NEFA MEMBERS PLEASE POST HERE WITH ANY POINT SERIES ISSUES

[Titan Bariloni]

for the remainder of the season I will be focusing on the Point Series (changes for next year)

The people who volunteered to be on the sub committee I will soon have a package for you to review...

Also the upcoming NEFA DUBZ series will be on the top of the list....

NEFA Members please feel free to post any concerns,solutions,additions, or things you enjoy about the NEFA Point Series sponsored by Vibram.

Thank you

[Abel Rodrigues]

dont change anything

[Titan Bariloni]

dont change anything

not an overhaul Abel..just some updates and minor adjustments..everything will be well thought out and a fair, diverse group will be involved in all choices made...not to mention the NEFA BOARD still needs to approve any changes made.

some things such as recourse for TD's that break charter agreement for sanctioned events, double dip, regular season payouts, final standards. 2 events, ect etc...

Good luck at Worlds

[Karl Molitoris]

Titan, et al (of the "committee"),

Just ensure that the following can NOT happen...


Scenario:
Player A plays a handful or so tournaments in 1 division (containing, among others, Player B each time). Player A "wins" each one. These divisions average x players.
Player B plays nearly every tournament in that 1 division. Scores 5 or 6 "wins" and a bunch of of other places. Player B's wins come in divisions which average x+y players. But none of the wins have Player A in the field.
Our present points system would have Player B "winning" the year-long points 'race' (over Player A).
This would just be wrong.


Since no one has really stepped up and provided a clear definition of what the Points Series winner really is / stands for, I'll take the first crack. The winner should be the "best player" in that catagory (who has played enough tournaments to qualify for such), where "best" is loosely defined as s/he who has bested (by the most, most often, etc.) more fellow competitors than anyone else that year.

Karl

[Shawn Mullen]

Scenario:
Player A plays a handful or so tournaments in 1 division (containing, among others, Player B each time). Player A "wins" each one. These divisions average x players.
Player B plays nearly every tournament in that 1 division. Scores 5 or 6 "wins" and a bunch of of other places. Player B's wins come in divisions which average x+y players. But none of the wins have Player A in the field.
Our present points system would have Player B "winning" the year-long points 'race' (over Player A).
This would just be wrong

Why is that wrong? Player B played solid more often than player A and should be rewarded for their consistency and commitment to the NEFA pts series. Player A needs to play more events if he wants to win. If player A doesn't want that person to beat them in the pts then they need to play in those events too. It's not the systems fault, it's player A's for not playing enough. Kinda like nascar that runs on a pts series, you could go all yr without a W and still win the pts. All about solid consistent play.

[Karl Molitoris]

Mulley,

I'm about to jump all over you, so watch out!

Player A played the required amount of tournaments. He beat B EVERY TIME! And you're saying that he's "not good enough to be crowned champion because he didn't play enough". Stupid. Your logic then says A has to play EVERY tournament (or close to it) to "prove he's worthy". WTF? Are you all about quantity over quality? Do you think the minimum should be 10 tournaments? 20? Come on! The present system at least HAS some guidelines (minimum amt of tournaments to qualify, etc.). I'm just trying - since NO ONE ELSE HAS - to define what "winning the pts series" would mean AND ensuring that someone who beats head-to-head someone else and plays enough tournaments to qualify is recognized as someone who IS better than the "someone else"...which s/he WOULD be.

Read my scenario again. Digest it. Then come back at me if you must. Always willing to hear salient thoughts.

Jumping off you now....

Karl

[Shawn Mullen]

If you want to win you need to play, plain and simple. If player A can beat player B all the time, they need to do that, if player B plays every event and player A wants to beat them, Player A needs to play those events. It's a cumulitive pts series that rewards someone who consistently finishes well.....not a flash in the pan that won a couple events. Or "It's a marathon...not a sprint". Plus someone who only plays a few events doesn't provide enough sample size to be considered the best in my opionion, I don't care how well they shot.

And you are completely missing the point about the required number of events. That is just to qualify finals. 5 events (or whatever it is for that division) with a good enough total to qualify. To WIN the pts series you should need to play a lot more than the minimum and consistently finish well. It's a year long pts series, not a 5 events pts series.

I really don't think anything I said is "stupid".

