Kansas State Team Championships

[kselrod]

I've always thought the ratings system the pdga uses is a little off. My rating is around 850 and people with a 900+ can play against
me in rec. Division. I'm always up to the challenge but I also know I don't have a chance before the round even starts. But it is what it is.

I say throw the 3 man alt out of the mix which I think a lot of people may agree on. There is no rythym for a player to get into with this format. I would have mentioned this from my ball golf days in club tournaments but now you saw it first hand.

You guys will get a lot of good info and this event will be even better next year.

GREAT JOB ALL AROUND!!!!!

[b]

I would like to see a G-master slot but realize it limits some areas. What rating do you limit the alt. choice for that slot?
Also, many of us don't have PDGA ratings or they are dated.
I was thinking yesterday you basicly had two pros on the top teams so why not just go with that. It gives more options for smaller areas, less haggling over ratings, plus throwbots can stay together for repeat. 2 anybody, 1master, 1am , 1 swing.

[Swede]

Fluty, point taken.

...What rating do you limit the alt. choice for that slot?

I don't understand the question.

Also, many of us don't have PDGA ratings or they are dated.

I think it is a small enough community that we can come to an understanding. For instance, Juice and Todd and Dan don't have ratings, but Kindy and I know that they play in the ballpark of Sweet's level. Also, as Smitty said, KDGA tournament results should give a good idea. Just look at the PDGA ratings of the folks that finished around the player without a rating.

I was thinking yesterday you basicly had two pros on the top teams so why not just go with that. It gives more options for smaller areas, less haggling over ratings, plus throwbots can stay together for repeat. 2 anybody, 1master, 1am , 1 swing.

This is sort of the opposite of what I was thinking. Already this year we had an open player who qualified for advanced. There are relatively few players above 975 rating (Austin currently is 976) compared to players under 900. I couldn't play for my team this year and I don't even know of another Open player in our region, let alone our town. We put an ADV Masters player in our open spot and he got skunked. Luckily he's a cool guy so he still had fun. I think finding a competitive open player is one of the things that limits the number of teams we will get.

[Boomer9time]

In the Lodge team event there is a cap for ratings - the total could not be above a certain amount. If you had a high rated pro then you would have to adjust and have a lower rated intermediate, (flex) or couple lower advanced players to allow for higher rated player. There were four players to a team.

They had a gold division and a silver which had lower cap, I think the numbers were 3700 and 3600 for the divisions.
Just throwing another groups idea out there. Newton looked like it was tons of fun, sorry the wife and I did not make it.

[Swede]

In the Lodge team event there is a cap for ratings - the total could not be above a certain amount. If you had a high rated pro then you would have to adjust and have a lower rated intermediate, (flex) or couple lower advanced players to allow for higher rated player. There were four players to a team.

They had a gold division and a silver which had lower cap, I think the numbers were 3700 and 3600 for the divisions.
Just throwing another groups idea out there. Newton looked like it was tons of fun, sorry the wife and I did not make it.

That is an interesting idea. I was more worried with this format about deciding a players rating. It seems fairly easy to estimate which division a player should play. With this format, you would need a more exact number. Smitty had a solution for this but I can't remember what it was. Possibly if an unranked player was deemed for example to be an INT player, then you would assign him/her the maximum INT rating? That clearly is an imperfect fix...

[smitty]

In the Lodge team event there is a cap for ratings - the total could not be above a certain amount. If you had a high rated pro then you would have to adjust and have a lower rated intermediate, (flex) or couple lower advanced players to allow for higher rated player. There were four players to a team.

They had a gold division and a silver which had lower cap, I think the numbers were 3700 and 3600 for the divisions.
Just throwing another groups idea out there. Newton looked like it was tons of fun, sorry the wife and I did not make it.

This is all a good idea in it's own right. Problem is my team had horrible ratings. Twitch and I are the only players that have ratings anywhere near or play. Shan is not 934 and Cliff was less then 900.


Bud is correct that the top 2 teams did have 2 "Kansas" pro players on them. That is why I like the idea of the lower ratings cap/division that I mentioned. As far as a G-masters spot I don't think we would be able to field any more teams.

The 3 Grandmasters we have in Winfield plus Bud could dang near fill a team and compete.
Harv, Burley, Dave, Bart, and Bud. Bart and Burley are nearly in that 900 level. They both are with in 10 points of it. Put these guys in the right spot and they could be deadly. Throw Ron Convers in their call yourself the GrandMasters and you could win.

I do agree with Bud, I would like to see some of the "Godfathers" of Kansas Disc Golf involved in this event. The names I mentioned plus Dennis and Paulson. Only other G-master that I can think of would be Kevin Rourbaugh.

Now I do think that those Pro Grandmasters could fill in a perfect spot on many teams. We maybe should look at changing the name from Pro, Advanced, Int to things more like "Swing" that way it isn't limited by age or gender. Master is really the only appropriate title since that person must be over 40.

