2012 Points Charter?

[Titan Bariloni]

am2 IMO

[Jeff Wiechowski]

am2 IMO

Then the scoring spread is HUGE within one division. People shooting 20-30 strokes higher should have their own division.

Example:
Last years Jammer had everyone play from the same tees.

First place AM2 shot 153
Last place AM2 shot 174
First place AM3 shot 169
Eight AM3 players shot higher than 174, with only Dakota Lyman qualifing for a Junior division.

[Josh Connell]

its a competitive series and IMO REC is not defined by skill level rather mentality towards the sport..so why have a division that is not competitive by definition(shouldn't be anyways) ina competitive series? Vineyard a few back..guy in REC division shot HOT round I think..would cashed pro..why did he play REC that day? to play with his son...so why have that in a series? To grow the sport? go the events like the Special O,workdays,ect ect if ya wanna grow the sport..if ya wanna compete play in a non recreational division

Rec is absolutely a competitive division. PDGA defines Rec as being for players rated 850-900. Of 167 New England amateurs who were active PDGA members in 2011, 44.3% of them have a rating under 900. Would you argue that players who are registered members of the PDGA are not "competitive" disc golfers?

I think by definition, if it is an officially recognized division, it is a competitive one. Hell, Rec isn't even the lowest offered division according to the PDGA. Novice is. NEFA tried offering that once, as I alluded to upthread. A division with no points involved didn't fly with TDs or players, and no one played it.

And how much you want to bet that that Rec player who shot "hot round" and would have cashed in Pro actually played from shorter tees like many tournaments have the Rec division do? And perhaps he wasn't being "competitive" playing Rec to be with his son, but what was his son's motivation for playing? To compete, perhaps? If we don't have that division, where does father and son play that day? AM2? Open? By themselves at another course?

Titan, the reason Rec was introduced as a division in 2004 was because AM2 had too wide a scoring spread and it was unfair to force new and/or unskilled players to have to compete with players that were outscoring them by 10-15 strokes a round. If AM2 is a place for highly competitive players of a certain skill level (which is obviously is), it's not the place to dump all the newbies and lesser skilled players.

[Titan Bariloni]

what was the ratings of the top 5 in Am2?

are they threshold AM1 players for this region?

I do see your point though..and I think calling it AM3 is better IMO then REC...for reasons stated in other post

tough situation no matter what

hard when your sport has every level competing at same time..not too many sports are like that..

[Titan Bariloni]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreation

the issue is mentality IMO...is the series for recreational activities or competitive play or both

I guess in some way regardless of what division I play I am doing it for FUN

with the recent way the sport has been going IMO I think players who show up to events(the majority) are their for competition and fun...competition being the first reason

I think the player was a Pro master that day at Vineyard...is the REC division in Nefa defined by ratings such as the PDGA? so comparing the 2 is kinda strange since they do it ratings based and we do it mentality based..and by your own statement the REC division is competitive so how is this good for them when a Pro master drops down to play in that division? I dont think this is a "bagging" issues more a definition of what the REC division should be

edit I dont usually argue semantics I just think the entire name of the division should be reviewed if it is brought back to the series..AM3 and have it based on ability rather then mentality..after all this is a point series..although I know nefa doesnt have ratings it would at least define it as below 875ish in skill rather then if ya wanna play for fun just sign up here

[Josh Connell]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreation

the issue is mentality IMO...is the series for recreational activities or competitive play or both

I guess in some way regardless of what division I play I am doing it for FUN

with the recent way the sport has been going IMO I think players who show up to events(the majority) are their for competition and fun...competition being the first reason

I think the player was a Pro master that day at Vineyard...is the REC division in Nefa defined by ratings such as the PDGA? so comparing the 2 is kinda strange since they do it ratings based and we do it mentality based..and by your own statement the REC division is competitive so how is this good for them when a Pro master drops down to play in that division? I dont think this is a "bagging" issues more a definition of what the REC division should be

First, be careful how you throw around that "we" when what you really mean is "I", i.e. "we do it mentality based". Maybe you do, or you think "we" do, but that's not the case at all.

