Early 2012-13 discussion

[Kelly Conroy]

1. Set schedule. Pre-season scheduling will help teams determine availabilty well in advance, not to mention easier for captains. I know some are freaking out about this, but it's IMO in the best interests of a ton of people that I have already talked to. These set dates can be flexible IFF something drastic happens, like a death in someone's family, or a severe storm, or some drastic event like that. This is not that hard to figure out guys...gimmie a break.
2. Either mandatory playoff in individual matches, or not. Let's establish a rule on this please. I'm fine either way, but we can't just wing it to appease one situation. This should not be decided as it happens and should be a uniform rule before the season begins.
3. Predetermined locations for finals, perhaps rotating in locations. Think NFL on this one.

Thoughts?

[Steve Solbo]

1. Set Schedules will quickly de-volve into floating schedules as we have now, maybe we just make a penalty for not playing within the given month, whether its points off the top during the challenge, or handicaps, or what not, this will have to be discussed. Your obviously going to have to make a penalty for this, otherwise, no one will conform to the set schedule.

2. Ive always seen the challenge as a playoff for singles and doubles, unless there are circumstances that can not be dealt with... i.e. sunlight.

3. I think this is a good idea, we could revolve around 5 centrally located courses, good idea.

[Kelly Conroy]

1. A penalty could be a solution. Just a thought, but what if the team(s) doesn't adhere to the set schedule are disqualified from finals if they don't play on the given day twice in one season. That could get teams on the same page.

2. I have no problem with either decision, and I agree with you Solbo, there should be no ties, but I can also agree to have all ties end in ties. Doesn't matter to me, but I think there needs to be a solidified decision that all teams comply with.

3. Yes. Obviously some courses don't have the room or appeal to host a finals ie Northampton, so I think that there should be a rotation of the best courses: Wick, Borderland, Maple, Hyland, etc...

[Titan Bariloni]

ties...really depend on time/weather..IDK the rule now does seem fine..IMO

expect a team VT and and Team SNH keene/rindge(already a reality)

TC is awesome!

[Dave Hickson]

1. I like what we have.
2. I like what we have.
3. I like what Kelly said.

[John Dickison]

I like splitting points in Singles, but having playoffs in doubles (time permitting).

The reasons are: 1) it gets people to lunch at roughly the same time, and 2) it helps shorten the matches when most of the season's matches are played when daylight is short. This is what we did yesterday and throughout the season. I think we split points in doubles in our late Fall matches when days were really short -- you need to ensure there is time for a playoff if necessary.

In prior years, we've had singles matches that went 6+ extra holes (in tough/slow weather conditions), and it caused issues getting round 2 started on time.

Policy recommendation: Split Points for Singles and Sudden Death Playoffs for Doubles (time permitting). Captains could pre-arrange a doubles cutoff time. If the doubles match finishes after X:XX time, then no playoff and a tied doubles match would split the points. This time cap would vary based on available daylight, but should be roughly 1 hour prior to sunset to allow for a playoff, if necessary.

[Joseph Mason Proud, III]

Let's get our [bleep] together on time this time, fellas.............

I too am fine with current handling of issues 1 and 2


and

totally support Kelly's view on 3...........

Now, are we going to discuss roster issues:

1. Do we keep a female requirement?
2. Do we keep rosters at a max of 20 (16reg + 4alt)?


Our roster is set at this point, with a couple of upgrades - guess we would need to know if we are lowering roster size/eliminating female requirement at this point.............

let's go.........

[Kelly Conroy]

Let's get our [bleep] together on time this time, fellas.............

I too am fine with current handling of issues 1 and 2


and

totally support Kelly's view on 3...........

Now, are we going to discuss roster issues:

1. Do we keep a female requirement?
2. Do we keep rosters at a max of 20 (16reg + 4alt)?


Our roster is set at this point, with a couple of upgrades - guess we would need to know if we are lowering roster size/eliminating female requirement at this point.............

let's go.........

1. I have and will continue to oppose a female mandate with the penalty/bonus depending on your point of view. Personally, I think it's a bit sexist. If ladies want to play, they should feel like a normal teammate, not just someone who is there to fill a requirement. Ask the ladies, and I think most will agree with me...Kristi and Leslie for example.
2. I personally don't care either way about roster size.

[Chris Bolton]

penalty for not adhering to the schedule =

ties should always be played off if time permits

set DATE and LOCATION for finals!!!!!!!!!

