Changes to NEDGC for 2014 .....

[Paul Sullivan]

Just starting some discussion...............

How do players feel about someone playing in one tournament all year and then getting an invite to the NEDGC or "Superbowl" as I call it??


One person plays in 6 or 7 tournaments but does not do well enough to get many points because there was a big turnout in his division.

Another person plays in one tournament in a division by themself and gets 100 points ultimately getting the invite to Finals

This seems to be very wrong to me and it takes away from what I think the "Superbowl" should represent. Shouldn't the "Superbowl" be more exclusive(harder to get into) Why do you have to have 90 players or even 72 players for that matter.

Hope I don't hurt anyones feelings, just looking for some feedback.

[Jeff Wiechowski]

Just starting some discussion...............

How do players feel about someone playing in one tournament all year and then getting an invite to the NEDGC or "Superbowl" as I call it??

I don't like it. But we ran 8 tourneys for the players in our region. I'm thinking that the invite numbers need to be adjusted. What the sate of Maine decides to do will play a big part in this.

One person plays in 6 or 7 tournaments but does not do well enough to get many points because there was a big turnout in his division.

Another person plays in one tournament in a division by themselves and gets 100 points ultimately getting the invite to Finals.

I don't like this either I committed to playing MPM this year. Kinda expected to have more competition. There were 26 MPM NEFA members last year. This year there were only 14.

Matt, Greg, Zoro and Danny crunched some numbers for a modified points system and we ran it in the background this year to see if it made a difference in this scenario. The last update with a side-by-side comparison was back on the 11th and it didn't change much. I think the limited number of players in some divisions hurt the modified calculations from working as they were intended.

Here's some more numbers to chew on.......... They play a HUGE part in why things are so lopsided.

NY/NJ ran 8 events for 37 NEFA players
CT/RI ran 6 events for roughly 56* NEFA players
VT/NH ran 9 events for 37 players
MA ran 16 events for around 240* players.

* numbers are approximate because I lost count of the players that played in more than one division.

[Mike Oatley]

Isn't there a minimum number of tournaments you need to play in in order to qualify? I thought that in CT it was 3. If you did not play in 3 events, you don't qualify to be in the pool to get an invite. So how is it possible someone gets an invite after having only played in 1? If your state didn't have enough players that played in the minimum events, then those spots should go to the other states.

[Kenji Cline]

I kinda agree with Mike. The 1-2 event invites are not good.
I think the 1 player 100 point thing is not that players fault and shouldn't be hurt too much by any changes but I think a slight point adjust may be needed. 90? 95? points
I think the BOD did a great job on trying out something different and using a 2nd points system in the back ground to see if it makes a difference. It's a work in progress but I like that it's moving in some direction to try to make it better.

[Paul Sullivan]

Discussion is good......

It gives me something to do at work

[Mike Dussault]

I feel like invites should include a spot for winners of any tournament. Win one and you get into finals.

[Jeff Wiechowski]

Isn't there a minimum number of tournaments you need to play in in order to qualify? I thought that in CT it was 3. If you did not play in 3 events, you don't qualify to be in the pool to get an invite. So how is it possible someone gets an invite after having only played in 1? If your state didn't have enough players that played in the minimum events, then those spots should go to the other states.

Regional coordinators were given a bit of leeway as to how they qualified their players.
I chose to use points as a deciding factor.
A players top three points total from the 8 NY/NJ events.
The rest of the regions and BoD had no issue with it.
A minimum was never discussed.

