2010 WA Series suggestions thread

[DMAILMAN]

So here is an update concerning the Autumn Classic. We have secured a TD for the event. Mike Rideout has agreed to run the event with the support of Paul Wright and the TDGPA. At this time sanctioning is not complete but will be soon. As soon as the sanctioning goes through, It will be pre-registration only. We hope this will help alleviate some of the money issues. The TDGPA in support of Paul and Mike and the WSS will set the courses up pro bono. The only charge from the club regarding setup will be for tee signage. That will save the series 300.00 in setup costs.

How about instead of making the local clubs co hosts, what if the local clubs host their own event and the WSS piggyback on those events. WSS participants could pay an additional fee for each of the events that they attend. The WSS Rep could at the time of check in collect the WSS fee from the entrant.

Seems to me that this solution would help each of the host clubs to begin cementing annual events that would help them to grow local support for the clubs and the event

Also, what if all the participating clubs all had to provide a two course, 18 hole layout. That way all events become standardized. No one day events. All two days. Once again...standardize the series

I think it is time to put this year behind us and move forward with high hopes and expectations for 2010 WSS. It is my opinion that the only way the series will prosper and grow will be if each club presents a rep to a commitee to oversee the series. And lets not forget to volunteer to help the series coordinator with all the logistics involved.

Have we learned nothing from what happened in Oregon and now Washington. Running a series cannot be run by one person. there are just no checks and balances to secure success. We all know what happens when people do too much on their own. Can you say burnout! So you can help by stepping up and volunteering to help with all that it takes to run,track and score a series of events. We can do this together..

Keep your feet on the ground and your disc in the air! Nan Nu Nan Nu!

[LJ Jubner]

How about instead of making the local clubs co hosts, what if the local clubs host their own event and the WSS piggyback on those events. WSS participants could pay an additional fee for each of the events that they attend. The WSS Rep could at the time of check in collect the WSS fee from the entrant.

Series fee's
Maybe instead the series could have a small buy in (not in the form of series plastic) Say $150 gets each supporting event the Series artwork to incorporate into their own custom stuff. Now the Discraft dollars is another way to achieve financial security for the series. Unfortunately Discraft plastic is not to popular locally.

Seems to me that this solution would help each of the host clubs to begin cementing annual events that would help them to grow local support for the clubs and the event. Also, what if all the participating clubs all had to provide a two course, 18 hole layout. That way all events become standardized. No one day events. All two days. Once again...standardize the series.


All good thoughts except the two course minimum. This fact will lead to only a few venue's holding series events. I am not one who supports travel between venues on the same day. As an example SeaTac would be eliminated by this requirement. Now some will say Lakewood is close but it's night and day as far as play goes + it requires two complete set-ups. Currently there are 3 established venues . Tri Cities, Four Mound, Stellicoom and and one up and coming Wenatchee that fit the proposed criteria. This eliminates ASC and it's great club support, White River, SeaTac, Lakewood and the turd of the series Riverside.

Another idea is for the left out venues to form a second one day event series. It might just fit the bill?

I think it is time to put this year behind us and move forward with high hopes and expectations for 2010 WSS. It is my opinion that the only way the series will prosper and grow will be if each club presents a rep to a committee to oversee the series. And lets not forget to volunteer to help the series coordinator with all the logistics involved.!

Again good thoughts here and attainable goals, but it will take all of us to make it happen.

[Tim]

All good thoughts except the two course minimum. This fact will lead to only a few venue's holding series events. I am not one who supports travel between venues on the same day. As an example SeaTac would be eliminated by this requirement. Now some will say Lakewood is close but it's night and day as far as play goes + it requires two complete set-ups. Currently there are 3 established venues . Tri Cities, Four Mound, Stellicoom and and one up and coming Wenatchee that fit the proposed criteria. This eliminates ASC and it's great club support, White River, SeaTac, Lakewood and the turd of the series Riverside.



Hey, don't forget Terrace. ;) Jub, I know you're a proponent of fewer events in the series, and making a 2 course standard would support that. It's true that Lakewood/Seatac are very different courses, but I don't see that preventing having a 2 course event there. Pros play Tac-LW-Tac, Ams play LW-Tac-LW. Pros would play LW in all the longs, and if we're worried about timing, flag out some temporary shorter tees for the Ams' round.

I also think the peninsula should get some action...NAD/Fairgrounds would be perfect.

I agree, it would be a shame to take the ASC out though. I'd say make that the exception to the rule, that is, if Scot's still interested in being part of the series.

Sorry, I'd like to flesh out my thoughts more, but I'm actually kinda busy today.

[olydiscgolf]

Thanks to Rideout and TDGPA! Im stoked you guys are stepping up to make this event and series happen! I would like to be involved in the planning process for next years events, I like the idea of club reps coming together to make the series happen. I also like the idea of local clubs supporting the big tournements, there's no reason we can't donate the procedes of a few club events to fund the big picture.

[LJ Jubner]

I am curious when the need to have 144+ players became the norm? Call me old fashioned but I don't really support having two death marches. I will say it again Pools stink.

Tim the biggest issue about the Tac/LW is the difference in time it would take each pool to play either course. 90 players Am's would be close to 4 hrs at the Tac Open 3 hrs so the timing between rounds would be the main issue.

[Scott]

I am curious when the need to have 144+ players became the norm? Call me old fashioned but I don't really support having two death marches. I will say it again Pools stink.

Tim the biggest issue about the Tac/LW is the difference in time it would take each pool to play either course. 90 players Am's would be close to 4 hrs at the Tac Open 3 hrs so the timing between rounds would be the main issue.

Two sweet courses that close to each other? It would be great to see them both in a tournament at the same time.

Why be so negative? Instead of pointing out what won't work why not look for solutions instead? :chinscratch:

[LJ Jubner]

I actually thought I had offerd a legit concern.

[Tim]

I am curious when the need to have 144+ players became the norm? Call me old fashioned but I don't really support having two death marches. I will say it again Pools stink.

Tim the biggest issue about the Tac/LW is the difference in time it would take each pool to play either course. 90 players Am's would be close to 4 hrs at the Tac Open 3 hrs so the timing between rounds would be the main issue.

Why big? I think that tournaments that are part of a state series are the ones that should be the biggies, along with the state championship. And if we're insisting on having 2 day events, it kinda seems natural to have more than one course to play.

As to LW/Tac, like I said, we could mark out temp tees for the ams on the more problematic holes. And also, if the ams were only playing it once, and it was their second round on Saturday, the timing wouldn't be as big of an issue.

[LJ Jubner]

After reading all of the RM posts I thought ti might be advantageous to start a new thread about what was good about the Previous series and What could/should be improved upon.

1. Club Co Sponsored events Club reps on board during planning stages.

2 Basic formatting
a. Evaluate possibilities for less total events
b. Combing venues.
c. Qualifiers/Points

3 Establishing fundraising for said events/series.
a. Artwork
b. Series plastic
c. Fundraiser discs
d. Reindeer games

I would like to offer a new spin
AM Pro Am playing Pro or the old Pro II

Not that this is a new idea but I was curious what other think about this. My idea addresses the players who want to go to worlds and are bagging in the division. I propose that I as a Adv Master would pay the Adv entry fee but the fee's would be added to the Pro Master Division (where I would play). Then If I finished in the dough I could A. take scrip and remain Am/ keep lower entry fee or B. Take the dough Go Pro and pay full fees from that point forward. I believe this might help the better players get more experience and encourage lesser players to continue to progress.

[TYVEK]

I am curious when the need to have 144+ players became the norm? Call me old fashioned but I don't really support having two death marches. I will say it again Pools stink.

Tim the biggest issue about the Tac/LW is the difference in time it would take each pool to play either course. 90 players Am's would be close to 4 hrs at the Tac Open 3 hrs so the timing between rounds would be the main issue.

personally i would like to see all tournaments have at least 150 players in them. i know it is going to be years down the road, but the bigger the turnout for an even the better the event will be. SeaTac and Lakewood would make for a awesome two course tournament! if seatac is to hard for ams, then shorten some of the holes for them. other places for two course tournaments- Riverside/white river, stilly, Nad/Fairgrouonds, four mounds/highbridge, kenniwick uses course A and course B,

There is absolutely no reason why we cant start having 2 course tournaments in the state of washington, we have enough venues around washington to cover it.

[Scott]

I actually thought I had offerd a legit concern.

Perhaps it is. What is your proposed solution?

[LJ Jubner]

personally i would like to see all tournaments have at least 150 players in them. i know it is going to be years down the road, but the bigger the turnout for an even the better the event will be. SeaTac and Lakewood would make for a awesome two course tournament! if seatac is to hard for Am's, then shorten some of the holes for them.

Great now we are redesigning a course for one event

other places for two course tournaments- Riverside/white river, stilly, Nad/Fairgrouonds, four mounds/highbridge, kenniwick uses course A and course B.

Riverside/white river, Good idea
Stilly, No need
Nad/Fairgrouonds, Good idea
four mounds/highbridge, no need
Kenniwick uses course A and course B already mentioned.

Whats wrong with the smaller venues being only one dayers

Here is another question; How far is to far between venues?

[Scott]

Great now we are redesigning a course for one eventOr adding temp teepads. Not that big of a deal, right?

Whats wrong with the smaller venues being only one dayers
Tim answered this nicely just a few short posts ago: "Why big? I think that tournaments that are part of a state series are the ones that should be the biggies, along with the state championship. And if we're insisting on having 2 day events, it kinda seems natural to have more than one course to play."

Here is another question; How far is to far between venues?Depends on how long of a break can be given between rounds. I'd say 1/2 hour is reasonable; I wouldn't go more than an hour between courses.

[olydiscgolf]

"Great now we are redesigning a course for one event"

Wow Jub! Why SO angry?

Alot of courses get modified to hold events.