It doesn't matter what Wikipedia says about the definition of Recreation. It has nothing to do with anything. The PDGA created and named the division (whatever their reasons, it wasn't to fit some dictionary definition of recreation), so I'm going to go with their definition as far as its intent and "mentality". Call it Recreational, AM3, or ZQ8000, it's always been a competitive division and should continue to be one for the foreseeable future.

There is no such thing as "NEFA defined" when it comes to divisions. NEFA has always taken its cues, division-wise, from the PDGA. We play by the PDGA rules of play, we adopt their divisional structure, their tournament structure (including playing procedures and payout formulas)...we rely on the PDGA for far more than people want to acknowledge sometimes.

As far as the Vineyard example, could you go back and find the results rather than relying on memory. I'm fairly confident that your recollection of the circumstances are not actually what happened that day. Therefore, it's not doing much to back up your argument.

[Titan Bariloni]

so why not adopt PDGA ratings and force nefa members to be pdga members for this reason?

if after all the PDGA is the end all of DG and we use everything else from them why not use the most important thing to define skill level..ratings?

so why even be nefa why not just be a chapter of the PDGA

The definition is outdated and the sport has grown past a recreational activity into a sport so why define a division under these pretenses?

I will search down the event thread in alil bit..pretty sure I am not mistaken

"we" meaning nefa do define them by mentality rather then skill...we have no ratings so how else would we? not really an "I" believe thing there..its how it actually is

The division may be competitive and I am not sold on dropping it myself..dont care who named the division really regardless of who did its Wrong! and should be renamed from "recreational" as the pdga has even started naming it AM3 more often...

[Sandy Redd]

we are taking a look at all the concerns from NEFA. And hopefully going to try and resolve the situation.
We will keep you posted.

[Matt Stroika]

I agree that rec should not get invites to finals but believe they should have points tracked and earn season end funny $ payout. At the very very least have thier points tracked as it has no cost to nefa.

What Steven and Kenji said regarding rec division at finals. Sounds like it was well thought out. Nice job NEFA brass.

[Josh Connell]

so why not adopt PDGA ratings and force nefa members to be pdga members for this reason?

if after all the PDGA is the end all of DG and we use everything else from them why not use the most important thing to define skill level..ratings?

so why even be nefa why not just be a chapter of the PDGA

The definition is outdated and the sport has grown past a recreational activity into a sport so why define a division under these pretenses?

I will search down the event thread in alil bit..pretty sure I am not mistaken

"we" meaning nefa do define them by mentality rather then skill...we have no ratings so how else would we? not really an "I" believe thing there..its how it actually is

The division may be competitive and I am not sold on dropping it myself..dont care who named the division really regardless of who did its Wrong! and should be renamed from "recreational" as the pdga has even started naming it AM3 more often...

Just because NEFA borrows a ton from the PDGA doesn't mean it has to be a direct part of the org. And just because it is not a direct part of the PDGA, does not mean NEFA has to re-invent the wheel and do everything differently just to be different. I'd be all for more PDGA members and tournaments in the region, but there's no need to "force" anything. As far as using ratings, we absolutely do use them. Plenty of players use them to determine when they are ready to move up. Things don't need to be officially sanctioned to be of use to the members of this organization.

You say the definition is outdated, yet whatever you think the definition is is not even the case in the first place, so what exactly is "outdated"? Get past the name already. It is not, nor has it ever been reflective of the intent of the division. I fully admit that it is not a good name for the division. Said so 10 years ago when they named it that. We (NEFA) renamed Advanced and Intermediate to AM1 and AM2 to get beyond stigmas associated with the names of the divisions (this is back when it was Advanced or nothing in the local amateur ranks). Perhaps it is time to continue the naming scheme and officially refer to Rec as AM3.

