MFCA business meeting agenda item-MFCA NATIONAL LEAGUE

[mantaraydre]

LIST ALL TEAMS FROM 1 TO 100 AND KEEP A RANKING POLL EACH WEEK AS THE SEASON GOES ON. In the end when the playoffs are announced. The higher ranked team gets to choose the style of play. UNLESS, IF A SHOOTOUT STYLE COACH PLAY A DSEFL COACH. PLAY 1 HALF SHOOTOUT STYLE AND THE OTHER HALF DSEFL STYLE. But the weight will still be an issue.

***WHAT IF IN THE PLAYOFFS UNLIMITED ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 3.2

(IT WILL BE YOUR CHOICE HOW YOU FIELD THE PLAYERS IN THE PLAYOFFS.

WITH ALL COACHES KNOWING THIS, IF YOU ARE PLAYING A 4.0 TEAM IN THE PLAYOFFS AND YOU ARE 3.3. It's on you if you choose not to move up in weight when you know you can if you wanted.Iit won't kill you to slip a piece of golf tape between the player and base to move him up in weight. After the game, just remove the tape and you are back to your normal 3.3


MANTARAYDRE

[artlax]

How about this - COULD make everyone happy over time.

Do all the rankings etc... as indicated suggested - obviously some final tweaking of this still to be done.

Regarding the play-offs and Championship choose a rule set with associated weight class for each year for these play-off games.

For example (not in stone):

year 1 - shoot out
year 2 - befl (or that style)
year 3 - mpfl
year 4 - nefl (or that style)
etc...

Or - have one rule set - but just change he weight each year?

That way - going into the beginning of the "season" guys know what rule set to prepare for IF they are ranked high enough to participate in the championship play-offs.

I think you will get better competition that way - coaches will get to experience new rules/style of play (like the Coaches Challenge).

[WEIRDWOLF]

Originally Posted by artlax

How about this - COULD make everyone happy over time.

Do all the rankings etc... as indicated suggested - obviously some final tweaking of this still to be done.

Regarding the play-offs and Championship choose a rule set with associated weight class for each year for these play-off games.

For example (not in stone):

year 1 - shoot out
year 2 - befl (or that style)
year 3 - mpfl
year 4 - nefl (or that style)
etc...

Or - have one rule set - but just change he weight each year?

That way - going into the beginning of the "season" guys know what rule set to prepare for IF they are ranked high enough to participate in the championship play-offs.

I think you will get better competition that way - coaches will get to experience new rules/style of play (like the Coaches Challenge).

OK, that got me thinking...what if the coach with the highest point total at the end of the regular season chooses thats years championship rule set? I think Dre suggested something similar to this earlier but had a bit more of a complex scenario in his suggestion. Is 1 month enough time for people to prepare for that or would we need to end the season sooner?

Cap points...how high? I was thinking 30.
What if the score is 37-33. How many points does the losing coach get? In the proposal the losing coach gets only points scored but if we cap it does he get 30 also?

[Coach K-LO]

Originally Posted by artlax

should be the only ones accepted - period and this point should be agreed upon and stipulated to by both coaches BEFORE the game begins - that whatever the score the game will be played to it's completion.

This is the only fair thing to do - especially for the coach who wants to and will hang 60 on you whenever he can.

if you get the win but don't get the extra points because someone TAPPED OUT... that could make it less unsportsmen-like......

I still hate tap-outs of any kind

[ChetDakota]

Originally Posted by WEIRDWOLF

OK, that got me thinking...what if the coach with the highest point total at the end of the regular season chooses thats years championship rule set? I think Dre suggested something similar to this earlier but had a bit more of a complex scenario in his suggestion. Is 1 month enough time for people to prepare for that or would we need to end the season sooner?

I am not for a rotating ruleset for the playoffs/tournament. Not saying that I wouldn't participate, but I think it could lead to trouble. Same with the Points Leader picking the rules. Trouble in the making if you ask me.

I think that it only makes sense to have a MFCA Ruleset. Make it basic, even if it is based on the Miggle Rule Set. To make it really cool and nostalgic, go back and get a Tudor Rule Book from 1969 and use them as the rules. That is what the history of the game was based on (although no one ever used the rules that came with the game).

You could have two divisions, 3.2 and 4.1 (like what the very successful Bama Blast just had with two Champions). Or, compromise on 3.65 and roll with it with one Champion. Create a "template box" that all figures must fit in. Use the Tudor LB as the model for the height and width template.

