Announcement: Changes to 2016 NEFA Points Series Formula

Bill Bertera · Post by **Bill Bertera** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 12:36 pm

We have changed the NEFA point-series formula for 2016. The biggest complaint about the previous formula was giving full 100 points for winning a division of 1. The difference between beating 0 people and beating 20, was 2 points.

The impact of the new formula, is that you don't get the full 100 points (or whatever place you finish in), until your division has 10 competitors. Once you reach 10, its basically the same as the old system, but with a higher bonus for winning.

There are now 3 components to the points given to each event:

Baseline (0-73): This is the majority of the points, and it works just like the old system, except its baselined from 0-73, instead of 0-100.

Per Player bonus (3 points per player beat or tied, max 27): Every participant gets 3 points per player beat/tied, with a max of 27 points. This is the way we bridge the gap between the 73 and 100, but only bringing it to 100 if your division has 10 participants.

1st place bonus (.2 per player beat): We also increased the first place bonus from .1 to .2 to give more value to winning larger divisions.

Danny ran all of last years tournaments through, and no first place winners would have changed, but several of the divisions were much closer, and a few 2-5 places changed.

AM1 winner gap went from 20 points to 5. Pro Master went from 60 to 13. FA2 went from 70 to 30. Rec went form 14 to .3.

One outcome of this is the smaller divisions will have lower points available. The winners in 2015 for FA1, FA2, FPO, MPG all would have won with <400 points, where we normally see 500. But since cross-divisional points don't matter its purely cosmetic.

Another change I hope to work on with Danny this year, is to try to work the NEDGC qualifications into the standings, so you can see how many invites each division is expected to receive as the year goes on, basically a real-time cutline.

Jeff Prendergast · Post by **Jeff Prendergast** » Mon Jan 04, 2016 6:12 pm

I like this a lot. My first thought was maybe NEFA picks a few tournaments or TDs could be asked to earmark spots to encourage larger fields in these smaller divisions a few times throughout the year and maybe these tournies are NEDGC "qualifiers" or something like that. Just writing it down before I forget.
Getting into preferred tournaments is harder than it has ever been. This point system puts attendance at a much higher premium than before; knowing when a small division is likely to be larger would be great to know. As I think more, I have a wife and 2 young kids and this would be an especially helpful bit of info when planning with family too.

Jim Bailey · Post by **Jim Bailey** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:10 am

Out of morbid curiosity would Danny post the 2015 revisionist standings somewhere?

I'm sure I benefited from high finishes in small fields last year and even I support the change - it makes sense.

Bill Bertera · Post by **Bill Bertera** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 9:48 am

Jim Bailey wrote:Out of morbid curiosity would Danny post the 2015 revisionist standings somewhere?

I'm sure I benefited from high finishes in small fields last year and even I support the change - it makes sense.

I'll try to get at least the Top-5 posted. You would have dropped from 5th to 7th.

Jeff: It certainly will be advantageous to try to figure out which events will have larger fields (for divisions that normally have small ones). For example Hunts Mean always has big Master/GM fields. But I don't know if the other events are consistent like that. 2-day or 90 person tournaments obviously have a greater chance of larger small divisions.

Doug Callaghan · Post by **Doug Callaghan** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:18 pm

awesome!

Titan_Bariloni · Post by **Titan_Bariloni** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:23 pm

why not take it a step further, if only one person is in division give them the win and allow them to compete in another division for the day to promote competition and keep point interest for nefa in tact

as far as 1 person in a division no getting 100, that can open up other situations not sure if you are aware of them or if they were thought through

Jeff Wiechowski · Post by **Jeff Wiechowski** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 2:41 pm

Titan_Bariloni wrote: as far as 1 person in a division no getting 100, that can open up other situations not sure if you are aware of them or if they were thought through

Please elaborate.
We went thru a few different scenarios that have happened in the past but if you've got a theory about new issues arising from this change feel free to post them up.

Josh Connell · Post by **Josh Connell** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:19 pm

Let me see if I have this straight...

In a division of seven players, the winner will get 92.4 points (91 + 1.4), yes?

