2011 Washington State Series

[LJ Jubner]

This conversation about points raises an interesting question

Should a series be more about winning or participating?
It's a fine line between these.(imnsho)


If you look at the stats event participation wains when or after enough events to qualify have been played. This is one of the reasons why having "too many series events" can be a potential problem.

Top loading 100 down fluctuates wildly. Field of 10 DFL gets the same points as finishing 10th in a field of any number 20, 30, 50, This does encourage players to play more.

Base + Bonus At least attempts to address the inconsistency in field sizes.

[olydiscgolf]

Originally Posted by LJ Jubner

This conversation about points raises an interesting question

Should a series be more about winning or participating?
It's a fine line between these.(imnsho)


If you look at the stats event participation wains when or after enough events to qualify have been played. This is one of the reasons why having "too many series events" can be a potential problem.

Top loading 100 down fluctuates wildly. Field of 10 DFL gets the same points as finishing 10th in a field of any number 20, 30, 50, This does encourage players to play more.

Base + Bonus At least attempts to address the inconsistency in field sizes.

Some people play the series to participate, others play it to win. Its not an either or, its both. The people at the top of the field are playing to win, the people at the bottom are playing to have fun and participate.

With only 5 events this year, I don't think the issue of too many events came into play.

The issue that came up for me, was the fact that the smallest event (in terms of field capacity/ lowest point's opportunity) was the last event before the finals. This event was essentially a qualifier only event, there wasn't enough points available for it to matter. A top loading system keeps all events relevant and in turn keeps participation up.


Your right that "top loading down fluctuates widely" but, the most competition is going to be in the top ten spots, and there wasn't many more than ten qualifiers in most divisions anyway.

[Wobbly Bob]

Originally Posted by Kenny B

Thanks Chris. I have been thinking about getting more involved, but didn’t end up sending my name to Rideout. I think Bob put together a really great report for the 2010 points and it’s great that he’s volunteered to do it again for 2011, so I’m not sure that there is much for me to add there (other than pushing for a top down points system).

Hey all, I'm working on transposing the 2010 WSS points from bottom up to top down so that all may compare.

[Kenny B]

Originally Posted by olydiscgolf

A top loading system keeps all events relevant and in turn keeps participation up.

Exactly.

Except for the series championship, a top-down system makes all tournaments in a series equal, which I think is the point of the series. We cannot say that winning the Whiners in the Woods tournament is better and more important than winning the White River tournament just because it had two courses and more players were able to play. Otherwise, people would think "oh, I'm not going to go to that (insert smaller one course tournament) because even if I win, I can't get more points than I already have."

So, with a top-down system, participation will be high for people who want to play and have fun, and participation will be high for people who want to play to compete and win.

[Kenny B]

Originally Posted by LJ Jubner

Top loading 100 down fluctuates wildly. Field of 10 DFL gets the same points as finishing 10th in a field of any number 20, 30, 50, This does encourage players to play more.

On the contraty, this is exactly what will encourage players to play. Players who are low in total series points will want to play because they could improve their series standing even if they get last! Players who are high in total series points would be motivated to play to protect their place in the series; in other words, if they don't play and get first, then someone else will get first and could pass them.

Originally Posted by LJ Jubner

Base + Bonus At least attempts to address the inconsistency in field sizes

Jub, could you please explain Base + Bonus more? I'm not sure I know what it is.

[LJ Jubner]

Base of 100 points + a point for everyone you beat no matter how big or samll the field

[Kenny B]

Originally Posted by LJ Jubner

Base of 100 points + a point for everyone you beat no matter how big or samll the field

That's what I've been calling a bottom up system. Are you saying your happy and content with Aaron and Kyle in a tie for first in the series after Kyle won 4 tournaments and Aaron none?!?

[Kenny B]

Mike Rideout,

I would like to participate in the decision making process for the 2011 series (especially which points system will be used), but without being the coordinator. Is this something that will be possible? Or is whoever the coordinator going to be just going drop the hammer down and force whatever points system he wants upon the State Series?

Can you please add me to future correspondance regarding the 2011 series?

[LJ Jubner]

Originally Posted by Kenny B

Mike Rideout,

I would like to participate in the decision making process for the 2011 series (especially which points system will be used), but without being the coordinator. Is this something that will be possible? Or is whoever the coordinator going to be just going drop the hammer down and force whatever points system he wants upon the State Series?

Can you please add me to future correspondance regarding the 2011 series?

Hopefully the process will determine the points system not just the Coordinator

[Wobbly Bob]

The true participation booster is to count all events and throw no points out. This system also favors a smaller amount of tournaments.

It also begs the question, how committed are you to winning.

[Rideout]

I disagree.

[LJ Jubner]

Originally Posted by Rideout

I disagree.

Mike,
Bobs point follows a logical conclusion of the facts*


What is it you disagree with with?



* Disclaimer Bob has stats for 5 + years of INWS attendance to base his conclusion on.


Bob This might help explain the issues

Can you generate the %'s for (of the final number of total qualifiers)
How many qualify as iron arms?
How many qualify as quickly as possible?
Do they attend events after they have qualified?
How many need the entire series to be qualifiers?

and the most important questions
How often are they willing to travel to qualify?
How far are they willing to travel to qualify? (more than 50 miles round trip)

Can you also post the results on the planning site.

I am really trying hard here NOW, Bob
Thanks man

[Kenny B]

Originally Posted by Wobbly Bob

The true participation booster is to count all events and throw no points out. This system also favors a smaller amount of tournaments.

It also begs the question, how committed are you to winning.

I think the prospect of having to play all of the events would discourage players from playing the WSS events over others.

[Rideout]

I'm not sure why this conversation is taking place here.

Anyway, the point of throwing away scores is so the player only needs to count their best scores. If the player qualifies early in the season but doesn't have good scores, they will have reason to continue competing in order to improve their overall score. If the player qualifies early in the season and has good scores, then the player will not have as much need to participate in each remaining event.

I am certainly not trying to trap every player into playing every event. The player should want to play the event or they should feel the need to play to compete for the position they would like to finish in.

Mike Rideout

[LJ Jubner]

Valid answer Maybe if bob can answer my Q's we can hypothesize some some sort of solution.

I think the points discussion should be shared publicly. Clearly the series site is where the discussion is moving forward this is just posting basic info about an important subject. Now that Kenny's on board (subject instigator) he can participate there also.

[LJ Jubner]

Hot of the press

Mike has decided to (once again try and) head up the 2011 Series

Mike we both need to post our ideas here so all can see.

It is my belief as many people possible should join the 2011 Series discussion group. The 10 people who can/will make the decision are just not enough.

The vote between Mike and I will Open on Fri the 15th and go till Mon 8PM. but you have to be a member of the group to vote

This will be your one and only chance to have your voice heard. This is unless I get the nod.

[ericedge]

I would like to see more participation on the invitational google group as well. Anyone that wants to be involved in decision making about the way the series is formated or is even thinking of running a series event next year should seriously consider joining. By joining the group you aren't making any sort of commitment to participate but you are giving yourself the opportunity to have your voice/vote heard. See post #1 on this thread to get on board.

[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.

[LJ Jubner]

Thanks Bob! You really are the points guru and your efforts are very much appericated.