Where do we go from here?

[Jim J]

With the 'transformation' of the Oregon Series there is going to be an organizational vacuum for the next year or so.

Here're some questions to ponder before the GNO.


Do qualifiers from last year still get an early registration period?

Or, can clubs give registration preferance to club members for events that are expected to sell out? (If so, there's several clubs I'm going to join tomorrow).

Is any entity going to track overall series points and declare series winners?

If so, are players willing to spend an extra buck or so per event for trophies, assuming the clubs are willing to collect and track it.

Are there any
quality control (as in payout) standards that can be applied to these events?

It seems like the clubs are pretty much on their own to answer these, and a lot of other, questions. I know we'll be talking about it at the Eugene Club meeting next week.

Should be an interesting summer.

[TreeLove]

6. If someone tracks the Oregon Series points, will they please put into place tiebreak procedures for trophy positions?

[proto something or other]

7. Who will answer any of these questions?



EDIT:
Which is to say, who will answer the questions by answering the call to leadership?

[Magilla]

With the 'transformation' of the Oregon Series there is going to be an organizational vacuum for the next year or so.

Here're some questions to ponder before the GNO.


Do qualifiers from last year still get an early registration period?

This has NOT been discussed by the TD's.....I guess that we SHOULD follow the same rules that have been in place.

Or, can clubs give registration preferance to club members for events that are expected to sell out? (If so, there's several clubs I'm going to join tomorrow).
I would surely HOPE that TD's would not do this...

Is any entity going to track overall series points and declare series winners?
FLASH has said that he would continue to do the points for the Series...I have "offered" to keep Series fees for end of year payout.

If so, are players willing to spend an extra buck or so per event for trophies, assuming the clubs are willing to collect and track it.
I am proposing a $2 per player fee that will be used for END of season awards, with full disclosure of finances at end of year

Are there any
quality control (as in payout) standards that can be applied to these events?
For now TD's will follow basic guidelines for a PDGA B Tier event, which states the guidelines for payout ,etc.

It seems like the clubs are pretty much on their own to answer these, and a lot of other, questions. I know we'll be talking about it at the Eugene Club meeting next week.

Should be an interesting summer.


The "SHOW" will be up to the individual TD's to run. It will depend on each individual TD/Club resources as to what extent that will be.

I AM also proposing a CHANGE in the points system....

The current system can be unfair, IMO...
WHY should someone who gets 2nd place in a 2 person Divison get MORE points than a person who finishes 3rd in 10 person division?

Id like to start awarding points from the bottom UP instead of the Top DOWN.

example...Play the event you get 10 pts + 1 point for every person you beat.

Thoughts??

Any thoughts??

:cheers:

[Sam]

Id like to start awarding points from the bottom UP instead of the Top DOWN.

example...Play the event you get 10 pts + 1 point for every person you beat.

I completely agree. But why 10? Why not 1 for playing the event and 1 for every person you beat?

[Jim J]

The "SHOW" will be up to the individual TD's to run. It will depend on each individual TD/Club resources as to what extent that will be.

The focus, I think, should be exclusively on the clubs, not the TDs since the clubs select the TD.

I think each club that ran an ORS event last year needs to step up by appointing one person to an inter-club committee to hash out these issues and come up with some solutions. Then each club can ratify the recommendations as they see fit.

Otherwise everything's just a bunch of words floating around in cyber-space (and we all know how silly those things can be).

[LJ Jubner]

Great idea about avoiding top loading. I have always thought that last place should get 25 points
minimum then you take the number of player divided into 75 divided by 10 players = 7.5 points per place.

1st 100, 2-92.5, 3-85, 4-78.5, 5-71, 6-63.5, 7-56, 8-48.5, 8-41, 9-33.5 10-26.5

Say there is a three way tie for 5,6,7 add total points (195.5) divide by 3 and 63.5 is their total points. This system takes into consideration field size.

The best line is full financial Disclosure at the end of the year.

Now thats a State series I can and will support

[Magilla]

The focus, I think, should be exclusively on the clubs, not the TDs since the clubs select the TD.

I think each club that ran an ORS event last year needs to step up by appointing one person to an inter-club committee to hash out these issues and come up with some solutions. Then each club can ratify the recommendations as they see fit.

Otherwise everything's just a bunch of words floating around in cyber-space (and we all know how silly those things can be).