What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. The division is what it is no matter what we call it or want to call it in the future.

[Karl Molitoris]

Obviously a LOT has been said in the last several pages but I just want to stress one point...

Nefa and the nefa point series is 2 different things IMO

I believe we can all agree that the points series HAS to be a 'competitive thing' as the only way one earns points is through competition, but I hope we can separate the "NEFA" from that which is just a facet of it - "NEFA Points Series".
Keep this in mind and we'll be OK; let the competitive aspects of NEFA rule totally and we'll be missing out on opportunities....

Karl

[Kenji Cline]

we are taking a look at all the concerns from NEFA. And hopefully going to try and resolve the situation.
We will keep you posted.

Thanks sandy! As a board member of DisCap I would like to promote nefa more to our club members. Maybe it's more of a regional thing but am3/rec is the biggest division in our area. We are a bit behind the DG curve here but we are doing alot to grow the sport. With our club hosting 4 maybe 5 nefa events if we get amother course in this year I want to show our members how the nefa point series is a fun and competitve way to encourage tournament play. But not until I know they can strive for season end payouts or invites to finals (not as important) by joining nefa. I rave about nefa but it is easier to get people to join when you can show them the benefits they will get.

[Matt DeAngelis]

This is not directed at anyone in particular, just a general statement. What happened to joining an organization to support local disc golf and promote the sport, rather than being overly concerned with what you personally get out of it? I fully understand both sides of the discussion, and I have been a NEFA member for a number of years. The past two years I have run more events than I have played in. I haven't been able to participate in the point series that much, but still kept my membership active, because NEFA does more than just the series.

[Titan Bariloni]

What happened to joining an organization to support local disc golf and promote the sport, rather than being overly concerned with what you personally get out of it

cuz to some DG is not their entire life(I know how dare them) some may just be athletes trying a new sport out,looking for peeps to chill with,or been playing DG and wanna see where they stand and what events are all about....

These people are not concerned with growing the sport...yet anyways...until they come into the picture and see all the great things DG related and Charitable donations to other causes Nefa gives to..heck some people dont care about charity..or growing they just wanna play they work all week..they deal with kids,wives..and they just wanna show up and compete for the day then disappear back to their reality off the course

So to pitch Nefa to these people as a great way to grow the sport...is not the right AD campaign..for they dont even know what growing the sport is...or care

Bottom line most humans "want" something not of the invisible nature rather the physical what do I get for doing X...or why join this org for X amount..heck they may wonder what their X amount even goes to..and telling them to grow the sport is just kinda weak IMO...if ya believe there is power in numbers then we need to increase membership..OBV the tired issue of just sign up to grow is not cutting it...nefa needs to define its self as to what it really is..the mission statement spells it out..but is that what we(nefa) are really about? or has the major concern in nefa become the series and growing the sport has become 2nd

scrambled rambling continue on

[Bill Stewart]

Hey let's have 72 different divisions so everyone gets a trophy!

Any rec (other than nyles) who plays 5 tournies in a year, is usually good enough to score in the middle of the AM 2 pack in my opinion. Starting at age 52 is tough. All distance gained from 52 on out is going to be from technique gains, not strength gains. It's also an anomaly--congratulations Nyles. Rec is rec. It means playing recreationally, not competitively. I like the season cumulation of points for funny money and no need to save a slot for Rec in finals--good move.

AM GM? Overkill. Am Masters is competitive, and when a "closer to 40" AM Masters player gets too good, he usually goes to AM1 or Pro Masters. If a "closer to 50" AM masters gets too good, he usually goes pro master then Pro GM.

As a TD, I can say the extra divsions are an unnecessary amount of work and expense. Every year when ordering trophies, I gotta think economically about how many places to buy trophies. Do you go to a 2nd place trophy when the division might have 3 players? Ugh. How about zero players? Then you have to eat the expense. Keep it simple. Paring down the number of divisions won't have any effect on "growing the sport."

