[SBU Board] Sweetheart Post Mortem

Mon Feb 26 16:14:00 PST 2018

Really cool spreadsheet, although I think there was a slight error. Fri 
Afternoon 0-200 was 7.5 tables not 12. There were also a few cells 
getting added incorrectly for Saturday.

I pulled it into sheets and fixed the things that I saw, link to shared 
version here: 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/10JK-j_0S2VBRFyaVpSsYaAN-t4zYePPPEAFQb60-ESU/edit?usp=sharing

I really liked how you put it together which made it easier to see how 
the last 3 years compare which makes it easier to see trends related to 
Vasa and related to Fri vs Sat vs Sun and see how they are going. It was 
a much better approach than my method as well which was less accurate.

Given the fact that tournament attendance has started dropping 
significantly across the ACBL for everything except destination 
regionals, I think it might make sense to budget with that in mind. The 
Portland regional was down 13% from last year. The Lynnwood regional was 
down 8.4% from the year previous. The Halloween and Sweetheart sectional 
have been down. I don't think this is an issue that is specific to the 
PNW. Vegas was down 9% last year and isn't even happening this year. 
Atlanta was down 12.5% last year. Even Gatlinburg was down 5% last year.

Not sure what good solutions are. That's probably a subject for a longer 
email. However, (given the budgeting discussions in other threads) I do 
think it might be appropriate to budget for an assumption of a 10% 
decline in attendance this year at our tournaments. If it ends up being 
higher then we can be pleasantly surprised.

Eric

Monty Gray wrote:
>
> Here’s a spreadsheet comparing this year’s participation with that 
> from the three prior years.  By far the majority of the fall-off, 
> particularly compared with previous years at Vasa Park, was on 
> Sunday.  I don’t have a clue why that might have been.  Lots of ice 
> dancing fans?
>
> As far as the Friday schedule is concerned, my sense was that those 
> present were about equally divided between those liking 
> morning/afternoon and those preferring afternoon/evening scheduling, 
> with few if any that I spoke to feeling particularly strongly about 
> it.  Of course that was a biased sample, as I didn’t hear from those 
> who couldn’t take the full day off from work.  I do agree that the 
> time allowed for lunch (on both Friday and Saturday) was too short, 
> given the absence of restaurants in the vicinity.
>
> For me, Sunday Swiss makes for a really long day.  I’d prefer playing 
> 48 or 49 boards, not 56.  I realize that others may feel differently, 
> but I thought I’d raise the issue for consideration.
>
> Monty Gray
>
> *From: *Eric Sieg <mailto:easieg at gmail.com>
> *Sent: *Saturday, February 24, 2018 10:26 AM
> *To: *Seattle ACBL Unit Board <mailto:sbuboard at mailman.celestial.com>
> *Subject: *[SBU Board] Sweetheart Post Mortem
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just throwing out some feedback from the tournament before I forget it.
>
> 1) Friday time change: Some people (working crowd) were very unhappy
>
> with the time change. Others liked it. Hard to determine #s without a
>
> survey. Definitely a mixed bag.
>
> 2) I received a ton of negative feedback about the fast pairs execution
>
> on Friday. Both that night and then later on. Roughly 8 people mentioned
>
> how upset they were that the fast pairs weren't actually fast. I didn't
>
> realize it until a group of players were muttering and asked me what was
>
> going on after round 6. Instead of the 5.5 minutes per round that are
>
> normal, it was instead done at 19 minutes a round (3 boards) which made
>
> the event 24+ minutes longer than it should have been. One player
>
> mentioned that they were planning to write the board about it. My
>
> general thought here is that we should do whatever we can to have Nick
>
> run these as he does a good job. Or make sure that in the future we
>
> communicate that fast pairs should be run at national fast pairs speed,
>
> not "slightly faster". Overall, feedback about the event seemed pretty
>
> lukewarm with several participants mentioning that they would probably
>
> skip it next year.
>
> 3) Feedback about Saturday afternoon that 10:30 and 3:30 would have been
>
> better since there was no rush to cram in a 3rd session. This is
>
> especially true given the awards ceremony at the start.
>
> 4) Negative feedback about only 24 boards per session on Saturday,
>
> although it sounds like this was a result of the # of pairs that
>
> participated in the open event.
>
> 5) Directing quality Friday night seemed poor.
>
> Some quick #s to cast light on the Friday issue:
>
> Total attendance drop off:
>
> Friday (w/o fast pairs): -9.7%
>
> Friday (w/ fast pairs): +1.2%
>
> Saturday: -22%
>
> Sunday: -36.6%
>
> BELOW ARE JUST NOTES I MADE WHEN CALCULATING ATTENDANCE CHANGES, FEEL
>
> FREE TO STOP READING NOW:
>
> Those #s are just what I threw together looking at the results, here are
>
> the # I noted down while coming up with those figures. Jenni can
>
> probably provide a more accurate summary:
>
> 2017
>
> Post Mortem Tables
>
> 48.5 + 34 Friday = 82.5
>
> 119(ish) Tables Saturday
>
> 52(x2 = 104ish) tables Sunday
>
> Sat AM 750 14 tables
>
> Sat AM 200 18 tables
>
> Sat Aft 200 10 tables
>
> Sat Aft 750 13 tables
>
> Sat 2session open pairs 20 tables
>
> Sat 2session 2500 12/11 tables
>
> Total Saturday: 119
>
> 2018
>
> Friday
>
> Fast Pairs 9
>
> AM 40.5
>
> Afternoon 34
>
> Fri Open 18.5/17
>
> 750 10/9.5
>
> 200 12/7
>
> Saturday
>
> AM 750 16 tables
>
> AM 200 13 tables
>
> aft 200 8 tables
>
> aft 750 13 tables
>
> 2 session Open 17 tables
>
> 2 session 2500 9 tables
>
> Total Saturday: 93
>
> Sunday 33 tables (17/8/5/3)
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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/20180226/f7760fd5/attachment-0001.html>