2015 NEFA Points Series Changes

[Matt DeAngelis]

General discussion thread regarding the upcoming seasons point series charter. If there are some things you want to see changed, please post them here for others to discuss. Will bring these up at the Q4 meeting.

[Matt DeAngelis]

You should be allowed to play in ONLY the highest division you qualify for. Oh yeah, and you also should not be allowed to collect season ending payouts for more than one division.

Can't wait to get this discussion going again.

Nothing in the rules stopping Mr Marcus from winning 5 tournies in Pro GM then Pro Master and then Pro Open, cleaning up with the ca$h from season payouts. Then if he plays Pro Open at finals and has a good day at Finals $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Wish I had the skills and was dedicated enough to practice maybe I could be that good.

[Matt DeAngelis]

Should NEFA point series charter be updated to prevent players from collecting season earnings in more than one division?

An example being:

A player competing in AM2, earning enough points to be eligible to collect season ending payout, then moving up to AM1 and do the same.

A player who qualifies for a protected division (Age/Gender), competes in that division (MPM) and earns enough points to be eligible to collect season ending payouts, then going to a non-protected division (MPO) and doing the same.

[Gary Cyr]

Do you get paid for the work that you are skilled in? I can see forcing someone to play in the highest division out of all divisions they qualify for at the Finals. But telling someone they can't play in mulitiple divisions for which they qualify for is rediculous. If you don't like it, beat him!

[Bill Bertera]

My thoughts:

Points Series: get paid in each division you "qualify" in.

Finals/NEDGC: If you qualify in more than 1 division, you must play in the higher division if you also "cashed" in that division in Points series. Or something that would encourage people to play up, but not penalize them for it. So, if you're tromp through AM2 in a month, and then move up and do respectable in AM1, you play AM1. But if you then decide to play 3-4 Pro tournies and get crushed (but still qualify), you can play AM1 at finals.

[Karl Molitoris]

Paul,

There are at least a couple of "flies in your ointment" (You should be allowed to play in ONLY the highest* division you qualify for) as:
1. Each person would have to declare - and keep heed to - only 1 'status'...either Pro or Am.
2. Each person who is qualified for Pro GM is ALSO qualified for Open. Thus EVERY Pro would HAVE to play Open (as they are all "qualified" for such).

I think you need to reconsider / revamp this idea (for it to work)....

Karl
*Assuming that "Pro" is deemed higher than "Am", which it may or may not be

[Karl Molitoris]

Bill,

Your thoughts are 'fine'...BUT the devil is in the details...and thus a VERY precise "demarcation" line would have to be drawn (for those playing in multiple divisions / statuses). If not, there WILL be 'debate' come next year's finals (as to who plays where, etc.).

Karl

[Bill Bertera]

Bill,

Your thoughts are 'fine'...BUT the devil is in the details...and thus a VERY precise "demarcation" line would have to be drawn (for those playing in multiple divisions / statuses). If not, there WILL be 'debate' come next year's finals (as to who plays where, etc.).

Karl

I agree, the best I could come up with as a clear cut-off would be using the Point series pay-out line as the cut-off. So if you won a payout for a division in the point series, then you have to play finals in that higher division. I'm sure someone will come up with a better way though, but I was trying to come up with someone that doesn't penalize people for playing up.

[Josh Connell]

I think the fallacy in the argument is that Masters/Grandmasters are supposed to be "lesser" divisions than Open. They're not. The dividing line between those three divisions is exclusively age, not skill. By playing Masters or Grandmasters, the only protection you should be afforded is from younger players, not more skilled players.

If a player is old enough to compete in multiple divisions and puts the time and effort into playing enough events to qualify in multiple divisions, they've earned whatever rewards they get.

[Paul Sullivan]

My opinion/thoughts...

Let me try and clarify how I feel.

