COMOPOLO

Hey y'alls, long time no see/chat

I know you're thinking about hosting Midwests, but I wanted to throw another option out there. Portland, NYC, ATX, and Chicago will be hosting new format tournaments this year and I'm curious if you guys would have any interest in hosting one either in addition to Midwests or instead of it. You'd only need 1 court (cosmo!) and you could probably host a total of 6-8 cities.

COMO
STL
Lawrence
Bloomington
Little Rock
Columbus

but maybe not Chi/Mad/MKE since Chi is having one.

5-9 person teams, 60 min games, etc. I'm asking clubs all over about their level of interest when it comes to hosting such a tournament. We hope to have 4-6 tournaments this year with the new format, then set up a qualifying system next year for NAs, then collab with Europe for a Worlds the year after that.

let me know!

If we do hosts Midwests, it would be in the traditional format because it would be a qualifier under NAH terms and conditions for 2012. I really do like the idea of the bench-style format, especially in terms of hosting tourneys. I'm curious...who is in charge of getting this new tournament series started? NAH affiliated?

Has nothing to do with NAH. Right now it's myself, Eric Crandall, Ben Schultz, Adam Menace, and Zach Hollandsworth (from ATX, creator of hardcourtbikepolo.org). It's not going to be like NAH at all.

Sounds easier than hosting midwesterns, although if we don't host them Idk if anyone will. Doesn't seem like it would be too hard to do.

Last edited: Thu, 02 Feb 2012, 07:07pm by Air In Hand

Could do both, it really doesn't matter. Bench tourneys are very easy to throw and manage.

Are cities getting their choice on how many people to a team?

I would be more interested in this in like... September or October as a way to close out the season. Once NAH stuff is done then pick up with this new format. I like that more than trying to do both at the same time.

Yes pete, we could host if need be.

Yeah I was thinking autumn would be better as well, although, sadly I will no probably no longer be here then. I'd still love for como to host it though.

pete wrote:

Has nothing to do with NAH. Right now it's myself, Eric Crandall, Ben Schultz, Adam Menace, and Zach Hollandsworth (from ATX, creator of hardcourtbikepolo.org). It's not going to be like NAH at all.

Awesome! I really like the idea of Oct. I'll keep y'all updated. We'll be making an announcement within a month.

Kruse: teams will be 5-9 players, the city can decide how many/few it wants. If a team of 5 plays a team of 9, so be it.

I like the idea. But I'm more pumped about playing as a state in Bloomington rather than a city.

I think the city vs. city idea would be better if a number was picked and that was the number allowed for a roster (say 5 or 7)...Not six...I like the idea of everyone on a roster having to play and work well with each other...A team of six allows two lines that rarely need to mix together (boring).

Also, limiting the roster to a set number creates a competitive aspect to it where people in different cities have to earn a spot on the that city's roster...and they have to fight to keep it. This results in people working hard to get good and stay good at polo. Think of the progression explosion if people are busting their humps to get into one of the top five spots of their club...And stay there.

Also, it seems weird that a team of five would potentially go up against a team of nine. All sports have a set number of roster spots so that you can't have a ridiculously deep bench. Why be different? Why have a range? To limit hurt feelings?

Last edited: Fri, 03 Feb 2012, 09:54am by Uncle Jesse

Uncle Jesse wrote:

Why be different? Why have a range? To limit hurt feelings?

I think they don't want to limit it yet because this year is experimental. Try as many different things as possible and see what works best, sort of thing. If you keep it flexible like that then everyone will learn a lot about the best way to play the game.

Uncle Jesse wrote:

I like the idea. But I'm more pumped about playing as a state in Bloomington rather than a city.

I think the city vs. city idea would be better if a number was picked and that was the number allowed for a roster (say 5 or 7)...Not six...I like the idea of everyone on a roster having to play and work well with each other...A team of six allows two lines that rarely need to mix together (boring).

Also, limiting the roster to a set number creates a competitive aspect to it where people in different cities have to earn a spot on the that city's roster...and they have to fight to keep it. This results in people working hard to get good and stay good at polo. Think of the progression explosion if people are busting their humps to get into one of the top five spots of their club...And stay there.

Also, it seems weird that a team of five would potentially go up against a team of nine. All sports have a set number of roster spots so that you can't have a ridiculously deep bench. Why be different? Why have a range? To limit hurt feelings?

If you have 2 lines of 3 that are never mixing, you're doing a horrible job of managing your subs. You won't have that many chances to completely switch out a line of players.

The roster is limited to a set number, a maximum of 9. I don't at all understand why 5-9 man teams would somehow make it less competitive when it comes to earning a spot. What it sounds like you're saying is that the maximum should be lower so players have to compete more for fewer spots. The problem with this suggestion is that many cities already have 5-7 great players and there wouldn't really be competition unless further slots were open.

Re team of 5 going against a team of 9: this happens all the time in pro sports. Both teams dress the same number of players, but some teams elect to only use 2-3 subs during the entire game. The fact that others dress for the match is often merely a formality. And a 9 man team isn't really a ridiculously deep bench, especially if you're playing 60 minute games. We have a range because it'll allow cities with fewer players that are willing to travel/play in this format to still be able to field a team.

Having a range isn't different. There's a maximum number of players and a minimum needed to play thus making a range. But there's no point in playing a new format game with a 3 person team, that defeats the purpose of having subs.

Sounds fun! City teams sounds a lot more interesting than state teams. I like the idea of limiting the number of players though. 9 is to many and if teams are uneven it is not fair to a team with less players who will need to have better endurance for a 60min game. 5 or 6 sounds better. 6 would allow for your city to put together its two best NAH squads.

This sounds like a whollotta fun! Larry probably would be down.

hey, how do I upload a picture for my comopolodotcom profile? Hand-y man told me to upload a picture somewhere... I think I did... but... HELP

Peter if you click on your name up under the main banner, and then look on the bottom of the page there should be some text down on the center that says "change avatar". This is your picture that will appear under your name. I can do it for you too if you tell me the picture you want.

I don't see "change avatar", but there's a "select avatar", which takes me to http://comopolo.com/avatars

Peter I can't do it I'm not smart enough you gotta go to the avatars page and select the cat one!

http://comopolo.com/avatars/new

Uncle Jesse wrote:

This results in people working hard to get good and stay good at polo. Think of the progression explosion if people are busting their humps to get into one of the top five spots of their club...And stay there.

Agreed, even knowing that my chances would be limited or none with only 5 spots I like this whole idea. Put that fire under our asses!