Jump to Navigation

Login / Register

St Cago bike polo mallets DZR bike shoes for street and bike polo Velolocuma bicycles

Region Organization / Qualifiers

So a lot of discussion has gone on (from what I've seen in Midwest and South Central) about the lack of spots available for qualifying within your region. I've seen people asked lesser skilled players to let the "slayers" register first and wait for more informal opens/friendlies/whatevers for out of town competition. I'm not stating any opinion on that matter here.

Along with that, the suggestions I've made or heard or heard again have been:
Redistribution of regions
Addition of regions
Smaller qualifiers leading to larger qualifiers leading to Championships
Multiple qualifiers per region

Any opinions on these solutions? If growth continues, I like multiple tier qualifiers, like the state high school organizations I've been exposed to.

*This header has been edited to keep the discussion focused on a specific topic.*
Add: due to discuss of a census, I've found a spreadsheet that hasn't been touched for two months.

Census spreadsheet:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Aovq2woInEfbdHRGR1JHNUI4a21qWUJ...

I'm glad that lots of people are voicing opinions and they should continue to do so, but don't expect immediate answers, since nothing much will change for 2011, and NAH is pretty damn busy with tasks at hand to figure out 2012 right now.

Things WILL change quite a bit for 2012, and there are plans to do a survey of all players that can help inform the direction NAH will take for 2012.

Keep in mind that the system for 2011 was partly constructed as a stepping stone towards 2012. But the sport will continue to grow and the problem of having "exclusive" events isn't going to go away. We saw this coming as far back as 2008 but didn't really have to deal with it until this year.

As you all can imagine, putting this together has meant hundreds of hours of phone calls, hundreds of emails, hundreds of forum posts, dozens of boring spreadsheets. This is quickly becoming the equivalent of a full-time job or several part time jobs, which is totally unsustainable for volunteers. So any solution is going to have to account for the question of who is going to do all the administrative, pololitical, bureaucratic and technological work. I think everyone in NAH is grateful for the majority of you are keeping positive about all this, even when raising issues or concerns.

Well, I should have clarified I was talking about 2012, and I'm glad to hear you are fastidiously preparing for this! I do appreciate the NAH administration. I'm sorry if I added to your plethora of communication to handle, and if I was just being impatient as you planned to release information. I hope that "the question of who is going to do all the administrative, pololitical, bureaucratic and technological work" means more responsibility being put out to regions and local clubs (which seems to be hinted at).

I do have qualms about the use of current LOBP threads as communication to NAH administration. It seems as though everyone has to filter through a ton of crap (hilarious crap nonetheless) to get good information out of the forums. All threads I read tend to wander and sometimes productive discussions will happen in a thread with a completely different topic. I do think this is a wonderful forum, but maybe there could be separate areas for official use. I know the community is more than willing to help our community improve, so perhaps the administration could have official areas for input, where communication is consolidated, keeps serious, and more easily moderated and read by those of you who do the work.

Jack Crowe
"If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough."

i definitely hear you about the lack of separation. For what it's worth, i created a page with NAH relevant threads, here: http://leagueofbikepolo.com/nah which can be used until NAHardcourt.com can fulfill that role.

I think this is a discussion that absolutely needs to happen. There are any number of ways to divide this sport. and undoubtedly it's going to happen, and there should be a public discourse before any decisions are made by our elected representatives.

(kev, you killed it with the diction of a leader.. while i was typing.. now why can't i delete my posts....)

2007 - King of The Juice
2010 - LEFTY MAGIC

This post addresses what in my opinion should be the top priority for the NAH organisation to address. The qualification system in its current form is very broken. There's absolutely no reason regional qualifiers should have open registration, and it is equally senseless to allow teams and players from other regions to participate in regional qualifiers outside their home region. It is not the case that there aren't enough open tournaments on the calendar to accommodate people who wish to travel and play in cities other than their home. Regional qualifiers are a different species from other tournaments. Their results are much more meaningful. If the purpose behind a continental championship is to crown the best team on the continent, then your qualification process must be more structured than the current system.

If the intent behind 'blurring' the borders between regions was to increase a player's chance of qualifying for the continental championship tournament, the reasoning is flawed at the core. This system clearly favours those who are willing and able to travel frequently outside their home region and take as many cracks at qualifying as possible. How is that fair to anyone else? Even if you agree to throw out results of already-qualified teams, their presence in the bracket still skews the results of any tournament they participate in. And what about the poor region unlucky enough to have their qualifier first? We saw already this year what happens then: strong teams from outside the region pour into the tournament and grab an easy qualification spot from a weaker region, robbing spots from that region's players. Some may say that the players from that region are free to simply travel to another region and take another shot at qualifying in someone else's region, but why should they have to do that just because they were victimised by top-level players coming to their home region and snatching up spots? Already after one iteration things get absurd, and that's just for starters. There are a number of other serious flaws, not the least of which is the "two plus one" rule where teams entered into the continental championship must consist of at least two players who qualified, but not necessarily who qualified on the same team, or even at the same tournament.

I realise this is something that can't be solved quickly. I'm sure an offseason meeting will be required to address this and other issues, and already people are putting forth great ideas on how to fix it, as mentioned by the original poster.

Of course, all these problems are eliminated in one step if national/continental/world championships switch to the new club-based format...

I've been trying to think of a way to rank players or teams so that to gain entrance into qualifiers, your team must be ranked high enough. This would end the "mad dash" that occurs when registration opens. I honestly can not think of a proper way to rank teams. Since teams switch around and players make up different teams, I would assume you'd have to rank players individually. But, in all other sports where individuals are ranked, the amount of events in which one can obtain "points" is far greater than in polo.

We can't expect NAH to regulate the ranking system of a bunch of shit tournaments that are randomly distributed across the continental US and Canada. It's just not practical or fair or regulated enough.

So when we throw out a ranking system, you have to ask: how else can you lower the number of teams eligible for regional tournaments and turn it into anything other than a cluster fuck of registration where fractions of a second separate you from getting in or not getting in?

I honestly can not think of a solution. For right now, first come-first serve is the only fair, balanced, and plausible way to open registration to these tournaments without implementing some ridiculously arbitrary ranking system like is seen for the Bench Minor this year.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

the answer is not to rank players or teams. you just identified the (correct) reasons why. the answer is to convert the qualification process to a multi-tiered system. draw borders between your regions within a continent. those regions consist of a specific list of clubs. qualification starts from the bottom, at club level. each club is responsible for holding a club-level qualification which generates representative teams from that club. once those are determined, they move on and compete against the qualified teams from other clubs at a regional qualifier (which is NOT open registration and does not allow out-of-region players/teams to participate) for the regional slots in the continental tournament. some regions and clubs are going to be stronger than others. that's how sport works. it's completely possible that the worst qualifying trio from one region is better than the best qualifying trio from another. that's just how it is. and on that note, it only makes sense to require that trios stay together if they qualify together. if you allow mixing and matching at different stages of qualification, you undermine all credibility your organisation has.

