Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Wtr 2005 Player Survey - Monday & Tuesday Leagues; Proposed prize format change
Topic Started: Jan 6 2006, 02:51 PM (970 Views)
Scott Madis
Scott Madis, CDC 85-0405
Included with the Winter Folders for Monday & Tuesday League players was
this survey 8 survey forms per folder.

The survey proposes a radical change to the way that the Prize Pool for Winter League Teams [Monday & Tuesday] is distributed.

Please read the survey carefully, as it's not what I consider 'light reading'.

My concern is that it will be misunderstood by the average player. The concept for the proposal is by Tom Janis [CDC 85-1060]. We worked on the wording together, and while it makes sense to us [ ;) ] that doesn't mean much. We've been proposing radical changes to the way our leagues operate for nearly two decades now, so everything "makes sense" to us - more or less.

I'll just add a bit more to this and then let you, the reader/player post your thoughts.

The inspiration for this particular proposal was my personal desire to see a change to the way the Winter League Tournaments are now. I designed it [not bragging, much...] and have been running it largely single-handed except for assistance from my trusty sidekick, Michelle, since Winter `98. Sure, it gets tweaked every now and then, but it could use something new.

So, Tom came up with something new! Really new!
Personally, I think that some questions appear obvious - but I could be wrong. And, personally, I like the plan. It's different. Really different. But I'm not the one who will be playing in it. Just an 'onlooker' who rustles the paper. The League Player opinion is what counts here.

I'll post a little poll up here to see what an unofficial tally shows us.

I look forward to seeing what you have to say about the proposal, before I elaborate on it.

thanks in advance,
Scott
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dennis CDC# 88-3173
Member Avatar
15
I'll ask the first few questions and see if I understand the new proposed system correctly.

If your team finishes first in your division and does not participate in the tournament then you get $250 as a team?

If you finish last in the division then enter the tournament and finish first you get your $90 plus $250 ? or just the $250

If you finish first in your division enter the tournament and lose in the first round, do you only get $90 as a team?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scott Madis
Scott Madis, CDC 85-0405
Quote:
 
If your team finishes first in your division and does not participate in the tournament then you get $250 as a team?

No. You would get $90; Top8 money.

Quote:
 
If you finish last in the division then enter the tournament and finish first you get your $90 plus $250 ? or just the $250

No. You would get $250 for becoming your division Tournament Champ and if you win in the championship (if I'm reading you right) you would get an additional $250.

Quote:
 
If you finish first in your division enter the tournament and lose in the first round, do you only get $90 as a team?

Yes. Well, probably.
This would be true if at least 4 other teams show up from your division. If you lose, you're the 5th place team and you get Top8 money.
If only 4 teams show up, including yours, and you lose - you will share in the Top4 prize.

Perhaps an easier way to consider the proposal is to recognize that your 14-15 week session of league play is basically for two things:

  • To compete for seeding as of Week 7 to gain Home advantage in Round 1 of the Tournaments and insure that you'll be playing a lower seeded team.
  • To accumulate match points (Wins) during regular league play and win the plaque for 1st (or 2nd) Place in your division.
NOTE: According to the Proposal, your payout check is NOT determined by your Final Standing in your Division.

The money that normally goes toward the standard payout check would, in this case, go into a tournament prize pool - which, every team shares in, whether they elect to play in the tournament or not. If they choose not to play, then they obviously "finish" at the bottom by default; Top8 earnings, or, $90.

It's the same amount of money. It's just being distributed differently. AND, it's not really being distributed disproportionately to any group (Gold, Silver, Bronze). It's just different. Very different.

If you're typically a last place team, or near the bottom of your division, and you enjoy playing in the tournaments and intend to do it again, then I'd say the proposal is to your advantage. You stand to earn more money, even though we're not talking about a king's ransom here. It does make it a bit more exciting though.

If you're an upper level team, say, Gold, and you always do well, then I doubt you'll be in favor of it. Especially considering that you could end up playing 1001 against a Bronze team who starts off with 601. Granted, the Bronze people are notorious for lenghthy outshots. BUT, in a tournament situation, anything can happen. And if you're an experienced player, you tend to want to limit as many "anythings" as possible. So, I don't see the 'better' Gold players being in favor of this proposal.

