2009-10 TEAM CHALLENGE SCHEDULE

Steve Solbo · Post by **Steve Solbo** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 11:13 pm

I need one course, somewhat centrally located that can contain 120 players... or 2 good courses within minutes of each other to manage this many players also somewhat (<3.5 hours) close to the far outliers.

Mike Murphy · Post by **Mike Murphy** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:28 am

Steve-O wrote:I need one course, somewhat centrally located that can contain 120 players... or 2 good courses within minutes of each other to manage this many players also somewhat (<3.5 hours) close to the far outliers.

Buffumville and Hodges?

Jeff Wiechowski · Post by **Jeff Wiechowski** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:08 pm

Steve-O wrote:I need one course, somewhat centrally located that can contain 120 players... or 2 good courses within minutes of each other to manage this many players also somewhat (<3.5 hours) close to the far outliers.

The only issues i see here is:
1. It's always going to be the same course(s) each year. No real way to have a different "Super Bowl" location until some new Boston area courses are installed.
2. The "centrally located course" will inevitably be some team's home course.

At least it's a question of which course to play, not a lack of courses...... :wink:

Bobby Cowperthwait · Post by **Bobby Cowperthwait** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 2:38 pm

Don't get me wrong, Pyramids is a fun course...and Jason is good friend.
But, after the entire reg. season I would like to finish on the most challenging course for any level golfer. AKA Maple Hill

ZZ

Steve Solbo · Post by **Steve Solbo** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:34 pm

bobbyc wrote:Don't get me wrong, Pyramids is a fun course...and Jason is good friend.
But, after the entire reg. season I would like to finish on the most challenging course for any level golfer. AKA Maple Hill

ZZ

This is why one of the rounds will be at Maple Hill.

Next year, we may go down to 6 at Finals.

Bård Soleng · Post by **Bård Soleng** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:40 am

centrally located is Mass....so all finals will be in Mass?

I like what your doing Solbo.....just my 2 cents

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:16 pm

You could limit it to 6 players from each team this year, instead of waiting until next year. Then, whomever is in first can pick the course. Each team would be represented equally. No need for two courses, 120 golfers, massive lunch, etc.

Mark Verrochi · Post by **Mark Verrochi** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:20 pm

stevend wrote:You could limit it to 6 players from each team this year, instead of waiting until next year. Then, whomever is in first can pick the course. Each team would be represented equally. No need for two courses, 120 golfers, massive lunch, etc.

I thought this was a "Team Challenge." I don't think it would be a good idea to limit it to 6 players per team... Granted the entire team should be there regardless of how many players get to play... my two cents.

Todd Lapham · Post by **Todd Lapham** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:27 pm

Only 6 play from each team? That doesn't sound good to me.

Todd Lapham · Post by **Todd Lapham** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:29 pm

Plus Cranbury would crush souls. :lol:

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:30 pm

Probably right, Todd.

Matt Buono · Post by **Matt Buono** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 4:40 pm

Todd Lapham wrote:Plus Cranbury would crush souls.

no matter we crush alot anyways

Steve Solbo · Post by **Steve Solbo** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:43 pm

FrizzakB wrote:centrally located is Mass....so all finals will be in Mass?

I like what your doing Solbo.....just my 2 cents

Not necessarily, just my answer for this year. I/We need to figure out how to get a majority of people to play from each team, each year at finals... regardless of course... CT is somewhat Central too... For this year however, I think this works...

Steve Solbo · Post by **Steve Solbo** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 5:45 pm

stevend wrote:You could limit it to 6 players from each team this year, instead of waiting until next year. Then, whomever is in first can pick the course. Each team would be represented equally. No need for two courses, 120 golfers, massive lunch, etc.

where exactly do you stand Steve? this is a complete 180 from a PM you sent me regarding roster size at Finals...

Bobby Cowperthwait · Post by **Bobby Cowperthwait** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 am

Nefa Team Challenge is grrrr8,
but the whole point was to pick finals.
We crush souls for that 1 point.
:shock:

Matt Buono · Post by **Matt Buono** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:25 am

so we could mail it in and get in to the finals now cause we aren't playing for anything now......trying not to be too critcial but that seems like a flaw in the system

Whit Cooper · Post by **Whit Cooper** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:02 am

yo,

With all due respect, I think teams should not have to sit anyone.
People play hard all season and they should be rewarded with the right to play. Letting the top teams field full rosters is very unfair to the other teams. If the "advantage" remains the right to choose the finals location then there is no advantage given during the actual tournament. In mainstream sports there is no advantages given other than location or a bye. Good teams should be rewarded to promote season long dedication and competition.

***One suggestion***
Make everyone drive and go to J-Park. They have over 18 holes now and can fit everyone. There is that cheap best western with the bar that we took over at the Jammer.