RedMenace wrote:

draw borders between your regions within a continent. those regions consist of a specific list of clubs.

done.

RedMenace wrote:

qualification starts from the bottom, at club level. each club is responsible for holding a club-level qualification which generates representative teams from that club.

what happens when a club has just enough players to play a proper match? if only 3 players, do they automatically qualify? how about only 2 players? can a club be made up of only one person?

RedMenace wrote:

it only makes sense to require that trios stay together if they qualify together.

why?

RedMenace wrote:

if you allow mixing and matching at different stages of qualification, you undermine all credibility your organisation has.

how?

---------------------------
carve. smash. eat shit.

So each city only gets an allotted number of teams that they are allowed to send to a qualifier? What do you think this number would be? With the amount of cities registered on this website, that number could be reduced to one team per city pretty quickly, considering the amount of new clubs by next year.

This somehow just does not seem viable when you consider some of the bigger, better clubs. The goal is the best polo played by the best players.

But I understand that that is just "how it is" in sports. I get that. But say you go to a regional qualifier in 2012 and you see some seasoned veteran team crush some small-town new team. And then you look around and half the talent that used to be at these tournaments is gone because they're all from the same towns as the seasoned veterans that were the only ones that were allowed to go. At that point, I'm going to wonder if we missed the point.

In the same vein, I think there's merit to a sub-regional tournament system. You're only allowed to attend a regional qualifier if you place in the top (however many it turns out to be once you work the math) of your sub-region. If your sub-region is unable to organize a tournament, then you need to communicate amongst your sub-region on who you'd like to send to the regional. I like this idea the most so far. Each sub-region would consist of 2 or 3 states.

I think one thing is for sure: in 2012 you should not be allowed to attend regional tournaments as an out-of-region team. I wish we could keep it so this was allowed, because it is in the original spirit of the game and the community, but it just isn't working and any system that is fair to everyone isn't going to be able to allow for it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

OK, let's call sub-regionals "regionals" and then the regionals could be called "sectionals"... is that absurd?

Jack Crowe
"If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough."

NookieRick wrote:

We can't expect NAH to regulate the ranking system of a bunch of shit tournaments that are randomly distributed across the continental US and Canada. It's just not practical or fair or regulated enough.

.

I've never been to a shit tournament . Please tell me when the next one is scheduled so i can avoid it.

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

RedMenace wrote:

This post addresses what in my opinion should be the top priority for the NAH organisation to address. The qualification system in its current form is very broken. There's absolutely no reason regional qualifiers should have open registration, and it is equally senseless to allow teams and players from other regions to participate in regional qualifiers outside their home region.

Menace, what you and i know to be the most beautiful game in the world, has open borders, but with extra games for teams within a region, for practical reasons (with the exception of the Red Wings and the Blue Jackets, who have to fly for hours for almost every game).

The current borders of NAH are flawed, somewhat inevitably, as no one really knew going in to this year which region was strongest, or how many players in each were interested in competing at this level. Having open borders this year allows for regional representation AND a focus on the best teams (and tertiary goals like allowing for multi-region teams, which our sport has a relatively long history with, yourself included).

RedMenace wrote:

It is not the case that there aren't enough open tournaments on the calendar to accommodate people who wish to travel and play in cities other than their home. Regional qualifiers are a different species from other tournaments. Their results are much more meaningful. If the purpose behind a continental championship is to crown the best team on the continent, then your qualification process must be more structured than the current system.

i think that this is a good point, NAH could have strived to reduce the perceived importance of NAHBPC and kept the focus on open tournaments. However, when we were putting together this system, it was very hard to find ANY cities to step forward and volunteer their efforts, more than a few months in advance.

RedMenace wrote:

If the intent behind 'blurring' the borders between regions was to increase a player's chance of qualifying for the continental championship tournament, the reasoning is flawed at the core.

This was never the intention.

RedMenace wrote:

This system clearly favours those who are willing and able to travel frequently outside their home region and take as many cracks at qualifying as possible.

This is actually happening a lot less than people think. Only a couple dozen players will play in more than two tournaments, and they mostly the same players who were already travelling extensively to tournaments. A number of players are going to tournaments in their neighbouring regions, too, which in certain cases means a very short drive.

RedMenace wrote:

How is that fair to anyone else? Even if you agree to throw out results of already-qualified teams, their presence in the bracket still skews the results of any tournament they participate in. And what about the poor region unlucky enough to have their qualifier first? We saw already this year what happens then: strong teams from outside the region pour into the tournament and grab an easy qualification spot from a weaker region, robbing spots from that region's players.

No one is "robbing" the "weaker" regions, this is a competitive sport and those spots get earned, not stolen. Some regions have a greater number of talented teams than other regions. It could only be considered robbing if only some players were eligibile to travel, but as you alluded, players from weaker regions can travel, too.

Since the regional borders could not possibly have been based on any firm solid evidence of talent or size of community, we needed a system that would help clarify talent overall, not just talent within a region.

RedMenace wrote:

There are a number of other serious flaws, not the least of which is the "two plus one" rule where teams entered into the continental championship must consist of at least two players who qualified, but not necessarily who qualified on the same team, or even at the same tournament.

I've played at enough tournaments with you to know that you rarely have the same team throughout one calendar year, let alone from one tourney to the next. Should a new governing body be the reason for this to change? Perhaps. But what about injuries, weddings, funerals, jobs, and other real-life phenomena that prevent top-level amateur teams from staying the same, year-round? Are players going to start signing contracts with each other?

Quote:

Of course, all these problems are eliminated in one step if national/continental/world championships switch to the new club-based format...

By club-based format i assume you mean "new format" aka "BM", but i don't have energy to get into that here. see you at the pit on Sunday?

kev wrote:

Menace, what you and i know to be the most beautiful game in the world, has open borders, but with extra games for teams within a region, for practical reasons (with the exception of the Red Wings and the Blue Jackets, who have to fly for hours for almost every game).

The current borders of NAH are flawed, somewhat inevitably, as no one really knew going in to this year which region was strongest, or how many players in each were interested in competing at this level. Having open borders this year allows for regional representation AND a focus on the best teams (and tertiary goals like allowing for multi-region teams, which our sport has a relatively long history with, yourself included).

