1 pt penalty singles for dubs - i like what John said about an open spot - 1 male (not cali) vs coed team Finals - no female qualified? -worst female score +1
This is almost the same as have the two point penalty. It would be very hard to have anyone play straight up singles and beat a doubles team (no matter what the gender is of the dubz teams)
I look at things this way. If I told Matt Serp on my team that if he couldn't make a match we would penalized for it that would not be fair. It is not the best thing to put a lot of pressure on one person on the team
yes a compromise is the best....which is why i suggested the 1 point for singles....i feel that we need some more creative ideas for what to do for dubz. Have we asked any of the ladies who play?
I was talking with my team and a good suggestion came up for singles. Yes if a female player is there is the match is uncontested she gets the point, but she should still play a match play match. She gets the win regardless of the outcome, but she should at least play a round with everyone. I thought this was a good idea and wanted to share it
Chris Bolton wrote:I was talking with my team and a good suggestion came up for singles. Yes if a female player is there is the match is uncontested she gets the point, but she should still play a match play match. She gets the win regardless of the outcome, but she should at least play a round with everyone. I thought this was a good idea and wanted to share it
If she gets the win regardless of the outcome I see no reason for that to be necessary. Plus teams without a girl could throw their weakest player against the girl of the opposing team because it's already a guaranteed loss. I don't like it.
It all depends on the individuals involved, but I disagree single guy versus coed is (almost) the same as a 2 point penalty.
Such Dubz matches would still be worth 2 points, so a team with no woman would be inclined to put up one their best players. It's an opportunity for a single player to earn two points.
The team with the woman would recognize their advantage and likely NOT use one of their top male player(s), but save them for other match-ups.
As a result, I think the match-up would still be close. It would certainly impact the match-ups.
Just within our team, I think our top player versus an AM/Woman team would be a close match and fun to watch. I'd probably bet on the top-tier Pro.
I'm still open to other ideas, but I think this approach works.
Chris Bolton wrote:I was talking with my team and a good suggestion came up for singles. Yes if a female player is there is the match is uncontested she gets the point, but she should still play a match play match. She gets the win regardless of the outcome, but she should at least play a round with everyone. I thought this was a good idea and wanted to share it
If she gets the win regardless of the outcome I see no reason for that to be necessary. Plus teams without a girl could throw their weakest player against the girl of the opposing team because it's already a guaranteed loss. I don't like it.
Thinking aloud here - if she wins that match anyway - maybe she earns another point?
All of the suggestions here have merit. The last thing that I want to do is to stop the flow of ideas.
I do have a question. How will these solutions get us closer to having a female player on every team?
It seems that if a team has a girl that cannot come they will get penalized as much as a team that never had a girl on the roster.
The penalty should be restricted to teams that don 't follow the requirement of having a female roster spot and getting at least one girl qualified for finals. Not teams that may not have their entire roster at every challenge.
I don't think there should be a penalty for not bringing a girl to every challenge as there's already a 5 stroke penalty for not getting one qualified for finals. It's not really fair that the girl should have to go to all 5 challenges, when everyone else only needs to go to 3.
It's not worst womans score +5, it's just 5 strokes added to the total.
I thought we were going with Match play in Finals this year, so the "+5 strokes" doesn't work. I sent Todd a PM and he is going to post some type of correction.
For anyone that doesn't want to penalize a team that has a woman (but she didn't show), look at it the other way. The team that actually brought their woman is now at a disadvantage -- effectively penalized. If our woman shows up, she's going to get to play, and now needs to play a guy. There may be some very good women in this league, but I'm sorry, most women just don't match up very well against the guys in the league -- especially on a long course.
I know at least 1 team is struggling to find a woman, but just putting a woman our your roster that never shows cannot be a solution.
Teams will need to schedule their matches to ensure their woman is available. Or better yet, get 2 women on your team. We had 2 women on our team last year -- and have 2 this year. If they both show up to a challenge, they will both will get to play (at least 1 round). I would love to see a doubles round that has woman/woman versus woman/woman. I predict it happens this year.
Dave Hickson wrote:So now that the top 2 b pool teams move up next year. I we taking the 2 best records of the season or are we changing it to the top 2 at finals?
I think it should be top two during the season. $.02
We already went over this. From the B Pools finals thread:
Todd Lapham wrote:For the B Pool I'm leaning towards the half and half makes the most sense. I propose:
Top team picks finals location for the top 6 and it can't be anyone's home course. Top 2 that day move up to A pool next year.
Bottom half go to Hylands, because that place is awesome.
