2012 League Proposals      Last Update: March 15  Recent Updates:  1.c,  6.c

Tom Minsker                Send Comment	It is time for our league to have a board which would make final decisions on rules, play, format, etc. each season. I propose that the board be made up of 1 owner, 1 professional, and 3 current league members. Preferably all board members would also be league players. This board would meet, discuss and vote on proposals for the coming year and then present them at our Spring meeting.  (Withdrawn)
Nominees:	Nominees have either volunteered or have been asked and agreed to serve on the board. Ron Rehmeyer (member), Ben Amato (member), Barry Ickes (member), Carl Raup (member), Rob Hill (member), Denny Jaworski (member)
Comment 12/28	... I don't like the direction [this] appears to be going. I understand your shedding care of and responsibility for [the league], but a select committee making the decisions and telling the rest of the dues paying clientele this is how it will be....just doesn't feel right to me. –Ron Prichard
Comment 12/30	Please see Tom Katancik's Proposal 8 along with comments below. –Tom Minsker
Comment 1/21	I have withdrawn my proposal in favor of Proposal 8. –Tom Minsker
Tom Minsker 12/28     Send Comment	► proposal 1: Make every effort to keep the league at 24 teams or less.
Comment 3/15	For clarity, this proposal was only for length of season and playoff reasons. No member teams should be denied, and with shotgun starts the number of weekly matches can currently be expanded beyond 12. It is also desirable to have an even number of teams so that byes are not required. –Tom Minsker
Tom Minsker 12/28     Send Comment	► proposal 2: Establish a playoff format which would include all the teams.
Comment 12/28	No playoffs. Play a schedule that allows for every team to play a heads up match against all other teams. Team with the best record in the end are champs. In the event of a tie, teams tied would have a playoff. –Ron Prichard
Comment 2/18	The problem with that format is the number of teams who are out of contention is large and people start to not show or lose interest. Playoff spots, top 16, ect., helps keep the whole league engaged and playing as long as possible instead of only top one or two having something to play for. We in fact had every team make some sort of playoff last year, and I know they enjoyed it. –Ron Rehmeyer
Tom Minsker 12/28     Send Comment	► proposal 3: If we continue the league skins game each week, I propose that the format be naturals beat net every week.
Tom Minsker 12/28     Send Comment	► proposal 4: Each pro shop team member will play with a handicap equal to the lowest handicap player in the match.
Comment 12/30	It happened once in 12 years. How about we set a floor of scratch for any non-PGA league members?  Any PGA, whether staff or member, can dip below 0 if the scores deem so. –Tom Katancik
Tom Minsker 12/28     Send Comment	► proposal 5: The pro shop team will play from the blue tees.
Ron Prichard 12/28     Send Comment	► proposal 6: Allow players 65 and older a choice each match to play from either the gold tees or white tees. If playing from the gold tees they would reduce their "league handicap" by 2 strokes (USGA adjustment).
Comment 12/30	All players age 60 and over who wish to play from the gold tees may do so but all players must play the same tees throughout the men's league competition. –Gary Filkins
Comment 1/15	Regarding the proposal and comment on the use of gold tees by those 60 or 65 and over, is it not true that after a few rounds (e.g., around six) of a player playing from the gold tees that his league handicap will naturally drop by a few strokes? I’m sure it will, so then why should he be required to still subtract two (2) more strokes? I agree that subtracting 2 or 3 strokes from a handicap that was established previously from the white tees is necessary, but once you pick your tee and stick with it, that after 5 or 6 matches the handicap computed should be the one to use with no reductions. –Jerry Lauchle
Comment 1/15	The 2 strokes is a USGA handicap adjustment because players would be "competing" from different tees (Handicap Manual rules 3-5 and 9-3). Briefly translated, when you play from different tees in the same competition, you take the rounded difference of the course ratings of the differing tees. (71.7-69.3) = 2.4 = 2. –Tom Minsker
Comment 3/6	Per Jerry’s comment “is it not true that after a few rounds (e.g., around six) of a player playing from the gold tees that his league handicap will naturally drop by a few strokes?” The answer is a definitive NO. The USGA’s handicap system is designed to calculate a handicap that is independent of the course or tees that you play from. It is also designed to allow competition between golfers who are playing from different tees. The two stroke allowance (2.4 rounded) that Tom Minsker refers to is the USGA’s adjustment that makes that competition possible. The proposal on the table follows USGA rules. –Larry Fall
Ron Prichard 12/28     Send Comment	► proposal 7: Return to using 80% of league handicap for matches.
