A Pool Finals

[Todd Lapham]

Should the A Pool finals be at a predetermined location or should the top team get to pick the course?

If predetermined passes, we will then vote on the course(s).

The date will be the second Saturday in April, which is the 8th.

[Matt DeAngelis]

Giving the best record the choice is a good advantage, however, leaving it down to the last week is a bad idea. It limits the courses that finals can be played at, because some courses require advanced notice. I think it would be cool for the event to rotate between a few different courses. Then you need to figure out how to give some benefit to the best record.

Is the format for finals going to change to better reflect how we all compete against each other throughout the year? If the format is changed to a match play event, and only 4 teams compete at a single venue, then all teams attending will be able to play all players (even if rosters were expanded to 20, and all were allowed at finals, that is still only 80 players). Then you would be able to give an advantage to the best record by having them play against the #4 seed.

[John Dickison]

If we are changing to Match Play (which I definitely support), then we need 2 courses that are very close. As a result, we should pre-determine courses since there are very limited choices.

[Bill Newman]

predetermined time and place...somewhere central

BN

TCL Brewery

[Derek Brazauskas]

Predetermined place and time..

[Joseph Mason Proud, III]

predetermined place and time

somewhere central

[Todd Lapham]

Predetermined wins.

Now let's hear some ideas as to where? Once we get a list compiled, we'll vote on it.

-Maple Hill and Pyramids

[Joseph Mason Proud, III]

Wick will be available.

[Matt DeAngelis]

The only issue I see with having it at Maple or Pyramids is the fact there are greens fees to cover. Also the courses will be packed with people, in addition to any of the random players. I don't think there are really any courses besides pmids and maple that are very close to each other.

[Steve Solbo]

The only issue I see with having it at Maple or Pyramids is the fact there are greens fees to cover. Also the courses will be packed with people, in addition to any of the random players. I don't think there are really any courses besides pmids and maple that are very close to each other.

In the past we've had Jason and Steve agree to close the course and lower greens fees, I don't understand why people care about paying the god damn greens fees, you do every where else you go.

[Titan Bariloni]

seems fair for a neutralish spot

[Matt DeAngelis]

I don't really understand why we need to have the two courses so close together. It's not like there will be abundent time during lunch to go hang out together. When it's all said and done, most people won't be hanging out very long before the long car ride back home. Having it at the same spot year after year, doesn't keep it fresh and show off all the great courses in our region!

[Titan Bariloni]

[Joseph Mason Proud, III]

I seem to be missing some detailed information related to Finals - I see where we have match play set up for the top four and bottom four in A Pool. But I don't see more detail than that.

Teams 5 - 8 are only playing for those positions, with no chance to place in the top four? The bottom two at Finals are relegated to B Pool?

Teams 1 - 4 are playing for the cash? Team 1 plays match play (singles or doubles) v Team 4, and 2 v 3. Assuming seeding holds, then Team 1 plays match play (singles or doubles) v Team 2 for the top two spots, and Team 3 v Team 4 for the third and fourth positions?

Is there somewhere with detailed format information that I have missed?

Seems like we should focus on getting this ironed out before we start on next year's issues............

[Todd Lapham]

Since there are 8 teams in the A Pool and the B Pool has voted that they want to move up to compete in the A pool the following year I think that we should revamp the A Pool finals.

I’d like to see the following setup:

-Top 4 teams in the A pool after the regular season play a bracket style match play format. The format would be:
Seed #1 vs Seed #4
Seed #2 vs Seed #3
Winners move on to play either singles or doubles stroke play to determine league champion. (If this format is passed we’ll vote on singles or doubles or BOTH.)
Losers play either singles or doubles stroke play to determine third place.

-Bottom 4 teams play the same format just with seeds 5 vs 8 and 6 vs 7.

- I’d like to have this at a course with two courses within close proximity to each other (Pyramids and Maple Hill?) or atleast 27 holes so we can still have a nice lunch and party together after because that is a lot of fun and a great way to end the season. I’d like to get a list of courses that meet the above two criteria’s so we can have an easy list to pick the finals location.

-The bottom 2 teams after the regular season would still be relegated to the B Pool and replaced with the top 2 B Pool teams from the previous year.


Thoughts?

I'd like to see a mix of doubles and singles in each round. So first round (1v4 and 2v3) there would be half doubles and half singles. 1 point for singles victories and 2 points for doubles victories. We would play the max number of people possible and the scoring would be match play.

Say there are 16 people, that would be 8 singles and 4 doubles teams. Play as many people as possible, I'm just throwing an example number out there.

Two winners move on to play for the championships.

The bottom 4 are basically playing a consolation bracket, as they essentially missed the playoffs.

I'd like some opinions on payouts. We have $1600 (minus permit fees if applicable).

1st: $800
2nd:$500
3rd:$200
5th:$100

Thoughts?

[Todd Lapham]

Or if you guys think we can get 3 rounds in we could do 1v8, 2v7, 3v6 and 4v5. It would have to be at two courses that are close to each other, or make it 2 days.