[Shawn Mullen]

Or as the lottery says "You can't win if you don't play"

[Karl Molitoris]

OK, fair enough. I guess you and I just don't agree with my "proposed definition" of what winning the pts series is / should be.

I'm saying - via a stated example (here) - that ANY player who is 5 for 5 in winning tournaments AND beats another player all 5 times is "better" than the another player who also wins 5 (but isn't a perfect 5 for 5 AND hasn't beaten the first player even once). That's another way of stating my scenario. You say the "another player" is 'better'. Just can't see the rationale there...even with hearing you're "marathon over the sprint" mentality.

Karl

Ps: And I'm the one person who is probably the MOST against the mano a mano thing (match play, etc.) in dg...but I still see the merit of it "proving who is the better of two players".

[Shawn Mullen]

Player B still won the events and needs to be rewarded for that. It's not his fault player A didn't play. Who is to say that if he did player B wouldn't have won this time.

I do see your pt. and also don't like match play for a finals setup. I think we just presented both sides pretty well.

[Karl Molitoris]

Not to take up TOO much bandwidth...and maybe I'm just grumpy today...but I'll take 1 more stab at convincing you. And I'll make it 'personal'.

You and I play in 5 tournaments together (AM 1 division).
You win all 5 outright (beating me and everyone else in AM 1 each of those days).
I just happen to play in 5 more tournaments as an AM 1 player (each of which I just happen to win).

At the end of the year, NEFA "anoints" me as "AM 1 points series winner" - which I'm saying SHOULD be the same as saying "Karl's the best AM 1 player in NEFA this year".
1. If I were you, I'd say "Bull Shark".
2. If I were me, I'd say "Tainted at best" (as I'd KNOW you whupped me 5 out of 5).

Fact: You were better than me that year (5 for 5 is pretty good statistically).
My feeling: I 'won' the title...but what good is THAT title...when it doesn't show who was "the best" that year (it'll only show who was able to play a lot that year and was reasonably good).

Karl

Ps: Anyone else but Mulley and I can speak up here too ya know

[Titan Bariloni]

I know of your concern Karl from past conversations...the logistics are very hard to work out...to my knowledge..

lets not argue the merit of Karl's statement but lets find a way of working into the system...not so easy

That is of course for "regular season" winner...there still will be one ...my goal is to only award trophy for that portion of series..thus enticing the "showdown" at Finals to see who is the "Champ"

So since we are going to have a "regular" season "winner" his point valid..again hard logistically....lets here the solution Karl

Not going to change Finals to matchplay...I may be convinced to have the Charter worded..."Up to State Rep who will be selecting TD for that said years Finals"....wording may need work but you get the point...

Good discussion....and needed, keep thoughts coming it will help the sub committee better reflect the interest of the members

[Karl Molitoris]

Titan (and others),

Remember, mine (concern / scenario) is only one - and probably not THE most important (just 1 that would scream "injustice" IF such scenario were to occur).

Y'all need to voice it out on this media (epaper) and let the sub-committee (sounds like a bunch of guys arguing about what to order for lunch) gather all bits, sort'em out and come up with something a little better.

As for me "coming up with the solution"...
1) I came up with the problem - ya want me to do everything ?
2) Yes, the "solution" would be hard to implement (statistically or otherwise).
3) I've taken a stab at defining what it actually means / should mean to "win" the points series. I'm not saying this is the ONLY possible definition, just one that I think is logical. Since more than I play it (and this year I'm not even doing so) more than I should have a say into what "it actually means...".
4) As I'd mentioned in a much earlier post, someone would have to come up with some "heavy stats algorithm" and play witch brewing up just the right amount of the 'mano-a-mano' aspect mixed into the normal 'I was 3 / 15 so I'm a 80%er today' thing. Not easy, but can be done.

Karl

[Eric Kevorkian]

Haven't read the whole thread, but I think there's a better way to decide who's better in the situation with Player A and Player B.

Ratings

[Titan Bariloni]

not so simple EK..although I do see your "point" higher rating=better/best player

where was that thread with the MATH to this problem...I thought I remember reading something outlining how a point modifier(for lack of a better term) could be worked in or maybe that was in reference to "strength of field"


the problem is there is 2 trains of thought here at the core..

1. regular season is more important then Finals

2. Regular season is just for invite to Finals

I think if we take the emphasis off of the "regular" season and really highlight Finals...the winner at Finals would then be the "champ" thus semi concluding this problem of who's the Champ...

I do understand this is a grueling series...Jan to Oct so regular season is important

But is the "true" champ not just the guy who beat player x,y,z or the guy who showed up competed in events earned an "invite" then competed at Finals and won.....

I am sure there is all kinds of great DGers out there that would whoop up on division leaders in most cases... commitment and dedication sometimes surpasses the better skilled player...

[Karl Molitoris]

More food for thought...

Understanding that most people PURPOSEFULLY MAKE POINTS AMBIGUOUS SO THEY HAVE AN 'OUT' IF THEY NEED ONE (which they usually do...and they know they will ) and they hate definitions. They'd just rather spout off THEIR point of view instead of being confined by something meaningful, tangible, and concrete.
I'm not one of them.

Example:
The term "Champion"
Of the planet Jupiter?
On odd Thursdays of even months?

Folks, you need 'qualifiers'. That's what adjectives are for (and sometimes you need quite a few of them to properly "name" something). And definitions.

If we end up with a "Points Series Champion" based on 1 tournament (the finals), that is NOT a "points series champion", that is a "points series finals champion" (yes, I'm a #1 in Titan's post). "Series" indicates more-than-one of something...like tournaments! If you want to call it something else, fine. But to call the person who wins 1 tournament the "point series champion" makes no sense to me.

Use proper words when referring to something.
Calling a cow a duck doesn't make it quack.

OK, rant off.

Karl

[Titan Bariloni]

the problem is there is 2 trains of thought here at the core..

1. regular season is more important then Finals

2. Regular season is just for invite to Finals

If we end up with a "Points Series Champion" based on 1 tournament (the finals), that is NOT a "points series champion", that is a "points series finals champion" (yes, I'm a #1 in Titan's post). "Series" indicates more-than-one of something...like tournaments! If you want to call it something else, fine. But to call the person who wins 1 tournament the "point series champion" makes no sense to me.

I do understand this is a grueling series...Jan to Oct so regular season is important

I understand what your saying Karl...such a fine line.....I always respect any response from your mind as it is always well thought out and holds such strong validity

From Point Series Charter

Object of the Series
The NEFA Points Series strives to combine excellent disc golf events at excellent courses in New England into a tournament series. The NEFA Points Series culminates with qualifying players competing in a one-day stroke score tournament at the end of the season.

the phrase "tournament series" leads one to believe it is a group of Events that "culminates" with "qualified" players then competing to decide the Champion of the NEFA Point Series sponsored by Vibram


culminates

1 of a celestial body : to reach its highest altitude; also : to be directly overhead
2 a : to rise to or form a summit b : to reach the highest or a climactic or decisive point

I think the "climatic or decisive point" best describes what the intent of the Charter was in regards to the Point Series

So right or wrong about 1 Event deciding winner....if we were to not honor the "Finals Champ" as the winner we would then be undermining the Point Series charter.....now rewriting the Charter to better reflect what we/nefa would like to see our Point Series become is more the question......as stated above there is 2 views/takes on the subject....

What we as Members really need to figure out is "What one do we want to support"

That can't be decided by any 1 member but by the majority of the membership...?

Maybe a poll will better enlighten us......? to some extent..very small portion of membership will respond to said poll but some rough numbers may come from it

[J_Disc]

First, there was already some quality discussion in a previous thread specifically related to end of season payouts: http://forums.nefa.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=6565&start=30

The problem: The current system doesn't do a very good job awarding points based on strength of field. It makes an attempt by adding 0.1 points for each player in your division you beat. So win and beat 1 other player in your division earns 100.1 points. Win and beat 15 players, earns 101.5 points. Beating 15 players in a tourney compared to 1 is a far more significant accomplishment than a 101.5 versus 100.1 comparison (1.4 point differential) would seem. However, the best players do tend to float to the top using current system. The extra 0.1 point per player beat is really just a way to sort out the top players that each have a bunch of wins -- especially since only your top X scores count.

Possible Solution: An alternate approach to points allocation based on strength of field is to move to a tiered tournament system. A, B, and C level tournaments would have different levels of points to award. The determination of A, B and C level tourneys could be based on prior year(s) attendance, prior year(s) payouts, guaranteed payouts, or other measures. Knowing the highest valued tournaments in advance (must be published w/ tourney schedule) would tend to draw the most competitive players to the top-rated tournaments and reward them accordingly.

