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

NAH Tour Registration Method

The NAH Tournaments committee is responding to concerns raised over the 2011 season, and we are going to be transparent and open to public input.

One thing we talked about was the method for registration.
Some didn't like the timed "rat-race" aspect to this.
If you, or someone you know, has a method they think would be more effective we welcome any and all suggestions/programs/alternatives to consider.

This is one ball we are moving for the 2012 tour. more to come.

if out of region teams aren't going to be playing in regional qualifier tournaments then i don't see a problem with continuing how things were done last year (unless a helluva lot more players decide to travel) as this will free up more spots and perhaps lessen the sense of urgency to register seconds after the opening bell. i don't recall there being lot of tournaments that filled up within an unreasonably short amount of time. If a team registers within day or two after registration opens, that should be plenty of time to get a spot, should it not? Frankly if you're lolly-gagging, can't find time to spare 5 minutes of your life to fill out an online form or haven't sorted out your shit before the registration opens, you're probably not that serious about getting a spot anyway.

Is this happening? Are all the tournaments gonna be in-region only?


ok, looks like i jumped the gun on the in-region team thing. even so, i still don't recall there being instances where tournaments filled up within an unreasonably short amount of time and didn't give people the chance to register that wanted to register.

The 2011 SC and SE Qualifiers ran out of out-of-region spots in 1 and 7 minutes respectively. Teams were excluded because of the time they chose to register.

all the tournament spots didn't fill up tho, which is what i was getting at.

i believe there is a cap on out of region teams for a very good reason, to maintain the legitimacy of a REGIONAL qualifier.
lets say for the sake of argument that in these situations that there were no caps on out of region teams. The legitimacy of the tournament results (which is being held to determine the best teams in the region) could potentially be skewed if there ended up being a large number of out of region teams, and in region teams were not able to play because they were bumped down the registration list by the out of region teams. the priority definitely should be going to in region teams. in these situations i would definitely be trying to register as quickly as possible knowing that i could be bumped by a team not in my region, which is the situation i think we should be trying to avoid next time around.

i don't think there is a problem with rewarding teams who want to be there the most and show it by sitting by the computer and registering quickly.

Perhaps open the first days/week of registration to in region teams and after that its open to anyone.

All the tournament spots did fill up. At least for SC. As the team that was first on the waiting list (registered at 10 mins 1 second) we didn't ever get a chance to go to SC. We would have liked to but all of the in-region spots were filled and none of the out of region teams backed out.

according to the registered teams list ALL the tournament spots did not fill up in 10 minutes. looks like it took 2 days. maybe you mean all the out of region tournament spots filled up in less than 10 minutes. Actually, it looks like they filled up in less than a minute. yow!
of course the out of region spots have the potential to fill up faster. there are less spots and more teams that have the potential to fill them.

Dude some of them filled up in minutes if not seconds

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

posted from wrong account...fixing now.

Fuck off

above was me. sorry. answer to memphis below:

that is not defined yet.
we are merely asking for a response from the community to a problem that people voiced regarding last year's tour.
registration, albeit requiring a team member to be by a computer at the time registration opened, did not fail but we thought we'd open up the discussion to see if anyone since the end of the tour has come up with an alternative to the 'rat-race' style of registering for qualifying tour tournaments.

i repeat, the decision to have open [like 2011] or closed qualifiers has not been made. we are merely seeking alternative registration methods if they exist.

I can think of two different registration methods:

1. Lottery: Everyone submits their team by a specified date. Teams are then randomly chosen until there are no more available spots. Remaining unchosen entrants are refused participation in the tournament.

2. Don't limit the size of the tournament: Tournament organizers would grow the tournament to accomodate the number of entrants.

Lottery is a terrible idea. Imagine if a top team by chance doesn't get to play in any of the qualifiers.

I never said I liked either of these ideas :)


I'm in favor of regional tournaments allowing in-region teams only. In my opinion it would solve this problem, along with many others, but that's for another discussion.

