Geer_Boggles
Par Member
In response to the original proposal of division changes:
I'm in the ratings based division camp but I feel that women should have their own tier of those ratings based divisions. It's not for divisiveness, it's for parity. Unless we are talking about Paige Pierce or Jennifer Allen, most women don't have the distance of men and should not be forced to compete on that level. And regardless, it's just plain respectful.
I like playing against people better than me and seeing myself improve so I think those ratings divisions should be a broader range like 75 or more points instead of the typical 50. This would deter sandbaggers as it would be a requirement.
The measurement of the ratings upon tournament time would have to be settled though. As others mentioned, ratings change each month a sanctioned tournament has been completed. Maybe a ratings "lock" could be put in place once someone registers for an event so that regardless of changes that person can compete for what they signed up for. For example, someone rated 850 signed up for an event that ranges 800-875. 3 months later it's event time and that person has jumped up to 880 in that time frame, they would still be allowed to compete in the 800-875 division and vice versa.
Also, introductory tournaments for new players or players with a new number who begin competing would need to have a division to themselves in order to establish a semi-stable rating. I would say they either need to play 8-12 sanctioned rounds to establish a baseline before being assigned to a tier or play for a full calendar year whichever happens first. This would take the question that every single new player has ever asked out of the equation (which division should I start in?) and also give them an idea of where they sit and feel comfortable in.
I'm in the ratings based division camp but I feel that women should have their own tier of those ratings based divisions. It's not for divisiveness, it's for parity. Unless we are talking about Paige Pierce or Jennifer Allen, most women don't have the distance of men and should not be forced to compete on that level. And regardless, it's just plain respectful.
I like playing against people better than me and seeing myself improve so I think those ratings divisions should be a broader range like 75 or more points instead of the typical 50. This would deter sandbaggers as it would be a requirement.
The measurement of the ratings upon tournament time would have to be settled though. As others mentioned, ratings change each month a sanctioned tournament has been completed. Maybe a ratings "lock" could be put in place once someone registers for an event so that regardless of changes that person can compete for what they signed up for. For example, someone rated 850 signed up for an event that ranges 800-875. 3 months later it's event time and that person has jumped up to 880 in that time frame, they would still be allowed to compete in the 800-875 division and vice versa.
Also, introductory tournaments for new players or players with a new number who begin competing would need to have a division to themselves in order to establish a semi-stable rating. I would say they either need to play 8-12 sanctioned rounds to establish a baseline before being assigned to a tier or play for a full calendar year whichever happens first. This would take the question that every single new player has ever asked out of the equation (which division should I start in?) and also give them an idea of where they sit and feel comfortable in.