Tournaments would apply for A, B, or C rating at the time the schedule is determined and the series points committee would make the final decision (approve application). A set of standards would need to be established.

The challenge to this approach is to determine how to award the points for A, B, and C level tourneys. Using a 3X, 2X, and 1X approach is one option, but it would then make sense to raise the minimum number of scores to account for someone earning 3X in a single event.

One clear downside to this approach is that it will be more difficult for new tournaments to earn their way to top-level status. However, that is something that really needs to be earned and I don't think a first year tourney should be awarded top status until proven. Perhaps a minimum $-level payout would allow a new tourney to be awarded top status on an exception basis.

Notes:
1) Under the current system, State Reps determine the 2X tourneys and they often use that distinction to try to draw players to new courses or new events. This practice tends to be counter-productive to awarding points based on strength of field.

2) Also recognize that it will always be difficult to measure "strength of field" using individual player's ratings. Not everyone has PDGA ratings and even if NEFA establishes its own rating system, not everyone will have a NEFA rating.

3) Whatever system is decided, please be sure to fully document the approach. Current system isn't even documented.

[Matt Aubin]

Not to take up TOO much bandwidth...and maybe I'm just grumpy today...but I'll take 1 more stab at convincing you. And I'll make it 'personal'.

You and I play in 5 tournaments together (AM 1 division).
You win all 5 outright (beating me and everyone else in AM 1 each of those days).
I just happen to play in 5 more tournaments as an AM 1 player (each of which I just happen to win).

At the end of the year, NEFA "anoints" me as "AM 1 points series winner" - which I'm saying SHOULD be the same as saying "Karl's the best AM 1 player in NEFA this year".
1. If I were you, I'd say "Bull Shark".
2. If I were me, I'd say "Tainted at best" (as I'd KNOW you whupped me 5 out of 5).

Fact: You were better than me that year (5 for 5 is pretty good statistically).
My feeling: I 'won' the title...but what good is THAT title...when it doesn't show who was "the best" that year (it'll only show who was able to play a lot that year and was reasonably good).

Karl

Ps: Anyone else but Mulley and I can speak up here too ya know

I didn't read much past this post so pardon if it was covered.. but I'd like to respond:

The key word is 'points' not 'wins.' In this scenario (we'll call it an 'epic' battle.... tee heee) each player will have 500 points at the end of the year (100 per win), plus a 1/10th for each person they defeated that day, themselves included. So, the points series winner will have nothing to do with the head-to-head battle, but will completely rely on how many other players the winner beat to accomplish a win. ANYONE can catch fire and push either of you out of the top spot in a tourney, so those 1/10ths are earned.

I'm not saying the system is perfect, but in this exact case, either player could be the 'Points series winner' not based on wins against each other but against larger/smaller fields. Given the fickle nature of the sport, beating more players for a win should hold more weight than beating the same player over and over. Yes, you may have proven that you can beat someone 5 times, but that person proved that they can beat a larger number of people (people = points... we are talking points, not head-to-head) 5 times.

This of course all comes back to ratings. Let me go get my 10 foot pole...

[Karl Molitoris]

Matt,

Ratings are transient (as they change from update to update) and are more akin to "...on paper the X-team is virtually unbeatable..." (but that's why they PLAY the season!). Or, in other words, ratings are like world rankings / world's bests and year-end points are titles / gold medals. I once thought having a world record (say in Track & Field) was better than a gold medal...but now I feel the latter is "better" (as it is forever (at that very precise moment) opposed to something which is better than anyone else ever did but WILL eventually be bested).

Yearly points, etc. ARE the season. And since everyone will NOT (it's just not feasible) play every other person an equal amount of times, we're stuck with an imperfect system. I'm just trying to make it a little less imperfect (by looking for glaring inequities and proposing we do things to alleviate such).

In your / my scenario, player A beat EVERYONE he played against. Period. That he may not have played against player C (heretofore unmentioned), I can't attest if player A should be deemed "better" than C or not...but I've made a very strong case that A IS better than B. That's all my scenario explains (purposefully making it an easy situation to understand...as bringing in more than 2 players REALLY complicates things). And THAT is why the entire system's "figuring out" is a rather complex algorithm.

Karl

[Karl Molitoris]

Titan,

I'm reading...

