[SBU Board] Thoughts about Kent sectional
JC Chupack
jc.chupack at gmail.com
Fri Sep 23 09:44:21 PDT 2016
FWIW, I don't think it's particularly fair to compare Kent's attendance to
Bothell's attendance as a metric. The survey indicated that the strongest
factor in deciding whether to attend a sectional is the geographic
location, so what we expect or see in Kent will certainly be different from
what we expect or see in Bothell. *How does this year's attendance compare
with the last event we did in Kent? *
Along those lines, whether we see similar attendance in different areas or
not, I'm personally of the opinion that it's good for us to offer
geographic diversity in our events, to serve as much of the unit as
possible, even if that means that the sectionals we run in Kent or Seattle
are smaller than those which are located in the Eastside (where the survey
indicated was most preferable for location). But I also think we need to
be realistic in projecting and planning for those event sites based on
where they are rather than when they are or what sectional they are. What
this tells me is that we don't need as much space in Kent as we would
elsewhere, and maybe that opens up some other options in that area (or
maybe it doesn't). Or, perhaps we should consider offering a smaller 2-day
sectional in a smaller event space given lower demand in Kent, when we're
there?
As for the site itself, here's the anecdata I have:
- Scott told me that it was really *noisy* on Friday because of
next-door sports
- I also heard some complaints about the *chairs *when I was there on
Sat evening (I liked the chairs, personally).
- Generally regarding *lights*, it feels like we need to perhaps just
plan on or start requesting additional lamps that can be used for areas or
players that are having trouble. Even the brightest room for ballroom or
conference or sports purposes is going to have dark spots for players.
Maybe we should have some battery powered "loaner" clip-on lamps on hand
for anyone who needs them and signage that it's something you can request
if needed, first come first serve?
- I heard some positive comments about having* nearby restaurants and
shopping*. I bought new shoes before the Saturday evening game, and I
saw 2-3 other players shopping then, too. We also ate dinner in the
shopping area before coming to the game.
JC
--
JC Chupack
* Find me on Facebook, LinkedIn, Google+, or Twitter: jcchupack
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 8:41 AM, Susan Cothern <4susancothern at gmail.com>
wrote:
> This was my first time attending a tournament at the Kent site. I
> personally was NOT impressed. It is darker there than it is at Vasa Park!
> I also felt it was too far for me to drive back and forth for a 3 day (or 4
> day) tournament. I only made the drive down on Sunday for Swiss and with
> carpooling I did not get home until almost 8:00 PM, I feel this makes for a
> very long day and not worth the drive.
>
> I played at ESB yesterday and took an informal poll to folks that came to
> my table about the site. I got no positive comments, two comments of "I
> guess it is a good location for the south end people", and quite a few "it
> is too far to drive". Also, on Sunday I received at least 5 complaints
> about the chairs being uncomfortable and the poor lighting; folks were
> wondering if they had cataracts or the lighting was really that bad :-)
>
> It would be interesting to see how many folks that live in or near that
> area attended. Will we be given that info?
>
> Susan
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:08 PM, Michael J Ring <
> michaelring304 at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I wanted to send the Board a few thoughts and notes about this weekend's
>> sectional while they are fresh in my mind.
>>
>> As you are by now aware, attendance was disappointing. Total table count
>> was as follows below. I've included the attendance from the 2015 fall
>> sectional in parentheses. It's not a perfect apples to apples comparison
>> given the site (Bothell) and date (3rd weekend in October) were different
>> but it will give an idea about the drop off in attendance:
>>
>> Friday
>> Afternoon
>> Open game 30 tables (Bothell October 2015: 36 tables)
>> 0-200 game 11 tables (16 tables)
>> Afternoon total 41 tables (52 tables)
>>
>> Evening
>> Open game 26 tables (28 tables)
>> 0-200 game 4 tables (4.5 tables)
>> Evening total 30 tables (32.5 tables)
>>
>> Daily total 71 tables (84.5 tables)
>>
>> Saturday
>> Afternoon
>> Open pairs Qualifying 24.5 tables (30 tables)
>> 0-750 game 12 tables (18 tables)
>> 0-200 game 9 tables (12 tables)
>> Afternoon total 45.5 tables (60 tables)
>>
>> Evening
>> Qualifying final 13 tables (13 tables)
>> Consolation 12 tables (14 tables)
>> 0-750 game 9 tables (14 tables)
>> 0-200 game N/A (6 tables)
>> Evening total 34 tables (47 tables)
>>
>> Daily total 79.5 tables (107 tables)
>>
>> Sunday
>> A/X Swiss 16 tables (19 tables)
>> B/C/D Swiss 17 tables (24 tables)
>> Total for day 66 tables (86 tables)
>>
>> Grand total 216.5 tables (277.5 tables)
>>
>> Bottom line is attendance was down over 20% compared to Bothell last
>> year. One possible problem is the proximity of this weekend on the calendar
>> to other tournaments, whereas the October dates have fewer overlap.
>> Unfortunately Kent Commons has limited availabilty in the fall. If I recall
>> correctly, this was the only weekend in this time of year that we were able
>> to hold a sectional when Kent Commons was free.
>>
>> It will be interesting to see the demographic data by city to see if the
>> attendance dropoff was more the result of local players not showing up or
>> North Enders/Eastsiders not coming down.
>>
>> Other observations:
>> -As was the case last year, Kent Commons staff were extremely responsive
>> to our needs.
>> -Personally, I received one positive comment and no negative comments
>> regarding the quality of the venue.
>> -I received a few negative comments regarding distance from
>> Seattle/Eastside and traffic.
>> -The day of tournament phone came in handy. I received two calls - one
>> call from a player stuck in traffic and one general inquiry about schedule.
>> -Lunch break was slightly more than 1 hour (start time was 2:40 and my
>> slow 3rd match ended at 1:30). My team went to the Ram (sit down brew pub)
>> and it was just enough time for us.
>> -There was a little confusion regarding the number of boards for Sunday.
>> The directing staff was initially setting up for 7 board rounds. I asked
>> for 7 rounds of 8 boards as is the usual procedure for A/X. Since we all
>> needed to break for lunch, I also asked for 7 rounds of 8 in B/C/D so we
>> would be breaking at the same time. However, is this something we should
>> generally leave to the directing staff? Given we were breaking for lunch
>> one movement I definitely did not want was 8 rounds of 7 - I don't know if
>> Jeff's plan was 7x7 or 8x7. One recommendation Jeff had was to run 6 rounds
>> of 9 boards, which is becoming popular in District 20, especially if the
>> flights are fairly small. With 16 & 17 in the flights yesterday that
>> probably would have been a good format but we didn't want to change it on
>> the fly. However it's something to consider for the future.
>> Thanks, Mike
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20160923/4bd70d71/attachment.html>
More information about the Sbuboard
mailing list