If the tournaments are open to non-region teams and players, then I think there should be priority given to in-region teams. Up to a certain point in-region teams should be able to push out-of-region teams from the registration process. Perhaps there is a period of time for in-region registration at which point the rest is then opened up, perhaps in-region teams are allowed to continue registering for a full week or two after it opens, even if it ends up sold out immediately, with out-of-region teams stepping aside.

Not into Lottery for same reason as Pete.

The official stance of milwaukee bike polo is as follows

Limiting regionals to as mny in reigon teams is as possible is a goodd thing but closing the door to out of reigon teams is excessive.

Therefore we propse 2 dates during the spring and summer to hold reigonal qualifiers.

regions need to be cut to 6 in total. Nw nc ne sw sc se. Reigoans are cut exclusively by geography as a means to limit travel expenditure. This creatse 3 southenr and 3 northern reigons our system is such that all 3 souther qaulifiers occur on the same weekend and all 3 northern qualifiers occur on a same, seperate weekend. Later in the season (to accomidate for ideal polo weather).

All souther reigon qualifiers occur on the same weekend early spring.

All northern half qualifiers take place on the same weekend in early june.

Nobody is limited to reigon by rule but due to geography players will most likely participate in 1 in reigon tournamnet than 1 out of reigon tournament of their choice in an attempt to qualify.

This is great because it limits ability to participate in an excessive amount of qualifiers without putting rules in place. This allows players to pick and chose which qualifiers they would mot enjoy attending.

The second option would be three tournament dates split by time zones. In this system plyers would have the opportunity to partiipate in 1 in regional tournament and 2 out of region to attempt to qualiify.

Summarizng we propose a 2 weekend north south divide or a 3 weekend east central west divide without restriction on where u can play but still utilizing a internet speed registration to fill tournaments. At this point we think clikcky game is probably besy option but we are currently discussing other options like state tournaments to qualify for reigon tournaments.

Good ideas all over here.

besides the fact you wrote this while drunk. so many typos

Maxxx wrote:

Good ideas all over here.

besides the fact you wrote this while drunk. so many typos

not gonna lie i was gettin my buzzz on. but the real problem was that it was typed on a mini keyboard of my science phone.

Aside from your bizarre spelling, I like the direction of this...

There should be some limit to the number of tournaments a team can play in. Simultaneous tourneys is an easy and fair way to do this.

Perhaps we pair regions differently... 6 regions, 3 weekends, and schedule a "deep" region with a region that isn't as strong. That discourages top teams from traveling to beat up on a region, since they wouldn't want to miss the major tourney. We could determine the pairings simply by the number of players/teams from a region that qualified in 2011... #1 and #6, #2 and #5, #3 and #4

Love this.

Midwests and South East one weekend. Espi and South Central one weekend. Cascadia and SW one weekend.



Vince, what you added to our proposal is great.. this is a template that we could use in consecutive seasons that will always keep things fair for teams in terms of distance to travel and money VS how bad you want to qualify and choosing the tournaments you attend strategically..

This system allows teams to weigh how badly they want to qualify against how much they want to spend/devote time to travel while simultaneously dispersing the competition. disallowing the same elite teams to sandbag every regional because all tournaments are on one of two weekends spread out across the country ( and canada and mexico)

also, I like the idea that registration precedence is given to in-region teams, and registered out-of-region teams get displaced from the tounament as more in region teams sign up... although as polo becomes more popular, i see regionals easily filling up with in-region teams.. which does not necissarily provide a NA Championship with the most deserving teams..

- Beaver Boys * Milwaukee Bike Polo Club -

i also like this (both what Brian and Vince said)

it's been argued that a single "regionals weekend" is implausible, but this remedies that while still weighing the strengths (skill) of the regions.

...and yes, keep the preference for in-region, but i also see no reason to exclude out-of-regions teams if they slots aren't filled.

i like this idea, but consider this.

this past year, the SCBPC was in Little Rock, AR. The SEBPC was in Savannah, GA. I live in Memphis, TN in the SE region, which is 2hrs from Little Rock and 12 hours from Savannah.

the current setup allowed us to play in both tourneys. but this scenario would require me to play in the tourney that was 12hrs away instead of the one that was 2hrs away. then pick an out-of-region tourney that would likely be like 8hrs away.

this may be a situation where you just can't please everyone.

adamhite wrote:

this may be a situation where you just can't please everyone.