While I agree that there needs to be a "committee" with representatives from each "Region", It is still the TD that makes the Final decisions as to how an event will turn out.
Sure there are exceptions BUT in most cases it has been the same TD's that have run the events and, for now, should be the primary focus when discussing what we do in the short term.

Im not seeing what the "Issues" are OR what the clubs would need to "ratify......as they see fit"?

The "Rules" are already in place and have been the norm.... BUT seeing how the "Staff" isnt going to be traveling with Merch & the "Show" there is no reason to continue the $5 fee.....hence my proposition to reduce it to $2

The points is something that can be discussed BUT as of now nothing has changed and will be calc'd the same as always.

There is NO reason to change anything as far as the "Rules" go.
We the players & the TD's are used to them and should just "Play On".

:cheers:

[Sausage Fingers]

The points is something that can be discussed BUT as of now nothing has changed and will be calc'd the same as always.

There is NO reason to change anything as far as the "Rules" go.

Sorry, there is a VERY big reason to change the system as mentioned above by Treelove: A TIE FOR THE SERIES TROPHY SUCKS BALLS! Pull your head out and give us some constructive leadership on this topic please! If you are going to change the $ fee/per person going to the series payout you can at least fix the problem of ties in trophy positions at the series end.

KEEPING IT THE SAME WILL MEAN THAT IT STILL SUCKS BALLS!:pirate:

And yes, I AM that pissed off about it.

[Flash]

As far as the points go I think changing the way points are calculated will improve the unlikeliness of a tie. Also rules need to be added or ammended that will address issues like those pointed out by Gawain and Jordan.

I have devised a points system based on stroke pay that I believe is fair and has worked for the stumptown series last year. I also kept the points this way for the Oregon Series 2008 as a trial to see if the outcome would be the same as the current system. I have removed the need for the tie breaker by moving away from integers and allowed a greater display of on course dominance. My points system does not care if there is 1 person playing, three persons playing or 200 persons playing, it is all based on stroke play against your field and last place will never get zero, unlike the current point system when more that 100 people signup in a division. I don't really like Magilla's idea because it rewards people who play and win in large events but penalizes those players in events with smaller field sizes. We need to move away from points based on field sizes.

I also believe that offering one point for playing is lame because its the equivalent of showing up or beating one person. Get rid of the entire mentality of awarding points based on participation, you are trying to crown a champion. Track the events and see who has played in what events but do not award someone 1 point for showing up, puking on the 5th hole and leaving. Acknowledge that they showed up and played by including the event in their list of events played. Also I would like to include a rule that if a final nine is included in the play of the event that the points are based on the rounds that everyone plays not the extra nine holes a few players play.

If we are going to do things the old way I am not sure I want to continue doing the points, but if we are looking to improve the system and start crowning a champion based on play on the courses used for the series then I am in.

With the $2.00 dollar fee are you just thinking of giving trophies and payout or are you also going to keep the teeshirts for 4 of 7 played, and the end of year prize for 7 of 7 events played. I think if you do not include these incentives your fan base may suffer.

[SMOKIN JOE]

I'd like to see people that play all or at least 4 still be rewarded for supporting the series
points based on size of field does not make sence
i could win 6 events with five in the field,get last in 7th event with 35 people and possible lose overall to someone playing one event, not
it takes the players to make a series,it takes good leadership to have a great series,
without the players there are events
maybe put a vote to the qualifiers and see if they did not attend at least four to assure next years entry,
i would like to see all the t.d's agree on whatever we do and do it with the players in mind:cool2:

[Magilla]

I'd like to see people that play all or at least 4 still be rewarded for supporting the series
points based on size of field does not make sence
i could win 6 events with five in the field,get last in 7th event with 35 people and possible lose overall to someone playing one event, not
it takes the players to make a series,it takes good leadership to have a great series,
without the players there are events
maybe put a vote to the qualifiers and see if they did not attend at least four to assure next years entry,
i would like to see all the t.d's agree on whatever we do and do it with the players in mind:cool2:


ALL TD's will need to agree on ANY changes...to be made.
I guess that would say that currently the fee is still $5 per player, BUT I dont see that as necessary UNTIL there are "assets" that need to transported from event to event as in the past.
We "should" be able to offer ALL of the same end of season awards...BUT the "quality" MAY be reduced due to the reduction in fees. Those $ "could" be supplimented by "Series" fundraiser Discs, etc.
I am NEUTRAL on the fee really.....The more money collected, just helps the end of season awards.