That's true, teams play more times against their division rivals for good reasons, but I think this analogy doesn't exactly apply to our situation. We don't have a season and a schedule where clubs/teams play against other clubs/teams (although I would absolutely love to see that become the case). What we have is more analagous to the world championships, which uses tiered qualifying in a much more complex fashion than our purposes would require. Still, the tiered-qualifier with clearly defined geographic borders is definitely the winning way, in my opinion. As for multi-region teams, while I have played on a number of those in the past (mostly out of neccesity), I don't prefer it and I absolutely don't believe that multi-region teams have any place within the structure of a sanctioned national/continental/world championship. For open tournaments, multi-region teams are great, let's keep them there. But things with the NAH seal stamped on them need a better, more rigid structure. Someone else in this thread asked me why it's a bad thing to allow mix-and-match teams to qualify and then reshuffle themselves for the big final championship tournament... I don't understand why this is even a question. It's obviously bad. If you allow this, there's no continuity or credibility to the sport at all. Is it a team sport, or an individual sport? Is the object to play as teams, or to scramble to qualify as individuals and then re-shuffle the pool into new trios? Crowning a champion of any type - regardless what you call it - under this system lacks any credibility at all.

kev wrote:

i think that this is a good point, NAH could have strived to reduce the perceived importance of NAHBPC and kept the focus on open tournaments. However, when we were putting together this system, it was very hard to find ANY cities to step forward and volunteer their efforts, more than a few months in advance.

Understood. I think we're all considering 2011 as sort of a "year zero" with regard to all this, and it's accepted that there will be flaws and mistakes. This discussion we're having right now is the first step in identifying and fixing them. I think it's a good thing.

kev wrote:
RedMenace wrote:

This system clearly favours those who are willing and able to travel frequently outside their home region and take as many cracks at qualifying as possible.

This is actually happening a lot less than people think. Only a couple dozen players will play in more than two tournaments, and they mostly the same players who were already travelling extensively to tournaments. A number of players are going to tournaments in their neighbouring regions, too, which in certain cases means a very short drive.

Maybe it doesn't happen -that- often, according to certain standards, but if you look at the first qualifying tournament of this season (Desert), a full 37,5% (3 out of 8) of the direct qualifiers came from out of the region! That's an enormous number. Numbers like that throw any ideas one might have about proper regional representation right out the window.

kev wrote:
RedMenace wrote:

There are a number of other serious flaws, not the least of which is the "two plus one" rule where teams entered into the continental championship must consist of at least two players who qualified, but not necessarily who qualified on the same team, or even at the same tournament.

I've played at enough tournaments with you to know that you rarely have the same team throughout one calendar year, let alone from one tourney to the next. Should a new governing body be the reason for this to change? Perhaps. But what about injuries, weddings, funerals, jobs, and other real-life phenomena that prevent top-level amateur teams from staying the same, year-round? Are players going to start signing contracts with each other?

Again, that's true, but I'll tell you with certainty that I absolutely do not prefer to do it this way. If I could play with a steady team all season long, I would do that 100% of the time. You bring up a good point here, with injuries, etc... I think this highlights one of the core weaknesses of the 3-man-team model, which I truly hope is on its way out in terms of national/continental/world championships. Open tournaments are, again, a different species. Our sport will have much more credibility (in the eyes of sponsors, fans, etc...) if the teams are recognisable and reasonably consistent from year to year. That's one of the reasons I support the shift to club-based organisation vs. ad-hoc trios. It's easier to keep a core of players from the same club together year after year, and if a few of those members change, it's not a catastrophic failure like it is to replace 2 of 3 in a trio.

Sunday at The Pit sounds great, Kev. Looking forward to seeing you there and discussing more face to face.

Regionals on the same weekend across the continent. Smaller regions with less (or no) international borders. State or province tournaments to determine regionals. Boom. Done. It's how many other sports do it. Think of high school sports.

2x great, except it might be actually better one at a time like it is.

Amen.

coffee, whiskey, beer. repeat.

JackAttack wrote:

So a lot of discussion has gone on (from what I've seen in Midwest and South Central) about the lack of spots available for qualifying within your region.

if you look at the spreadsheet for the south central qualifier, you will see that in region spots did not fill up until 2 days after registration opened. if you're talking about jason from ft lauderdale that now resides in austin, the blame rests on his shoulders for not getting his shit together sooner. i think jason is a solid guy/player, and i hope he is able to play in the region he now calls home, but he can be mad at only himself for missing a spot in that tournament (and i think he knows that).

JackAttack wrote:

I wouldn't mind some transparency or direction on what's going on... as I think there is a lot of confusion on the matter.

contact your city and/or regional reps. i'm sure they wouldn't mind clearing up any confusion regarding any matter that hasn't been covered on this forum yet. or they might just tell you that it hasn't come up or a decision has yet to be made.

JackAttack wrote:

Considering NAHardcourt.com is official now, shouldn't they have the map up (instead of having to look through blogs or forums for such information http://www.hardcourtbikepolo.com/?p=2456)?

if you look at the top of the page, there is a section next to "Home" labeled "Clubs & Regions." once you click that, there are regions listed in the left column. click a region and it will tell you what states make up that region. with 2 clicks i was able to find out that the states of WI, OH, IL, MO, MN, KY, IN, ND, & SD are in the midwest region. sure, it's not a pretty labeled map, but it is informative.

JackAttack wrote:

Also, maybe there could be some information released at how we may be improving our athletic organization?

i'm not exactly sure what you mean by this statement. i suggest distracting yourself by playing as much polo as possible and let your city/regional reps do their jobs.

i don't mean to pick on you, jack, but this post and a few other threads on this forum seem to be focusing on what isn't being done rather than how much has been done just in the past year by the north american governing body. these people might have been voted in like politicians, but unlike politicians, this is not their full time job nor are they getting compensated in any way. i'd like to see this year pan out short of all the non-constructive noise, especially since we're not even 3 months into it. let the tournaments happen as they have been planned. take note of the good and the bad. as the season winds down and all the qualifiers have been played, let your reps know how you feel and why. vote if there is a vote. light this forum on fire from your keyboard. for now though, have a little patience and let the season unfold before speculation and criticism get the best of you (and me). thanks.

---------------------------
carve. smash. eat shit.

drizz][quote=JackAttack wrote:
JackAttack wrote:

Considering NAHardcourt.com is official now, shouldn't they have the map up (instead of having to look through blogs or forums for such information http://www.hardcourtbikepolo.com/?p=2456)?

if you look at the top of the page, there is a section next to "Home" labeled "Clubs & Regions." once you click that, there are regions listed in the left column. click a region and it will tell you what states make up that region. with 2 clicks i was able to find out that the states of WI, OH, IL, MO, MN, KY, IN, ND, & SD are in the midwest region. sure, it's not a pretty labeled map, but it is informative.

