2011/12 Rules/Guidelines

[Matt Buono]

Here is what u do. Captians who are tied call each other start a thread here whatever. Here is the big thing , u both or all of u make a compromise and mutually decided a location. Don't make it so hard. This is the rule in place now. If u want change rally for it the off season. Or take a bigger role in running the league if u do have ways to
Improve it. Can't speak for Todd but I can imagine he may want a
Break form running it or help with it.

[Kelly Conroy]

We should predetermine where each finals is going to be before the season starts...like the NFL does for the Super Bowl. Rotate the locations each year so every area will eventually have a shot at hosting.

Saying it again for next year to avoid the conversation in the current. As far as this year, play at Borderland if it comes up.

[Daniel Mack]

We should predetermine where each finals is going to be before the season starts...like the NFL does for the Super Bowl. Rotate the locations each year so every area will eventually have a shot at hosting.

Saying it again for next year to avoid the conversation in the current. As far as this year, play at Borderland if it comes up.

Nope. The issue is the tiebreaker for who picks finals location. The fact that one of the teams will pick it is a rule that is already in place. It's either going to be in Maine, or it's going to be picked by TT. Nice try Kelly.

[Kelly Conroy]

We should predetermine where each finals is going to be before the season starts...like the NFL does for the Super Bowl. Rotate the locations each year so every area will eventually have a shot at hosting.

Saying it again for next year to avoid the conversation in the current. As far as this year, play at Borderland if it comes up.

Nope. The issue is the tiebreaker for who picks finals location. The fact that one of the teams will pick it is a rule that is already in place. It's either going to be in Maine, or it's going to be picked by TT. Nice try Kelly.

I know what the issue is Dmack. Don't talk to me like I am five. My suggestion is finals locations for both pools being determined before the season begins...starting next year. As far as the "Tiebreaker" in determining where we play THIS YEAR...play at Borderland if you need to.

[Daniel Mack]

I'm am talking about this year. There's nothing wrong with the top team in either pool picking the location, it makes sense. The only thing that needs to be changed for next year is a clarification in the current tiebreaker rule.

As a side note, Borderland is a great course and is in a good location. However, Borderland is a terrible choice unless they shut down the park. We played there this year and there were about 60 casuals on the course during our challenge. Roughly a 5 minute wait on almost every hole. In talking with some of the Borderland guys during our challenge they said this is normal as it is a very popular park that always has a ton of traffic. And being that they already have tournaments there during the spring and summer, they can't shut the park down for any more events.

Todd - If you want help for next year I'd be happy to help out with some ideas, and putting pen to paper to iron out some of the things that need minor tweaking. I know you don't get paid for this and it's time consuming, I'm sure you must dedicate a lot of time as it is. You've do a great job, and I'd be glad to donate some time and ideas for next year.

[Pete Violet]

You shouldn't have that problem playing borderland in march.... we played you on a beautiful day in october. Then again .... please dont come and crowd our course

[Steven Dakai]

Borderland is a non starter for the fall down drunks on my team. How about Hylands? Pyramids? Maple Hill? Flatrock? Its supposed to be fun,jail is not fun.

[Todd Lapham]

You guys do realize that even if we lose there could still be a tiebreaker issue, and it may involve MORE than just our 2 teams? It could happen with 4 teams. Todd, you keep saying "play for it" like it's the simple answer. If the captains can't agree and we "play for it," a location and a date still has to be agreed upon for when we "play for it." This is not a solution, the logic is going around in circles, don't you get it? Regardless of what the rule is next year, we still have to deal with this year. We're not playing an entire extra match to decide a tiebreaker. What if 3 teams were tied and hadn't played each other? Then what? Play for it still? We need a rule. You seem like a pretty bright guy, there's no way you aren't grasping this. What do you have against a tiebreaker rule that works and covers everything?

I don't see the big deal about playing for it or picking a central location, but I do see what your'e saying. What rule would there be that covers everything?

Point differential? People would be crying that it's not fair because they brought their full team, but their opponents always had less numbers making less points on the table.

