2009-10 New England TC Rules/Guidelines.

[J_Disc]

Regarding requirement to have the same number of players each round:

Personally, I don't want to require the same numbers each round because there are ligit cases where someone can only make one round. I'd rather see that person play than shut them out. In some cases, it could even make the difference as to whether a person can qualify for finals.

Many of our matches have had different numbers for first/second round, and we've never had a problem with it, but we also never had 2+ players intentionally benched. I do see the strategy in trying to change the points available points in the dubs round, but the spirit of the challenge is to equally weight the singles and doubles rounds.

My thought to address the numbers issue is to modify the way points are earned in doubles to better encourage the whole team's participation. For example, if we went to a doubles points system such as Finals where only the top 3 (or more) scores count, then captains would want to play as many teams as possible. You could even allow there to be an uneven number of dubs teams (e.g. 4 dubs teams vs 3 dubs teams) to encourage teams to bring the most players possible (pro, am, man or woman). A team that brings 12 players should have an advantage over a team that only brings 8, not penalized by having to sit 4 players. In such a case, there could only be 8 singles matches, but we can at least let everyone play in dubs. The approach does change the strategy a bit since captains would then want to stack teams as much as possible, but that's really only an option if you have the extra players.

If such an approach makes sense to others, then we would also need a fair way to assign the points earned in doubles. The key is to balance the points earned in doubles with the points earned in singles/match play. Assuming one team only had 6 players (so 6 points in singles and dubs), one option is to distribute points by finishing position: 1st = 3pts, 2nd = 2pts, 3rd = 1pts (Total = 6 pts). Another method would be to match up each team's best score with the lowest score winning 2 points. Then match 2nd best scores (2 pts), and finally 3rd best scores (2 pts). Ties would split the points (1 pt each).

I don't think we want to change the scoring for the last match, but throwing this idea out there. Let's consider this option for next year if nothing else.

[Steve Solbo]

I think the essence of the regular season is the match play aspect in both singles and doubles. Your doubles system removes that aspect. Grudge matches, etc... if that were the case, the most talented team would ALWAYS win, rather than for instance, Team A shoots 41 heads up against their opponent... keep them off the scoreboard eventhough, they shot the 42 which was second best. In your scenario the 42 by the losing team would still count correct? I personally don't like that, but that's just my opinion, matchups are a huge part of upsets in this league.

This system caters to the "overall" more talented team everytime, I'd truthfully like to find a way to go playoff system for finals, thus giving some of the lesser teams an actual chance.

[Jesse Carrieri]

Cran doesn't have a female that could have played Heather, how is that argument relevant?

Then why didn't you sit her? U sat her against burgess so she wouldn't have to compete against men.

good question....I like allowing female players to play in the league but think it should be strictly for playing other females. The gender issue causes extreme mismatches.

Whats so fun about extreme mismatches and easy wins.

[Joe Yaskis]

Thanks for answering my questions. I hope we have many more battles in the future.

I vote for Todd Lapham, oh wait it doesnt matter.

Lighten up people. Todd is doing great, just bored and I needed to get Solbo all heated.

[J_Disc]

I think the essence of the regular season is the match play aspect in both singles and doubles. Your doubles system removes that aspect...

Agreed -- the match play aspect of dubs is a good thing. It certainly can be a big equalizer for the underdog. My proposal above would keep the match play for singles but moves away from match play in doubles to address some of the issues raised. It's a trade off.

I also agree it would be nice to have match play in Finals, but that's really only possible if you go to a bracket/elimination system with the Finals being only 2 teams.

OK, I'm coming around to "same number of players". In other words, same number of points in singles and doubles -- doesn't need to be same players, just same number of points.

What I really hate about the current system is when the other team struggles to get players to show up and you end up with a 12 on 8 match and need to sit 4 players both rounds. We're all here to play. If the team with fewer players is also able to bench otherwise available players, that obviously makes the problem even worse. I agree that type of situation conflicts with the spirit of the team challenges and should not be allowed.

[Steven Dakai]

I agree

[Jesse Carrieri]

should the team with less players be forced to play a guy/girl combo against a guy/guy team?

Is it a bush league move to sit your female player to force this issue?

[Steve Solbo]

should the team with less players be forced to play a guy/girl combo against a guy/guy team?

Is it a bush league move to sit your female player to force this issue?

