Where do we go from here?

[Magilla]

Originally Posted by Jim J

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.

[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

["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]

Originally Posted by "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

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"

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Wes Hansen

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

["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.

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]

Originally Posted by "Over the Hill" Bob

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

Bob, Im liking you alot more now..

["Over the Hill" Bob]

Originally Posted by Magilla

Bob, Im liking you alot more now..

Careful now......I AM married!

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

MORE people should listen to Sarah