I have found that one of (if not THE) the most important issues is for
the person administering the ladder to remain impartial throughout. It is
critical to establish guidelines and follow them without exception. If
you should decide to put new players at the bottom of the ladder (which
is essentially where everyone started from at the commencement) then you
must stick with that policy. Even if Martina Navratilova should join your
club and want to join the ladder, she goes in at the bottom and works her
way up, or starts with zero points (which is at the bottom, in reality).
If the director puts someone in a slot where the director 'thinks' s/he
belongs, subjectivity enters, and the purpose of the ladder - to let the
players determine, through play, who is better in the rankings - is
This has happened in several of the ladders in the area I live in, and it
destroys the credibility of the ladder and the person running it.
Whenever I set up ladders for high school or college teams, I make the
rules clear from the beginning, and follow them without fail. I might set
up the initial standings by some arbitrary things such as alphabetical
order, height, whatever (sometimes something humorous works) or all at
the zero position in the case of a 'points system', but as long as
everyone knows what's going to happen up front, they have no questions.
It is, unfortunately, impossible to eliminiate complaints, but people
don't have to join the ladder if they choose not to.
Received on Sat Apr 29 2000 - 06:53:59 CDT