Like Swede posted above, for most people we can "figure out" where they fit in. Dan, Todd, and Juice are perfect examples. Nobody outside of the Newton crew really knew where they would fit in. (By the way, who isn't making the cut next year?)

Now to what Flutty said the rounds were all tough. That is correct, they were not any cake walks. It depended who you played over what holes you played them. Kindy vs. Shan was a no brainer win if they played 18-2. Shan and yourself would be able to roll him on distance alone. Now you put Kindy on holes 5-13 on Saturdays round and he is going to compete against anyone at the event. Based on the fact that he is going to be able to put himself in putting range on nearly all those holes (And they are all Lefty Holes )


Idea for the MIX-Master
The people who played the 3some probably did have a hard time getting into a groove. We want all people playing and all people involved in the strategy, that is why it is a team.

How about this.

1 person plays solo along with two people playing best shot. After each hole you could compare the score for the single dude and pair and take the lower score. This is how "Best Disc" works, but you only have a partner. So the single and the pair would play Best disc with each other.

The remaining two people play best shot. Or any combination you want them to over the "Mixmaster" holes. For example Holes 1-4 Best shot, 5-9 Alt shot, 10-13 Best disc, you could throw in a tough shot hole or do anything.

Now there would be different strategy being involved on "MixMaster" squad and all holes of the course at different times.


All the positive discussion this event is getting after the fact is great. Also the way people are delivering it is perfect. People have ideas and they are posting them. Other people are chiming in on those ideas and validating them or showing what they see as a flaw.

This shows you how sweet we all thought the event was this year and how much more fun we think it can be in future years. This is the best thread we have had in a LOOOOOOOONG Time

[Swede]

I do agree with Bud, I would like to see some of the "Godfathers" of Kansas Disc Golf involved in this event. The names I mentioned plus Dennis and Paulson. Only other G-master that I can think of would be Kevin Rourbaugh.

Now I do think that those Pro Grandmasters could fill in a perfect spot on many teams. We maybe should look at changing the name from Pro, Advanced, Int to things more like "Swing" that way it isn't limited by age or gender. Master is really the only appropriate title since that person must be over 40.

1. No restriction
2. 40+
3. Max 970
4. Max 935 (ish)
5. Max 900 (ish)

Required of all teams: at least one 50 and over, 16 and under, or female player. They can fill any spot.

Like Swede posted above, for most people we can "figure out" where they fit in. Dan, Todd, and Juice are perfect examples. Nobody outside of the Newton crew really knew where they would fit in.

We just have to trust the folks we know from town to town to tell you which players the unrated player is competitive with.

(By the way, who isn't making the cut next year?)

I don't want to talk about it. We have to make the teams bigger . Juice's wife would have had a ball and been competitive in his spot. We move Juice to G-Masters, his wife plays in the Women's division, and we lock ourselves into having a maximum of 4 teams competing each year.

No but seriously, we cut Dan. I mean who is he to offer his opinion? I will not tolerate dissension. He is banned from the course.

Now you put Kindy on holes 5-13 on Saturdays round and he is going to compete against anyone at the event. Based on the fact that he is going to be able to put himself in putting range on nearly all those holes (And they are all Lefty Holes

Well you can't blame a TD for trying

1 person plays solo along with two people playing best shot. After each hole you could compare the score for the single dude and pair and take the lower score. This is how "Best Disc" works, but you only have a partner. So the single and the pair would play Best disc with each other.

If I understand you right, there is the same problem you had with 3somes playing best shot, you bury the weakest player. In this scenario you make him/her play the singles while at least one strong player on the doubles side puts up a decent score. In fact, with your strongest player on the doubles side of "Best Disc", you could almost hide your two weakest players. Maybe if you forced teams to play their Open player in the singles spot? There really does have to be a balance. You want to test each component of the Team without the opportunity for embarrassment.

[smitty]

Required of all teams: at least one 50 and over, 16 and under, or female player. They can fill any spot.

I didn't say that. If those people help you fill a spot then good. It may be smart to require one of those on each team.

We just have to trust the folks we know from town to town to tell you which players the unrated player is competitive with.

I think that for most of the state we will have no problem figuring out if their players fit into the correct slot. Now if this thing gets as big as it should, and we start having KC area teams, Southeast corner of Kansas teams, Topeka teams, are we really going to know?

1 person plays solo along with two people playing best shot. After each hole you could compare the score for the single dude and pair and take the lower score. This is how "Best Disc" works, but you only have a partner. So the single and the pair would play Best disc with each other.

If I understand you right, there is the same problem you had with 3somes playing best shot, you bury the weakest player. In this scenario you make him/her play the singles while at least one strong player on the doubles side puts up a decent score. In fact, with your strongest player on the doubles side of "Best Disc", you could almost hide your two weakest players. Maybe if you forced teams to play their Open player in the singles spot? There really does have to be a balance. You want to test each component of the Team without the opportunity for embarrassment.