Not sure if this is still accurate, if not i'm sure someone will point it out, preferably in MSpaint, but here is something i put together sometime last year

maps: helping visualize tabular data since a long time ago.

robocop, can you be the official mapmaker for NAH?

btw, why weren't you at Gallaudet tonight?

yes in exchange for a wildcard spot at worlds

out of town this week. hope there was good showing during my absence

Yeah, the quote within a quote your post is a link to that ;)

Jack Crowe
"If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough."

ha, was too lazy to click. but props for finding it, it took me a few minutes to find my own post

as a geography major with some GIS and location science experience, i remember labs in which we assigned pupils to school districts based on location and distance from the school. in other words there are definitely ways to mathematically assign regions that are optimal, provided we have an accurate count of people playing in each club and an idea of how large we want regions to be.
i'm not saying i could do this off the top of my head, but i could find someone who could.

Yeah, I haven't done it geographically or demographically, but you could use Lloyd's Algorithm ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd%27s_algorithm ) which uses the more commonly known Voronoi diagram. You could weight clubs using an equation that uses a weight for overall participating polo population, add a little function that would give world champ teams a bit more wieght (or not depending on preference), create some weighted centers of population, and then let Lloyd carry you home!

However, matheMAGICs don't solve everything, sometimes you just need violence.

Jack Crowe
"If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough."

you guys are awesome. and i don't even mean that sarcastically. these are excellent ideas.

Violence? You mean like a census?

Has a bike polo census been attempted? Maybe club reps could count their players at pick-up for a couple of weeks or a month and then you guys could use it on the map.

I think a census would go a long way towards helping us find a solution.

I'd like to suggest a NAH membership system, with a inconsequential fee, say $5-10 bucks. The money would help pay server bills, etc, and guard against a city claiming that they have 20 players when they really have 10 regulars and a bunch of people who'd never go to a tourney...

You pay your moneys, and you are a member of NAH. You get a profile on nahardcourt.com, and you get access to register for NAH events. You register for a single Club, and when all is said and done, we have accurate counts, and we can plot distributions on a fancy google map, and have a discussion about region lines.

When it comes time to fill up the regional tourneys, we can divvy out spots to individual Clubs based on their proportions, and let Clubs figure out how they want to fill the slots they have: in club tourneys, drinking contest, etc. Maybe we guarantee a few slots for previous years top 2 or 3 outside the slots their club gets. Maybe we have a few wildcard slots that could be won at other events, or a few guest slots that regions can play with, raffle off, invite out of region teams, etc

Don't want to pay? Well, right now kev is giving away gigs of bandwidth for free, I'm donating tons of hours to Podium, countless others are working on all kinds of admin stuff. Thats all worth way more than the cost of a 6pack per person.

Vince, this is a really good idea.

Please get in touch with Ben Schultz or someone else.

I think this idea needs to be voted on by the current regional or city representatives to help assure its legitimacy, and I think it would be a huge step in the right direction. It would give an accurate census of players intent on participating in the regional circuit of qualifiers, and grant access to very good things, like your podium program for example. We would be able to divide regions accurately, allowing for smoother registration. NAH would become a well-oiled chain, if you will.

And participation in any given year would be optional. No one is stopping anyone from bowing out of the system and playing in relaxed, easy-spirited and fun tournaments for the whole season. But if you want to qualify, you have to become a member.

It would help NAH be able to sell sponsorship packets and distribute accurate information on exactly how many people are serious about polo, spending money on polo, traveling for polo and it would help sponsors feel more confident about putting resources into the sport.

This gets a huge A+ from me, which means nothing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

Based on how clearly you think through all this shit, an A+ from you means a lot.

You'll see in my first comment up above i mentioned a survey, which would serve as a census but also to get feedback about what people what out of a governing body.

I guess i can let the cat out of the bag that this idea of individual membership based organization has been thrown around a lot recently within some unofficial brainstorming sessions by NAH reps, and an awesome polo playing lawyer. Coming up with this system is likely to be the primary item on the agenda for NAH between now and the late fall 2011, when we anticipate that the first year of membership would begin. In the future, with such a system, those members would directly elect board members, like in almost every other membership-based non-profit.

If anyone on this thread is interested in working on crafting a survey with me, lemme know.

Happy to help.

I am also happy to help.

I would also like to help!

Jack Crowe
"If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough."

would also help

We play polo in the ATL

Aww shucks...

This is great news. You guys are doing a SICK job. Future polo players will erect statues of you and tell of your legends!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

I would also be happy to help. I would also like to say that I'm really excited about the data that could be collected from this.

coffee, whiskey, beer. repeat.

A census HAS been attempted. There is a spreadsheet hidden among the forums asking clubs to get a count of who has what where. Problem is, it's not very official! Not all club reps know about the spreadsheet, and I'm sure not all club reps honor LOBP as sacredly as some people think it is. We could dig it up and clean it though, even if not for official use people would like the information.

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE INFORMATION
-Sneakers

Jack Crowe
"If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough."

This is a problem that vince's idea above you would resolve.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

As a geography major with some GIS and location science experience, why don't you get on that shit then!

Seriously. I'll help collect information. Apply what you've learned!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
fixcraft.net

as much as I love geeking out on data analysis, especially geographic data, region association seems like something that should be done a club by club basis considering each club's traditional geographical identity, and not based on proximity or with any kind of network analysis. but a census of clubs who'd like to be involved this whole NAHCPHHHA beast is a good idea.

and i forgot, polo in Wyoming??

"mike, did you know" that ramman's brother's brother is the NAH 2012 cartographer?

i'm water baby, agua

I think that google maps would be the best way to handle this, since it's the easiest thing to update regularly, without any GIS schooling or fancy map software or illustrator skills or whatever.

OK map geeks, anyone want to volunteer to do this? it'll take about 30 min or an hour, and you can use the "draw a shape" tool to create the regions, with different colors. the more up-to-date data (names and cities of reps) lives on the region pages linked to from the clubs page.

oh ya, and we can embed it permanently on a page on nahardcourt.com

You'd let me volunteer? I'd be honored! My schedule this week is pretty busy (too much polo, I'll be in Lawrence for Polo tomorrow, in Como for Polo Saturday). I can do this on Sunday instead of doing my taxes. I'll let you know how things are going and hopefully we can have it up on clubs/NAH.com next week?

Jack Crowe
"If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough."

proactivity! [2 thumbs up]

---------------------------
carve. smash. eat shit.

Too bad I was beat to the punch. :)

Jack Crowe
"If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough."

I had done up most of that map previously when I was working on rules, so it was 1/2 done already....

This map has Manitoba listed as Northside. I know that we seem to be the forgotten province but we are definitely not Northside. Currently we are Midwest. We would also like to remain midwest at least until the regions get re-drawn properly. private message me or email me if you want to talk more about this. I have a list of reasons why it is important we stay in the midwest for this season.

Its not going to change this season.

Yeah i think this was an oversight. Manitoba = midwest for 2011

great. exactly what I want to hear.

