2011-12 Season discussions

[Todd Lapham]

Ok it's about time to start planning the upcoming season. First I'd like to welcome the new teams and Captains and second I would like to hear any ideas/complaints/suggestions that teams have and if it's a widespread feeling we will discuss it in detail and have a vote.

The first thing that comes to mind is the current setup. A few have felt a regional setup would be best, now that we have a list (teams still may join) of teams playing this year I'd like to see what a regional setup would look like. I have made it quite clear that I am not a fan of this idea, but if most others feel it's better than that's something we can look into. I would like to state that I would most likely step down from the commissioner position if this was the case because I would like to focus my free time on things I feel are beneficial. Please don't take this as a threat or whatever, I am just putting my cards on the table so to speak.

Of course someone else could start a regional league and teams could pick which league they want to play in, especially if the decision is split down the middle.

Other things I've noted are:

To play for money or not? Currently $200 per team.
Adding more matches per year? Currently play 5 matches, then finals.
Finals at a predetermined location? MH and Pyramids!!?? 2 day? Bracket Style? Currently A pool winner decides.
Play a friendly A vs B pool group match?
B pool regional?

Discuss!

[Chris Bolton]

i think B Pool regiona/divisional might work best. Then have the top teams from the region compete in finals. There are so many teams in the B Pool that we can not all fit on a course for finals without having to sit a lot of people.

here is my idea

A Pool = $$
B Pool = no money

Bottom teams in A pool/ Top in B pool move after finals

A Pool keeps the same format as past years

B Pool goes to a modified regional/ divisional

lets say there is a burgess 2 team to make #'s even


D1
Borderland 2
West T
NoHo
Buff

D2
Borderland 1
Tolland
Panthorn
Crane Hill

D3
Newton Hill
Dam Team
Maple Hill
Burgess 2

I made groups just randomly, but every group would have some travel and some close regional matches. We then could have a giant B Pool neutral match like we have done for the group pool matches. Top two from each division make it to finals. Then top two teams after finals move up to the A Pool.

have no money in the B Pool at all....make it all for bragging rights. Save the $ for the A Pool. Teams move after finals. Then there is no bitching about half of the B pool money going to the A Pool.

Having a divisional setup in the B Pool, would help with travel by having some close regional teams and some traveling to see new courses.
No money in the B pool seems like it would help things run smoother with less people complaining
This set up also allows for finals to be run a little smoother.

[Todd Lapham]

That's my plan for this year. Groups may not be exactly that, but that's the general idea. Others have objected, but I've seen nothing actually proposed as an alternative.

That's another thing to discuss:

-Should teams move up before or after finals?

- My initial feeling is that top two B pool teams would want to be able to play for the league championship, but let's hear what actual B pool teams think.

-Another thought I had was you play within division for the first 5 matches(Oct-Feb), then in March the top 3 from each division (or 2 if three divisions) have a 6 team neutral match to determine who goes to the A pool finals in April. Best of both worlds, imo.

[Chris Bolton]

-Another thought I had was you play within division for the first 5 matches(Oct-Feb), then in March the top 3 from each division (or 2 if three divisions) have a 6 team neutral match to determine who goes to the A pool finals in April. Best of both worlds, imo.

I like!

you can have 4 teams in 3 divisions. Then have two B Pool neutral matches in march. That will count towards your record. top 2 in each division play one match, and the bottom play another. Then you have a match oct, nov, dec/jan, feb, then pool match in mar. Top teams from the top pool in march move up.

if teams move more finals how would the $ situation work, if we did A Pool plays for $ and B Pool play for bragging rights?

[Steven Dakai]

My thoughts:
I like the idea of having divisions in the B pool. They haven't paid $$ so they would go up next year. That would make finals actually mean something instead of just a big party. Balancing talent and travel do not seem like worthy goals to me.

Teams outside of a reasonable distance (maine,VT,and ny) would have to bear the brunt of travel.

The road team should not get penalized for having a full roster; if they bring 16 and the home team has 9, they should forfeit the unplayed matches.