If you are playing alot of AM1 tournies and placing at the top consistently. I don't have any problem if you don't "move up" to Pro anything because you want to keep AM status. However if you play AM1 and place at the top consistently, decide to play Pro GM and place at the top consistently and don' t move to Pro M or Pro Open then I feel that is wrong. Not wrong in the not right kind of way but wrong in the "moral" kind of way. Just because the rules allow it doesn't make it right/good??

If you are in Pro GM and you crush most players locally and you continue to play tournies and crush them then your just a sandbagging _______ . Sure I can practice and try and get better, blah blah blah, but that player is still a ______ .

That's why the MPT has so much more appeal to me, because they deal with all sandbaggers accordingly.

Not saying I'm right just saying the rules need to be changed because the current system stinks. Doesn't this topic come up year after year about this time? Glad I could be the one to kick the hornets nest this season

[Bill Bertera]

I think the fallacy in the argument is that Masters/Grandmasters are supposed to be "lesser" divisions than Open. They're not. The dividing line between those three divisions is exclusively age, not skill.

Then why does the PDGA have lower Suggested Minimum ratings the older you go through those age-protected divisions? And why is the rating max lower for Pros playing Am in older age-protected divisions? I think they are certainly designed to be "lesser", why have them otherwise?

[Josh Connell]

I think the fallacy in the argument is that Masters/Grandmasters are supposed to be "lesser" divisions than Open. They're not. The dividing line between those three divisions is exclusively age, not skill.

Then why does the PDGA have lower Suggested Minimum ratings the older you go through those age-protected divisions? And why is the rating max lower for Pros playing Am in older age-protected divisions? I think they are certainly designed to be "lesser", why have them otherwise?

There are no minimum ratings for any age protected division. Age is the only requirement. Suggestions are just that. They carry no actual weight.

In the case of maximum ratings for pros playing am, they're restricting just that...pros from playing an amateur division. But that's not what we're talking about here as far as I can tell. We're talking about a player being able to go from Open to Masters and/or Grandmasters as they desire, and potentially qualifying in two or all three divisions. There should absolutely no restrictions on a player doing this other than the player's age. If the player is old enough to play Masters and/or Grandmasters, they can play and no one can stop them or force them out. Ratings mean nothing in this discussion as these divisions are not skill based.

If a player wants protection from better players, they shouldn't be playing age-based divisions, they should be playing skill/ratings based divisions such as Intermediate, Rec, and Novice.

[Bill Bertera]

why do they exist then, if not to imply a lower level of skill? Simply to have fun with people your age?

[Josh Connell]

why do they exist then, if not to imply a lower level of skill? Simply to have fun with people your age?

Why do the divisions exist? For the latter reason, obviously.

If it were a matter of desiring a division specifically for lower skill levels, those divisions already exist...Advanced (protected from all pro players rated over 970), Intermediate (protected from all players rated over 935), Rec (protected from all players rated over 900), and Novice (protected from all players rated over 850). There's no reason that a 52 year old player rated 905 who wants to avoid being "bagged" by a 960 rated 51 year old can't play Intermediate just the same as a 35 year old 905-rated player gets to be protected from the 34 year old 960 rated player in the same division.

However, if the desire of that 52 year old is to play with other 50-somethings and only other 50-somethings, then a division that excludes anyone under 50 exists for that purpose. But it only excludes those under 50. If you're old enough, that's all that matters.

[Jeff Prendergast]

Should NEFA point series charter be updated to prevent players from collecting season earnings in more than one division?

Hells no. Definitely no change. Anyone saying yes should put down the grapes that they are eating, because they have gone sour.

The person has paid into each separate division at each separate tournament and should be paid out accordingly. Just imagine for a second that the ONE person that we are talking about was TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE instead. Those two different people would each get paid out if appropriate. What the difference if it's one person?

Fred the PRO plays in some tournies. Fred the GM (or Am or woman) plays in others. For each tourney, his $1 goes to NEFA for season payouts in whatever division he entered. But he's not allowed to collect season payout from divisions he paid into? Simply illogical.

In summary...I agree with Gary, Bill, and Josh.