Comment 12/28	I disagree about going to 80% handicaps. Our system prevents sandbagging which is the only legitimate reason for 80% handicaps. Since handicaps are censored means, they already disadvantage higher handicap players. The USGA figured out the rules for good reasons. I think 100% worked well.–Barry Ickes
Comment 12/30	100% is recommended for stroke play under USGA rules and guidelines. Then for various forms of four-ball match play/team competition, I believe, they recommend use of 80% in some situations and 90% in others. The reduction/use of a lower % is not about control of sand bagging. It is about fair and equitable play as the USGA recognizes that lower handicap teams are at a disadvantage when the higher handicap teams are getting 100% of the difference between their handicaps and the lowest handicap in the group. –Ron Prichard
Comment 12/31	Ron I have reviewed Rule 9-4 of the USGA Handicap Manual have not come to the same conclusion that you do regarding an 80% or 90% handicap adjustment.   Yes the USGA does suggest a handicap adjustment in some forms of team match play.  However, they recommend 100% handicaps be used in some forms too.  While the mens league two point high ball, low ball system is not covered, I believe it comes closest to those that are 100% handicap systems. Rule 9-4a(iii) covers four-ball match play, where two play their better ball against the better ball of two other players.  For that competition, the USGA recommends 100% handicap allotments. Rule 9-4a(v) covers total score of partners match play.  For that competition, the USGA also recommends 100% handicap allotments. Our mens league seems to be a somewhat of a hybrid of the two above systems but I see nothing that would suggest an 80% allotment would be appropriate for the mens league.  For the record, the USGA does recommend an adjustment when the competition is four-ball match play vs par or bogey - rule 9-4a(iv).  In that competition, two play their better ball against par (or bogey) on each hole.  The winner is the team who is the most successful in the aggregate of holes.  For that competition the USGA recommends a 90% handicap allotment.   Certainly the mens league format is more similar to the first two forms of competition than it is the vs par or bogey competition.  Also, I agree that the reasons for handicap are for fair and equitable play as you suggest.   One quick look at the results would indicate that things look pretty fair.   If you rank the teams by their average handicap, only one of the top ten teams didnt make it into the playoffs.   If you look at individuals, only one of the 25 lowest handicapped players didnt make it.  That certainly doesnt sound like the better teams or players were penalized at all.  –Larry Fall
Tom Katancik 12/30     Send Comment	► proposal 8: Instead of a committee, form a government structure composed of a President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer.  All positions to be elected at the opening of the Spring Meeting.  Newly elected President will then run the meeting using a meeting guide generated by the "new business" proposals submitted and discussed on the web site.  Positions to have a 2-year tenure with a max of 2 terms served in a specific position.  Nominations may come via the web site or at the meeting from the floor. Nomination and election procedure to be governed by current League Commissioner as final duty.
Comment 12/30	What do the various officers do?  What if the elected President is not at the meeting? What happens at the meeting?  Do attendees vote on the proposals? –Tom Minsker
Comment 12/30	Officers are organizational leaders, not bylaw making officials.  Would have to be in attendance to accept nominations.  Nominations do not have to be accepted by individuals.  The league, as a whole will still vote on rules, policies and format.  President and vice president can submit monthly reports to be displayed on web site and they would be the complaint department.  They would be the direct link to golf shop and Fred [Shaner] for course conditions and scheduling of golf and dinners [respectively]. Secretary in charge of scoring and web site.  Treasurer needs no description.  All the stuff you have done, but split in to 4. –Tom Katancik
Comment 12/30	I would agree with this approach. This way everything still gets decided on via a process where league members have input and can vote. I would recommend that there be 3 positions, a league president, a secretary/treasurer (one combined position), and a web master because the league web site is a key component to the functioning of the league. –Ron Prichard
Comment 1/21	This approach is fine, I think there should be the 4 officers (and perhaps a webmaster). I think we should vote online from the list of nominees by the end of February. The officers can then meet in March and decide their individual functions in preparation for the preseason meeting. During March other league members can make proposals to be addressed in the meeting. –Tom Minsker