Jump to Navigation
LOBP is now in archive mode... read more at leagueofbikepolo.com/goodbye.

2012 NAH Qualifying system and whatnot

Now that Ben Schicago has gone and gotten married I am hijacking this operation. No, not really. I do want to maybe start a discussion about 2012 and qualifying for the NAH and further worlds, as it is almost November.

I am just going to make a few suggestions. These are only my ideas and thoughts, in no way reflect anything other than one person's opinions.

I think our idea of qualifying through a regional system is flawed. If anything, teams should have to qualify in multiple qualifiers or some sort of points system. I know this is going to make things more and more complicated, but it is really the only way to give the proper how many ever spots NA teams get for worlds, let alone the teams in the NA championships. Perhaps one in each region. The next move is to get rid of the internet race for registration. This should be handled based on teams who qualify for these. This can be done with smaller, more in-region one-day tournaments or something. This could decide each region's x amount of spots to send to the NA qualifying tournaments. This would allow newer players to experience tournament play, and even offer the chance to play in a NA qualifying tournament. The point system might have to be done on an individual player basis, seeing as teams are often poly-regional and often play with different combinations of players.

I know nobody really wants to think about this giant fucking headache, but I think it will all go smoother if we start now.

yeah, its 12:30am saturday night. you are out partying with your friends. I am sitting at home thinking about fucking bike polo.

Can we just use the money to hire someone else to think about this and keep you in the game dude??

Points systems are do-able. Registration rules could be tweaked. People have to be flexible to try new things. This year seemed to go pretty well, all things considered.

So, will we have 7 NAH regionals in 2012? It's a good concept.

polojoel wrote:

This year seemed to go pretty well, all things considered.


city vs. city
top 8 vs. top 8

you know you want it

I like Portland's chances if we do this.

Are you thinking of a system similar to the UCI does in other forms of cycling? Could we have tournaments be worth a certain number of points and each team earn points depending on differrent variables of each tournament? This would also be a call out to tournament organizers and getting people to host quality tournaments? How about if the responsibilty of each regions representatives would be to find clubs to host tournaments within your region? We could have atleast one large tournament be requirement for each region and then several smaller tournaments that still have the possibility of awarding points to teams. This way teams would have the possibility of earning points close to home, but still be awarded for traveling to other regions. In order to qualify for NAHBPC, teams would need a certain number of points to play in the tournament. This way every team has the opportunity to qualify for NAHBPC and the teams that do qualify will be quality.

my thoughts would be to have some possibly smaller tournaments that qualify teams for the NA qualifiers. have more of a regional scale, but then a national scale tournament series to determine the teams for NA and worlds. in essence, it would be how we qualified for the NAs this year, but another level of that, on a more regional scale or something similar.

I also do not think the worlds position should be based on the NA championship alone, but i dont know maybe top 2 or three "major" tournament finishes. These would be the more national scale tournaments.

i have a lot more in-depth ideas about this, but i am already late for work.

Where are our NAH reps? Seems like NAH is shitting the bed to get a start on the 2012 season.

I still think having all the regional qualifiers on the same weekend would work best because then there isnt any tournament hopping and you will get the best from each region to play in NAs. (I'm not sure how to fix going from NA to Worlds though).


I share this opinion. x2. Remember when there was a button for that?

Everyone who didn't get into a tournament they wanted to play in this season because of some specific NAH restriction please raise your hand so we can see how utterly flawed the current system is.


Yeah, no one. That's what I thought.

X2 All the contenders and then some were eligible, and qualified for NA's.

The system/process could be improved. It takes a committee, internet banter only helps so much.

Last I saw my rep he was abusing alcohol: taking a perfectly good beer and dumping champaign into it.

Joel that is a total fabrication. Unless the beer had already been consumed in which case the point stands.

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

By the way I believe the reps took the $3.33 from each team in a tournament and squandered it on ____________?

And to add to it Man this season was fantastically organised , too much fun and a riot from start to finish. Believe me I was there.
See y'all again this season . Worlds to Worlds

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

Machine, if I was paid for this racket last year, it might have been an incentive to stay on...

I think a province or state championship + qualifier + NAC = Good games! and more tourneys too
9 regions, 9 qualifier. East South, East Central, East North, Centre S, CC, CN, WS, WC, WN. -
5 teams per regions qualify for NAC + Defending Champion + 2 local organiser = 48 teams...24 qualify for WHBPC.

Points for: Goal 1 pt; Assist 1 point; Win = 3 points (for each player); Tie = 1 point (for each player); Lose = too bad; Hat trick = 3rd goal x 3 pts; 4 goals = 4 pts; Quincy = 7 points...5th goals + 1 extra for carrying the team (Ange) + 1 extra for enternaining the crowd.

Points against:...basically what we don't want to see on the court. The point system will definitelly show that if a player keep on loosing point instead of gaining, maybe he or she should go play ping pong.

Points will be usefull for Winnipeg since they are Manitoba and most of their representant at the regional qualifyer were probably tall ogether at school. After that, it's the past.

I think that is a great way. Points are a good way to track players and teams. It's fairly easy to keep track of because we are watching the game anyway. Teams can bring one scorekeeper to each tournament or organizers can provide them. The stats can then be uploaded to a specific page and players can follow each other throughout the year and judge their improvement.

What you sayin about Winnipeg?

Don't make me open a can o' WUPAss on you!

Everyone knows Winnipeg is in it to win the party. Are there points for partying? Gotta represent the Midwest's most isolated polo club!

And thanks to all of the NAH committee members for doing such a thankless job last year and holding it down under duress, and abuse from faceless abusers and spoiled bastards. Lets keep drugs and alcohol out of our sport (testing testing 3,2,1)

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

honestly, do we really need to bother qualifing for worlds. we won't fill it up anyway. how many north american teams went last time?

Great comment Arlyn. The NAH committee spent numerous hours discussing how to identify qualifying teams for worlds in Berlin and in the end, only 27 teams went. Which, coincidentally was exactly the number of spaces available for NA teams. I agree, the discussion is mute.

I am not for adding any rules that exclude, prevent or disallow players from entering or playing in regional tournaments. I AM for hearing other options that allow more teams to play in NAH regional tournaments. I think last year was fine. I liked allowing a limited number of players from other regions being able to register and play in "outside" region NAH tournaments.

My opinion on qualifying is if your are good enough you will qualify with the current system. As an option for those who don't qualify, elimination tournament thursday, friday or both before NA's for some limited number of spots.

Umm and HELL NO to having all regional tournaments on the same weekend!

"wear a face mask or duck" - Tall George
stick 2 da code, stop snitchin'

Teams should be able to play in outside regions, but if using a point system then the "outside" teams cant take the points.

I don't know what the need for a tournament the day before NA's is; but if we want the most consistent players to go on to Worlds why do we let teams qualify the day before NA's?