Strength of schedule? People would be crying that it's not their fault they had an easier schedule or that NoHo only beat West T because West T didn't have their top 4 players and that skewed the winning percentage of opponents.

There is no simple answer, out of 300+ people, there will always be some issue that someone has a problem with.

You do realize that the top 2 teams could just agree on a course to have finals at, they don't necessarily have to break the tie. I think this would be a non issue if it didn't involve a Maine team and the possibility of going there, it's what these are always about. If you were tied with West T, you wouldn't care about the tie breaker or have a problem playing for it. You're both going to pick Wick anyway so it wouldn't matter.

[Todd Lapham]

What incentive does this give the bottom two A pool teams to attend finals?

My question has been lost among the precocious B-Pooler banter. If the bottom 2 A pool teams are already going to the B-Pool after the regular season, why would they even show up to finals? Doesn't this ruin it for the 5th and 6th seeds? Am I missing something here?

I think I see your point. Why not just tell 7 and 8 to have a seat and let 1-6 play a pool style finals? Gives 5 and 6 a chance to compete with 1-4.

It was unanimously voted on the B pool not moving up until the next year, so that meant that there would be no room for the bottom two A pool teams to play in B pool finals.

It was also voted on trying match play for the A Pool finals, which involved 4 teams. So, it's either 5-8 don't have a finals, or they play each other. There will probably be a prize for winning the finals, but that will be discussed.

I don't know many people that need an incentive to have a good time.

[Steven Dakai]

Todd, a suggestion: We should have a captains area to work this stuff out, then the teams could be notified of decisions by their captain. That would probably make your job easier.

[Kelly Conroy]

You guys do realize that even if we lose there could still be a tiebreaker issue, and it may involve MORE than just our 2 teams? It could happen with 4 teams. Todd, you keep saying "play for it" like it's the simple answer. If the captains can't agree and we "play for it," a location and a date still has to be agreed upon for when we "play for it." This is not a solution, the logic is going around in circles, don't you get it? Regardless of what the rule is next year, we still have to deal with this year. We're not playing an entire extra match to decide a tiebreaker. What if 3 teams were tied and hadn't played each other? Then what? Play for it still? We need a rule. You seem like a pretty bright guy, there's no way you aren't grasping this. What do you have against a tiebreaker rule that works and covers everything?

I don't see the big deal about playing for it or picking a central location, but I do see what your'e saying. What rule would there be that covers everything?

Point differential? People would be crying that it's not fair because they brought their full team, but their opponents always had less numbers making less points on the table.

Strength of schedule? People would be crying that it's not their fault they had an easier schedule or that NoHo only beat West T because West T didn't have their top 4 players and that skewed the winning percentage of opponents.

There is no simple answer, out of 300+ people, there will always be some issue that someone has a problem with.

You do realize that the top 2 teams could just agree on a course to have finals at, they don't necessarily have to break the tie. I think this would be a non issue if it didn't involve a Maine team and the possibility of going there, it's what these are always about. If you were tied with West T, you wouldn't care about the tie breaker or have a problem playing for it. You're both going to pick Wick anyway so it wouldn't matter.

That better be a hypothetical example. We earned it!

Results
Harpo over Cheef NOHO
Chauvin over Tim WT
Andy over Corey NOHO
Chris over Sroka NOHO
Kelly over Donny NOHO
Kaz over Isaac WT
Juano Over Aucoin NOHO
Leslie over Nicky NOHO
J Johnson over AJ NOHO
Valis over Joe WT
JeffE over Jake WT
Wil over Steve NOHO
Josh over Rob NOHO
NOHO up 9-4

Kelly/Isaac over Donny/AJ NOHO
JJ/Josh over Matt/Corey NOHO
Kaz/Emma over Joe/Jake WT
Aucoin/Shrum over Juano/Tim WT
Andy/Chris over Chauvin/Valis NOHO
Steve/Steve over Wil/Harpo WT
Rob over Dave (single) WT
West T up 7-6

Final Noho 15, West T 11

[Steven Dakai]

Thats right they did.

