[SBU Board] Sweetheart Sectional Flyer - for review

[JC Chupack]

Every piece of data we have suggests that this will end up being a large
attendance sectional, between daylight hours on the weekend, Eastside
location, preferred location (top ranked in survey), etc. which means this
is our best opportunity to do this experiment without risking a negative
balance for the tournament as a whole. Nick's recollection is 80% of the
199er, an event that frequently doesn't run because it doesn't have enough
tables.  That's exactly why we wanted to offer this kind of incentive.
Those players are exactly who we want to encourage to play and they help
fill out an event that we have trouble getting to run at our sectionals.
Offering them free entries is a lot less hassle and likely cheaper than
trying to arrange for a guaranteed 199er event, on-site lessons, or any of
a number of other things that we'd do to get newer players at the
sectionals.

But, we cannot keep delaying the event's finalization, and it will be
January before we have another board meeting.  Unless I hear a lot of
affirmative perspectives given what's already been discussed, my default
will be to remove the 0-20 free from this flyer when it's finalized on
Monday (along with the other changes mentioned).

Thanks,
JC

--
JC Chupack
* Find me on Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+, or Twitter: jcchupack

On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Ann Romeo <annromeo at gmail.com> wrote:

> I like the less than 5 for free play at this tournament.  There are lots
> with less than 20....
> BTW, todays turnout was very small--6 teams I think, and 6.5 tables in the
> pairs.  Yesterday was good, today big drop off.....
>
> romeo​
>
> Ann Romeo
> Personal email: annromeo at gmail.com
> Local home: 425-392-8417
> Work email: Ann.Romeo at ORCInternational.com
> Work direct dial: 212-463-6331
> My cell: 425-615-1413
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Eng, Kim <Keng at forestridge.org> wrote:
>
>> Wow, had no idea the % was that high. What about less than 5 MP’s or less
>> than 10 MP’s? The idea is to welcome new players and try to get them hooked
>> on our tournaments so they can see how fun they are, right? I think once a
>> player has played enough to get 10 MP’s (remember…they are much harder to
>> come by when you are new…I remember it took a few scratches to get me to
>> “1” J), they have already decided they enjoy the game and will continue
>> coming back.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Sbuboard [mailto:sbuboard-bounces+keng=
>> forestridge.org at mailman.celestial.com] *On Behalf Of *Tim White
>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 9, 2016 9:26 AM
>> *To:* Seattle ACBL Unit Board <sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [SBU Board] Sweetheart Sectional Flyer - for review
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks JC,
>>
>>
>>
>> Agree -- we should definitely change second session Saturday to 3:30.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also agree with re-wording to "every board matters."
>>
>>
>>
>> Re, the note about players with under 20 masterpoints play free.  Yes, we
>> agreed to this at the recent board meeting, however some of us were
>> discussing it with Nick yesterday at NSC.  He was surprised and alerted us
>> that in 199er games at open tournaments his recollection is that on the
>> order of 80% of the players have under 20 points.  That's a lot of entry
>> fees.  Going to free plays for <20 points without qualification would make
>> it hard to withdraw it later; the idea arose of calling it a "special" for
>> this tournament and then seeing it's effects.  I'd like to hear John W's
>> assessment of the potential long term financial impact of making the change
>> permanent.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>>
>> On Oct 9, 2016, at 8:44 AM, "Eng, Kim" <Keng at forestridge.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree with Mike about possibly adjusting the start times. I am sure
>> people could find a place to eat and get back in time, but it won’t be a
>> relaxing lunch.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, the write up about the BAM doesn’t make sense. It should read
>> “every board matters”, not every match.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Kim
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Sbuboard [mailto:sbuboard-bounces+keng=
>> forestridge.org at mailman.celestial.com] *On Behalf Of *JC Chupack
>> *Sent:* Saturday, October 8, 2016 9:10 AM
>> *To:* Seattle ACBL Unit Board <sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
>> *Subject:* [SBU Board] Sweetheart Sectional Flyer - for review
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Sorry about the delay on this. I ended up with less time on Thurs/Fri
>> than I anticipated (but I picked up some silver points at the Las Vegas
>> sectional, so yay!).
>>
>> Attached is the draft Sweetheart Sectional flyer for the board's review.
>> This includes all the modifications we discussed at the past two unit board
>> meetings, including location set to Bothell Union Hall.
>>
>> Please review by 6pm on Monday.  (In particular, Tim, since you're my
>> co-chair, if you could sign off affirmatively, I'd appreciate it.)
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> JC
>>
>> --
>> JC Chupack
>>
>> * Find me on Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+, or Twitter: jcchupack
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sbuboard mailing list
>> Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com
>> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Sbuboard mailing list
>> Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com
>> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sbuboard mailing list
> Sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/sbuboard
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/sbuboard/attachments/20161009/e36b160b/attachment-0001.html>