Yeah there's always going to be cities right on the border. If you look back at the discussions from 1.5 years ago, at first there were only going to be 6 regions. SC was invented and then other borders got shuffled around too.

Oh and 12 hours is nothing compared to what some cities have had to deal with, like Winnipeg, Saskatoon, and all of Mexico.

X2 I attended 4 tournaments this year. My regional was 20 hours away. Saskatoon (out of region) was 9 hours, Toronto (out of region) 25 hours, and Calgary (out of region) 13 hours. Sometimes it just sucks where the tournaments fall. Sometimes it also just sucks to live where I live.

I like the idea of mini qualifiers to get in. The competition level is pretty high in these things so maybe they aren't the best first tournament for a team. Maybe something as simple as requiring that at least two of the players have played as a team in a previous tournament.

Another possibility:

If we had a decent census of active players, we could give each club a proportional number of slots in their regional tourney - that would fill up say 3/4 of the tourney. The remaining slots could then be offered up to the fastest clicker, in or out of region.

Ultimately I'm interested in seeing if NAH can create a diversity of players (of region and skill level) through the registration without allowing any top teams to register more than once for the North American Championships.

I think NAH could give more power to the regional reps in admission of certain teams to their tournaments. This could be as simple as creating in-region registration ahead of out of region registration. This could also mean regional reps can make decisions regarding the teams registered vs the teams that aren't registered that can play. This could also mean that each club rep should communicate with the regional rep and be promised an amount of spots for teams from their club. Beyond those spots, there should also be a safety net for both in region players and out of players to register. If there is a closed registration, followed by open registration, with reasonable amount of teams on both sides of the registration being able to play and register for the big show(the NA champ).

To be honest, I'm in favor of closed registration (teams can only register for their own regional qualifiers). The point of regional qualification is that each region sends its own top players to nationals/worlds. When out of region teams come to play and consistently place in the top 5 positions, it limits the diversity of teams that qualify for nationals. If we're going to allow out of region teams to play in regional tournament, I don't think we should allow their placing to affect their qualification, and the top placing in region teams should qualify for nationals. Example: if a team from NYC comes to southeast and wins, that win should not be what qualifies them for nationals. The next highest placing regional team should get the qualifying spot. Basically, I'd like to see a system where teams could only qualify for nationals in their own region. I like the idea of holding multiple qualifying tournaments on the same dates, but how can we be sure that the cities hosting these tournaments (whichever they turn out to be) are going to be able to accommodate this? Is NAHBP going to post dates and take bids, like it does for worlds? Or is it going to be up to tournament organizers to talk to neighboring regions to get these dates set up?

There are only a couple of teams in most regions that actually have a shot a winning the tournament and for them they're going to qualify either way. For those that weren't going to qualify it means they finish 25th instead of 15th. So Sunday they're two and out verses 2 and 2. It's disappointing but still fun.

I don't understand what you're saying here. What's the point of letting a team qualify at every regional tournament? Isn't once, from their own region, enough? You know, equal representation and all that?

Another idea is Entry and Selection.

Entry date opens.

After two weeks, organizer Selects teams (maybe NAH gets a review of entries and selections). Organizers need to follow a rough 75 in region / 25 out of region rule.

That gives organizer a lot of control. I like it better than lottery and fast click wins. It forces out the ghost registrations. Any entry with Machine will have to be closely inspected.

Making all the tourneys happen on the same weekend could be tricky. Redrawing regions is also tricky.

polojoel wrote:


That gives organizer a lot of control. I like it better than lottery and fast click wins. It forces out the ghost registrations. Any entry with Machine will have to be closely inspected.