[Kory Roy]

Or if you guys think we can get 3 rounds in we could do 1v8, 2v7, 3v6 and 4v5. It would have to be at two courses that are close to each other, or make it 2 days.

Personally like this better, JMO every team puts their money in and since all 8 teams get to play finals this year I feel all 8 teams should get a chance at it. I think if its started maybe an hour earlier we could get 3 rounds in, and would be willing to assist in counting cards or whatever else to speed up the breaks. Plus I like getting to see everyone that I don't get to see on the regular and top 4 1 place bottom 4 another place I wont be able to see you all.

[Joseph Mason Proud, III]

If bottom two teams from regular season are being sent to B regardless of how they do at finals, what is their incentive to participate in finals?

Why do you want to pay 5th place $100, bypassing 4th -- is this where you project Burpgess finishing?

This should have been ironed out a long time ago................and we are wasting our Bpoolreath on next year's stuff.........

I kind of liked the format ass it was - one round of singles, taking the top 10 scores/team -- followed by one round of doubles, taking the top 5 scores/team x2.................

So, where are we going to be doing this............?

[Todd Lapham]

The incentive is playing for that $100 (why it's 5th and not 4th), seeding for next year and having fun. I don't know of any teams that would rather not play, than play.

I project Burgess finishing ahead of Wick, again.

Borderlands, Burgess, Tully and Nasa all said yes to match play at finals. No one said no. The thread is a few topics down from this one.

We play match play all year, it seems like we should try to play match play at finals. If it doesn't work, then we'll change it for next year.

Kory, of course you want all teams to play after seeing your record, I'd bet if you were 4-0 you'd be thinking differently. If all 8 teams make it, it kind of makes the regular season pointless. Not everyone makes the playoffs in any other sports league.

[Kory Roy]

regardless of our record i would vote that way. like i said since it has been changed and all 8 teams play a pool finals regardless then all 8 teams should be able to play for the money, its not playoffs its finals, in nefa if you play the minimum amount of tournys and qualify for finals you get a chance to play for money or funny money depending on division same up here with the mpt if you make finals then get to play for money, last years system was better with the bottom 2 teams getting bumped before finals dont know why that changed. i just think its dumb that teams 5 and 6 are the ones that really get screwed in this new system.

[Titan Bariloni]

Todd,

I like the system this year and the non blue ribbon mentality..I like the move up next year..and every player I have spoke to in the B pool or A pool..love it

That said..I do think something should be there for the bottom pool..as I fear teams may not even show..why? yeah cool dudes will be there and will be fun..just too many events out there peeps might just say well its only for X so screw it

even a cool 100 or 200 might help with this IDK

question does finish at finals determine who moves up down next year for the bottom half...or is that done from reg season record....having this determined at Finals might be an incentive to have players show up if no money was allotted..actually sounds kinda cool

[Todd Lapham]

Not everyone that qualifies for Nefa finals makes it. Like I said, if we think we can do 3 rounds then all could play. I don't think it's possible, however.

There is $100 for the winner of the bottom half.

We could make it bottom two are relegated.

[Joseph Mason Proud, III]

Well, let's give the 1-4 and 5-8 format a shot.

The 5-8 teams are playing to stay in A Pool, 1-4 teams are playing for the $$$$.
Two rounds of match play using singles AND doubles would make for some really interesting
decisions having to be made..........we would require 16 players from each team to
participate in each round...? Would there be a female requirement ass swell?

[Matt DeAngelis]

I am looking forward to the change in finals style. I don't think the minimum number of players should be set at 16, that is way too high, especially since 10 was the minumum all year.

[Todd Lapham]

Sounds good Lick.

I say we go with whatever the max possible to avoid sitting people, with the absolute minimum of 10. Most teams roll deep to finals though, which is awesome. Thoughts?

Say in the first matchup Burgess has 18 and Wick has 16, do 16 v 16.

If Burgess has 18 and Wick has 14, do 14 v 14.

I am also looking forward to trying this out. It has a lot of strategy with matchups and doubles teams.

[Matt DeAngelis]

Yeah, that works for us.

[Joseph Mason Proud, III]

We should have some preset arrangement for number of singles/doubles based on # of players.

16 -- 8 singles/4 doubles
15 -- 7 singles/4 doubles
14 -- 6 singles/4 doubles OR 8 singles/3 doubles

etc....

[Titan Bariloni]

Well, let's give the 1-4 and 5-8 format a shot.

The 5-8 teams are playing to stay in A Pool, 1-4 teams are playing for the $$$$.

this sounds great

[Kory Roy]

Not a fan of the new system, think its weird that people bitch about logical stuff like a set schedule but let this stupid new system pass with flying colors.

[Todd Lapham]

Just out of curiosity, why do you think it's so stupid?

Half the league makes the playoffs, which is standard in most sports.

Finals is the playoffs, not sure why you'd think differently.