[SBU Board] Sweetheart Sectional Flyer - for review

Sun Oct 9 20:18:55 PDT 2016

When the Everett Sectional was reviewed, there was an entry on the
financials (given to treasurer) that indicated the number of 0-20 free
plays that were given.  Is that something that was on the financials, John?

If not, I am more than willing to contact Mac & Jeff Jacobs for that info.

On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Tim White <trkwhite at gmail.com> wrote:

> While the board approved addition of the note to the flyer on free entry
> for players with 0-20 points, a new perspective has come to light
> suggesting the extent of 0-20 attendance (and its associated financial
> effect) could be greater than we had recognized or considered.  This is a
> question not just related to the Feb sectional, but also as a precedent for
> subsequent tournaments.
>
> Has the Tournament Committee acquired and reviewed
> historical attendance data for players with 0-20 points at open sectionals,
> and has an estimate been made of the revenue impact of free plays for these
> folks?   It has been suggested that Sharon might be able to help us get
> this info in the same way she tracks down attendance by physical location.
>
> In consultation with a couple of other board members at the NLM sectional
> tear-down this evening, I do think until these questions are resolved that
> it would be best to remove the 0-20 free entry note from the flyer.
>
> Sharon,
> Perhaps you can gather from this email string the sense of the issue
> before us.  Would you be able to contact the DICs for our most recent open
> sectionals (McKenzie for Feb, May and July 2016 and Jeff Jacob for Sept
> 2016) and seek to acquire data on the number of sessions played in each of
> these open sectionals by players with 0-20 masterpoints?
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
>
>
> On Oct 9, 2016, at 6:44 PM, JC Chupack <jc.chupack at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/bbfaaa2e/attachment-0001.html>