As stated, I like it simply because it's different. I can't say it's better, or worse than what we have now. It might be one or the other, but I can't say that at this time b/c I'm just not sure. AND, I haven't voted yet! :D

Good questions, Dennis! Hope I answered them satisfactorily (and correctly!).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dclotz
007 - Licensed to TYPE
I like the proposal but I dont understand how the lottery is useful except that it generates money. My thought is the first place team or whomever is the highest seeded team at that date deserves the right to host the tournament at their bar. It only makes sense to generate a winning atmosphere by rewarding the bar sponser with the best team as the host. What ever happens after division championships is the result of whomever has a large enough space to host the winning teams.

dclotz 87-1361
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Luke
Youngling
[ * ]
While I do think change can be a good thing and I like the tournament aspect of it, I do not like the proposed plan and vote against it.

If the team I play on wins our division, then all we get is a "Congratulations," rather then first place money. To me this renders the regular season worthless. On any given day in darts, anybody can beat anybody. So a #8 team could beat a #1 team and the #1 team gets 8th place money, even though they worked their butt off to win the division over 15 weeks. A team that finishes first in a division is the #1 team. First place in your division deserves some money for it's accomplishments over a 14-15 week period.

There should be a better way to balance the money between division payouts and tournament payouts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scott Madis
Scott Madis, CDC 85-0405
dclotz
Jan 7 2006, 09:48 PM
I like the proposal but I dont understand how the lottery is useful except that it generates money. My thought is the first place team or whomever is the highest seeded team at that date deserves the right to host the tournament at their bar. It only makes sense to generate a winning atmosphere by rewarding the bar sponser with the best team as the host. What ever happens after division championships is the result of whomever has a large enough space to host the winning teams.

dclotz 87-1361


What do you do if you have a bar with two top-seeded teams in different divisions.
I could complicate the problem further by specifying that the bar has only 1 dartboard, but for now, let's just say there's 2 boards, 2 top-seeded teams, since this [very bad] situation happened in the 2nd year of the Winter Tournaments as we now know them.

I won't elaborate on that particular problem until I see your response, since it's a logistical situation that can bore the crap out of most people - with good reason.....

About the only change to the lottery that I have considered numerous times is a reduction in the price of a ticket. Currently, they're $10 for a Division Playoff and $20 for a Finals chance.
I've talked to numerous barowners over the years regarding ticket price, but they've all insisted that the price is fair. Unfortunately, the sample group is almost entirely barowners who bother to buy a ticket. Every year we'll get calls from owners wanting tickets, in June - or sometime after the tournaments are over. Their response to why they waited is they "just never got around to reading it"..... It's always the same. Always. So, each year I try to trim down on the amount of verbage that goes out in the promo material. And each year I end up regretting not including all of the words, because I invariably leave something understated. Can't win.

It was explained to me that another downside to reduced ticket prices would most likely amount to more ticket sales, and may negatively effect those bars who genuinely want to participate. Kinda like, if you sell beer for 50¢ you'll probably sell alot more beer, but you may not have an overall desired result.
For now, the lottery sells enough tickets to make the tournaments work, guarantees an uncrowded, "prepared" venue, and puts some dollars into the league that players don't have to cough up. I should mention that the surpluses from lottery proceeds have been set aside for T80 pins - a very expensive item that the existing league budget cannot accommodate.

So - let's hear it!
How would you prevent overcrowding if you just give every top seeded team the home advantage?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scott Madis
Scott Madis, CDC 85-0405
Luke
Jan 9 2006, 01:49 PM
While I do think change can be a good thing and I like the tournament aspect of it, I do not like the proposed plan and vote against it. 

If the team I play on wins our division, then all we get is a "Congratulations," rather then first place money.  To me this renders the regular season worthless.  On any given day in darts, anybody can beat anybody.  So a #8 team could beat a #1 team and the #1 team gets 8th place money, even though they worked their butt off to win the division over 15 weeks.  A team that finishes first in a division is the #1 team.  First place in your division deserves some money for it's accomplishments over a 14-15 week period. 

There should be a better way to balance the money between division payouts and tournament payouts.

Hey, did I see this one coming or what? B)
Quote:
 
If you're an upper level team, say, Gold, and you always do well, then I doubt you'll be in favor of it. Especially considering that you could end up playing 1001 against a Bronze team who starts off with 601. Granted, the Bronze people are notorious for lenghthy outshots. BUT, in a tournament situation, anything can happen. And if you're an experienced player, you tend to want to limit as many "anythings" as possible. So, I don't see the 'better' Gold players being in favor of this proposal.


