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

North American host clubs for NAs 2015/16, Worlds 2015/16, Bench Champs 2015

So we have a few big tournaments coming up in the next few years. And it's getting to that time of year were we need to start thinking of host clubs.

NAs will probably move for 2015. MPLS did a great job for 2 years, and there are many reasons to stay, but I think they need a break, and it's only fair to host NAs somewhere other than the Midwest.

We are looking at Guadalajara for 2015, but we would also welcome other bids. Los Angeles or Denver might be interested, and Las Vegas was suggested to me too.

The most basic requirement is 3 good courts, in the same location. After that, things like cheap housing/hotels, local food and drink options, bathroom facilities, travel hub, good weather between July and September etc.. are very useful.

If you think your club can provide that, please post here, or email me at tournaments@nahardcourt.com. We would like to have a host set well before Christmas.

Worlds 2016 (or 2015 if Australia/NZ doesn't host). We haven't got any host lined up for that. With worlds 4 courts are now becoming a requirement, so ideally we would like to be able to provide that. All the other requirements, and especially easy access to international flights are important. With worlds it's likely to be in September/October, so good weather then is important.

Again, contact me if you are interested.

Finally if the Bench Champs goes well, we will look at doing it again next year. With the feedback, we want to do it as late in 2015 as possible, or even January 2016. So a southern location, with warm weather, is very important. Again, this needs to be a similar 3 court location.

Looking forward to see those bids come in...

And of course, as regions you should already be working on your regional qualifier hosts for 2015.

For some regions 1 court may be enough, for others 2, or even 3.

Let your regional rep, or me, know if you are interested.

Any word yet on qualifier dates or date ranges?

Question: For the WHBPC 2015, has Timaru withdrawn their bid?

The tacit implication of their withdrawl from bidding for 2014 was that they're bid would go uncontested for 2015. Has anything changed on this?

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Word on the Australasian street is that it will either be in Timaru or Melbourne. They were thinking of moving it to Melbourne for ease of travel. No official statement as of yet though.


Melbourne will not be bidding for worlds 2015. Timaru is still exploring options and should have a better idea after an AGM which is set to tonight kiwi time.

Nope. I know Aus/NZ are working on it. I mention 2015 purely for contingency.

Thank you for the clarification, and I love contingencies. While we're at it, for NAHBPC, what's the regional break down of spots for 2015 after this year's NAs? Who gained/lost spots, and are there any proposed changes for the system?

(or if this is still being worked out, I'd understand)

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

As you asked, here it is. There is a very slight proposed change, which needs to be approved first.

The system of 2 + top 24 NAHBPC will stay as it is. That covers 45 spots, and leaves 3 bonus spots.

The proposed change is that the bonus spots will be given from the bottom up, to the regions with the least spots, rather than those with the most as it was in 2013. Where multiple regions have the same number of spots, we will prioritise those with the highest finish at the NAHBPC

That slight change is due to the feedback we got this year, to strike a good balance between quality and inclusiveness.

The good news is that we saw a very equal performance from most regions. Apart from Cascadia, and SW, almost all the regions had a very similar record, and every region had at least 1 team in the top 24.

This would mean the following allocation:

Champs: Beavers
Cascadia: 2+9 = 11
SW: 2+3 = 5
ES: 2+2 = 4
GL:2+2 = 4
HL:2+2 = 4
SE:2+2 = 4
GP:2+1+1 (25th)= 4
SC:2+1+1 (25th)= 4
NS:2+1+1 (31st) = 4
MEX:2+1 = 3

If any region doesn't fill it's allocation (which happened this year), spare spots would be allocated in this order:

4th spot:

5th spot:
ES (25th)
SE (25th)
GL (29th)
GP (33rd)
HL (37th)
SC (39th)
NS (43rd)

Please tie-break 25th spots based on records and allocate spots accordingly rather than giving them away to the weaker regions.

For reference, that would mean the 3 bonus spots go to GP, ES and SC. So the same, expect the 4th NS spot, becomes the 5th ES spot.

I can certainly add it as a voting option when it does go to the reps.

it's great as is. thank you john!