On Points...Someone playing 1 event CANT win the overall....the CURRENT rule requires a minimum of 4 events to qualify for Final Awards. That wont change.

We surely need a way to address ties.....a new pts system "should" fix that.
Im sure that Mike (Flash) can come up with a fair & consistant method that could be agreed upon.

:cheers:

[Jim J]

If you really want to pick a series champion:

Base it on player ratings. Average the ratings of the player's best four tournaments during the season.

No ties, no complicated formulas. The best golfer wins and it doesn't matter what the field size is.

[Magilla]

If you really want to pick a series champion:

Base it on player ratings. Average the ratings of the player's best four tournaments during the season.

No ties, no complicated formulas. The best golfer wins and it doesn't matter what the field size is.


Rating vary GREATLY depending on which course you play as well as the people playing the course......

Its a nice thought BUT it would work out so well

[Scott]

Rating vary GREATLY depending on which course you play as well as the people playing the course......

Its a nice thought BUT it would work out so well

I assume you mean "Its a nice thought BUT it would not work out so well"

[Magilla]

I assume you mean "Its a nice thought BUT it would not work out so well"


:smash: Yea what he said......

Back to points.....

Why shouldnt pts be awarded differently depending on the size of the field?

A win in a field of 7 is NOT the same as a win in a field of 15.

Assigning points from the Top down as we have been leaves a HUGE chance for ties at the end of the year, which as proven here IS NOT popular. ALOT of Series are now using straight PDGA pts for Series Pts.
I dont like that because it changes depending on the Tier..

[Flash]

:smash: Yea what he said......

Back to points.....

Why shouldnt pts be awarded differently depending on the size of the field?

A win in a field of 7 is NOT the same as a win in a field of 15.

Assigning points from the Top down as we have been leaves a HUGE chance for ties at the end of the year, which as proven here IS NOT popular. ALOT of Series are now using straight PDGA pts for Series Pts.
I dont like that because it changes depending on the Tier..

Because points should not very on the field size, it is unfair if a large field shows up for one event but not for another. You can't punish the girl/guy that shoots well at an event just because not very many people showed up to play. If you based the points on play against the field you can eliminate the variance for field sizes.

Wouldn't winning a field size of 7 or 15 depend on the people in the field, If you play well and win in either event and the competition is stiff then you would expect to be rewarded the same for each win. In the method I was using for Stumptown the winner would still get 100 points but second place was not guaranteed 99, they would get a point value based on how well they played compared to the person that won. The same is true for every other competitor in the same field.

I am open to any ideas but I firmly believe field size should not determine the overall winner, but consistent play for 4 events.

I could try to work up some rules and such for the new series points, handling ties and how points are awarded. Unfortunately I am really busy right now with the Beaver State Fling so it might not be right away but it would be similar to the existing rules but with a few tweaks.

[SMOKIN JOE]

I like the idea of the field based points related to the winner.
don't know your formula.
how about minus one point from 100 for how many strokes your behind.
that seems simple.:cool2:

[bvdisc]

I vote for Flash's method.:trophy:

[Jim J]

Rating vary GREATLY depending on which course you play as well as the people playing the course......

You sure about this? The course doesn't matter because your rating for any given round is based on how well you played compared to all the other propagators (players with ratings over 799 playing the same course with at least 8 officially-rated rounds). The play of the propagators determines the Scratch Scoring Average, which everyone is measured against.

As far as 'people playing the course' goes, given that the caliber of players attending ORS events doesn't change much from tournament to tournament, that wouldn't cause much of a variable either.

I agree with Flash that you shouldn't be penalized for a small field and crushing the field by 10 strokes should count for more than a one stroke win.

Which is an argument for using player ratings.

Fact is: Good round = high rating. Highest average rating in your best four events = Series Champ.

[Magilla]

You sure about this? The course doesn't matter because your rating for any given round is based on how well you played compared to all the other propagators (players with ratings over 799 playing the same course with at least 8 officially-rated rounds). The play of the propagators determines the Scratch Scoring Average, which everyone is measured against.