Sorry dude, I think you read my post in a way darker tone than I intended :( It wasn't pointed as criticism, and maybe my lack of lingual eloquence is to fault and I have already admitted that some of this thread was drawn out prematurely. Thanks for pointing out the "Clubs & Regions" thing, it wasn't apparent to me but now that fully satisfies me utterly and completely - now it's even clear who the region reps are :). Honest, I wasn't focusing on the negative, maybe the 2nd post by me on this thread might show my good will towards NAH, and if you read Kev's post he has covered most the things you said. Also, you'll see that I was talking about 2012. This post was not quite meant to be "non-constructive noise", but maybe a venue for the masses (as the NAH site seems to be the upcoming official site) to consolidate discussion and keep focus on the matter (new region heirarchy).

On top of that, I do agree with how the hierarchy of city/region reps works, definitely a good idea, but being in a city where the club rep went AWOL (I sure as hell didn't give him leave :) ) and one other player who is usually less informed than I, I do not get much information. When I go to Lawrence or Como I ask tons of questions, but usually I have to look on the forums myself and it's not always clear. I understand that this, for the most part, is KC's fault because we don't have ourselves organized.

In summary,

1. I'm sorry! I'm really a nice guy! I'm a positive person! read the whole thread you'll see! Don't let this be a grudge-ridden misunderstanding! Forgive me if you still think I'm criticizing NAH, but first and foremost please try to understand I'm just a poor lost polo player in a big city without a lot of polo friends to guide me.
2. I'll get the pieces of my club put together so our area works like the beautiful machine you've described!

Jack Crowe
"If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough."

yeah, i totally didn't mean to pick on you, jack. my words towards the end were not directed at you specifically, but to those that tend to complain and argue. i just didn't want this thread to turn into a bash session, as has been the trend lately. bike polo is a great community with many awesome people willing to provide answers when answers are available. i guess your post struck a nerve in me because, although i don't have any responsibilities in bike polo, i used to organize events and it was a lot of work with few if any tangible/intangible rewards. there were always those that criticized without being constructive and they were the ones whose words resonated the most. i never meant to harsh your mellow. good luck to you and your club this season.

---------------------------
carve. smash. eat shit.

You plus me plus another makes a team plus 3 makes a game X 32 makes a tournie .....see ya there

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

In all major cities in North America there are still less than 50 bike polo players in each city, some of whom have no interest in competing at a higher level or traveling. In bike polo, pick-up games are the norm for club play. If you want to compete in other sports, you join a competitive league and form, or are placed on, a team that competes against other teams. And there are still pick-up games of baseball, basketball, hockey, etc going on all the time.

I enjoy competition, improving on personal skills and technique, and playing as a team. I feel I am sorely lacking on the "playing as a team" portion because I have only played in two tournaments and there isn't opportunity to compete in team play on a local level. I have mentioned to a few people in Wilmington and Philly and idea creating set teams and having 4 seasons each year. During normal pickup play there would be 1-2 team games each night and through the course of a season you would play each other team as many times as possible. I only got limited interest but perhaps I need to try harder. It doesn't seem likely the structure of polo will change to a system where clubs/teams play each other throughout a season and get ranked by results of those games.

Commenting on this years qualifying structure it does seem to ensure that everyone gets a chance to compete even if they miss their regional qualifier. Under the current circumstances I don't think it could have been done any better this year and clearly a lot of thought into it.

Moving on to the future I have some thoughts that hopefully open up even more ideas and discussion, which is why this whole thread is great.

1.) Create/name teams at the announcement of the NAH 2012 tour. Designate primary and secondary players for your team. 3 primary players, 3 secondary players who can sub for the primary players in case of injury/unavailability to attend tournaments etc. The team that eventually competes in NA championship must consist of at least 1 primary player, and must contain 2 players that qualified at a regional tournament. Secondary players can be primary or secondary players on another team, but they may only play on one team at any specific tournament.
2.) Each team must designate the primary region where they will compete throughout the tour. NAH decides what qualifies a team to compete in a specific region (residency requirements or otherwise). That region's qualifier is their primary qualifier. You must petition to compete in another qualifier but registration becomes open after a certain period of time if the qualifier has open slots. Rules/eligibility to be decided, to allow high level of competition at NAHBPC, and also give, everyone that wants to, a chance to compete and be ranked against their own region. Until there is a ranking system within regions, the regional IS the ranking system regardless of total perceived talent level in that region as compared to others.
3.) More NAHBPC slots allotted to more competitive regions, based on previous years placement at the championship. This is like a regional promotion/relegation model. very strong regions will be represented accordingly so teams don't feel the need to travel to weaker regions to qualify. Regions that place highly are given additional slots at next years tournament, lower placing regions will lose slots, with a reasonable low-cap to ensure continued representation from each region.

cheers to the future and most of all tonight where pick-up will finally be over 50 degrees!

-my stomach is a pickle-

brian -bwin- wrote:

3.) More NAHBPC slots allotted to more competitive regions, based on previous years placement at the championship. This is like a regional promotion/relegation model. very strong regions will be represented accordingly so teams don't feel the need to travel to weaker regions to qualify. Regions that place highly are given additional slots at next years tournament, lower placing regions will lose slots, with a reasonable low-cap to ensure continued representation from each region.

This.

Coupled with closed regional qualifiers this is - in my opinion - looking like one of the best solutions right now.

brian -bwin- wrote:

I enjoy competition, improving on personal skills and technique, and playing as a team. I feel I am sorely lacking on the "playing as a team" portion because I have only played in two tournaments and there isn't opportunity to compete in team play on a local level. I have mentioned to a few people in Wilmington and Philly and idea creating set teams and having 4 seasons each year. During normal pickup play there would be 1-2 team games each night and through the course of a season you would play each other team as many times as possible. I only got limited interest but perhaps I need to try harder. It doesn't seem likely the structure of polo will change to a system where clubs/teams play each other throughout a season and get ranked by results of those games.

That's sort of what I established down here in Milledgeville, Ga. I wanted to essentially "breed" better polo players. In order to do this we have a league night once a week. On this night, pre-formed teams from this club and surrounding clubs, compete in a mini double elimination tournament. The teams are formed at the beginning of the season and last for about 5 months where we will have one last big tournament. The teams pay a set amount and are supplied with a ball, club shirt/sticker, and their stats are followed by our designated scorekeepers. Players can view their individual and team stats online on our website, so progression of skills is easily followed. Also the winner of each league night wins a prize from a local business or the club, prizes have ranged from a case of beer to kayak rentals, a few big name companies have even donated major prizes for overall series awards, including most goals and most blocks. This gives initiative for teams to work together instead of being 3 individual hot-shots. Each game is followed to official rules and players must know the rules because it is all self officiated, but when the teams go to tournaments they are familiar with what they can/cannot do on the court.These teams can now go out to tournaments and bring home big results, hopefully. This is our first league night season and so far it's been a success with player's skills from the whole club improving. I definitely recommend trying this in your club or coming out to our league night, if you live nearby.

