Talk:Promotion

From Hattrick

Does the 2nd in Div 8 really play a qualifier? Until now i thought otherwise and i do not find a hint in the editorial which interpretation is correct.

/Mjoelnir

Well, just consider the number of divisions at each level:
V - 256 divisions (x2 = 512 auto-demoting from 7th or 8th and 512 playing qualifier)
VI - 1024 divisions (#1 makes up 1024 teams, so 512 play qualifiers and 512 auto-promote) (x2 = 2048 teams auto-demoting, 2048 teams w/ qualifier)
VII - 1024 divisions (#1 makes up 1024 teams who auto-promote, #2 is 1024 teams who also auto-promote, then 2048 from 3 and 4 who have a qualifier) (x2 = 2048 auto-demoting, 2048 w/ qualifier)
VIII - 2048 divisions (#1 = 2048 teams, #2 = 2048 teams)

So, you would assume that all the #1s would auto-promote and all the #2s would play a qualifier, as is done with the 1-2s and 3-4s now. But, no, this hasn't been confirmed, I just thought it was by far the most logical conclusion. -Catalyst 23:15:49, 2006-03-29 (UTC)

In a german (language, not nationality) conference a swiss GM said that no relegation matches will take place. That was posted in an FAQ thread, so i consider this to be information coming directly from HTs and to be checked by his colleagues for accuracy. You can find it here (5591227.1), although you would need a translator or to be able to understand german.

-Mjoelnir 2006-04-11

At this moment it has become absolutely clear that there will only be direct promotions in the lower divisions (see any leaguepage and promotion.asp). I'm not sure I have the time now to modify the page properly GM-Lau 12:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

De table in the section Promotion on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattrick is already updated, so maybe you could copy paste that although the text beneath is not okay yet. /GM-CableGuy

I think we don't need to change the text below, as the current shorter one (in comparision to wikipedia) is quite understandable and doesn't reference specific division levels. Instead it explains the general concept. So copying the table should be enough. Which just happened. /Mjoelnir 2006-04-29