Is it bush league to turn down the offer from the other team to play their female and STILL sit your female and other male player?

Cuse that's what Burgess did, and don't act like Sarah couldn't play. I think Team Wick was using the "she was drunk" ruse as an excuse, and quite and inflammatory one to boot, I talked to Sarah at the end of the day and she said she would have gladly played... as a matter of fact.. I remember her approaching me, whilst I was sorting out groups with your entire group... and her calling out your team to play everyone...

I also remember quite the incriminating statements. As far as putting "strategy" over the "team challenge spirit". Please let me know if you'd like me to share.

[Jesse Carrieri]

what the hell is this team challenge spirit everyone keeps referencing?

I thought the rule was a min. of 6 players.....do we get bonus spirit points for playing over that number?

Do we lose spirit points for sitting players?

Does spirit mean to have fun?...or to win?

All I was trying to state was: this would never have been an issue had it not been forced upon us. We tried to take away Burgess's gender advantage by voting to sit players in our meeting. A decision had been made and we stuck to it despite all the confusion that followed.

If anyone finds my comment to be harsh...they are my comments and I do not intend on speaking for the teams behalf.

edit: as it turned out...our odds were better of forcing a tie by playing 5 teams and not six(maybe). Is this the strategy your hinting at Solbama?

[Steve Solbo]

what the hell is this team challenge spirit everyone keeps referencing?

I thought the rule was a min. of 6 players.....do we get bonus spirit points for playing over that number?

Do we lose spirit points for sitting players?

Does spirit mean to have fun?...or to win?

All I was trying to state was: this would never have been an issue had it not been forced upon us. We tried to take away Burgess's gender advantage by voting to sit players in our meeting. A decision had been made and we stuck to it despite all the confusion that followed.

If anyone finds my comment to be harsh...they are my comments and I do not intend on speaking for the teams behalf.

edit: as it turned out...our odds were better of forcing a tie by playing 5 teams and not six(maybe). Is this the strategy your hinting at Solbama?

maybe, we won dubs 8-2.. if you had paired up one of your better groups for a "guaranteed" win against our Male/Female matchup, simply could have taken one of your males from one of your really good groups, b/c our Male/Female group was set pretty much, our top 5 groups played. Our last group would have been a person from that 6th group and Sarah, regardless.

Never know man. It could have turned out different.. Never know.

[Jesse Carrieri]

thats the gamble....these challenges are full of them...whether I like em or not. I play more to have fun but have more fun if I win....anyone who is competitive will say the same. The gender issue has left a sour taste with this years challenges. We should start matching up by team rank or go back to drawing cards like the first couple seasons.

[Jay Bayer]

Question... can a player be on two teams if they are in different pools?
Not that i'm trying to do that im just curious.

[Steven Dakai]

I had thought of using the cards, but my team was ready to lynch me if we did.

Some thoughts for next year:

Every roster should have exactly the same number of players with challenge rosters due the day before the challenge.
If female players are there they should be matched up with each other for the singles round.
Guy/Girl doubles can play anyone in the dubs round.

The system is not bad as it is, it just needs some refinement.

[Chris Bolton]

i hate to stir the pot but it seems that the tully roster has more than 15 people on it

are we allowed more than 15 people on a roster but can only play 14+1 per round?

[Steven Dakai]

Thats the roster they submitted in the beginning. It has never been ruled on so they may have already used all of them. It would be tough to do anything about it now. Its not like they added a 994 player, they are just using locals.

Edit- the original post from Steve this year said no limit to roster changes and they are free. (That is how I remember it, could be mistaken)

[Steve Solbo]

i hate to stir the pot but it seems that the tully roster has more than 15 people on it

are we allowed more than 15 people on a roster but can only play 14+1 per round?

They were TOLD to trim down, I don't know if they did. They will only be using 12 per round if they make the A Pool Finals. Also, if they end up in the B Pool, I'll let you guys figure out what you want to do with their team.

[Derek Brazauskas]

i hate to stir the pot but it seems that the tully roster has more than 15 people on it

are we allowed more than 15 people on a roster but can only play 14+1 per round?

They were TOLD to trim down, I don't know if they did. They will only be using 12 per round if they make the A Pool Finals. Also, if they end up in the B Pool, I'll let you guys figure out what you want to do with their team.

who did you tell to trim down??

[Titan Bariloni]

i hate to stir the pot but it seems that the tully roster has more than 15 people on it

are we allowed more than 15 people on a roster but can only play 14+1 per round?

