Key findings from 105 player responses and proposed structure for the 2026–27 season.
Players are happy with Apollo — but the current structure isn't giving them enough ice time.
The league grew 20% in two seasons on the same 18 sheets. Everything held steady or improved — except ice time satisfaction, which collapsed.
Ice time satisfaction dropped 51 points in two seasons. Same venue, same number of draws — but 8 more teams competing for the same ice.
Return likelihood: 4.65 → 4.62. Welcoming: 4.09 → 4.10. Primary objective: 78/22% → 79/21%. Players still love the league — the frustration is purely structural.
Spare system improved: 3.72 → 4.33. Volunteer interest down: 61% → 46% yes/maybe.
92% regular team players (88) · 8% spares (8)
say Apollo is primarily a safe & social space for LGBTQ+ community and allies
say the primary focus is the game of curling — these members skew heavily veteran
89% LeagueBuddy · 80% email · 43% Instagram · 18% website · 6% Facebook
In 2023-24 with 40 teams, 87% were satisfied with ice time. Now at 48 teams on the same ice, that's dropped to 34%. The league outgrew its capacity.
This outweighs every other theme — social events, comms, spare system — by a wide margin.
Ice time frustration is not evenly distributed — veterans feel it most acutely. First-year players are largely satisfied.
First season: 33% · 2–5 yr: 45% · 5–10 yr: 59% · 10+ yr: 60%
1st yr: 4.00 → 2–5 yr: 4.35 → 5–10 yr: 4.09 → 10+ yr: 3.88. Peaks early, then declines.
Prefer RR: 1st yr 77%, 2–5 yr 73%, 5–10 yr 80%, 10+ yr only 56%. Veterans are more split.
52% of 10+ yr would volunteer vs 35% of first-year. 8 of 16 firm "Yes" are 10+ yr veterans.
Ranked #1 most preferred (% who chose this first)
prefer replacing the playoff final with an additional round-robin for guaranteed games (74 of 103)
Late-night Saturday draws are unpopular — 50% opposed or see it as a dealbreaker (10% dealbreaker).
Welcoming score — new players feel included
rated organization 4 or 5 out of 5
Splitting by primary objective reveals two distinct groups with different priorities, frustrations, and format preferences.
Across 105 responses, players left ~200 substantive free-form comments. Here are the dominant themes, sized by how often they came up and colored by sentiment.
Representative quotes from the most discussed topics, drawn from 105 responses.
The proposed 2026–27 structure shifts from one league with compromises to multiple tailored experiences within a single league.
Pool size is the hidden lever. Pools of 4 on current ice: 48 teams, 1 bye, 15 games — but high churn.
4 NHCC = 3 NHCC + 1 CCC for pools of 6: both deliver 0 byes, 20 games. Late draws vs. second venue.
Max teams supported with at most 1 bye per round. NHCC = 6 sheets/draw, CCC = 8 sheets/draw.
Pools of 4 on current ice (18 sheets) supports 48 teams with 1 bye, 15 total games. No CCC needed — but high churn.
4 teams/pool: 3g/rnd, 4 wk/rnd — high churn, short-horizon schedules
6 teams/pool: 5g/rnd, 5–6 wk/rnd — moderate stability
8 teams/pool: 7g/rnd, 7 wk/rnd — most stable
CCC requires all 8 sheets filled per draw. Pool sizes that don't divide evenly into 8 need creative scheduling.
If CCC can't accommodate us, Garrison Curling Club (6 sheets, ~10 km south of NHCC) is a potential alternative. Capacity-wise identical to adding a 4th late draw at NHCC. Nothing official yet — included in the scenario survey to gauge willingness to travel.
Social and competitive paths share the same Saturday ice but can run different pool sizes and round lengths. Competitive needs at least 3 weeks for playoffs (QF / SF / F).
Social players get more games than competitive. On 24+ sheets with pools of 6: social gets 20 games, competitive gets 15 + 5 weeks of playoffs. Directly addresses the #1 complaint.
18–20 sheet scenarios require pools of 4 — high churn, short-horizon schedules. Pools of 6 on 24+ sheets avoid this.
5 playoff weeks supports single or double elimination. 4 NHCC and 3N+1C produce identical outcomes — the tradeoff is late draws vs. second venue.
Open registration for one path first (likely social, as it's the larger group). Rosters capped at 5 players. Close registration when that path reaches its exact team target.
Open the other path. Teams that didn't get into the first path can register here or opt out. Remaining spots filled by new registrants.
Once both paths are filled, roster cap raised to 6 players for built-in spare flexibility.
Player preferences are split — some want short summaries, others want full detail. A tiered model serves both.
At least 7 of 39 emails (~18%) existed only because most people didn't act the first time. Fewer reminders = fewer “too many emails.”
Social event conflicts — 11 respondents said events always fell during their draw time. League Buddy's scheduling algorithm avoids this, but only 164 of 269 players (61%) updated their social event preferences. If your team doesn't fill it out, the algorithm can't help you.
Despite fees decreasing $1,500 → $1,300, several respondents reported they increased. Clearer structure helps important details stick.
Keep current 48 teams and optimize the experience, or expand to fill additional ice? The right answer depends on ice configuration and pool size — see slides 12–14.
CCC is evaluating whether they can accommodate us — it would mean displacing their Junior program. If they offer ice, we need to be ready: all 8 sheets filled most weeks (minimum 6). This drives our team count and pool size decisions.
How do we position social vs competitive paths to avoid perception of one being "lower tier"? Can teams switch mid-season?
46 members indicated willingness to volunteer (17 yes, 29 maybe). How do we convert interest into actual support before season launch?
Survey closed at 105 responses (~34% rate). Themes validated by larger sample; headline metrics moved <0.05 from the 96-response cut, indicating the signal is stable.