SE showed up in 2014 and earned their 4th qual spot.
No reason NS should be given theirs.

Give a quali spot to europe

edit: really gotta stop drunk posting on here

I'm fine with either break down, I'd imagine the ES and NS reps would abstain if the only outcome difference would affect their regions.

More importantly, are we going to address qualifier size, and host expectations? For example, there's a lot of regions with 4 available NA spots. It's not really even if some regions do a single court and have 12 teams, and others have two courts and 32 teams. It seems like dialing this in algorithmically only gets more difficult when we have super weighted regions.

Combination of choice: Smash + Bang

Give the bonus spots to tournaments that fielded large qualifiers! Sorry SC NS GP but you don't deserve 4 spots when you have no population (same thing as Addison says "weaker regions") showing up to your qualifier. That's ridiculous!

Heartland Regional Rep

tournament size doesn't mean quality though. So it's not really ridiculous.

The third GP team still did better than the third HL team, and the third SC team was only 2 places further back.

John is right, especially with some tourney's having limits (eg casicadia qual @ 24 teams).

Please present legit justification for giving regions that performed poorly free spots.
Rewarding weaker regions undermines the point of having qualifiers in the first place. The bottom line of NA's as I understand it is:
All the regions send their best teams for a tournament with the highest level of polo. The better regions get to send more teams, because they are better.

Yea I don't think you can justify giving Cascadia 11 spots because they do so well and then giving other regions extra spots because they didn't do well

Ok, so here would be my justification.

20 of the spots are given out equally, so that each region has some teams.
24 of the spots are given out based on the top 24 teams. That's to make sure the best teams have a good chance of going.
1 spot is given to the champions, so they can defend their title, without having to qualify.

That leaves 3 spots, out of 48. The way we've allocated those 45 spots has not changed from this year.

Last year we used two of the spots to give each region a minimum of 3, and we gave the last spot to the best region. In hindsight that last bit was probably a mistake, the tournament wouldn't have been any worse off with one less Cascadia team (I mean that in the nicest possible way), but I think the 2 spots for new regions was entirely justified (ok, Mexico got unlucky that Means had an issue, and the other team couldn't make it due to visa issues, but GP showed that all 3 teams could perform at that level).

In addition there was a lot of conversation about inclusiveness, and helping to promote polo in the newer or "weaker" regions. South East for example felt slighted by the NAH in that respect, which while there was no such intention, it did start some valuable discussions. And South East have gone on to prove they have a number of competitive teams, and were only 1 win away from being the 3rd strongest region this year...

So I think there is a good case for using those 3 spots to increase the allocation of the weakest region, rather than another team from a good region, in the interests of promoting polo in that area. Again, it's only 3 spots out of 48, a small percentage of the total teams.

While this year it makes very little difference, as all the regions outside Cascadia were so even, it's quite possible we might see a region next year fail to attend, or send it's best teams (like NS this year), and risk long term harm to the sport in that region, if we don't support them by giving them a reasonable amount of slots.

Finally, this is going to be a bit flippant, but if they are so weak, why don't you travel to Austin, Saskatoon or Kitchener next year (just guessing where they might be, nothing confirmed), and take that "easy" 4th spot.

hey john. just want to make sure im getting this right. for the SW region. we have 2+3 = 5. And that does not include the Beavers taking 2014 NAHBPC. So SW has 5 spots + Beavers? Thanks very much for all the info youve posted up!

I play for hugs

No SW has 5 spots. The extra spot belongs to the Beavers. If they decide to qualify, it goes to whichever qualifier they play in.

Which may well be SW. But don't assume you have 6 for sure.

Please allocate the spots from the top down like you said you would when you implimented this system. "Any remaining spots get allocated by region from the top down, as will any spots not claimed by any region." (http://www.nahardcourt.com/proposed-regional-structure-changes-2014/). I won't mention anything about your conflict of interest.


Actually those spots are going to the wildcard.

More to be revealed shortly

So this will be the allocations:

Champs: Beavers
Cascadia: 11
SW: 5
ES: 4
GL: 4
HL: 4
SE: 4

Hey John,

I had mental math that gave GP 4 this year.
I am more than likely wrong, but can you explain our 3 just for my own slow brain?

