(I am starting a new thread rather than hijack the 6N bonus points one.)
Recap: the Swiss system is used in chess when there are too many entries or not enough time for all-play-all. After the first round, winners play winners, and losers play losers. This process produces a ranking system and means that the stronger players play against each other so that nobody benefits from eg a pool system that pits them against weak players.
I first identified this as a better way of organising rugby pool system competitions locally, but then got an opportunity to try it in a slightly different area. In May we ask clubs to submit entries for next season's Reserve leagues(2nd XVs and below). They pay a £100 deposit per team, which is refunded if the team plays 70% of its matches. This was introduced at the request of the clubs because some clubs had been entering teams that were just pie in the sky, leading to too many gaps in fixture lists.
I designated a trial period at the beginning of the season for the lowest tiers (the main problem area). The carrot was that any team that withdrew for lack of players during this period would not lose its deposit.
For six weeks, any team able to raise a side for the next Saturday would send in details by Tuesday midnight. I initially ranked the teams according to their performance the previous season, and paired like with like. If we had an odd number of entries, one team would get a bye, with a guarantee that they would not get another.
When the results came in I would adjust the rankings accordingly for use the following week, ensuring also that each team had a different opponent each week. At the end of the six weeks the rankings were used to set leagues and scheduled fixtures for the rest of the season, leaving out the (small) number of teams that had withdrawn.
There were still some matches that had to be called off for lack of players, but not as many as normal.
The following season was the RWC, so the same system was used for all Reserve Leagues during that because we felt player availability would be too unreliable during the tournament. Half the county took part, the other half opted out.
From discussion with clubs we learned that trying to persuade people to play was more effective if you could point to a scheduled fixture and ask them to help out their mates, than simply being able to (almost) guarantee a game if they agreed to play. Altruism more important than self-interest!
The argument that you cannot plan ahead is not relevant when you have a knockout competition, so I still think this system is better than the standard knockout, where half the teams only get one match. I did a dummy run using 4 rounds before picking the top four team for knock-out semi-finals, and it seemed to work well, but I haven't had a chance to try it live. The appetite for cup competitions seems to have faded somewhat.
Recap: the Swiss system is used in chess when there are too many entries or not enough time for all-play-all. After the first round, winners play winners, and losers play losers. This process produces a ranking system and means that the stronger players play against each other so that nobody benefits from eg a pool system that pits them against weak players.
I first identified this as a better way of organising rugby pool system competitions locally, but then got an opportunity to try it in a slightly different area. In May we ask clubs to submit entries for next season's Reserve leagues(2nd XVs and below). They pay a £100 deposit per team, which is refunded if the team plays 70% of its matches. This was introduced at the request of the clubs because some clubs had been entering teams that were just pie in the sky, leading to too many gaps in fixture lists.
I designated a trial period at the beginning of the season for the lowest tiers (the main problem area). The carrot was that any team that withdrew for lack of players during this period would not lose its deposit.
For six weeks, any team able to raise a side for the next Saturday would send in details by Tuesday midnight. I initially ranked the teams according to their performance the previous season, and paired like with like. If we had an odd number of entries, one team would get a bye, with a guarantee that they would not get another.
When the results came in I would adjust the rankings accordingly for use the following week, ensuring also that each team had a different opponent each week. At the end of the six weeks the rankings were used to set leagues and scheduled fixtures for the rest of the season, leaving out the (small) number of teams that had withdrawn.
There were still some matches that had to be called off for lack of players, but not as many as normal.
The following season was the RWC, so the same system was used for all Reserve Leagues during that because we felt player availability would be too unreliable during the tournament. Half the county took part, the other half opted out.
From discussion with clubs we learned that trying to persuade people to play was more effective if you could point to a scheduled fixture and ask them to help out their mates, than simply being able to (almost) guarantee a game if they agreed to play. Altruism more important than self-interest!
The argument that you cannot plan ahead is not relevant when you have a knockout competition, so I still think this system is better than the standard knockout, where half the teams only get one match. I did a dummy run using 4 rounds before picking the top four team for knock-out semi-finals, and it seemed to work well, but I haven't had a chance to try it live. The appetite for cup competitions seems to have faded somewhat.