[Tim]

Another thing to add, Am tees wouldn't be needed on all the holes, many of them would be just fine as-is. Jub, you have the breakdown of the relative par for all the holes for all the divisions, I think this would be a perfect place to put that to use. Look at which holes are the most problematic for the lower divisions and adjust those accordingly.

[Scott]

Another thing to add, Am tees wouldn't be needed on all the holes, many of them would be just fine as-is. Jub, you have the breakdown of the relative par for all the holes for all the divisions, I think this would be a perfect place to put that to use. Look at which holes are the most problematic for the lower divisions and adjust those accordingly.

To be honest, I don't know if any of the holes at LW need to be adjusted for AMs. Look at the BSF: All pools play the pro pads.

[olydiscgolf]

An easier way would be to change the "par" at Sea Tac for the ams. Make all the work clerical rather than labor intensive. The course wouldn't "seem" so tough if the am par was 90.

[Tim]

To be honest, I don't know if any of the holes at LW need to be adjusted for AMs. Look at the BSF: All pools play the pro pads.

Heh, yeah, just to clarify, I'm only talking about the Tac. LW is a great course for Ams.

An easier way would be to change the "par" at Sea Tac for the ams. Make all the work clerical rather than labor intensive. The course wouldn't "seem" so tough if the am par was 90.

Yeah, but Jub's main concern would be the timing of things. Ams are gonna move slower regardless of what the par is rated as.

[Scott]

Heh, yeah, just to clarify, I'm only talking about the Tac. LW is a great course for Ams.
That makes a lot more sense. For some reason I thought you were talking about LW. Must be the whole "not reading the entire thread" thing biting me in the butt again. :headbang:

[LJ Jubner]

"Great now we are redesigning a course for one event"

Wow Jub! Why SO angry?

Alot of courses get modified to hold events.

I/we are still trying to get a handle on the everyday course.

Scott I kind of agree with you the State Series should be the best (not just biggest) events. If you ask me time on the course is critical. Now don't get me wrong, but slow play is why I never play Ball golf on the weekends. How does a 3hr 15 min 9 sound? I see DG headed in that direction. I realize that split weekends or Sat/ Sun one dayer's is a distinct possibility. But those choices are almost better than trying to coordinate 144+ players on two courses with the variance in speed of play, distance apart and Yes even traffic conditions.

Here is a worst case. I have all the B pool cards and heading over, My car breaks down, I am in an accident, whatever, See the instant problem? (Sure Cellphone but still)

Rose City has the farthest to go between venues; (Dexter to Oakview is my experience) How did that work?

Were there many discrepancies between pools/speed of play and timing of finish/travel/start times? IE did one pool play faster then the other and by how long?

[LJ Jubner]

Someone reshuffled these posts to include RM Posts. Not that I am upset it actually helps the thread. Thanks mod

[DMajor]

how about the Calapooia classic format. Two courses four total rounds two on sat and two on sun. There is no travel problem because you stay at the same course for both rounds each day. The pace of play can be handled by the pros playing at the same course as the low am divisions and the high am divisions all playing together at the other course. Everyone plays the same tees. The only negative to me with this format is no final nine. But seatac and lakewood with this format would be superfun

[Scott]

how about the Calapooia classic format. Two courses four total rounds two on sat and two on sun. There is no travel problem because you stay at the same course for both rounds each day. The pace of play can be handled by the pros playing at the same course as the low am divisions and the high am divisions all playing together at the other course. Everyone plays the same tees. The only negative to me with this format is no final nine. But seatac and lakewood with this format would be superfun


That would be a LOT of golf. And a LOT of fun. I'd have to find a way to get up there for that one. :drool:

[Tim]

how about the Calapooia classic format. Two courses four total rounds two on sat and two on sun. There is no travel problem because you stay at the same course for both rounds each day. The pace of play can be handled by the pros playing at the same course as the low am divisions and the high am divisions all playing together at the other course. Everyone plays the same tees. The only negative to me with this format is no final nine. But seatac and lakewood with this format would be superfun

That's not a bad format, but the other negative that arises is for anybody that has to travel a long distance to get to the event. Doing a two rounds on Sunday and having a 3+ hour drive can make for a rough Monday morning. That's one of the reasons that many east-siders don't make the trip over for the WA state championships.

In the case of LW/Tac, a format that I envisioned that I think would be cool is for the Pro/Adv fields to play Tac/LW on saturday, then Tac Sunday morning, and then have the final 9 at LW, but on a safari layout. Incorporating the honorary Cool Shoez peninsula shot, of course. :D

[LJ Jubner]

That's not a bad format, but the other negative that arises is for anybody that has to travel a long distance to get to the event. Doing a two rounds on Sunday and having a 3+ hour drive can make for a rough Monday morning. That's one of the reasons that many east-side rs don't make the trip over for the WA state championships.

It's not just The Newland they don't travel for and even less westies travel east. (FYI LCO is the largest contributior to the 09 WA series). I am fortunate Allot of the Eastsiders even Montana have cabin fever so they are easy to convince to come over in April and I always travel east to support them.


In the case of LW/Tac, a format that I envisioned that I think would be cool is for the Pro/Adv fields to play Tac/LW on Saturday, then Tac Sunday morning, and then have the final 9 at LW, but on a safari layout. Incorporating the honorary Cool Shoez peninsula shot, of course. :D

I don't like pools never have never will. I busted Eugene's chops about this for very issue for years. I am an age protected player, play in the Second or B pool. Most of the time Now don't get me wrong but the B pool is so much slower then the A pool and with a full field it really stinks. Personally I don't play Lakewood anymore. If I am going to drive the 45 min (one way) I am always going to play Seatac for tournament as well as casual rounds. Besides I think harder is a better confidence builder than some pitch and putt.

Incorporating the honorary Cool Shoez peninsula shot, of course. :D

Are you talking about old 13? If so try 12 tee to 13 basket

Dan Calipooia is old school format
Before there were 144+ fields we played 36 each day. No nIne

The best 1 course pool variation was the pros played butt early on Sun (the pros who made the nine stayed, the ones that did not could split). then the Ams played Then the nine started.

So,to cut to the chase There is a better chance of LW/Terrace then LW/Tac

[olydiscgolf]

Jub, there is alot of people who would love a Seatac/Lakewood tourney! We should talk solutions! C'mon Jub are you half Full? or half Empty?

[LJ Jubner]

Jub, there is alot of people who would love a Seatac/Lakewood tourney! We should talk solutions! C'mon Jub are you half Full? or half Empty?

Clearly less than half empty. There are alot of people who want non one dayers what about them?

Just because they are close does not make them comptable. Lakewood is a joke. just like Jewel is a joke Fenwick too, Want to run a B tier at Jewel? Why would anyone waste there time to run events at the easiest courses in the state. I don't hear any WR/Fenwick talk. What this really comes down to is players like to fatten their scores at Lakewood and then try not to bleed to death at The Tac. Remember this is not therapy.

Down with the logistical nighmare of two course tourneys that are not on the same property.

[Tim]

Don't make me do it, Jub! Don't make me call you a stick in the mud! I'll do it, man, I'm LOCO! :jumpspin:

Sure LW is easier than Seatac, so what? It's not Juel, and you know it. LW is a great course, arguably the best in the area. It sounds like you have a thorn in your side from LW for some reason. Are you upset that the MS-13's didn't accept you into their ranks or something?

I fail to see what the logistical nightmare is. In fact, it seems more ideal than most multi-course situations. You pimp the LCO all the time...that's 3 courses, all of them farther apart than LW/Tac. It works out just fine there, why wouldn't it here?

[DoubleDees]

Don't make me do it, Jub! Don't make me call you a stick in the mud! I'll do it, man, I'm LOCO! :jumpspin:

Sure LW is easier than Seatac, so what? It's not Juel, and you know it. LW is a great course, arguably the best in the area. It sounds like you have a thorn in your side from LW for some reason. Are you upset that the MS-13's didn't accept you into their ranks or something?

I fail to see what the logistical nightmare is. In fact, it seems more ideal than most multi-course situations. You pimp the LCO all the time...that's 3 courses, all of them farther apart than LW/Tac. It works out just fine there, why wouldn't it here?

something they are running in the midwest is two c-tier events on the same weekend. Im not saying this would work but throwing it out for an idea. Its basically setup like the WA state and NW doubles. Two different events. One Sat at Lakewood. One Sunday at SeaTac.

[olydiscgolf]

Jub, you always seem to amaze me! Calling Lakewood a joke! In my opinion...Its the funnest course in WA! You can't compare the difficulty with Setac, they're not even in the same catagory. But together, they are the Ying and the Yang! C'mon Jub, whats really going on here?!?!

[TYVEK]

i totally agree with Olydiscgolf, Calling lakewood a joke is like calling yauger park world class. neither statement is remotely close to the truth. lakewood is one of the better courses around, it is a way more fun course to play than Seatac. if seatac got the attention that lakewood does then it might be a different story.

those two courses are perfect for each other for a two course tournament. and on a plus note they are only 10-15 minutes apart!


on a side note, i dont think the ms-13 gang accepts people with tie dye socks, with sandals over them!!:shocked: :nahnah:

[LJ Jubner]

I fail to see what the logistical nightmare is. In fact, it seems more ideal than most multi-course situations. You pimp the LCO all the time...that's 3 courses, all of them farther apart than LW/Tac. It works out just fine there, why wouldn't it here?

Just because people think an idea is good doesn't mean it should be tried. What this really comes down to is this multi venues idea seems forced. Why would anyone want to run a multi venue event when there are 4 high quality venues already to play. Why not support these venues and clubs?

And stick in the mud you know Lowell? Right?

A few things about LCO

First SDGA has 60+ member ACTIVE ORGANIZED club

Second Out of those members it takes 20+ people to put on LCO.

Third. I have helped with all the LCO's (multi venue) and a bunch of City Cups (single venue) so I have a little knowlege of how both types of events work and the problems that can and do occur.