[WEIRDWOLF]

Originally Posted by ChetDakota

I am not for a rotating ruleset for the playoffs/tournament. Not saying that I wouldn't participate, but I think it could lead to trouble. Same with the Points Leader picking the rules. Trouble in the making if you ask me.

I think that it only makes sense to have a MFCA Ruleset. Make it basic, even if it is based on the Miggle Rule Set. To make it really cool and nostalgic, go back and get a Tudor Rule Book from 1969 and use them as the rules. That is what the history of the game was based on (although no one ever used the rules that came with the game).

You could have two divisions, 3.2 and 4.1 (like what the very successfule Bama Blast just had with two Champions). Or, compromise on 3.65 and roll with it with one Champion. Create a "template box" that all figures must fit in. Use the Tudor LB as the model for the height and width template.

We actually have a committee working on updating the original Tudor Rules. It has been a slow go as only a couple of people on the committee are really participating. The tudor rules have been converted to digital to this point and certain terms and wordings have been adjusted to reflect current usage. Anyone who would like to assist in the effort, I am sure are welcome and can email me to join on the committee.

The problem always comes up that people want this and that but when it comes down to the nitty gritty...suddenly the lights come on and there is no one in the room. If this proposal becomes to complex it will go no where. Maybe the best solution is to end it at the eight games and not have a championship. The winner is the guy with the most points, then the convention can go on as it has. I just know that if we start developing new rules, boxes, equipment, playoff formulas there had better be a serious commitment by a number of people to push this forward.

Lights on....who is in the room?

[mantaraydre]

WOLF,

For the 2010 season. At this years mfca convention meeting. Put all the rule sets available right now in a box and have any member come up and pick a ruleset from the box. That will be the ruleset for the 2010 playoffs. Everyone will have an entire year to learn that ruleset..

***NOW YOU CAN EITHER KEEP DRAWING FROM THE BOX AT EVERY CONVENTION (WHICH IS THE BEST IDEA BECAUSE EVERYONE WILL BE IN ATTENDANCE THAT MAKES THAT CONVENTION.

OR

The winner of the previous year MFCA NATIOANLS get to pick the next years playoff ruleset.

I think a drawing from a hat or box each year would be cool.

if you get the same ruleset 3 years in a row so be it.

Everyone gets to enjoy their style of play throughout the season. They also know they will have to learn the ruleset that was picked because it was done so fairly.

***it will be like waiting in suspense as the numbers are called for a fantasy football draft order. Or like the nba draft as all teams see where thery will be picking.

**THE PICK THIS YEAR WILL BE FOR NEXT YEARS PLAYOFFS AT THE CONVENTION.

i can't see a coach saying well i won't play in the playoffs because the style he wanted was not chosen. His style of choice was in a fair ballad box like all other styles.

I DONT THINK WE SHOULD MAKE WEIGHT ANY ISSUE. ISN'T THE STYLE OF PLAY MORE IMPORTANT. A coach that plays 4.0 will have a hard time bringing his team back down to 3.2 or 3.3.. It is easier for a coach to add weight than subtract weight.

**i think in the playoffs it should be stipulated to make your team comfortable for YOU. You may play a different style but weight limits must be waved. IF EVERYONE KNOWS THIS GOING IN, IT SHOULD BE NOW PROBLEM.

***mfca playoff and championship style of play drawing. would luv this.

THANX
MANTARAYDRE

[ChetDakota]

Originally Posted by MANTARAY- DRE

A coach that plays 4.0 will have a hard time bringing his team back down to 3.2 or 3.3.. It is easier for a coach to add weight than subtract weight.

This is true and a good point.

[Raven maniac]

At the MfCA con. have a ballot vote. Then announce before the end of the convo. Each members votes once with the member # & rule set. Darrian

[WEIRDWOLF]

Bumping this back up for more discussion.
It seems like the main sticky point for this to happen is what rules set will be used to determine the overall winner.

I personally like the idea of honoring our past with the championship game being played under a updated, faster paced version of the original Tudor Rules (Tudor 2010 Rules). That way, no matter how you got to the championship game you will need to win it with what was the foundatiion to all rules sets in existence. (Honor thy Father and Thy Mother (Tudor))

Equipment would have to be discussed but what about that idea?