The chasm between the better & lesser teams is the same as the Have's and Have-Nots, the Rich & the Poor.....

I don't disagree with the point you make. But it's tough to get sympathy from the 8th Place team in your division, who most likely hangs at the bottom. When it comes to Gold level teams, there's often a battle for 1st or 2nd, possibly 3rd, but after that I think you have to admit that the rest of your division-mates would LOVE any opportunity to knock down the 1st Place team that carnaged the session. That "vindictive" nature is probably the same with just about every league, in any sport. After all, "if they're good enough to beat us all those other times, then they oughta be good enough to beat us in a playoff". Right?

Another item which I think you gloss over lightly is that you're already "at the money", without even considering that you DID win something for working your butts off, as you put it. You got the plaque, and your name on the list. Okay, to many teams that's a "so what". And that's very easily said, unless you've never won first place and taken the lumber home to your bar and your teammates. For every one of those teams there's at least a dozen more who can't relate to that sentiment.
AND, what about the 1st Place Seeding?? You worked your butt off - and you get top seed! In Round 1 you play the bottom seeded team. In Round 2 you play a much lower-seeded team than yourself. You are already complaining about giving up some of the money that you worked your butt off for, and you've not even played the teams that you had to display a distinct advantage over in order to beat them to become the Top Seed.
Once again, I don't disagree with your logic, that a #8 can beat a #1 and that would hurt a lot - IF you were #1. OTOH, I can assure you, the number 5-6-7-8 crowd, and maybe some of the rest, would LOVE to see that happen. EVERYONE loves the underdog, it seems. As long as you're not the team on top. ;)


I know, this isn't the NFL, or the NBA, or the PGA... But, that's pretty much how they all work, if I'm not mistaken. [and I may be mistaken, so please correct me if I am] You play the regular season for Division/Conference honors, but it all amounts to a seeding for the Playoffs, and ultimately a grand champion from all the contenders. I didn't ask TJ if that was his inspiration for the proposal, but it seems likely.

I don't see the proposal catching on because the people who will tend to benefit least from it (and IMO, they won't benefit at all) will understand it, and will vehemently oppose it.
The people who stand to gain the most from it, won't understand it, probably don't care to, and consequently won't even toss an opinion on it. You can say this about most groups/organizations that offer choices. Some call it the "squeaky wheel" syndrome. :)

Quote:
 
There should be a better way to balance the money between division payouts and tournament payouts.

I doubt that we'd see a proposal to "balance" the two prizes. I see that type of plan getting even less support, from anyone.

For instance, increasing tournament money would result in a reduction of division payouts. And the same argument is going to apply that we have now. "Why give up some of the money that we worked so hard for so we can lose it in a tournament situation?" Probably.
And, if you're going to give Top8 money to teams who don't even bother to participate in the playoffs, as well as a check for their division finish - it kind of diminishes the effect that I think Tom was looking for.

It's still early, but at this point I see it as neither here nor there; undecided - inconclusive. This topic just hasn't garnered the interest (in this forum) that something needs to actually get done. We'll see what happens with the folder surveys, of course. But there's a pretty wide spectrum of players in this forum now, from what I can tell. And as I anticipated, the proposal is probably too radical and won't interest the average league player. It's still a nice idea, though. If you were starting a league from scratch, with no preconceived notions or traditions, it's probably a much better way to distribute the prize - carry it out to the very end.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dennis CDC# 88-3173
Member Avatar
15
If this proposal is passed. There will be more money at stake in the tournament. Would a rule such as this "Any player on a team's roster that has played at least "x" number of games is eligible to play in the tournament". A rule like this would help ensure no team would keep a "ringer" on the roster just for the tournament.

Sorry if there is already a rule like this.

Also if this proposal is passed there should be more participants in the tournament (because there is more money at stake). Wouldn't this make the bars hosting hosting the tournament happier? and more willing to do things beneficial for the league??? I would think so.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scott Madis
Scott Madis, CDC 85-0405
Dennis CDC# 88-3173
Jan 11 2006, 04:46 PM
If this proposal is passed.  There will be more money at stake in the tournament.  Would a rule such as this "Any player on a team's roster that has played at least "x" number of games is eligible to play in the tournament".  A rule like this would help ensure no team would keep a "ringer" on the roster just for the tournament.

