Authored by: Wayne on Saturday, June 23 2007 @ 06:42 PM EST

Your unofficial league ladder should be updated if you are going to link to it and use it as a reference I would have thought. Some teams have played 4-5 games.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: fox on Sunday, June 24 2007 @ 04:25 PM EST

I agree with Wayne.

Aside from most games being excluded, some USAFL teams play at a very different competition level to other USAFL teams. For example, the MAAFL has an upper division (Championship Division) and a lower division (Regional Division), yet they are treated as equal in the "unofficial league ladder." The MAAFL doesn't consider the two divisions equal, placing them in two separate ladders, so why should anyone else view the teams in the two divisions as equal?

The "unofficial league ladder" is worthless nonsense.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Brett on Sunday, June 24 2007 @ 09:45 PM EST

Just a reminder that we want comments to be kept constructive so please let's keep that in mind here.

I certainly can see an argument that the ladder is obviously going to draw together a lot of information that isn't "apples with apples" (and I could see it would cause some argument), but likewise I don't think it claimed to, and is simply an effort by someone involved in footy in the US to draw together results. Perhaps it needs a bigger disclaimer on it, but either way readers shouldn't take things too seriously. As they say, they aren't playing for sheep stations.


---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Wayne on Monday, June 25 2007 @ 05:56 AM EST

Well appreciated its a good effort but when it excludes more more games than it includes because of some subjective reasoning that the game needs to be played with a certain amount of players then I think its lost most of its value. For instance MAAFL teams have been playing 14 a side games for 5 years, deciding a Premiership Trophy on them and the USAFL have used those results to consider seedings for Nationals etc.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Brett on Monday, June 25 2007 @ 10:40 AM EST

I must admit it surprises me to hear that MAAFL 14-a-side matches aren't included. I'll be interested to follow-up the reasoning. No doubt a line must be drawn somewhere but I would've thought MAAFL was in. I don't know, but I suspect very few US matches would have more than 14 to 16 per side, even if that is the initial intention when scheduling.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: fox on Monday, June 25 2007 @ 12:47 PM EST

For an unofficial USFooty ladder or ranking to have any credibility, all official EAFL, MAAFL Championship Division and Western Regionals games need to be included because these results will directly influence USFooty Nationals rankings.

Many significant games are going to be 14-a-side. That's simply standard team size in most parts of the US. Frankly, with the size of the fields, 14-a-side usually makes more sense.

Under MAAFL rules, each team could have 20 players available but play only 14 on the field (with 6 interchange players) if that is what the away team prefers.

Besides, how do you determine how many player where on each team in every game? These details often aren't recorded in match reports. It seems to be extra work for no benefit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: fox on Monday, June 25 2007 @ 12:59 PM EST

The phrase "how many player where on each team in every game" in my previous post should read "how many players were on each team in every game." I really must proof read before I hit that "Submit Comment" button!

I notice there are references to the determination of US Nationals division 1 berths alongside a reference to the "USFooty's unofficial ladder" in the article. This reinforces my argument that 14-a-side games that directly influence Nationals division 1 berths should be included in this "USFooty's unofficial ladder."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Aaron on Monday, June 25 2007 @ 07:34 PM EST

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Brett on Tuesday, June 26 2007 @ 01:47 AM EST

Yep, this has been discussed by email by a few of us, but Chris is pretty tied up at the moment. I believe he's taking the ideas on board but to a degree no matter where you draw the line on games it'll be controversial - you only have to read the US Footy forum to see how passionate people are about how their club is rated. That can be a bit disappointing at times, but having passion for the game is better than not caring at all about it.

My 2 cents, said as an interested onlooker rather than as an editor of WFN, is that it would be nice to see all games included that are roughly interstate matches (as opposed to local metro games). So 9-a-side through to 18-a-side, taking in the MAAFL, EAFL and Western Regionals, amongst others, though not the more locally focused leagues like the AZAFL, GGAFL or SCAFL. But such a consolidated ladder would still be controversial and take a lot of work, and such a ladder is something that US Footy have avoided probably for those reasons. Hopefully Chris will get a chance at a later date to explain his rationale here, but at the end of the day each of the leagues have their own ladders, and there's Nationals, so plenty of opportunity for teams to set the record straight themselves.

---
Brett Northey - Co-founder and Chief Editor of WFN

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Chris Adams on Thursday, July 05 2007 @ 09:14 AM EST

I've spent Independence Day adding back in earlier games. I think I have covered all of them. I have not included Cincinnati's recent scratch match against Milwaukee or the Louisville Tourny games.

Have a look and see what you think. Also check out the other information at www.usfootynews.blogspot.com.

Chris

---
Carna Revos!

[ Reply to This | # ]