From Point Series Charter

Quote:
Object of the Series
The NEFA Points Series strives to combine excellent disc golf events at excellent courses in New England into a tournament series. The NEFA Points Series culminates with qualifying players competing in a one-day stroke score tournament at the end of the season.

...a little different than you I guess. The last sentence - to me - just means that it is "another" tournament (albiet, an "invitational, 1-day, stroke play" one) but really nothing more (or less).
Kind of like the series could be 4 1-dayers, then 1 2-dayer, then 2 1-dayers, etc. OR 3 1-dayers, etc. BUT MUST end with an invitational of the above-mentioned format / inclusion(s).

I guess, just one more reason to "define" things a bit more precisely.

Karl

[Titan Bariloni]

I guess, just one more reason to "define" things a bit more precisely.

yes..


Still very TORN here Karl.....

I love having "Finals" be the one that decides it

I also think OUR season is very tough..many many months and should hold merit(and follks this is not about the payouts this about the CHAMP OF POINT SERIES Divisions)

could we do like teachers do...?

30% regular season 30%finals 40%how many NEFA post you make......I would win the pro open if I could use that as a stat.... ...

To respond to the other post the a,b,c tier idea is good just IMO would need a year alone to work out what events would start here etc etc.....

In summary as Karl stated... 1 huge math issue really to decide nity grity.

I have other ideas on the point adjusters just can't put them into words yet...

Allow me to pick your brain Karl..... Being a "True" AM...IMO. I value your input on the trophy only for regular season..maybe a nefa shirts etc etc....I know the payout is of little to no concern to you so it would be interesting to hear your take on this issue

do you at least agree with having "Finals" be the premier Event where all the payouts go for whatever reason....or does the stance you take on "regular season" give merit to "paying" out for both regular/finals

can we shorten Regular season to RS...... for my fingers sake

[Karl Molitoris]

Titan (and everyone else who's reading ...aw, come on, there's got to be a FEW of ya'),

First and foremost:
Since this is a pretty big "part" of NEFA (what we do, etc.) and 'for the whole of NEFA', I believe the sub-committee (lunch time ) should try their best to come up with something which is the best for the populus in general. The heck with what any one person (including myself) says, for this is "for everyone". This, of course, will never be perfect but WILL be the best we can do (we're human - having fun - so what the heck).

Second:
My take is probably different than most people (even other AMs). I believe they want (as seems to be the case in PDGA events) bigger entry fees and bigger payouts (and thus why A-tiers are "favored" over say C-tiers). So, people probably would like to see no trophy-only situations anywhere. Maybe it's just the gambler that exists in most people but I feel that more / most would like some sort of "reward at the end of both / all tunnel(s)".
If it were up to me (which it is NOT (pthewwww) thank god) it would be "cost nothing, have fun, do well, eat lots, and a handshake". But if I'm "putting $$ in" during the season, I don't just want to "donate it" to someone else (ok, call me greedy...). I'll buy you a beer for S's&G's but will get grumpy if you steal it.

Third:
While the "RS" IS important, I personally wouldn't mind it shortened a bit...for other "formats" (team play, doubles, etc.) instead of overlapping a bit. Almost like having baseball, football, and hockey seasons JUST for dg!

Fourth:
Common thought processes (the last 20+ years) DOES have sports leaning toward the "everyone makes the playoffs" and "whomever gets hot wins it all" mentality - again, a fallout of the "gambling mentality" (I believe) that's prevalent in today's society - but I'm from the old school: AL winner meets the NL winner in the World Series. That's it. Emphasis on the RS. But I know I'm in the minority.

Fifth:
The way it is RIGHT NOW is NOT that bad at all. I just showed 1 scenario on how if such DID ever happen, a LOT of people (including the person it happened to) would be thinking "s/he got screwed". And I just want to be proactive (no, not Julianne Hough PROACTIVE...although she IS hot) in trying to 'head that one off at the pass'.

Bottom line is that you / the committee ARE thinking about alternatives (better or worse than the present is up for debate) which IS appreciated. Trying to improve is more than half the battle!