Sorry if there is already a rule like this.

Also if this proposal is passed there should be more participants in the tournament (because there is more money at stake).  Wouldn't this make the bars hosting hosting the tournament happier?  and more willing to do things beneficial for the league??? I would think so.

There is such an eligibility rule for the now defunct League Singles & Doubles Tournaments [Section 5, Page 10 of The Cleveland Darter Club Rules of Darting for League & Tournament Play], but it's not specific to "team tournaments". It should be modified.

It's not been a problem in the Team Tournaments because of the "safety in numbers" security. It would be very difficult to go up against the peer pressure that a team would experience by trying to slip a ringer in after the regular season. Since starting it in `98 I've not experienced the problem.

As for benefits, yes, the bars are definitely the beneficiaries of the existing tournaments for Winter. Granted, the league will see a net lottery proceed of $500-$900 (although this doesn't take into consideration any labor - I run the lottery, but it's a volunteer effort), but it's basically a bar/player reward. The Club used to net several thousand from beer sales at the old tournaments, when they were popular. Come to think of it, I ran those too, as a volunteer effort....
Anyway, Yes, you are correct that the bars would probably see an increase in participation. In recent years, the Winter Tournaments participation is down significantly from the first 5 years, when it was nearly always over 90% of teams turning out for Round 1. Even now, well over 75% of the Monday & Tuesday teams turn out for Round 1. It is, literally, our largest event of the year. Between Monday & Tuesday Leagues, the better part of over 1,000 players will pack into approximately 15 bars for several hours. "DCLOTZ", who posted the question of "Why have the lottery?" may still be mulling it over since he's not responded yet - but the Lottery guarantees against over-crowding, if it's constructed correctly. (We've not had over-crowding for many years now, so it's configured appropriately right now)

The UPside of it is that more people will enjoy the tournaments. The DOWNside is that some, probably many, will not understand the sacrifice of the "standard" league payout check that we've had forever. It's a completely radical departure from the traditional prize distribution method, and may be resented. And, if you're a top-level league player on a good team that normally does well, you won't want to give up the old/current method. But if I were a barowner, I'd be ALL for it - in a heartbeat.

For those not familiar with how the Winter Tournaments and lottery work, you can read all about last year's at HERE.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dclotz
007 - Licensed to TYPE
Quote:
 
What do you do if you have a bar with two top-seeded teams in different divisions.
I could complicate the problem further by specifying that the bar has only 1 dartboard, but for now, let's just say there's 2 boards, 2 top-seeded teams, since this [very bad] situation happened in the 2nd year of the Winter Tournaments as we now know them.


Thats not that complicated. Any bar with more than 1 team can only host 1 division, which should be the highest division. So a bar with a gold, silver, and bronze team can only host the gold team.

Take the east side. E silver 1 the 1st place team CAN host the division playoff, E bronze 2 the 1st place team CAN host the division playoff, E bronze 3 only Sirnas CANNOT host because they have a team in a higher division so they would have to revert to the 2nd place team to host, E bronze 4 Sirnas and Pat Dees CANNOT host because they both have teams in higher divisions so they would have to revert to the highest seeded team from the rest of their division. Even though those teams cannot host, their bar still has the same chance as every other bar to host except for the Harbor Inn which has 2 teams in E Silver 1.

I broke down the east side so no over crowding now. Oh wait I forgot, last year the lottery produced the worst result our division could have had. The smallest bar in our division with only 1 board Pat Dees won the lottery, we packed 4 playing teams each of which had no less than 6 players plus darters from the teams that lost the week before who wanted to spectate and the bars regular bar patrons plus players wives, girlfriends, and friends into an area no larger than an average household basement. The fact of the matter is lottery or no lottery there are going to be problems somewhere. There are enough heads involved in this club to come up with a way to have playoffs hosted based on performance not by some bar owner who laid down a few bucks for a lottery ticket.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scott Madis
Scott Madis, CDC 85-0405
Quote:
 
Thats not that complicated. Any bar with more than 1 team can only host 1 division, which should be the highest division. So a bar with a gold, silver, and bronze team can only host the gold team.

