Girl on Girl

[Steven Dakai]

Ok, misunderstood. Thanks.

[Eric Maurer]

I don't see any advantage in gender when it comes to playing a lot of courses in NE. Most courses used are wooded and accuracy is rewarded more than power/distance. A coed team can do just find against an all make team just fine. The women contributes just as much as a male partner.

I don't buy that. I couldn't disagree more.

[Pete Violet]

I don't see any advantage in gender when it comes to playing a lot of courses in NE. Most courses used are wooded and accuracy is rewarded more than power/distance. A coed team can do just find against an all make team just fine. The women contributes just as much as a male partner.

I don't buy that. I couldn't disagree more.

Although I don't think it is equal I think it is still competitive. I also think that match-ups are a great equalizer. The team with two males are probably going to put up a lesser male team to compete with a coed team.

By the way this is why I wanted more to weigh in when this was discussed on the other thread. I knew that there were more opinions against the penalties. I was against them, decided to compromise when I felt I was outnumbered, but honestly still feel -if we are all acting in good faith in trying to get women - then we should limit the penalties. Treat them like any other player - sit them, play them, match them up. If my team brings 20 there are 8 players that will probably sit on that day and I will match every player up so they can all have a competitive match. I can tell you that our woman will be insulted to be given a point. She is a competitive person and wants to earn what she wins even if the odds are not in her favor.

[Matt DeAngelis]

I can see your point JD, it does make sense to me. However, I can't justify putting that much emphasis on a single player of the roster, regardless if their gender.

If a team brings 12 players without a female, and I bring 11 with my female, then the penalty for the other team is that they have to sit 2 of their players during singles.

[Brad Ayotte]

ok ok.. i do not agree that we should treat the woman as equals IN THE GAME.. NT events do not have separate mens and womens divisions because they think the field is too big or they want to put the overall more attractive people together and let the men play on other cards.. it is because the women ARE at, more often than not, a different playing level than the men.. and i believe that if we are to get more women involved then we need to let them play other women.. if not than the team that doesnt have a woman should be penalized because we made it a manditory roster spot.. there is no way to say that one player is the weakest on a team and put them up against the woman if you dont have a female present.. also, it wouldnt make sense to make them sit due to the same reason.. they want to play and i assume all of us would like them to play, so we let them.. we need to have a mando 2 point penalty at minimum.. if a team shows up without a female then they have the opportunity to get only 30 of the total 32 points.. if neither team has a female then the max points are 28

[Steven Dakai]

[John Dickison]

I can see your point JD, it does make sense to me. However, I can't justify putting that much emphasis on a single player of the roster, regardless if their gender.

If a team brings 12 players without a female, and I bring 11 with my female, then the penalty for the other team is that they have to sit 2 of their players during singles.

In the case above, you can sit your woman to avoid losing a point in singles -- true. But how much of a "penalty" is it really for the team that now has to sit 2 players? Yes, the guys sitting would rather play, but they will likely be the 2 weakest players on the team. In the end, all you did was make them (the team w/ no woman) stronger / more concentrated. There are now fewer points available and the players you had the highest probability of beating are sitting.

[Matt DeAngelis]

I can see your point JD, it does make sense to me. However, I can't justify putting that much emphasis on a single player of the roster, regardless if their gender.

If a team brings 12 players without a female, and I bring 11 with my female, then the penalty for the other team is that they have to sit 2 of their players during singles.

In the case above, you can sit your woman to avoid losing a point in singles -- true. But how much of a "penalty" is it really for the team that now has to sit 2 players? Yes, the guys sitting would rather play, but they will likely be the 2 weakest players on the team. In the end, all you did was make them (the team w/ no woman) stronger / more concentrated. There are now fewer points available and the players you had the highest probability of beating are sitting.

Yeah, that's true.

[Dave Hickson]

I defer all my teams opinions to this topic to John Dickison.

[Steven Dakai]

Did this vote pass #3? I can't tell.

[Pete Violet]

I personally don't know how to feel on this - I can see both sides.

I also don't know if there are enough choices in the vote.

1. no penalties.

2. 1 pt penalty in singles

3. 1 pt penalty in singles with bonus pt if beat guy

4. (choice 2 with) dubs penalty too

5. (choice 3 with) dubs vs single (non cali)

6. penalty only for teams without female on roster

I think the points will certainly sway some matches as a lot of matches are only won by a few points.

I would be OK defering this decision to the women's league of players also.

[Steven Dakai]

We have a challenge next week, there may even be one this weekend, so can we get a final tally on JD's proposal?

Pete, there are more choices than the few you have listed. Changing the vote to include just the options you like doesn't seem fair. Why dont we let Todd decide the voting and you and I can just pick the one we like. He is the Commish,right?

[Pete Charron]

This is my first year being a cap'n and I forget from previous years the way in which doubles matches were drawn.

