D'oh! Anybody with a D2 ranking. Next question.
Not so fast. According to the UPC it's anybody who has accumulated more than 984 points but fewer than 1974 points. (Yes, I know, in season moves require different totals. Not important.)
[If you're wondering why I don't mention any of the other ID/ranking systems it's because they aren't worth mentioning as all they do is justify levying another tax on your ignorant player ass.]
A weakness of the system is that it's assigning value to individual players for what a team accomplishes--which is problematic--but at least in recent years changes made have tried to account for an inability to grade a specific player and offered more latitude to the process. Less than perfect perhaps but few things are. Perfect, that is.
What the formula can't do it is assumed teams will do at some point--make precise judgments about a specific player's skill set and either keep him (her) or cut them. Which is not an unreasonable position to take, at least when we're talking about competitive paintball at the higher end of the sport.
The issue I want to address today is not what happens to players and teams along the divisional ladder but what happens to the divisions and the competition within those divisions.
By UPC formula the (approx.) bottom 30% of teams don't score enough points to reach (or maintain) the division they're in. If that's true do they really belong? Meanwhile, the upper (approx.) 35% of teams score enough to move up to the next division and--again by rule and formula--they have to unless they break up their team. So what does it mean? [Edit added: According to Raehl the number is around 20-ish % currently. And in taking more time to crunch the numbers he's basically correct. It hasn't always been. I don't think the difference impacts the argument much but as usual you can decide for yourself.]
Here's the problem. There is no standard. A D2 player is whatever the numbers say he is but the comparison and competition is limited to the group "competing in D2 now." The "best" is a reflection of that specific group of competitors and nobody else. And if a division routinely bumps up the top 25-35% of competing teams the teams remaining in the division are necessarily not as good as the teams promoted. So the next influx of new teams entering a higher division are necessarily competing against an existing group that isn't as good as it was the prior season. The degree of difficulty in challenging for the top spots diminishes and the overall demands of the competition are reduced within that division--and the effect is more pronounced the higher or more elite the division because the competition is supposed to be that much more demanding. At D4 and D3 the pool of competing teams is less refined and there can be (and should be) greater variances in performance from top to bottom. As teams rise the gap should narrow but under the current system it doesn't because all divisions, teams and players are treated the same--by formula--except the pros ('cus they got nowhere else to go.)
From the beginning the system was designed to keep teams churning up the ladder with the middle of the pack being the division marker. At the lower levels it's probably discriminating enough to be acceptable. At the upper levels all it has done is drive teams out of national competition and dumb down the competition in the upper divisions.
The easy fix is be more discriminating in who moves up--a much lower percentage--and more flexible in allowing (or even compelling) teams to move back down. It is not enough to simply populate the various divisions. The failure to nurture and protect divisional distinctions and attempt to maintain a divisional standard of excellence (as opposed to mediocrity) lessens the competition and does all the competing teams a disservice.