[Titan_Bariloni]

cool I feel a lil better..now look out..lol

there is many things going on here good stuff

first I wanna say Thanks for the effort this year..although I did not compete this year..if I had know 3 non bottom finishes in Pro open woulda got me my invite I maybe woulda..heck one year I played 8-9 or so in open and missed the invite by 3 people..so figured no chance this year..but after looking at the list of pro invites I lol'ed cuz I prob coulda made it


I maybe tend to agree with sully in the fact maybe finals doesnt need to be 72/90..if players dont put the effort in then why should they be rewarded..1-3 events is a joke regardless if only 6-8 events were had in region..that is all the more reason to play em all..heck 10 months to fit 5 events in if you seriously wanna compete seems fairly easy


so before this becomes blah blah blah...my main point here is this

it is OBV maybe nefa needs to do something about the membership numbers...they are shockingly low...almost a sad pathetic low...and how many are new members I wager a very low %

Dg is booming and has an unlimited age range well 5 to 70ish basically..so why so low?
I have said it before that the "point series" may not be the best attack plan to gain new members...yet most of the energies are dispensed to the series

why is MA being "punished"/limited in a sense for crushing it for nefa year after year

maybe each region needs it own series....own finals and then maybe nefa host a cool regional event for the top 3 say in each division..maybe even match play or something cool

it is pretty OBV ME is gonzo...VTers seem happy with there series, NH is just now getting courses..and some are so close to the MA border they gather support from MA, CT seemed to get a good start to things this year by banding together, NY events seem to fine but seems most players dont care about the finals/series and have cool above C tier events that draw from outside NY

well my brain has been mush so I will spare you all an even longer rant

step back..realize no matter what you do for finals/series is not gonna be fair to all...and focus on crushing the active nefa membership to 2-5K.....how I have thoughts....it is OBV the current method is failing

edit..also by removing potentially the rotating finals course you hinder your chance to gain new members from the state hosting that year....and you gain what a few guys that would only drive to center location....again already current members

[Jeff Wiechowski]

it is OBV maybe nefa needs to do something about the membership numbers...they are shockingly low...almost a sad pathetic low...and how many are new members I wager a very low %

Dg is booming and has an unlimited age range well 5 to 70ish basically..so why so low?
I have said it before that the "point series" may not be the best attack plan to gain new members...yet most of the energies are dispensed to the series

Agreed. But would blowing our wad on a couple/few new courses really increase membership THAT much? I wish we knew for sure.

why is MA being "punished"/limited in a sense for crushing it for nefa year after year

The idea was to include more from the further regions, not punish MA. We said that all along. A few newby locals out here have seen that and are planning to join NEFA in 2014.

maybe each region needs it own series....own finals and then maybe nefa host a cool regional event for the top 3 say in each division..maybe even match play or something cool

This could happen. But then we'd need to level the qualifying process by having, say 4 qually events per region. The rest of the events are reg season/NEDGC fundraisers. Still, it would kinda punish Mass TDs because they have triple the courses and host double the events.

step back..realize no matter what you do for finals/series is not gonna be fair to all...and focus on crushing the active nefa membership to 2-5K.....how I have thoughts....it is OBV the current method is failing

Agreed. The MA numbers are just too large.

edit....also by removing potentially the rotating finals course you hinder your chance to gain new members from the state hosting that year....and you gain what a few guys that would only drive to center location....again already current members

Don't get me started.......

[Titan_Bariloni]

in regards to new course ='s more members..I am not sold just yet myself...it will take more then just new course...we need to mobilize in communities and show a stronger positive presence IMO...how again sky is the limit..creative committed crew with some skillz and swag to offer....maybe pick 4 regions in each state that is dead...nefa shows up and does something

confused...on the rotating finals

this year is MA's year anyways so moot for now I guess
but IMO was my first appeal to the series and always thought was cool...seeing cool courses such as the J or others never being able to shine is kinda depressing...maple hill is cool and all but just so cliche IMO esp year after year...and just like we put the preferred vendor up for bids..is it not fair to do same with finals location as it is kinda rewarding a pay to play course with mucho attention

well anyways as mentioned above discussion is awesome...and now that people actually are starting to get what the changes are...maybe they get more involved from the gate this year

good stuff

[Roger Vranak]

I feel like invites should include a spot for winners of any tournament. Win one and you get into finals.

Wisconsin did just this and recently has stopped it the wisconsin tour is rather old started way back in the early 90s as a city vs city ( milwaukee sheboygan appleton and madison) and evolved in to a full blown tour I am new to NEFA but likes what is going on could it be better always yes ..so like one of my fav songs says Keep Talking

[Mike Oatley]

so what if the regions agreed on a minimum number in order to qualify but also had a few wildcard spots at the discretion of the region director in order to allow for someone that may have been injured and they want to represent the region?

On another note, what about holding a state based team challenge tournament? Instead of stocking it with all the top players, have a maximum team limit by rating so that all teams are equal but the director can choose how to stock the team. It would also need representative from all the divisions. Kind of like a region based ryder cup challenge.

[Paul Sullivan]

I don't think it is a very good idea giving the state coordinators the ability to pick "wildcards" or hand out invites. You can bet there will be some nepotism and that will turn into a pissing contest for sure.

My .02

[Titan_Bariloni]

well for the fundraising portion of the NERD...I must say CT/RI friggggging killlled it

Hats off to all involved down there...also in general that region impressed...I happened to make one of those events and it was awesome...

What did other regions raise? did the goals of 250 all get met?

well anyways good stuff

[Gary Cyr]

had a few wildcard spots at the discretion of the region director in order to allow for someone that may have been injured and they want to represent the region?

I would direct you to review the Earl Cup thread from any year. That should tell us just how that would turn out!

[Mike Oatley]

I would say the earl cup is quite a bit different. The entire event seems to be an exclusive event. Why would NEFA promote something like this?

I was suggesting that the regions follow a consistent policy for determining the qualified players with one or two exceptions, but I'm also OK with just following the hard lines. No matter.

Instead of the earl cup, why not offer a team type of event that is open to more participants? Allow for more divisions to participate. It will promote growth by getting the other divisions involved. Not just the top players. Team play could be fun for all. I also don't get the current team challenges. Seems like another exclusive event for the top players. The teams also make no sense. They are based on course locations but the players are from all over. Why not a regional based team challenge with a variation in skill and experience? It will promote camaraderie within the regions and may bring in some more players who aren't quite ready for singles tournament play.

[John Tserpes]

It looks like a lot less people qualified for the Points Series than previous years and are more focused on their regions. It would still be nice if you can play outside your region and finish well in the Point series to qualify for Finals. Exempt spots maybe?

[Matt DeAngelis]

It looks like a lot less people qualified for the Points Series than previous years and are more focused on their regions. It would still be nice if you can play outside your region and finish well in the Point series to qualify for Finals. Exempt spots maybe?

So the top x players in the season standings (not regional) are given an invite?

[John Tserpes]

not top x spots. Just spots in general for players who don't play all the amount of their regional events but like to play outside their region. Maybe its time to knock down the number of events for the points series also. like one for each division. it might encourage more players to play for the point series again.

My thoughts are you should have to qualify through the point series first. You can also qualify in the regional series if you don't play in enough point series events. Each region is given a certain number of exempt spots. This puts the Point Series as the 1st priority and Regions Series second. Unlike this year.

[Bill Bertera]

My feedback on the NEDGC/Points series for this year:

1. Overall a good idea and good change/improvement over last year. Glad the effort was made to improve.
2. The regional qualification needs to change. Should clearly be based on players location and not tournament location, this was the biggest oversight IMO.
3. If the Regional qualification stays the same, base the numbers on ACTUAL members in each region or tournaments held in each region. There's no way good Mass players who pay and play to NEFA should be losing spots to players who played in 1 tournament elsewhere.
4. I agree with John, lower the # of minimum tournaments for the points series. 6 is a lot, especially if you want to play in non-NEFA ones also. I would consider merging the 2 back together and have a common minimum, assuming my #2 point is used. 4 or 5 tournaments, in any state qualifies you for point/NEDGC series. Maybe reserving a few per state for other qualifying purposes (like if you won a tournament you can get one of the extra bids).
5. Have a single source for NEDGC invites. There were too many places for people to keep track of who was invited, and no waitlist. Extremely unclear about what was happening, and multiple questions went and still are unanswered.
6. Having it at Hyland during Octoberfest was not a disaster, but it also should not happen again.
.