"Complicated" is a relative statement here. For a complete idiot, I'm quite certain that a solution to the problem would be quite complicated. For a Jay Tomlinson, for instance, it's probably a 20-minute exercise with a pencil and paper.
Unfortunately, the simple solution that you cite here will not work, IMO. I'll preface by stating one of my most common "rules to live by" when it comes to this league stuff - always devise your plan to best accommodate the worst denominator. IOW, what's the worst thing that can happen, that you can possibly imagine, and then work your solutions around that. Because IF you don't, then it almost never fails (in my case, anyway) that the worst thing that can happen WILL, happen. :(

Quote:
 
Take the east side. E silver 1 the 1st place team CAN host the division playoff, E bronze 2 the 1st place team CAN host the division playoff, E bronze 3 only Sirnas CANNOT host because they have a team in a higher division so they would have to revert to the 2nd place team to host, E bronze 4 Sirnas and Pat Dees CANNOT host because they both have teams in higher divisions so they would have to revert to the highest seeded team from the rest of their division. Even though those teams cannot host, their bar still has the same chance as every other bar to host except for the Harbor Inn which has 2 teams in E Silver 1.

I won't argue that the above scenario is or is not plausible, for these particular bars, for this particular session.
But, I will argue that you can't guarantee the exact same set of particulars for Winter 2006, or Winter 2007. And, I'll argue that you can't apply your same logic above to numerous bars on the West-side.
The goal is to design a general, broad policy that will best accommodate most [and hopefully ALL] bars on both sides of town for all levels of play.

Let's try to apply your policy (which for sake of discussion I'll call the "East Side method") to some current West Side bars. The bar has 2 dartboards, and 4 Tuesday League teams. At least 3 of which are in different divisions. And three of them end up being Seeded #1, giving them home advantage. This equates to 12 teams at home, upwards of 60 people. Probably very upset people.
So, we apply the East Side method. In which case, the 2 highest level teams will share the bar on that night - with just 2 dartboards. Or, are you just going to allow the one highest level team to play at home and ship the others off to somewhere else? I take it that the 2nd (or 3rd) highest seed team will have to play at the 2nd Seed Home bar?
But what if the 2nd Highest Seed has a #1 Seed team playing there on the same night? There are plenty of bars with 3+ teams on the same league night. I believe there are some that have as many as 5. Keep in mind that if a bar has 6 boards, they can host 12 teams on each league night.

And what if the two top-seeded teams out of the same bar are both Bronze or Silver, in different divisions? Keep in mind, a Silver 3 team is not "higher" than a Silver 4 team. Except for Gold 1-2 and East Silver 1, those numbers mean virtually nothing as far as caliber of play. No league administrator with 10 or more divisions can't honestly tell you that they have every division ranked by the caliber of the teams scheduled in them. If they do, they're either lying or they're just wrong.
So, how does the East Side Method accommodate this situation?

Unless I'm spinning this wrong, the East Side Method has the makings of a very complicated policy. My original goal, with the current lottery method in mind, was for every team to know exactly where they were playing at least 2 weeks before the regular season ended. For both Round 1 and Round 2. I think I achieved that over the years. I won't say that there isn't a better method. But so far, you need more words for your proposal, I think.

Quote:
 
I broke down the east side so no over crowding now.

I'll reiterate, just to emphasize my point. You've only broken down the CURRENT East Side. Would your plan work for the East Side of 2002? Will it work for 2008? What if there are suddenly 8 East Side divisions, and each bar averages 3 teams on each league night, and they've all got 2 dartboards on the wall? Will your current configuration still work? Throw in 3 or 4 of those bars each having 2 top-seeded teams. You need to spell it all out - make it a series of proposed rules that can be passed around the table for consideration, reviewed by plenty, posted in this forum for rebuttal and critique.... Start typing, man!
:D

Quote:
 
The fact of the matter is lottery or no lottery there are going to be problems somewhere. There are enough heads involved in this club to come up with a way to have playoffs hosted based on performance not by some bar owner who laid down a few bucks for a lottery ticket.

No doubt about your first statement! But in the past three years, the current scheme is working with very, very few problems. The situation you mention at Pat Dee's last year is a real surprise for me. Until hearing this, about the only change that I was considering is the maximum number of Round 2 playoffs that any bar can win.

If you take a look at the
2004 Lottery Ticket Sales Audit you'll see just how few bars actually participate in the Lottery. And they make a killing at it, as you can see. It's pretty much the same bars, year after year - like it's some well-kept secret. Pat Dee's bought 2 tickets, and won a playoff. The winners are still posted here.

