Where do we go from here? - Oregon Events

Jim J · #1 February 27th, 2009, 10:17 PM

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 · #2 February 27th, 2009, 10:37 PM

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

proto something or other · #3 February 27th, 2009, 10:46 PM

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 · #4 February 28th, 2009, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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??

Sam · #5 February 28th, 2009, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magilla

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 · #6 February 28th, 2009, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magilla

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 · #7 February 28th, 2009, 10:39 AM

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 · #8 February 28th, 2009, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim J

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".

Sausage Fingers · #9 February 28th, 2009, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magilla

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!

And yes, I AM that pissed off about it.

Flash · #10 February 28th, 2009, 11:52 AM

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 · #11 February 28th, 2009, 01:05 PM

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

Magilla · #12 February 28th, 2009, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Jim J · #13 February 28th, 2009, 05:46 PM

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 · #14 February 28th, 2009, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · #15 February 28th, 2009, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magilla

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 · #16 February 28th, 2009, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott

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..

Flash · #17 February 28th, 2009, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magilla

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 · #18 February 28th, 2009, 08:30 PM

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.

bvdisc · #19 February 28th, 2009, 09:57 PM

I vote for Flash's method.

Jim J · #20 February 28th, 2009, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magilla

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.