[Jeff Wiechowski]

My feedback on the NEDGC/Points series for this year:

1. Overall a good idea and good change/improvement over last year. Glad the effort was made to improve. It was a lot to wrap our minds around and signifigant quirks were discovered after the start of season that can be improved upon.

2. The regional qualification needs to change. Should clearly be based on players location and not tournament location, this was the biggest oversight IMO. Not sure what you mean here........ so a MA resident that lives 5 miles from West T(in CT) would be able to use that event as a "regional"? Does a MA player that 35 miles from West T get that perk also?

3. If the Regional qualification stays the same, base the numbers on ACTUAL members in each region or tournaments held in each region. There's no way good Mass players who pay and play to NEFA should be losing spots to players who played in 1 tournament elsewhere. We based invites per region on last years numbers. I guess it could've been adjusted in May/June when new membership numbers had leveled off. Might have induced some whining from regions that stood to lose invites.

4. I agree with John, lower the # of minimum tournaments for the points series. 6 is a lot, especially if you want to play in non-NEFA ones also. I would consider merging the 2 back together and have a common minimum, assuming my #2 point is used. 4 or 5 tournaments, in any state qualifies you for point/NEDGC series. Maybe reserving a few per state for other qualifying purposes (like if you won a tournament you can get one of the extra bids). We held 42 NEFA events this year. 6 events should not be tough to make unless you're at the fringe of the NEFA map. And the 6 event minimum only applies to MPO. Other divisions are 5 and 4 minimum.

5. Have a single source for NEDGC invites. There were too many places for people to keep track of who was invited, and no waitlist. Extremely unclear about what was happening, and multiple questions went and still are unanswered. Agreed. The previous two years Finals had a single invite thread for each division where I tracked who accepted/declined and waitlist. Was expecting each region to do this but the execution was a bit off.

6. Having it at Hyland during Octoberfest was not a disaster, but it also should not happen again. Kinda embarrased that we(myself included) failed to see this possible conflict. To make it right, we need a location that can be reserved exclusively(like Maple Hill was for the pros). It's the crowning event for NEFA. It SHOULD be all about us.

[Jeff Prendergast]

2. The regional qualification needs to change. Should clearly be based on players location and not tournament location, this was the biggest oversight IMO. Not sure what you mean here........ so a MA resident that lives 5 miles from West T(in CT) would be able to use that event as a "regional"? Does a MA player that 35 miles from West T get that perk also?

Sounds like he means: If a MASS player plays in CT, RI, etc..., that tourney counts toward their regional points, not just MA tournies.
(instead of making MA player only earn regional points in MA tournies) <--I might have this part wrong

[Bill Bertera]

I'm confused by editing with color, so hopefully these responses are clear:

2. Sorry for being unclear, my proposal is so all players can play any tournament and it counts towards your regional qualifying (if regional qualifying is kept). This is to encourage cross-state travel. Yes WT would count towards MA, and Hyland/Crane/Webster/Buff could all count towards CT. So your qualifying is based on the state you LIVE, and not the tournamants you PLAY.

3. I can't find the numbers, but I would guess that MA had considerably more than 30% membership both this year and last.

4. MA1 is 6 also, I think. It just my opinion, maybe affected by having a baby this summer, but 1 month is hard to get to. Especially with work days, and maybe a doubles or charity or pdga-only tourament. And with TC starting in October and going through April.

5. I was thinking specifically of the way you tracked invites in previous year, I only joined last year, but I looked back at earlier threads, and was impressed by the way you did it, it was VERY clear, including a waitlist.

[Jeff Wiechowski]

I apologize if i edited anything, i tried to color my responses to each of your points.