Yah step up to the plate , they don't call ya The step up to the plater , ya help build courts for every tournie possible but they dont call ya The board builder , ya travel round the planet for the love of polo but they don't call ya The round the planet polo traveler but oh no ya make one wee slip up with a sheep named Betsy and it's all over town......................................How is Betsy , Joel

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

Ya call a repetitive pattern of sheep fornication a "wee slip up" and what do all your friends call you?


Just making sure I understand. Are you suggesting the selection criteria is left to the organizer's judgement?


The discussion is centered on systemic rules. The problem is "the system" is not mature. We took a shot at a systemic solution last year that got us through. However we recognize some major shortcomings...how to select a limited number of teams, how to allocate spots, etc....

Organizers could take a more hands-on approach. My idea is to give them a ist of entries and allow them to build the roster of selected teams from that. It could be more of a committee decision, where the NAH could recommend things like: that team already qualified, this team was rejected at the other qualifier and deserves a spot here, this team is only 2 hours away and we consider them in region, etc...

We know the organizers. We can trust them. We should put more trust in them. To me, it's preferable to a lottery or click ticket race.

polojoel wrote:

The problem is "the system" is not mature.

I agree the system is not mature, but I don't understand how a hands on approach isn't its own system. That means you're taking a one year old system and replacing it with a zero year old system to solve the problem of immaturity, which doesn't add up.

polojoel wrote:

Organizers could take a more hands-on approach. My idea is to give them a ist of entries and allow them to build the roster of selected teams from that. It could be more of a committee decision, where the NAH could recommend things like: that team already qualified, this team was rejected at the other qualifier and deserves a spot here, this team is only 2 hours away and we consider them in region, etc...

We know the organizers. We can trust them. We should put more trust in them. To me, it's preferable to a lottery or click ticket race.

There still needs to be a structure so everyone can know what to expect and that will be, by nature, immature in it's first couple of years. Do organizers want this extra workload and responsibility? I vote for Kev to handle all the grievances. I have a difficult time seeing this become more a accepted way of excluding people from a full tournament. The 2011 system simplifies the reason for exclusion down to 2 arguments. Either the player failed to register in a timely manner or the organizer didn't hold a large enough tournament to satisfy demand. An organizer determined entry system is going to vary by organizer and have endless reasons for why someone was excluded. Many judments coming down to someone making a black and white decision on a grey area matter. (i.e. Squeaky wheel gets the grease)

polojoel wrote:

However we recognize some major shortcomings...how to select a limited number of teams, how to allocate spots, etc.....

These aren't shortcomings. Our immature system is capable of selecting a limited number of teams and allocating spots. Not everyone likes how it was done, but the system is transparent if you're willing to accept it. I think if the critics invested the time to understand why things were done the way they were and cared enough to investigate the causes of failure instead of attacking on issues of heresay, you'd hear a lot of "Oh, I didn't realize that" and "It does that too?".

What our system failed to determine was the number of teams that would claim their berth and register for the Calgary NA's. One year ago we were all blind to the possibility that 62% of the qualified players would forfeit their right to the NA Championship. I'm not sure how that result can be anticipated in the years to come and I wonder if the tour system is even the place to do it.

Separate the regional championships from the qualifiers. Give out one or two qualifying spots at every tournament and have a large wild card tournament for the rest of the spots. It would be great if even little tournaments had one spot to give out.

I think these qualifying tournaments should have no prizes or titles, you merely win the right to compete in NA's. Therefore we can still have a our grass root major tournaments like the ESPI and Midwest.


I like the idea of regional championships separate from NA regional qualifiers.

Qualifiers should be set up by NAH and should be played only to determine spots in the NA Championship... no title, not even prizes... we could even stop the tournament after after the spots have been secured. No need to play it out to 1,2,3,etc.

Three Southern tournaments over the same dates (SW SC and SE) and three Northern tournaments on the same date (NE, NC, NW) giving everyone two chances to qualify with one of those chances happening within driving distance.

Because teams will be playing only for NA Championship spots, a team that secured a spot in a southern tournament would not be eligible to enter a Northern qualifier.