Does that mean second place gets 78.57? (73/7 = 10.43 --> 73 - 10.43 = 63.57 --> 5 beaten X 3 = 15 --> 63.57 + 15 = 78.57)

If that is the case, there will be situations in which second place at one tournament will receive the same or more points than the winner at another tournament, due solely to something entirely out of either player's control? Like in the example, a win in a division of two or three elsewhere gains nothing on a player who doesn't win his division at all. Seems wrong to me.

Bill Bertera · Post by **Bill Bertera** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:43 pm

your math looks right, and that is correct (and intentional) that 2nd place in a larger field could earn more points than first in a small field.

Titan_Bariloni · Post by **Titan_Bariloni** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 4:08 pm

ok, JW I will spill

This is and does happen(you shady old timers lol)

say player X end of season needs X amount of points to move up in division

for discussion sakes he need 100 points a win basically under former rules

gets down to end of series all the old timers are qualified and at top where they want to be

so player X signs up if he gets a win he wins series....

now here is where human nature throws a curveball at the new system

players Y,Z say well if we don't sign up he can't win by math

this already happens for point multipliers and is reason why some of these smaller divisions go to zero/1 at end of season

so in affect players can manipulate the outcomes by not playing..seems starnge to set a competitive series up where as not playing can have as much or more affect then actually playing

does that make sense or am I flawed in thought process on this?

Titan_Bariloni · Post by **Titan_Bariloni** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 4:18 pm

not to mention it greatly puts higher DG populations at an advantage unless travel and prompt event reg happens, and sometimes that is not reality with events being filled months out..esp the ones relevant to discussion here....it almost rewards the people who happened to get into the event over another....of course they still need to compete and win..but race to reg for event now plays apart in crowning the winner in some sense

Bill Bertera · Post by **Bill Bertera** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:10 pm

I would wager the exposure to your new loophole (not playing in events) is considerably less than taking advantage of the previous loophole (winning against no one).

The data from Danny did not show any advantage to higher populated regions. And I believe the 2015 per tournament average attendance was 67, so almost all events are selling out across all regions.

Jeff Wiechowski · Post by **Jeff Wiechowski** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:37 pm

Titan_Bariloni wrote:ok, JW I will spill

This is and does happen(you shady old timers lol)

say player X end of season needs X amount of points to move up in division

for discussion sakes he need 100 points a win basically under former rules

gets down to end of series all the old timers are qualified and at top where they want to be

so player X signs up if he gets a win he wins series....

now here is where human nature throws a curveball at the new system

players Y,Z say well if we don't sign up he can't win by math

this already happens for point multipliers and is reason why some of these smaller divisions go to zero/1 at end of season

so in affect players can manipulate the outcomes by not playing..seems starnge to set a competitive series up where as not playing can have as much or more affect then actually playing

does that make sense or am I flawed in thought process on this?

Not playing in an event would affect the points in BOTH the new and old points systems. This new system should spread the points races out a bit more so it'll take MORE players(playing or not playing) than just one to affect outcomes.

Titan_Bariloni · Post by **Titan_Bariloni** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:53 pm

I am not disagreeing that a win of one is lame, just pointing out the fix creates new issues

JW yes to some extent, but I would suspect this would increase that situation happening and can bigger affects across the board maybe not in first place but 2nd-5th say

yes Bill about selling out, but in high DG population you have > chance of getting a bigger field in a < division type we are speaking of

IMO I think things need to be evolved a bit deeper to get at the core of this, allow specific events and allow them to be played if need be at a course that already has a nefa points event to encourage TD's to do both....this will allow for events to be catered specifically to a division one time a year or one time in each State....this will allow for those players to compete with a great field size to better determine who really was the champ of the year

cuz isn't this what it is really about who the real champ was not the player who cherry picked opportunities(although to me that is part of sports but not from a "pure" POV)

thoughts oh brain make them stop....I got course work to focus on carry on

Josh Connell · Post by **Josh Connell** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:07 pm

NEFA requires events offer 12 divisions. Most events are run on 18 hole courses with a player cap of 90. 90/12 = 7.5

For every division that has 10 or more players, multiple other divisions in that same event will never be able to have that many. And there's no real rhyme or reason in determining which events will have significant attendance in which divisions. So the notion that one can pick and choose their events to ensure they play in a large division, just as the notion that one used to be able to pick and choose events with a small/no division for "easy" points, is folly.