As mentioned, the only thought I had for a change to the Lottery Rules (assuming you or someone doesn't come up with something better) was to further limit the number of playoffs that a single bar can host, based on the number of sanctioned boards they have on the wall. You can review last year's Lottery Rules
here. I'll be requesting Planning Committee chair Jeff Inman to put this on his agenda for this month's meeting - which I see is not on the calender here, but I believe is going to be the 3rd Saturday of the month at 9am. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that, please. And, Dennis, I encourage you to attend and elaborate on your thoughts. Perhaps you can convince some of those other "heads" that you speak of to attend? Good luck! ;)

There are a few other good reasons for the lottery that I'll mention: It allows for only those bars who actually want the business in their bar to take advantage of it. You may be surprised that there are a few out there who simply don't want the "hassle".

Bars who bother to throw down 10 bucks for a ticket are most likely the same ones who will go the extra effort to provide a good playing area, with decent boards and lighting. They care. "Giving" the playoff rights to a bar simply because it has a better team playing out of it doesn't necessarily equate to a place that most teams will be happy to compete in. We tend to refer to this as "home field advantage". B)

Finally, and I can't stress this one enough - the Lottery, if done in a timely fashion, will guarantee published locations for everyone to read, weeks ahead of their actual playoff dates. Since I'm not entirely clear on the East Side Method that you're proposing, can you at least say that we can publish, by Week #13, something similar to this?

Drop me a line if you're interested in the Planning Comm meeting and I'll send you the details, along with an agenda as soon as it's ready.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
dclotz
007 - Licensed to TYPE
I'm uncertian of what response your looking for Scott.

Quote:
 
"Complicated" is a relative statement here. For a complete idiot, I'm quite certain that a solution to the problem would be quite complicated. For a Jay Tomlinson, for instance, it's probably a 20-minute exercise with a pencil and paper.


Your correct "Complicated" is a relative statement in almost every situation, if you dont have a relative perspective of what your dealing with. In this club there are many variables that make "Complicated" come into effect. Because of those variables I can see where my example of what you call the East Side method may not be applicable to the West Side. I know that my method or a similar version of it could work, but in order for it to work all variables need to be removed, and that doesnt just apply to this subject, I know you understand because you often refer to worst case scenario.

Quote:
 
I'll be requesting Planning Committee chair Jeff Inman to put this on his agenda for this month's meeting - which I see is not on the calender here, but I believe is going to be the 3rd Saturday of the month at 9am. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that, please. And, Dennis, I encourage you to attend and elaborate on your thoughts. Perhaps you can convince some of those other "heads" that you speak of to attend? Good luck!


The heads I speak of are the entire membership, and you say "Good Luck!" as if you expect they wont attend. I'll tell you, you are right, they probably wont attend, matter of fact I probably wont attend this time either. But believe me, even though I, and some others, are not present we are doing are best of trying to PROMOTE darts. As you have probably figured out I am an East Side darter, and as you well know there are not as many representitives from this side of the Cuyahoga as there should be, I am finding that these variables I speak of are the cause of this misrepresentation, in most cases these variables are unknown, misunderstood or underdefinded club policies, eventually if and when I have gathered enough information to base a good representation of what I would like to convey I will become more involved.

dclotz
Board Buster Dart Team
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Scott Madis
Scott Madis, CDC 85-0405
dclotz Posted on Jan 17 2006, 07:32 PM
Quote:
 
I'm uncertian of what response your looking for Scott.

A solution. Nothing more, nothing less. Not sure what "more" there could be, beyond a solution - assuming that a significant majority of the people are satisfied with the solution. After that, what else is there? Pacifying the minority, I guess?

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
"Complicated" is a relative statement here. For a complete idiot, I'm quite certain that a solution to the problem would be quite complicated. For a Jay Tomlinson, for instance, it's probably a 20-minute exercise with a pencil and paper.

Quote:
 
Your correct "Complicated" is a relative statement in almost every situation, if you dont have a relative perspective of what your dealing with. In this club there are many variables that make "Complicated" come into effect. Because of those variables I can see where my example of what you call the East Side method may not be applicable to the West Side. I know that my method or a similar version of it could work, but in order for it to work all variables need to be removed, and that doesnt just apply to this subject, I know you understand because you often refer to worst case scenario.