As far as 'people playing the course' goes, given that the caliber of players attending ORS events doesn't change much from tournament to tournament, that wouldn't cause much of a variable either.

I agree with Flash that you shouldn't be penalized for a small field and crushing the field by 10 strokes should count for more than a one stroke win.

Which is an argument for using player ratings.

Fact is: Good round = high rating. Highest average rating in your best four events = Series Champ.

The "Ratings" arguement has been an issue since they 1st started.
The HIGHER the average Rating of the players the Higher the ratings result will be....It is a "flaw" that is STILL being "worked on"

BUT like I said before...

Im sure that Mike (Flash) can come up with a fair & consistant method that could be agreed upon.

:cheers:

[SMOKIN JOE]

your not being compared to everyone else, only those in your division
your rating is based on the whole field,your not playing the whole field:cool2:

["Over the Hill" Bob]

Drifting away from the "points" issue for a moment, I'd really like to see a meeting with representation from all of the clubs involved. As central as we can get it. Salem? Pick a day and lets all sit down and get things ironed out. Ideas?

Bob

[Magilla]

Drifting away from the "points" issue for a moment, I'd really like to see a meeting with representation from all of the clubs involved. As central as we can get it. Salem? Pick a day and lets all sit down and get things ironed out. Ideas?

Bob


Ive have already been in contact with a majority of the TD's.
Attempting to get together at this point is NOT going to be any more productive. We can easily deal with the issues at hand via internet/phone for now.
I am sure that we will be meeting face to face at the GNW Open as we always do.

Ther are NOT that many things that need to be dealt with before then.
A points system, that works, is a must........
Series fees, if they are going to change, is a must........

Everything else should stay the same, as far as "Rules" & "Protocol"

:cheers:

[Wes Hansen]

Let Flash and Treelove make the decisions.
They appear to be the sanest people in DG.
Some of the others- not so much.

[NWDiscer]

Let Flash and Treelove make the decisions.
They appear to be the sanest people in DG.
Some of the others- not so much.


ummmm wtf are u talking about?????

:confused:


:dancing:


This is a pretty random post Wes....care to expand this?

The State Cord. is the 1 to make a lot of these calls.

and if i was a voting mem. of the pdga this year............. i'm pretty sure i would re-elect the 1 we have.

As NO1 has the amount of experience running events as Mike R.

In fact no1 in this state other than Tom E. probably even comes close to the amount of Sanctioned/Unsanctioned event's that he has run over the years.


and since i am not a voting member i will shut up now.

:cheers:

[Wes Hansen]

Under Magilla's point system, winners are penalized for traveling and playing in events with smaller fields. I guess the assumption is if more people had shown up someone would have beat the person who won? Really, I can't guess as to WHY someone would think that's an intelligent system. Or maybe I just trust Flash's analytical skills over others.

In the few responses I've made to Mag's posts, they are because there seems to be a lack of "coordinating" and more of a "my way is better" stance. Look at the last post he made. Is it weighted more heavily towards a "I have the best plan" or a "Let's work to find the best method?"

Other than my "I wouldn't vote for him" statement (written as a knee jerk reaction to what I saw as a condemnation of the Bellingers) I have no personal feelings about our PDGA coordinator.
His efforts for DG are widely known and appreciated. And his involvement vastly outdistances our last representative. So, no offense Mag, I just differ in opinion in a couple areas.

The past couple years I have been unable to play the ORS as I've wanted, but I still have some concern that things could devolve.

(Anyone who remembers a day when two events with the same field size could have VASTLY different payouts and AM money would be moved to the Pro field, at the discretion of a TD, might share some of the same concerns.)

The GOOD thing about the change is OR DG now has a greater number of folks willing to step forward and do the work few were previously willing to do.

NWDiscer- I picked those two names because I believe ( I said- I believe) their posts probably have the lowest percentage of boneheaded statements in them.

Inflexibility is not a virtue.

I SUGGEST that whoever is working on the next generation of an "Oregon Series" type season might begin considering how to effectively create both a Pro and AM series. The past series overfilled and there are plenty of AMs who would love to see a spot for themselves. It's not long now until you "Pros" will have to venture out and figure out a way to make your own way, without piggybacking your small number of entries into these predominantly AM events.

Is it my imagination or are the majority of people stepping forward to improve/grow DG coming from the AM ranks and not the Pros?