The changes fix one perceived inequity and creates new inequities instead. Awesome.

Titan_Bariloni · Post by **Titan_Bariloni** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:21 pm

yes, esp if it is "free for all" reg by TD meaning no divisions reserved

even if 10 people wanted to play that division one could in theory only get in,yes waitlist etc etc blah blah

now why should that player be punished because his competition didn't get in

it could happen, the could happens should be considered though when making a rule change

Josh, I see your point....I am just wondering your "stake" in the game for no other reason then curiosity

I would think the first reason in changing a rule is why? what are we trying to achieve?
can the reps please answer that question as IMO it def determines the direction of change needed and the depth w/I the charter you need to tweak

Bill Bertera · Post by **Bill Bertera** » Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:34 pm

The first line in this thread explains the reason

Titan_Bariloni · Post by **Titan_Bariloni** » Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:47 am

ok,fair enough

I guess then the question would be why did those people "complain" what was the perceived issue(s)
that a person winning in a division of one creates?

Titan_Bariloni · Post by **Titan_Bariloni** » Wed Jan 06, 2016 6:56 am

also, how long after we submit and event should it take to appear on schedule?

ty

Danny White · Post by **Danny White** » Wed Jan 06, 2016 10:37 am

Josh Connell wrote:Let me see if I have this straight...

In a division of seven players, the winner will get 92.4 points (91 + 1.4), yes?

Does that mean second place gets 78.57? (73/7 = 10.43 --> 73 - 10.43 = 63.57 --> 5 beaten X 3 = 15 --> 63.57 + 15 = 78.57)

If that is the case, there will be situations in which second place at one tournament will receive the same or more points than the winner at another tournament, due solely to something entirely out of either player's control? Like in the example, a win in a division of two or three elsewhere gains nothing on a player who doesn't win his division at all. Seems wrong to me.

Just to correct the math -
First in a division of 7 would get 92.2 points. 73+18+1.2 (.2 bonus for each player beat which was 6)
Second would get 77.571 62.571+15+0
Third would get 64.143 52.143+12+0

Your conclusion still stands

Bill Bertera · Post by **Bill Bertera** » Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:16 am

Jim Bailey wrote:Out of morbid curiosity would Danny post the 2015 revisionist standings somewhere?

I'm sure I benefited from high finishes in small fields last year and even I support the change - it makes sense.

Here is what the top 5 would have looked like with the new formula.

Troy Dietrich · Post by **Troy Dietrich** » Thu Jan 07, 2016 2:02 pm

For the record I STILL prefer the points system I proposed three years ago better...

http://forums.nefa.com/viewtopic.php?p=312783#p312783

That way coming in 2nd or 3rd in a small division aren't useless points. Tightens the competition and rewards the winners with a significant bonus based on field size.

That said, I'm all for giving this new system a try. The points system definitely could use a re-vamp.

Andy Powell · Post by **Andy Powell** » Tue Jan 26, 2016 6:38 pm

This seems like a great system. I especially like the retroactive bump from 506.6 to 508.28!

We're definitely moving in the right direction. Now if only we had gotten rid of double points a year earlier so I could have taken down Kyle Moriarty in 2011!

Titan_Bariloni · Post by **Titan_Bariloni** » Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:44 am

throwing my name back into the AM2 hat.....you are going down APMD!

John Mucciarone · Post by **John Mucciarone** » Thu Feb 18, 2016 12:16 pm

this should be

A - stickied to the top of this thread
B - stickied to the top of the TOURNAMENT thread
C - in a section related to NEFA points or the FRONT PAGE or the POINT SERIES TAB

its easy to keep people informed and aware and essential for continuing membership.

thanks!

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Thu Feb 18, 2016 3:11 pm

Done.

John Mucciarone · Post by **John Mucciarone** » Mon Aug 22, 2016 9:48 pm

....finals thread?

Matt DeAngelis · Post by **Matt DeAngelis** » Tue Aug 23, 2016 6:52 am

John Mucciarone wrote:....finals thread?

Need to create that.

NEFA DISCussion