2009-10 New England TC Rules/Guidelines.

Todd Lapham · Post by **Todd Lapham** » Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:20 pm

• Roster size of 14 players with an additional spot available for females (not required).

• Players must play in 3 challenges to qualify for finals.

• Anyone in consolation pool may play as long as they have played in at least one challenge.

• Changes in roster can be made for any reasonable reason (moving, injury, jail, quitting etc.) However the new player still has to play 3 challenges.

• Max 2 roster moves per season.

• Minimum number of players for a challenge is 6.

• Standard format is Match Play singles and Best Disc Stroke Play for doubles. Captains can agree to whatever they want, if they can’t agree this is the default.

• The 8 teams in this year’s finals will be the “A Pool” next year. Everyone else will be in the “B Pool.” Divisions for next year are based off finals results. One division with be 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th place. The other with be 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th place.

• Team dues are $200. Must be paid before first challenge date or it’s a forfeit. Payout breakdown will be posted.

• Team(s) in first place after regular season gets to pick finals location(s).

• Finals location can’t be anyone in the finals home course (even Wick) and it can’t be the same course back to back years.

Todd Lapham · Post by **Todd Lapham** » Sun Jan 31, 2010 6:22 pm

Finals Info

• Places 1-4 get 14 players that play.
Places 5-8 get 12 players that play.

• Top 10 singles scores count. If a team has less than 10 the bottom scores will be counted twice. Ex. A team has 8 players, then 7th and 8th will count twice.

• Top 5 doubles scores count.

• Doubles scores will be double weighted.

• Consolation pool everyone can play due to having only 6 teams. The same scoring format applies.

• Consolation pool gets $600 for food, drink and optional CTPs.

• Finals payouts will be ($2200):

1st: $800
2nd: $600
3rd: $400
4th: $200

Four $50 CTPs. Teams that finished 2-5th each get to pick a hole. (Unless a fee has to be paid.)

• Every team is responsible for bringing food and beverages to finals. This was determined by the majority preseason. We’ll have grills available.

JohnT · Post by **JohnT** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:50 am

Todd Lapham wrote:Top 10 singles scores count. If a team has less than 10 the bottom scores will be counted twice. Ex. A team has 8 players, then 7th and 8th will count twice.

Todd I was thinking about this rule and it seems to benefit the team with less players more than it would a team with a full roster. Ex. Team A brings 6 players and their worst score is a 56. Team B has 10 players and there bottom 4 scores are 56 57 60 61 but Team B top 6 out shot Team As top 6. Who woulld win? Imaginary scores just seems like a silly rule for finals when you have $2200 on the line. Just my opinion.

Todd Lapham · Post by **Todd Lapham** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:57 am

How else can you do it? I doubt teams will be showing up with low numbers at finals, it hasn't happened before. If just 6 scores count, it's not really a good representation of the whole team.

I guess we'll have to figure out another scoring system if that problem does arise, but I doubt/hope that it doesn't.

Matt Stroika · Post by **Matt Stroika** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:58 am

Todd Lapham wrote:• Singles scores will be double weighted.

I have a question about this. Why. You will count 10x2=20 singles scores and only 5 doubles scores? Doesn't this make doubles almost not worth playing as it only accounts for 20% of your score for the day and is most likely to provide smaller deviations in scores?

Todd Lapham · Post by **Todd Lapham** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:01 am

You're right Matt. It's supposed to be doubles scores are double weighted. My bad.

Joe Yaskis · Post by **Joe Yaskis** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:07 am

Why do the better teams get to have more players play for the finals? Shouldnt it be the other way around? Makes sense from where I'm typing.

Todd Lapham · Post by **Todd Lapham** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:08 am

yaskis wrote:Why do the better teams get to have more players play for the finals? Shouldnt it be the other way around? Makes sense from where I'm typing.

It's a reward for finishing better.

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:09 am

How is the site of the consolation pool determined? The first and second place teams are in the A pool final.

Thanks for writing down the rules, and answering questions.

Eric Kevorkian · Post by **Eric Kevorkian** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:14 am

How do you figure out seeding for the "B" pool with the bottom 2 "A" pool teams playing in it?

Paul Sullivan · Post by **Paul Sullivan** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:32 am

When the "better" teams get to pick the finals site to me that is a perk they receive.

When the "better" teams get to more scores to chose from, to me this gives them a distinct advantage and ultimately takes away from "winning the Superbowl".

My opinion is that the "better" teams already have an advantage so why make the gap between the 1st and 8th wider??

Hopefully this won't upset anyone as it is just my thoughts on this topic.

My first year in the Team Challenge"... I LOVE IT It is a whole different dynamic when you play as a team vs playing by yourself. I've played with with some great people that I might not have and it keeps me playing competitively through the winter.

TEAM CHALLENGE = FUN

Todd Lapham · Post by **Todd Lapham** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:35 am

stevend wrote:How is the site of the consolation pool determined? The first and second place teams are in the A pool final.

Thanks for writing down the rules, and answering questions.

Hmm good question. I guess the team that finishes 3rd would pick. I'm open to suggestions though.

Todd Lapham · Post by **Todd Lapham** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:37 am

Kovo wrote:How do you figure out seeding for the "B" pool with the bottom 2 "A" pool teams playing in it?

I don't understand what you mean. Why do you need seeding? Unless you're talking about getting to pick the finals location? I don't know either, that's why I'd say the 3rd place finisher gets to pick. It shouldn't be automatically determined by the relegated A Pool teams, imo.

Todd Lapham · Post by **Todd Lapham** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:40 am

sully from tully wrote:When the "better" teams get to pick the finals site to me that is a perk they receive.

When the "better" teams get to more scores to chose from, to me this gives them a distinct advantage and ultimately takes away from "winning the Superbowl".

My opinion is that the "better" teams already have an advantage so why make the gap between the 1st and 8th wider??

Hopefully this won't upset anyone as it is just my thoughts on this topic.

My first year in the Team Challenge"... I LOVE IT It is a whole different dynamic when you play as a team vs playing by yourself. I've played with with some great people that I might not have and it keeps me playing competitively through the winter.

TEAM CHALLENGE = FUN

It's similiar to having home field advantage in any sport. Since we don't have a playoff system this is how we get that to a degree.

You don't think that Indy or New Orleans Superbowl will be tainted because they both had home field throughout the playoffs do you?

Glad you enjoyed the Team Challenge.

Paul Sullivan · Post by **Paul Sullivan** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 9:57 am

Todd,
First let me thank you for responding to to my post in a mature manner. It is refreshing......

I do agree with your point that the numbers would/could be excessive for most courses. Wasn't really thinking about that.

Either way, as a player or spectator you can bet I will be at the "Superbowl"

TEAM CHALLENGE= FUN

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:03 am

sully from tully wrote:Todd,
First let me thank you for responding to to my post in a mature manner. It is refreshing......

I could not agree more.

Arty Graustein · Post by **Arty Graustein** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 10:42 am

Why is it that the teams that finish well in "A" pool get rewarded, but the top teams in the "B" pool get no such preferential treatment? For example how do you tell your team "Hey we had a great year taking first place in this division, but sorry not all us can play in the finals because of it." :?:

Joe Yaskis · Post by **Joe Yaskis** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:00 am

Finals should be bring as many as you can. Keep it fare for everyone. Makes the most sense. It is ridiculous to tell more people on Team Buff that they can not play again. Agree or Disagree?

The advantage of playing well should result in some type of lead ex, taking 2 strokes off etc.

Telling people they cannot participate = ignorant.

Shawn Mullen · Post by **Shawn Mullen** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:06 am

yaskis wrote:Finals should be bring as many as you can. Keep it fare for everyone. Makes the most sense. It is ridiculous to tell more people on Team Buff that they can not play again. Agree or Disagree?

The advantage of playing well should result in some type of lead ex, taking 2 strokes off etc.

Telling people they cannot participate = ignorant.

THe issue is that if every team at finals brings 14 (or 15) everyone can't fit onto one course. What Todd came up with seems like an ok solution to that.

Todd Lapham · Post by **Todd Lapham** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:07 am

Arty wrote:Why is it that the teams that finish well in "A" pool get rewarded, but the top teams in the "B" pool get no such preferential treatment? For example how do you tell your team "Hey we had a great year taking first place in this division, but sorry not all us can play in the finals because of it."

