• Sockeye-7th-NW3
• Machine-10th-C2
• Bodhi-12th-NE3
• Condors-13th-SW2
• PoNY-14th-NE4
• Truck Stop-15th-MA2
• El Diablo-16th-S3

Application of 1.b.ii gives one strength wildcard each to the top two finishing teams/regions in this list. This rule, where each team in the comparison can only earn one wildcard, is applied to determine strength wildcards in almost all situations, with the following exception.

Rule 1.b.iii can come into play in exceptional circumstances where a 3rd finishing team from a region with exactly 3 teams in attendance can earn two wildcards by itself. The bar for this to occur is very high, and a team must finish ahead of not only all the other teams in the comparison, but also ahead of all the other 2nd finishing teams from the other regions. In 2008, the NW3 team did not fulfill this requirement, finishing behind the NE2 team, and therefore was only eligible to earn a single strength wildcard.
 
As the determination of wildcards is governed by finish at the Club Championships, there are special rules which are designed to help determine the wildcard on the field. The Competition Rules for the Club Championships allow for matchups in the 5-8 bracket to be switched under special circumstances. Specifically: "In the first round of the 5-8 bracket, if there are exactly two teams in contention for a strength wildcard, those teams will play each other in that first round regardless of the originally scheduled match-ups." In 2008, these circumstances were not met, as the only teams in contention for a wildcard in the 5-8 bracket were from the Northwest. Therefore, the brackets were not switched and the results of the games dictated the allocation of wildcards in the manner described above.
 
The situation in the 2008 Open Division was an unusual one, and some have argued it should have been treated differently. However, in order to switch matchups in the 5-8 bracket or award wildcards any differently based on the final results, the UPA would have broken the written rules, perhaps to the benefit of one region, but also to the disadvantage of others. We will certainly examine this rule for the future, we could not change written rules during the event.
 
Rationale of the Rule
The strength wildcard is designed to determine the ‘next’ strongest teams to attend the Championships. This is inherently difficult to do. Therefore, the focus is on using the teams who are present at the Championships as an indicator of the strength of the team that would finish ‘next’ from that region. For regions who already have three or four teams present, those teams represent themselves. The strength wildcard rewards a region with a bid based on the fact that their lowest placing team finished ahead of other regions lowest placing teams since it would (arguably) transitively follow that their "next" team (the highest placing team from their Regionals that did not earn a bid to the Club Championships) would be likely to finish higher than the "next" teams from other regions. As there is no perfect system for this, it is intentionally challenging, though still achievable under certain circumstances for an especially dominant region's performance, for a region to earn both strength bids.
 
In order for a team to get 2 strength wildcards, they need their 3 teams in attendance to all finish above the 2nd place finisher from ALL other regions. The 2nd place finisher was selected because each region gets 2 automatic bids. So, what the rule is saying is that if a region is strong enough to display that their 2 teams with automatic bids AND their 1 team with a wildcard bid are all strong enough to finish higher than at least one automatic qualifier from EACH of the other regions, then they deserve the 2nd wildcard (more so than any other region). This is supported by the intentionally high requirement for earning both strength bids.
 
In the 2008 Open case, it has been argued that it is strange that it is the performance of the Northeast teams that will prevent the Northwest from receiving two strength bids. However, it is important to separate the two items. First, it was determined that the Northwest did not EARN a second strength bid by the intentionally high standards. Then it is necessary to consider ALL FIVE other regions for the final bid. The Northeast did not earn the bid over the Central, because of the performance of Northeast three and Northeast 4.
 
The UPA is always looking at and revising its guidelines and policies for future improvement. This particular scenario will be reviewed in the offseason by the UPA Competition Committee to see if changes or clarifications might be necessary. The ideas and input of players is always a welcome addition to the process of improving the UPA Series. Please email will@hq.upa.org or submit a proposal if you have ideas about how to improve this or other aspects of the Series for the future.