Division two
Division two
Heard prince Alfred have left the competition anyone know if there is a team filing their spot??
Re: Division two
Also heard that Scotch & Windsor are in Div 3. So thats 3 clubs removed from Div 2!!
Re: Division two
I beleive that Scotch and Winsdsor should stay in Div 2. However about 2 years ago all the clubs had a vote on it and the outcome of the vote was that if these 2 clubs dont have 2 teams by 2014 then they will have to play in Div 3.
So please dont complain as this was voted by the clubs. As the clubs wanted this the CSL will stick with the vote.
Now everyone will complain that Windsor and Scotch are in Div 3 and cleaning up teams.
Sometimes its best not to get clubs to vote.
PAOC having being dying slowy over the years in the CSL but they are not dead yet so hopefully they will be there in 2014.
So please dont complain as this was voted by the clubs. As the clubs wanted this the CSL will stick with the vote.
Now everyone will complain that Windsor and Scotch are in Div 3 and cleaning up teams.
Sometimes its best not to get clubs to vote.
PAOC having being dying slowy over the years in the CSL but they are not dead yet so hopefully they will be there in 2014.
Re: Division two
It doesn't sound to good at the moment hopefully we still have ten teams some how.
Re: Division two
New team Thebarton looks like they are coming in two teams in div 2 A and B's. If Div 2 are short then more than likely Windsor and Scotch will be forced to play in Div 2 as they should because 7 teams is not enough
-
Squeezy Cheesey Peas
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:19 pm
- Current Club: Adelaide City
Re: Division two
I'm guessing the preliminary 'draw' is up for debate at the plenary this week?
7 teams in Div 2 is no good although by my reckoning the PAOC drop out makes it 8 (10 last year minus Windsor, Scotch and PAOC plus the Thebarton team).
Chelsea is right, The clubs voted to have WG and Scotch moved down if they failed to provide a B team and I always thought that sentiment was misplaced but democracy is always right?!
This has also thrown up another poor move with Unley and Pembroke 2B teams being moved into Div 5 it would seem. Pembroke WON 2b and Unley were mid table and competitive. To put them in the Div 5 mix is really not clever as they are a mile ahead of the othere teams.
All to be discyussed and its hard to get a balance I suppose that keeps all happy!
The movement of Pembroke and Unley into Div 5 also means that we return to a league that has two teams from the same club in a div (in fact 2!) I don't have a problem with this and maybe the solution to the problem going forward is to have Divs 3 to 5 as competitive leagues with promotion and relegation to provide the 3 divs with a system for ensuring fairness?
Last season saw a few Div 3 teams get a regular hiding, Div 4 have 2 whipping boys and Div 5 was actaully well balanced with no one really adrift at the bottom.
Relegation and Promotion would also make the season more interesting as second place and bottom 2 become important (cue the conspiracy theirists that say that collusion between 2 team clubs will occur..... it does anyway with players being shared openly between all levels)
Just a thought..... We can't have everything and WG /Scotch need to be accomodated somewhere without everyone having a whine
7 teams in Div 2 is no good although by my reckoning the PAOC drop out makes it 8 (10 last year minus Windsor, Scotch and PAOC plus the Thebarton team).
Chelsea is right, The clubs voted to have WG and Scotch moved down if they failed to provide a B team and I always thought that sentiment was misplaced but democracy is always right?!
This has also thrown up another poor move with Unley and Pembroke 2B teams being moved into Div 5 it would seem. Pembroke WON 2b and Unley were mid table and competitive. To put them in the Div 5 mix is really not clever as they are a mile ahead of the othere teams.
All to be discyussed and its hard to get a balance I suppose that keeps all happy!
The movement of Pembroke and Unley into Div 5 also means that we return to a league that has two teams from the same club in a div (in fact 2!) I don't have a problem with this and maybe the solution to the problem going forward is to have Divs 3 to 5 as competitive leagues with promotion and relegation to provide the 3 divs with a system for ensuring fairness?
Last season saw a few Div 3 teams get a regular hiding, Div 4 have 2 whipping boys and Div 5 was actaully well balanced with no one really adrift at the bottom.
Relegation and Promotion would also make the season more interesting as second place and bottom 2 become important (cue the conspiracy theirists that say that collusion between 2 team clubs will occur..... it does anyway with players being shared openly between all levels)
Just a thought..... We can't have everything and WG /Scotch need to be accomodated somewhere without everyone having a whine
Re: Division two
As stated above, the draft divisions will be discussed at tonight's meeting and are by no means final. Potentially one or two more new clubs now look like they will apply to join the CSL, in addition to Thebarton, so I think the divisions will have to change from the inital draft.
In relation to the make-up of divisions 2A and 2B, the CSL Executive has just had to come up with a best-fit scenario each year for the last few years. The reference to the vote regarding one team clubs (i.e. Windsor and Scotch) is correct, but until we have 20 or more clubs with at least 2 teams then there is still the chance that one team clubs could be in divisions 2A or 2B.
The Pembroke and Unley teams did compete well in division 2B last year, but it was only a stop-gap measure to effectively pair them up as Windsor and Scotch's B teams so that division 2B had 10 teams. And if those clubs instead had 2 teams in division 5 this year it doesn't automatically follow that the same players who played in division 2B would play in division 5. In Pembroke's case, we put our 4th best team in division 2B last year and would put them in division 4 this year if we no longer have a team in division 2B. The top few teams in division 4 would give the top few teams in division 2B a good contest.