And the biggest headache is always keeping control of the scorecards when they are not in the players hands. Want to see a ruckus lose someones card.

If you like multi's then the ORE series has plenty of offers for you to travel too.

[DMajor]

I think the majority of people would love to see a Seatac/Lakewood event however it got worked out. However, it might not be a good fit as a series event because I think Seatac and Lakewood both deserve their own event for the series and that we should work in all the rest of the best tournament courses in the state and try to balance all the regions

[LJ Jubner]

lakewood is one of the better courses around, it is a way more fun course to play than Seatac.

Better meaning easier I agree. Easier More fun I disagree. I see lakewood as a training place for newer less experienced players. I see The Tac as the hardest World Class course around. There is a reason why you see Dave and/or Avery come up for it. I believe each ahs played LO only once

Lets try this another way
If you had to pay to play, which would you choose? I know which I would chose.

if seatac got the attention that lakewood does then it might be a different story.

Actually the Tac is getting the attention of the players and the unauthorized actions that accompany that exposure. I sight the recent tree butchering as an example. The pine tree cut on hole 8 was the one tree that had been decided to kept. In 5 years time the other three would have grown into other more established trees and would have needed to be addressed. Now some yahoo has made the decision (to the detriment of the course) for all of us to live with.

[olydiscgolf]

What seems "forced" about an "IDEA"? Its an "idea", and like most, if its going to happen it takes planning and SUPPORT! I also don't think that Seatac and Lakewood should be combined for the series, but I would fully support a two day event combining both courses!

[olydiscgolf]

Lets try this another way
If you had to pay to play, which would you choose? I know which I would chose.

We'll Jub, I've only played the JWO twice, I've played Lakewood 4 years in a row!

[DMajor]

From a playing perspective multi course tournaments are the most fun I have played. But I could see how they would be a headache for the people running the show. If someone were running one around here though I would definitely be available to help

[Scott]

Just because people think an idea is good doesn't mean it should be tried.
Give the people what they want? Hell no! :headbang:

[TYVEK]

as they both stand right now, if i had to pay to play i would pick Lakewood hands down!

If seatac had the manicured fairways and roughs like lakewood then i might pick it, but its pretty gnarly. and that is even after all the hard work that people put into it for the Jet wash open.

Lakewood is an easier course, but that is not what makes it a great course. the holes at lakewood are just really good golfing holes! whoever laid out that course did a very good job and the course design is one that could stand as it is for years upon years without change, because it will always provide a challenging round. it is all about risk vs reward. right now Seatac is way more risk with hardly any reward. lakewood is more evened out so that if you take that difficult shot then you have at least some chances at making it.

[olydiscgolf]

"Better meaning easier I agree. Easier More fun I disagree. I see lakewood as a training place for newer less experienced players. I see The Tac as the hardest World Class course around. There is a reason why you see Dave and/or Avery come up for it. I believe each ahs played LO only once"

So your logic says that because TWO of the TOP GOLFERS in the WORLD didn't show up for a tourney, the course is " A JOKE"! Funny Jub, I didn't see either of those guys at JWO this year either!

Your killing me Jub!

[Tim]

I apologize in advance for the Sam-style breakdown.
Just because people think an idea is good doesn't mean it should be tried.
:confused:
What this really comes down to is this multi venues idea seems forced.
I disagree...I think it's called for. With events filling up left and right, it seems logical to me to offer larger, more inclusive events. The options for doing this are larger fields (already done that), tee times (less than ideal), or multiple courses (not perfect, I'll grant you, but the best option, IMO).
Why would anyone want to run a multi venue event when there are 4 high quality venues already to play. Why not support these venues and clubs?
I'm not totally following you here--you talking about other venues in the state or Seattle area?
A few things about LCO

First SDGA has 60+ member ACTIVE ORGANIZED club

Second Out of those members it takes 20+ people to put on LCO.
Well, there are some people that are trying to get things a little more active and organized around here too, ya know. Hosting such an event would definitely be more than a one man job, for sure. After seeing the bang up job that Flash and Mittl, and Stumptown did with BSF, I don't see the impossibility of Seattle holding a solid B-tier.
Third. I have helped with all the LCO's (multi venue) and a bunch of City Cups (single venue) so I have a little knowlege of how both types of events work and the problems that can and do occur.

And the biggest headache is always keeping control of the scorecards when they are not in the players hands. Want to see a ruckus lose someones card.
That's awesome, I'm sure your experience would be welcomed here as well.
If you like multi's then the ORE series has plenty of offers for you to travel too.
Being that OR seems to be a couple steps ahead of WA disc golf in every aspect, perhaps we should take a cue and try to do something to progress it around here.

[DMAILMAN]

That's not a bad format, but the other negative that arises is for anybody that has to travel a long distance to get to the event. Doing a two rounds on Sunday and having a 3+ hour drive can make for a rough Monday morning. That's one of the reasons that many east-siders don't make the trip over for the WA state championships.

In the case of LW/Tac, a format that I envisioned that I think would be cool is for the Pro/Adv fields to play Tac/LW on saturday, then Tac Sunday morning, and then have the final 9 at LW, but on a safari layout. Incorporating the honorary Cool Shoez peninsula shot, of course. :D

Tacoma would not need a co-course option because it already has a 2 independant premier course setup. That is the Northwest and Southeast. Just Sayin....

[olydiscgolf]

"Tacoma would not need a co-course option because it already has a 2 independant premier course setup. That is the Northwest and Southeast. Just Sayin...."

Hey Rob, have you ever seen the Big Lebowski? There is a quote in there that goes something like this " your like a child walking into the middle of a movie"

The Tac reference you speak of is the SEA varriety! Read the whole thread before jumping in! Just Sayin....


Oh and while I have you, great job stepping up with the club to make sure Autumn Classic happens!

[REDFIVE]

Ok I just read the whole thread here for the first time and I will recap for those that have been involved the whole discussion.

An idea is brought up.
Jub finds some reason to hold the idea back by bringing up a "complication".
The "complication" is discussed and another idea is brought up.
Jub decides that this has a flaw as well and must bring up a "complication".
Again the people that are trying to come up with ideas are forced to chase their tail.

Jub could you please stop finding a way to hold up the process? Nothing is perfect especially in the planning stages. Find a way to help not to hinder. Suggest a solution instead of creating a problem. I know you think you are trying to help by creating discussion but if all you are doing is taking the other side you are actually argueing not discussing.

Alright,now that I have fuelled jubs tank for his next big post filled with arguments and excuses I will move on to what should be the important part.

In a perfect state of golf...
The washington state series should be run by a state governing body that unites the clubs as one. There should be representatives from each club or area that are voted in by the players of washington. If you are a current PDGA member registered in the state of Washington, you get a vote. The series organizers should have no say in club matters but will keep clubs and TDs in check with a consistent format for the series events that are run at each course. Clubs will submit for a place in the series and prove they have the support needed to run a top notch event. The Washington disc golf club should accept club members through a fee. This fee would get you access to series points and qualification in the series. No matter how many events you play if you are a member you are in the series. There should be a max amout of events that count toward final points but no minimum. The course clubs will run the events, the state club will runthe series as well as reward the state doubles and singles championships to the most deserving clubs that year. All state events would fall under the guidelines set up by the state club. Entry fee, payout min, club fees, TD compensation (yes TD compensation), min amout of holes played, etc. These guidelines would be available to all players to review and discuss. Bring the state together!

The bigger the better!
Multi course events would be awesome and could be accomplished with the right attitude and support. Iwould love to see this happen at all tourneys that it is possible. There are so many good things to come from from this and maybe a couple of possible negatives thatcould be avoided with the right planning. I also think it would be benefitial to the growth of the sport in washington to have pros and am play on different weekends. The ams could watch and maybe pick up a thing or two from the top players in the state as well as volunteer during events or even play in them. The pros could have clinics and volunteer at the am events as well. This would make for more help available and bigger fields. This would take a lot of people to accomplish but with the right state of mind and a willingness to grow we can achieve whatever we want. Bring on the future!

[TreeLove]

That is a well-written post, with good points and great ideas.

[LJ Jubner]

Here goes
The best thing about this discussion is more people have had their say here then in any/all other years of the WA series, combined.

From this point forawrd I will underline my ideas to avoid any confussion or the preception that I only offer obstacles and not solutions.

First
Pay to play was a question about casual play.

Second World Class
The Tac holds more than one event per year. Yes Neither of the aforementioned players attended JWO but either or both have played the other event repeatedly. The way I see it is If you can play at The Tac you can play anywhere

Third Lakewood vs Tac course conditions.
Did you know Lakewood was a 1940's Boeing Neighborhood, Built on an old ball golf course and has had many incarnations and landlords since DG arrived in the mid late 1980's. The Tac was a green river site and is not quite 5 years old. LW county maintained. Tac Volunteers

Fourth
Give me what they want As long as it's bright, shiny and new, eh Scott. Did you buy the x Box360 when it first came out or now when they dropped the price $100

Fifth D Major
Thanks Dan you always help and it's appreciated The only under 40 2009 JWO Hole sponsor. Proof is in the pudding

Sixth Tim
Bigger is not always better. Selling out has as much to do with offering 12different divisions as amount of players. I am guessing here but Bigger means bigger payouts and more points right? Not depth of field or strength of competition but just sheer numbers (sound more like a business model then an event format). The current series has "the bigger is better" mentality and see where it's gotten us? Too many events, players are hot to trot in the beginning but cool towards the idea as their play offers a reality check. ORE. has had it pains too and with the support of the ORE State P/R and there $3 a carload goes along way to solve at least the course prep part of multi Venue events.

Maybe the idea is have cuts after each round So On Sun only the top players are on the course. "More than 10 strokes back, here's your shirt and thanks for paying".

Seventh Red
Thanks for the bash I appreciate it It was almost like my message was not getting out.