And keep on using that tired cliche "growing the sport," Titan. Now that you've admitted no one really knows what it means, I can see why you use it so often in you arguments.......

[Gary Cyr]

This is not directed at anyone in particular, just a general statement. What happened to joining an organization to support local disc golf and promote the sport, rather than being overly concerned with what you personally get out of it? I fully understand both sides of the discussion, and I have been a NEFA member for a number of years. The past two years I have run more events than I have played in. I haven't been able to participate in the point series that much, but still kept my membership active, because NEFA does more than just the series.

Amen Brother!! About time someone said it.

[Eric Kevorkian]

This is not directed at anyone in particular, just a general statement. What happened to joining an organization to support local disc golf and promote the sport, rather than being overly concerned with what you personally get out of it? I fully understand both sides of the discussion, and I have been a NEFA member for a number of years. The past two years I have run more events than I have played in. I haven't been able to participate in the point series that much, but still kept my membership active, because NEFA does more than just the series.

VERY well said, Matt. I couldn't agree more.

I don't think I played in any NEFA events last year, but was still an active member. I am about to renew (2-for-1), but don't plan on playing many events, or being an active participant in the points series.

I do think that renaming "REC" to "AM3" is a good idea though.

[Titan Bariloni]

well anyways this is best idea from the thread in regards to the best compromise

I agree that rec should not get invites to finals but believe they should have points tracked and earn season end funny $ payout. At the very very least have thier points tracked as it has no cost to nefa.

although there still is a cost "time"

[Trent Solomon]

Hey let's have 72 different divisions so everyone gets a trophy!

Any rec (other than nyles) who plays 5 tournies in a year, is usually good enough to score in the middle of the AM 2 pack in my opinion. Starting at age 52 is tough. All distance gained from 52 on out is going to be from technique gains, not strength gains. It's also an anomaly--congratulations Nyles. Rec is rec. It means playing recreationally, not competitively. I like the season cumulation of points for funny money and no need to save a slot for Rec in finals--good move.

AM GM? Overkill. Am Masters is competitive, and when a "closer to 40" AM Masters player gets too good, he usually goes to AM1 or Pro Masters. If a "closer to 50" AM masters gets too good, he usually goes pro master then Pro GM.

As a TD, I can say the extra divsions are an unnecessary amount of work and expense. Every year when ordering trophies, I gotta think economically about how many places to buy trophies. Do you go to a 2nd place trophy when the division might have 3 players? Ugh. How about zero players? Then you have to eat the expense. Keep it simple. Paring down the number of divisions won't have any effect on "growing the sport."

And keep on using that tired cliche "growing the sport," Titan. Now that you've admitted no one really knows what it means, I can see why you use it so often in you arguments.......

I respectfully disagree with you. look at the scores from last years tourneys. Myabe 5th from the bottom is a high average.

[Titan Bariloni]

And keep on using that tired cliche "growing the sport," Titan. Now that you've admitted no one really knows what it means, I can see why you use it so often in you arguments.......

context Bill...I said "these newer members" not myself..I know what growing the sport means..and I know that other dedicated DGer's know what it means..when I speak of growing the sport I speak it with seasoned DG vets so we can educate,include,attract new players..while speaking to these newer players I explain in more detail then the tired cliche...I also use the phrase in a somewhat sarcastic tone cuz peeps tell me my actions/words prevent "growing the sport" I will say that makes me chuckle..cuz they are tools

This is in regards to these newer players nefa is trying to attract to increase membership thus increasing the $$$ Nefa has to actually "grow the sport"

and Gary Amen to what...nobody here disagrees with you...it is a good thing to do..just the point some of you can't see the bigger picture and break free from the mentality that everyone does things for the greater good of mankind..when most do things for themselves and only themselves...we can argue if nefa wants this personality type in the ORG to begin with..but who are we to tell who can join and for what reasons why they joined..the main point is getting people to JOIN..the current structure of well grow the sport man join nefa is just not the best marketing idea IMO