I like the current system, not talkin points. I think we disagree here anyway. If you finish in a qualifying place who cares what region you are in, if a team is better they should be credited for being better. The other stuff is about regional pride. If you want only teams in your region to qualify in your regional tournament, beat the outsiders and keep them from taking spots. This is how I like polo: decided on the court. Only because to me this is the spirit of the sport.

And the games days before NA's was addressing joe's concern with "new teams" not making the cut. It would be un-likely for these teams to win, but they could play and get tournament experience.

"wear a face mask or duck" - Tall George
stick 2 da code, stop snitchin'

I totally agree with everything you wrote here and above, Chuckberry.

The only thing I disagree with the current system is the possibility of teams who have already qualified going to other qualifiers and taking other teams spots if they do well. Other than that, let teams play in as many regions as possible, just qualify within your own region. If you can't do it there, don't travel around to a weaker region and try to take their spots. Isn't the point of region qualifiers to find out the best of the region and reprisent your region. What if international teams came over and took all of our spots for our own National Tournament?

My only concern about a pre-NA tournament is that I don't think the day before a tournament to decide the best of North America is the best time to gain new tournament experience. If I was in heavy contention to win NA's I don't want a newbie t-boneing me and eliminating my chances to win.

Here's the thing, dude:

Say you go to a qualifier, there are 2 out of region teams that finish in the top 8, and because of that, your team gets pushed out and doesn't qualify. You missed it by a hair.

You're the kind of team that's going to get in at the wildcard tournament (what you call the pre-NA tournament). That's why that wildcard was in place at NAs and worlds, and both of those cities did a great job with it from what I've read/seen. I was too much of a pussy to go to either of those tournaments, however.

P.S. what is a politically correct and gender-neutral term for "pussy" in the above context?

just start saying it's derived from 'pusillanimous' and not a reference to lady-parts. and that way it's more fun to pronounce too! say it with me: "pyoosi."

X2 especially about not having them the same weekend. At least split up the stronger regions' qualifiers. Id hate to have to pick only 1 of them to go to. The qualifiers I went to last year were all badass tourneys. I only wish I could have gone to more of them.

I actually disagree with this.

I think the easiest way to determine qualifying teams is to host regional tournaments on the same day and to limit registration to in-region teams. If NAH is serious about establishing this sport as a viable competitive establishment, we will need to move towards models that truly recognize the best teams out there. Just like the Olympics, there are countries that clearly demonstrate dominance year after year. As with bike polo, there will be regions that have more high calibre teams than others.

I don't think NAH has matured enough to run a points system (its difficult enough to get proper team member names from registration, how are we going to track points?), and I think the mess of allowing out-of-region teams in qualifiers last year resulted in an unnecessary amount of organization regarding who got to go to NAs when in the end, attendance at NAs was low, in part due to the dissatisfaction with that system (yes, there were other reasons as well).

What is the goal for the competitive side of this sport (I specify competitive, because I am missing my sport's fun side - thank god for the Metal Tournament)? Is it encouraging a race to see who can attend the most tournaments, or is it to establish a truly competitive structure that clearly identifies the strongest and most deserving teams in NA?

Maybe if we did this, regionals wouldn't HAVE to be all on the same day. If it's all in-region anyway, then it doesn't really matter what day, right?


What is good about having them all within a relatively short time period is also that everyone knows at approximately the same time if they qualify and NA organizers have plenty of time to accommodate qualified teams and determine a wild card (if deemed necessary). It also frees up the rest of the season (as mentioned by Tall George) for people to travel to other tournaments that are for the fun of it. Those tournaments in those cities we have all grown to love.

Relatively short, yeah. I just know that part of the fun is getting to follow other tournaments as they happen. Also, different times of the year work better for different regions as far as weather is concerned. A summer date in the SE/SW can be pretty brutal and I'd think that it'd still be pretty cold in the northern regions if you did it too soon.


I think we should establish the most complicated qualifying system we can, and then a few weeks before NA's / Worlds, open these up to whoever wants to play regardless of whether or not they qualified.

hahahaha like that would ever happen! dis nub^^^^

One thing to consider is having them all on the same weekend may not be best for every region. If Southwest was going to host a tournament, their ideal weekend weather or schedule-wise would not be the same weekend as say, Northside.

NAH where are you in this?

we have had a club meeting in austin regarding the South Central regional and are preparing to make a 'bid' or at least to officially announce our candidacy but are wondering what the process is going to be for 2012. and as it's already november [good point joe] we should be starting this planning now in order to throw a high caliber tournament that will want to be attended.

please let the polo-verse know at least basic considerations such as, but not limited to:
-whether or not the regions are changing
-are qualifiers going to happen on the same weekend/a select group of weekends/up to the organizers per region
-are out of region teams going to be allowed to enter regionals again? if yes, are the %s the same as last year
-are there going to be caps on entrants or up to organizers
-is there going to be more NAH support for organizers
-do we have a required fee to pay to NAH again this year and is it the same $10/team

just off the top of my head.
i have no opinion on this points system crap. as far as i'm concerned if you should be on a team that should qualify in a qualifying tournament then make sure you're on that team and make sure you qualify. if you're as good as you think you are then you'll do fine. also, travel isn't possible for a lot of people that play, so forcing them to have to do that in order to qualify for NA's is a bit ridiculous.
if you're wanting to isolate and only have 'good games' then you're losing sight of what bike polo was, is, and always should be.

and unless i missed something major, why are we jumping to getting into worlds without considering north americans. do we have locations on either?

chandel. wrote:

i have no opinion on this points system crap.


chandel. wrote:

if you're wanting to isolate and only have 'good games' then you're losing sight of what bike polo was, is, and always should be.

Amen Chandel!

Eh, my only thought is that, although I really like traveling to big regional tournaments, like Phoenix, Savannah, and Philly, its probably gonna get harder to find hosts for the big 36-48 team tournaments. There are only so many cities capable, or more importantly, that have the desire, to throw the big ones that require building courts/finding a venue/lights. It can be done anywhere, but we'd probably have an easier time finding a host if the number of teams were either capped by NAH or the city throwing the tournament . I dunno if that means not allowing out-of-regioners to play, or just having them all on a series of weekends, or whatever. But I don't think DC is gonna host a 48-team ESPI anytime soon.

that's all i got.

there are no reps. the reps were elected for this past season and have since probably stopped caring about organized polo since. that is why i mentioned ben going off and getting himself a wife. you think he has any more energy to put into organizing polo? he just wants to play polo and enjoy it like the rest of us, as i am sure the rest of the reps do as well.

i think that if we use any sort of points system, we should look to professional tennis. their system lets them be ranked 1 through more than 1500. each tournament holds a certain amount of points. there are 4 'majors', which we could have x number of 'majors' to use for qualifying for nas and worlds. there are usually multiple tournaments happening on the same weeks, and the more lucrative tournaments get more points, etc. the 'major' tournaments often have a 128 player single elim draw (no round robin, but they only play one match a day or every other day for a week or two), and probably 32 have been 'invited' based on world ranking and the other 96 qualified through feeder tournaments. the points are awarded yearly, and so since turduckenig is the next tourny, you would have all the points going back to last years turducken. then those points would all be up for grabs again. i am not sure if i am explaining that understandably. we do not have to use their exact numbers (that i mostly made up), but i think they have a practical framework set up for our sport, and that will probably be able to account for the growth of the sport.

i do not care about the regions. i am trying to segregate the good teams, but i am also trying to segregate the bad teams and the okay teams. i want everybody to play in tournaments, no matter how much you suck, but in order to do this there will simply have to be more tournaments. if you have never played before, you shouldnt really get to walk right in and play in the nas, unless you prove yourself in some other tournaments. likewise if you are consistently going without a win on round robin day, maybe you should be playing in a lower caliber tournament. these are opinions, and i have never been an elected or volunteered to be a club, regional or any other kind of bike polo rep, so dont get mad.