Everything else seems OK except the current pDGA membership part, that is unless we decided to not let non 's play at all. In the old days if an event filled (contrary to popular belief they did) a current pDGA could bump a non right out of the event. How's that for therapy? Split weekends are the only real answer but to get the Open /clinics, Am /volunteers scenarios is just plain funny (at least the O/C idea). No Pro's will ever come out to an Am only weekend and certainly not to volunteer.

[Scott]

Give me what they want As long as it's bright, shiny and new, eh Scott. Did you buy the x Box360 when it first came out or now when they dropped the price $100



Once again, I have no idea what you are talking about.

[TreeLove]

No Pro's will ever come out to an Am only weekend and certainly not to volunteer.

This is absolutely false. I have seen the pros come volunteer for am-only events numerous times. For example, top world pros held free clinics at the NW Amateur Series, a very high-caliber, charity, am-only series held in Portland just a few years back.

[REDFIVE]

(I deleted a post I made this morning because I don't think it was in the best interest of this thread.)

Jub I am sorry for singling you out but when I read through the posts I felt your pescimism was taking away from the goal of the thread. I am not sure what your intended message was but I am open to listen. As far as the pdga member requirement that would be to get a vote for the state club commity not to be a part of the series.
I would definately come and help with a clinic or a tourney. I have friends that play am and have a son that I want to support to the fullest. Has this been tried before? How do we know it will fail before we even try?
I do think that bigger is better. The more people that play the better chance we have of getting players to continue playing. The goal is to help the sport grow in the area. Bigger fields mean bigger sponsors as well. I am not sure that cuts are a great idea atleast for ams. Ams play for the experience and would not have the best time if all they got to play was one round. For the pros this might not be a bad idea maybe have a cut after the first day and another before the final nine. But I am not sure that this would make for a better experience for the players.

[LJ Jubner]

So at this time maybe we need to agree each venue should have 36 holes available and that we disagree about combining Tac/LW.

Now onto other subjects

How many events do we think we need?
Personally I think only 4. Every 6 weeks apart and you have to play all of them. This ties in nicely later. Clearly the actual events could be rotated when other venues meet the criteria. By having less events and requiring complete participation we should have a better turnout.

Who and how many should be on the series board?
Chair, Co Chair, Sec, Treasurer, SGT at Arms, Promo, Stats. Clearly each event will have a TD and a separate club contact. There should also be a position for course approval. and maybe a couple three at large positions. That's 9-11 people. Dispensing of series funds should be submitted for approval >$50 one signature, < $50 two required.

Any brilliant ideas about how the points will work?
I have always thought the least amount of points wins. Of course this doesn't address the variance of numbers/fields/events.

Promotion/ Relegation or What to do about bagging.

Likre in soccer they use a promo/religat system. Normally the top three finishers have go up and the bottom three can go down. So say you win AM II and move up. Then you stink in Adv you should be able to go back to work on your game.


What about fundraisers vs sponsors

This not an either or it should be both, But who and how do we approach them. I once head Fred Meyer and this seems like a good idea. But What do we offer them? and What do we get in return? I mentioned this idea to a couple of regular DG sponsors and they were clearly against it. "It will cut into my market" was the most prevalent response. So how do we bridge this gap between our smaller DG dedicated sponsors and the larger exposure sponsors we need?

Fundraisers

I know that in years past each event received 100 series DX discs. usually only 4 models are available. Avair, Valk, Roc, I can't remember the 4th . As someone who helped with JWO, (and being a late in the season event) most everyone already had the 4 models and were disappointed at the lack of other choices.. "Geez! Not another avair" was a common reaction.

If there were only 4 events then the DX could be exclusive/event 1st Avair, 2nd Roc, 3rd Valk. You get the point?

Discraft dollars This is a pretty good idea except it might be better if we just bought the basket out right, then trying to sell the 125 FR would not be such a hassle.

Question: Do any of the other manufactures offer a similar program? I have a DGA contact I can certainly ask him.

Series finals
Permanent home or roving?
I have always like the idea that the Open winner's club would sponsor the next years event finals. This concept of Club sponsorship also allows for a permanent traveling trophy. It will can be displayed at all the events in the following year to be presented to the new Champ then. If an out of state winner there would be a deposit taken. Like $100 to insure it's return. Said deposit could then be refunded awhen the trophy is returned or as a pre reg for the following years events.

Now the biggy. Series commitments and repercussions
How do we avoid the current mess that effects the 09 series. Club co sponsor (If the TD flakes, the club pick up the bill) will certainly help in this respect but we still need some sort of penalty for non payment of series fees. Like if TD flakes they are banned from playing for two seasons from any seires events

Hopefully Red this post furthers the discussion

[REDFIVE]

How many events do we think we need?
Personally I think only 4. Every 6 weeks apart and you have to play all of them. This ties in nicely later. Clearly the actual events could be rotated when other venues meet the criteria. By having less events and requiring complete participation we should have a better turnout.

I do agree that this would increase participation for the events but I am not sure it would increase the number of series qualifiers. I have two young children and plan to get a job sometime in the near future so I might not be able to make it to one of the four events and I would be out of luck. I like having fewer events because the clubs running the events could have fundraiser tourneys leading up to the event. But I would like to see 6 to 8 events and have 4 to 6 required to qualify in the series so the people whose schedules are not set have a chance to qualify.

Who and how many should be on the series board?
Chair, Co Chair, Sec, Treasurer, SGT at Arms, Promo, Stats. Clearly each event will have a TD and a separate club contact. There should also be a position for course approval. and maybe a couple three at large positions. That's 9-11 people. Dispensing of series funds should be submitted for approval >$50 one signature, < $50 two required.

I don't know that there would need to be that many people on the board atleast in the beginning. Chairman, secretary/treasurer, promotions/sponsorships, stats/tech. Many position could overlap. I do think that someone on the board should be tech savey and able to run the website and keep current information available for players and sponsors. Maybe 5 to 6 people and have club members get to vote or make suggestions as well.

Any brilliant ideas about how the points will work?
I have always thought the least amount of points wins. Of course this doesn't address the variance of numbers/fields/events.

Haven't thought about it much, will comment later.

Promotion/ Relegation or What to do about bagging.
Likre in soccer they use a promo/religat system. Normally the top three finishers have go up and the bottom three can go down. So say you win AM II and move up. Then you stink in Adv you should be able to go back to work on your game.

Do you mean after each event or after the series? If you are talking about after each event I disagree because the player will lose out on series points by moving from division to division. But if you mean after the series I agree fully. Ratings are another way to crack down on bagging between events. The state club could set max ratings per division prior to the series.

What about fundraisers vs sponsors
This not an either or it should be both, But who and how do we approach them. I once head Fred Meyer and this seems like a good idea. But What do we offer them? and What do we get in return? I mentioned this idea to a couple of regular DG sponsors and they were clearly against it. "It will cut into my market" was the most prevalent response. So how do we bridge this gap between our smaller DG dedicated sponsors and the larger exposure sponsors we need?

I think there should be a commity member that is in charge of this, if we decide to go the club route. The member would be in charge of getting series sponsors while individual TDs and clubs would be in charge of getting event sponsors.

Fundraisers
I know that in years past each event received 100 series DX discs. usually only 4 models are available. Avair, Valk, Roc, I can't remember the 4th . As someone who helped with JWO, (and being a late in the season event) most everyone already had the 4 models and were disappointed at the lack of other choices.. "Geez! Not another avair" was a common reaction.

Do you mean discs for players packs? I like the idea of giving each event their own disc for the packs but again i am not sure that 4 events will satisfy the masses.

If there were only 4 events then the DX could be exclusive/event 1st Avair, 2nd Roc, 3rd Valk. You get the point?

See above.

Discraft dollars This is a pretty good idea except it might be better if we just bought the basket out right, then trying to sell the 125 FR would not be such a hassle.

Not familiar with the program.

Question: Do any of the other manufactures offer a similar program? I have a DGA contact I can certainly ask him.

Not sure.

Series finals
Permanent home or roving?
I have always like the idea that the Open winner's club would sponsor the next years event finals. This concept of Club sponsorship also allows for a permanent traveling trophy. It will can be displayed at all the events in the following year to be presented to the new Champ then. If an out of state winner there would be a deposit taken. Like $100 to insure it's return. Said deposit could then be refunded awhen the trophy is returned or as a pre reg for the following years events.

I love the idea of a traveling series final. not sure that a player would like to deposite $100 for a trophy but I like the idea of the traveling trophy but I think they should also get something to keep.

Now the biggy. Series commitments and repercussions
How do we avoid the current mess that effects the 09 series. Club co sponsor (If the TD flakes, the club pick up the bill) will certainly help in this respect but we still need some sort of penalty for non payment of series fees. Like if TD flakes they are banned from playing for two seasons from any seires events

I think that making the course club a part of the event would eliminate this problem because the TD would have to answer to the club and have others to answer to not just themselves. Maybe not reward an event to that club for so many years.

Hopefully Red this post furthers the discussion

It did, thank you sir!

[LJ Jubner]

Now onto other subjects

How many events do we think we need?
The idea is to Taylor this series for as many players as possible

Who and how many should be on the series board?
I think we need at least this many, First It would provide a clear majority when voting. second and most important We need to keep people involved but by wearing too many hats the pool is diluted and we have burn out

Any brilliant ideas about how the points will work?
We need this to be solved

Promotion/ Relegation or What to do about bagging.
At the end of the season,
The pDGA will balk at any tighter restrictions then nationally recognized


What about fundraisers vs sponsors

The only problem with individuals and sponsors is lack of continuity of message IE I tell them one thing you tell them another. By having it be part of the community the sponsors find there way to all of us not just the one who they talked to. By having fewer events we can approach more locals and offer a bundle of signs instead of 4 individual signs at $75 each, We offer 4 for $200

Fundraisers
I don't like the idea of feeder fundraisers, It's really just passing the hat amongst the same players over and over

Discraft dollars.
This has been the basket toss program , Buy the 125 get free basket


Series finals
Permanent home or roving?
The $100 is a deposit for a non WA. club member champion. Clubs would be responsible for the trophy if one of their members won it. The idea of a smaller keeper is also a good idea

Now the biggy. Series commitments and repercussions
because the club co sponsors the event club discipline should work

Hopefully Red this post furthers the discussion

Keep the ideas coming and we will have a series to be proud of.

