It's a mix of both. The effect of a big win is reduced in my system as it's only worth 1 extra point, but it still means that frames are worth playing for for both teams.

i really like this idea, would be great if implemented

Cup Games

Players signed after the transfer window (free agents) are ineligible to play in the Cup Games.

Cup/Plate Finals
Players eligable to play must have played at least 2 Cup Games during the Season to Qualify for a spot on the Final Team.

This would be to stop teams qualifying for Finals... for then to put in players whom have not played a Cup Game for them already, so that players who helped get to the finals, are the ones that play.

If this was implemented last season.... einit, mattywellie, scott7a & skillz, whom all played 1 prior cup game, and adam_147 whom didnt play a single game, would all of been ineligible.

thegame26, zina, erigert, linfield1886, i_am_blessed, count_raven (departed), obieeeee, i_am_cursed all missed the finals, having all played 2 or more Cup Games during the season.

It's a fair point- however, in our case, we would not have had enough eligible (and active!!) players to play the Cup Final anymore. We only had 3 cup fixtures prior to the final.

The only people who had played 2 cup games for us during the season were:
whocares8x8
ivan_moody
lethal_lure
obieeeee (has no comp, so couldn't play)
i_am_cursed (was removed before the final set)

So although your first point could be included (players added after the transfer window can't play in the Final), I think the 2-game requirement needs overthinking.

Surely like any cup competition it would be players that had moved in the transfer window who had already played in the cup, would be cup tied and unable to play. Anyone else should be able to play. There would be teams who do not use a player in any cup games as they have used them in league games and they could then decide to play someone or require to play someone due to inactivity etc. As long as they have not played for anyone else in cup there is no reason why they shouldn't play if they are a member of your clan.

I think that's a bad idea. It should be down to the individual captain. If the clans' players have an issue with who is being picked for the cup final then that should be dealt with internally, not by the league.

The point im making is to stop teams getting to the final with their team, for them only to bring in 'the big boys' for the final whom havent contributed to getting to the finals.....and the players who have played, get to play the final they have helped their team to reach.

Otherwise next season when Snooker Legends reach the final, we will be signing Kaison, Ste_Etc, i_am_god, pedera & magical_cue just to play in the final (exaggerated but you get my point)


Already a rule that if you play for a team, you are ineligible to play for another team in the cup... well to become eligible to play in the final, you have to have played a cup game to begin with.

Still would be too restrictive. Why shouldn't I be allowed to bring the 'big boys' in the for the final if I wanted too? There shouldn't be any restrictions on team selections.

Snooker Legends did it themselves this season. w_hoolahan & dbno (and even you to an extent) played a disproportionate amount of games compared to the rest of the team - You played the 'big boys' more often than not.

Like I said, there's nothing wrong with that, clans run themselves in different ways. If there is an issue with games not being spread out (or games not being given to 'those deserving') than that is an internal issue.

Although it did leave a fairly sour taste in both my mouth and many other people's, when two seasons ago, FSE suddenly signed damee and we signed destiny just before the Cup Final.
That I think is/was pretty poor and isn't really what we want from the Cup competition, so I think it's a fairly valid point.

If you want to sign them for the final, i wouldn't have an issue with it as long as they have not played in the cup for anyone previously that season. The players who have got you to the final may have an issue with it, but that is an internal clan problem and how you run your clan it has nothing to do with the rules of the league. The rules of the league should have no control over how a clan chooses to use players, how they sign players who are available on free transfers etc.

And as for the big boys tag, it is no different to what each clan does for the league fixtures. Example when D & C played against Allstarz it is common sense that both teams will generally use the so called 'big boys' in that fixture. Which again is why clans should be left to run the players for their own team. If players for that clan are not happy with how the clan chooses to play them, they need to bring it up with the clan internally and if they are not happy with the answer they can always try their luck elsewhere.

I understand what m_wood is getting at and what you are saying Seb....

To be honest, I'd only be in favour of this if the rule was based on the number of games played over the course of the season and not just limiting the rule to cup games.

I.e., to play in the cup final a player has to have played 50% of that teams fixtures (cup & league).

That's a fair point, but if you act to stop that then you could also argue that teams signing players to have an immediate impact late on in the season is wrong.

It's a very subjective issue

I couldn't play at all in the first half of the season because of work and other commitments. Once some time opened up I was able to rejoin the league. Why should I be penalised and not allowed to play because I had more important things to do than play an online game when all the cup matches were? Steve didn't bring me in to play in the final, I played in all but one league fixture since I joined (4 or 5 fixtures) so it wasn't the same thing as the case Seb mentioned. Seb, it was TD not FSE with that one, damee was always in FSE . But yeah I think at the time it seemed a good idea and got a lot of people excited for the final, but when we looked back in hindsight I think we both wouldn't have done it. Especially you as Destiny lost the deciding match .

Yeah, although it's still different. The league is decided by the accumulation of points over the entire season, so a late addition only has a limited impact. In the cup, the late addition has a huge impact, because the last fixture decides everything.

There are a limited number of fixture sets each season (usually about 7. So if we maybe said that players must be signed 2 or 3 fixtures before in order to play in the final, then that may be a decent compromise and avoids situations that I described before?

If done via the proposed idea of 2 points for a win, 1 point for a draw...

In theory... 7 players vs 7.. D&C vs Legends

D&C win 4-2 or 5-1 or 6-0 in every fixture

D&C would get 14 points.. Legends 0.

That is very discouraging for a team finishing on 0 for all their effort.

And makes taking a frame off "kilimanjaro" meaningless if that frame doesnt contribute to a Point.


As for the League Season..... If its 7 teams again...

The first 3 sets (2 league and 1 cup per set)... Group A must have League Byes, not Group B .

Had the scenario last season where like Blackballers had 2 League Games and Cup... and d&c had a bye in the league and 1 cup game.

I was suggesting 2 points for a win and 1 for a draw for the fixture, not for individual matches. So in your scenario D&C would get 2 points and SL would get 0...

I think so far, this is the most likely option to be implemented fully. It's a system that hasn't been tried and still makes every frame played meaningful, which is something I do want to preserve.
The points themselves might be adjusted slightly to reflect a good weighting of fixture points and completion bonus.

Dont fix something that ain't broken , just leave as it is

I mentioned that in private message and it got laughed off so good luck with that proposal