I really think we need to address the female player....I know that in CT there are not as many women to choose from to put on to the team. I also know that many captains posted on the female's only thread last year and I know personally never got a response


rosters need to be smaller.... 16+4 is basically just a 20 person roster with a max of 16 playing per round. 20 people is too many...I would love to see it back to 12 or 14

[Steven Dakai]

1.I have only had difficulty scheduling a match one time. Most people are cool and accommodate each other. I like the flexibilty of choosing the date.
2.I think we already do not playoff singles for time reasons. Doubles could be a good idea. But why? A tie in a tough match can actually be a win. Your best ties one of my lower players,that is a win!!!
3. Set finals makes sense. Its a Sh!t show every April!

No way we want to start kicking people out of TC just because some teams cant fill a roster. 16 v 16. find more players!

[Pete Violet]

1. I like what we have.
2. I like what we have.
3. I like what Kelly said.

Agreed.

1. I used to say set schedules would be better but like Steve said most times it hasn't been hard to schedule.

2. I like playing out ties but I certainly agree with what John said regarding ties in singles due to lunch - as a captain that has bitten me before. I think it is an easy enough thing to have captains decide before the match.

3. Let's make finals set. Last year shouldn't happen again.

4. I would like to keep the female rule.

5. I am fine with rosters.

[Todd Lapham]

Just a heads up,

We will no longer be able to post about the Team Challenge on the NEFA board pretty shortly. I am in the process of making a new forum for the team challenge. I'm not sure if these conversations will be saved or not. I'm hoping to have it up and running by early July.

Also, definitely think it's a good idea to have predetermined finals. Saves a lot of drama.

[Joseph Mason Proud, III]

Thanks, Matt

[Steven Dakai]

:idea: Thanks, Matt

x2

[Matt DeAngelis]

Sorry, but the NEFA BoD doesn't want parents of our junior players or those young players themselves exposed to the stupid, childish, and offensive posts made by a number of people involved with the team challenge.

[Joseph Mason Proud, III]

[Titan Bariloni]

I think all the nefa members involved in TC should not renew then next year

lAME

[Steven Dakai]

Or we could just start threads in the the other areas for our teams and matchups. Keep the language at a permissible level and ask the mods to do their job;ban the offenders. Now, we are punishing everyone in TC for the alleged crimes of the few.

I intend to use Happening and Hookups to discuss challenges. Until that breaks the terms of use, I cant see how it can be stopped.

I pay my dues to support Nefa. So do you Titan. Its the leadership that might not get renewed.

[Matt DeAngelis]

There has been discussion of only allowing NEFA members to post on the forum and extending punishment for misuse to include suspension of membership. Not sure if that is going to go anywhere, but it was brought up.

The whole "moderators should do their job" stance is flawed. There simply aren't enough people willing to dedicate the time to be a moderator of the forum. Like so many other aspects of life, people are takers and there are enough givers. They want what they want, and they don't want to help to make it better for everyone involved. Period. With the frequency of posts in the team challenge area, it would be unreasonable to expect one person, volunteering a small amount of time, to read through those posts to determine which violate the terms of use. Where are your requests to help out in that regard? If there were people helping out, then maybe we wouldn't be at this crossroads. In addition to people posting offensive content to the forums, those that read the posts and don't report it are also at fault. The end result that NEFA was forced into is not the problem. The problem is the fact that people post this stuff in the first place.

[Jeff Wiechowski]

The whole "moderators should do their job" stance is flawed. There simply aren't enough people willing to dedicate the time to be a moderator of the forum. Like so many other aspects of life, people are takers and there are enough givers. They want what they want, and they don't want to help to make it better for everyone involved. Period. With the frequency of posts in the team challenge area, it would be unreasonable to expect one person, volunteering a small amount of time, to read through those posts to determine which violate the terms of use. Where are your requests to help out in that regard? If there were people helping out, then maybe we wouldn't be at this crossroads. In addition to people posting offensive content to the forums, those that read the posts and don't report it are also at fault. The end result that NEFA was forced into is not the problem. The problem is the fact that people post this stuff in the first place.

PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU READ AND REALLY UNDERSTAND THIS BEFORE RESPONDING TO IT.

[Steven Dakai]

So, are you saying that if TC gets volunteers to be moderators we will be allowed to continue to use this forum? If a lack of volunteers is the problem, lets ask for some. I have not heard this mentioned before, but now that you have stated it as the as a primary problem I think it can be solved easily.

[Matt DeAngelis]

I'll bring it up and see what we can find out. Also see how far along Todd is in his setup of the new site. No promises on anything though.

[Steven Dakai]

I am sure we can get some people to help. This seems like a great compromise and I appreciate you looking into it.