There are reps, and they are listening.

A lot of people, including reps, like the idea of a points system, but it can only work if the following is true:
* there are a lot more than 7 "accredited" tournaments where points can be gathered. (Possible, but difficult to organize well before the season starts.)
* we either force people to play with the same team all season (highly unlikely) or we keep track of qualification points at the individual level (possible).
* there's a full-time paid employee keeping track of all this--points, tourney calendar, tourney registration, etc. (Highly unlikely).
* there's some kind of accountability the (increased number) of volunteer tournament organizers, such that they are penalized when the tourney is messed up, so that there is incentive to throw a really good tourney where the points actually mean something. (Highly unlikely).

At this point last year you were saying a 7-city regional tour would be highly unlikely.

We can do this. We can do it better.

Really? We announced a system for a 4 city tournament in September 2010. This time last year i was busy coming up with the 7 city system that was adopted around New Years. It took 2 months to get consensus for it, but i'm glad it went through. It's not perfect, but for a volunteer organization, i think it's a good, lightweight system that balances a lot of competing goals and needs. I think it could use some tweaks for 2012, but i'm not on the tourney committee this year.

I think 2013 will be the year for bigger changes. And a system that's much more complex than what we had in 2011 will likely require a staff person to organize it. Which costs more than $3.33 per participant, which means either corporate sponsors, or creating a membership (aka license) system. But even a membership system requires a staff person to set up and run.

how do we keep the person we hire to keep stats from scrolling facebook and bike polo websites all day?

both you and i know kev...that there is a computer program that could work with the existing system we use and make those "highly unlikely" to "very likely".... but, it has not yet been unveiled...plus...when brought before NAH reps earlier this year...was spurned and shot down.
just sayin..
i hope this person comes forward sooner than later.
a program that does all the work the reps are struggling through by placing the voting power directly in the hands of the players? how ideal! and thats just one aspect of the software

slayers are only slayers if the slay out of town...

As someone who often proposes technical solutions to things, i'm the first to agree with you that technology is not what's holding us back. there's enough geeks around this community to figure out the tools required (i made this spreadsheet with all the results from 2011 qualifiers, with tabs for regions, players, cities, etc, Vince has posted the results from Podium 2011, etc).

if you re-read my post, you'll see that all the obstacles i point out are non technical--enforcing standards at tourneys, monitoring registration, eligibility, expanding the number of accredited tournaments greatly. this is all really time consuming work. I'd love to see it all happen, and i think it will, but i think 2012 might not be the year.


A lot of people, including reps, like the idea of a points system, but it can only work if the following is true:

* we either force people to play with the same team all season (highly unlikely)
like x2

no one's mad joe...well i'm not.

ok the reps still exist and are very much an active part of the NAH bike polo behind-the-scenes deal, and they will be regional reps and club reps until the next election date. the reps' terms don't end just because it's the start of winter and most places can't continue their polo-ing as much...
some point of discussion there, but should be introduced in a new thread, or not at all and see what NAH has to say about it.

I think we're going to get a big UPDATE from them and it's going to cover a lot of these things, or at least address them and reasons for or against changing them right now, or leaving them the same.

either way, i just know that it takes time and collaboration to plan a successful 'major' tournament so i'd like to know now what is happening with the tour so we can start that down in the south, as our dates will be earlier then the northern regions if we are allowed to make that decision ourselves.

to address this whole "if you have never played before you shouldn't really get to walk in and play in the nas"...i think that is a product of the first years' lack of experience with allowance for teams in North Americans, and the number of teams actually playing at the levels we're seeing now, and then last years [2011] location. i know that MANY teams did not go to calgary for MANY different reasons, including not being able to go over the border, not having the funds to get there, not having enough time to get the funds together to get there, etc. As there isn't a destination for this year's NAs I think it's unfair to jump to conclusions that just 'any' team is going to be able to walk in and play. The reason the tour was set up was to eliminate that, and for all intents and purposes it would have been successful had the teams that did qualify and earn their right to be there actually all registered and gone. So Calgary did what it could to make it a full and exciting tournament with more games and different teams...waiting until the end to open it up to anyone...
they worked really hard to plan for a large tournament, and to shrink it back due to lack of qualified registrants would have been unfair to the club, the sponsors, and the players.

i like the idea of the tennis thing, but there's a lot to consider when saying there should be scaling tournaments to gain points in...that takes a lot of effort from a lot of different people and like you said, you just want to "play polo and enjoy it", and so does everyone else...so who does this massive responsibility fall on?

everyone wants to play in good games and against good players, especially if you're good. but the best way to learn is to get your ass handed to you and talk to that team afterwards to see what you can improve on. and that happens at tournaments, for all players. [this is generalizing but i'm tired of repeating myself about tournament experience].

ok. done for today. =]

I am not for being required to attend any tournament out of region to qualify until people are getting paid to do so. I am against a universal points system at this time. I think status quo from last year with a couple tweaks would be ideal. MKE is going to put together a sick bid for NA's,my personal hopes are that there will be no willdcard tournament plans included.

did north americans have a wildcard? i don't remember that, but i wasn't there...

i know that WORLDS did because of the hoopla around who could and could not go to NORTH AMERICANS, so wanted to give a chance for better teams to qualify for WORLDS.

also, can't wait to see your bid for NORTH AMERICANS!!!!!!! heck yes.

Im also against a point system; while for some of us polo is our lives, there are also a lot of great players who (for one reason or another) can't travel to several tournaments trying to earn points in hopes of qualifying for worlds.


no one cares...its all about the bench minor tour next year...BenBama will sort it out...

slayers are only slayers if the slay out of town...

deep words woadie. see you at the pdx/sea b.m.

can you say "potentially" indoors?!!

slayers are only slayers if the slay out of town...

I would hope that we could have fewer regional qualifiers if we keep the current system.

A points system can work. It would require a select group of nerds who are willing and able to consider alternatives and recommend a system. There shouldn't be a need to reinvent the wheel. It's a matter of taking what works from other systems.