Example: If Beaver Boys decide to go down to New Orleans in early Spring to qualify at SC (because its still snowing in Milwaukee) and qualify, we would not be eligible to enter our own NC qualifier making more room for other teams to qualify in OUR region... and since it is separate from the Midwest Championship and there is no Jenny Cup or title on the line, I would be perfectly OK with that.

Another example: If you are a B+ team in the SW and a few slayer Cascadia teams decide to come to your tournament and you think may bump your team from qualifying, you have the option to travel to the next region over where those teams won't be if you realy want to qualify that badly... also, if say Guardians qualify at the SW they would not eligible to play in NW.

maybe qualified individuals shouldn't be eligible to play either.. that way no one could recruit a couple ringers who have already qualified to get only the third qualified... ? idunno, I keep thinking of other scenarios as i type...

- Beaver Boys * Milwaukee Bike Polo Club -

Thought provoking ideas. Thank you.

Applying your two qualifier date structure, it would probably be preferable to stagger registration dates for each tournament if entry is based on registration time.

Qualifier structure aside, how do you envision 2012 registration going down? (Clicky game, Lottery, No one turned away, Organizer's choice, ?)

Yes! Removing prizes and titles form the NAH qualifiers and separating the events from our grass roots events is a great idea. I believe this will ultimately result in lower team turn out at the qualifiers as well as create an easily understood distinction between NAH competition teams/polo and the polo events we already know and love.

Keep in mind lower team turn out at NAH qualifiers is not a bad thing... having less than 48 teams show up in your city makes the logistics of running these events quite a bit easier. I also believe that this will make for better regional championship and "fun" tournaments because of... well, because they have prizes and there is regional pride to be won as well...

In regards to NAH qualifiers, I think Kremin said it best - "you merely win the right to compete in NA's"

probably too seriously...


Maybe make it so that you're considered "in-region" for the closest tournament to ya, especially if we're considering limiting the outta-region spots further.


While I agree this sounds convenient for players, it also sounds difficult to administer.

After registration occurs, NAH or the organizer of the qualifier would have to calculate each player's distance from a qualifer to determine which teams are in-region* and out-of-region* to determine a radius for in-region*. Or, they could guess a radius before but it still doesn't fix the calculation involved.

There will also be some confused in-region (no asterisk) players when their registration is refused because they have been classified as out-of-region*. It is also likely for some cities to never be classified as in-region* (e.g. Honolulu, Winnipeg)

* = determined by distance from the qualifier instead of the NAH map.

I guess it's too much to hope for that people would just be honest about it. Oh, well.


I don't think it is too much to hope people are honest. Keep hoping and please keep sharing your ideas. Hopefully my pragmatism hasn't discouraged you.

I'm not questioning people's honesty, I'm questioning our available resources to implement and communicate your idea effectively so it works as intended. As hard working as Kev is, we can only load so much on his back :)

Won't be on my back! Wasn't really last year either. I set up the registration forms for most regional tournaments last year but regional reps checked to see if it was legit and dealt with any drama (there was remarkably little, which speaks i think to people's honesty). Any drama seems to have come from players who were dropped from their team, or any cases where teams registered with a third "TBD". We let that go last year, although we didn't let any single register with two TBDs, and no team registered as a "regional" team without at least two names of players who lived in the region.

Don't let people qualify more then once. That's just repetitive. People shouldn't even be able to register in another one of these once they've qualified. What's the point in that?

Even better might be that people can only register in one qualifier regardless if they make it or not. I think this would really help sort out the competition for those few out of region spots. Pick the region you want to compete in and the team you want to play with and let that be it.

I still think people should be able to play in another regional, especially if they just wanna travel, but I agree that it's a little silly to allow multiple qualifiers.


Ok, idea:

Remove any in-region requirements to register, BUT you only have "priority" in two regional tournaments. Meaning, you can basically pick two tournaments that you want to play in for sure. That's not to say that you couldn't register for other tournaments, just that you wouldn't be sure to get in automatically. After maybe a week or two of letting people register for their priority tournaments, open the remaining spots on a first-come, first-serve basis.