2 + 1 top 24 team (Mosquito). Passless Chaps were joint 25th

Just looked at the results again and Southeast had 3 teams in the top 24 (Ginyu, Dauphins, and Broken Bones). Under this system, shouldn't they get 5 spots instead of 4?

That's an error with how Podium displays the standings (when not using powers of 2 for brackets).

The teams listed as 21st, and actually 25th

Is there any way to enlarge that map of North America?

Slangin' polo stuff and slang at

This one? https://leagueofbikepolo.com/clubs

Or as big as your screen. last updated a few months ago.

If you visit the NAH website it is hard to find the NAH map with a bar scale, north arrow and regional boundary accuracy to the tenth of a foot. Thanks.

I thought lobp had absolutely no affiliation with NAH.

Seriously... I feel like this is the worst consulting gig ever.

Oh, I thought it was places that hosted tournaments, not just a club map. Thanks though!

Slangin' polo stuff and slang at

Neat idea though...

shotgun your bike!

I think all clubs are on it, but the circles get bigger based on how many tournaments you've hosted.


During the worlds, there were discussions between the EHBPA, Australian reps, and the NAH regarding the worlds.

Timaru, NZ will be submitting a formal bid to host worlds in late 2015 within the next few weeks. It's not expected that any other clubs will compete for that (assuming the bid is up to the standard expected). If there is an NA club that wants to host in 2015, then please contact tournaments@nahardcourt.com before September 30th (a formal bid is not needed, but at least a firm intention). The deadline is so that Timaru can proceed with their planning and people can get an early start on booking tickets.

It was also generally agreed that a 18 month schedule would benefit the worlds, and teams wanting to attend. This would mean the next worlds, possibly in North America, would be in summer 2017 (as summer 2016 would be only 6-9 months later)


seems like we're only waiting on one bid (Aus/nz) for worlds but if a club north america can put out a bid, would it be considered for 2015 as well?

If such a bid existed, then sure.

The Worlds process is complicated by the fact there is no process for competing bids from rival continents. The NAH made a commitment to an Australia/NZ bid last year, so that Montpellier 2014 could be locked in, if the NZ bid stepped aside for another year.

As such it would be tricky for us now to back an NA bid, but if there was a strong bid, and the majority of the continent wanted it to happen, what choice would we have...

In my opinion, 4 courts is a bit too many. It seems to stretch organizers, and most important reffs too thin. Especially being the World Championships. Less teams and less courts would make a more quality tournament.

If you want to give more people more days of play, I'd suggest mabe a two day wildcard, or a fun tourney before or after.

Also, three brackets as opposed to morning and afternoon. This way the teams aren't baking in the sun for 8 hours each. The 16 team format was soooo awesome at worlds, being able to have a game every half an hour or 45 minutes for 4 hours and then leaving to go rest!

Just a few thoughts of mine from last worlds. Hope that next worlds club might consider these suggestions.

Absolutely agree with all this.

I would see worlds on 3 courts (any extras can be used for pickup, and if the schedule runs over), 48 teams max in the main event.

A two day wildcard could allow for the inclusive polo-festival feel the worlds has.

And yes, a format which allows for teams to play more often, over a shorter period of time has to be a focus.


In my opinion, 4 courts is a bit too many. It seems to stretch organizers, and most important reffs too thin. Especially being the World Championships. Less teams and less courts would make a more quality tournament.

Eliminate the wildcard. It makes no sense that people are able to skirt the whole qualification process.

Timaru's official bid now posted: https://leagueofbikepolo.com/forum/tournaments/2014/09/11/whbpc-2015-bid...

we have dates for worlds, but no idea about qualifiers, NAs or anything. something is backward here.


The whole season is based around the worlds, now that that's locked in (and NAs too) we can get on with that. Reps will be getting info in the next few days, and the can set qualifier dates.

In your case Ben is acting rep, until someone is found.

Yeah, Max, when is SBP thinking about for the qualifier?

Worth it.

We should have a good answer after a club meeting next week on the 19th.