0
    • C Playoff: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 3
    • D Playoff: 2, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
    • E Playoff: 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
Cons:
  • Teams that bounce between A and B appeared to be punished in the standings, especially when compared to teams who never made it to A flight. It is hard to pinpoint if this as an issue with the format (especially when the format is designed not to punish skilled teams in lower flights), an issue with the points system, or an issue with the handful of “A+” teams that exist within A flight.
  • Regardless of the underlying issue, due to the higher number of teams competing in B Flight, there are convincing arguments that you’re better to say behind in B Flight than be promoted to A Flight. For instance, some 2017-18 results:
    • Goll (133Pts - 17W - 3L) - 0 A Flight Series
    • McLeod (117Pts - 15W - 5L) - 0 A Flight Series
    • Keene (112Pts - 14W - 6L) - 0 A Flight Series
    • Henricks (105Pts - 11W - 9L) - 2 A Flight Series (2-3, 1-4)
    • L. Blonski (75Pts - 7W - 13L) - 3 A Flight Series (2-3, 1-4, 0-5)
  • While fully intended, it is more challenging to get into A Flight.
  • Debatably waters down the quality of B Flight, leading to potentially inflated scores for teams
Thoughts:

In general, this league format worked quite well with only minor issues and I would absolutely utilize it again as-is. All league issues identified with the previous traditional ladder format were addressed and successfully dealt with. I believe it to be the best “natural” format of the league that fits within the A -> C mold.

However, while not necessarily a result of the format, I think it does highlight some additional league considerations, namely taking a deep dive into adjusting loss points to make moving up and down between A and B Flight less punishing.

A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, and D

With this format only being used once, a large influx of skilled teams, and with it being a shortened COVID season (albeit, only two games) it is hard to gain full perspective.

Pros:
  • Allowed the maximum amount of promotions/demotions
  • Dual A Flights more-or-less dealt with the “better to stay in B Flight” issue that plagues our other forms
  • Competition for overall standings was, without a doubt, the tightest race in league history. Even during week 18, a Win could still move your team up 5-6 positions.
Cons:
  • Dual A Flight introduced some balance concerns:
    • Ideally, you want to expose teams to the maximum number of opponents. Inevitably this would then result in one flight requiring the top two teams in the league to play each other, which would result in noticeably unbalanced A Flights.
    • While not necessarily a problem, when competing for the number 1 ranking, I prefer when teams can play against each other to get a true sense of rank. With two flights, this was not always possible
    • Along the lines of the point above, and certainly not intentional, but creating the schedules for the teams started to feel like I had undesired influence on final results
  • Due to unforeseen circumstances, we had to add a D Flight to accommodate teams. While we opted to keep D Flight points the same as C Flight, and promoted all teams out of it after each series, it was found that the same teams repeatedly found themselves at the bottom.
Thoughts:

D Flight, as implemented, was not good and needs to be re-thought. Arguably, I would prefer to see the extra flight exist on top of A Flight, with the same points / win but perhaps with additional benefits to offset the difficulty (higher / more bonus points, higher series win cash payout, higher loss points)

I think I would need to implement some behind-the-scenes scheduling logic. Trying to balance games-played vs strength of flight was proving to be very challenging, so abandoning one of those elements may be the best option. Do you balance based on Rank / Overall Points, or maybe a hidden ELO statistic to take into account strength of opposition thus far?