I agree that the East Side Method you propose can work. I'd even go so far that most if not all of the extremely hairbrained schemes that have come across in one form or another can work. If you have enough people and/or money to throw at these types of problems, you can make everyone happy.
To apply that particular theorem to making the East Side Method work universally, the League(s) would need an agent/representative from each area/division/team actively involved in the scheduling process.

How do we get those agents? Well, asking for them doesn't work. We know this b/c scheduling is a "public" event. Everyone and anyone is invited. An open invite is published on the Weekly Standings several weeks prior solicting help and or advice, or just spectators. It's pretty casual. Been doing it for years. Several weeks after the scheduling is done and the season starts and the usual couple of captains who are disgruntled with their schedule call in to disgruntalize, they're informed that they can be part of the scheduling process.... Now, after it's all said and done, and they've agreed that "they'll be part of it next time!", and even after taking down their names and numbers and giving them "courtesy" reminder calls next time scheduling comes around - you guessed it, they're not there.
So, I suppose if we paid all of those people to show up and give us their opinion then maybe we'd get a few takers - but when was the last time you were paid for an "unprofessional" opinion? The league(s) don't have the money for that anyway, but even if they did...

So yeah, it could work. Get about 20-30 guys like you who know everyone playing in their area to sit down and over the course of 6-8 hours put together some schedules that everyone will be happy with.... I suppose that could happen. But I wouldn't bet on it.

Quote:
 
Quote:
 
I'll be requesting Planning Committee chair Jeff Inman to put this on his agenda for this month's meeting - which I see is not on the calender here, but I believe is going to be the 3rd Saturday of the month at 9am. Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that, please. And, Dennis, I encourage you to attend and elaborate on your thoughts. Perhaps you can convince some of those other "heads" that you speak of to attend? Good luck!

Quote:
 
The heads I speak of are the entire membership, and you say "Good Luck!" as if you expect they wont attend. I'll tell you, you are right, they probably wont attend, matter of fact I probably wont attend this time either.

I rest my case on this point. ;)

Quote:
 
But believe me, even though I, and some others, are not present we are doing are best of trying to PROMOTE darts. As you have probably figured out I am an East Side darter, and as you well know there are not as many representitives from this side of the Cuyahoga as there should be, I am finding that these variables I speak of are the cause of this misrepresentation, in most cases these variables are unknown, misunderstood or underdefinded club policies, eventually if and when I have gathered enough information to base a good representation of what I would like to convey I will become more involved.

I appreciate your effort.
My advice is to take advantage of this forum. As you can see, most people don't.
As you can see, if you've been reading the posts here, this place makes a difference. I was convinced that online league schedules are worthwhile, for instance. It's not just a game or pastime here. This place is a tool for improvement.
People talking in bars is a great thing. But it really doesn't solve problems if those banterings don't get back to the actual problem-solvers. OR, those doing the bantering don't put themselves into a position to solve the problems themselves.

What has suppressed tavern-sport leagues, of all kinds, from achieving near-perfection for decades is the horrendous lack of communication and cooperation. Typically, players having a problem with league policy rarely take their problem to the league itself. Instead, they'll stand around in a bar on league night and complain about it. For the most part, pissing into the wind. They may as well go out on Public Square at noon and rant about the price of gas. Not only won't they accomplish anything but annoy some people, but they'll eventually just get frustrated and quit. Proper channels. Small things like leagues CAN be changed fairly easily, for the better. But not without communication. Nobody OWNS the CDC leagues. I realize all to often that for some reason their are those who want to insist, and believe, that the leagues are beholden to someone, such as myself or a director. But that's just ignorance. They don't know any better because they choose not to. And that's fine - that's a perogative. But complaining about something that they refuse to learn about has never made any sense to me or anyone else involved with the organization. We can't help those people. Fortunately, their problems really have little if anything to do with darts - they just happen to be playing darts at the time.

I'm fairly certain that all of our policies (scheduling, leagues, penalties, rules) are published and made available to teams. If there's a misunderstanding, then it may just be a matter of someone not reading the text. If it's dissatisfaction with what they read, then I'd say it's a matter of them either not directing their problem to the league and/or not devising a better solution to the problem for the league to adopt.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Landser
Learner
so,

what is the result of this survey???????????

did pay outs change or remain the same?


just would like to know.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · 2005 Monday & Tuesday League Player Survey · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy