2012 Points Charter?

Josh Connell · Post by **Josh Connell** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:00 pm

With the first event of the year coming up this weekend, do we have an estimate on when we'll see the Points Charter for this year?

The schedule is looking pretty thin so far, and I'd guess that there are a bunch of events planned but aren't on the schedule yet because folks are waiting until they send in their fees and signed charters to make anything official.

Jeff Wiechowski · Post by **Jeff Wiechowski** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:26 pm

Voted on and passed on Saturday. Should be up as soon as Matt gets a free minute or two.

Josh Connell · Post by **Josh Connell** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:35 pm

Jeff Wiechowski wrote:Voted on and passed on Saturday. Should be up as soon as Matt gets a free minute or two.

Cool. Thanks, Jeff.

Mike Saimond · Post by **Mike Saimond** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:49 pm

The 2012 charter is posted. Thanks for adding the Advanced Grandmasters Division!

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:04 pm

Mike Saimond wrote:The 2012 charter is posted. Thanks for adding the Advanced Grandmasters Division!

You're welcome!

Josh Connell · Post by **Josh Connell** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:20 pm

Adding Advanced Grandmasters

Reducing the minimum distance between events to 100 miles

Nyles_Johnson · Post by **Nyles_Johnson** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:01 pm

Thanks for adding Advanced Grandmasters! Now I have my new division for this year.

Just saw the new charter and it needs to have the Recreation Division as a division that can earn NEFA points and the minimum number of events that Recreation Division players need to play in to qualify for finals listed. I think that you may have not listed them when adding the new division.

Thank you again to the NEFA board. You are doing a great job, and I appreciate all of your work.

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:56 pm

Josh Connell wrote:Reducing the minimum distance between events to 100 miles

The 2012 points charter did not make that change. That was on the 2011 charter and was left as is.

Josh Connell · Post by **Josh Connell** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:08 pm

Matt DeAngelis wrote:The 2012 points charter did not make that change. That was on the 2011 charter and was left as is.

Pardon me. I'll rephrase.

Maintaining the minimum distance between events at 100 miles

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:09 pm

Josh Connell wrote:
Matt DeAngelis wrote:The 2012 points charter did not make that change. That was on the 2011 charter and was left as is.

Pardon me. I'll rephrase.

Maintaining the minimum distance between events at 100 miles

That's better!

Kenji Cline · Post by **Kenji Cline** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:15 pm

Why is rec division not earning any points or an invite to finals? I thought nefa was about growing the sport. This division I think is very important in doing that.

Matt Aubin · Post by **Matt Aubin** » Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:53 pm

Kenji Cline wrote:Why is rec division not earning any points or an invite to finals? I thought nefa was about growing the sport. This division I think is very important in doing that.

Agreed, wth?

My guess is that it's too much of a pain to re-code the system for 11 divisions with the addition of Advanced Grandmasters. If that's the case, why not get rid of the (far and away) least used division, Intermediate women? 4 players last year, most of whom were playing solo in their division (lots of 100.1 point winners). Rec had 16 players last year, has been established for years, and is a main selling point for new players especially with the 2 for 1 membership drive.

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:43 am

The original thought was that this division was not really serving the purpose. The number of players that play in the division is small. A fair amount of players that played in the Rec division in years past only played one or two events and then realized that they should be in a different division. We are still requiring that the division is offered at all of our NEFA events, to not excluded them from the events. Since we are requiring that tournaments offer the division, we could always amend the points tabulation to include the division again.

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:18 am

Great upgrade guys! The Rec division is very important to get new people involved but should only be used as a stepping stone into competitive disc golf.
Having a non competitive division qualifying for a championship doesn't really make sense.

Keep up the good work!

Kenji Cline · Post by **Kenji Cline** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 1:58 pm

I agree that rec should not get invites to finals but believe they should have points tracked and earn season end funny $ payout. At the very very least have thier points tracked as it has no cost to nefa.

