Group size versus added temporary holes

[discflyer1]

Looking for some thoughts on group size in a tournament,.

We are hosting our first C tier at Foundation Park, on the Champ 18.

Foursomes would allow us to host 72 players (I can hope!). But I have some ideas for 4 temporary holes that still fit in with how the course is designed.

Let's say that I actually get 66 people registered.

Would you rather play foursomes with a couple groups of 3 on the 18 as it is, or play all threesomes with the temporary 4 holes added on???

Pace of play would be quicker, for sure. What do you think?

Jeff

 

[Improbably]

Foursomes with a couple threes. If you do hit 72, don't add holes, make 5-cards, or worse ghost cards, just make a wait list.

 

[AdamE]

Keep it to 4 packs and only add holes if you need them. Foundation is a great course but with as long as it is I'd only add extra holes if needed. If they are needed I would consider adding in holes from the rec course. Maybe holes 1, 2, 3, 9 could make a good loop?

When is the tournament, I'm interested in driving out to play it?

 

[roggenb3]

Foursomes with a couple threes. If you do hit 72, don't add holes, make 5-cards, or worse ghost cards, just make a wait list.

All I'll say is do anything you can to avoid ghost cards. Tourneys on 18 holes with 19 or 20 groups are the worst.

 

[DavidSauls]

Even if you add extra holes, keep it to foursomes and have more empty holes. Threesomes just back up behind foursomes. And threesomes create sudden problems if one of their group members is late for a round, doesn't show up, or quits.

As for adding temp holes, only if they're very good, and if the players know about them well in advance.

I was P.O.'d when I signed up for a 72-person event, only to find that they'd opened registration to more after it filled. I was happy that someone was limiting the field to 72, only to be disappointed when they backtracked.

 

[coupe]

Even if you add extra holes, keep it to foursomes and have more empty holes. Threesomes just back up behind foursomes. And threesomes create sudden problems if one of their group members is late for a round, doesn't show up, or quits.

+1

As for adding temp holes, only if they're very good, and if the players know about and have a chance to practice them well in advance.

+1

I was P.O.'d when I signed up for a 72-person event, only to find that they'd opened registration to more after it filled. I was happy that someone was limiting the field to 72, only to be disappointed when they backtracked.

+1

 

[DavidSauls]

Good point about making sure people can practice temp holes. Otherwise, it comes across as an unfair advantage to locals or, worse, friends of the TD.

 

[ThrowBot]

threesomes create sudden problems if one of their group members is late for a round, doesn't show up, or quits.

Nailed it! This happened to me in my first sanctioned tourney this year. I wasn't even familiar with the PDGA minimum group size rule before that; fortunately the other remaining fellow in my group knew what was up.

Per the TD's decision, our remaining two-person flight wound up joining the threesome that had been right behind us, creating a 5 person flight. (So much for better pace of play!)

 

[JC17393]

Whatever you decide to do, be it holding at 72 on 18 holes or expanding the field or the course or both, advertise those details well in advance and then STICK TO IT.

Personally, I hate 5-somes and I hate the idea of ghost cards and I strongly dislike temp holes unless they are planned/laid out in advance and can be practiced to some extent (even if there is no target). So if you advertised any of the above, I can make my decision to sign up based on that info. Whether I play or not, I'm making an informed decision and I know in advance what I am or am not getting into.

The only thing that would tick me off as a player is if those announced plans were changed and the tournament I show up to play isn't the one I signed up for (or vice versa...I choose not to sign up and then things are changed to something I'd have liked to have played).

I played a tournament this past weekend that was advertised as a 72-player event (18-hole course). It filled in advance with a lengthy waitlist. On Saturday when I checked in, I saw that I was in a fivesome of mixed divisions (at a PDGA). The TD had decided to mix all the groups in the first round without notice and also was letting anyone who showed up that morning play the tournament (pre-reg or no). Not really cool. Not to the people that signed up and not to the people who might have showed up to play had they known they'd get in. Fortunately for me, one of the five in my card got moved so I was in a foursome, but it was still a less than ideal mixed card. Ended up with 74 players total, so not all that much harm done, but controversy to say the least.

 

[BgWvDave]

Solid final 9 this past weekend JC! Miss seeing my boy Howie down here in the Carolinas.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Number 1 thing that slows a course is not group size but slow playing holes (typically tweeners) and most people know which ones they are where groups stack up during the round no matter what their size. Change the stack up holes shorter or longer. Second, adding ghost cards can be better than increasing the size of some groups on courses that have the correct configuration of holes. If a course is mostly (legit) par 3s, ghost cards won't help. Foundation Champ 18 is one of the longest around with multiple par 4s and a few 5s if I'm thinking of the right course in Centralia?. One ghost card starts on par 3s right after par 4s or 5s. Two groups usually complete the par 3 before the group playing the par 4 or 5 behind them complete their hole. Don't mix divisions within groups. Have lower skill divisions play appropriate shorter tees. These are the things that lead to faster rounds.