The bigger question is where do we want to go with 3-person vs. 6- or 8-person teams? That represents a huge shift in how tournaments are run. Will bench tourneys take over?

Does NAH exist? Have there been meetings? Are minutes available? I asked my rep but got no answer.

I'd like to have other formats discussed, 5 or 6 or 7 man teams, 3 periods rather than halves, wrist shots (just kidding), and generally longer tournament games.

start a new thread because this is an extremely valid point right now, the number of players per team and the game length/changes it would involve.

please also keep in mind that, although we are nerds and log on here and post, there are MANY more players that do not have a LOBP presence and do not voice their equally valid opinions on here...

All - NAH is meeting within the week.

The issues listed above - particularly in the heading, in Chandel's post and a few others- are obviously paramount. Many of the ideas and solutions presented here, not surprisingly, are similar to what has come up in NAH discussion.

Two important points to recognize: First, the difference in opinion. As everyone can see from this thread, there is no shortage of differing opinions. We'll only have specific solutions once we choose a course to follow.

Second, from day one NAH has been operating behind the eight ball, finding solutions for immediate needs or problems within the same season. This isn't sustainable. So with regard to choosing a course, there will be serious discussion around the idea that NAH simply make necessary improvements for 2012 based on the 2011 model and then use 2012 to do the massive overhaul needed to get NAH on the two-years-ahead plan for 2013-2014.

Lastly, we are also taking a hard look at holding another election as some reps will need to be replaced.

In any case, this is a little taste of what is going to be discussed. Please keep the questions and solutions coming. We're especially curious what people think of the latter idea, that is, simply updating the 2011 model for the 2012 season, with an eye on an overhaul for 2013-2014.


you know my view on this ben, but so you all can know my opinion, i think it's absolutely necessary to focus more on a long-term solution to the structure and balance of NAH and the role it plays with bike polo. it will not do us any good to consistently change the system year to year. we need to get in front of this snow ball and control it's course rather then adding to the mashup.

this is a consideration for the big picture people. this would give us more legitimacy in the eyes of the general public, especially when we want to move into a realm of throwing major events with major sponsorships, and possibly even considering the event that this sport goes bananas crazy big like skateboarding did, or that roller derby has experienced.

thanks for putting the word out there ben and letting the populace on lobp know that NAH is still there and still volunteering it's time and efforts to the rest of the community, lest we ever forget. ;]



Few thoughts...

For next season, I think the best approach is to find solutions the the points of pain we experienced this year. The two that stand out in my mind:

1) Timed Registration = bad
2) Out-Of-Region = tricky

One idea I'm playing with: Instead of timed registration for individual tourneys, we have an open period of NAH tour registration. You sign up, and select which tourneys you are interested in playing in. For most people it'll be just one, a few will go to a bunch. For those that want to go to a bunch, they could prioritize them.

The idea is to get as much info up front as we can, and then we can have smarter selection criteria. We could for example, be more flexible with the proportion of in/out region teams. An in-region team could be given a slot over an out-region team that's already going to 3 other tourneys they prefer more, or an extra out-region team could be given a slot at a tourney where in-region didn't fill up

Whatever the plan winds up being, I'd like to build a registration system into Podium, and hopefully relieve most of the headaches that registration causes...

vince, this is a great suggestion

the problem with this for 2012 is that the places/dates/regions are not known yet.
so we'd have to have those all in place before what you are suggesting can take happen.
i'm not saying it's not possible, there is a meeting tonight and that stuff could be somewhat answered, but we'd have to have commitments from hosting cities before we could set this up, and that would mean setting up a bid-by date by region. totally possible.

also the math/personal calculation by someone to move teams around would be super fun [sarcasm] and then teams/players would have to be arranged for the season...obviously they could alter teammates/names as it approaches, but i feel like you'd get a whole lot of requests for tournaments from teams and them not being fulfilled as committed to originally.

this system would give organizers a huge heads up on the number of teams really coming to their tournaments for planning purposes though.

i like it. could be tried and then tweaked for the following seasons.
something to consider. =]


The NAH Board met last Thursday and decided to proceed with the bigger picture in mind. This means that we'll essentially be using the 2011 system with a few (but significant) tweaks for 2012. The deadline to complete the 2012 schedule is Jan. 15th.

After setting up 2012, the main focus of NAH will then turn to designing and implementing a greater overhaul for 2013 and getting ahead of schedule.

What you should know:

  • Chandel Bodner is now the Tournament Committee head.
  • The Tournament Committee will be meeting soon to make tweaks and set the format for 2012. Now is the time to contact your regional reps with suggestions for the 2012 season.
  • Any city looking to host a qualifier for 2012 should contact one of their regional reps as soon as possible. We understand that you will need more information as to what what will be expected but right now we simply want to start to get a list of cities that would be interested.
  • Cities should also feel free to submit interest in hosting for 2013. Again, we'll follow up with details when we have them but are simply attempting to gauge interest.

Thanks all. More to come.

*takes a bow*

i look forward to all of your criticisms, support, ranting, advocating, and anything else that comes with this position.

in all seriousness, i really want to hear your opinions but do not feel that reading the forum is the right way to go about this.
if you have something constructive to contribute to the way that tournaments should be set up/run/administered/financed/etc, for 2012 and for the future, please address these to your club/regional reps. They in turn can summarize the ideas and pass them along to our committee.
As it stands the committee members are:
Kiersten [seattle]
Joker/Alex [LA]
Ben [chicago]
Kevin [toronto]

If you feel that your ideas are not being heard or considered you may send a personal message to any of the committee members, but we are STRONGLY encouraging ideas be streamlined through regional reps as this is a part of their elected duties.

Thanks! more updates to come, and very soon.

I think that sticking with the system that we've tried and had work for 2011 is a good idea. I don't know what the tweaks are, but we all know that some changes are needed, and I am looking forward to seeing the current system improved upon without throwing us all into a frenzy to cope with something completely brand new.

I think it doesn't serve NAH to have teams qualify multiple times in multiple regions and bump other in-region teams out of qualifying because an out-of-region team had the ability to travel, especially when some of those in-region teams could be competitive and would add to the dynamics at NA's. I hope this scenario is addressed among the tweaks foretold.

Lastly, I just want to say thanks to everyone on NAH committees working hard to solve these challenges for the benefit of the NAH polo community. These are definitely not simple puzzles to solve by any means.

Chandel makes an excellent point about us looking to the future and getting a handle on things so that we aren't always just laying down the tracks for the single upcoming mile, but building a lasting system and infrastructure to operate within.

Ride, bake, polo, repeat.

I have said this before, I will state the facts again, Lets have regional qualifiers to go to NA's.

All regionals on the same weekend or maximum over two weekends. (I can say from personal experience we did not play in optimal seasonal conditions at SC or Portland) Suck it up pussies make that shit work. After you place top 8 in your region, you win the chance at NA's.

