NEFA DISCussion

Here are the payouts for the 2014 NEFA Points Series Standings. The Am payouts will be handled by Pure Flight at the NEDGGC on Saturday. Thanks to Pure Flight for giving a discount, which increases the Am payouts. Pros will receive cash at the NEDGC on Sunday. Payouts are based on last place receiving $20 (basically a NEFA renewal refund for playing well), and the amount of money generated by the series in the particular division. Trophies will go to the Recreational (MA3) division. Congratulations to all.

Pro Open (MPO) $1294 total payout, 29 players qualified, 26 players are paid
1 Samuel Henderson $171
2 Kevin Gardner $129
3 Kyle Moriarty $98
4 Cooper Arnold $83
5 Gary Cyr $71
6 Michael Dussault $62
7 Timothy Walsh $57
8 Joseph Yaskis $53
9 Josh Connell $49
10 Mark Valis $45
11 Rob Belanger $43
12 Micah Franzman $40
13 Sean Bleything $38
14 Pete Charron $35
15 Drew Smith $34
16 John Buonsanto $32
17 Jeffrey Spring $31
18 Chris Young $30
19 Tim Jiardini $28
20 Ryan Sullivan $27
21 John Williston $26
22 Sandy Redd $25
23 Ned Eisenberg $23
24 Matthew Sroka $22
25 Alex Maloney $21
26 Jeff Fleury $21

Pro Women (FPO) $101 total payout, 2 players qualified, 2 players are paid
1 Joy Hartwell $63
2 Julie Ferdella $38

Pro Masters (MPM) $190 total payout, 4 players qualified, 4 players are paid
1 Kenneth Gary $78
2 Keith Clark $49
3 Bob Kulchuk $36
4 Jeff Wiechowski $27

Pro Grandmasters (MPG) $200 total payout, 7 players qualified, 5 players are paid
1 Daniel Marcus $72
2 Karl Molitoris $49
3 Paul Sullivan $34
4 Danny White $25
5 Greg Kurtz $20

Advanced (MA1) $866 total payout, 20 players qualified, 20 players are paid
1 Samuel Henderson $102
2 Andy Allen $84
3 Steve Tousignant $74
4 John Buonsanto $67
5 Paul Southard $60
6 Brad Ayotte $53
7 Kenneth Marshall $48
8 Dave Richardson $43
9 Chris Barden $40
10 Bill Bertera $36
11 Adam Stearns $34
12 Travis Bushore $32
13 Robert Durant $29
14 Mike Axline $28
15 Marc Duci $26
16 Ira Divoll $24
17 Daniel Nakamoto $23
18 Eric Kretschmar $22
19 Kevin Habicht $21
20 Andrew Powell $20

Advanced Women (FA1) $80 total payout, 2 players qualified, 2 players are paid
1 Ashley Toomey $50
2 Jenilee Desrosiers $30

Advanced Masters (MM1) $320 total payout, 12 players qualified, 7 players are paid
1 Troy Dietrich $88
2 Steven Dakai $64
3 Bob Kulchuk $51
4 Peter Nevius $40
5 Doug Callaghan $32
6 Bryan Kynard $25
7 Tim Tadlock $20

Advanced Grandmasters (MG1) $226 total payout, 9 players qualified, 5 players are paid
1 Karl Molitoris $78
2 Rick Williams $54
3 John Rodenhizer $41
4 Mike Saimond $30
5 Bill Dunne $23

Intermediate (MA2) $1121 total payout, 29 players qualified, 23 players are paid
1 Tony Ruschioni $120
2 Cam Rose $99
3 Greg McWilliams $87
4 James Scanlon $80
5 Matt Mourovic $72
6 Kevin Habicht $64
7 Sean McCabe $58
8 Robert Durant $54
9 Anthony Cavalieri $49
10 Wallace Holmes $46
11 Daniel Ragland $43
12 Chase Bennett $40
13 Sean Belanger $37
14 David Meyer $35
15 Michael Rogan $32
16 Cale Israel $30
17 Lee Chiang $29
18 Ryan Kasprzycki $28
19 John Rogers $27
20 Joshua Quackenbush $25
21 Nicholas Vasques $24
22 Matthew Morris $22
23 Braxton Showalter $20

Intermediate Women (FA2) $107 total payout, 5 players qualified, 3 players are paid
1 Jacklyn Bogan $51
2 Nicole Dalton $32
3 Carol Click $24

Recreational (MA3) 6 players qualified, top 3 players receive a trophy
1 Matthew Ducharme, 1st place trophy
2 Norman Peterson, 2nd place trophy
3 Jonathan Cattel, 3rd place trophy

How might I be able to collect my payout? I wasn't able to attend the event on Sunday..

Kevin, e-mail me your mailing address. I can send a check, or wait until I see you in person and I'll hand over the cash.

Rick
e-mail: frisbeerick@gmail.com

Is there a reason for requiring a minimum number of events to qualify for a payout? I finished 11th in Am 1 playing just 5 events and I'm somehow not deserving of a payout which I bought into with my membership dues? That makes no sense.

