[SBU Board] Sweetheart Sectional Flyer - for review

Sun Oct 9 20:33:31 PDT 2016

Actually, after reading the email thread (sorry that I didn't do that
first), I think Everett offered 0-5 play free and 0-20 was offered at 1/2
price on Friday only.

Also, Everett wasn't charged the table fee for the free plays; hopefully
that is still the ACBL policy.

On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Sharon Erwin <hilo2015sse at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/20161009/8a833691/attachment-0001.html>