Nyles_Johnson · Post by **Nyles_Johnson** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 8:51 pm

I am 52 years old and have been playing disc golf since July 2010. My first round was at Beauty Hill and I played on the Blue course and scored 100. I loved the game right away and kept on playing and improving. I wanted some competition, but there was not anyone that I could have a match with that would be anywhere near competitive. I basically wasn't very good. I decided to join NEFA last Jan. and my goal was to qualify for the NEFA finals in the Rec. Division. It was a lofty goal and something I didn't really think I could achieve. I played in 8 tournaments and did qualify for the finals. Many of the tourneys that I played in a got killed. My play was very inconsistent. I wouldn't have played in as many events without the goal of the finals. This year I am planning on playing in the Advanced Grandmaster Division. I had a overall great experience with the tourneys I entered. I did best on courses that offered shorter tees for the rec division. I'm getting better, but still can't drive the disc very far.

If you look back at past Recreation Division Nefa members who have qualified for finals, you will notice many names of people who got their start in the Rec division and have since gone on to play well in other divisions and stay in Nefa. I think like happened for me, they got hooked on the game with that goal of the finals in mind.

I talked with many players that I met on courses this year about what Nefa had to offer, and the fun that I was having with tournaments. I encouraged them to find out about Nefa and consider joining and playing some tourneys. I have one person that is 50 and has played for less than a year interested in joining this year. I know he wants to play in the Rec division and he liked to hear about the experiences that I had last year. He has never played in a tourney, as I hadn't last Jan., and he wants to compete with a goal of possibly making the finals. I don't think he will join with the Charter as it is now written.

For those of us new to the sport, the Rec division is competitive. I don't think it is in the best interest of Nefa to eliminate the Rec division for point tabulations or the ability to qualify for finals. We are trying to grow the sport.

Kyle Moriarty · Post by **Kyle Moriarty** » Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:26 pm

Nyles makes a lot of great points.

NEFA Finals is what helps grow the sport and the organization, not just offering a division.

Trent Solomon · Post by **Trent Solomon** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 8:38 am

Kenji Cline wrote:I agree that rec should not get invites to finals but believe they should have points tracked and earn season end funny $ payout. At the very very least have thier points tracked as it has no cost to nefa.

this is a really good idea

Kenji Cline · Post by **Kenji Cline** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 11:52 am

I'm not trying to rag on the new board and I understand the effort it takes to be on the board. That being said Matt could you give us the pros and cons that were discussed for the elimination of the rec division from season points and invite to finals? Is the cost that much? I just can't see any other cons beside the cost to match tournament fees.

Trent Solomon · Post by **Trent Solomon** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:50 pm

There was talk about eliminating Rec altogether and this ended up being a compromise. The thought was that Rec is just a stepping stone to other divisions and only had a handful of participants the past few years and most of the rec players didnt play in enough events to qualify for finals anyway.

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:44 pm

The thought was that adding Advanced Grandmasters benefited our current membership better than REC. With the addition of that division, there was talk of not wanting to force a TD to offer a total of 11 divisions. The discussion shifted to not wanting to completly get rid of the REC division and discourage people from joining the org. We settled on adding MG1 and requiring REC division to be offered by TDs. We never got back to the discussion that since we are going to require the REC division to be offered, why not leave the points tabulation in place, etc.

Josh Connell · Post by **Josh Connell** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 4:45 pm

Trenton Solomon wrote:There was talk about eliminating Rec altogether and this ended up being a compromise. The thought was that Rec is just a stepping stone to other divisions and only had a handful of participants the past few years and most of the rec players didnt play in enough events to qualify for finals anyway.

Intermediate is just a stepping stone division, maybe we should get rid of that too. Hell, all amateur divisions are stepping stones, aren't they? Let's just go with one division for all.

As one of the people who drove the bus on adding Intermediate to the NEFA series way back when, as well as adding Rec a couple years later, I think dumping Rec is a backwards move and a bad idea. The reason it was added as a points division eight years ago hasn't resolved itself...players that fit the criteria for the division still exist.