Let's hear thoughts/opinions.
Thanks.
Buff, Panthorn, West T, B2 all said they agreed. Kelly even posted right after and alluded to agreeing.
Kelly Conroy wrote:
Todd Lapham wrote:For the B Pool I'm leaning towards the half and half makes the most sense. I propose:
Top team picks finals location for the top 6 and it can't be anyone's home course. Top 2 that day move up to A pool next year.
Bottom half go to Hylands, because that place is awesome.
Let's hear thoughts/opinions.
Thanks.
All money to be distributed to the top 6. If you don't make it to the top half, too bad. Noho is bringing up the rear every year and we usually don't deserve to make it to finals. We will try to do better next year. Enough of this kid glove mentality.
If the bottom 6 want to get together, that's their business.
I'd wager them beating West T has him leaning more towards having it just regular season...
There were no "no" votes and since the season has started we kind of have to stick with this I think.
Todd Lapham wrote:We already went over this. From the B Pools finals thread:
Todd Lapham wrote:For the B Pool I'm leaning towards the half and half makes the most sense. I propose:
Top team picks finals location for the top 6 and it can't be anyone's home course. Top 2 that day move up to A pool next year.
Bottom half go to Hylands, because that place is awesome.
Let's hear thoughts/opinions.
Thanks.
Buff, Panthorn, West T, B2 all said they agreed. Kelly even posted right after and alluded to agreeing.
Kelly Conroy wrote:
Todd Lapham wrote:For the B Pool I'm leaning towards the half and half makes the most sense. I propose:
Top team picks finals location for the top 6 and it can't be anyone's home course. Top 2 that day move up to A pool next year.
Bottom half go to Hylands, because that place is awesome.
Let's hear thoughts/opinions.
Thanks.
All money to be distributed to the top 6. If you don't make it to the top half, too bad. Noho is bringing up the rear every year and we usually don't deserve to make it to finals. We will try to do better next year. Enough of this kid glove mentality.
If the bottom 6 want to get together, that's their business.
I'd wager them beating West T has him leaning more towards having it just regular season...
There were no "no" votes and since the season has started we kind of have to stick with this I think.
How would us winning affect my original point? My original and current point still remains...make the regular season mean something.
Todd Lapham wrote:We already went over this. From the B Pools finals thread:
Todd Lapham wrote:For the B Pool I'm leaning towards the half and half makes the most sense. I propose:
Top team picks finals location for the top 6 and it can't be anyone's home course. Top 2 that day move up to A pool next year.
Bottom half go to Hylands, because that place is awesome.
Let's hear thoughts/opinions.
Thanks.
Buff, Panthorn, West T, B2 all said they agreed. Kelly even posted right after and alluded to agreeing.
Kelly Conroy wrote:
Todd Lapham wrote:For the B Pool I'm leaning towards the half and half makes the most sense. I propose:
Top team picks finals location for the top 6 and it can't be anyone's home course. Top 2 that day move up to A pool next year.
Bottom half go to Hylands, because that place is awesome.
Let's hear thoughts/opinions.
Thanks.
All money to be distributed to the top 6. If you don't make it to the top half, too bad. Noho is bringing up the rear every year and we usually don't deserve to make it to finals. We will try to do better next year. Enough of this kid glove mentality.
If the bottom 6 want to get together, that's their business.
I'd wager them beating West T has him leaning more towards having it just regular season...
There were no "no" votes and since the season has started we kind of have to stick with this I think.
Kelly Conroy wrote: How would us winning affect my original point? My original and current point still remains...make the regular season mean something.
You are now saying that it should be top 2 teams after the regular season. You just beat your hardest opponent (on paper atleast), hence it's easier for you to finish top 2 if it's just the regular season. You won't have to play West T again, not to mention not having to play Pleasant Hill or Maple Hill...
The regular season should mean something and I agree with you on that, and it does. Play well and make the finals.
Now let's have finals mean something and play for the A Pool spots.
Kelly Conroy wrote: How would us winning affect my original point? My original and current point still remains...make the regular season mean something.
You are now saying that it should be top 2 teams after the regular season. You just beat your hardest opponent (on paper atleast), hence it's easier for you to finish top 2 if it's just the regular season. You won't have to play West T again, not to mention not having to play Pleasant Hill or Maple Hill...
The regular season should mean something and I agree with you on that, and it does. Play well and make the finals.
Now let's have finals mean something and play for the A Pool spots.
Honestly Todd, if you knew me, you would know that I have no interest in making it to the A pool.
Just trying to help out 
