Team	Junk	JvJ
NAI	5	3
ALB	4	1
HIB	4	0
ARB	3	2
DUM	3	1
ANN	2	2
FRA	2	0
EF	2	0
MOT	2	0
ELG	2	0
HEA	2	0
SRA	1	1
CLY	1	0
STE	1	0
LIV	0	0
DEE	0	0

A new sole leader: NAI tops the table.
ALB and HIB stay in reach.
ARB must have felt cheated. They had to face TWO competive 60+ lineups this week (almost unprecedented) - and dropped to #4.

NAI's lead is certainly deserved.
Their match vs DUM was a JvJ classic: 44/39: all Stall from both teams and ZERO shots, let alone goals!
GO NAI - and DUM!

SRA gets their 1st JvJ and leave the bottom 3. 
Only LIV and DEE are still waiting for their 1st junk.

Not much news here, only HIB closes in on ARB.

Team	Junk	JvJ
ARB	3	2
NAI	3	2
ALB	3	1
HIB	3	0
FRA	2	0
EF	2	0
MOT	2	0
ANN	1	1
ELG	1	0
DUM	1	0
CLY	1	0
STE	1	0
HEA	1	0
SRA	0	0
LIV	0	0
DEE	0	0

Plenty of junk this week,
Apparently the late rounds of the CECIL Cup show their impact.

The leaders ARB and NAI remain on top, yet ALB and HIB are closing in - all with 3 junks against.

Only 3 teams at the bottom remain "junkless": SRA, LIV and DEE.

ARB and HIB remain on top as everybody's darling, but HEA closes in with impressive 56/46% this week.

The bottom 3 "most hated" shuffle a bit around - ANN even plays a JvJ vs (of course) ARB - but they stay in safe distance from the rest.

You might wonder, what ANN/DEE/LIV have done to deserve this?

@Colin/DUM:

When DUM were winning Titles and Cups it was with a very powerful BC set up

Were the BC multipliers changed afterwards?
And why did DUM switch to just another EC squad?

With the current numbers I see BC as a niche tactic only.
Given BC's many issues and flaws, I don't see it as a viable option.

Detour:
I actually like the concept of BC - and would like to use it, if it could provide the numbers.
I have played a couple of EEFL systems before, sometimes widely using BC, but they had better multipliers - and the much more flexible EEFL conditional system could handle some of BC's problems much better.

To all late arrivals - and / or just recently interested:

1st the legend ...

Junk := # junk lineups played against
Junk vs Junk (JvJ, formerly Junk Duel) := # matches with both teams fielding junk
Avg := average TotalSL% played against

The reason for this table came from when I (and e.g. Andrew/MOT) noticed that their respective schedule partner (i.e. the team we shared most weekly opponents with) faced much weaker lineups.

There was some discussion about it, but in the end I wanted to get real numbers: the clever management table.

The term "clever management" is in honor of Dave/HEA, claiming ...

Clever management may see opposition pick a match they can win and play near their top 11.
For example, say a team like HEA happens to be near top of league, then opposition may focus the high skill players on the other match of the same session sometimes.

Given that the "other" team was DEE, you might guess that I did not quite share Dave's view.

Team	Junk	JvJ
ARB	2	1
NAI	2	1
HIB	2	0
ALB	2	0
FRA	2	0
ELG	1	0
DUM	1	0
EF	1	0
CLY	1	0
STE	1	0
MOT	1	0
SRA	0	0
HEA	0	0
LIV	0	0
DEE	0	0
ANN	0	0

A disappointing week for the leaders - they had to face some actual competition, outrageous!

5 teams are still waiting for their 1st junk opposition.

But actually a rather balanced table.

Arbroath still manages to be everybody's favourite - with relaxing 57%.

The bottom three, LIV/DEE/ANN seem to be stuck with 66%+. I fail to see a common pattern here.

James' idea of needing an "academy" to get a superstar is actually quite solid.
 Instead of a random roll the superstar would turn into a strategic choice.
 And it would still "support" lower div teams since it is much easier to train up rookies in div3 than in div1.
 
 I'd still prefer getting rid of the superstars, but the academy approach seems like a reasonable compromise.