Rec is never going to be a division that has dozens and dozens of regular participants. However, it is still a viable and valuable competitive division whose participants shouldn't be overlooked. Not everyone who plays Rec moves on to another division, and even those that do don't all do so after just one or two events. A couple down years as far as finals qualifiers doesn't strike me as good enough reason to stop offering it as a points division. In fact, it seems to me that it's contradictory to relegate Rec to a non-points status for not having enough players (what exactly is "enough" anyway), and at the same time add a division (MG1) that isn't likely to get that much more, if it gets more at all in the way of attendance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with adding MG1. I just don't see why Rec has to go when they're quite similar divisions in terms of eligible players and likely attendance. It obviously isn't a concern as far as fitting all the divisions into any individual event since Rec still must be offered at all events. And it can't be a matter of processing results because it's automated (and adding another division to the database can't be much more than a few minutes of coding). So my conclusion is that it has to do with Finals and fitting players in there. If that's the case, then I think the better solution for all is to make Finals a two-day, split-field event or host it on multiple courses so that more than 90 total players can be accommodated. In fact, I don't see why NEFA wouldn't encourage more TDs, especially those that offer tournaments that fill to capacity annually, to utilize the two-day, split-field approach.

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:14 pm

Josh Connell wrote:
Trenton Solomon wrote:There was talk about eliminating Rec altogether and this ended up being a compromise. The thought was that Rec is just a stepping stone to other divisions and only had a handful of participants the past few years and most of the rec players didnt play in enough events to qualify for finals anyway.

Intermediate is just a stepping stone division, maybe we should get rid of that too. Hell, all amateur divisions are stepping stones, aren't they? Let's just go with one division for all.

As one of the people who drove the bus on adding Intermediate to the NEFA series way back when, as well as adding Rec a couple years later, I think dumping Rec is a backwards move and a bad idea. The reason it was added as a points division eight years ago hasn't resolved itself...players that fit the criteria for the division still exist.

Rec is never going to be a division that has dozens and dozens of regular participants. However, it is still a viable and valuable competitive division whose participants shouldn't be overlooked. Not everyone who plays Rec moves on to another division, and even those that do don't all do so after just one or two events. A couple down years as far as finals qualifiers doesn't strike me as good enough reason to stop offering it as a points division. In fact, it seems to me that it's contradictory to relegate Rec to a non-points status for not having enough players (what exactly is "enough" anyway), and at the same time add a division (MG1) that isn't likely to get that much more, if it gets more at all in the way of attendance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with adding MG1. I just don't see why Rec has to go when they're quite similar divisions in terms of eligible players and likely attendance. It obviously isn't a concern as far as fitting all the divisions into any individual event since Rec still must be offered at all events. And it can't be a matter of processing results because it's automated (and adding another division to the database can't be much more than a few minutes of coding). So my conclusion is that it has to do with Finals and fitting players in there. If that's the case, then I think the better solution for all is to make Finals a two-day, split-field event or host it on multiple courses so that more than 90 total players can be accommodated. In fact, I don't see why NEFA wouldn't encourage more TDs, especially those that offer tournaments that fill to capacity annually, to utilize the two-day, split-field approach.

Matt DeAngelis wrote:The thought was that adding Advanced Grandmasters benefited our current membership better than REC. With the addition of that division, there was talk of not wanting to force a TD to offer a total of 11 divisions. The discussion shifted to not wanting to completly get rid of the REC division and discourage people from joining the org. We settled on adding MG1 and requiring REC division to be offered by TDs. We never got back to the discussion that since we are going to require the REC division to be offered, why not leave the points tabulation in place, etc.

Josh Connell · Post by **Josh Connell** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:28 pm

Matt DeAngelis wrote:The thought was that adding Advanced Grandmasters benefited our current membership better than REC. With the addition of that division, there was talk of not wanting to force a TD to offer a total of 11 divisions. The discussion shifted to not wanting to completly get rid of the REC division and discourage people from joining the org. We settled on adding MG1 and requiring REC division to be offered by TDs. We never got back to the discussion that since we are going to require the REC division to be offered, why not leave the points tabulation in place, etc.

I'd say it's not too late to get back to that discussion. First event hasn't been played yet.

If the reason that dropping Rec was on the table in the first place was not wanting to force a TD to offer 11 divisions, and the ultimate decision was to force TDs to offer 11 divisions anyway, then I don't think it would compromise or greatly alter that decision to decide now to keep tabulating points for the Rec division. After all, until Monday night, everyone was operating under the belief that Rec was going to be a full points division. It would just be a 48 or 72 hour blip quickly forgotten.