[DoubleDees]

Perhaps making the WA series an A tier schedule with 4 events. Each club could run fundraiser events or whatnot for their "big" one. I would like to see this happen.

[LJ Jubner]

Perhaps making the WA series an A tier schedule with 4 events. Each club could run fundraiser events or whatnot for their "big" one. I would like to see this happen.

4 A tiers + FSO + BSF thats a lot of mandated payout.

[Tim]

I agree on both those points--4 A tiers WOULD be awesome, but they also would be a whole lot of work and hunting for money. Maybe one day the series could do that, but I don't think it'd be a realistic option now.

As to number of events in the series, I'd say 6 or 7 events...basically 1 per month of the season. I don't think we'd want to start earlier than March, and wouldn't want to to end after September.

[olydiscgolf]

4 tourneys in the series isn't enough.

I like having 8 events. I like the option of not having to play them all, but still having to travel at least once to the Eastside. I really like the idea of spreading the responsibillity out, taking the burden off one person and putting it on the shoulders of the clubs.

I would like to see some sort of requirement from the players in the series to either volunteer a certain amount of time or money. Think how good our courses could be if it was mandatory to volunteer.

I would like to see a board established to oversee the series. The board would work together with the clubs and TD's to make sure ALL events are run the same. I would even like to be on that board, or help out somehow.

I would like to see some consistency in the script redeemed. I don't know all the logistics, but It seems that the money made from script, should stay with the series. The money made from the script would mean more choices for ams and eventually help make the pro payouts better.

[LJ Jubner]

4 tourneys in the series isn't enough.

I like having 8 events. I like the option of not having to play them all, but still having to travel at least once to the East side. I really like the idea of spreading the responsibility out, taking the burden off one person and putting it on the shoulders of the clubs. .

I think by having more then 4 we run the risk of too much golf. No don't get me wrong but We already have this issue of too many events and not enough players qualifing. With the economics and family commitments I believe we have a better chance of greater support with fewer events.

I really like the idea of spreading the responsibility out, taking the burden off one person and putting it on the shoulders of the clubs.

I would like to see a board established to oversee the series. The board would work together with the clubs and TD's to make sure ALL events are run the same. I would even like to be on that board, or help out somehow.

I combined these two and Yes these will make a difference



I would like to see some sort of requirement from the players in the series to either volunteer a certain amount of time or money. Think how good our courses could be if it was mandatory to volunteer.

Socialist Next you will want a public option. Oops sorry wrong forum. Maybe incentives instead of compulsory participation.

I would like to see some consistency in the script redeemed. I don't know all the logistics, but It seems that the money made from script, should stay with the series. The money made from the script would mean more choices for Am's and eventually help make the pro payouts better.

I seriously doubt this will ever happen Too much money is involved for the vendors to comprise on this issue. Maybe the idea is a Fly Mart style scrip payout. At least this gives the players choices on what to redeem and what it's worth.

Increased Pro payouts = increased Pro who sponsors.

[olydiscgolf]

Wouldn't it be an "ideal" situation if the "series" vended its own plastic! The payouts for script could be way higher because the tournement makes the money instead of vendors. As far as objections from the vendors, I don't think they would really have a say in the matter. The series would be self contained. The money saved from not paying full script price to the vendors would trickle up to the Pro payout.

[olydiscgolf]

Why would we want to make the series less events? The events are already ALL full. Im all about making them better, but not less. Making the events better is the way to get more involvement, not making less events.

Social option... oh sorry I was following Jubs lead.

[TreeLove]

Wouldn't it be an "ideal" situation if the "series" vended its own plastic! The payouts for script could be way higher because the tournement makes the money instead of vendors. As far as objections from the vendors, I don't think they would really have a say in the matter. The series would be self contained. The money saved from not paying full script price to the vendors would trickle up to the Pro payout.

Why should extra profit from scrip go to the pro payout only? Isn't that taking from the ams and giving to the pros? As an am, I would feel totally ripped off in that situation. Extra profit made off of ams should go into the am payout, or the total payout, but not just the pro payout!

[olydiscgolf]

The first thing I said "the payout for script would be way higher" meaning the am payout! I then said "the money saved would trickle up to the pros" meaning more money saved equals more money paid, and that would help everybody. Its a win win!

We're on the same page here TreeLove.

[olydiscgolf]

It would take some up front capitol to buy enough script to get the series going, but with no overhead, it wouldn't take long to get the investment back.

I don't know exactly what the mark up is on plastic, for argument sake 50% is probably close. Buy a disc for $10, sell it as script for $15. The series just made $5. Multiply that times the $500 am payout per tourney. You end up with $750. By the end of a series, the plastic is all paid for and some of the extra money's are added to finals. Keep this going for a few years, and the series will have good selection of plastic and funds to continue to make things better.

Once you have a money making series, it can grow and accumulate things like tents, scoreboards, leader cards, radios. Only making things more efficient and professional.

[TYVEK]

I think by having more then 4 we run the risk of too much golf. No don't get me wrong but We already have this issue of too many events and not enough players qualifing. With the economics and family commitments I believe we have a better chance of greater support with fewer events.

Dude, Jub are you smoking something other than your magical tea leaves or are you just waiting for us to put you in the asylum??!! 4 events is WAY WAY WAY to small! 8 events seems alittle on the not enough side, but that is acceptable. It would be awesome to have like 12 tournaments through out the summer for the series! the more you have the more options you have as a player. you dont have to play them all if you dont want to, but you have to option to if you choose. If you can even concieve an idea of "too much golf" then there is something seriously wrong with your outlook on disc golf.

as usuall this is only my "oppinionated" opinion.

i would laugh at anybody that says they are getting "too much golf"

[Tim]

Chris, are you suggesting having a traveling van or trailer of discs for the series scrip? I believe that's what they had in OR, and I think that's an awesome idea. But yeah, significant startup costs. I'd guess that we'd need to shell out something to the tune of $2000 for the initial shipment of plastic. And that doesn't take into account the way to transport all the product. Plus, we'd need to have someone reliable and dedicated enough to make it out to every event with the discs in tow. And of course, there'd have to be compensation for gas, and I think it'd only be fair to compensate the vendor guy. Not an impossibility, by any means, but there would be significant hurdles.

And as to the number of events, I don't think anybody believes that there could ever be "too much golf." Not all tournaments have to be part of the series. Series events though, tend to overshadow other ones, so that if there are that many more series events, then other tournaments may have troubles getting support. I think one series tourney per month is plenty ample. That's part of my reasoning for making a joint LW/Tac tourney--yes, they're both great courses that can hold good individual events, but if you put them together, that opens up another slot for another big series tourney.

[olydiscgolf]

Thats exactly what Im talking about Tim. Though, I would focus the startup cost's on script alone. A trailer could come in the next few years. Build the script inventory, then when the need is there, buy the trailer. Plastic could be transported in plastic boxes for the first year or two.

The board would find the solutions to things like transporting plastic.


I think that getting the clubs involved with the series, is a great way to get the startup costs covered. Each club kicks in X amount of dollars to the script fund.

The ONLY way to grow the series in terms of QUALITY, is to run the series like a money making business. The beauty is Non profit status, no taxes.

[Scott]

Thats exactly what Im talking about Tim. Though, I would focus the startup cost's on script alone. A trailer could come in the next few years. Build the script inventory, then when the need is there, buy the trailer. Plastic could be transported in plastic boxes for the first year or two.

The board would find the solutions to things like transporting plastic.


I think that getting the clubs involved with the series, is a great way to get the startup costs covered. Each club kicks in X amount of dollars to the script fund.

The ONLY way to grow the series in terms of QUALITY, is to run the series like a money making business. The beauty is Non profit status, no taxes.

I'm pretty sure the Oregon Series did not own all of the discs that were used for scrip payout. I'm pretty sure that a 3rd party vendor was used. That's about all I know on the subject; hopefully somebody else can fill in the blanks.

[Bullseye]

I'm pretty sure the Oregon Series did not own all of the discs that were used for scrip payout. I'm pretty sure that a 3rd party vendor was used. That's about all I know on the subject; hopefully somebody else can fill in the blanks.

Actually, the Oregon Series DID own all of the scrip discs and the trailer they used to haul them around.

[Scott]

Actually, the Oregon Series DID own all of the scrip discs and the trailer they used to haul them around.

Hmmmm.... I thought I heard differently about the discs. When the old ORS staff disolved there was question about where the discs would go. I heard it mentioned that they were not paid for and had to go back to a third party vendor. But it was all secondhand information and I will readily admit that I may be waaaay off base on this one.

[TreeLove]

Time to move this thread to the Rumor Mill....

[olydiscgolf]

Time to move this thread to the Rumor Mill....

How about we keep it as is... Idea Mill

[LJ Jubner]

Wouldn't it be an "ideal" situation if the "series" vended its own plastic! .

Then the series would have to speculate on inventory by purchasing at the wholesale level. (Man I'd like to have that deal). So why reinvent the wheel.

Why not instead run it like CSI have vendors prepay for sales and scrip redemption. It gives the players more choices and vendors (who already have wholesale accounts) the chance to support their businesses.

Why would we want to make the series less events? The events are already ALL full. I'm all about making them better, but not less. Making the events better is the way to get more involvement, not making less events.

The second half of this remains to be seen. Sure the events sell out but on AVG not many actually play the series. Sure they know about them they just don't travel to them.

.... 62$ entry, 40$ gas, 50$ food, 21$ in cigarettes, 30$ in alcohol. This adds up to about 200$ for me to travel and play in a tournament.