Girls girls girls... two per team and they play each other singles and dubs. No girl? you forfeit the match.

Scheduling shouldn't be left to the teams. Play the first weekend of the month, third is rain date. That way we can still plan/attend tournaments & ice bowls and plan weeks out for a match instead of just a couple days notice.

< 900 players can be subbed without a roster move. If we could have 2 or 3 extra people that are named at the get go, they can be moved in and out for other < 900 players.

[Chris Bolton]

girls are hard to find in our area.....we only have about three girls who play regularly in this area....

i know it would be tough for us (panthorn is find a 2nd girl)

[Steven Dakai]

Those are just ideas, trying to solve the drama of the last few years.

edit: There is a girls league with plenty of able women that would play for you if you asked.

[Todd Lapham]

My thoughts:
I like the idea of having divisions in the B pool. They haven't paid $$ so they would go up next year. That would make finals actually mean something instead of just a big party.

The way I had it setup is basically B pool finals in March that mean something (moving up), then a party in April.

I say let the B pool teams freeroll in the finals. That is if the A poolers even want to play for money.

[Todd Lapham]

Girl situation is a whole other story. I have no idea what to do. Any and all ideas more than welcomed!

[Dave Hickson]

I've always been a fan of 2 girls over 1!

[Todd Lapham]

I've always been a fan of 2 girls over 1!

Lol was waiting for that, didn't take long.

[Steven Dakai]

Iif we have 2 girls they can play each other in singles and in doubles. If the two captains want to mix them in thats fine too. According to my highly scientific poll ( I asked em) the girls would rather play each other and they hate the whole "who is playing with the chick" story that happens every challenge.

No more sacrificing a matchup against a top player with the girls. It sucks for both of them.

14 v 14 guys
2 v 2 girls

Also, with the lack of female players, we could allow free substitutions for any female team member at any challenge.

[Kelly Conroy]

Thoughts:
I say definitely move up or down after the season ends.
Play for no money in B.
Divisional and regional setup in B.
For finals in B the winner of each division makes it to finals plus wildcards by best record...top two in finals move up to A after the season. Can't have every team make it to finals and have an 0-5 team shoot the lights out in finals and somehow make it to the A pool.
Resources are thin in the lady department in this area, but whatever is clever.
More thoughts to come later, I have to get ready for work.

[Joseph Mason Proud, III]

I have always favored girl on girl action.

Two girls not so good. Especially since our roster is set.

[Steve Solbo]

2 Girls would be difficult for most teams... Cran couldn't even find 1 last year that would show up... thus. I vote, stick with the current rule, come up with a penalty if the woman is not at finals.

[Steven Dakai]

That works

[Joseph Mason Proud, III]

fine here

[Adam Whitten]

I agree as well but I do have to say we never had a girl problem last year but we did see some teams that didn't have a girl show up win a match that otherwise should have been girl on girl. I feel the penalty should be through out the year and allow for teams to have 2-3 slots for women but only one has to show up. I know girls are tough to come up with in this sport but they are out there. I think as captains we just have to go out and recruit some more.

Also I agree with the B-Pool suggestions above and feel that regional would be more beneficial to B-Pool teams since we are getting quite a few. I also agree with Steve in that have a set date each month might make scheduling a bit easier as well instead of the pick your own date hoopla that tends to leave very little time to make calls when you have about a 3-4 day notice.

Just my suggestion...

[Pete Charron]

yeah, I'd have to agree with adam with having an extra slot or two for gals. Is expanding the roster # too much or would it make sense to expand it for that reason?

Have 15 spots available for men and then 3(?) spots available for women. That way it doesn't fall on one gals' shoulders to be present for EVERY challenge. If she has a schedule conflict another can fill in and she won't have a forfeited match on her conscience.

I forget if those teams without a gal present at a challenge last year were charged a match but I think that by allowing three roster spots exclusively for chicks you should forfeit a match if not the doubles match too (maybe 1 point of the 2 points) if you fail to have a gal for a challenge.