The idea of having promotion and relegation between the lower divisions is an interesting one. I've suggested it in the past, as it would potentially help address the number of thrashings that occur. It would be interesting if divsions 2B, 3, 4 and 5 were re-cast based on the strength of the teams. For example, the bottom teams in division 2B might have a lot more fun playing teams from the bottom half of divisions 4 and 5.
But obviously there would then be an issue with clubs having more than one team in a division. At present, the convention is that this should only occur in the bottom division, if at all.
Another issue is in terms of keeping teams from the same club together as much as possible. This has traditionally been viewed as a priority for many CSL clubs. A team in division 2A would typically prefer to have its B team always play the same opposition, even though the A team may be doing well but the B team is getting thrashed every week. And clubs with teams in divisions 3, 4 and 5 like to see their teams all playing the same opposing club on the same day wherever possible. Some good sporting rivalries develop that way, with 4 or 5 teams from one club playing one another on the same day.
Those preferences are sensible and they generally help clubs and the CSL grow from a social perspective. But they do mean that some of the lower divisions can be poorly balanced in terms of strength.
Come along to the meeting tonight if you have any good ideas or want to discuss things more!
In relation to the make-up of divisions 2A and 2B, the CSL Executive has just had to come up with a best-fit scenario each year for the last few years. The reference to the vote regarding one team clubs (i.e. Windsor and Scotch) is correct, but until we have 20 or more clubs with at least 2 teams then there is still the chance that one team clubs could be in divisions 2A or 2B.
The Pembroke and Unley teams did compete well in division 2B last year, but it was only a stop-gap measure to effectively pair them up as Windsor and Scotch's B teams so that division 2B had 10 teams. And if those clubs instead had 2 teams in division 5 this year it doesn't automatically follow that the same players who played in division 2B would play in division 5. In Pembroke's case, we put our 4th best team in division 2B last year and would put them in division 4 this year if we no longer have a team in division 2B. The top few teams in division 4 would give the top few teams in division 2B a good contest.
The idea of having promotion and relegation between the lower divisions is an interesting one. I've suggested it in the past, as it would potentially help address the number of thrashings that occur. It would be interesting if divsions 2B, 3, 4 and 5 were re-cast based on the strength of the teams. For example, the bottom teams in division 2B might have a lot more fun playing teams from the bottom half of divisions 4 and 5.
But obviously there would then be an issue with clubs having more than one team in a division. At present, the convention is that this should only occur in the bottom division, if at all.
Another issue is in terms of keeping teams from the same club together as much as possible. This has traditionally been viewed as a priority for many CSL clubs. A team in division 2A would typically prefer to have its B team always play the same opposition, even though the A team may be doing well but the B team is getting thrashed every week. And clubs with teams in divisions 3, 4 and 5 like to see their teams all playing the same opposing club on the same day wherever possible. Some good sporting rivalries develop that way, with 4 or 5 teams from one club playing one another on the same day.
Those preferences are sensible and they generally help clubs and the CSL grow from a social perspective. But they do mean that some of the lower divisions can be poorly balanced in terms of strength.
Come along to the meeting tonight if you have any good ideas or want to discuss things more!
Re: Division two
Any outcome from last night csl meeting for our division
Re: Division two
give your club rep a call to find out what happened. 1-2 people from your club should have attended.
-
Squeezy Cheesey Peas
- Posts: 215
- Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:19 pm
- Current Club: Adelaide City
Re: Division two
If the email from our rep is right:
Windsor to Div 3
Scotch MAY align with PAOC Div5 to form a 2a/2b club (great move for both if that happens)
Mount Barker to have a 2A/2B team instead of Div 3 and 4 (If their Div 3 team from last year fills the 2A spot then they should be OK, If its thier 3rd team = a tough season)
3 x new teams - Thebarton into 2a / 2B, Blackwood and Woodside into Div 5 (welcome guys!!)
Refs fee's up to $90 a game. I agree with this and its logic but it adds a further $650+ burden to 5 team clubs or $ 800 for the 6 baggers ...just saying!
PAOC have folded after years of being uncompetitive... I rekon the growth of the CSL has been around certain patterns / logic but the time is coming where the competitive nature of Divisons needs to be considered. My club has always had issues with retining players after tough years (by tough I mean endless flogging by teams who are totally mismatched).
Thats the main gist of things with some bias commentary .. Looking forward to playing some football
Windsor to Div 3
Scotch MAY align with PAOC Div5 to form a 2a/2b club (great move for both if that happens)
Mount Barker to have a 2A/2B team instead of Div 3 and 4 (If their Div 3 team from last year fills the 2A spot then they should be OK, If its thier 3rd team = a tough season)
3 x new teams - Thebarton into 2a / 2B, Blackwood and Woodside into Div 5 (welcome guys!!)
Refs fee's up to $90 a game. I agree with this and its logic but it adds a further $650+ burden to 5 team clubs or $ 800 for the 6 baggers ...just saying!
PAOC have folded after years of being uncompetitive... I rekon the growth of the CSL has been around certain patterns / logic but the time is coming where the competitive nature of Divisons needs to be considered. My club has always had issues with retining players after tough years (by tough I mean endless flogging by teams who are totally mismatched).
Thats the main gist of things with some bias commentary .. Looking forward to playing some football