Think of it this way (Using these costs) by needing 2 less events to qualify. It's $400 less. Thats a pretty significant savings or a hotel room. Besides with the 36 hole requirement it's still 144-180 players.

By limiting the number of events and needing all to qualify it should actually drive up overall particaption.

[Scott]

By limiting the number of events and needing all to qualify it should actually drive up overall particaption.
I don't like the idea of having only four events and needing all four to qualify. Many people have other things going on in their lives other than disc golf. A much as we would all love to play every event there are things that come up: Work, weddings, pre-planned family trips, etc...

Lets say a golfer would like to play your series, but sees that the first event falls on the same date as his sister's wedding. Knowing that he can no longer qualify for the series, he doesn't bother travelling to the other series tournaments and instead decides to play locally on those weekends.

I think a 6-7 tournament series with four to qualify is a better solution.

[TreeLove]

Why have ANY "number of events to qualify"? Just take the golfer's X best finishes, say 4. Please give any good reason why there should be a "qualifying" number of events:

[Scott]

Why have ANY "number of events to qualify"? Just take the golfer's X best finishes, say 4. Please give any good reason why there should be a "qualifying" number of events:

Excellent point.

[Tim]

Why have ANY "number of events to qualify"? Just take the golfer's X best finishes, say 4. Please give any good reason why there should be a "qualifying" number of events:

Isn't that just a rephrasing of "4 events to qualify?"

[Scott]

Isn't that just a rephrasing of "4 events to qualify?"

No - If you miss a tournament you could still participate in the series and have your 3 finishes count towards the final points standings.

Use Tuesday Twos (http://www.gilbuddy.com/tt/results/standings.php) as an example: 18 weeks, with only your ten best weeks counting towards the final standings. The first place finisher only needed 11 weeks to do it (one score was left out), while one person tied for 11th used all 18. Chris Hill barely missed the playoffs and was only there 9 weeks.

Missing one week of a four tournament event would have a much more damaging effect, but wouldn't necessarily keep someone from competing for the final points standings.

[Tim]

Ahh, I see what you're getting at. I guess it depends on how you do your scoring for series points. This year, the series is doing the tried and true method of 100 pts. to 1st, 99 to 2nd, etc. It could work out, but that would mean that a guy that got 1st place in 3 tourneys would be equal to a guy that got 25th place in 4.

So instead of a qualifying number of events, you're basically suggesting having a qualifying number of points?

[Scott]

So instead of a qualifying number of events, you're basically suggesting having a qualifying number of points?

I don't even think I'm suggesting that, but there is definately a reward for attending as many events as possible (although not required).

TT uses the point system of 1 point for every person you beat or tie. If I recall from earlier discussions, this was not used in the WA series because not all events were equally attended and players on the east side were at a disadvantage. This would be moot if the series could be built up so that every event sells out.

[Tim]

Yeah, there's advantages and disadvantages to both scoring systems. In the points for every person you beat, i.e. the "bottom up" method, you can be kind of unfairly penalized if your division happens to be small that particular tournament. I think pretty much all of the events filled up this year, but variance in field sizes can skew things.

In years past, people who qualified for the series got a little something at the end of the year like a t-shirt and some swag. I think having some sort of qualification and award would be important to keep in the series.

[olydiscgolf]

At some point you have to have a cut off for people to qualify, otherwise everybody who played one event would get a prize?

I think there is too much demand to have a small series (less than 6 events), the people that want to compete in all events end up not getting into a tourney because it fills up with non series players.

As it stands maybe 20% of tournement players are in the whole series, this means the series makes money off of the other 80%.


The difference money wise, between having a 4 event must play all series and an 8 event must play 5 series, is according to Double Dees calculation only $200. Id estimate a little lower as I don't smoke and I'm ok with Pabst!

Also, Scott's point about having plans and a life....As the series stands now, a West sider only HAS to go East one out of three tourneys, an East sider HAS to come West twice out of five. There is room for a life with that schedule! Or a sister who won't rearrange her wedding for disc golf(as if theres one of those out there)!!

[TreeLove]

Ahh, I see what you're getting at. I guess it depends on how you do your scoring for series points. This year, the series is doing the tried and true method of 100 pts. to 1st, 99 to 2nd, etc. It could work out, but that would mean that a guy that got 1st place in 3 tourneys would be equal to a guy that got 25th place in 4.

So instead of a qualifying number of events, you're basically suggesting having a qualifying number of points?

No, no "qualification" is necessary at all. Simply take the player's X best finishes. Period. Yes, it is POSSIBLE to win the series with less than the included number of finishes, but VERY unlikely, and they would have to be all VERY GOOD finishes. But why give players no shot at all just because they can't make some arbitrary number of events?

Also, your math is a little off. 25th place in a 100-down system is 76 points, so three 1st-place finishes would be 300, and four 25th-place finishes would be 304 points.

The 100-down points system is wacky anyway, because you get the same points for beating a field of 5 as you do for beating a field of 50. But yes, under that system, 3 firsts would be less than 4 25ths. HOWEVER, the series winner would probably have closer to 400 points than 300, so neither of those example players would win the series anyway.

[olydiscgolf]

How many spots in the series do you pay out? If 100 different people play in a division for the whole series, does that mean 100 qualifiers and the top 40 get paid out?

[Tim]

No, no "qualification" is necessary at all. Simply take the player's X best finishes. Period. Yes, it is POSSIBLE to win the series with less than the included number of finishes, but VERY unlikely, and they would have to be all VERY GOOD finishes. But why give players no shot at all just because they can't make some arbitrary number of events?

Also, your math is a little off. 25th place in a 100-down system is 76 points, so three 1st-place finishes would be 300, and four 25th-place finishes would be 304 points.

The 100-down points system is wacky anyway, because you get the same points for beating a field of 5 as you do for beating a field of 50. But yes, under that system, 3 firsts would be less than 4 25ths. HOWEVER, the series winner would probably have closer to 400 points than 300, so neither of those example players would win the series anyway.

Heh, yeah, I kind of realized something was off in my calculations after I posted. OK, so 26th place then...gimme a break, math isn't my strong point. :laughing:

And yes, the "top down" system isn't perfect. One thing that's implemented this year though, that I think is kind of cool, is that players are awarded "Iron Man" points for playing more events. I.e., say there are 8 events, 5 needed to qualify, a player gets a bonus point for each event they play over the required 5. That works OK for the top down way, since there are so many points involved, a couple points here and there shouldn't make a huge sway, but can change some close races. It might have more of an impact with the bottom up method though, since individual points are worth so much more.

But, in the words of Ol' Bob, I digress. Scoring systems are much smaller picture than this thread is intended to be.

[olydiscgolf]

The extra point per event played has been in effect as long as I can remember(3 or 4 years). Its one point per event played, not point per event over five.

[Tim]

Ah, well, it's slightly adjusted this year. Just looked at the points, it's actually 2 per event this year, and it's just over the required amount of qualifying events. The logic being, if every person who qualifies is getting bonus points, any kind of "bonus" is negated since everyone will have the same points.

[REDFIVE]

So it looks like the majority is in favor of 6-8 events (unless clubs are able to raise funds for A tiers). This makes sence with the number of courses,vendors, and players that could profit from the events. I like the idea of having the series control the script but you could offer outside companies or vendor this option in their sponsorship package. But this option would not come with the base level of sponsorship. Theywould have to give a little more to get and they would also have to compete with the prices that the series discs are sold at hopefully driving down prices.

All appera to be in favor of a commity so how do we go about setting up the commity?
What positions are needed?
Who would you nominate for what?
What qualifies you to get a vote for positions?

Ithink that once the commity is formed all the details can be worked out from there.

[olydiscgolf]

According to the TDGPA website and 2009 series rules, one extra point will be awarded per event played.

Where did you get your info Tim? Is there any other rules that have changed?

[Tim]

OK, well, let me state that I'm in no way a series official or anything, so it could very well be that things have changed. At the beginning of the series, before Ray stepped down, Chuck volunteered to take care of the points as a way to take some of the load off. He'd outlined the Iron Man points and everything, and Ray was good to go with it. Chuck has since been keeping track of all the points and everything, but I don't know if anyone else has. If Paul or somebody else that's more involved with the series has a separate tally that they've been keeping, I'd defer to them.

[olydiscgolf]

Are the points updated? If so where? Also, is there a series rules that has the points breakdown in it?(other than TDGPA website)

[olydiscgolf]

So it looks like the majority is in favor of 6-8 events (unless clubs are able to raise funds for A tiers). This makes sence with the number of courses,vendors, and players that could profit from the events. I like the idea of having the series control the script but you could offer outside companies or vendor this option in their sponsorship package. But this option would not come with the base level of sponsorship. Theywould have to give a little more to get and they would also have to compete with the prices that the series discs are sold at hopefully driving down prices.

All appera to be in favor of a commity so how do we go about setting up the commity?
What positions are needed?
Who would you nominate for what?
What qualifies you to get a vote for positions?

Ithink that once the commity is formed all the details can be worked out from there.


I think the first step in forming a committee would be talking with all of the current TD's for the series, they are the ones that have been making it happen.

[ChUcK]

At the expense of continuing a thread drift, my calculations are:

Top-down scoring from 100
Average all WA series event points
Add Ironman points, 2 per event played beyond the 5 needed to qualify

That method produces:

Open Men
100.17 Mike Leslie
99.2 Nate Sexton
98.86 Mike Werth
Chandler, Ed D., Aaron Holley, Kirk McAllister, Orion, Heath Kinton

Tuffi is the only player still able to qualify if she plays the Autumn Classic

Advanced
94.86 Chris Gilberts
94.80 Jesse Garcia
94.33 Shawn Landry
Jamie Richards, Steve McLain, Jeremy Craig, ....

better place higher than Jesse at Steilly, Chris- that's a slim lead!

other leaders:

Masters Kevin Holmes
GM Stimpi
Adv Masters Todd Bates
Adv Grands are you kidding me? Should be leading Adv, at least :whistler:
Int Rahn Henderson
Int Women Jenni Saunders

We don't really show any "qualifying" juniors, but Jordan Craig and Spencer have played some good golf this year.