Essentially no girl for the challenge the score starts 0-2 in favor of the prepared team.

In terms of the regional groupings, I dig for B pool. Seems to work out pretty smooth with 12 teams.

The only thing different I have to say really revolves around the $. B pool wouldn't want to play for any dough at all?

Even something minimal that allowed the winning team to take some funds for their course? or another end of the year party dealy or to pay for ctp's for the teams that make the finals?

$5 per player in B pool.

16 players on each team = 80$ per team

12 teams = 960$

For a very little sum of money from each person there becomes a nice incentive to shoot well for teams..

Eh?

[Pete Charron]

Sorry I realize now that with this system there would still be the whole A pool B pool financial debate right or wrong? As stands now the team registration fee or whatever you'd like to call it is 200$? And that money goes to A pool payouts? I was only 65% tuned into that whole debate last season. So would it be the same this season or with B potentially going regional would it be in essence a league of its own now. Almost a farm league of sorts for A pool where teams graduate to play in that more competitive arena.

If we wanted to make the A pool more desirable to play in, emphasizing its more talent laden field, we could take 2 of the 5 dollar entry from B pool and inject it into A pool payouts. That way there would be a definitive line in payouts. A pool would really be more like the big leagues and would give the two teams that moved up from B pool a sense of great accomplishment.

That $ breakdown would inject 384$ to go straight to the A pool victors' pockets or about 25$ more for each person on that team. and yet still leaves 576$ for however B pool wishes to run their money situation...

Sorry if all this stuff is already settled and I'm goin on for nothin haha...

freakin disc golf guys... this game is sick.. 12 teams B pool? What a nice league .. I'm ecstatic to be apart of it and help continue its growth... YEEEEEEEEE!!!!

[Steven Dakai]

Never apologize for ideas,Pete.

I always thought that $$ should be tied to finals. If you make it bring $200 bucks as a team entry fee. Regular season is bono.

[Todd Lapham]

As stands now the team registration fee or whatever you'd like to call it is 200$? And that money goes to A pool payouts?

Negative. Half the money went to the A pool finals (which is really the league finals). The other have went to the B pool (consolation finals). Last year there were 9 B pool teams and they got $900, which they used for food and CTPs.

[Pete Violet]

I like the idea of set dates for matches and extra roster spots for females.
I dont need to play for money.

[Brad Ayotte]

there seems to be a few great ideas out there but with my short term memory loss i will agree to a few and i appologize if i repeat anyones ideas..

i do like the minimal ($100/team) fee for B pool or C pool teams that goes to the champ team or a payout to places finished, but $$ stays in its pool.. then the team can make bragging rights shirts or something

the regional idea seems good in theory.. or have regional pool play, then a seasons end day event for a championship with the top teams from each state/region, moving the site from state to state..

this may be tough to do but making limits for each pool to have a certain caliber/play level i.e. A pool teams have a minimum of 6 pros, 6AM1's or what ever you set... just a thought

give the champs of the lower divisions the option to move up.. as i have been hearing, this is for fun, making new friends and all that silly tug your buddy give him the jackhammer bs.. if your team just wants to have fun then let them stay, no need to up their stress or waste other teams time..

my head hurts so i am going to step away from this idea for a moment

[Brad Ayotte]

i also like the mando roster spots for women.. 2 is good

[Keith Burtt]

i like the mando roster spot for women too, but i think that you should be able to carry 2 women in one roster spot. it would help to ensure that a woman is at every challenge. Needing one player to show up to every challenge to avoid penalty is difficult.

[Todd Lapham]

Agreed. The woman's spot is a rotating spot. Teams must get a female qualified and have one present and play atleast 1 round in finals. If not there will be a penalty at finals.

[Keith Burtt]

definately, if you qualify 2 women for finals, thats great, you get a choice of who to play. but otherwise it will make things easier on the month to month basis

[Brad Ayotte]

do we have a tentative division breakdown yet, i know its early... maybe plot out the possible ideas

[Todd Lapham]

Yeah in the thread below this. "potential divisions"