NEFA DISCussion

Ok so I just want to have clarity here as I finalize my roster and reach out to my team to let them know where each individial stands....

As an alternate... You can show up to as many challenges as you want even if the team has fielded a full 16 players? So we could bring 20 to a challenge (we got a gung ho bunch ) Obviously it would only count as bringing 16, but then after the 1st round I could have 4 sit and play my 4 alternates if I wished correct? Enabling all 20 people on my roster to get a challenge played and help them qualify for finals.

I believe this is correct but want to make double sure that this will be possible. In all likelihood nobody will field a full 20, that's a lot of people to not have any schedule conflicts, BUT it's possible and it makes sense in the case of injury or as a captain trying to have as many people qualify for finals as possible in case of schedule conflicts on the finals date.

Right?

Confirmation?

I was under the impression that an alternate could only play if a person on your regular roster couldn't make it that day? Otherwise you just have a 20 person roster.

Yea there alternates not subs. You can only play 16 people day of.

Yeah Eric, I wasn't sure if that was the deal or the other way around. For the reasons cited though I'm strongly in favor of it playing more like a 20 man roster.

If you have the people interested and want to play and others willing to sit a round to enable them to play, then let it happen.

The more people who qualify for finals the better. For everyone. I can't see why my breakdown would be detrimental or unfair in any way. I think it just makes sense. And it is like a 20 man roster. I mean there are 4 alternates, yes, but they are still on the TEAM. I'm not going to deprive my alternates from having team gear for instance.

The place where the alternates lose out the most is that they will sit at finals if all 16 "starters" qualify for finals and can play on that date. That's where it hurts being an alternate IMO.

Although even then a qualified alternate should have the chance to play one of the rounds at finals too if the chance arises.

Ideas?

Dave Hickson wrote:Yea there alternates not subs. You can only play 16 people day of.

Why?

Main Entry: alternate
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: substitute
Synonyms: backup, double, equivalent, fill-in, proxy, replacement, stand-in, sub, surrogate


I mean.. What's the difference between an alternate and a substitute? Why deprive people of playing if you have people who want to play?

I agree with Pete. I plan on using everyone at any given challenge. Why limit it?

Eric Maurer wrote:I was under the impression that an alternate could only play if a person on your regular roster couldn't make it that day? Otherwise you just have a 20 person roster.

What if they could only make one round? Then you need a substitute,yes?

Sounds fair.

i agree 110% with everything pete has said thus far just like i was saying about finals if these guys are on the team then they deserve to play if they are available and if one of the original 16 is willing to sit or unable to play.

This is the point I have been trying to raise for a while - obviously not very well.

I would prefer it work that you could play whichever 16 each round to qualify players as you choose.

As I said before, there could be a somewhat unique situation on Borderland 1 and 2 - with expanded teams Borderland 1 could tryout some members of borderland 2 (not this guy) for their team before the season. What would be the point of joining an A pool team as an alternate if there was a chance that you would never play.

If you make it 20 person roster then all the weaker teams will get weaker. You said it Pete why join an a pool team to be an alternate when you could be a valuable asset to a b pool team. If there are no alternates then we are basically allowing all the a pool teams to poach 4 more new team members. Where do you think they will get there talent to fill there roster spots.

Dave Hickson wrote:If you make it 20 person roster then all the weaker teams will get weaker. You said it Pete why join an a pool team to be an alternate when you could be a valuable asset to a b pool team. If there are no alternates then we are basically allowing all the a pool teams to poach 4 more new team members. Where do you think they will get there talent to fill there roster spots.

A good point, although is this something that could be remedied by a slight tweak in rules between the two pools?

Dave Hickson wrote:If you make it 20 person roster then all the weaker teams will get weaker. You said it Pete why join an a pool team to be an alternate when you could be a valuable asset to a b pool team. If there are no alternates then we are basically allowing all the a pool teams to poach 4 more new team members. Where do you think they will get there talent to fill there roster spots.

Dave, despite this, it it a good move to expand. Our league should be able to go from 320 discgolfers (20 teams w/ 16 players) to 400 disc golfers (20 teams w/ 20 players). However, I want us as captains to be able to decide when our 20 players can play - Obviously only 16 players per round - but whats the point of stopping a captain from playing all 20 players at different times during a challenge match.

BTW- I have almost 30 players trying out for B2 - I definately don't want just 16 players.

16 + 4 alternates - Give the captains the power!!

so can we get a clear answer from the commish, can we play all 20 during any givin challenge or the other way, i prefer all 20 can play cause it includes more but i think we all need to know in advance of our first challenges

Kory Roy wrote:so can we get a clear answer from the commish, can we play all 20 during any givin challenge or the other way, i prefer all 20 can play cause it includes more but i think we all need to know in advance of our first challenges

Just spoke with Todd, you can only play a max of 16 per challenge round, but yes, all 20 can play while 4 sit.

thanks solbo

Todd Lapham wrote:Results so far:

Do we have an official tally of all the teams in the A and B pool?

Nevermind, just saw that it was posted in the public forum.

With the expanding roster and only 5 matches, isn't it going to be harder to get everyone to qualify for finals. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't a player have to play in 3 matches, and for both rounds during those matches? Or is it just one round during a match qualify as 1 full match played?

I think it's 1 round at 3 separate matches.

Eric Maurer wrote:I think it's 1 round at 3 separate matches.

This.

question

if ya leave your 4 new spots open..say 1 for injury sake...does it count as roster move when adding to this spot..?

we plan on keeping a spot free in case of injury..my team is old...that way ya don't have to kicka guy off the team from an injury..then add a guy and then kick him off and readd OG member...gives some flexibility

Todd Lapham wrote:

Eric Maurer wrote:I think it's 1 round at 3 separate matches.

This.

Why can't it just be 3 rounds to qualify instead of 3 matches then? Seems easier on captains.

Why can't it just be 3 rounds to qualify instead of 3 matches then? Seems easier on captains.

That would only require 30% attendance from a person to qualify for finals though... Not nearly enough

Kelly Conroy wrote:Why can't it just be 3 rounds to qualify instead of 3 matches then? Seems easier on captains.

Pete Charron wrote:Why can't it just be 3 rounds to qualify instead of 3 matches then? Seems easier on captains.

That would only require 30% attendance from a person to qualify for finals though... Not nearly enough

thats more what i meant to do... you get it...

Because 3 rounds is only 1.5 challenges, whereas 1 round in 3 separate challenges requires someone to show up for 3 challenges.

Todd Lapham wrote:Because 3 rounds is only 1.5 challenges, whereas 1 round in 3 separate challenges requires someone to show up for 3 challenges.

I would like to see it stay this way.

Pete Charron wrote:Why can't it just be 3 rounds to qualify instead of 3 matches then? Seems easier on captains.

That would only require 30% attendance from a person to qualify for finals though... Not nearly enough

Actually, it would be 40. Three rounds would mean the person would have to be in attendance for at least 2 out of 5 matches.

alright alright... technicalities..... haha

Titan Bariloni wrote:question

if ya leave your 4 new spots open..say 1 for injury sake...does it count as roster move when adding to this spot..?

we plan on keeping a spot free in case of injury..my team is old...that way ya don't have to kicka guy off the team from an injury..then add a guy and then kick him off and readd OG member...gives some flexibility

I am curious as well.