European Qualifier Discussion - 2013 and onwards

Can I just clarify that we stepped up to do the UK Champs 2012 last minute with limited resources because nobody else did & it's not our fault it's ridiculously late! But we made a lot of decisions based on UK Champs > Euros > Worlds as regards to teams, format, etc.

I think maybe John means they forfeit their place and then that place goes to the qualifying tournament.

Also non of this talk is meant to seem bad to Brum who are going to organise an awesome UK champs, it's more for next year.

Agreed, although it would be cool if the UK Champs could be at the beginning of the season in the future, nice one to Birmingham for stepping up.

Moar planning!

You're potentially talking about the best two UK teams not having a route to the Euros? Lame.

Nope, nobody is suggesting that, that would be stupid.

I have no doubt that the 2013 UK Champs will be organised too late in the season anyway. Lame.

Constructive.

Snoops (Cosmic), Ryan (Spring Break) and Josh (Nice Touch) have formed a theoretical super team (London All Stars) and need a route to this season's Euros based on last season's NS/UK Champs results, explain how they get there without adopting an individual qualification process (as in NA, which has it's own myriad of problems)... also explain why it's then a good thing for a 4th place team (or lower) from the NS Standings/Uk Champs to then be auto-qualify once all the teams above them have been dissolved (yet the players will be forming new teams for next season)?

Nobody is suggesting any of that Jono, not sure where you are getting this from.

1 place for the winners of the primary competitions in the UK, not passed on, not for the lower teams. The rest still qualify as normal. If the winners choose not to take it (ie they choose to form new teams), then it gets returned to the qualifying tournament.

The reasoning behind it is that the qualifying is already over subscribed, and that's going to get worse in future years, making it less and less accurate, this is one way of helping that, and a nice way to reward the winners of what should be the most important tournaments for UK players, outside of the Euros or Worlds.

You said 1 or 2 teams wouldn't be able to get to the Euros? Please explain which teams and why this is fair?

Let's theoretically say that we are only given two spots for a future year's Euros. Is it still a fair system to propose?

Nobody is suggesting any of that Jono, not sure where you are getting this from.

Using last season's results in a bad precedent to go down, I gave the example of a London "Super Team" forming and no longer having a route to the Euros.

1 place for the winners of the primary competitions in the UK, not passed on, not for the lower teams. The rest still qualify as normal. If the winners choose not to take it (ie they choose to form new teams), then it gets returned to the qualifying tournament.

What if that team is not a top 10 team for next season, can you guarantee this?

The reasoning behind it is that the qualifying is already over subscribed, and that's going to get worse in future years, making it less and less accurate, this is one way of solving that, and a nice way to reward the winners of what should be the most important tournaments for UK players, outside of the Euros or Worlds.

You're taking a simple problem (over-subscribed tournament) and have proposed a confusing ("muddying") way forward that doesn't even guarantee that it solves the over-subscribed problem? I don't see the logic.

Just make the UK Champs (or qualifier) be over two days (or more courts), problem solved? What other reasons are there for proposing the (new) distribution method for Euros spots?

there would still be a qualification tournament 8 weeks or so before the main tournament. and such super team would enter and do rather well, thus qualifying. as i think that making decisions based on results from a previous year to be a poor way to go. polo develops too quick for that.

Let's theoretically say that we are only given two spots for a future year's Euros. Is it still a fair system to propose?

obviously it would have to change then.

Just make the UK Champs (or qualifier) be over two days (or more courts), problem solved?

+1

You said 1 or 2 teams wouldn't be able to get to the Euros? Please explain which teams and why this is fair?

Nope, I didn't say that.

Let's theoretically say that we are only given two spots for a future year's Euros. Is it still a fair system to propose?

Obviously not. That's just details though. Clearly there are conditions for the rule to apply.

Using last season's results in a bad precedent to go down, I gave the example of a London "Super Team" forming and no longer having a route to the Euros.

Again, you aren't reading it correctly Jono, I never said this.

What if that team is not a top 10 team for next season, can you guarantee this?

Unlikely. C'est la vie. That's like saying this years FA cup winners won't be a good team next season in the Europa League. Sure, it's possible, but unlikely.

It's 1 spot. To reduce the amount of teams in the qualifier. If it's announced in advance, then it's up to that team to decide on their priorities, and make their choices based on that.

I don't see this happening. If fewer teams have to play in a qualifier because they've been given auto spots, it will simply invite other teams who may not have seen themselves placing as high with the top teams as with the lower-top mid-tier teams, so the numbers would probably stay about the same.

My personal opinion is that a UK Champs should be organised each year (minimum of 8 weeks prior to the Euros?) which is then used to send UK teams to the Euros. Our qualification tournament has replaced the UK Champs as our Champs are stupidly late in the season.