[Wes Hansen]

Just minutes later...

I look at the posts here and-

If Mag has taken an official role as a member of whatever group of people is trying to bring the OR events back into a series-type format, then... thanks Mag.

Anyone care to announce who this group of people may be? Is there way to communicate with them in case a DGer has thoughts or concerns and would rather do so in a private manner instead of the free for all of the forum?

Personally I think the entire series should take place on Milo's east BSF course.

[Jim J]

If Mag has taken an official role as a member of whatever group of people is trying to bring the OR events back into a series-type format, then... thanks Mag.

While I'm in favor of a group of people trying to bring back the Oregon Series, and don't think any group of organizers, no matter how experienced, can expect to simply pick up where the Bellingers et al, left off.

But if they'd like to try then I'd suggest they spell out their vision in a written proposal that lays out the exact agreement (financial and otherwise) the new ORS would have with local clubs. After all, there's a lot of money at stake and these terms should be in writing.

The clubs, in turn, need a chance to insure that everything in the proposal advances the mission of that club before committing to anything.

On the other hand, . . . if the vision of the new ORS is to come in and run the entire series without any club involvement, then do that and let 'er rip.

["Over the Hill" Bob]

While I'm in favor of a group of people trying to bring back the Oregon Series, and don't think any group of organizers, no matter how experienced, can expect to simply pick up where the Bellingers et al, left off.

But if they'd like to try then I'd suggest they spell out their vision in a written proposal that lays out the exact agreement (financial and otherwise) the new ORS would have with local clubs. After all, there's a lot of money at stake and these terms should be in writing.

The clubs, in turn, need a chance to insure that everything in the proposal advances the mission of that club before committing to anything.

On the other hand, . . . if the vision of the new ORS is to come in and run the entire series without any club involvement, then do that and let 'er rip.

Hence, we should have a meeting of the clubs to figure out JUST what the mission is. :whistler:

Bob

[Wes Hansen]

That sounds like common sense.
Is that allowed?

[LJ Jubner]

Another helpful suggestion is evaluation form/forum. This would be very helpful in addressing more concerns in an reflective, organized and timely manner.

[Magilla]

While I'm in favor of a group of people trying to bring back the Oregon Series, and don't think any group of organizers, no matter how experienced, can expect to simply pick up where the Bellingers et al, left off.

But if they'd like to try then I'd suggest they spell out their vision in a written proposal that lays out the exact agreement (financial and otherwise) the new ORS would have with local clubs. After all, there's a lot of money at stake and these terms should be in writing.

The clubs, in turn, need a chance to insure that everything in the proposal advances the mission of that club before committing to anything.

On the other hand, . . . if the vision of the new ORS is to come in and run the entire series without any club involvement, then do that and let 'er rip.


I too would LOVE for someone or some club to come forward with some sort of proposal to RUN this Series of events.

I'd love to do it all myself BUT I dont have the resources to do so. If I had a Trailer full of Tables, Tents and all the other little things, this could continue on seamlessly, as was, with out issue. :whistler:

BUT, sadly that is not the case. And with todays economy there are not too many people out there in the DiscGolf world who can afford that right now.

SO, for the sake of keeping it alive, I contacted "most" of the TD's (some are STILL not known) and talked to them about how WE can proceed, FOR NOW.

It would be that the individual TD's (Club's) would be responsible for doing their own merchandising (or finding a vendor to do so) AND that they were the ones putting on the "Show".

I spoke with Tom Embree, Mike Storrs, Ryan Lane & Jeff Mittl which covers the events thru June and beyond. Having those TD's on board, AT LEAST, allowed the Series to continue with minimal issues.

PLEASE...SOMEONE take on this "project"
It WILL need all the clubs to work together to make it all happen far into the future. Its the way that the NorCal Series had to go(oh no NOT that) and it works.
Overall this entire transition WILL be good for Oregon Disc Golf in the end.
We have had to take a step backward with the loss of the "resourses" that the Bellinger's & others provided; BUT if done properly the Clubs, TD's & the entire state will benefit & be better for it.

:cheers:

["Over the Hill" Bob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim J
While I'm in favor of a group of people trying to bring back the Oregon Series, and don't think any group of organizers, no matter how experienced, can expect to simply pick up where the Bellingers et al, left off.