[Mike Dussault]

Should NEFA point series charter be updated to prevent players from collecting season earnings in more than one division?

Hells no. Definitely no change. Anyone saying yes should put down the grapes that they are eating, because they have gone sour.

The person has paid into each separate division at each separate tournament and should be paid out accordingly. Just imagine for a second that the ONE person that we are talking about was TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE instead. Those two different people would each get paid out if appropriate. What the difference if it's one person?

Fred the PRO plays in some tournies. Fred the GM (or Am or woman) plays in others. For each tourney, his $1 goes to NEFA for season payouts in whatever division he entered. But he's not allowed to collect season payout from divisions he paid into? Simply illogical.

In summary...I agree with Gary, Bill, and Josh.

[b]Best argument I have heard for double dip payouts! Effectively changed my mind. [/b

[Dave Jackson]

make finals match play format again.

it's the kind of move nefa pts series needs.


Now that's a change many a player can get down with.

[James Lane]

Understood~

[Matt DeAngelis]

It's been discussed before and this is not the correct thread for it, but it boils down to the fact that NEFA is both a promotional org and a competitive org. I don't think NEFA would have been able to provide grants to fund your local course improvements if it were not for the membership, which is driven to join based on the competitive side of the organization.

Regarding changes for 2015 point series, I think a match play format would be cool. However, since it is not part of the same format that the players compete in during the whole season, it does have some flaws. In addition, how many people could participate in such an event? How many people would need to be involved with the management and running of a match play event of this size? I would love to see a mid-season event that sets this up and tries it out.

[Matt DeAngelis]

Something I want to see happen that others have brought up for suggestion in some form is a "win and get in" events. The idea being that you win an event and you get an automatic bid to compete at NEDGC. I don't like the idea of every event being this type of event and I also don't think any event would/should be considered for this type of event. My thoughts would be to make one event from each region/state their win and get in event. The event should be a top notch event, one that has pedigree, demonstrating a successful and popular event. One thing I would not want to see happen is a "win and get in" event with only two people competing in a given division.

Another thought I had was for a logo for this series of events. It would be the NEFA states logo with an exploded view of the state that the event was held in. The next event would have that state with an exploded view.

[Doug Callaghan]

a player receiving 100 points for being the only person in a tourney in a particular division is a change id like to see. Not sure the solution, maybe just reduce the points a person can receive if there is no competition in a division. I know its not the players fault and it feels like a penalty of some kind but players shouldnt get the maximum number of points a player can get if there are zero other players in a division.

[Karl Molitoris]

Just to again state the obvious (and that which was pointed out last / past years when this discussion comes up), one needs to very precisely determine and state "what the purpose of the points race is". Only then can a system be developed to accurately / validly determine its intended goal. If this is not done, there WILL be issues / problems / disgruntled people.

Karl

[will plein]

Maybe the points should be based on where the player is placed in the entire field
of play. Consideration for rec tees or different layouts.

[Trent Solomon]

Something I want to see happen that others have brought up for suggestion in some form is a "win and get in" events. The idea being that you win an event and you get an automatic bid to compete at NEDGC. I don't like the idea of every event being this type of event and I also don't think any event would/should be considered for this type of event. My thoughts would be to make one event from each region/state their win and get in event. The event should be a top notch event, one that has pedigree, demonstrating a successful and popular event. One thing I would not want to see happen is a "win and get in" event with only two people competing in a given division.

Another thought I had was for a logo for this series of events. It would be the NEFA states logo with an exploded view of the state that the event was held in. The next event would have that state with an exploded view.

You can do one of two things. Pick an event (like the 2X events) and that is the automatic qualifier for the state. Or you can say if you win a division of at least 20 people you are in.

[Ken Gary]

I would like to see this go back to all players (divisions) on one course on the same day. Only the top 72 make finals. Play Saturday. Some NEFA funds going to post-finals celebration. Optional fun for Sunday with all invited.

[Sean Franchi]

i like Ken's idea.