[Titan Bariloni]

prob a bad idea for me to discuss things today as I just argued that tacos and fajitas are virtually the same thing for the last 3 hours..I was right..google it..

girlfriends should just shutup and cook what ya tell them to..JK..well not really

[Dan Ouellet]

The feedback on the charter is awesome. A continued work in progress. As Sandy mentioned we are revisiting the topic of the Rec division and will consider change. I see this topic of having Recreational Division getting points, tracking stats, invites to the finals and playing for trophies going back for a vote asap.
Again, thank you all for the feedback.

[Karl Molitoris]

Understanding that no system is perfect (even one that YOU set up ), our sport seemingly has become comfortable with divisions based on some amount(s) of gender, age, status, and ability segregation.

Presently we have a divisional system with a hierarchy of "gender-then-status-then age and/or ability" split out, yielding 11 (for this coming year in NEFA) divisions):

I. Men
A. Pro
a. Open
b. Master
c. GM
B. Am
a. Adv
b. Master
c. GM
d. Int
e. Rec
II. Women
A. Pro
a. Open
B. Am
a. Adv
b. Int

This is predicated on the concept that the primary segregation is between women and men. Seems to be this way in a LOT of other sports so I'll let this one slide....
The secondary segregation is that of status. Read: Pay in / pay out. To me, that this specific segregation method holds secondary stature in any sport holds this concept in way too high an esteem.
The third segregation is that of either age, ability, or a combination of the two. While there are inherent flaws with this / these "3rd split outs", they at least are truer (in the sense of competitive metrics) than the status one.

SO, for those who believe there are too many divisions (in the past I was a mild advocate of this philosophy also), let me counter with a proposal...

I. Men
a. 20-39
b. 40-49
c. 50-59
d. 60-69
e. 70-79, etc.
f. 10-19 equal to 40-49 ??
and you can play "up" but not "down" if you so choose
[If these age-breaks suck, choose others...]

II. Women
(see men above)

The actual number of divisions will, in most cases be ~6 (+/-1) or so.

A flat entry fee (to cover insurance, sanctioning, etc.). All "payouts" will be "on the side". This last point - while being a bit recalcitrant - will 1) free up the TD a bit (I believe) and will cover any IRS / organized gambling / etc. situations that might* arise (thank god nothing around here like this has popped up yet).
*I've heard of such in other parts of the country
This would though put someone in the roll of "bet taker" (if you guys MUST have cash on the line)...but what the heck, relieve the TD of SOME of his / her duties!

And maybe (TD's discretion), the first round you can "choose" your own groupings / 4-somes (if you really have to "keep an eye on your competition". But, of course, will be paired (by scores) in the second and any subsequent rounds.

Anyway, it's a "cleaner" system than the one we have now. If you don't like it, it was my dime. And maybe someone can piggyback off of one of the ideas into something better than we have now (if you feel we DO need something better)....

Karl

[Trent Solomon]

Understanding that no system is perfect (even one that YOU set up ), our sport seemingly has become comfortable with divisions based on some amount(s) of gender, age, status, and ability segregation.

Presently we have a divisional system with a hierarchy of "gender-then-status-then age and/or ability" split out, yielding 11 (for this coming year in NEFA) divisions):

I. Men
A. Pro
a. Open
b. Master
c. GM
B. Am
a. Adv
b. Master
c. GM
d. Int
e. Rec
II. Women
A. Pro
a. Open
B. Am
a. Adv
b. Int

This is predicated on the concept that the primary segregation is between women and men. Seems to be this way in a LOT of other sports so I'll let this one slide....
The secondary segregation is that of status. Read: Pay in / pay out. To me, that this specific segregation method holds secondary stature in any sport holds this concept in way too high an esteem.
The third segregation is that of either age, ability, or a combination of the two. While there are inherent flaws with this / these "3rd split outs", they at least are truer (in the sense of competitive metrics) than the status one.