I'm confused by editing with color, so hopefully these responses are clear:

2. Sorry for being unclear, my proposal is so all players can play any tournament and it counts towards your regional qualifying (if regional qualifying is kept). This is to encourage cross-state travel. Yes WT would count towards MA, and Hyland/Crane/Webster/Buff could all count towards CT. So your qualifying is based on the state you LIVE, and not the tournamants you PLAY. Got it.

3. I can't find the numbers, but I would guess that MA had considerably more than 30% membership both this year and last. The plan was to try and make it more inclusive to other regions so we "bent" the percentages a bit. The numbers for Mass are so lopsided that we may never get get it right.

4. MA1 is 6 also, I think. It just my opinion, maybe affected by having a baby this summer, but 1 month is hard to get to. Especially with work days, and maybe a doubles or charity or pdga-only tourament. And with TC starting in October and going through April.

5. I was thinking specifically of the way you tracked invites in previous year, I only joined last year, but I looked back at earlier threads, and was impressed by the way you did it, it was VERY clear, including a waitlist. I wish I could say that i'll make it that way next year but some employment issues in my world could potentially have me moving out of NEFAland.
Crossing my fingers that it doesn't happen but hoping that someone else can/will use what i've done if i'm gone.

[ira divoll]

Bill's proposed points for improvement would solve any reservations I had about the points system this year.

I also am happy that there is considerable thought and effort going towards making the NEDGC as good as it can be. Thank you to NEFA for making the effort to change the event for 2013, and also listening to the feedback to further improve the event for 2014.

[Mike Oatley]

I like the idea of allowing out of state tournaments to count towards your regional points. In my case I live near the border of MA and CT, I spent a lot more effort traveling longer distances to CT tournaments and didn't play in some of the closer MA tournaments which I would have liked to. Recording all your points in one central location regardless of region and qualifying just in your region sounds like a good adjustment.

[Craig Cutler]

I was involved in planning and sharing ideas for 2013. I have been a NEFA/PDGA member for 10 + years. Without change, NEFA was losing it's non Mass membership and representation. NEFA 2012 NEFA Finals was proof of this. Look at the 2012 results and the state representation and you will see.
Compare 2012 to 2013 and you will see improvement.

The goal was to save the fringe states, boost fringe state membership, and create a high level finals where all the best players were represented.

I just hope to see the NEDGC become even bigger and better over the years. The payouts are still very low and the representation needs to be stronger.

PS: The rotating finals idea is a great idea. But can you really build a tradition and improve the experience every year? Imagine if the Vibram Open had to rotate locations every year? Would it be as good? USDGC? The Memorial?

[Titan_Bariloni]

PS: The rotating finals idea is a great idea. But can you really build a tradition and improve the experience every year? Imagine if the Vibram Open had to rotate locations every year? Would it be as good? USDGC? The Memorial?

IMo yes..cuz the tradition was in part the rotational finals

not fair to compare RI's year vs this year(technically MA's year anyways)

why shouldnt it be put to bid..like vendors are? nefa is giving them revenue...we dont do that for pay to play remember

the vibram open is tied to sponsor thus vibram...that is tied to MH..so that is bad comparison IMO...they draw nation wide...will nefa ever draw nationwide lol

nefa needs to figure out what they need for/from finals location

the payout still comes from w/i the direct community..outside sposorship would be a plus....non DG...and why does there need to be some huge payout..your playing for the glory of it..it is a non profit org remember..so why so much focus on $$$$ anyways...is nefa a sports bookey now?

putting everything into the finals affects what at most 90-140 people...building courses...clinics etc etc reach far more

stop the dumb series talks and lets get a lil closer to the mission statement

just as many people who think the NERD is cool..I have heard 2x as many LOL at it..and not want nothing to do with nefa cuz they think personal glory from playing DG is lame

ok early morn rant done

[Craig Cutler]

putting it out for "bid" is a great idea.

A lot of us have our local clubs (Skylands/Disccap,etc), that build courses and promote growth. We join NEFA for the competition (tournament) aspect. We join and support our local clubs for course development, work days, etc.

[Matt DeAngelis]

Added the bid aspect to agenda for next weeks meeting.