NEFA did the require a division but don't tabulate points for it thing once before with Novice. It didn't last, mainly because no one saw the point of having to offer a division in which no one could earn anything. TDs didn't like it, players didn't bother with it. If the division is held, there might as well be points to go with it.

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:36 pm

Exactly. We will be discussing further. Might as well track the points since it is required anyway.

Heather Eng · Post by **Heather Eng** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 9:25 am

Josh Connell wrote:NEFA did the require a division but don't tabulate points for it thing once before with Novice. It didn't last, mainly because no one saw the point of having to offer a division in which no one could earn anything. TDs didn't like it, players didn't bother with it. If the division is held, there might as well be points to go with it.

hi josh- this never came up during our discussion. apparently we're reinventing the broken wheel. thanks for your input!

Titan Bariloni · Post by **Titan Bariloni** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:07 pm

first off..I gotta say Thank you to all the old timers who stepped up and supported the adv GM when offered..I told you players I would lobby till my last breath for that division(yeah I have small goals in life :lol:

) and now ya can compete in a fair division with your age group

Ok onto REC...this is competitive golf...is it not? Nefa and the nefa point series is 2 different things IMO...grow the series and grow DG is different in some way IMO.

So to get this series moving forward dropping the rec division isn't that bad of an idea...it by definition is not for "serious" golfers..its an AM division but the mentality should be for fun.exercise,casual.

I could also see it staying and if the issue is 11 divisions and not for reasons stated above then I guess its gotta be worked out...

question does PDGA require the REC division? If so and Nefa had adopted the must use PDGA payout structure I would then say we must offer the division...and if we are gonna offer it mine as well collect points

I would honestly say offer a Junior division and drop rec everyone else can still have a division to play in..the junior division would "grow the sport" IMO more then a REC divison

Jeff Wiechowski · Post by **Jeff Wiechowski** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:11 pm

Titan Bariloni wrote:question does PDGA require the REC division? If so and Nefa had adopted the must use PDGA payout structure I would then say we must offer the division...and if we are gonna offer it mine as well collect points

They require a TD to offer ALL divisions provided there's 3-4 people that want to compete in it.

Titan Bariloni wrote:I would honestly say offer a Junior division and drop rec everyone else can still have a division to play in..the junior division would "grow the sport" IMO more then a REC divison

Not neccessarly true. Plenty of newbys out there that are too old to qualify for a Junior division.

Titan Bariloni · Post by **Titan Bariloni** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:18 pm

Jeff Wiechowski wrote:
Titan Bariloni wrote:question does PDGA require the REC division? If so and Nefa had adopted the must use PDGA payout structure I would then say we must offer the division...and if we are gonna offer it mine as well collect points
They require a TD to offer ALL divisions provided there's 3-4 people that want to compete in it.

Titan Bariloni wrote:I would honestly say offer a Junior division and drop rec everyone else can still have a division to play in..the junior division would "grow the sport" IMO more then a REC divison

Not neccessarly true. Plenty of newbys out there that are too old to qualify for a Junior division.

they could play leagues,dubz series,am2,adv masters,adv GM(as I would think more skilled players would play pro GM & masters

its a competitive series and IMO REC is not defined by skill level rather mentality towards the sport..so why have a division that is not competitive by definition(shouldn't be anyways) ina competitive series? Vineyard a few back..guy in REC division shot HOT round I think..would cashed pro..why did he play REC that day? to play with his son...so why have that in a series? To grow the sport? go the events like the Special O,workdays,ect ect if ya wanna grow the sport..if ya wanna compete play in a non recreational division

edit also the main gripe I heard with new to sport older players while in rec division is they may be carded with a 14 year old ect ect and they would rather play with guys their similar age hence the adv GM

Jeff Wiechowski · Post by **Jeff Wiechowski** » Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:24 pm

What i was saying is that there's a bunch of 20-30somthings just learning the game. That's what the Rec division is for.

NEFA DISCussion

2012 Points Charter?

2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?

Re: 2012 Points Charter?