Selection process for EHBPC 2011 23-26.06.2011

Kevin, on LOBP, argue against the 2 way, country and city.
For him the NA way looks more logical: make 4 great tourney during season and pick the best teams...

Is this kind of stuff possible for Euro?

yeah, this would be great, but maybe too complicated until may/june. And how do we decide mich team participates at what tournament ? Maybe there would be big differences in average level of teams at each tournament.

Yeah.
It would be too difficult to put 4 tournaments where the most part of Euro community could come for 2011. Maybe 2012.
We could maybe think the stuff 50/50 this year, give one or two slot for firsts places in 2 or 3 majors tourneys, and the rest is selected nationally.
But whitout any european body, it looks difficult to make this happens.

Yeah.
It would be too difficult to put 4 tournaments where the most part of Euro community could come for 2011. Maybe 2012.
We could maybe think the stuff 50/50 this year, give one or two slot for firsts places in 2 or 3 majors tourneys, and the rest is selected nationally.
But whitout any european body, it looks difficult to make this happens.

Agreed, it might be too late.

I thought i'd sum up my arguments against a strict geographical qualification system, in the form of questions that cannot be answered in any satisfying way, in my opinion. ( I'm not looking for a gut emotional answer to any of these, which is what i usually get in response to such questions, but something in the form of a policy that can be universally applied. )

1. Do you have to "swear allegiance" to a local or national polo scene for a calendar year or some other period? Who's going to keep track of that (consider that London has way more such organizing capacity as other cities/countries). Can Cosmic Todd qualify as a Dutch player? Can Rik still play as Rotten Apples (RIP)? Can Guthrie and I still play with DTGP, one of the longest running teams in polo?

2. Are you not allowed to have a player on your team from outside your region? That would kill 50% of the best teams in North America. This cross-breeding/cross-pollinating is what is driving the skill level in our sport, and it will suffer if it's tied to local cities or regions or countries. We've finally started to see some of these multi-city top-level teams recently in Europe at the BFF tourneys and it sounds like it's been awesome. (Football makes a good comparison, where club play is where the sport evolves, not national teams.).

3. Does your team need to remain the same between tournaments? Which tournaments? What happens if someone gets hurt or doesn't have enough cash to travel? Think about how much drama you have in London when someone needs a sub for a league match. Shit what happens when TWO players get hurt? Most of these questions get answered on a case-by-case basis, which works somewhat at the local level, but gets more and more complicated as we scale up.

4. What if you're the best player in your country but you have to miss your nat'l championships? No EHBPC or WHBPC for you? What if you're Pierre from DTGP, you break your wrist the day before the French championships, and don't qualify? (oh yea, you go to NAHBPC, get top ten, then go to WHBPC and get top ten).

Are the answers to these questions above necessarily the same for all countries? Or is each country allowed to come up with its own system? What if the UK says you can't qualify via the UK if you've already tried qualifying as a Dutch or German player (i'm thinking Todd/Rik), but the Netherlands decides that it's cool, you can be promiscuous with your polo citizenship?

1. Finally, How many teams per country? Clément did what i thought was a killer job last year given the circumstances, but it was pretty arbitrary and therefore the source of plenty of bitching and whining. It's going to be that much harder this year, with more countries. Also, what if you live in a country with incompetent people who run the nat'l bike polo scene, or run it in some corrupt way?
   
   

In short, i'm of the opinion that drama/controversy shouldn't be outsourced from the regional level to the city level, or from the global level to the national level. Let's keep that shit at the highest levels of the sport where it belongs, and base it on skill level not citizenship.

"Maximum damage, minimum scandal", right?

Testify!

Kev...agree with your points.

But for your info its cosmic tom who lives in Dam and he'll always be a cosmic...but cosmic v2 is a full london team...todd, me and snoops.

Let's just start a Euro body and nail this down for 2012, easy?

Mat, I'm pretty sure Kev is against the "country boundaries" thing, are you for it? For me it's just about securing a spot from whichever qualifying event/location you can... currently this is organised by the tournament organisers, but a Euro body could easily get this nailed down NAH style. Or we put the onus on countries to sort their shit out (which is pretty unikely in my opinion).

For me: Euro body > Tournament organisers > Countries sorting their own spots/process

[...] currently this is organised by the tournament organisers, but a Euro body could easily get this nailed down NAH style. Or we put the onus on countries to sort their shit out (which is pretty unikely in my opinion).

For me: Euro body > Tournament organisers > Countries sorting their own spots/process
[...]

agree

Personally I still believe a team has to have a place of origin...ie from a particular city or country. This is determined by having atleast 2 members of the team being based in same place...the 3rd player can be from outside the team place of origin. Ive never liked the idea of 'throwin' teams coming together just for tournies esp big ones like the euros. I believe a team should be a genuine team with heritage and a commitment to playing together on a regular basis.

Anyway...here's a possible euro qualies format idea...

• All countries with big scenes (UK/France/Germany) have own country euro qualies champs to decide top teams.

• All smaller scenes which are scattered around europe enter a consolidated qualies tourney to decide top teams (a non big scene city has to step up to host).