^This. This is the 4th year there's been a Euros and the 3rd that's required qualies. We know it's coming, why can't we organise?

And thanks Birmingham for stepping up!

Nope, I didn't say that.

Ah, I may have misunderstood you there then, but I still think it's a bad precedent to set and will result in future complications.

Please point out the positives (other than potentially removing a team form the qualifying event - which has it's own pitfalls) and don't just try to dissolve any negatives.

When setting a new precedent, my belief is that it should be able to replicate the current process (and more)? All this approach does is confuse things, empower the NS standings (which are about inclusion/encouraging more polo, not necessarily about competition/accuracy) and potentially relieve a qualification tournament of a couple teams (this will not affect all other teams equally/fairly).

The NS standings actually are about those things.

Positives:
It gives a real reward to teams winning the premier competitions in the UK (same as in most other sports, league and cup winners in football/rugby/cricket going to the european/world competitions the next season, etc).
Less teams in the qualifiers (though maybe Adrienne has a point, that would have to be carefully managed).
I'd suggest the winner of the national series is more accurate than the winners of a one off qualifying tournament (less impact from form, injuries, etc)
Multiple qualification routes (more than one chance, teams can choose what they want to prioritise, see the example of Chelsea this week)

Negatives:
Further away from international tournament
Qualifying team might not be in the best X teams by the time the euros comes round.
Multiple qualification routes (why give teams another shot)

Personally, I see the NS absolutely being about competition.

The NS standings actually are about those things.

They're about competition and accuracy? I was under the impression that the methodology used rewarded teams for participation and consistency over winning tournaments? Hence why two draws were worth more than a win and a loss, etc?

If we use the Euros methodology for the NS results last year we get a different standing of teams (for example, splitting hairs, etc).

Furthermore, are NS results designed to seed a team for next season's European Championship?

I'd suggest the winner of the national series is more accurate than the winners of a one off qualifying tournament

This has merit (if true) and is an improvement over the current system, I'm not sold on any other potential positives though.

while this conversation is quite constructive, until we know next years qualification system, nothing can be implemented.
it might revert to UK only, stay as UK&I, change to north-west europe (UK, I, France, Benelux), or might become more like NA, with regional qualifiers that anyone can enter.

So you really mean you disagree with how the points allocation is weighted?

They aren't designed for anything apart from the NS.

Which is obviously fine. I thought the points allocation was great, gave us a 3 horse race that could have gone to anyone, all the way to the final game of the final tournament.

while this conversation is quite constructive, until we know next years qualification system, nothing can be implemented.

That's not true. A system can be implemented on the basis that certain conditions are met. If they aren't then the system is ignored. If it turns out to be only 3 team from the UK, or it's regional, or city based, or whatever else, then we don't do this. But it needs to be planned a year in advance, so that everyone is on the same page.

So you really mean you disagree with how the points allocation is weighted?

If it's for the Euros, then potentially yes.

I have no problem with the NS standings in general, although my gut feeling is that a win and a loss should be worth more than two draws (I would say that given last year's results).

I also think that the process of qualifying (redistribution of points) and allowing foreign teams to compete, etc, invites inaccuracies if trying to find the best UK team (or perhaps more teams if the precedent proves popular and further spots are issued in this way).

I'm not sure what you mean about draws because everything is based off final tournament placing. Unless you're talking about this year's experimental rankings, in which case draws are worth a variable amount depending on the ranking of each team going into the game.

Basically the NS is just going to keep doing what it's doing and trying to improve on it. Personally I think UK Champs is a great way of doing qualification: simple, effective, minimal arguing.

Ah, I jumped a little there... my interpretation of the standings (could be wrong here) was that two 2nds was valued more highly than a 1st and 3rd. I've referred to this incorrectly as wins/draw/loses.

I think the NS is a great idea and has already proved it's worth, I'm just not sold on moving Euros spots away from the UK Champs (the ideal) or a qualification tournament (second best).

Does anyone disagree with the following premise:

There is no top ten teams from the uk, what ever we do, we are only ever going to have an approximate. All this arguing is merely trying to find the best approximate

As such this is all just about where we draw lines?

Yeah, it's pretty meaningless given the reality of which teams will be put forward for the next couple of years (different systems will possibly send the same teams, etc).

But as with everything it would be nice if we sourced the most appropriate (future proof?) approach.

UK Champs > Euros > Worlds.

That's how I've always seen it.

Why give one spot out here and there and cause problems.

I like playing in tourneys. I don't want the free spot which means I'm excluded from a qualifying tourney.
All tournaments are important practice for any team.

I'd rather get good results in UK champs to enable a position in Europe etc.

+1