[TreeLove]

Where did all those decimal values come from? You are using a proportional system - 100 to 10 for first to last, perhaps?

I had assumed an integer system. In WA case, 100 for 1st, 99 for 2nd, 98 for 3rd, etc.

Actually, I think proportional systems are pretty fair, maybe even more fair than the 1-up integer system used by Lunchtime League, which places a premium on large turnouts, and perhaps fails to reward sufficiently for great rounds against small fields. Of course, proportional systems require precise mathematics to be executed fairly.

Iron Man: OR gives 1 pt for every event played. Even if giving 1 or 2 , and whether 1 or 2 per event or events over qual, the total would still be integer.

Anyway, wow.

[ChUcK]

The decimals come from averaging your placements. Nate has 1 win (Windy River) and 4 2nd place finishes. Average those and you get 99.20.

I've spent a lot of thought on different points theories, and would enjoy keeping track of any scoring system the WA state series chooses, based upon suggestions in this thread. How's that for bringing a thread drift full circle, hey?

[LJ Jubner]

I was thinking about the WA points over the weekend. How about a modifier.

field >11 regular 12,11,10 etc
12-21 x 2
22-33 x 3
34-45 x 4
It certainly address the size of field issue. Note I decided on these numbers because they work on the 100 points now in use and it considered the avg attendance per division over the past years. Ties get same points no splits.

I also saw the INW Series offered the points to players who TD events. That makes it attractive for assistance and you are not penalized for running an event.

What do you think?


Web Q is it possible to have sub threads. It would allow better communication about specific issues? Like one for Format, One points, organization etc.

[TreeLove]

The decimals come from averaging your placements. Nate has 1 win (Windy River) and 4 2nd place finishes. Average those and you get 99.20.

I get it. Interesting.

[olydiscgolf]

I can't wait to see the breakdown of expenditures for the series. I played ALL 8 Events and took 2nd place/ AM1...and all I got was a qualifier shirt. Doesn't seem right to me.

[Magilla]

Perhaps making the WA series an A tier schedule with 4 events. Each club could run fundraiser events or whatnot for their "big" one. I would like to see this happen.


What is the incentive for making events an A Tier?

The $ MANDATED are kind of high......If you run a QUALITY
B Tier with the same added cash you will get the players BUT exclude the MANDATES from the PDGA.

Just making an event an A Tier DOES NOT make a good event. NOR does it assure player attendence.

An event that is run well, takes care of it players and properly promoted will be successful REGARDLESS of it Tier level.

:cheers:

[LJ Jubner]

What is the incentive for making events an A Tier?

The $ MANDATED are kind of high......If you run a QUALITY
B Tier with the same added cash you will get the players BUT exclude the MANDATES from the PDGA.

Just making an event an A Tier DOES NOT make a good event. NOR does it assure player attendance.

An event that is run well, takes care of it players and properly promoted will be successful REGARDLESS of it Tier level.

:cheers:

Mags, You raise an interesting point. Tier level only matters in regards to points earned. Why not have C tier points/fees with A tier payout. Cost effective and most beneficial at local level.

[DoubleDees]

Mags, You raise an interesting point. Tier level only matters in regards to points earned. Why not have C tier points/fees with A tier payout. Cost effective and most beneficial at local level.

c tiers are not calced into world rankings. making events a tiers also make them more expensive. thus increasing the prize pool. thus making series fees taken out less noticeable. 5 out of 60 entry is more noticeable than 5 out of 100. Im the one thats for 200$ pro entries though... I dont see that going over to well either :waaah:

[Magilla]

c tiers are not calced into world rankings. making events a tiers also make them more expensive. thus increasing the prize pool. thus making series fees taken out less noticeable. 5 out of 60 entry is more noticeable than 5 out of 100. Im the one thats for 200$ pro entries though... I dont see that going over to well either :waaah:

Why is it that the top pros in a region want higher entry fees? :headbang:

Higher entry fees WILL NOT bring you more payout...just fewer players willing to "donate".

:whistler:

:cheers:

[snap7times]

My thought is... A tier shows a guarantee added cash for those playing open, the baskets themselves are pdga approved as compared to "recomended" in B tier or less, complimentary insurance as opposed to $50 for B tier, 54 holes minimum for A tier as opposed to 36 for B tier, Amatuer minimum 110% payout as opposed to 100% for B tier.
A tier player package minimum $25 each as opposed to $10 for B tier. (The oregon series has always done a bigger players package as opposed to NorCal tendency to barely make the minimum on their players packages).
There are higher management fees that can be taken out by the TD and it's staff for their time and expenses in A tier than B tier. A tier has 2 days to report to PDGA as opposed to 2 weeks for B tier.
More non playing officials are required on course(s) than B tiers... those are a few things I know of off top of my head and from PDGA website.
I would probably use some of that information and post it on the event flyer to attract more players if going for an A tier, like valued players pack for ams and added cash for pros etc...
Being A tier sanctioned has more "guarantee" behind it generally, which is what players want, more bang for the buck. But non pdga members cannot play A tiers so.....
lunch time is over soon. toodles..

[Tim]

Oof. Having all A-tiers would be great, but I know I wouldn't be eager to volunteer to TD for one in the current state of things. That's a lot of responsibility to obtain added cash, and it's enough of a burden just to get the $300 needed for B tiers as it is now. Maybe one day disc golf will be popular enough in Washington that getting the added cash for a series of A tiers won't be a huge issue, but we're not there yet. Gotta crawl before we can run.

[snap7times]

2-3 fundraisers would get you over the $1500 mark for an A tier easily. And 1-2 A tiers a year would suffice in Washington as of now I would assume. And it's $500 for B tiers...
Ideas for fundraisers...
Buy CFR discs, sell them. 75 discs cost under $500, sell for 16 dollars a peice fundraises $700+; $20 each makes it 1kish
1 big raffle during the tournament raises 200-500
Hole sponsors get 250-1k
The list goes on for ideas, but point is, it's not that hard to get the money for an A tier, but it takes work regardless.
The big part seperating an A tier and a B tier is that a B tier can be planned 2 months beforehand, while an A tier must be sanctioned/approved by Dec 31st so the supertour schedule is set in place for the year with the national schedule, this makes scheduling for the traverlers easy. Get 5-10 1k rated players committed, and the rest will fall in place, usually...

[cefire]

The whole concept proposed here seems a bit out of whack. Why should one have to fundraise for A tier events via local resources (i.e., selling raffle tickets to local players, selling overpriced discs to local players) when these resources are immediately distributed externally after the tournament? I'm not getting why average players or casual players should have to support the burden of creating pro purses...and I'm a pro! I would venture to say that most players play for the fun and competition of tournaments, not for the cash and while its cool to attract the big name players for some people - others would rather just play disc golf! It just doesn't make much sense to use local resources to support traveling players when our courses need work. IMO - these types of fundraisers are better used for local efforts like improving courses, adding payout to all divisions, free tournament lunch, or better yet, to charity.

Support for touring professionals should come from external sponsorship sources and companies (who see benefit from investing $$$), not from other players (who don't see any benefit).

That doesn't even factor in the practicality of these types of events. CFR discs are getting difficult to sell as the market is now getting saturated with plastic and good luck selling more than a few $20 raffle tickets. The math here all adds up but the reality is that it is WAY!!! more difficult to put in place. Its certainly workable to have an A-tier event in Washington but the amount of resources needed to do that just seems like a waste to me when a really high quality B or even C-tier event has almost all the benefits of an A-tier event (except higher payout to the top 5% of disc golfers).

[Wobbly Bob]

Being on the far East side of the state we have never had the opportunity to share ideas about the way the WSS has been or should be run. It's always been, here's the guidelines, you must buy these discs, send us the Series Fees, thank you very much.

Not many competitors from Spokane ever qualify for the WSS because even Tri Cities and Walla Walla are traveling tournaments. This is the reason that the Inland Northwest Series was created and in 2009 this series accrued $3800 for payout at the Finals. This was in addition to the tournament payout itself.

Spokane now has four PDGA events annually, 3 "B" Tier and 1 "C" Tier. All are two day events and two of them are multiple course events.

So here's my thoughts. Washington State Series events should be quality PDGA sanctioned, "B" Tier minimum, two day tournaments. While bigger doesn't always mean better, events with multiple courses will accomodate more competitors, resulting in more funds accrued for the finals and larger divisions in which to compete. Series events should be the only PDGA event held in the State on their respective weekends. The Series should have six events and a Series Finals. Two events held on the west side, two held on the east side and two held in the middle of the state. These events would be picked by TD's bidding on the opportunity to hold a Series event. There would be a minimum bid of $100 per event with this money going to the Overalls purse, up front like the sanction fee. The Finals would be bid upon by TD's for the honor of holding the Washington State Series Championships (this event would preferably be an "A" Tier tournament).

Competitors would have to compete in three events to qualify for the Finals, but would be able to take their points from their best four events to the Finals (this helps to increase participation in smaller divisions at the Finals). This system effectively allows competitors from across the state (mainly from the middle and east sides) to compete in the Series without having to spend large sums of cash to qualify for the Finals.

This system would create a Series of quality events and an equitable method of including all of Washinton's disc golfers.

[Tim]

I like the way you're thinking, Bob. So as far as venues, what are you envisioning?

East: Spokane, Walla Walla?
Middle: Tri-cities, Leavenworth?
West: Steilly, Seattle? (I'm still casting my vote in favor of a LW/Tac combo)
Finals:???

Personally, I still think the peninsula should be included in the lineups, have a NAD/Fairgrounds tourney. Maybe make them one of the west venues, and have finals at Steilly.

Thanks for getting the discussion rolling again.