Karl

[Titan Bariloni]

yes the sub committee has a very tough task of weighing all pros/cons to decide the future direction of Series

all angles are welcomed...whatever we don't get to(for lack of a better phrase)..this is all good stuff to have archived for future generations of NEFA members to refer to...

your right the system is good...but we should strive for GREAT


side note...love your idea of seasons..very interesting....if the growth of DG continues that could be a reality in the future

we would have singles,dubz,team,charity/off season

good idea...gonna have to put that in the handy dandy notebook under "ideas for future"

[Tao Te Ching]

Just thought I'd throw a commoners opinion in. No solutions, just opinion. A series that lasts for ten months offers many opportunities, for some, to play in lot's of tourney's. But I see two factors that affect who can play what. Life commitments and location. I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that someone who lives in central MA has exposure to far more points events than someone who lives, let's say, in northern VT. So, someone who lives in northern VT with a full time job (or more), a family, and other obligations, might not be able to play as many tournaments as the 22 year old kid from central MA who works his job (doing it very well by the way) and is able to travel every weekend. That being said. The old curmudgeonly man in VT might play well in all his tourneys, but only play in five. The kid from MA may play 20 tourneys never placing in the top 7. He would have more points in the end, but does that qualify him to be higher ranked in the points series? I BELIEVE THIS: THERE SHOULD BE A MAXIMUM # OF TOURNEYS THAT COUNT IN THE POINTS CHASE. IF YOU PLAY TWENTY, YOU HAVE THAT MANY MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO BETTER YOUR PLACEMENT. IF YOU ONLY PLAY 5, YOU BETTER MAKE YOUR POINT SUCCINCTLY. I like the way it's set up and think if you wanted to add tourney's to the count you could, but I don't think I want to see it. This is a good format for all of us to be able to compare our game to others in the region. If we really wanted so much more than that, wouldn't we be focusing on PDGA?

Dave in VT

[Matt Aubin]

Dave;

it is set up that way. only your top results are counted in the end.

[Tao Te Ching]

I know, I guess I'm saying I like it that way. If we ran with a total that included all points, I don't think it would be indicative. My only other issue is the lack of speed at which points are updated. I appreciate that someone other than me is doing it, but are they?

[Travis Brougham]

Do you add all those points you earned this year? I wasn't sure what math you were using. For what I did was to add all of my points to the total points. It wasn't the same what I had also checked others and its the same thing so I thought maybe you were using different way of math instead of adding all?

Let me know because I'd like to learn how to count those points.

[J_Disc]

I wasn't sure what math you were using.

That's because there is NO documentation on points tabulation approach except some worthless information that:

Points Tabulation
A spreadsheet developed and donated to NEFA by Chuck Kennedy is used for points tabulation. Points are awarded based on how an individual finishes among all other players in the same division, regardless of NEFA membership. However, to receive points, a player must be a NEFA member.

The lack of documentation for the existing process seems to be a shortfall that could quickly and easily be addressed. I realize folks may be busy posting in purgatory, but how about some action on this one?

[Dave McHale]

because it's been discussed multiple times in the past on these forums? admittedly the documentation itself is out of date - can't argue that - but it's not like the points tallies are meant to be a secret. I've posted at least 2x this season alone on the method of calculation being used. people are quick get get cranky about stuff they can find with the search feature or even 5 minutes of actually looking............

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Points per person = 100 / # of players in a division

Points are awarded for each player that you tie or beat, including yourself.

First place in a division wins a 0.1 bonus for each player, including themselves, that played in the division.

real-world example: 10 people play in AM2 at an event. (10 just makes easy math, you can work out the fractions for larger or smaller divisions).

1st: Joe Winner - 101.0 points
2nd: Jake Second - 90 points
3rd (tie): John TieGuy - 80 points
3rd (tie): Jerel Thirds - 80 points
5th: Jack Fiver - 60 points
6th: Jeff Seis - 50 points
7th (tie): Jim Set - 40 points
7th (tie): Jerry Ocho - 40 points
7th (tie): Jay Alsoseven - 40 points
10th: Jerome Deeffel - 10 points

Regardless of how many points are assigned to the person in any given position, that person will only earn points towards the series if they are a current nefa member. This is so we dont "throw out" non-nefa members and calculate rewards based only on members, since you could see only 2 people in this division be members. Suddenly 1st place for the day, who is a NEFA member, gets 100.2 and 2nd place for the day, who is the only other NEFA member, would get 50 (2nd place in a "division" of 2 nefa competitors), even though the guy who came in 2nd beat 8 people, which wouldn't make any sense.