My hope is that people would try to make their two priority spots the ones closest to them and try to qualify there. Then, if they just wanna play in other tournaments for fun, they'd still be able to do that, but anyone who NEEDED to register for that tournament for a chance to qualify, or because they can't travel far or whatever, wouldn't get bumped.

This would probably require that all locations/dates be decided in a reasonable amount of time, however. It'd be nice to say like by the new year, but I think that's pretty optimistic, so maybe like by February? Of course, DPI was in January last year and it was a qualifier, so yeah, you'd either need to require all the tournies be announced pretty early, or just not allow any to start before a certain date.


I like this idea. Not sure everyone could nail down a date this year by February based on what I saw for the 2011 season. I agree you would need all the dates. The other buy in I think you would need is for the qualifer organizer to be willing to accomodate all "priority" entries or advertise that they are first come, first served. This might be better suited for 2013 consideration as it's open structure will generate some lively discussion..

Returning to the current tour structure and applying some of your idea:

If in-region entry was difficult at certain qualifiers this year, the qualifer might have just been too small for the region. Thanks to 2011, we have data showing the demand at each qualifer. This can help qualifier organizers understand the demand in their region so they can grow and accomodate more. This could also be a legitimate reason to re-balance districts.

Each region chose the size of their tourney and its possible they could have guessed better. I think they did pretty good overall despite their only option being a blind guess about an unproven system. An additional requirement for 2012 qualifier bid approval could be that the qualifier provide enough in region spots to satisfy either 2011 demand or actual demand, AND still provide the 25% of total spots to out of region slayers. This would eliminate any in-region exclusion and keep proportions uniform for the out-of-region participants.

I have another more complicated idea, as I think the "qualifiers" were bad for polo, we want more tournaments, not less

...but honestly, I think that you could run the 2012 tour identical to the 2011 tour in every way including multiple qualifications and just simply raise the cutoff number, knowing that many of the higher placing teams are dupes. I don't think people care about the prizes either way. I don't think people fly coast to coast for another messenger bag or free 1/8 mallet.


The system might have to be reactive to human behavior. It is hard to determine the cutoff number correctly. Guess too high and you find yourself retracting previously granted NA berths. No one knows the golden number.

For regional qualifiers people from that region should be able to sign up on a certain date and then once all the qualifiers are announced there will be a specified day in which all qualifiers open up to to people from outside regions. This makes it to where you can't steal spots in every single qualifier.


What is the point of having people or teams that are already qualified playing in additional qualifiers? Qualifiers are great polo so it would be unfair not to allow the best teams to win them all if they can? This is messed up!

There are more teams that want to play in these qualifiers then spots available. Allowing teams to play in more then one is extra burden on the host cities for no gain. It reduced diversity and it's bad for the system to let a handful of plays can get off like this. There're a lot of good tournaments each year and closing the qualifies to people who are already qualified or even that have already had a chance to qualify would make all of the other tournaments better. It would force those good players to look for good game else where and bring up the level of play across the board.

1% of the players are taking up 40% of the spots. This is broken and it needs to be addressed. If you want to fix this system start here and fix this first.

One Team > One Chance!


one team one chance is a good way to look at it.
but what about teammates?
i'm being the devil's advocate because i want to hear your ideas.

so if i'm on a team and we qualify at a regional...but i play in a different regional with two regional players from that region can i still play or do they have to find someone that is not already qualified? we are trying to maintain a 2/3 rule throughout as we know it's difficult to comprise teams of just regional players sometimes.

i think keeping the 2/3s rule is important.


Why is the 2/3 rule important? If you want to be North American Champion it isn't too much to ask that you qualify with your teammates and play with them at the Championship. If teams stick together you could probably even skip the swiss rounds and just rank them according to their results in the qualifiers. I don't want to come off as hard-core but these extra things like all-star teams getting together to be spoilers in qualifier and teams re-aligning don't add legitimacy to the championship. I understand a couple teams may be effected by an injury or a death in the family. For them there is always next year. Too hard-core?? Maybe a wild-card tournament the day before the championship to allow them and other teams on the cusp to get back in.

