First Team Sub
May 25, 2012, 12:27 AM
Post #436 of 457
It's in the nature of the beast, but I agree it can seem ridiculous. That's because the system used doesn't go all the way down. It stops at step 4, meaning that whichever step 5 leagues end up with a vacancy, they're stuck with it.
After 2012-13 season it may get shifted down a level or two, if what I've gleaned of current F.A. plans is true.
It's a fact that the higher the level of football you go, the less chance there is of an irregular vacancy arising in a division, and obviously vice versa applies the lower you go. (I know someone's going to mention unsustainable FL clubs here, but forthis discussion, I'm happily ignoring them. lol.).
Whatever, eventually you go down enough layers and irregular vacancies begin to occur, which means that it is logical to expect a cumulatively larger number of these becoming servicable the deeper down you look. The whole thing's a system where it's inevitable that vacancies will arise above your team's level and definitely not the opposite occurring. Therefore, there will always be a net drain upward.
Now, to me, pooling for these unexpected, inevitable vacancies is most logical. It ensures that no single area is super-depleted in a given season, doing what re-insurers do, which is spreading the risk. It might seem illogical at first blush, noting say, a south coast club at step 5 receiving a reprieve due to the shenanigans caused by a northern or midland club folding perhaps. Yet, over the long-term, that will eventually balance itself out - not perfectly (look at the cumulative totals for the draws of the various national lottery numbers for comparison), yet with smaller and smaller percentage variability as time goes on.
Unfortunately, as noted, it doesn't (yet) continue past step 4, which to my mind makes its apparent small negative side-effect rather more prominent than it really should be.
The other visible problem is that the beneficial aspects of pooling can become masked, because sometimes (as in this season's NP1N) in-division reprieves; which don't fit-in to my way of thought when there's also pooling happening alongside; get to cock things up. That just makes the whole thing neither fish nor fowl. Confusing.
Choose pooling or choose not-pooling, not some hybrid. And apply the same rules all the way down the pile.
Whichever of those three choices wins the day, there will always be room to argue its faults and champion one of the unpicked methods. But I'm not complaining. It gives us something to drivel on about all trough the close season doesn't it?
Ut temporibus est cum diabolus accipit renes
Still the original Paddy MacNab.