There are several ways to look at this. I don't know what we would have done. I am guessing we would have went Shan or Stun solo playing best discs with Twitch and I. Then Cliff playing doubles with Shan or Stun.

[crispinthomascarrasco]

This year's champions will be celebrating in ta-town Wednesday night, 7pm at an awesome Asian restuarant called Little Saigon... It is located on broadway between murdock and 13th street. It is delicous and affordable and they serve beer. Everyone is invited so come down and have a nice dinner, meet & greet the team, check out the trophy, get your picture taken with Casey "Bueller...Bueller...Bueller..." Fluty, and Rachel will be autographing bottles of tanning lotion for all you mouth-breathing young guns. Hope you can make it!

Thanks again to the Newton Crew and Schmitty!!!

[two time]

hey crispen you should have rachael be your swing again i could have alot of fun with that last round

[zollmanator]

You would just wear out your throwing arm and wrist, "little perv"

[kselrod]

Idea for the MIX-Master
The people who played the 3some probably did have a hard time getting into a groove. We want all people playing and all people involved in the strategy, that is why it is a team.

How about this.

1 person plays solo along with two people playing best shot. After each hole you could compare the score for the single dude and pair and take the lower score. This is how "Best Disc" works, but you only have a partner. So the single and the pair would play Best disc with each other.

The remaining two people play best shot. Or any combination you want them to over the "Mixmaster" holes. For example Holes 1-4 Best shot, 5-9 Alt shot, 10-13 Best disc, you could throw in a tough shot hole or do anything.

Now there would be different strategy being involved on "MixMaster" squad and all holes of the course at different times.

All the positive discussion this event is getting after the fact is great. Also the way people are delivering it is perfect. People have ideas and they are posting them. Other people are chiming in on those ideas and validating them or showing what they see as a flaw.

This shows you how sweet we all thought the event was this year and how much more fun we think it can be in future years. This is the best thread we have had in a LOOOOOOOONG Time

I definately agree about needing to keep the strategy aspect alive. But a 3 person alternate shot just doesn't work. If it did then you'd see it at the Ryder Cup...lol. I think the 3 person scramble would have been a bit much too, but that's just my opinion. I LOVE the idea about a single and 2 twosomes. I heard someone mention this on Sunday and it's a shame we didn't do it this go around. But it didn't take away from an awesome event which was ran to perfection!

[Schoen-hopper]

That is a thing? KS player level? You mean there are numbers somewhere or are you talking about general knowledge of how someone plays? Full of surprises, this guy. Speaking of surprises and numbers, haven't heard a peep from Schoeny about any of this. I thought you'd be jumping in to the debates here, Mike!

Hrm, Hurumph....

As a master of skepticism, I thought it best to hang back and see how this played out. My posts have the effect of a wet blanket. I can kill threads off without even trying. I hope this isn't the last post...

Looks like my strategy worked. Lots of positive vibes before and after this event. Bill Paulson and some others have been thinking to get a team event going for years, and Newton was always the course that came to mind. Glad to see this turn out so well. I hope we can keep adding to it each year, grow some notoriety, I mean reputation.

It is a good thing to try to work over all the details until it becomes more clear what will work the best. In all seriousness, the main reason I didn't comment is because I didn't understand. Who coined the term Mix Master, and what is ACM? Even with all the explanation here, I still can't put it together what went down.

Cool thing to try new stuff. Nice to see it so well received. Would be cool to see something new for finals this year, but that should be a different thread.

[smitty]

Mix Master- is the term they use in Texas for the last chance qualifying to the finals and it made its way north. Using a different format to qualify for the finals. Mixing it up.


ACM- Across Card Matchplay or simultaneous match play. In the finals we had 3 people playing 3 different matches at the same time.

I was playing against Crispin and JD at the Same time.
JD was playing Crispin and I at the same time.
Crispin was playing JD and I at the same time.

You had to be aware of where JD was and what he was going to do also where Crispin was at the same time.

[Swede]

I'll make sure that wasn't the last post.

MixMaster--a term I credit to Smitty referring to whatever format is played to determine the last chance qualifier. In this scenario, two teams advanced to the finals based on Saturday's match play. Every remaining team went to the MixMaster to determine the last spot in the finals. This year the MixMaster was stroke play. Teams picked a twosome to play best shot doubles and a threesome to play alternating shot.

ACM--a term I came up with. Across Card Match. Probably should have called it Simultaneous Match Play. This is what we used in the finals. The scorecard had all three matches, i.e.
.............1...2....3....4...5...6...7...8...9...10...11...12...13 Holes Won
Winfield
Throbots
-----------
Winfield
I.C.T.
----------
Throbots
I.C.T.

The three players from each division played each other simultaneously.

This had the effect of reducing the "I must run this at all costs" shots because with 3 players playing, you may need to make the comback in order to hang with the player that isn't parked.