NEFA DISCussion

1. Keep it the same. (15 guys, 1 rotating female spot)
2. Expand with Criteria based players.
3. Open door policy (aka Direnzo Bedroom Policy). Don't care who, just show up and play.
4. Restructure rosters with this criteria:

-6 Pro
-6 AM
-2 Female
-2 Masters
-2 Grand Master

Again since this is a B Pool matter, they only vote.

Post your votes.

Thanks.

Option #2.

Option #3 would be my first choice. then #4,#2,#1

Without knowing the CBP in option 2 -our vote is option 1.

I'm thinking that the criteria based would be how I described, Pro Master, Am Master, Am under 965.

#1

Matt DeAngelis wrote:I'm thinking that the criteria based would be how I described, Pro Master, Am Master, Am under 965.

In that case option 2 would work for us. In other words, we like that it is flexible.

So if we already had those covered could we just add anyone we want? And would those matchups be automatic at challenges?

If so, we may be down for that,too.

I think yes to the first part Steve. The second part I would think no to automatic however. Match-ups are part of trying to win the challenge is how I have been told.

Good point, I still think that would be be good with us. I will ask the fellas.

I like 1, but would be open to option 2

since NH doesnt have pros #4 doesnt make sense (but i dont think it should be aged based)..
#3 DBP is good for new teams like us... but
having criteria based spots to even out teams wouldnt hurt but may limit teams but push others to perform and...
its always good to have a rotating female spot to play with.. i mean, a loving caring woman who is commited for the long term is nice

since 2 and 4 seem the same.. i like the idea of a stable criteria based set up that restrains sand baggers and promotes good comp.. a first year team may have some leeway with the criteria in mind such as players jumping ship to play with buddies or closer to home.. also the word pro doesnt seem like it should be used in a B pool league.. the idea is to move up (that is what everyone complains about at tournaments) so to have a handful of pros on any one team seems unreasonable but tell me otherwise please.. i guess what i am saying is there could be a mesh of a few ideas based on a committee decision... but #2 without expanding past 16 players seems the best if i had to choose.. how many spots are reserved for alternates?

#3 is better for new teams and would be my first choice then #2 if it came down to it. Hard part is also the teams that have broken into 2 different teams might have their pros playing in a Pool and might be hard to get others interested. But hey that is what recruiting is for!!

Heck Titan just won his first pro tourney on Sat really crushed HCC!!

i would vote 1, then 3

panthorn has no pros or older guys...(all of them play for other teams)

i don;t like the idea of having criteria based rosters.... it just seems exclusive to me and not inclusive.

i didn't see anything wrong with the way rosters were handled in the past.

Chris Bolton wrote:i would vote 1, then 3

panthorn has no pros or older guys...(all of them play for other teams)

i don;t like the idea of having criteria based rosters.... it just seems exclusive to me and not inclusive.

i didn't see anything wrong with the way rosters were handled in the past.

I see your point about it being exclusive from your perspective. You don't have anyone that would fit into those criteria spots. However, if your area had a lot of good Ams and Pro players that filled the roster, how would you add those Ams and Master players without "weakening" your team?

It's hard to fully digest but I'm thinking option 2. Assuming I'm reading it right, this would expand roster sizes to make room for criteria based positions?

aka you would keep your core 16 person roster including 1 rotating female spot, and then add 3(?) age protected spots to be filled?

If this is more or less the plan then I'm on board. As much as I like the idea of #3 I'd also hate to be conducting tryouts in vain. (But its never in vain, so it's all good if option 3 is the decision)

As I think more about it option #3 makes sense for the growth of the league. If the purpose of B pool is to recruit and introduce players to the SPORT of disc golf, eventually manicuring them to A pool status, then this might be the best option.

I like #2, #3, and #1 in that order, although I'd be happy with any of the three. I don't think #4 has a place for B pool.

What I dont like about 3 is that you would not be able to plan ahead as to who the other team is bringing for matchups.

We could have roster numbers due a week before the challenge. That might make planning a little easier. Its just better,in my mind, to have 16 on 16. If you are using 4 replacement players I would bet that they arent of the highest caliber anyway. Thats why they didn't make the roster.

My thought would be like this: We are travelling to play Crane Hill, I email you with our numbers. Say its 14 regular team members and 1 girl for 15 total. You ask your team and can only get 11 total people to attend. You can then acquire 3 more players to have an even matchup.

At the end of the day they are "released" and you havent had to kick anyone off your team to make it happen.
The road team will set the number, so nobody shows up with 16 and faces 9 people.

And you will never know who anyone is bringing,that is a state secret right now. You just get the number of players attending.

see to me this "open door" policy is far too unstructured. im all for adding a roster spot if people want it, structured or otherwise, but its a little crazy to have people bring whoever they want for a day. Could a "random" person play for 2 teams in a given season? Could a team theoretically bring on an A pool pro to swing a match in their favor? In my opinion if you need to bring in a bunch of people month to month to get correct numbers then maybe you cant field a team in the first place

Players are only allowed to play for one team, and who would pull that kind of sh!t Keith? Those concerns could be easily handled with a couple of rules.

well im all for casual during team challenges. i find it even more fun that tourny season in some respects. but i dont know if i could ever get down on an open door policy.

I can understand that, would it be better if we had a few reserves per team? They could be identified at the start of the season and make roster moves free.

Steven Dakai wrote:I can understand that, would it be better if we had a few reserves per team? They could be identified at the start of the season and make roster moves free.

I like this one. 20 man roster including 1 girl. max 16 per challenge. And still gotta play 3 challenges to qualify.

That would be ok too

you need a set roster size.. and you have until the second match to adjust your roster in writing/forum thread.. some teams will have a hard time beating the teams that have the experience and have the rated AM1 players but to me a pro shouldnt be in the B pool..

This isn't about trying to beat you guys. The fewer people we bring the harder it would be for you to beat us anyway. This is about having even numbers at challenges.

#1

Dave Hickson wrote:

Steven Dakai wrote:I can understand that, would it be better if we had a few reserves per team? They could be identified at the start of the season and make roster moves free.

I like this one. 20 man roster including 1 girl. max 16 per challenge. And still gotta play 3 challenges to qualify.

This seems to make sense. Raise minimum to 10 and still only 2 changes to overall roster (same as last year) and were rolling. If we expand our rosters we should decide sooner than later. With all the newer teams having a lot of work to doe as far as filling a 16 person roster never mind 20.

With that said I am cool with option #1 or what I posted here.

I also like this system ^

It seems to be the best of both worlds. Still 16 person roster with 4 alternates. Away team is responsible for communicating the exact # it will bring to the challenge and the home team has to field the same #..

If nothing else it allows more people to become introduced to organized disc golf. Crane Hill would have no problem producing a roster of 16 with 4 alternates.

Pete Charron wrote:I also like this system ^

It seems to be the best of both worlds. Still 16 person roster with 4 alternates. Away team is responsible for communicating the exact # it will bring to the challenge and the home team has to field the same #..

If nothing else it allows more people to become introduced to organized disc golf. Crane Hill would have no problem producing a roster of 16 with 4 alternates.

This would be good for us also

#3(with the above restrictions) and # 1 should be put to a final vote.