Brad Harris wrote:Is there a reason for requiring a minimum number of events to qualify for a payout? I finished 11th in Am 1 playing just 5 events and I'm somehow not deserving of a payout which I bought into with my membership dues? That makes no sense.

I understand not getting an invite to finals but this is lame (if true).

This has been the case for as long as I can remember, but may not be necessary any longer with the change in invite structure.

Trent Solomon wrote:

Brad Harris wrote:Is there a reason for requiring a minimum number of events to qualify for a payout? I finished 11th in Am 1 playing just 5 events and I'm somehow not deserving of a payout which I bought into with my membership dues? That makes no sense.

I understand not getting an invite to finals but this is lame (if true).

How in the world is this "lame"? It's right in the charter...

Division Minimum Number of Events

The following will be the minimum number of events for the season standings and end of season payout:

Pro Open 6
Pro Masters 5
Pro Grandmasters 5
Pro Women 4
Advanced 6
Intermediate 5
Advanced Masters 5
Advanced Grandmasters 5
Advanced Women 4
Intermediate Women 4

Josh Connell wrote:

Trent Solomon wrote:

Brad Harris wrote:Is there a reason for requiring a minimum number of events to qualify for a payout? I finished 11th in Am 1 playing just 5 events and I'm somehow not deserving of a payout which I bought into with my membership dues? That makes no sense.

I understand not getting an invite to finals but this is lame (if true).

How in the world is this "lame"? It's right in the charter...

Division Minimum Number of Events

The following will be the minimum number of events for the season standings and end of season payout:

Pro Open 6
Pro Masters 5
Pro Grandmasters 5
Pro Women 4
Advanced 6
Intermediate 5
Advanced Masters 5
Advanced Grandmasters 5
Advanced Women 4
Intermediate Women 4

Like I said I get the minimum number of invites for finals but if you play in fewer events and are play good enough in those events to be able to get paid out why should you be passed over? I thought this was changed when the NEDGC was created. At least I tried to get it changed.

I think the thought is that those that played in at least the minimum have put more into the series than those that played fewer than the minimum requirements. I am not saying that is the right way to do it, but you can't complain about something that is very clearly spelled out in the charter.

I understand that the rules are clear. I'm not trying to complain that I've been wronged in some way. But it did take me by surprise when I saw that rule and I'm questioning why it even makes sense to have that rule in place. Especially when barely a quarter of Am 1 players even qualified for payouts under the current rules.

I didn't see this as complaining at all! We will discuss this change for the upcoming 2015 season and agree that it seems to not really apply any longer now that the invite criteria is different. I guess a devils advocate position could say that it should be rewarding players that committed to the season. It could happen where a player competes in three events with no other competition in the division, earn the 300 pts, and earn a payout for the season over a player that played 5 events at full fields and earned less than 300 pts. Extreme example, but it is something to consider.

Matt DeAngelis wrote:I guess a devils advocate position could say that it should be rewarding players that committed to the season. It could happen where a player competes in three events with no other competition in the division, earn the 300 pts, and earn a payout for the season over a player that played 5 events at full fields and earned less than 300 pts. Extreme example, but it is something to consider.

This is a reasonable mindset regarding finals invites. But for points series payouts, I see no reason to exclude any player who buys into the series. It's up to the players to decide how committed they want to be towards playing more events in order to better their chances for a high payout.

Matt DeAngelis wrote:I didn't see this as complaining at all! We will discuss this change for the upcoming 2015 season and agree that it seems to not really apply any longer now that the invite criteria is different. I guess a devils advocate position could say that it should be rewarding players that committed to the season. It could happen where a player competes in three events with no other competition in the division, earn the 300 pts, and earn a payout for the season over a player that played 5 events at full fields and earned less than 300 pts. Extreme example, but it is something to consider.

Then make the max a person can earn in a single person division something less than 100.1, maybe 75.1?

Trent Solomon wrote:Then make the max a person can earn in a single person division something less than 100.1, maybe 75.1?

So penalize a player 25 points because no one else shows up in that division?

We went thru this in great detail in 2013. We even ran a side-by-side comparison throughout the year to see if it would make things "more fair" and it didn't affect the final outcome.

Jeff Wiechowski wrote:

Trent Solomon wrote:Then make the max a person can earn in a single person division something less than 100.1, maybe 75.1?

So penalize a player 25 points because no one else shows up in that division?

We went thru this in great detail in 2013. We even ran a side-by-side comparison throughout the year to see if it would make things "more fair" and it didn't affect the final outcome.

I was referencing the scenario that Matt laid out. We did a side by side comparison of a different points calculation done up by Troy, not limiting single person divisions.

Rick Williams wrote:Kevin, e-mail me your mailing address. I can send a check, or wait until I see you in person and I'll hand over the cash.

Rick
e-mail: frisbeerick@gmail.com

That was fast, check has been cashed, thank you!!

I played two NEFA events dont I get $$??