A proposal that was entered last night (and which was voted on at the last captains' meeting AND will be voted on again at the captains' meeting tonight) is the following:
1. The lineup for the first six games is set.
2. A coin is tossed to determine who breaks in the first game.
3. The breaks then alternate.
4. The procedure is then repeated for the second singles set and again for the doubles set.
Following this format, you and your captain would not know if your slot in the lineup was to be a breaking slot or not when he set the lineup. So, you wouldn't be able to refuse to play in the non-breaking slots.
Pros: Some people like this because it guarantees an almost equal number of breaks for both teams every week.
Cons: Some people dislike the idea because they feel they'd like to "determine" their own fate by calling the toss. Others think a little bit of luck is unavoidable and it doesn't really matter if one team wins the coin toss for all 15 matches in an evening.

John,
I did not see the points that Gregg and Ryan made until now. We did not discuss those aspects of the decision at the meeting yesterday before voting.
I feel that had I known theseopinions of some of our players about the alternating break I would have voted not to change the current way of determining the break.
Respectfully,
Kyle

The points Ryan and Greg made are irrelevant to the system that was voted in yesterday.

While the new system is an alternating break system, the captain has no idea which games are going to be breaking games until after he has set his lineup. Read my post below carefully. If it is still not clear, I'd be more than happy to sit down with you on Wednesday night and try to explain it.
Thanks.

Gregg said
"Nobody would ever use alternate breaks on a single game and then punish the next game. That' a bit ridiculous. I'd refuse to play in the non-break games. Most every league and pro tournament give players an option. You can lag, or you can flip. Just as long as both PLAYERS agree on it, not the team."
I would disagree that this opinion is irrelevant and would submit that the solution voted on did not take this point into account.
I do understand how it is written and I personally am for the alternating break. I just dont feel I voted in the interest of the majority of my team members. The vote was so close, I would recommend that it not be changed.
Since implimentation is not until next season maybe enough players will provide some feedback one way or the other. I will have to face my team with how I voted on wednesday. I have a feeling they will not agree with me.
Thanks for the hard work you and your leadership team are doing....





[John Owens 2012-03-26, 09:26:50]:


The points Ryan and Greg made are irrelevant to the system that was voted in yesterday.



While the new system is an alternating break system, the captain has no idea which games are going to be breaking games until after he has set his lineup. Read my post below carefully. If it is still not clear, I'd be more than happy to sit down with you on Wednesday night and try to explain it.


Thanks.

I wasn't suggesting that we use alternating breaks necessarily. This is not a professional league and not a race as Greg stated. The reason I stated what I did was simply because Johnny said alternating breaks would be like the ref tossing the balls on the table. I was taking issue with his analogy, not whether our league should use alternating breaks. Just to let you know...




[Greg Antrim 2012-03-25, 09:19:30]:
Alternating breaks are used by many major tournaments and even some leagues around the world. Jeff is absolutely correct there. However, what he failed to mention and what is paramount in this league. Is alternate breaking is ONLY used when you are playing a race against someone. I.e. first to 7 or best of 10. Nobody would ever use alternate breaks on a single game and then punish the next game. That' a bit ridiculous. I'd refuse to play in the non-break games. Most every league and pro tournament give players an option. You can lag, or you can flip. Just as long as both PLAYERS agree on it, not the team.
Just my 2 cents
Greg Antrim

I think the vote was too close to change the rules on, I think it was 11-10, and it wasn't discussed very well.I'm against the change. I'm surprised that other captains are for it, this will add to our stress you realise. We might not know who's breaking in the first round but surely we will for second round and doubles? we're going to have players moaning and asking for a certain slot. We're going to have to consider it when choosing our line ups along with the other things we have to consider.My question is this? What's the benefit? I can't see any at all because the current system is not broken so we shouldn't be trying to fix it.If people don't understand this yet (Maybe I'm one of them?? haha) then that's another reason to discuss this again and re-vote when people properly understand.The point people made about alternating breaks being in a race is absolutely correct. We are not having a race, we are not professional, and whatever Bernoulli says, flipping a coin is absolutely sporting and fair and at the end of your pool career you will have broken almost exactly 50% of the time.