B-Pool Finals

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:55 pm

2 votes

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:29 am

IF we vote to expand the doubles to 6somes, why wouldn't we expand the singles to 6somes as well? Just stating that we decided on 10 per team to make 5somes and speed up play. If we decide for 6somes in the afternoon, it will be questioned why it wasn't also 6somes in the morning. Just playing devils advocate here.

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:43 am

Good point.

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:27 am

Is everyone good with a 9:30 start time?

Shawn Mullen · Post by **Shawn Mullen** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:58 am

Sounds good to me.....player meeting at 9:15?

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:59 am

TRB can't make finals, so Chris Bolton is taking over those duties for Panthorn. He just got back to me via email and said that he is good with a 9:30 start time and does not want 6somes for doubles.

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:02 am

Okay thats probably more than half for 4somes. 9:30 is great with us. Probably all be there by 8.

My roster is all set and I posted it on the other thread.

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:35 am

That still leaves us with the problem of having 90 players in doubles, and having some holes with 4somes and some with 6somes.

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:41 am

We can't solve this problem unless we solve it...
Someone has to decide what we are gonna do.

You know I want all sixsomes or no sixsomes for doubles. Having one slows everyone down as much as 2 or 10 does.

Its the right thing to do and if it were up to me...well you know.

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:45 am

Well, I vote for all sixsomes then. I can't see a way to limit the number to 4somes for doubles.

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:57 am

What does Mullen think? Laforce? Hickson? Judge? Juano is not going to chime in, so they can be neutral.

Shawn Mullen · Post by **Shawn Mullen** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:12 pm

yeah.....I don't know. I may only have enough players to play 10 in the afternoon anyway. I have 2 players hurt and one may need to leave to make it to work on time.

I don't think going all 4 somes would be a good idea. Teams already have to have people sit out. Do a couple 6 somes really slow everyone down? If thats the case then just go all 6 somes.

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 12:32 pm

That's the other side of the coin too. Some teams will only be able to field 10 players in dubs. So that means there will be some 6somes and some 4somes on the course anyway. We will not have all 6somes.

Dave Hickson · Post by **Dave Hickson** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 1:22 pm

I only have 11 available players. I'll chose neutral. It don't bother me I'm just happy to be in the playoffs. Even if it's with no wins.

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 1:48 pm

So four yes, three no and two neutral...

Still need B2 to vote

edited to reflect comments...

Shaun LaForce · Post by **Shaun LaForce** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 2:12 pm

10 and 10 is my vote

Pete Violet · Post by **Pete Violet** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:32 pm

We already voted - Judge and I are co-captains - we voted for 6-somes for dubs.

Titan Bariloni · Post by **Titan Bariloni** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:07 pm

blind man dubz instead of best disc..do best hole..just a suggestion..continue

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:27 pm

Sorry Pete, I missed that.

So its all sixsomes instead of some sixsomes for dubs then?

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:44 pm

Steven Dakai wrote:Sorry Pete, I missed that.

So its all sixsomes instead of some sixsomes for dubs then?

It would be, but not all teams will be able to field 12 players for doubles, so we will have some foursomes and some sixsomes anyway.

Pete Violet · Post by **Pete Violet** » Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:18 pm

Matt DeAngelis wrote:
Steven Dakai wrote:Sorry Pete, I missed that.

So its all sixsomes instead of some sixsomes for dubs then?

It would be, but not all teams will be able to field 12 players for doubles, so we will have some foursomes and some sixsomes anyway.

Sorry I am confused. I understand what you are saying but are we allowing those that can to field 6 teams for dubs (counting 5)?

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:39 am

Pete Violet wrote:
Matt DeAngelis wrote:
Steven Dakai wrote:Sorry Pete, I missed that.

So its all sixsomes instead of some sixsomes for dubs then?

It would be, but not all teams will be able to field 12 players for doubles, so we will have some foursomes and some sixsomes anyway.

Sorry I am confused. I understand what you are saying but are we allowing those that can to field 6 teams for dubs (counting 5)?

The original issue with playing 10 each in doubles was that there would be a mix of 4somes and 6somes. The argument was made that if there were 6somes in the mix, it would end up slowing everything down, so we might as well play all 6somes. It was put to a vote and all 6somes was voted on. However, not every team will be able to play 12 players in doubles. At least three teams will not be able to play 12 players. That means that there will now be a mix of 4somes and 6somes on the course anyway, defeating the purpose of extending the number of players.

Pete Violet · Post by **Pete Violet** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:26 am

That means that there will now be a mix of 4somes and 6somes on the course anyway, defeating the purpose of extending the number of players.

I think the purpose is not to make all sixsomes, but to allow teams to play more players. So 6 of the 9 teams would be able to play 2 more players with not much more waiting since either way there would be sixes and fours.

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 7:28 am

OK then. Giddy-up.

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:43 am

So we (the 6 that can) will plan on 6 dubs teams and throw out 1 score.

Next...

DNF- If a single player does not finish how shall we score it? How about a 99?

Otherwise you could get someone with a [bleep] round not finishing to avoid a 70.

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:54 am

Well, if someone doesn't finish, I agree that they should be penalized. Either they get the 99 or they get the worst score on the day +10 strokes or something. I like the 99 though.

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:57 am

I would limp through the forest before I gave my team a 99,so would most people.

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 11:13 am

Yeah, I think that works well.

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:29 pm

So we have an issue surrounding the beer for Saturday. We can't put a keg out on the course and in order to have beer in the pavilion, it would cost over $400. I can't justify spending nearly half of the money towards beer. Working with Don to come up with a solution.

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Tue Apr 05, 2011 9:43 pm

So they don't want the kegs consumed there?

NEFA DISCussion

B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals- Start time? 9:30?

Re: B-Pool Finals- Start time? 9:30?

Re: B-Pool Finals- Start time? 9:30?

Re: B-Pool Finals- Start time? 9:30?

Re: B-Pool Finals- Start time? 9:30?

Re: B-Pool Finals- Start time? 9:30?

Re: B-Pool Finals- Start time? 9:30?

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals

Re: B-Pool Finals