I've tracked the points for the INWS for 5 years. In a point system the finals don't really affect the final outcome of the series that much. You might have one player, play exceptionally at the finals and he may move two or three places upward or play terrible and move down the same. The closer the races are will result in players being able to move up or down easier in the standings.
Using checks for qualifiers would result in whoever played best for the event wins the series.
I always have looked at the "series" as a season long competition.
I like the idea of points throughout the season so you get rewarded for consistent play which is a very important aspect of golf. Yet, I think having a championship where standings could change dramatically at the end of the year could also makes for an exciting finish and could encourage more people to stick with the series all the way to the finish.
I would like to see a hybrid of the two: A point system with a heavily weighted finals so even if you had a great year you would atleast have to play well(top 10%-20% maybe) in the finals to be the champ.
A weird idea I think could potenially be fun would be to have the points work like a seeding system until the finals. Then have a reverse handicap for the qualifiers meaning: last place would have 15 (or whatever amount seems fair) strokes added to their score, first place qualifier would have 0 strokes added to their score and everybody else distributed strokes in the same fashion based on standings of the qualifying events.
1st place -0 throws added to finals score
2nd place-1 throws added
If last place plays well enough during the finals to beat everyone with all of the added strokes on top of their score they would be the champ.
Last edited by DMajor; October 21st, 2011, 04:37 PM.
I believe Mr. Major you are describing a handicap tournament for the last tournament. IMO no handicap system can be perfect, (ie USDGC performance edition) The deciding factor of who will be "state champ" should never come down to a Math equation. I would like skill to be the major deciding factor.
...Yet, I think having a championship where standings could change dramatically at the end of the year could also makes for an exciting finish and could encourage more people to stick with the series all the way to the finish.
That exactly why this idea is even being considered "the winner take all" might get players to particpate till the bitter end mentality. The points +++ for the finals also seems workable. We just need to make it so (at the Finals) the TD's are not overwhelmed after the smoke clears and the wounded are drug away.
I am curious though who is the second check voter? I have a cold one for em
Last edited by LJ Jubner; October 21st, 2011, 06:24 PM.
Reason: added thought in bold
I would say a NASCAR "CHASE" style championship tourney is in order here. Points for the whole series are tallied and everyone is given a starting number for the finals...1st/ 100, 2nd/ 95, 3rd/ 90...and so on ( more or less point differential depending on the amount of qualifiers). Everyone competing finishes according to their tally with a bonus for finishing above your starting point...ie...if you started fourth 20 points behind and won the tournament, you could win the series if the first place person didn't show or you beat them because they finished 6th or worse (this is just hypothetical with no math done). This would make it so all top qualifiers would have to show up to ensure they would cash for overall standings
Last edited by mine all mine; October 21st, 2011, 07:02 PM.
Reason: forgot an important part
I like the check system (I like IPA) because its simple and more people would want to go to the finals because anything can happen at one tournament. If a person is so far ahead at the end that no one can mathematically catch them then the "grand finale" becomes less interesting. I figure more people will do the minimum (qualify for the series) because they still have a shot at the end. I also like rewarding people for consistency through the whole season. A middle ground must be found where consistency doesn't take away from a "championship". Look at baseball, you have to be real good to get to the playoffs (or just good enough), but from there anything can happen. (aka cardinals)
damn with those points made. i'm have 5th thoughts about my vote. cuz ur right when i played the w.s.s. i was so fair out of even taking 3rd place that i didn't bother going( really what was the point they only payed top 3 in my field) but with how Mr. Anderson put it i would have showed up and took my lickens(or handed them out) for the championship