One Team > One Chance! If your taking polo serious enough this won't be an issue for your team. This idea doesn't hinge on separating regional championships from qualifiers but it would be cleaner and their would be more polo if they were separate.

when i was thinking about it, i thought of it in terms of regional qualifiers and making teams in general. I meant it in more of a team forming way, not in an all stars making ultimate team kind of ways.... for example, i play in Columiba missouri and near by is lawrence kansas (who i've gone to play with several times), and if i didnt have a team in missouri so i branched out to my friends in lawrence, i would be branching into another region, but i dont think it would be harmful for me to join up with two lawrence players so that i could be on a team.

i totally get the one team one chance thing though, and i agree with that. i guess i just needed to clarify.


so it sounds like you would be ok if the team is comprised of 2 out of the 3 from one region and 1 out of region player, as long as this team stays together for all regional qualifiers they would be eligible to enter into...?

are you then suggesting they would have to remain the same team in the NAHBPC? [this is significantly different then the 2011 eligibility status of 2/3 rule].

Oh yeah the 2/3 rule for entering the regional championships.

If the qualifiers are going to be the championships and players can only enter one I don't think the 2/3 rule would be much of a factor. Enter which ever qualifier you have the most interest in, the closest, or the one you think you have the best shot of qualifying.

Yes, I think it's reasonable that teams/players can only enter one qualifier for the NAHBPC and they play together as a team in the NAHBPC.

Sounds like you want more restriction and less games of polo. If you look at the facts, the greatest flaw of the 2011 Tour wasn't those who attended more than one tournament and had a habit of placing well. The greatest flaw was the number of players that qualified and didn't register for the NA's. 206 players qualified but only 78 of them chose to attend! (I'm guessing the Worlds being here and also the inability for some to sneak into Canada were contributing factors). We assumed more than 38% would claim their spot in Calgary. I'm willing to admit to my share of that error.

How many players were prevented from participating in the NA's for 2011? 0

How many players were denied a spot in the top 12 of their qualifier because of players who had already qualified? 45 (an average of 2.2 teams per qualifier)

How many of those displaced players were invited to participate in the NA Wildcard? 45

What was the maximum player capacity of the NA Wildcard? 144 players (48 teams)

If the NA's would have filled to qualified capacity, how many players from the wildcard would advance to the championship tourney? 45

How many qualified players chose to not participate at the 2011 NA's? 128


It's not really a tour if you can't play in more than one tourney.

I want more polo in more places and more teams having an opportunity to qualify. Cutting out people trying to qualify multiple times and taking up space needlessly at these qualifiers is about getting more teams qualified not less. Space was very limited at the qualifiers last year and it is widely expected to be worse this year. All of them had long waiting lists of teams that wanted to play that didn't get in. If the dupes were eliminated it goes directly to fixing this issue. I by no means want to have less polo, fewer tournaments, or fewer games in the tournaments.

MusicSucks if your into tours it wasn't really structured right last year as a tour either. It seemed more just a name in reality. It's a cool idea though. My One Team > One Chance! protest doesn't really have any place in a tour it was for a qualifying system and championship. Off the top of my head I think a point system would be a better fit for a tour. You should write up your own idea of how to structure a really good tour and submit it.

stevenso wrote:

"All of them" had long waiting lists of teams that wanted to play that didn't get in.

This isn't true. More fact and less heresay please.