I think that this is a really important discussion and I'm glad that it is happening out in the open and in a constructive and coherent manner - Thanks for bringing it up JackAttack, and thanks to RedMenace and others for your really helpful thoughts, and to Kev for spearheading the "official" response and for all the hard work that has gone into organization thus far.

I agree that there are serious problems with the existing system, but that is fine, it is a work in progress and we can't get anywhere without starting somewhere. And while there are serious problems with this year's system, it also managed to navigate a number of competing objectives quite well in my opinion. Not perfect by far, but very good given the huge difficulties that the organizers were faced with.

However, we do need to refine the qualifying system and the regions in a huge way, not only are the regions vastly out of proportion, but the clusterfuck bum-rush to qualify within the first minute of on-line registration barely works now and is not going to work for the future as more and more players start playing and more clubs grow.

Menace I think that you definitely could be on to something with critiquing the 3-person team, but I don't think that we are ready to make such a drastic change to another format. This would radically transform the sport and while I think it may be the way of "the future", I think it will take a few more years of transitioning before we get there. I'm totally open to the idea, and am interested in helping with the building blocks towards such a shift, but I think it is still at least another year or two away.
As much as 2011 was seen as a transition year, I think we need to keep thinking this way. 2012 is going to improve on 2011 but whatever is worked out will likely create new and perhaps unforeseen problems, and should be seen as yet another transition year in my view.

I have been discussing the need for a series of in-region qualifiers with a number of people for a while now. I think that a format of perhaps 2 or 3 tournaments within a each region (called local qualifiers for now) that would tier towards a regional qualifier which would then tier towards the NA's would be a decent solution. I don't exactly know how we would work out the rules around team consistency and such, I don't think we need to get as strict as Menace implies yet, although it may come one day. It would not be impossible to hammer out some generally acceptable rules modifying those already in place for this year, starting with setting the registration at Local qualifiers to only in-region teams and placement in these locks spots at the Regionals. This wasn't implemented this year for obvious reasons (clubs not ready to take on such a challenge), but a new season will start the week after Worlds and a system like this could start right away with tourneys like the East Van Crown.

But there are a number of down sides to this kind of format that I think also need to be brought up and considered.

As has been mentioned, to make regionals truly regional we would need to limit the tourney from including out of region teams. As Menace has pointed out this is really the only fair way to do it, unfortunately.
Another point that has been brought up numerous times in conversation is that there is a lot more stress and seriousness at tournaments that are seen as qualifiers and by making more of our tournaments qualifiers and players that are in it more for the beer-league attitude might become less interested. While this may not bother some of the players who take this sport seriously, at the same time we need to remember that this is still a very small sport and alienating players won't help anyone. The cities with the best polo usually also have the most polo, and building a solid and inclusive player base should be the number one priority of any polo organization in my mind.
Another point that has been brought up is that clubs and regions only have limited resources and energy, and with more tournaments being oriented towards a qualifier tier system, will this cut down on the number of open-format tournaments that are being thrown? Or on the attendance of these open-format tourneys? People can only travel to so many tournaments a year. I don't think this is a small consideration. Despite the current desire to find out who is the best team in NA, this is not and should not be the only goal of NAH. I'm not interested in sacrificing everything in polo to the altar of competition. As we all know, some of the best polo and the most fun polo has been at open-format tourneys where players from any region and of any skill level can come and play, and where all that is at stake is bragging rights and some swag. I would argue that this has been the driving agenda of polo thus far, and that we need to recognize that the desire to orient the majority of our efforts to determining who the best team is in NAH is actually a substantial departure from that goal.

I'm not against the NAH tier system, I love the high-level competitive play that these tourneys bring and to a huge extent the creation of a set of a more complex qualification tourneys is absolutely necessary given the problems we're running into right now. However, I don't think I'm alone in seeing that increasing our organization solely in this direction is going to come at a cost to the other goals that polo has thus far embraced. I think we should be more aware that the increasing importance that is being placed on tourneys like the NA's does constitute a substantial shift in the priorities of the polo community at large rather than a natural evolution of the existing dynamic. At the moment players of any skill level can get into the Cascadia qualifier and this tourney exemplifies a fantastic middle ground of fun, inclusivity and high level competitiveness. But if we establish a set of local qualifiers we will limit who can get into tourneys like this, as the NA's already are going to be limited this year, and I don't think we should ignore the effect that this will have on polo as both a community and a sport.

So this is a long-winded way of saying lets just be careful and not rush things. Lets take each year as an experiment, try new formats and rules, and maintain our willingness to adapt and learn and change. Lets be cognizant of the ways that bike polo is changing and make sure that it is changing in the ways we want it to change rather than assuming that the existing direction of change is somehow natural or necessary. Lets try setting up some system of tiered qualifiers for next year if that is what the majority of players want (and so far it seems to be though I could be mistaken), but as these are going to prioritize regional play at the ground level, scaling to more exclusive events at the inter-region level for the most part, lets also make sure that the clubs and regions are hosting open format tourneys that will emphasize other aspects of the community and the game. Bike polo is not a professional sport. Yet. It may be one day, but not all of us are actually all that excited about that day. Lets make sure that the systems we are building will continue to include all of us, and not just a small percentage of us.

Okay, I said what I needed to say, carry on.

this post needs an executive summary

haha, x2! If brevity is the soul of wit I am often witless I must admit.

executive summary? Just read the last paragraph.

We could potentially (somewhere in the future) have not only Regional qualifying tournaments (NAH qualifiers, closed region), but also Open qualifying tournaments (not just the wildcard tournament) where there would be fewer slots available. This could be boosted by having multiple smaller "opens" around the continent with so many slots allotted for those open qualifiers. The competitive level would be higher since it would encourage those who are willing to travel to do so to clamor for those open slots.

I like where you are going with the "opens." It would be nice if all tournaments could have points awarded to winning teams. It is my opinion that encouraging players to travel to smaller open tourneys will keep the polo spirit burning bright. If there was a point system awarding players for there travel, there would also be more clubs willing to host small opens. Maybe the opens wouldn't even need to be tourneys, have host club rep. report points awarded to the visiting players, or visiting players are given NAH chips/points from host club rep.
So we encourage:
polo touring
polo hosting
NAH membership to earn points
more polo
more places
A slayers playing with newbie players

P/M Hardcourt

for a second I thought this was gonna look like an internet forum.

2007 - King of The Juice
2010 - LEFTY MAGIC

View NAH Regions in a larger map

I did up a map. It shows all the regional reps too. There are probably a couple errors in it, I wasn't sure about a couple places. Let me know and I'll correct any mistakes.

