2010 Washington State Series Website

[WSS10 Info]

Please visit and bookmark this website for all information concerning this year's state series:

https://sites.google.com/site/2010washingtonstateseries/

Info will of course be posted here as well, but the site should include all the pertinent info you need to know. (Also, please note that it's a continuing work in progress!)

[TreeLove]

Excellent - great job!

[REDFIVE]

nice

[BIGARMBRANDON]

sweet just wish I could make windy river

[GettinBetter]

Awesome website!

Last place is 100 points!?!

[The Ombudsman]

*GASP*
This makes it look official!

[Kenny B]

Awesome website!

Last place is 100 points!?!

Yeah, why 100pts for last?? This will seriously devalue winning a tournament. 1st place for a tourney with only 30 players in your division gets you 130 pts (or 129 for beating 29?) and 30th place in a tourney with 60 players in your division gets you...............wait for it................130 points!

This needs to be changed.

[Tim]

I'll let Bob address it more if he likes, but this is the same points system they use for the INWS and it's proven to work well there. I haven't seen a points system yet that can be considered to be "perfect". You've got two basic formats, awarding points from the top down, or bottom up. Each way has its benefits and drawbacks.

[TreeLove]

There's always the proportional system:

1st always gets 100 pts
last always gets 10 pts
other positions awarded pts proportionally:

3 players: 1st = 100 points, last = 10 points, 2nd = 55 points
10 players: 1st = 100 points, last = 10 points, 2nd = 90 points, 3rd = 80 points, etc.
19 players: 1st = 100 points, last = 10 points, 2nd = 95 points, 3rd = 90 points, etc.
91 players: 1st = 100 points, last = 10 points, 2nd = 99 points, 3rd = 98 points, etc.

Want the formula? Ask and you shall receive.....

[Kenny B]

What are some of the drawbacks to a top down system. I always thought it was awfully good.

[olydiscgolf]

What are some of the drawbacks to a top down system. I always thought it was awfully good.

The biggest drawback to a top down system is that the winner gets the same number of points regardless of the size of the field.

[Toby Puttzinski]

There's always the proportional system:

1st always gets 100 pts
last always gets 10 pts
other positions awarded pts proportionally:

3 players: 1st = 100 points, last = 10 points, 2nd = 55 points
10 players: 1st = 100 points, last = 10 points, 2nd = 90 points, 3rd = 80 points, etc.
19 players: 1st = 100 points, last = 10 points, 2nd = 95 points, 3rd = 90 points, etc.
91 players: 1st = 100 points, last = 10 points, 2nd = 99 points, 3rd = 98 points, etc.

Want the formula? Ask and you shall receive.....

It doesn't seem fair to me... not that I have any better ideas.

[GettinBetter]

why not just use the pdga points system?

[Kenny B]

The biggest drawback to a top down system is that the winner gets the same number of points regardless of the size of the field.

I see. I had not considered that before, probably because as long as each tournament in a series is apporximately the same size, the problem won't manifest itself. I guess this is all the more reason to have every tournament in the Wa Series be a two pool, two course tournament.

I still think the point scheme should be changed to top down because that drawback is minor in comparison to the drawback of a bottom up scheme. Also, there is something to be said about the fact that winning the series should be about winning tournaments.

[Kenny B]

why not just use the pdga points system?

Do you mean the NT points system? That one is top down.

[GettinBetter]

Do you mean the NT points system? That one is top down.

I'm talking about the points factor the PDGA uses.

Im pretty sure all the series events are B-tiers, so.....

If you play Advanced the points factor is 7.5. This means for every person you beat in your division you earn 7.5 points (what Gilby was talking about). This way the size of the field has a say in how many points are awarded.

So if there are 30 Advanced players then first would receive 225 points and last would receive 8 points (it is rounded up). 10th would recieve 150 points, 2nd 217 points and so on....

Intermediate the points factor is 6 for B-tiers.

We dont have to use their points factor though it could be 5 or something to keep them closer together

[LJ Jubner]

Now that the 2010 is almost over, Is there going to be a financial statement of how well the series did this year?

How much was raised by CFR sales?
How much was contributed by each event? Player fee's? CTP toss? etc

Is there a final list of who finished where and how much they got?
How much was paid out for the qualifier shirts?
Did the Adv winner get a basket in addition to scrip payout?
By the way who did the final payout?
Did the series have a bunch of CFR's ( like in years past) to use?

[Rideout]

Yes, of course, we have details on every penny, but we are far from done. You'll get your answers when we are done.

Jub, I won't be in a hurry to answer any more of your posts.

Mike Rideout

[LJ Jubner]

Thanks Mike

[Wobbly Bob]

Here is a comparison of the 100 pts. for first place / down. and 100 pts. for last place / up using this years Washington State Series Qualifiers.

In my opinion anything other than these two systems would widen the gaps between positions and make the top points in the divisional races seem unobtainable after just a few tournaments.