Show up to NA's play the swiss rounds and see if you make the big dance. If only one team from SC gets in, then that is the dice. (I am just saying that I would much rather win a spot from my region fair and square. Opposed to getting beat out in my region by and out of towner, who tries some backdoor shit on NA's or Worlds. Even if my weak ass rag tag team gets mauled at NA's hey we made it that far.) Oh yeah and if you want to bitch about your region being to tough, move to a weaker region and build a bomber club, an iron curtain wrecking team of locals and know what its like to struggle to get six bodies on the court. Or get better.

This opens up the rest of the schedule and travel budget for fun tournaments. Remember that, did you play in last years crown? How bout the STL lock in? Or a 2v2 tourney less than 100 miles from your city. If we have a set date for Regional and NA tourneys then we can have a more elaborate and more awesome tourney schedule, and hell I might even play in a bench minor. Just my two.

That will never work.

Move to a weaker region? No thanks, that's a horrible suggestion. I'm against restricting qualifiers to in region teams, and since this seems to be the only place it's being discussed I'll just post my opinions here. What exactly is the purpose of the regions? North American's is supposed to be the be all end all of tournaments in North America. Having a skewed representation of talent at NA's because of some arbitrary lines we drew on a map is not the way to get an accurate measure of talent for North America. There's no doubt that some regions are stronger than others, simply because some regions have cities that have been playing longer. It's a bummer, and I'm sure it will change as the number of cities playing continues to rise, but as of now there are stronger teams in certain regions that should not be kept from playing in the continental championship while a weaker team gets into it because they had less competition at their qualifier. Aside from that, qualifiers last year were pretty much the only tournaments worth travelling to as far as quality courts and competition went. I love playing polo, and playing against top players throughout the season is fun and great practice. Not being able to travel and play at the premier tournament in a given region limits me to playing some rainy tournaments in the Pacific Northwest. Fun and great competition, but there is also great competition on the other coast, in the north and in the south and in the midwest too. If we have the means and desire to travel and play the game why should we be limited to only playing in our region? When it comes down to it, most regions have 1 or 2 cities capable of throwing a quality tournament with large numbers of teams. That tournament is going to be the qualifier, since we're going with that system again this year, and if the qualifier is restricted then there is no reason to travel and play polo, which makes no sense. I don't even care about the qualifying spot really, I just want to be able to travel to a few cities a year to play at legitimate tournaments with nice courts and good competition. If people are worried about teams coming from out of region and stealing their precious spots that this abstract region system has given them by right, can we somehow make it so that out of region teams don't get qualifying spots? I guess my issue with all this is the region system and how it's kind of led to people viewing North American's as a gathering of the best teams from each REGION of North America. IF NAH decides to restrict qualifiers to in region teams only, I guess that's the direction we're going. I was under the impression from the years before the system that NA's was the gathering of the best teams regardless of what city they were in. Like I said earlier, I don't really care. Just don't give people less reason to travel and play polo during the season please!

Amen Cody, thats whassup. X10000

Alex and Cody, I'd be really interested to hear about your plans to determine how to prohibit out of region teams for taking qualifying spots. Alex, you know from last year that we spent a considerable amount of time talking about this. You have a solution??

First, I dont view out of region teams that qualify or re-qualify as 'taking a spot'. Suppose an out of region team visits and doesn't qualify. Does that mean an in region team took their spot? It's not a birthright that you qualify where you live. It's harsh but not everyone will qualify where they live unless they are good enough. Travelling to qualify and play somewhere else will improve your game. It's one of the reasons the top teams travel a lot, even though they have already 'qualified'.

My proposed solution? Have the 7th regional be open only to those who havent qualified at all. Have it at the end of the year in the region who had the fewest qualified teams the year previous, and hold it with no residency restrictions. It would be competitive in the sense that anyone in it will probably be around similar skill level. It would also relieve the host city of NA's from hosting a wildcard tourney, and help teams that have scheduling conflicts, or are on the edge of qualifying plan their year out in advance. The working title of this plan is called 'The Last Chance Qualifier'. If my team were on the bubble, I know I would like this plan. And ultimately it would only yield 8spots in to NA's. I doubt that would dilute that tourney in any perceptable way.

I don't have any plans, if that's something that people want to consider they can figure it out. Just like Joker I don't think anybody should be guaranteed a spot to play in the North American Championship just because they are in said region and are entitled to a certain amount of spots. I suggested it because I can't fathom encouraging people not to travel to play, but if it's the way NAH want's to go and announce it as an option I wouldn't mind sitting down and thinking things through with other people to make it work.

making all regional qualifiers on the same weekend would suck. who wants to strictly play competitive polo against local teams? last year worked fine, allow a percentage of out of region teams to come and mix things up. hoping to see a lot of you guys in phoenix!

Word. After that, hopefully we get a chance to head up to Cascadia and do it all again at your guys' qualifier too...

We were glad to have you. Hope you can make it again. DPI IV will be again be a qualifier and will happen Jan 28/29 in 2012.

Cody I agree with everything you said here but the problem we're running into is that there are too many people that want to come to the tournaments and not enough courts or time to satisfy them all.

You have to have some sort of restriction on someone. You can either place that restriction on people that live far away, or you can place that restriction on people that aren't good enough to compete. Since we have no valid way to restrict people based on skill, the only way to keep the tournaments small enough is to restrict it by region.

At least this is how I viewed it.

I can definitely accept that extra teams from out of region may add some stress on the tournament organizers, but I still don't feel like taking away 5-9 "Regional" teams spots for out of regioners is robbing 5-9 full in region teams from competing. How many teams end up forming last minute or even at the court? It just seems to me that leaving such a small percentage of spots for foreigners isn't taking a whole lot away from locals while bringing new game and faces promoting more competition and fun for all. I think those guaranteed teams of 3 coming from afar do more for the tournament than the small numbers of teams formed last minute or at the court that usually stand no chance, especially at a tournament that should be really "high caliber" as it's what qualifies people for the big show.

NookieRick wrote:

...there are too many people that want to come to the tournaments and not enough courts or time to satisfy them all.

You have to have some sort of restriction on someone.

I agree there has to be a restriction but I don't think NAH should be trying to solve this problem. It isn't a problem every region has and I don't see why a region can't solve this issue themselves.

If a region can't support a qualifying tournament large enough to satisfy the needs of their people and satisfy the NAH requirements, they may need to limit in-region entrants based on skill. Many are treating the qualifiers as a closed regional tournament. Having a closed regional tournament is fun thing to do but it doesn't serve the current purpose of the NAH qualifiers: Sending the best players in North America to the championship tournament.

We had 7 great tournaments last year which offered each of us 7 great tournament experiences if we jumped at the opportunity. I'd hate to see that turn into 7 lesser tournaments which have more restricted entry and send less qualified teams to our flagship event. That is what further restricting out of region teams will do.

NookieRick wrote:

..Since we have no valid way to restrict people based on skill, the only way to keep the tournaments small enough is to restrict it by region. ....