Is it the same thing as singles, one captain names a team then the other names a team to compete against them? And then flip roles and repeat?

If that is the way it's done.. Maybe a satisfactory policy would be a 1 point penalty for singles and then the team that doesn't have a woman loses big time in strategy as they have to name their team 1st each time, and the opposing captain matches accordingly. That way the captain who fulfilled the mando woman rule can choose the exact co-ed vs. male-male match up.

And strategically it gives that team a big advantage too..

Just trying to find something to make everyone happy.. This limits the point penalties, but it's also a pretty big advantage for one team too.. Personally, getting burned out on this. Tough topic with so many different interests to take into consideration.

[Pete Violet]

Soirry if that seemed like I was trying to get people to vote - not what I meant.

What I was pointing out was that Todd only listed 3 and I was saying that in discussions the captains had brought up more than those 3.

Some of the ones I remembered and listed were ones that you suggested Steve.

[Joseph Mason Proud, III]

I'm not real happy that this has taken so much of our time and actually have to come to a vote - I wish to change my vote to Option 1.

Shawn Mullen had some excellent things to say on the topic and I was premature in going for additional rules and penalties. They are not required.

[Pete Violet]

I'm not real happy that this has taken so much of our time and actually have to come to a vote - I wish to change my vote to Option 1.

Shawn Mullen had some excellent things to say on the topic and I was premature in going for additional rules and penalties. They are not required.

I agree. I am switching to 1 as well.

[Chris Bolton]

I am voting for 1

[Steven Dakai]

I am changing mine to #9,extra cheese, hold the onions.

[Dave Hickson]

I am changing mine to #9,extra cheese, hold the onions.

Add BACON

[Steven Dakai]

Bacon on a #9 ?!?!? GENIUS!!!!!

[Kelly Conroy]

I...agree....with....Solbo!

I agree with both of you! God I just agreed with Solbo...

[Kelly Conroy]

I vote 1

[Titan Bariloni]

honestly not sure how to vote here..I will talk to the team..we still don't have a girl.I guess we got lucky for 2 years...cuz it is harder then I thought finding a girl for the team

I now understand the difficulties some teams had in past years

[Todd Lapham]

Ok I was trying to wait for all the Captains to weigh in, but that's obviously not going to happen. It seems like this is a split decision and we need to have a clear answer before everyone starts playing.

The womens rule will be:

1 point for bringing a women when the other team doesn't. However, they are still playing for a point. If she wins she gets a point, if not then the guy gets one. I think this is a "best of both worlds" compromise. It doesn't hurt the team that brought a woman, and it's not a free point (basically) for the team that doesn't.

Doubles is still 2 v 2. Can be coed or you can sit the woman if there's extra numbers.

There WILL BE a penalty at finals for not getting a woman qualified (3 challenges). It will be a 5 stroke penalty (added to your top 10 total) for the B Pool. For the A Pool we will figure about what's best. I'd like some input on how it should be best handled since it's match play.

[Eric Maurer]

So if the woman beats the guy in singles she would get 2 points? 1 for showing up and 1 for the win?

[Todd Lapham]

Yes it would be either 2-0 or 1-1, depending on who won...

[Titan Bariloni]

seems fair kinda

[John Dickison]

OK. Thanks for closing the loop and making a final decision. In scenario where woman plays singles, she goes 2-0 or 1-1. Understood.

Based on this direction (and assuming outcome of 1-1 push), then only real incentive to including women and getting one qualified for Finals is a penalty imposed at Finals, which is yet to be determined in A Pool.

Yes, the woman could win (2-0). I like that this encourages captains to match up their woman against a guy she has a shot a beating rather than throwing a match against one of the opposing teams best players.

However, there is another scenario that needs clarification. What if only 1 team brings a woman (+1 pt), but she only plays doubles? There will certainly be times when the team bringing the woman has more players and needs to decide who to sit. If the team with the woman has fewer players, then she should play.

My vote in the woman sits/singles scenario above would be to keep the +1 pt. She will be playing coed vs male in doubles for 2 pts. On our team, everyone that shows plays at least 1 round.

[Matt DeAngelis]

However, there is another scenario that needs clarification. What if only 1 team brings a woman (+1 pt), but she only plays doubles? There will certainly be times when the team bringing the woman has more players and needs to decide who to sit. If the team with the woman has fewer players, then she should play.

My vote in the woman sits/singles scenario above would be to keep the +1 pt. She will be playing coed vs male in doubles for 2 pts. On our team, everyone that shows plays at least 1 round.

Yeah, that is definitely something we need to iron out. I agree that sitting your woman during singles if numbers dictate should be the way to go. We are of the same thinking, that if someone from our team shows at a challenge, they will play at some point that day.

[Todd Lapham]

I'd say just play them in singles and there's no problem.

If you do play coed vs single male, then the team with less people would have to sit someone, which sucks.

I can't really think of another way, you guys have any ideas?