KY is in the Midwest!

Thx, that was one of the ones I wasn't sure about...what about Tennessee?
Not sure about Wyoming either.

tennessee is south east. wyoming is south central.

---------------------------
carve. smash. eat shit.

That map is awesome!!!!

but please please give us back Michigan! expand the north or augment the east, but those boys play down here much more than they play in Canadia.

NM is in Southwest, we have too many issues with TX to be in same region.

All your shots are block by I.

skeet skeet skeet!!!
most of this would be solved with taking out of liscences...
ps. are you sure bike polo is taking you seriously enough?
pps. kkrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Portland United
www.eighthinch.com

zion knows no borders, just border-crossers

everybody jones

BRILLIANT THREAD! Posting just to keep this at the top. A thought I would like to add: it seems like the discussion about regions and their respective representatives needs to include a job discription for regional reps.

P/M Hardcourt

I'd like to propose a new region in 2012....Prairie region, consisting of AB, SK, MB, ID, MO, ND, WY. I think as we get more and more cities starting up this region could easily evolve.

JustinGullickson wrote:

I'd like to propose a new region in 2012....Prairie region, consisting of AB, SK, MB, ID, MO, ND, WY. I think as we get more and more cities starting up this region could easily evolve.

x2 but Fargo is on the eastern border of ND and may prefer to stay midwest

So agree with this. I would love to be part of a Prairie region. I would also like to help with the work necessary to properly form such a region.

Are you sure you mean M0 (Missouri)? Maybe MT (Montana)?

Jack Crowe
"If you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough."

ya sorry Montana

Couldn't agree more...still a huge region. Geologically there are some big ass mountains in that "Prairie," how about we call it the "Rocky Prairie" region.

*edit* What clubs are active now in this proposed region? I know Boise, ID wants to host a tournament and are getting things worked out with their city. Spokane and Missoula clubs have players that have visited Pullman/Moscow, they are serious enough to travel. I mention these clubs because they are new and relatively isolated on the current regional map.
In addition to considering a new region I propose rewarding points to players and teams that travel to new clubs within the region, points earn players/teams rank at our regional qualifier. So spots in the qualifier are earned by...taking bike polo too seriously X2 the next level.

P/M Hardcourt

The region would include Calgary, Edmonton, Lethbridge (AB), Saskatoon (SK), Winnipeg (MA), Missoula, Bozeman, Billings (MT), Boise (ID), Casper (WY). We (the prairiers) have assumed Pullman/Moscow and Spokane would want to stick in Cascadia

Oh...

P/M Hardcourt

Haters gunna hate.

well what do YOU think reese?

We are a boarder town and pretty small club(but we do have at least a couple people, myself included, willing to organize). I am a little hesitant to start drawing new boarders on the map without first talking with Boise, Spokane, Missoula, Bozeman, and our current regional reps.

There are a lot of great ideas wiping around in this thread...what I think is it is a little early to act on any one of them. But if we are talking about new regions I'm all for smaller regions, someone mentioned "sub-regions."

P/M Hardcourt

I wanted Pullman & Spokane to come with us actually.....

geographically it makes good sense...I wonder if we shouldn't make a google group, or something, to discuss in more detail. I also think, if we are serious about forming this new region we should come up with a formal proposal including: clubs willing to host smaller regional tournaments in 2012 season and club hosting 2012 regional championship.

P/M Hardcourt

all for equal representation, and this might just be me being ignaraaant, but how deep is the proposed prairie region in actual player numbers? i guess a census answers this.

anyway my general ideal for all this would be: more club reps. more regions(all of equal "population"). one rep per region. simple vote majority to pass almost anything. bong rips for all.

The Prairie region would be less about club size and more about travel. I wouldn't have to fly to every "local" tournament. My "regional" qualifier is an 18 hour drive with a border crossing. Not exactly convenient.

I think a Prairie region would increase the amount of players and clubs as well. It would become more popular if we could play each other more often with less travel time.

you can still do this, yet at some point you are going to have to play a larger region regional tournament. more players and more clubs also means more qualifying to get the numbers appropriate for a proper north american championship.

i am keeping pretty quiet about all of this (mostly idiotic) ideas of how to make this thing we do over complicated, not fun, and done on the internet. mostly because the ideas i could contribute are flawed, and typing 'no, that's stupid' all the time is not practical. tournaments should be elitist based on skill, that is the point of a tournament. bike polo should also be fun. that is the point of bike polo.

if we really want bike polo to become something we have to support people like mr do whose videos actually make this look interesting or vince whose software is irreplaceable.

What? Is this actually a reply to me? I'm not sure what you are getting at or that you read what I wrote correctly.

the first sentence was for you, the rest was just sort of rambling.

I think this is just Joe voicing his opinion. Less about your post and more about the big picture.

"tournaments should be elitist based on skill, that is the point of a tournament." I agee for the championships but the idea that all tournaments should be about or for the elitist of our sport is shun-polo. I am for a system that encourages newbies to travel and increase their level of play. If newbies are shunned at our tounraments how does that progress our sport? As a national organizing body NAH needs to include polo fun in future planning as well as providing for "elitist." I for one have seen club numbers drop since we have started practicing to bring our level of play up to the current tournament standard. I'll be the first to admit I throw in some idiotic ideas in trying to balance things out a bit. If we continue to focus on increasing the level of play and not on all players, regardless of their level of play our numbers will grow at a slower rate. It is my underground that sponsors are more concerned with reaching as big an audience as possible with their dollars than caring what level of play a certain tournament provides. More people, playing more polo will provide more support for the people producing great polo products.
One more thing A level players don't necessarily make A level organizers something we should consider in electing our regioal reps.

P/M Hardcourt

Polo divisions. And i don't think regional organizers were chosen for their playing ability (to my knowledge). Most were picked because they had the balls to step up in the first place.

Just gonna say I am going to buy one of your glasses soon, thanks for making the product available.

P/M Hardcourt

it sucks to have to travel that far... but representation should be based on numbers, not geography. especially when this will determine who votes on rules and the number of spots you get in major tourneys.

that spreadsheet says I need permission to view it.

hmm...it is supposed to be editable by anyone with the link, but I have approved anyone that asked for permission. if you're interested in just copying that data into a new spreadsheet, that's fine too :)

-my stomach is a pickle-

All this thread is great but scary. What kind of work have to do for europa polo...

A lot of work...

_______________________________________________________________
El Vaquilla hubiese jugado Bike Polo.

Tears in my eyes. This is a beautiful thread.