 

[Steve West]

66-72 players on 18 holes is good. Why mess with it?

As for fours or threes: I'd prefer fours. More player interaction, yet plays fast enough. Three almost feels too casual because the scorer may not have any need to formally ask for scores, for example.

I hate fives and will not knowingly play a tournament that has them. It becomes work (not play) to keep track of where five discs landed and how many throws it took everyone to get there. (Which, on my card, can be a lot.) I have to put down and pick up my bag too many times, and can never take more than three steps without going past someone's disc and then backing up to get out of their way.

If you add the Temp holes just for the tournament, you'll probably wish you hadn't. Too much work to get them ready (unless it's part of a plot to expand the course permanently), and something will go wrong that you didn't foresee. Do that some other time to test-play them.

 

[scarpfish]

If this is the first time you're hosting a tournament on that layout, don't get fancy trying to accommodate more people. Stick to 72 people. No fivesomes, no ghost cards, no extra holes. Then review how things went afterwards. Next year, you can use that info to consider a proper course of action if you want to squeeze more in.

 

[DavidSauls]

One side benefit of capping at 72---at least, to my taste---is that if the tournament fills and some people get left out, next year there'll be more pre-registration. With luck, it will fill prior to the tournament, and you won't have to deal with it on Saturday morning.

 

[AdamE]

^^^ This. Always better to have demand out pace supply than the other way around.

Someone might have already said this, but if you don't fill at 72 be sure to put the lower skilled divisions in 3 packs; they generally throw more shots, have to look for more discs and thus can take a little longer to play than higher skilled divisions.

 

[hook_nuts]

^^^ This. Always better to have demand out pace supply than the other way around.

I understand the sentiment, but to maximize efficiency you would want supply=demand at an equilibrium point. When demand is greater than supply there is obviously a shortage which is inefficient. To me you can accomplish this by having supply greater than demand since the end result would equal the two out. If supply is way less than demand prices should increase. Just my thoughts, now maybe I'll read the entire thread to see if I'm overlooking something.

 

[TimSyl]

^^^^not the way economics works^^^^

If you have widgets for sale and no one buys them, you drop the price to sell them. If a bunch of people want your widget, you raise the price.

 

[scarpfish]

Someone might have already said this, but if you don't fill at 72 be sure to put the lower skilled divisions in 3 packs; they generally throw more shots, have to look for more discs and thus can take a little longer to play than higher skilled divisions.

In my experience, this is not (necessarily) true. Whatever extra time lower skilled divisions take in having to do extra shots (most of which are putts) are usually counterbalanced be their lack of patience in taking them. Realistically, the only really super slow cards are ones with absolute tourney beginners on them. Most intermediates and even a great deal of recreational players finish faster than most Open pros do.

One thing such players do lack is a respect for tourney etiquette. They largely haven't read the rule book. They think its proper to spend time fishing discs out of water during the round. They don't consider watching their card mates shots when one is heading for trouble. They don't take score properly and have to figure out what happened six holes back because someone didn't write it down. This is where they rack up a bunch of wasted time. Reducing their numbers on each card just increases the likelihood of these things happening because the one person who can guide them right isn't there.

 

[scarpfish]

^^^ This. Always better to have demand out pace supply than the other way around.

I understand the sentiment, but to maximize efficiency you would want supply=demand at an equilibrium point. When demand is greater than supply there is obviously a shortage which is inefficient. To me you can accomplish this by having supply greater than demand since the end result would equal the two out. If supply is way less than demand prices should increase. Just my thoughts, now maybe I'll read the entire thread to see if I'm overlooking something.

^^^^not the way economics works^^^^

If you have widgets for sale and no one buys them, you drop the price to sell them. If a bunch of people want your widget, you raise the price.

Umm guys, we're not having a discussion on supply/demand economics here, we're trying to show the best way to arrange players for competition so both the players and TD have the best experience possible. The prices may have already been set. Whether the tournament fills or not could come down to other factors. If the TD tries to squeeze too many people in or commits some other faux pas and people are going home at twilight (and my local club had that happen once), players won't like that and might go elsewhere next year.

 

[hook_nuts]

^^^^not the way economics works^^^^

If you have widgets for sale and no one buys them, you drop the price to sell them. If a bunch of people want your widget, you raise the price.

Duh. The only thing misleading was I said supply greater than demand to equal out in end, not as most efficient, but there are unknowns so the better option. If supply was known to be more than demand you should drop prices. I think tournaments should pick optimal participants or output, and change prices to represent the demand. Easier said than done, but it could help.