Whatever is decided it has been a fun time so far. I know finals will be a blast however the cards fall.

Happy New Year,
Whit

Gabe Miller · Post by **Gabe Miller** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 11:36 am

I was hoping that we were leaning toward using more scores (not less) at the Finals. If you decide on only the top six from each team, it seems like less people would make an effort to "qualify" for the finals. To me the whole point of a "Team Challenge" is to see who has the best team...not just the best six players. What was the point of increasing roster sizes this year? Or trying to add women into the event? I don't really care where the Finals are held, but for this year...whoever qualified by playing the three rounds in three challenges should be eligible.

James Lane · Post by **James Lane** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:13 pm

I am 100% with Gabe on using the MOST possible scores from that day.

I would like to see the system use at least 3/4 of a teams scores. or..

is a scoring average a bad idea? just throwing it out there -
something like, we report 12 scores, drop high/low (or no drops at all) and use the average of the scores.

this could be one possible way to include the whole team (or near the whole team) in the results of finals day

Shawn Mullen · Post by **Shawn Mullen** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:18 pm

james lane wrote:I am 100% with Gabe on using the MOST possible scores from that day.

I would like to see the system use at least 3/4 of a teams scores. or..

is a scoring average a bad idea? just throwing it out there -
something like, we report 12 scores, drop high/low (or no drops at all) and use the average of the scores.

this could be one possible way to include the whole team (or near the whole team) in the results of finals day

The scoring system Steve D used at the B pool challenge a few weeks ago worked really well. Like a cross country meet.

James Lane · Post by **James Lane** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 12:27 pm

Mullen, thanks for bringing the avatar back, haha.

What kind of system did he use?

Shawn Mullen · Post by **Shawn Mullen** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:40 pm

james lane wrote:Mullen, thanks for bringing the avatar back, haha.

What kind of system did he use?

Like this

stevend wrote:Here is the game- Singles, stroke play. Players will receive a value for their score based on how they fared against the entire field. ( Player with the lowest score gets a 1, player with the highest score gets a 90)
Add up the scores for your team and the team with the lowest overall score wins.

Bear Dunn · Post by **Bear Dunn** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:38 pm

seems beneficial to have a team with less players for this scenario, again punishing teams that roll deep.

6 people would surely add up to less than a team with 12 or more people. Duh... Or do you only take the top certain number from each squad?

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 5:21 pm

Steve-O wrote:
stevend wrote:You could limit it to 6 players from each team this year, instead of waiting until next year. Then, whomever is in first can pick the course. Each team would be represented equally. No need for two courses, 120 golfers, massive lunch, etc.

where exactly do you stand Steve? this is a complete 180 from a PM you sent me regarding roster size at Finals...

As I said in my PM- An equal number of players per team would be the fair way to play it. I don't care if you have 6,10 or 15 as long as we all bring the same # of players.
I seriously doubt that Cranberry, Maine or Wick need extra players to beat most teams.

Things like this should have been decided before the season began. It seems odd that changes to the format were not more clearly stated.

Steve Solbo · Post by **Steve Solbo** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:31 am

Steve-O wrote:
bobbyc wrote:Don't get me wrong, Pyramids is a fun course...and Jason is good friend.
But, after the entire reg. season I would like to finish on the most challenging course for any level golfer. AKA Maple Hill

ZZ

This is why one of the rounds will be at Maple Hill.

Next year, we may go down to 6 at Finals.

By "6" I MEANT 6 Teams at finals, not number of players. Should have clarified.

Steve Solbo · Post by **Steve Solbo** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:34 am

stevend wrote:
Steve-O wrote:
stevend wrote:You could limit it to 6 players from each team this year, instead of waiting until next year. Then, whomever is in first can pick the course. Each team would be represented equally. No need for two courses, 120 golfers, massive lunch, etc.

where exactly do you stand Steve? this is a complete 180 from a PM you sent me regarding roster size at Finals...

As I said in my PM- An equal number of players per team would be the fair way to play it. I don't care if you have 6,10 or 15 as long as we all bring the same # of players.
I seriously doubt that Cranberry, Maine or Wick need extra players to beat most teams.

Things like this should have been decided before the season began. It seems odd that changes to the format were not more clearly stated.

I disagree. I think if anything, the top teams should be rewarded somehow. i.e. get to play more players. Me and Todd are still working on numbers, we may come up with a solution where the winning team gets to pick locale... but hey Cranbury... how can you assume you'll be the only undefeated team? I bet Maine probably ends up 5-0 as well.. how would you break that tie? I am curious...

Steve Solbo · Post by **Steve Solbo** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:38 am

sumopirateninjaviking wrote:I was hoping that we were leaning toward using more scores (not less) at the Finals. If you decide on only the top six from each team, it seems like less people would make an effort to "qualify" for the finals. To me the whole point of a "Team Challenge" is to see who has the best team...not just the best six players. What was the point of increasing roster sizes this year? Or trying to add women into the event? I don't really care where the Finals are held, but for this year...whoever qualified by playing the three rounds in three challenges should be eligible.

Yup. 8 Singles scores will count at a minimum and 4 Doubles groups at a minimum.

The B pool scenario wouldn't work unless each team had the exact same number of players. Right there we'd be punishing the teams the "roll deep" as you say. Or if you counted top 10 scores, even with 15 players playing. and allowing 5 dubs scores to count even though you have 7 groups on the course.. teams that don't bring the full roster... you're penalizing yourself.

I am open to discussion on this. At a minimum Finals this year will be top 8 singles, top 4 doubles.

Bobby Cowperthwait · Post by **Bobby Cowperthwait** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:29 pm

Steve-O wrote:
stevend wrote:
Steve-O wrote:
stevend wrote:You could limit it to 6 players from each team this year, instead of waiting until next year. Then, whomever is in first can pick the course. Each team would be represented equally. No need for two courses, 120 golfers, massive lunch, etc.

where exactly do you stand Steve? this is a complete 180 from a PM you sent me regarding roster size at Finals...

As I said in my PM- An equal number of players per team would be the fair way to play it. I don't care if you have 6,10 or 15 as long as we all bring the same # of players.
I seriously doubt that Cranberry, Maine or Wick need extra players to beat most teams.

Things like this should have been decided before the season began. It seems odd that changes to the format were not more clearly stated.

I disagree. I think if anything, the top teams should be rewarded somehow. i.e. get to play more players. Me and Todd are still working on numbers, we may come up with a solution where the winning team gets to pick locale... but hey Cranbury... how can you assume you'll be the only undefeated team? I bet Maine probably ends up 5-0 as well.. how would you break that tie? I am curious...

good question solbo!
How did Maine get the easiest schedule of the A pool?
They should have had to play us reg season.
No offense Mainiacs.
If were both 5-0 in the end, it doesnt matter to tie-break
We cant pick the finals anyway!
prrrrrrrrnnnnnnnTT

Jeff Conant · Post by **Jeff Conant** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:34 pm

Steve-O wrote:but hey Cranbury... how can you assume you'll be the only undefeated team? I bet Maine probably ends up 5-0 as well.. how would you break that tie? I am curious...

Overall Winner chooses the course IMO.
but...
if this were to be the scenario
and there is a plenty of golf
left in the season
I say the total combined pts of season.
so technically the total number of victories
which would reward a team's participation throughout
and not encourage teams that have qualified
to pull a "Colts"
and not play out the entire challenge season.

just a thought.

i'd also b down with a head to head
if the scheduling allowed for such
either way the TC has been
a great experience thus far
providing a unique way to travel
and share other DGers backyards.

Steve Solbo · Post by **Steve Solbo** » Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:53 pm

bobbyc wrote:
Steve-O wrote:
stevend wrote:
Steve-O wrote:
stevend wrote:You could limit it to 6 players from each team this year, instead of waiting until next year. Then, whomever is in first can pick the course. Each team would be represented equally. No need for two courses, 120 golfers, massive lunch, etc.

where exactly do you stand Steve? this is a complete 180 from a PM you sent me regarding roster size at Finals...

As I said in my PM- An equal number of players per team would be the fair way to play it. I don't care if you have 6,10 or 15 as long as we all bring the same # of players.
I seriously doubt that Cranberry, Maine or Wick need extra players to beat most teams.

Things like this should have been decided before the season began. It seems odd that changes to the format were not more clearly stated.

I disagree. I think if anything, the top teams should be rewarded somehow. i.e. get to play more players. Me and Todd are still working on numbers, we may come up with a solution where the winning team gets to pick locale... but hey Cranbury... how can you assume you'll be the only undefeated team? I bet Maine probably ends up 5-0 as well.. how would you break that tie? I am curious...

good question solbo!
How did Maine get the easiest schedule of the A pool?
They should have had to play us reg season.
No offense Mainiacs.
If were both 5-0 in the end, it doesnt matter to tie-break
We cant pick the finals anyway!
prrrrrrrrnnnnnnnTT

I don't know about that Bobby.

Current Combined Opponent Records

Maine 4-9
Cranbury 5-8

Only difference in their schedule to Cranbury's is that you played Wickham, and they don't.. they will next year though.

Based on last years finishes, yes, their schedule is slightly easier than Cranbury's... Then again, some of the scheduling was based around regionality. Next year your two teams will play.. likely a neutral event, meet in the middle.