Because they were in the B pool and they automatically get places 7 and 8. Then next year they have their shot being top 4 in the A Pool and getting "preferential treatment" as you say.

Look at it from the flip side, how can you tell your team: Hey we finished 3rd in the A Pool but the 2nd place team in the B Pool gets more players than us. It's just how it is. Like I said, we just can't accommodate everyone from every team as there are just too many players.

15 x 8 = 120 golfers. 6.66 players per hole, in doubles that would be 8 somes, which isn't that appealing to most. The way we have it set up is 104 golfers.

Matt Heenan · Post by **Matt Heenan** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:14 am

bottom line is they are in charge. I think they've done a nice job claryfing and explaining. I do believe that the better a team does in the regular season should give them an advantage in the playoffs. That being said there is a system like that set up as todd explained, however it seems that the first place team gets two advantages by being able to pick location. I agree with the number of players system cuz they deserve it but would suggest neutral site in future.

Todd Lapham · Post by **Todd Lapham** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:15 am

yaskis wrote:Finals should be bring as many as you can. Keep it fare for everyone. Makes the most sense. It is ridiculous to tell more people on Team Buff that they can not play again. Agree or Disagree?

The advantage of playing well should result in some type of lead ex, taking 2 strokes off etc.

Telling people they cannot participate = ignorant.

It doesn't make the most sense. Think of the number of players that would be on the course Joey.

What do you mean by taking 2 strokes off? 1st =0, 2nd = -2, 3rd = -4 etc? If that's the case than that's way more "ignorant" than having a player sit for 1 round. You think starting 8th place 14 strokes behind is more fair than sitting 2-4 players per round?

Joe Yaskis · Post by **Joe Yaskis** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:16 am

Not all teams have 15 players.

Just a thought. Wick has 13?

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:29 am

Todd and I had this discussion before. It is a tough one to tackle. This solution is probably the best for all those involved. I totally agree with the TullyRock guys that it is unfair, but there are not a lot of alternatives that wouldn't be unfair to Maine and Cranberry. It is what it is.

Maybe next year we could go with three regional divisions with winners and two wild card teams. Of course, that would not sit well with everyone but it could be more fair.
Maybe

West
Discap
Captain
Thorn
Tolland
Wick

Central
West T
Buff
Maple
Tully
Noho

East
Bordeland
Nasa
Burgess
Maine
??

Mike Dussault · Post by **Mike Dussault** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:35 am

I thought we would try to play on a course that could accommodate larger numbers. Examples would include, Warwick/Wolf Woods, Maple Hill/Pyramids, Buffoonville(27 holes), J Park(27 holes). Can anyone think of others?
I understand the limitations, but somehow whole teams should be allowed to participate. I went to a tourney in Cali back quite a few years where they used "flights". Flight A went off at 8:00AM and 1:00PM, flight B went off at 10:30 and 3:30. Not that I think this would work, just throwing out food for thought.

Todd, I can tell you are doing a great job trying to quell the firestorm that was started. I am sure you will do a fine job, and I likely will support whatever final decision is reached. Not that bad of a disadvantage to have your weakest team members not be able to participate, just wish there was a more inclusive solution.

Jeff Wiechowski · Post by **Jeff Wiechowski** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:35 am

I'm not sure where all these courses are....... would North, Central, and South divisions work ?

Matt Heenan · Post by **Matt Heenan** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:40 am

I like Steves thinking, i always wanted to see all regular season play within the state and then each state champ goes to finals

Shawn Mullen · Post by **Shawn Mullen** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:49 am

ok....

Mike Murphy · Post by **Mike Murphy** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:50 am

heen32 wrote:I like Steves thinking, i always wanted to see all regular season play within the state and then each state champ goes to finals

Each state would need to have the same number of teams though. Maine has one, maybe two next year. CT. has five, MA has the most, and NY/NJ will have two next year.

Steven Dakai · Post by **Steven Dakai** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 11:57 am

We can call them North/South or East /West but the divisions would look pretty similar to the lineup I posted. Tolland and West T could be argued into different spots. TullyRock may split into two, Panthorn may disband, etc.

The A/B pool method was a good fix for this year, but has some flaws that will be hard to fix.