Great ideas, many of them in line with what we've already been discussing for 2012, as Kev mentioned. Awesome. Thanks everyone. Very encouraging.

this has been suggested elsewhere, and seems like the easiest, most straightforward solution to 2012 (the polo season, not the mayan calendar):
regional qualifiers held on the same weekend (or as close as possible) in every region.
regionals should be closed to out of region teams.

I'd like to add:
each regional tournament should have a base number of allotted nationals spots,
with an additional spot available for every in-region team that finished in the top 20 (or 30) at NA's the year before.
if your region has too many teams to have just one in-region tournament (!), figure out sectional qualifiers.

I like the idea of a national "polo tour";
I don't think that regional qualifiers for NA's need to be part of that tour next year.

if NAH qualifying isn't part of a NAH tour then what is the point of the tour. just so we can say NAH approves of this tournament so please come?

also it would be a North American Tour since it's North American Hardcourt, not American Hardcourt

i think awarding qualifying points to people who 'go on polo tour' is the most idiotic idea of all. even very serious players have other obligations in their lives which don't lend themselves to taking time off to travel around playing polo. and some of us would rather use our vacation days in europe, not tooling around in north america for the n'th fucking time - but i digress! anyway encouraging people to travel and play as much as possible is great, except when you start to give those people an advantage when it comes to qualifying for things. then it's no good. qualifiers should be rigidly structured and rigidly scheduled, so that all players and clubs can work it into their schedule and make it a priority.

The only way the points system could possibly work would be if only your top 3 finishes counted. And there could be 3 - 5 tiers of tournaments, within which each place is worth a given amount of points. So 2nd place at a regional qual would be worth more than 1st place at a open tournament or something.

But I agree, it's stupid and this shouldn't be worth considering.

Dear NAH please change our regions name from Northside to Northeast thereby making it more palatable to the american cities included. also then i wouldn't have to keep making the distinction between the qualifier and the NSPI.

Yeah Northside is weak. TO, da Captital, Montreal maybe Waterloo. Weak. Eastside and Northside should be one region. You've all been playing together for years anyway.

+ Michigan, Rochester, Syracuse, Burlington VT, Buffalo, etc.

But Eastside can't include little richmond, big richmond, and everything in between.

uh thanks rory but that's not exactly what i meant. east is east. northeast is northeast

I'd guess this would be the region with the fewest active players. Nothing backing that up. I'd love to come to the qualifier in July when only 15 - 20 teams from the region register. But sure turkey, peacock or whatever nonflying bird you are (can't be Dodo that's me) call yourself northeast. I like that name better anyway because none of those eastern cities that play are north of the 49th parallel. Got to be at least 49 to be called north. See you soon in Cascadia buddy.

"got to be at least 49 to be called"...old. See you soon at Alberta park pal.

P/M Hardcourt

we had 20 "in-region" teams at a tournament in Toronto in early november last year, with only two players from ottawa, none from upstate NY or VT.

NookieRick wrote:

We can't expect NAH to regulate the ranking system of a bunch of shit tournaments that are randomly distributed across the continental US and Canada. It's just not practical or fair or regulated enough.

.

I've never been to a shit tournament . Please tell me when the next one is scheduled so i can avoid it.

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

1st on the waiting list for a NAH sanctioned license ........

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

1st on the waiting list for a NAH sanctioned LISCENCE...

Portland United
www.eighthinch.com

license is the correct spelling, unless liscence means something else, and I missed the joke...

l-i-c-e-n-s-e..thanks dickhead

Portland United
www.eighthinch.com

JustinGullickson wrote:

license is the correct spelling, unless liscence means something else, and I missed the joke...

Ya missed the joke > Sir Woadie posted first but then i superceded him by replying to the prior post making him second to be first to want a liscence(the spelling of which is irrelevant if you get your point across which i obviously didn't)

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

i hope some of the people who contributed to this thread are running as regional reps or will be around to work with NAH in some way in the coming 6 months as 2012 gets hammered out.

X2.
I am hoping the committees formed in the new NAH board will invite contributors in addition to regional reps to to work with/on the committees. I am not running for regionalrep this term as our club may fall on the board of a new region and I cannot travel as much as a good rep should. I am however, available to work with any of the NAH committees if invited. My interests lie in building a competitive structure for all skill levels from club leagues to world championships including a ranking system that provides for newbie competitors. I would also be interested in working with NAH to produce some kind of new club manuel helping new clubs land courts and local sponsorship in addition to increasing numbers and hosting NAH sanctioned events. Here is to the next term and more people working for more polo in more places with more players.

P/M Hardcourt

JustinGullickson wrote:

license is the correct spelling, unless liscence means something else, and I missed the joke...

Ya missed the joke > Sir Woadie posted first but then i superceded him by replying to the prior post making him second to be first to want a liscence(the spelling of which is irrelevant if you get your point across which i obviously didn't)

"So this is how it ends"MACHINE

Results from the qualifiers. Check the tabs for results by City/Region/Player. http://tinyurl.com/nahbpc-2011-qualified

Any chance we could get a window into what's happening with the structure of regional qualifiers next year? Now's the time to get some decisions made and dates locked down...just sayin...I have some suggestions...as always...just trying to help..

Portland United
www.eighthinch.com

+- 1 * 2

*e^(i*theta)

brian -bwin- wrote:

I enjoy competition, improving on personal skills and technique, and playing as a team. I feel I am sorely lacking on the "playing as a team" portion because I have only played in two tournaments and there isn't opportunity to compete in team play on a local level. I have mentioned to a few people in Wilmington and Philly and idea creating set teams and having 4 seasons each year. During normal pickup play there would be 1-2 team games each night and through the course of a season you would play each other team as many times as possible. I only got limited interest but perhaps I need to try harder. It doesn't seem likely the structure of polo will change to a system where clubs/teams play each other throughout a season and get ranked by results of those games.

That's sort of what I established down here in Milledgeville, Ga. I wanted to essentially "breed" better polo players. In order to do this we have a league night once a week. On this night, pre-formed teams from this club and surrounding clubs, compete in a mini double elimination tournament. The teams are formed at the beginning of the season and last for about 5 months where we will have one last big tournament. The teams pay a set amount and are supplied with a ball, club shirt/sticker, and their stats are followed by our designated scorekeepers. Players can view their individual and team stats online on our website, so progression of skills is easily followed. Also the winner of each league night wins a prize from a local business or the club, prizes have ranged from a case of beer to kayak rentals, a few big name companies have even donated major prizes for overall series awards, including most goals and most blocks. This gives initiative for teams to work together instead of being 3 individual hot-shots. Each game is followed to official rules and players must know the rules because it is all self officiated, but when the teams go to tournaments they are familiar with what they can/cannot do on the court.These teams can now go out to tournaments and bring home big results, hopefully. This is our first league night season and so far it's been a success with player's skills from the whole club improving. I definitely recommend trying this in your club or coming out to our league night, if you live nearby.