SO, for those who believe there are too many divisions (in the past I was a mild advocate of this philosophy also), let me counter with a proposal...

I. Men
a. 20-39
b. 40-49
c. 50-59
d. 60-69
e. 70-79, etc.
f. 10-19 equal to 40-49 ??
and you can play "up" but not "down" if you so choose
[If these age-breaks suck, choose others...]

II. Women
(see men above)

The actual number of divisions will, in most cases be ~6 (+/-1) or so.

A flat entry fee (to cover insurance, sanctioning, etc.). All "payouts" will be "on the side". This last point - while being a bit recalcitrant - will 1) free up the TD a bit (I believe) and will cover any IRS / organized gambling / etc. situations that might* arise (thank god nothing around here like this has popped up yet).
*I've heard of such in other parts of the country
This would though put someone in the roll of "bet taker" (if you guys MUST have cash on the line)...but what the heck, relieve the TD of SOME of his / her duties!

And maybe (TD's discretion), the first round you can "choose" your own groupings / 4-somes (if you really have to "keep an eye on your competition". But, of course, will be paired (by scores) in the second and any subsequent rounds.

Anyway, it's a "cleaner" system than the one we have now. If you don't like it, it was my dime. And maybe someone can piggyback off of one of the ideas into something better than we have now (if you feel we DO need something better)....

Karl

the problem with having only age based divisions is that you will have a 50 year old that has been playing for 20 years and a 1 year player in the same division? Doesnt seem right. I am also sure that a division with people up to age 39 would have a hell of a lot more than 6 participants.

[Karl Molitoris]

Trenton,

The number of divisions...not the number IN a division.

If you want to have a side bet with ANYONE else, go for it. Don't think you'll win, don't bet!
My contention is that if you're at the bottom of an "ability-based" division, you don't have a snowball's chance in heck now of "cashing"... and ability-based division are a lot more subjective than age-based divisions (somebody "sets" the ability-based division splits; god / mother nature set the age ones!).

Karl

[Trent Solomon]

Trenton,

The number of divisions...not the number IN a division.

If you want to have a side bet with ANYONE else, go for it. Don't think you'll win, don't bet!
My contention is that if you're at the bottom of an "ability-based" division, you don't have a snowball's chance in heck now of "cashing"... and ability-based division are a lot more subjective than age-based divisions (somebody "sets" the ability-based division splits; god / mother nature set the age ones!).

Karl

OK, I must have misread

[Sandy Redd]

So the Board has heard the nefa people and we compromised and this is what we are going with.
Points Event Requirements

Points events must offer the following 11 divisions, regardless of turnout.

Pro Open (MPO)
Pro Masters (MPM)
Pro Grandmasters (MPG)
Pro Women (FPO)
Advanced Masters (MM1)
Advanced Grandmasters (MG1)
Advanced (MA1)
Intermediate (MA2)
Advanced Women (FW1)
Intermediate Women (FW2)
Recreational (MA3)

Only the following divisions will earn season ending payouts:

Pro Open (MPO)
Pro Masters (MPM)
Pro Grandmasters (MPG)
Pro Women (FPO)
Advanced Masters (MM1)
Advanced Grandmasters (MG1)
Advanced (MA1)
Intermediate (MA2)
Advanced Women (FW1)
Intermediate Women (FW2)

* MA3 will still earn a trophy and compete for an invite to finals. Money raised in the MA3 division shall be allocated as the Points Committee sees fit.

I will try and fix it in the charter, but Matt spearheaded this, and he is on Vaca.
Sorry for the delay.

[Titan Bariloni]

sounds like a great compromise..good work

[Kenji Cline]

Agreed great compromise!

[Kyle Moriarty]

Fantastic job! That is a prime example of how a great oragnization works to meet the needs of the members.