[Scott]

Perhaps the finals could rotate from region to region each year.

[Tim]

Not a bad idea. My rationale for Steilly is just that since it's the oldest "supercourse" in WA, it seems fitting to have the finals for the series there.

Another idea, I heard about from ye olden days of the NW series, that series qualifiers got to attend finals at a temp course that was installed just for that event. That could be pretty sweet too, if the resources were there.

[DoubleDees]

what are the standards for making an event A-tier? B-tier? C-tier? Perhaps its not as much money as you all are thinking. I doubt most B tiers in WA met this requirement anyways...

• Increase the added pro cash requirement for B Tiers from $250 to $500.
• Increase the added cash requirement for A Tiers from $1000 to $1500.

i will do the math on this if you all want but im going to say about 30$ from each pros entry actually goes into the prize pool...

[Tim]

I can't speak on other events, but I know Lakewood met the requirements. But if you think that most events had trouble meeting the $500 mark, why try to force them to meet the $1500? As to the pro purse, I think at MOST $20 would be going to PDGA fees/series fees/expenses, etc. Probably closer to $10-15.

[ericedge]

Last year the cost per player was a little under $10 for the Lakewood Open. That includes reserving the course, sanctioning/insurance, paper/printing/supplies, series fee, water & I couple of other items I'm probably forgetting. That number does not include the cost of the player packs the Ams got.

We had a bit over $1,100 in added cash (which was great) and ended up paying out 143% of the pro net entry fees (not incl. trophy value). For me fundraising is my number one least favorite part of running an event but I've got say that we had a lot of generous donors to the Lakewood Open in 2009.

[olydiscgolf]

Being on the far East side of the state we have never had the opportunity to share ideas about the way the WSS has been or should be run. It's always been, here's the guidelines, you must buy these discs, send us the Series Fees, thank you very much.

Not many competitors from Spokane ever qualify for the WSS because even Tri Cities and Walla Walla are traveling tournaments. This is the reason that the Inland Northwest Series was created and in 2009 this series accrued $3800 for payout at the Finals. This was in addition to the tournament payout itself.

Spokane now has four PDGA events annually, 3 "B" Tier and 1 "C" Tier. All are two day events and two of them are multiple course events.

So here's my thoughts. Washington State Series events should be quality PDGA sanctioned, "B" Tier minimum, two day tournaments. While bigger doesn't always mean better, events with multiple courses will accomodate more competitors, resulting in more funds accrued for the finals and larger divisions in which to compete. Series events should be the only PDGA event held in the State on their respective weekends. The Series should have six events and a Series Finals. Two events held on the west side, two held on the east side and two held in the middle of the state. These events would be picked by TD's bidding on the opportunity to hold a Series event. There would be a minimum bid of $100 per event with this money going to the Overalls purse, up front like the sanction fee. The Finals would be bid upon by TD's for the honor of holding the Washington State Series Championships (this event would preferably be an "A" Tier tournament).

Competitors would have to compete in three events to qualify for the Finals, but would be able to take their points from their best four events to the Finals (this helps to increase participation in smaller divisions at the Finals). This system effectively allows competitors from across the state (mainly from the middle and east sides) to compete in the Series without having to spend large sums of cash to qualify for the Finals.

This system would create a Series of quality events and an equitable method of including all of Washinton's disc golfers.

I like it BOB! It sounds fair for everybody. I think you guys on the Eastside should run the series. You always have quality events and quality courses. Take it over and make it happen. I still think that a committee for the series is the best way to keep it consistent, but even a committee needs somebody to organize it.

[Rideout]

Just my two cents

I will compete in any event, with or without any level of sanctioning, and being a part of or not a part of any series.

I don’t think that a state series event should ever be A-tier or NT (National Tour). Let me rephrase that, I don’t think being a member of any particular organization (the PDGA in this case) should be a requirement for any disc golfer who wants to compete in their state series.

Don’t get me wrong, I would compete in more of our series events if they were all A-tier, but be that as it may, the simple principle of the matter keeps me from liking the idea.

Mike Rideout

[Bullseye]

CFR discs are getting difficult to sell as the market is now getting saturated with plastic...

After running the Rose City Open last year I received a questionnaire from Innova and one of my biggest complaints was that every tournament under the sun uses CFR discs to raise money and as a result the market is completely saturated. I questioned the logic of letting smaller tourneys use CFR discs to raise money when they're are doing that at the expense of larger tourneys.

I never heard back from them :p

[Scott]

After running the Rose City Open last year I received a questionnaire from Innova and one of my biggest complaints was that every tournament under the sun uses CFR discs to raise money and as a result the market is completely saturated. I questioned the logic of letting smaller tourneys use CFR discs to raise money when they're are doing that at the expense of larger tourneys.

I never heard back from them :p

Bad for tournaments, but great for players. It's nice being able to easily find (and not pay a fortune for) such goodies as Champion Gators and Glow Destroyers.

[REDFIVE]

I like the idea of having the series evenly spread throughout the state. Series eventsas A tiers would be sweet but B's are good enough for sure. If the final event were a qualify only A tier that would be sweet. Put it at a temporary location, amazing! I am sure that there is a small ball golf course somewhere that would be happy to get some exposure and added business. Wapato park in tacoma could be world class. So many possibilities.
I also like the idea of making clubs bid for series events instead of TDs. The club would then provide their TD but the club would be accountable for their event. A series commitie is the way to go for sure, how to do it I don't know but I know there are many qualified go getters out there that will step up and make washington disc golf all that it should be. I thank all of you in advance! Looking forward to the future.

[LJ Jubner]

...(I'm still casting my vote in favor of a LW/Tac combo).

Oops, Sorry! Wrong answer.

I still say 6 "and a final" are to many. (Kinda like the CFR conversation.)
I agree venues need to change. West side Mossy and Vancouver should also be considered,
Now that Moses Lake has had a couple of events maybe they would partcipate. There has to be somewhere in E-Berg?

My main questions are
Who is running what next year?
Is Eric default coordinator?
What events even want to be in the series next year?

Why not have two series
One east (effective and it's already up and running)
and
One West
and then
A Great Big Final.

Make it a competition of which side contributes more to the final payout.

The idea of team play can also be added.

[olydiscgolf]

So it sounds like Jub is finally in favor of a LAKEWOOD/SEATAC event! Good to have you on board!HEHEHE

[LJ Jubner]

So it sounds like Jub is finally in favor of a LAKEWOOD/SEATAC event! Good to have you on board!HEHEHE

NOPE!

Not Gonna do it, would 'nt be prudent

[The Ombudsman]

NOPE!

Not Gonna do it, would 'nt be prudent

it might work if you made Lakewood into a 24 hole course
then it would play in about the same amount of time as Sea Tac

[LJ Jubner]

It's like playing at a Country Club in the morning and then the Executive Muni across the street in the afternoon. Lets face it the majority of players want to fatten their cards and their ego's and playing Lakewood does just that.

[REDFIVE]

I don't understand what you mean by fattening their score. Isn't the idea to shoot better than the people in your division? Comparing your score to others is the only way to fatten your ego and if everybody plays the same courses what are you talking about? Everytime I make the trip up I try to play sea tac and lakewood. If I shoot an even at sea tac and a -6 at lakewood I usually feel better about the even at sea tac. I like seatac more than lakewood but I like the two course idea whenever possible.

[LJ Jubner]

Are you more satisfied by two evens at the Tac or the -6 for the day? I find Lakewood boring. There is not much to really any of the holes. If you ask me the Spokane swing 7-10 is the best section of the course. Geezer is just a 3.5-6 score hole. 14-15 are fine.

[REDFIVE]

Anybody that knows the courses knows that two evens at seatac is much more impressive than a -6 at lakewood. Scores are relative to the course and the other players. I would take the even. I like lakewood but I don't play it all the time either. I don't think it is boring, if I could shoot -18 consistant then maybe it would be boring. There is a good mix of holes out there I don't understand how it could be boring? Golf is fun. Anybody else think lakewood is boring?

[thebakedone]

Huh,

I love Lakewood but sure a good round at Sea Tac is way more satisfying. Boring? I can't see that, It's one of my favorites because of the "golf" feel to the course. If anything Sea Tac is more drab because it's the same everytime you play. Lakewood has multiple pin placements and it seems they get used alot because the course is rarely the same from week to week.

[killa]

I don't understand what you mean by fattening their score. Isn't the idea to shoot better than the people in your division? Comparing your score to others is the only way to fatten your ego and if everybody plays the same courses what are you talking about?

You took the words right out of my mouth, Chris.

These last few posts read almost like a conversation between Brett Favre and Donald Trump. One guy understands the intricacies of the differences between these two courses, and his love of the sport oozes out of every sentence; the other guy seems to hold very strong opinions without giving any substantial reasons, and makes a lot of people shake their heads disapprovingly.

Jub, can you please elaborate more than "Wouldn't be prudent," and "I find Lakewood boring," so that we can try to make this a more constructive conversation?

So no, Chris, I don't think Lakewood is boring, and I definitely think a SeaTac/Lakewood tourney should be added to the Series. IMO, Lilac City Open is the best tourney running in the state right now, at least partly due to the course variety, larger divisions, etc.

[olydiscgolf]

It's like playing at a Country Club in the morning and then the Executive Muni across the street in the afternoon. Lets face it the majority of players want to fatten their cards and their ego's and playing Lakewood does just that.

Just like YOU say Jub..... A majority of of players want to play Lakewood!

Couldn't have said it better myself. So now Jub, good to finally have you on board!

[Toby Puttzinski]

Lakewood is not boring and would compliment Seatac very well in my opinion...

I'm pushing for a North Park/Jewel/Fennwick three day A tier tourney!!

[REDFIVE]

And even if the series event used the two courses we would still have CSI to get the full seatac experience.

Three course A tier! I'm in! Fenwick now has 76 holes and you only have to loop around 9 times!