HULA Overhaul

[gonores]

Given the end of this season, one of two things are going to happen if HULA III comes to fruition.

1) Someone else will take over head commissioner role.
2) The format of HULA III will be completely different from prior seasons.

Please reply if you have any comments on either option.

Doug

[ctv1116]

I think there needs to be some different structure as to how to split up the money. I think if you got behind and were out of the playoff hunt, there really wan't motivation to play. Perhaps if payouts could be done by # of wins, with a little bonus for the winners.

[Trix]

I dont think most people play HULA for the money, but to practice HU vs thinking opponents.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Given the end of this season, one of two things are going to happen if HULA III comes to fruition.

1) Someone else will take over head commissioner role.
2) The format of HULA III will be completely different from prior seasons.

Please reply if you have any comments on either option.

Doug

[/ QUOTE ]

Doug,

We'll have to talk about what it all entails, but if need be I'd be willing to take over for you as I'm pretty sure I have the type of free time it takes to run something like this. So Doug and all you other HULA guys let me know if you'd want me to take over.

As far as changing the format goes, there are a few things I'd like to see happen. First of all, we don't need to rush into the first week like we did this year. I think if we give it a week or two to make sure everyone is setup before charging right in it eliminates some of the hassle that happened early on. All matchups will be made at the beginning of the season so there is no waiting around on certain weeks because a captain forgot to send in his matchups for that week. The time limit to play should be strictly enforced with no exceptions made, and a league commissioner having the final say over that match in all cases. As far as actual money set up and overall changes in league play, I'll wait to see what other people's ideas are.

[PokerNoob]

Yeah, I think all matchups need to be set at the beginning of the season. I'd be in favor of just playing the draft order. This way you could contact an opponent ahead of time if you knew you were going to have problems a particular week. Matches could be played early if need be.

Another thought would be to get rid of teams completely. As far as I know, the team structure isn't really adding anything to it. There's no team meetings, coaching, discussion or anything else. Play an 8 or 10 week season against random opponents and have a winner's bracket that moves on to the "playoffs". You could randomly create divisions or conferences or whatever sort of like college football.

[daryn]

i liked the idea of the teams. obviously everyone is jealous because tosh drafts g00t.

[MEbenhoe]

Like Daryn, I like the team concept as well. However, we could possibly do the team thing and also have the players with the top records have a playoff for an individual champion at the end of the season.

[Jurollo]

Is there anyone way someone not in last season, namely me, could get in on this?
~justin

[Fudgenut]

I like the idea of playing by draft order. This avoids situations such as stacking matches and having the worst player on a team throw the game to the best player on the opposite team.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there anyone way someone not in last season, namely me, could get in on this?
~justin

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah before the next one starts there will be a draft sign up. Then you just have to hope you get drafted, but if not you can go on the alternates list. At least thats how it worked this time, but it remains to be seen if there will be any changes to that set up for next time.

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the idea of playing by draft order. This avoids situations such as stacking matches and having the worst player on a team throw the game to the best player on the opposite team.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this idea as well.

As to the part about throwing matches, were there any obvious examples of this? I don't remember hearing about any thrown matches.

[gonores]

Scheduling matches before the season: Tried it in HULA I. Failed miserably.

Playing by draft order: Offered that as a suggestion in HULA I. Late-drafted players were upset that they wouldn't have a chance to play against "big-name" early picks.

Strict enforcement of time limit: For the most part, this is how things worked in both HULAs. However, in both seasons, some player(s) pushed the limits of this enforcement as matches became more critical, and we were forced to walk the fine line between discrediting our league by not enforcing time limit rules and discrediting our league by deciding critical matches on attendance instead of Heads-Up prowess. This, more than anything, is driving me to give up the leadership role in HULA.

[NLSoldier]

Umm, I guess I missed it....what happened at the end of this season?

[MEbenhoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Scheduling matches before the season: Tried it in HULA I. Failed miserably.

[/ QUOTE ]

What were the reasons it failed?

[ QUOTE ]
Playing by draft order: Offered that as a suggestion in HULA I. Late-drafted players were upset that they wouldn't have a chance to play against "big-name" early picks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm....suck it up would have been my response to them. Think of it the way team tennis works in high school and college. #1 plays #1, #2 plays #2, and so forth. If you don't do it this way then you have to go the way of scheduling before the season by having each captain submit the lineups for their respective weeks ahead of time to avoid the junk that happened this year.

[ QUOTE ]
Strict enforcement of time limit: For the most part, this is how things worked in both HULAs. However, in both seasons, some player(s) pushed the limits of this enforcement as matches became more critical, and we were forced to walk the fine line between discrediting our league by not enforcing time limit rules and discrediting our league by deciding critical matches on attendance instead of Heads-Up prowess. This, more than anything, is driving me to give up the leadership role in HULA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm a little harsher thinking than others on this, but its my opinion that if you fail to meet the rules of the league by not playing your match on time, you should lose. Especially given the fact that there are subs in place that you can go to if you need to miss a match. In very extenuating circumstances an exception could be made. However, some people's reasons for missing matches or needing to play late were ridiculous, and those people should lose for that reason.

[Schneids]

The subs idea was good at heart but very rarely did people tell their captains if they weren't going to be around or if their schedule made it tough to play a match and a sub was desired in their place... Basically, the subs only got used if someone knew they were going out of town ahead of time.

[gonores]

[ QUOTE ]
What were the reasons it failed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because certain players were too lazy to check, and I was too lazy to stay on the ass of the 20-50 players who didn't have a time and date set to play the match 5 days into the week.

[ QUOTE ]
Ummm....suck it up would have been my response to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may work in subsequent HULA leagues, but quite frankly I wanted and needed bodies for HULA I, so I had to make some concessions. It also adds to the "learning experience" for later-drafted players, since they get to play the thinky-est of the thinking players occassionally.

[ QUOTE ]
its my opinion that if you fail to meet the rules of the league by not playing your match on time, you should lose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah...I agree. The problem is that there is A LOT of gray area when it comes to this stuff. Player A can only play Thursday through Saturday, Player B can only play Monday through Wednesday. Player B PMs Player A, but Player A isn't at a computer until Thursday. PMs go back and forth, captains try to find subs at the last minute but can't get in by the deadline...who's fault is it? What constitutes extunating circumstances? What happens when neither player responds to PMs for a whole week without notice (it's happened)? Commissioners have to make a ton of judgment calls that border on completely arbitrary.

In regards to the finale of this season, where Bisonbison refused to play the deciding match of the HULA finals for two full weeks...It was too hard for me to sit there and have my pride and joy, my own little claim to fame, my own little league have it's champion decided by an official. I think I can speak for Rugbyrat and Sheriff Fatman in that they more or less felt the same way. It wouldn't be easy to sell a league to the members of 2+2 if it was well-known that the previous champ was decided by a forfeit. Furthermore, it would be even harder to tell Johnny Q Teammate, who's $50 investment resembled a good chunk of his .50/1 bankroll, that he was not getting his first-place money because the normally mild-mannered Bisonbison decided to ignore daryn for a week. Whether consciously or not, Bison had leverage in this situation and he decided to use it.

When it comes right down to it, Matt, I think the thing that can solve a number of these problems are either more enthusiastic captains or substantially higher penalties for non-participation, which is why this entire league needs a complete overhaul before HULA III.

Doug

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
Like Daryn, I like the team concept as well. However, we could possibly do the team thing and also have the players with the top records have a playoff for an individual champion at the end of the season.

[/ QUOTE ]

nice idea, sounds like a good combo.

[daryn]

i also agree that the finals shouldn't have been decided by anything other than a match. i can understand about the regular season stuff. i actually appreciate that you rule with an iron fist, i think it's the only way. i did want to be undefeated though /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Evan]

I'd personally love to see HULA 3 happen since I missed this one and wasn't around for the first one. I don't have the time to run this thing but if anyone does I'll be your bestest friend forever.

[Tosh]

I'll help run it but the draft system must remain IMO.

[Tosh]

[ QUOTE ]
The subs idea was good at heart but very rarely did people tell their captains if they weren't going to be around or if their schedule made it tough to play a match and a sub was desired in their place... Basically, the subs only got used if someone knew they were going out of town ahead of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we have a subs system then it should be used. If a player has not been in contact with anyone within 5 of the 7 alloted days then the sub automatically becomes the player for that particular match.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Some initial thoughts off the top of my head. They are opinions and no criticism is implied anywhere if any can be interpreted:

1) I like the team format but preferred the 7 players to a team of HULA I - this lessons the effect of no-play games on the overall fixtures.

2) I preferred the HULA I structure where all teams played everyone during the league phase. I don't mind whether its a one or two division structure but we should play every team at least once in the season.

3) I like the idea of an individual competition running in parallel with the team game. This might help to retain interest for some players in poor performing teams. I would prefer participation in this to be an 'optional extra' for each player.

4) I like the theory behind having line ups vary each week but the existing system doesn't really work in practice as most captains tend to just pick draft order anyway and it gives rise to delays with the fixtures. I suggest we go for a fixed set of match ups through the season e.g Week 1, draft order, Week 2 Home C vs Away 1, Home 1 vs Away 2, etc.
This makes all fixtures known in advance. One commish should retain responsibility for starting threads and posting the fixtures at the start of each week.

5) We have to have a known cut-off for game weeks during the league. Personally I think the only workable method is a strict cut-off with no exceptions and well-known 'default' rulings where responsibility is disputed. As a commish being asked to rule on these things I tried to apply common sense throughout but its a tough choice at times.

6) The 3 commish structure was a good idea and hopefully took some of the workload from Doug. However, I think we should look to add a non-participating TD at the top of the tree who can be called upon to give a bias-free final ruling where necessary. This shouldn't be a full-time post but it should be stated to all players at the outset that if a decision requires referral to him/her then the ruling provided is final/end of story/lets move on.

7) The subs were another good idea which didn't really get used as they were intended. A simple solution would be to not allow any subs to play but this may put people off participating if they have known 'problem dates' (e.g. I had a 2 week vacation in the middle of HULA II).

One suggestion would be allow players to declare their non-availability for a maximum of 2 or 3 game weeks in a season (this should cover most circumstances). If so, then their scheduled opponent can choose another member of that team to play them instead. This will mean that some players might have 2 matches in a week but it keeps the games within the team pool and it gives a tactical advantage to the opposition (as they will undoubtedly look for the 'weak' player).

8) If any players are not drafted they should be available as permanent replacements the order they are used being decided by ballot after the draft. If someone drops out during the season or does not participate despite reasonable efforts then they should be kicked out and replaced by one of these subs. If this occurs (and it would be regrettable if it did) then the sub would become eligible for the prize money of the departing player. The subs should not be expected to pay an entry fee and anyone resigning or being kicked out will forfeit their entry fee.

9) We should allow longer between the draft and week 1 to allow for all the administrative stuff to take place. Getting payments from players and getting access to the tables took much longer than expected and needs to be accounted for.

10) Last but not least we should remember the real aim of this league. We all get Heads Up experience from other 2+2 members at a relatively low cost (approx $5 per game). It should be competitive but, above all else, it should be enjoyable for everyone. Signing up to play should be viewed as a commitment that you're willing and able to spend the hour a week on average that it takes up as a player. Captains/commishes/webmasters have to spend a bit longer on it so they should go into this additional commitment with eyes open.

Sheriff

[MEbenhoe]

Doug,

Looks like we're basically on the same page in regards to most of these issues. I'm with you on overhauling this thing so I'll have to hit you up on IM sometime this week and discuss some stuff.

[Sarge85]

Just a comment to say I really enjoyed HULA./ Thanks for putting it together, I know projects like these can balloon to more that what was expected.

I plan to participate if we do it again.

Sarge/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

[Rugbyrat]

I can say that my first experience as a HULA commissioner was not bad. With the support of Doug and Curtis throughout the season, I did not feel that my role was overwhelming.

I agree with Curtis that the first few weeks of the season were overwhelming, with us needing to deal with the last minute administrative matters.

What I don't understand is why it is so hard for players/captains to schedule matches. It became quite burdensome to me to need to post "warnings" each week to remind persons when the week's deadline expired. Also, needing to send PMs to individual players stating "when is your match scheduled" is a hassle the commishes can do without. If a player is not responsible enough to follow the league and comply with the deadlines, the player should not sign up.

I think that one change does need to be made for HULA 3. If a player, for any reason, fails to play a match in a given week, that player is removed from the league, and replaced by substitute. No excuses, no second chances. Many of the league subs are chomping at the bit to play, and regardless of the team's standing, I think many, if not most of the subs, would love a chance to participate.

Furthermore, captains need to be more closely reviewed to ensure that they will provide prompt leadership and encouragement to their teams. I would limit HULA 3 to a number of teams equivalent to the number of people whom the commishes believe will serve as good captains.

I had envisioned HULA 2 as a simple bureaucracy. Players would report their problems to their captains; captains to Curtis and me, and Curtis and I to Doug. This, in many cases did not work, as captains became disinterested, and players nonresponsive. While this pyramid system was designed to relieve Doug of much of the administrative duties, Curtis and I found ourselves becoming pseudo-captains since we needed to contact players directly to push for match scheduling etc.

Maybe one solution would be to assign a standard day and time for certain matches prior to the start of the season (e.g., all Week 1 matches involving the first draft seed will be played on Friay; all Week 1 matches involving the second draft seed will be played on Saturday, etc.). That way everyone will know their availability for each match well in advance, and it will make the commishs' decisions much easier if there is a no-show.

I would consider returning to my commish role for HULA 3. However, I will admit that I would be more hesitant to do so if Doug and Curtis did not return.

Thanks to both Doug and Curtis for a good experience. Their hard work and encouragement helped to make this volunteer job much easier.

End.
Rugbyrat

[sthief09]

I have a idear

I think each week should be two weeks, but they overlap. For simplicity, let's say week 1 is January 1. Week 1 matches would have to be played between 1/1 and 1/14, week 2 matches between 1/7 and 1/21, week 3 between 1/14 and 1/28, etc. this way the season only goes for one extra week and we'll get more time to play matches

I'm in for next season


you and Sheriff and rugbyrat did a great job. thanks for making it happen

[Joe826]

[ QUOTE ]
Week 1 matches would have to be played between 1/1 and 1/14, week 2 matches between 1/7 and 1/21, week 3 between 1/14 and 1/28, etc. this way the season only goes for one extra week and we'll get more time to play matches

[/ QUOTE ]

i'm confused already heheh.

i'm totally in for next year, and hopefully i'll be alot better. thanks for hookin it up dudes.

[MaxPower]

I like the teams. If it was a just an individual comepitition a lot of new players would not want to participate because they would consider themselves dead money. Plus, poker is such an individual thing that it is nice to be on a team as a change of pace.

I do think we need longer than 1 week to play each match.