2010-11 Team Challenge Rules/Guidelines

[Steven Dakai]

Neutral site...hmmm. I would think that having a host team would be a good idea. Last year at Crane was a good time, but a little disorganized.
If we allow the top team to host (B pool, relax Solbo) then we can have someone to blame if lunch is cold.

[Steve Solbo]

Neutral site...hmmm. I would think that having a host team would be a good idea. Last year at Crane was a good time, but a little disorganized.
If we allow the top team to host (B pool, relax Solbo) then we can have someone to blame if lunch is cold.

Don't care what you guys do.

[Eric Kevorkian]

Neutral site...hmmm. I would think that having a host team would be a good idea. Last year at Crane was a good time, but a little disorganized.
If we allow the top team to host (B pool, relax Solbo) then we can have someone to blame if lunch is cold.

No offense, but it seemed like everything that happened at the end of the year in the "B" pool was a mess.

Things can still be organized w/o a "host". (See A-pool Finals last year)

[Titan Bariloni]

well this one "big league" kinda left us B poolers on our own last year...well except for telling us where the $$ goes

Thanks to TRB and a few others for stepping up...!

I actually say MAKE the LAST place team decide and HOST..kinda punishment dealing with the logistics for being the worst

Send the MONEY to them and let them host..!

[Dave Hickson]

How about B pool finals at Buff? I will do all I can to be a host but would need a little help as this is my first year doing team challenges.

[Sean Curcio]

Neutral site...hmmm. I would think that having a host team would be a good idea. Last year at Crane was a good time, but a little disorganized.
If we allow the top team to host (B pool, relax Solbo) then we can have someone to blame if lunch is cold.

Don't care what you guys do.

You (and everyone else in the A pool) have made that quite obvious...

[Steve Solbo]

Neutral site...hmmm. I would think that having a host team would be a good idea. Last year at Crane was a good time, but a little disorganized.
If we allow the top team to host (B pool, relax Solbo) then we can have someone to blame if lunch is cold.

Don't care what you guys do.

You (and everyone else in the A pool) have made that quite obvious...

All I did was answer Kory's question, then Dakai had to bring me back into the conversation.

Other than that, you guys can play on the moon for christsakes. I don't care, I won't be there.

[Sean Curcio]

just bustin balls, Solbo. no need to get defensive

[Matt Stroika]

I actually say MAKE the LAST place team decide and HOST..kinda punishment dealing with the logistics for being the worst

Send the MONEY to them and let them host..!

Thats a really good idea, but I think there could be a situation where the ball was dropped. What then?

[Mike Dussault]

Borderland will host.... If we are in B pool.

Of course we will have to host at a neutral site due to booze issues at Bland.

[Mike Murphy]

I actually say MAKE the LAST place team decide and HOST..kinda punishment dealing with the logistics for being the worst

Send the MONEY to them and let them host..!

Thats a really good idea, but I think there could be a situation where the ball was dropped. What then?

I like the concept but I dont see a last place team being motivated enough to organize an event like this, but thats just my opinion.

[Matt Stroika]

I actually say MAKE the LAST place team decide and HOST..kinda punishment dealing with the logistics for being the worst

Send the MONEY to them and let them host..!

Thats a really good idea, but I think there could be a situation where the ball was dropped. What then?

I like the concept but I dont see a last place team being motivated enough to organize an event like this, but thats just my opinion.

Same thing that I was thinking Mike. It would work if the teams knew that this was a requirement if they finished last. You could not implement it now. If they did not fill thier obligation, you would kick them out of the league.

[Marielle Mallar]

I haven't seen anything related to the plans for women at the finals. From what I've seen of the format for the finals the majority (if not all teams) will not be able to field their full teams (i.e. only 12-14 players will get to play). That in turn would likely mean many of the women would not get to play in the finals.


I would like to propose the following for including the women in the finals:

* All teams will have a woman compete in the singles round at the finals
* Teams will need to count one woman's score for singles
* If a team doesn't have a woman present at finals they will automatically get the highest woman's round + 1
* Any team that has a woman who DNF's will get the highest woman's round + 5
* Women that play for teams in the finals must have played at least 2 rounds for their team during the year (possibly only one round since this is being discussed later in the season)



Since all teams now have at least one woman required on their roster, I think this would be a good way to ensure that the women are included in the finals...


This all being said, I do realize AND appreciate that the women are being treated as a "regular" member of the team challenge, but I like the idea of encouraging all teams to include their woman(women).


thanks
Marielle

[Eric Kevorkian]

Good points Marielle.

Why penalize the women that actually show up if they DNF though??? There could be legitimate reasons for the DNF, so to penalize them the worst score +5 strokes seems harsh. I could see penalizing a team NOT bringing a woman AT ALL the worst score +5, and penalize a DNF +1 (if that's even necessary).

[Bobby Cowperthwait]

Personally I think the best 10 scores count, men or women.
Thats the only fair way to do it.

my .02

[Tyler Cass]

Good points Marielle.

Why penalize the women that actually show up if they DNF though??? There could be legitimate reasons for the DNF, so to penalize them the worst score +5 strokes seems harsh. I could see penalizing a team NOT bringing a woman AT ALL the worst score +5, and penalize a DNF +1 (if that's even necessary).

bobbyc wrote:
Personally I think the best 10 scores count, men or women.
Thats the only fair way to do it.

my .02


I hear that... Put the best team together you got and play it out.

That being said, it became a rule this year for team to have a woman player. Why even make this a rule if the womans role if the finals is more or less meaningless in terms of how it affects the outcome. Makes no sense.

I would have to agree that there should be some format within the finals to allow the performance of each team's woman player to count for something that is outcome orientated.

