|
Post by Pubknight on Jun 19, 2015 15:06:14 GMT -5
We have now seen a large number of no-posts in the Masters, as well as now the US Open. As someone that was just outside the WGR line, and one shot off the qualifying tournament for the US Open, it stings a bit to see.
What I would like to suggest is the fields be inflated for such events, basically with the idea that taking no-posts into account, you would still be left with a full field.
Think of it like airlines overbooking flights, anticipating people will not show up. It doesn't have to be drastic... 5-10% larger would typically seem to accommodate the no-posts (no post % is fairly steady in that range for all events).
Hope the idea could be given some consideration.
|
|
|
Post by naldy89 on Jun 19, 2015 15:34:17 GMT -5
This might not be a bad idea. Just like there were extra guys on hand at the U.S. Open (real-life) this week waiting to see if people dropped out.
|
|
|
Post by rod81simo on Jun 19, 2015 17:07:28 GMT -5
I've been thinking too. What if there was some sort of 'emergency list' that could be decided upon, say 20-30 players or whatever. These players play out the contest and submit scores. When the cut is drawn and it includes say 20-30 no shows(WDs) the emergencies start to fill the void. The players still play their regular tourney for the week and also the Invitational with hopes of making the field and a bigger gain in WGR with a better strength of field in the Invitational. I know if I was on the cusp of the field I would play the contest for sure. Just an idea!
|
|
|
Post by NCFCRulz on Jun 19, 2015 17:39:40 GMT -5
I've been thinking too. What if there was some sort of 'emergency list' that could be decided upon, say 20-30 players or whatever. These players play out the contest and submit scores. When the cut is drawn and it includes say 20-30 no shows(WDs) the emergencies start to fill the void. The players still play their regular tourney for the week and also the Invitational with hopes of making the field and a bigger gain in WGR with a better strength of field in the Invitational. I know if I was on the cusp of the field I would play the contest for sure. Just an idea! wouldn't be fair I don't think on those that would scrape the cut but because of the new criteria would miss out because of people playing that didn't qualify. Easy answer is make every big event one where an invite has to be accepted. Accept an invite and don't play would then suffer a much larger punishment than a normal no show. Did this for the matchplay and not 1 player didn't play
|
|
|
Post by edi_vedder on Jun 19, 2015 19:01:41 GMT -5
It is really a shame how many DNP's/WD's we have this week!
I'm not totally sure yet what the best solution would be, but I totally agree with you that there needs to be something done to make this situation better. And in the best case not only for Majors, but also for the regular events on the Tour(s).
|
|
|
Post by Pubknight on Jun 19, 2015 19:56:14 GMT -5
At the end of the day, it's a video game. And life can happen. Internet can go out. Hardware can fail. Work can require overtime. Kids/family can get sick.
Lots of things can happen that could prevent a player from participating unexpectedly. I don't think 'punishing' is the way to go.
Which is why I am suggesting 'overbooking' the field. It's (I think) a reasonable compromise between 'real life' and 'video game' acknowledging that a % of the field in any given week just likely won't be able to play... even if it is a major/invitational.
|
|
|
Post by edi_vedder on Jun 19, 2015 20:15:48 GMT -5
At the end of the day, it's a video game. And life can happen. Internet can go out. Hardware can fail. Work can require overtime. Kids/family can get sick. Lots of things can happen that could prevent a player from participating unexpectedly. I totally agree with you regarding the points you've just stated. But with a playing field of ~150, this might apply to let's say 5-10 guys per tourney... but not 40 or so acutally not showing up, not posting scores or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Jun 20, 2015 4:57:30 GMT -5
Once the new code goes live next week with automation behind handling this for repeat offenders -- I think it will get better.
|
|
|
Post by edi_vedder on Jun 20, 2015 19:00:44 GMT -5
That sounds promising. Thumbs up!
|
|
|
Post by CTLegacy on Jun 22, 2015 17:02:08 GMT -5
For majors like the Open and others that require qualifying, I'd like to see upwards of 300 entries. The masters and PGA champs should be limited but for the US open at the minimum 300 participants. Hold deeper qualifiers. Give everyone 2 chances to get in. Top 150 players in ranking. Top 75 from 2 weeks before and top 75 from 1 week before.
|
|
|
Post by NCFCRulz on Jun 22, 2015 17:20:48 GMT -5
For majors like the Open and others that require qualifying, I'd like to see upwards of 300 entries. The masters and PGA champs should be limited but for the US open at the minimum 300 participants. Hold deeper qualifiers. Give everyone 2 chances to get in. Top 150 players in ranking. Top 75 from 2 weeks before and top 75 from 1 week before. Why make a major less exclusive. Lower ranked players are meant to feel something special by getting in, not getting in just because half the community get in
|
|