A region can hold a non-NAH sactioned closed regional tournament to seed the in-region spots in their NAH qualifer. I can't see NAH being against something like this.

I in no way support limiting out of region teams to travel. I love when out of region teams are at tournaments. Usually they are very skilled and up the level of competition, and improve the tournament greatly.

I really like the idea of limiting the qualifiers by skill instead of by proximity, but we don't have accurate data to rank teams regionally or nationally. Plus teams mix up all the time, etc..

and expecting each region to put together a closed regional tournament to seed the in region teams is asking too much. Getting quality courts together is a daunting task and telling each region that they have to do it TWICE a year instead of once a year is just asking for trouble. Our sport can't sustain that large of a facility requirement and with how few cities are actually stepping up to host tournaments, I just think it's not feasible.

x 1000 to many tournaments with a diverse mix of players

NookieRick wrote:

...and expecting each region to put together a closed regional tournament to seed the in region teams is asking too much...

I don't expect nor suggest every region do this. What I'm suggesting doesn't inflict any more NAH requirements. I'm just saying if a region is unable to provide spots for their people, it isn't automatically NAH's job to solve the problem. I'm offering one of many solutions to the problem and though it may not be feasible in some regions, it is feasible in others. Changing the tour by crippling qualifiers is a poor solution because it makes all regions suffer for some regions' difficulty.


The midwest has gotten 2 solid tournaments a year in our region since 2006. just sayin' a small scale state based tournament to decide how many from your state can go would be more feasible wouldnt it, Nick? then you take say the 6 best teams from each state in the MW region and allow them to compete in the MW championships. I agree it is difficult to set up yet another tournament in a region but the scale (48 teams) doesn't have to be as large. leave the power in the state's hands!

All states are equal?

Good luck with getting Texas sorted out! With your new program I'm sure it will all be fine.

It just seems, even with the states championships we are back to a fairness issue. South Dakota will get six spots? Questions like these are the ones I would like to answer with my software.

what region is SD even in? and i realize some regions have more than 7 or 8 states in their region. it was just an example. each region should decide how many to allot each state or even if it isnt exaclty state borders. like say SD could be in the MN sectinal since MN basically only has MSP and mankato as towns that play now. Also Illinois really only has Chicago and decatur but Indiana has FTW, B-town, lafayette, Indy. so in the end what im saying is that each region should decide how they want to handle how teams quailify for the regional tounrament.

I think there are some provinces part of some regions no? Didn't a Canadian team from NA actually win the Worlds this year? Did you forget?

Okay catfish, I'm going to move my mouth like this...

ha, good stuff!

i think we will find that we will have the same problem that we are having at a regional level, duplicated on a state/province level. who gets to decide? someone will find it unfair, guaranteed. we don't have state/province reps or anything. i have maybe 150 or so signed up for my software (http://www.hardcourtbikepolo.org) in the last week its been out, but if we could get all the players coded by city i could do graphs per state/province as to the population and also more importantly, the population as it pertains to tournaments and/or qualifiers and we could make more educated decisions about regions that would actually benefit cities like milwaukee, seattle, east van?

Would there be a way to register people that don't want to/can't do it themselves? There's quite a few people that play that rarely get on LBP, much less, hbp.org.


One solution would be to have a yearly NAH membership instead of anonymously tacking on fee at the each qualifier. Data could be gathered in that process. No membership = no entry into an NAH event or no berth to the NA's granted (the latter could prove difficult to administer). This would give zulu 100% accuracy on the data.

This would make results more legit because each tourney could pull from the same NAH data set to accurately identify players and match them with their results.

I like it!

I like it. Although, this is a little off topic, but dealing with membership fees, I like the idea of bike polo being a Co-op that we all "own". Why does it have to be like existing models of sports?

What's wrong with NAH monetizing polo with regularly accruing fees? How would that make it feel like someone else owns it?

Its pretty simple. If I am paying into a system, I want more than 7 people deciding what happens to it.

By 'it" do you mean the money or the system?


i like it too. i think there will be a lot more tournaments included in the future. depending on the fee there should be a way to buy a day licence. for someone who hasn't bought a full membership yet, and restrict it to that tournament only. yeah pay to play. unless its only like 25 dollars a year anyway. i like your software zulu. still trying to figure out what my questions are on it. any thoughts on only including only the bracket games. seems to me that winning the tournament on sunday should be more valuable than having a flawless saturday then getting blown out of the bracket in two games the following day.

I could easily track memberships, and it could track and have transparency to paying members the account balance in the system. As stated about, I like the idea of it being a Co-op. i.e. More voice from more people more of the time!

I have thought about the inclusion and lack of inclusion of double elimination, it does change things, but then again, so does everything but full round robin. Just swiss is closer though. I fully expect and anticipate feedback. I am not sure how to weight placings. Anyone have any ideas? I know we have the one points system that was thrown out there. Obviously, it needs to be weighted by number of teams entered. All of this is easy to do. I just wanted to include as much data as possible. I have broken out your qualifier and non-qualifier averages though on your profile page and they are year specific too.

If anyone wants to see any specific math or calculations included let me know!

Lets do this already! Annual membership to NAH to compete for 2012.

P/M Hardcourt

you know who's first in line...

slayers are only slayers if the slay out of town...

cody wrote:

I was under the impression from the years before the system that NA's was the gathering of the best teams

I've posted this before, but: having baller teams who travel to multiple qualifiers could easily mean that NA's wouldn't have the best teams.

cody wrote:

qualifiers last year were pretty much the only tournaments worth travelling to...

I don't think that'd be true with simultaneous in-region qualifiers. Qualifiers could be much smaller and simpler events, and premier tournaments could continue to be throughout the year (and across the country) and have open registration (as they did in 2010 and before).

cody wrote:

Just don't give people less reason to travel and play polo during the season please!


cody wrote:

as of now there are stronger teams in certain regions that should not be kept from playing in the continental championship while a weaker team gets into it because they had less competition at their qualifier.

YES! THIS! Regions that have been proven stronger should get more bids, and regions that have been proven weaker should get less bids. This isn't as feasible with open registration, but it's the only way I can think to insure NA's representation for teams that are at the top level of competition but still don't crack the top 9 (or 12) in the deeper regions (without making them fly across the country). AKA, Cascadia should get 12+ bids, and the Southeast should get 3 (or 4?).

Having a good team travel into another region is going to stop good teams from that region from getting a spot that are on par with top 10 qualifying teams in other regions? Highly doubt it. It was like nine spots last year went from each qualifier? Southeast probably had the most out of region teams present, and how many ended up taking qualifying spots? Maybe that would prohibit mediocre or average teams (3 or 4) from moving on, but I don't think you will see 3-4 "baller teams" travelling to the same qualifier. I would love to encourage more tournaments throughout the season by forcing smaller qualifiers, but the part that makes me against it is the current equal distribution of spots amongst regions. I think that allowing more time (the next year or two) to develop a system that allocates spots based on performance of teams in each region is the way to go, but in the mean time I feel like using the system form last year and giving a small percentage of spots to out of region teams just makes most sense until we have time to completely change it and make it more efficient. I feel like we're all on the same page, we just have differing opinions on what to do up until the point of developing a super efficient system that seems to be the long term plan of NAH. I agree with your point about nothing working as is with open registration, and it sounds like the people involved are at least looking into other options which I think is awesome.