We need to find a way to make this happen or abondon the requirement IMHO.

[Mike Dussault]

I like Marielle's ideas, well except for the DNF = worst +5!!!

Hmmmm, I could pull a Tanya Harding on her arse though...

[Todd Lapham]

Ideally we should play at a course or courses that allow every member of the team to play and then this is a non issue.

I'd like to see a list of courses that are either:

-Big enough to accommodate everyone
-Has another course close enough to play both

If we come up with a list, then the top team can pick from that list and everyone can play every year. I know it's tough to tell people to sit and I'd like to see every team duke it out with their full squad.

The woman issue is tough. I do like the fact that they are included in the TC, but as Tyler said their role at finals is essentially meaningless and if they sit both rounds it really sucks for them.

I'd also like to set up womens only CTPs and hot score bounties or something, so even if their score doesn't count, they still have something to play for.

[Matt Stroika]

Good points Marielle.

Why penalize the women that actually show up if they DNF though??? There could be legitimate reasons for the DNF, so to penalize them the worst score +5 strokes seems harsh. I could see penalizing a team NOT bringing a woman AT ALL the worst score +5, and penalize a DNF +1 (if that's even necessary).

With only one woman on the team there are also legitimate reasons why 100% of the women on the team might not show up to finals. I don't think your team would like it if you had a good reason to miss finals and were penalized for it.

I have no vote but would urge my captain to vote NO on this proposal.

[Marielle Mallar]

I agree it would be less of an issue if the teams could have all their players play at the finals, BUT if we have space AND all teams have a woman then why not have the women compete against each other and include their scores?

Maybe a points system would work better, instead of using the women’s actual scores, let us earn points for our team.

Top Woman Score – 1 point added to team total
2nd woman score – 2 points added to team total
3 – 3 points
4 – 4 points
Etc..
Teams without a woman at the finals - 8 points added.

This would alleviate the problem of the DNF (which I only suggested originally to discourage women who might be playing poorly from stopping just so they could get a better score – although I doubt any of the women would do that…)

This would also alleviate the problem of the potential disparity between women’s scores.

Teams have roughly 3 months and at least 2 challenges between now and the finals. If we only require the women to play ONE (?) challenge with their team to compete in the finals, and I *think* teams can have unlimited women subs – this should be way more than enough notice to allow every team to have a woman present at the finals…

[Titan Bariloni]

good discussion

I would think from now until Finals Teams could make sure they have a woman....heck even 2...if they both show up..just play them 1 each round....

A question I had awhile back..not sure if it was answered...are teams allowed to swap out their girl for another girl...and not count as roster move..?

I like the idea of girl having to play at least 1 event....how is that set up Todd...is it 3,1, or none to be able to compete in Finals..?

great idea..about the women only ctp..and hot round...

[Matt Stroika]

I agree it would be less of an issue if the teams could have all their players play at the finals, BUT if we have space AND all teams have a woman then why not have the women compete against each other and include their scores?

Maybe a points system would work better, instead of using the women’s actual scores, let us earn points for our team.

Top Woman Score – 1 point added to team total
2nd woman score – 2 points added to team total
3 – 3 points
4 – 4 points
Etc..
Teams without a woman at the finals - 8 points added.

This would alleviate the problem of the DNF (which I only suggested originally to discourage women who might be playing poorly from stopping just so they could get a better score – although I doubt any of the women would do that…)

This would also alleviate the problem of the potential disparity between women’s scores.

Teams have roughly 3 months and at least 2 challenges between now and the finals. If we only require the women to play ONE (?) challenge with their team to compete in the finals, and I *think* teams can have unlimited women subs – this should be way more than enough notice to allow every team to have a woman present at the finals…

Now you are on to something. The points could be tweeked to have more or less overall impact as well.

[Shawn Mullen]

Woman are part of the team just like every other player all season long. There shouldn't be anything different at finals.

[Todd Lapham]

Great idea Marielle, that got the old wheel spinning.

Titan, the girls spot is an open spot. Girls can be rotated without counting as a roster move.

Most teams have girls that have already played atleast one event.

[Titan Bariloni]

Titan, the girls spot is an open spot. Girls can be rotated without counting as a roster move.

TY

Then this

Woman are part of the team just like every other player all season long. There shouldn't be anything different at finals

statement holds no weight.....I see the theory behind it...in all reality they are different though....(in many ways)

its gonna be a tough call for Todd...Good luck with whatever is decided....

[Todd Lapham]

What Shawn means is the girl is treated/scored just like any other player during the year.

The reason for the rotating spot is to try and get girl on girl action ( ) at every challenge to avoid a girl sitting out or being sacrificed.

[Matt Stroika]

I am just guessing here but I bet they would rather be referred to as women than as girls. Just saying.

[Titan Bariloni]

I am just guessing here but I bet they would rather be referred to as women than as girls. Just saying.

I don't spend my life trying to be politically correct or wasting time on semantics

girl/woman/female
boy/man/male

then you have people who think they are a boy but really a girl and vice versa....

you have people who are both....

then you have eunuchs

see the slippery slope when you start trying to be politically correct..it never ends...

I think your the only Woman that took offense..!

Last time I crushed Huson she almost cried like a lil skool gurl.... ..how is that for treating team members the same..!

edit..we get rid of the grammar police..now they have converted to the "politically correct police"

[Titan Bariloni]

...actually it was me who almost cried when she crushed me at Nefa Finals..

[Steven Dakai]

We decided that the female matches at TC would be referred to as girl on girl action. It just sounds better.

I say poll the ladies and get there input. Its their fate that is decided, they should have the most to say about it.