Maybe I've come off too serious. My concept of One Team One Chance came out of a perceived shortage of space and the fact that qualifying multiple times was meaningless in the current system. It isn't meant to hurt the teams that are excellent at polo. In fact, maybe I have a better idea anyway. See below:

Another idea is to do it like the NFL does to qualify for playoffs. For the NFL, how you do in your division against the other teams in your division is what matters. So if we take my previous idea when you let people in the regions only sign up in the beginning and then once all tournaments are announced and you've given plenty of time for the people in the regions to sign up, you designated a day to where all the tournaments open up to outside players to fill the remaining spots at the same time so that one team cant play every tournament; you have to be selective. Going back to the NFL thing, these limited number of out of region teams will be able to play BUT they will only be able to win and claim the prizes, they can not qualify for NAH in an outside tournament. So even if the top 5 teams are out of region they dont get to qualify, you just find the top 8 or 9 (or how ever many) from that actual region and have them play in the NAHs.


I agree with this because then nobody from in region could complain about not getting to qualify because of out of region teams doing well. It also lets those from the edge of one region go to the qualifiers in another region without feeling guilty. I know that the SC qualifier was closer to COMO (a Midwest club) than the Midwest qualifier last season. I'd feel bad if someone who would've qualified had I not finished in the top 8 really wanted to go to NAs and I think other players share that sentiment.

these ideas are all great people, keep them coming!

If you've been thinking of a solution to this dilemma and have not put it forward please do so here or email me directly at chandelbodner@gmail.com

we have a committee meeting tomorrow evening and these are all being used to create 'scenarios' that are up for debate.
at this time I think it's imperative to suggest communicating with your club and regional reps to voice your collective opinions so that all voices can be heard in the most effective way possible. if you absolutely do not think that you will be 'heard' by your reps then please also email me with your concerns/opinions/etc. The tournament committee is created to organize these thoughts into efficient statements, limiting repetition, to be debated and narrowed down. at the point of narrowing we will be consulting all regional reps for their opinions, so please talk to the club reps and make sure you're elected club rep is talking to your regional rep so that your region is fairly voiced!


Continued from above...

I don't have any delusions that my team could be North American Champions so I'm not really coming at this from that end. For our Regional Championship I want to play Austin, Lawrence, Little Rock, Dallas and a few others in our region and see how our clubs compare. There's a lot of people like that. I'm also not advocating that these things be closed to outside team. I liked that other teams from neighboring regions or even far away wanted to come to the South Central Championship.

My latest idea: Make the tournaments bigger!

I know my club as worked hard to get our team better this year and if somehow we did qualify we'd go because NA's is amazing. We'd just like to play some games against other regions and meet people that love polo like we do. So if we don't qualify in the top 8 or 12 in your regional championship could we still go and be in the "b" tournament. Is that crazy? Would it be wrong to have 100 teams with an "a" and "b" tournament? I know my team would do a lot better and have more fun if we weren't facing the top half of the field.

I still don't know what to do with the meaninglessness of qualifying multiple times. I'm sorry if my other idea made any of the best teams feel unwanted. That wasn't my goal at all.

Speaking as someone who traveled to a couple qualifiers last year, I am very happy they were somewhat open reggo. NA qualifiers this year were typically very competitive, with the highest number of top level teams attending those tourneys. I didn't go to these tourneys because I wanted to qualify multiple times or win prizes, I went cuz I wanted to battle the best out there. And playing these teams has improved my level of polo more than anything else I can think of. I hope this year I get the same opportunities I did last year, and the strong regions space out their tourneys so I can attend more than one. We only get so many chances to matchup against each other before NA's/Worlds, so lets get all the polo in we can before then. And speaking from the Southwest, we hope ya'll can make it out to the Southwest qualifier. To the Slayers that visited last time, that was awesome, hope to see more of you.

dbl post whoops

waiting to hear whether DPI will be open to out of region teams, any news on this? plane tickets are still pretty cheap

NAH is currently evaluating just how open the qualifiers will be. It is likely the system will be pretty similar to last year, but with some tweaks regarding out of region teams. You may want to get in touch with your regional reps (Kiersten and Cecily) and let them know you want to travel to out of region qualifiers so they can pass that on to the tourney committee and NAH. This weekend an email was sent out pertaining to this, and NAH is collecting input regarding out of region eligibility. NAH has a board meeting scheduled soon to specifically resolve this, this month. I wish I had better answer for you, but basically you have to wait for just a little longer.