[Jason Toothy]

If we get the pick of finals location, we will choose the course in Caribou, Me. Very challenging course.

[Mike Dussault]

If we get the pick of finals location, we will choose the course in Caribou, Me. Very challenging course.

The real challenge will be getting anyone there to play it!

[Jason Toothy]

Yeah that was a joke. now the nice thing about people from maine is that we are very accommodating and fair (with some notable exceptions). We would be 100 percent willing to play a course outside of maine.

Having said that, we still have to beat the damn hell team on the road and then maple hill at home. Lets put this discussion to rest--in terms of its implications for this season and deal with tiebreakers as a rules issue in the offseason-- and focus on the good competition that lies ahead in the remaining 40% of the season for both teams.

[Titan Bariloni]

good idea about pre set location for sure prob be better for logistics anyways.

so bottom 2 A poolers can chill and not play any finals?...if so that is cool (no sarcasm)

and do all the b Pool teams play Finals(i would doubt it cuz too many) or just 1-?

ty

[Eric Kevorkian]

Titan go look at the structure of finals...it's all laid out there.

[Todd Lapham]

That better be a hypothetical example. We earned it!

It was!

[Todd Lapham]

Todd, a suggestion: We should have a captains area to work this stuff out, then the teams could be notified of decisions by their captain. That would probably make your job easier.

Todd likes this.

[Charlie Holmgren]

It should just be at Maple Hill every year.

[Shawn Mullen]

It should just be at Maple Hill every year.

Boring. There are so many other great courses across NEFA Land.

[Steven Dakai]

It should just be at Maple Hill every year.

Boring. There are so many other great courses across NEFA Land.

+1

[Matt Buono]

It should just be at Maple Hill every year.

Boring. There are so many other great courses across NEFA Land.

+1

Dildo

[Charlie Holmgren]

Yeah...but none of them are even close to as good as Maple.

Except for Warwick of course.

[Matt DeAngelis]

Yeah...but none of them are even close to as good as Maple.

Except for Warwick of course.

homer.

[Joe Gara]

what about tie breakers for seeding in the A pool? Since we'll be seeding 1-8, a tie is much more likely somewhere in the middle & could effect who plays for the championship (1-4) vs chumpionship (5-8).

Below is speculation and up to the commish, but I'd guess tie breakers in order are:

-season record
-head to head
-then what? teams might have the same record but may not have played each other, my guess is point differential, and I'd say point diff over the season since no head to head.
-if still a tie, roshambo or cry on this forum for hours & hours & then flip a disc.

And how many people per team get to play in finals? are we setting a # or will it depend on the # that show?

Thanks Todd & sorry if this is answered on the Captains thread, Uncle Bill has retired from that too and Team Captain Lawrence's current leadership structure is based on the Occupy movement: 90% to agree, tough but fair.

Love you all,
Joe

Hi Todd...this was buried in all of the B pool projected tie breaker talk, any clues we could get on the A pool tie breakers would be appreciated.
Thanks!

[John ODonnell]

Hey Todd just was looking for some clarification. Our female went down today and will be unable to compete in our match this Saturday. I believe we automatically lose a point in singles. Unsure of what the penalty is for doubles. Can you please respond with the ruling. Thanks.

[Pete Violet]

1st the match is sunday.

2nd I don't beleive there is a penalty for dubs.

auto pt for team with female if she plays - with another possible point if she win.

Todd, please confirm.

[John ODonnell]

It is Sunday my b. Pete sorry we don't have another female on our roster. Dena's a great player and it sucks not having her for this challenge. Also sucks for your female not having a peer to compete against this weekend.

[John ODonnell]

From what I read the team that brings a girl gets a point in singles. If she wins vs a guy its 2-0 if she loses its 1-1. What I'm unsure of is whether the team that brings a female gets 1 point if the team doesn't play her against a guy and just sits her due to not having a female to compete against. This is where I need clarification.