But if they'd like to try then I'd suggest they spell out their vision in a written proposal that lays out the exact agreement (financial and otherwise) the new ORS would have with local clubs. After all, there's a lot of money at stake and these terms should be in writing.

The clubs, in turn, need a chance to insure that everything in the proposal advances the mission of that club before committing to anything.

On the other hand, . . . if the vision of the new ORS is to come in and run the entire series without any club involvement, then do that and let 'er rip.


I too would LOVE for someone or some club to come forward with some sort of proposal to RUN this Series of events.

I'd love to do it all myself BUT I dont have the resources to do so. If I had a Trailer full of Tables, Tents and all the other little things, this could continue on seamlessly, as was, with out issue.

BUT, sadly that is not the case. And with todays economy there are not too many people out there in the DiscGolf world who can afford that right now.

SO, for the sake of keeping it alive, I contacted "most" of the TD's (some are STILL not known) and talked to them about how WE can proceed, FOR NOW.

It would be that the individual TD's (Club's) would be responsible for doing their own merchandising (or finding a vendor to do so) AND that they were the ones putting on the "Show".

I spoke with Tom Embree, Mike Storrs, Ryan Lane & Jeff Mittl which covers the events thru June and beyond. Having those TD's on board, AT LEAST, allowed the Series to continue with minimal issues.

PLEASE...SOMEONE take on this "project"
It WILL need all the clubs to work together to make it all happen far into the future. Its the way that the NorCal Series had to go(oh no NOT that) and it works.
Overall this entire transition WILL be good for Oregon Disc Golf in the end.
We have had to take a step backward with the loss of the "resourses" that the Bellinger's & others provided; BUT if done properly the Clubs, TD's & the entire state will benefit & be better for it.


Good points all! As I see it:

Each club involved needs to select a representative member (or 2) to oversee the series. THEY would respond back to the club with what is happening.

Each club has an event or two that they are responsible for and as such are putting their club on the line for ensuring that the events are a success finacially.

Each club selects TD's for their events. The TD's are responsible to the club for decisions made and ensuring the success of the event. The CLUB, not the TD's are the ones that are putting their reputation and finances at risk.

The clubs, not having the experience of the previous ORS staff will need to evaluate the series in 2009 and find what does and what doesn't work, then through their representatives work to make improvements. We know there are issues that exist currently and could be made better but for NOW we need to proceed as the series left off.

NO changes this year, evaluate at the end of season and make improvements over the winter for 2010.

Bob

[Magilla]

Good points all! As I see it:

Each club involved needs to select a representative member (or 2) to oversee the series. THEY would respond back to the club with what is happening.

Each club has an event or two that they are responsible for and as such are putting their club on the line for ensuring that the events are a success finacially.

Each club selects TD's for their events. The TD's are responsible to the club for decisions made and ensuring the success of the event. The CLUB, not the TD's are the ones that are putting their reputation and finances at risk.

The clubs, not having the experience of the previous ORS staff will need to evaluate the series in 2009 and find what does and what doesn't work, then through their representatives work to make improvements. We know there are issues that exist currently and could be made better but for NOW we need to proceed as the series left off.

NO changes this year, evaluate at the end of season and make improvements over the winter for 2010.

Bob

:shocked: Bob, Im liking you alot more now..

:laughing:

:cheers:

["Over the Hill" Bob]

:shocked: Bob, Im liking you alot more now..

:laughing:

:cheers:

Careful now......I AM married! :shocked:

Bob

[Jim J]

The EDGC meets this Wednesday and we can make a motion to appoint an ORS point person to work with the other clubs and come up with basic agreements to ensure a consistent series.

"No changes" is a goal, but there are issues such as the ORS per player fee which need to be examined.

I agree with Mag, this 'challenge' will make DG in Oregon better in the long run since it will force more people to step up, contribute, and develop the skills needed to run these kinds of events.

The rest of us will need to learn some patience and not electronically beat up these volunteers when they don't live up to our standards.

[Magilla]

The EDGC meets this Wednesday and we can make a motion to appoint an ORS point person to work with the other clubs and come up with basic agreements to ensure a consistent series.

"No changes" is a goal, but there are issues such as the ORS per player fee which need to be examined.

