Where do we go from here? Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Scott View Post
    I assume you mean "Its a nice thought BUT it would not work out so well"

    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..

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Magilla View Post
      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.
      PDGA #25296
      Stumptown #34

      Comment


      • #18
        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.

        Comment


        • #19
          I vote for Flash's method.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Magilla View Post
            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Jim J View Post
              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.

              Comment


              • #22
                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

                Comment


                • #23
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by "Over the Hill" Bob View Post
                    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"

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Let Flash and Treelove make the decisions.
                      They appear to be the sanest people in DG.
                      Some of the others- not so much.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Wes Hansen View Post
                        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?????







                        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.

                        Last edited by NWDiscer; March 1st, 2009, 10:46 AM. Reason: re-worded a sentence to make it readable......lol
                        "In Discatarianism We Trust"

                        :cheers:

                        :cool:sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          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?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Wes Hansen View Post
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Jim J View Post
                                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.

                                Bob

                                Comment

                                Announcement Announcement Module
                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.
                                Working...
                                X