I agree with this sort of electoral votes type system. It makes sense for the stronger regions to get more qualifier spots. It would also make sense for the strongest region to have the first regional of the season, and work our way down. That way, if one, two, or three (it looks like that's the max that happened in any 2011 tournament) of those strong teams double qualifies or more, the spot that they "stole" would roll down to next highest ranked (would have to keep track of stats since there would be several teams tied for 9th place) teams of that tournament. And then those that still didn't qualify in that tournament would have another (easier region) tournament to try to qualify in.

It seems like with the new team/tournament stat software you could eventually have a league coefficient in place similar to european football. With that system, a region that has more successful teams over the long-term secures more spots at the north american tournament. It would take a few years to figure that coefficient out, but I think there is a saying that if it works in europe...


Exactly what I suggested as a regional rep in the past.

Awesome! I tried to read all these ideas before chiming in... I'm new here so I apologize.

oops me too.

Confirm...or...deny...DPI.IV is a qualifier?

slayers are only slayers if the slay out of town...

I had a huge rant about NAH but I deleted it Fact of the matter is shit needs to be nailed by January or the 2012 season is lost. This shit isn't that hard there are less then 4 good ideas floating around right now and all of them are a 100% improvement from last year.

So NAH what are you doing with the ideas everyone is throwing at you? Go public


kremin, i made probably 752 before i actually posted this thread. (i want to say invite only, fuck all you nubes and shitty players, but that is not nice).

jas, i dont think it can technically be a qualifier seeing as there is no system agreed upon for qualifying. so in my completely invalid opinion, no, it is not a qualifier.

also, people thinking about throwing a tournament: fuck nah, just throw a badass tournament and people will be happy. remember los marcos? it wasnt really that polo related even. that was about having fun, you know what polo is about. well hypothetically would be about if winning had never been invented.

Most of the players that want to come to our Championship have some connection to our region, want to play great polo, or soak up some of our hospitality. They could care less about the qualifying spots for the North American Championship. Tournaments like the Mid-West, The Crown or DPI are great established events and don't need the extra hoopla of being a qualifier. With the low turn out last year at NAs does anyone question the need for qualifying anyway? 2010 without the NAH tour structure and a NA open to anyone that what wanted to come might have been better than 2011 with the seven limited tournaments people cared about and a limited NAs. Has bike polo has grown past giving out a couple invites at each tournament, invites based on your team's resume, or a North American Championship open to all? With the awesome software we have for swiss rounds the top and bottom of the field are separated out in a round or two and only the best teams are going to make the elimination rounds. If it's open their would be a lot more of us there watching and seeing it happen. Last year's structure created the feeling of scarcity where it didn't exist, drama over regionalism, people gaming the system, and others getting left out . If more people want to come to your tournament, amen. Build another court or bring in some lights. "More polo in more places" should be the underlying goal. Bike polo is growing so lets see how big we can get these events. If 50+ teams want to come to a regional championship that amazing. If 150 want to come to NAs that's epic! For me the Madison North America Tournament should be the model. Everyone got to play a lot of polo, there was people from all regions, and of course the best teams won while we were all there to see it. What could be better?

DPI 4 will be the Southwest qualifier. There may be some subtle restrictions on registration, but NAH should have that nailed down in a few weeks. Once the NAH tour registration rules are established we will let you all know about it. Thanks for being patient.

I really hope I can attend again this year. Last year was very memorable in so many ways, I'm looking forward to seeing if I can watch the piranha, or hang out with dustin, or just joke about how old N O D really is.

As alex just stated above me. We have answers coming, but we can't just open it up to the public because we'd get the same flux of opinions we have right here on this thread.

Please, everyone, trust that we read/hear/talk about/understand/see/value the opinions expressed regarding the tour and scheduling the 2012 qualifying season. We will have answers for you by mid-December, so definitely by January.
This is the best we can do given that we are all VOLUNTEERS and this committee was adjusted/formed 3 weeks ago. We have been working very hard on balancing all suggestions for the 2012 season and we will be going 'public' here within the next two weeks or so. Remember that NAH is a non-profit and technically we have some logistical board voting/approving statutes to abide by. I am not hiding anything, this committee is as transparent as it can be without it being an open forum topic on LOBP [which would be extremely dysfunctional and counterproductive].


i have ants in my pants


guys, its ok. i just talked to ben. everything is cool. he assured me that polo isnt happening anymore and we will all be given pamphlets about other activities that will be much better than polo. i am not supposed to say anything, but one is sort of a combination of dodgeball and fishing.

and kremin, didnt you read on medic mike's facebook status that we all took our pants off? dont you know that being badass at polo means we dont really have to worry about this. we do because we care about this sport, but we can let them handle it. we can either have our say or let them decide, but either way there is going to be bullshit and the system will probably be horribly disappointing for multiple reasons, but fuck it. its polo.

fuck it dude, let's go play polo...

came up with this a few years ago and just sent it off to chandel to table again in the future but thought i'd throw it out there again for public debate.

its simple and expandable.
award the points to the player.
there can be double points events and what have you.

tournament organizers submit applications to the na governing body for
inclusion in the continental points system.
The points drop 10 points every 8 teams.
then based on the number of entrants at that tournament points would
be alloted as such.

for an 8 team tournament ...

the first place finish would be worth 9 points
second place would be worth 7 points
third would be 6 points
fourth would be 5 points
fifth would be 4 points
sixth would be 3 points
seventh would be 2 points
eighth would be 1 point

here is an example of a 32 team tournament:

1st Place = 50 Points
2nd Place = 47 Points
3rd Place = 45 Points
4th Place = 44 Points
5th Place = 43 Points
6th Place = 42 Points
7th Place = 41 Points
8th Place = 40 Points

9th Place = 35 Points
10th Place = 32 Points
11th Place = 30 Points
12th Place = 29 Points
13th Place = 28 Points
14th Place = 27 Points
15th Place = 26 Points
16th Place = 25 Points

17th Place = 20 Points
18th Place = 17 Points
19th Place = 15 Points
20th Place = 14 Points
21st Place = 13 Points
22nd Place = 12 Points
23rd Place = 11 Points
24th Place = 10 Points

25th Place = 9 Points
26th Place = 7 Points
27th Place = 6 Points
28th Place = 5 Points
29th Place = 4 Points
30th Place = 3 Points
31st Place = 2 Points
32nd Place = 1 Points

How many points would someone need for entrance into NAs? Would 50 do it? Would 40?