They were TOLD to trim down, I don't know if they did. They will only be using 12 per round if they make the A Pool Finals. Also, if they end up in the B Pool, I'll let you guys figure out what you want to do with their team.

who did you tell to trim down??

Bob's Mom the woman is huge

[Titan Bariloni]

3 week break....feels good to be back

[Steve Solbo]

i hate to stir the pot but it seems that the tully roster has more than 15 people on it

are we allowed more than 15 people on a roster but can only play 14+1 per round?

They were TOLD to trim down, I don't know if they did. They will only be using 12 per round if they make the A Pool Finals. Also, if they end up in the B Pool, I'll let you guys figure out what you want to do with their team.

who did you tell to trim down??

http://forums.nefa.com/viewtopic.php?t=5560&start=0

post #7

dont know if that's clear enough.. but it should have been. only 14+1 will be eligible for finals.

[Paul Sullivan]

Isn't it a little funny......anytime that someone starts a post with " I hate to stir the pot" normally that's exactly what they are doing and they know it. People should start those posts with something like " I hate to sound like I'm crying or I hate to look like a dick" but ..... u r

Not a personal attack on anyone, just my opinion.

[Titan Bariloni]

so argue all week about to few of players at challenges...now lets argue that teams have to many players

make up our minds for us

we should be commended for a first year team that has had a full squad with bench players and helpers at every challenge

[Steve Solbo]

so argue all week about to few of players at challenges...now lets argue that teams have to many players

make up our minds for us

we should be commended for a first year team that has had a full squad with bench players and helpers at every challenge

before the season this post was made, also your the only roster oversized.

I frankly dont care what size your roster is, if you have 16, at finals, you'll only be using 12 per round, so. if you bring 16, you'll be sitting 3 per round anyways.

Marcy will play both rounds.

[Titan Bariloni]

oh hell we even had a caddy that has been to every challenge and big team scrim just for a chance at making the team next year!

[Steve Solbo]

oh hell we even had a caddy that has been to every challenge and big team scrim just for a chance at making the team next year!

good for you guys.

[Titan Bariloni]

Marcy will play both rounds.

oh yeah we have 2 ladies as well

1 is down with a broken wrist from a winter golf day gone bad

get well soon Sunni

[Steve Solbo]

Marcy will play both rounds.

oh yeah we have 2 ladies as well

1 is down with a broken wrist from a winter golf day gone bad

get well soon Sunni

so you really have a 17 person roster.

shes not listed on the list turned in, and I was never clued in to that.

[Derek Brazauskas]

When we play a match do we use 16 or 17??? For awhile now all the bickering was about teams not useing enough peope or not using a woman...And now the head hunters are out for teams using to much???..70% of our team is sub 900. We don't even have a pro open player, for that matter we have one pro grandmaster..The rest all am's and most am 2... I think this is getting out of control...Count as many as you like we will make as many roster changes as needed..Everyone on our team will have the three challenges under their belts.. So if we do make finals and we only can bring 12 they will be qualified...

Or disqaulify us in all our matches so we don't have to hear anymore bickering..Then figure out the standings...we would have never won a match if we had to have 14+1....what a joke!!!

[Titan Bariloni]

yes 17 and all will have played 3 challenges and yes we know about finals people will be sitting or actually people will be helping out.

It has been nice having a big roster allows us to run food smoothly, video tape, ect ect

[Steve Solbo]

When we play a match do we use 16 or 17??? For awhile now all the bickering was about teams not useing enough peope or not using a woman...And now the head hunters are out for teams using to much???..70% of our team is sub 900. We don't even have a pro open player, for that matter we have one pro grandmaster..The rest all am's and most am 2... I think this is getting out of control...Count as many as you like we will make as many roster changes as needed..Everyone on our team will have the three challenges under their belts.. So if we do make finals and we only can bring 12 they will be qualified...

Or disqaulify us in all our matches so we don't have to hear anymore bickering..Then figure out the standings...we would have never won a match if we had to have 14+1....what a joke!!!

You'll be playing 12 per round, you can bring all 16, I dont care. You're the ones that will have to switch people in and out.

Rules are there for a reason.. to be followed. We asked to trim down one person, regardless if your sub 900 or all 1000 rated. The rule at the beginning of the season was 14 open spots and 1 woman.