I agree with Mag, this 'challenge' will make DG in Oregon better in the long run since it will force more people to step up, contribute, and develop the skills needed to run these kinds of events.

The rest of us will need to learn some patience and not electronically beat up these volunteers when they don't live up to our standards.

:cheers:

well, Ive proposed a $2 fee..some have questioned if that is enough.

I think it should be enough (for now) and along with the PDGA $3 fee for a B tier it makes a nice round $5 in fees.

We MAY NOT be able to give out the total number/quality of awards that the players are used to. That remains to be seen.
It is NOT going to be the same as it has been, but it sure could be as good if not better...depending on the commitment from each club.

:cheers:

[essjay]

I really like the idea of a club representative and a td from each club running a tourney to create a board of sorts to manage the communication, series organization, and end of year series awards. I agree with Mags that, based on the $3 or whatever that series staff took out of the $5 fees last year, we should be able to conduct a good series with decent awards and payouts with a $2 or $3 series charge. I would think the "series board" could designate all the positions (Chair, sec., treas., etc.) of a regular board to disperse the burden and contribute to clarity, transparency and good will. Those board members could meet at each of the series events (and probably once before GNO) and communicate via email in the interim if necessary. The board members could also act as series liaisons to the tournament-running clubs. I think this is a really great way to promote cooperation between clubs and to ensure that the series is run efficiently. I would imagine that each club would likely appoint the tourney TD and would maybe vote on a second appointment; for the record, I would be happy to be involved with this.

sarah

[Magilla]

I really like the idea of a club representative and a td from each club running a tourney to create a board of sorts to manage the communication, series organization, and end of year series awards. I agree with Mags that, based on the $3 or whatever that series staff took out of the $5 fees last year, we should be able to conduct a good series with decent awards and payouts with a $2 or $3 series charge. I would think the "series board" could designate all the positions (Chair, sec., treas., etc.) of a regular board to disperse the burden and contribute to clarity, transparency and good will. Those board members could meet at each of the series events (and probably once before GNO) and communicate via email in the interim if necessary. The board members could also act as series liaisons to the tournament-running clubs. I think this is a really great way to promote cooperation between clubs and to ensure that the series is run efficiently. I would imagine that each club would likely appoint the tourney TD and would maybe vote on a second appointment; for the record, I would be happy to be involved with this.

sarah

:yay::yay::yay::yay:

Oh Yea, I am REALLY liking the way this thread has turned.....

MORE people should listen to Sarah :angel:

:cheers:

[purediscgolf]

I invite everyone interested to check out the plans for a Northwest Disc Golf Alliance. Our mission is going to be very simple. Bringing together people from all over to lean on eachother for support. More information is available on our discussion thread. Thanks.

[LJ Jubner]

BUTT BUTT BUTT I got nothin else bad to say but BUTT BUTT BUTT

[Bruce]

Someone make sure they get Jub logged for historical reference, we may never see that again!

[Flash]

:yay::yay::yay::yay:

Oh Yea, I am REALLY liking the way this thread has turned.....

MORE people should listen to Sarah :angel:

:cheers:

You missed the boat again Mike, More people should volunteer like Sarah!!!

Seriously this type of series will not take a huge amount of work if several people share the burden and everyone can come to an agreement on the organization structure and requirements.

[sassalicious]

FYI... the $5 Series fee was broken down into:
$3 going toward end of year awards (tropies & payout, and qualifier shirts), and
$2 going toward covering part of the Series crew travel expenses... not the other way around.

There is an ORS TD agreement that was used that outlined the vision of the "old" Series that had general guidelines that helped unify the events into a cohesive Series... I would think that most of it would still be useful as a starting point as you move toward your new organizational structure. The TDs from last year should all have a copy...

I'm really glad to see the clubs pulling together to keep this going. :) It was awesome working with all of you and I know you'll work hard to continue hosting great events people will be happy to play.

[Sam]

T-BELL! Welcome! :cheers:

["Over the Hill" Bob]

T-BELL! Welcome! :cheers:

Ditto..and a double :cheers::cheers:

Bob

[DanD]

Teresa,

Thank you for all the efforts you've put into disc golf, both in Oregon and Nationally. I think it would be an understatement to say that disc golf in the NW would not be nearly as advanced as it is were it not for your and the Oregon series efforts. That's more than anyone could ask for.

Thank you.
-Dan