I think you'd have to decide beforehand to keep the bitching at a minimum. I really like the open style, anyone can travel anywhere, points based and official registration with NAH to compete. That will give us a good census and then the points system could be used pretty powerfully I think. Dissolve the regions as borders of competition and keep them as an element of pride.

And I think NAH should charge a decent amount of money for entrance into the system too. This will keep the numbers limited to people who really want to compete and will sacrifice some coin to do so. It would make registration easier and enable them to ensure that the tournaments were really fuckin' slick.

how many extra games need to be played to determine exact placement all the way out to 32nd place?

34 additional games are needed to get exact placement for the top 32 spots

tie for 5th = 1 game
tie for 7th = 1 game
4-way tie for 9th = 4 games
4-way tie for 13th = 4 games
8-way tie for 17th = 12 games
8-way tie for 25th = 12 games

Points could be the same for each tied place to remedy this problem

"Points could be the same for each tied place..."

Or maybe Saturday's record is a tie-breaker as far as points distribution is concerned. Perhaps play out the top 8 and allow the ties below that to stand and use the Swiss round data to divvy up the x number of points in each group of tied teams accordingly. But maybe that's just making it unnecessarily complex, that small a difference might not even matter in the grand scheme of things.

A points series would awesome, but I think the idea needs to marinate another few years. My thoughts on points are that:
1. You don't need to assign points to every team, especially those that don't make it to Sunday. I'd cut it at points for the top half.
2. More teams in a tournament – more points available.
3. Equalize points for tied ranks, use straight-line point decreases for each rank. For example, the top 16 teams in a DE bracket is only 8 ranks: 1,2,3,4,5-6,7-8,9-12,13-16.


By this system couldn't a team win an NA tournament and receive say 50 points but then not be able to travel to any tournaments so they finish the season with 50 points. And then, there could be a team who has the free time and money to travel to all the NA tournaments but gets in 20th place at all of them giving them way more than 50 points so they technically rank higher than the winning team although their skill level is not on par at all.


The only teams that traveled to a ton of NA tournaments in 2011 were teams that consistently placed very highly. I don't think what you've suggested would be an issue and even if it was, there would be only one or two instances. Teams should also be rewarded for traveling to more tournaments.

Limit the number of qualifiers you can travel to to 3, and this is even less of an issue.

If this is going to remain an individual sport for a while, then I think the points system is the way to go.

The reason why I am in favor of a non skilled based for year one is that you saw what happened the year when we tried to get too selective too fast. It is my belief for the first year we just need a bottom filter, instead of a top filter. I don't think we understand enough of the variables to apply a skill limit. Subsequent years, after a year of data collection, sure. We agree that teams should be rewarded for travelling and also if it quality based points/games more tournaments will pop up to fill demand. ...more polo is good, right? All I am saying is I think if we just make sure the first year, that the people that play have played in tournaments before, it will cut down on the rush without being unnecessarily exclusive. I could even stagger registration in my software to give teams with higher points/games precedence on registration and players would get emails to say they are eligible to register. We want to encourage MORE polo, not limit.

I am in favor of a non-skill based points system in the beginning, then moving to a skill based points system. I think the main problem we have to solve in the beginning is keeping teams that have never been in a tournament from clogging the qualifiers. ..and really should they be playing there anyways if its there first one. My thought was to use a system, like mine, and just say you have to have played 20 - 30 games logged in 2012 to register for NAs and I think that would be MORE than enough of a "filter" to keep the size where we want it. Players sorted by games played... http://www.hardcourtbikepolo.org/polo/main/games/index.html

"How many points would someone need for entrance into NAs? Would 50 do it?"
I would say depending on the space of said tournament the top point holders combine there total and work down.

"how many extra games need to be played to determine exact placement all the way out to 32nd place?"
you group them into 8's and take the lowest points out of the 10 drop

remember the points are alloted to the player in the trio


carve. smash. eat shit.

has anyone mentioned how barry white supremacy displayed a huge flaw in the system last year in the most dickish way they could possibly think of. There should be a rule that if you have already qualified then you cant play in another qualifier unless you are playing with 2 people who havent qualified yet.

Whos got the crack!


Haha wasn't the flaw that cascadia couldn't finish their tournament before 1 in the morning?

Allowing one qualifier only for teams that qualify means less good polo played in less good places. The qualifiers are the only tournaments with great courts and you are effectively killing a lot of talent and a lot of progression.

Cody said all of this really well right above.

NookieRick wrote:

Haha wasn't the flaw that cascadia couldn't finish their tournament before 1 in the morning?


NookieRick wrote:

one qualifier only for teams that qualify means less good polo played in less good places. The qualifiers are the only tournaments with great courts and you are effectively killing a lot of talent and a lot of progression.

Cody said all of this really well right above.

good point
Im just going to say this down here since its a mess up there.
1) joker made a good point by having a seventh regional for only teams that havent qualified
2 )for each team that shows up and re-qualifies, there should be a spot that opens up to compensate for them being there... in my opinion

Whos got the crack!


Whos got the crack!

Was there a problem with Calgary turning people away last year?

The tour provides a tenuous but symbiotic relationship between top players, the organizers, and those of us that don't stand on a podium each weekend.

Not sure how many duplicate spots Barry soaked up so let's say 4. Those 4 "stolen" spots meant that 4 more teams from the wildcard make it to the Championship tourney! They didn't expose a flaw. They exposed at least 3 benefits that were put there by design. The traveler got to play a lot of polo, organizers didn't have to run an additional 10+ games to settle ties ***, and more people got a chance to play in the NAH Championship (yes, the duplicates HELPED the underdog at the NA's).

Is it so awful that those ranking lower than 44th place in NA might have to play in the wildcard? Calgary had room for 108 teams and 64 would play in the Championship. That's huge!

BWS, and any other team or player that qualifed more than once, did nothing wrong. Actually, they did more than most. They read the rules and played a lot of polo. Good for them.

***(this is necessary to do if you eradicate duplicates)


Mike_T_PHX wrote:

Not sure how many duplicate spots Barry soaked up so let's say 4. Those 4 "stolen" spots meant that 4 more teams from the wildcard make it to the Championship tourney! They didn't expose a flaw. They exposed at least 3 benefits that were put there by design. The traveler got to play a lot of polo, organizers didn't have to run an additional 10+ games to settle ties ***, and more people got a chance to play in the NAH Championship (yes, the duplicates HELPED the underdog at the NA's).

BWS, and any other team or player that qualifed more than once, did nothing wrong. Actually, they did more than most. They read the rules and played a lot of polo. Good for them.

***(this is necessary to do if you eradicate duplicates)

Wow. I'm glad someone out there was paying attention

fuck yea tex x2!

slayers are only slayers if the slay out of town...

there is a board meeting this evening.
all of the above has been taken into consideration.
hopefully a decision is made and statement is produced for the poloverse outlining the 2012 year.
please expect something soon, and most likely in a new topic as this one is rather long, and it will start it's own trail of discussion i am sure.

thank you. and thanks to all the other board members spending their time on this.