• At euros on day before finals, theres a small wild card tourney for any team which a) didnt previously qualify b) couldnt make regional qualies c) are new. This keeps things still inclusive and gives as many teams as possible the opportunity to qualify, yet with the overall qualified standings being the best teams + a few wild cards.

Overall, I think the Euros should go open.

The main reason that it was not open in 2008 was, if we are being totally honest, that we didn't want to see a load of yanks & hosers occupying the top slots. Now that the level of European-based teams is nearly at the same level as the N Americans, there is no need to 'protect' our teams.

The qualification process could be, as stated above, through designated tournaments, which are themselves open to all, and through a wild-card tourney.

I really don't see the point in restricting entry based on place of residence, or worse, colour of passport.

If the 'Euros' becomes open, then I'd like another tourney in the calendar that is the real European Championship where we find out who the best European team is.

I would not expect to be able to play in the NAs and I don't think NA teams should expect to play in the Euros. It would make the tournament totally pointless.

Define 'European team'.

Exactly. The NAs are already open to Europeans. "Best by boundary" seems pretty old school to me.

I am aware of this pitfall.

I know it is hard to define a European team. But what is important, to me at least, is that we have a yearly tournament to find out who is the best team in Europe.

I don't have a solid way of defining a European team, I'm not sure there is one, but the best we can do is make it very hard for non European teams to try and subvert the whole idea of the Euros by entering.

I think it would be a real shame to lose our European Championship and see it move to the European Open.

I don't think the NAs should be open to Europeans. If L'equipe won the NAs, they wouldn't be the best team in NA, they would be the best team from Europe who went to the NAs, then the next team from NA that finished below them would be the best team in NA. Which is lame, that NA team should be winners!

Ok, so following that thought through, do you think we should we try and discourage all non-Europeans from playing? Or would you go with a "two of your team must be from X country" kind of a deal, or how would it work? Would you ideally move it towards a country of birth/residency kind of deal, or would it always by slack(ish), where you simply have to be part of X country's "scene", how would that be defined?

I know this is the hard bit.

I think two of your team must be form x country/scene sounds good, but there are loopholes.

It's going to be hard, but I would just hope that noone would try and subvert the system. Pipe-dream.

We can't end up with a ruling that requires evidence, then we need a federation....then it all gets really tough.

Two players ruling is good, I would go by residency, not birth. Ideally I'd like every scene to have a league and all teams hoping to compete in the Euros earned their spots through their league standings which would ensure residency and a solid team. Proven system that works, then a few wildcard spots at a wildcard tourney for those that complain.

...I would go by residency, not birth.

Seems to work pretty well at the moment - pretty much every entry list you see for tourneys these days notes where the teams or players are from.

Two players ruling is good, I would go by residency, not birth. Ideally I'd like every scene to have a league and all teams hoping to compete in the Euros earned their spots through their league standings which would ensure residency and a solid team. Proven system that works, then a few wildcard spots at a wildcard tourney for those that complain.

Resident when? At time of qualification or of tournament? Legally resident?

We all want to keep polo as inclusive as possible, yet there are also committed teams who want to play competitive polo at a high level. This can only be achieved by having seeded tournies based on qualifications.

There are so many regional, european and global tournies which are open to all, so i personally still want 1 euro tourney a year (The Euros) which references the best teams at that given time, which a team has to work towards to become a part of...rather than entry be on a first registered first in policy.

If we have regional qualies + a wild card tourney within the euros format, that keeps things inclusive yet the best teams should still shine through.

A place of origin is given to a team based on the residency of atleast 2 players at time of qualification/registration and again atleast 2 of the original qualified players have to be present on the team for the finals or team loses spot and it goes down to next highest ranked team from the place of qualified origin.

A place of origin is given to a team based on the residency of atleast 2 players at time of qualification/registration

Is this going to be administered or checked by anybody? Or will we just take people's word for it?

Bill I do not have all the/any of the answers. Just expressing my opinion.

I'm also interested in the best way to define residency. But not having the solution yet is not enough reSon to make the tourney an 'open'. Imo

Wouldn't an "open" be a tourney without qualification?

Wouldn't an "open" be a tourney without qualification?

When I said "open" above, I meant open to so-called non-Euro teams.

I think that qualification should be dependent on placing in previous tourneys held in the run-up to the event, which are themselves open to all. So instead of holding a Euro-quali tourney in London for London teams only, we might hold an tournament open to all teams, not just London teams.

Obviously, if there is a wild-card tourney, that should be open to all also.

Clearly, the designated qualifying tournaments would need to receive that designation in advance of the registration for that tournament. Using Greif Masters as an example, the tournament would have to have been accredited as a qualifying tournament for the Euro Champs BEFORE registration was opened by the Greif Masters organisers.

Bill I do not have all the/any of the answers. Just expressing my opinion.

I'm also interested in the best way to define residency. But not having the solution yet is not enough reSon to make the tourney an 'open'. Imo

I don't have all of the answers either. Or even most of them. I could even change my mind - at the moment I am persuaded by Kev & Jono's arguments, and not by those arguing for allocation of spots by nation. What makes the national boundary so appropriate for bike polo?

I guess the better question is what do we all want from the Euro Champs?

You know what I meant, open to any teams regardless of origin.

Not really sure of the definition of 'an open'