http://bestxxxhere.com dontwatchporn.pro http://www.xxxone.net dicke deutsche bbw amateur titten von jungem kerl gefickt.

RRRC Competitions Committee Notes – 11/13/2017

The Red River Competitions Committee will now be releasing their monthly committee call minutes and notes. View all of the archived RRRC minutes or read on for the most recent:

  1. Roll Call
    1. Gross
    2. Dodge
    3. Kolberg
    4. Young
    5. Fosco
    6. Keuppens
    7. Turner
    8. Kurylas
    9. Tolar
    10. Watson (arrived 9pm)
      1. Proxy
        1. Watson authorized Kolberg via email
      2. Regrets
        1. Green (Traveling)
  2. 7s rep (Chair appointed)
    1. Dodge: I am going to keep Fil Keuppens in the 7s seat. Any questions?
  3. At-Large Stakeholder’s Rep. (Chair Appointed)
    1. Dodge: I also intend to keep Luke Gros in the At-large position as well.
    2. Gross: I do apologize for missing a few calls, Glendale has a skill session on Monday nights and it directly conflicts with the call. We are looking at moving the skills session to better accommodate this call.
    3. Dodge: Good, if you need to have another representative on the call, that is fine too.
  4. Vacant D-1 Seat
    1. Dodge: I’ve read the prior minutes on this issue and I want to start by apologizing as the Dallas Reds President as I missed the voting deadline. John Scheef and Alan Shapley also had problems. I do think it’s important that the committee is fully seated. I also reviewed the Terms or Reference and as far as I understand it, any club can ask a vote at anytime. I’ve spoken with the three candidates and all three are interested in the seat. I will personally take responsibility of making sure we get a vote by Nov 21st Is the committee willing to allow that to happen?
      1. Kolberg: I supported it before and I support it now. I understand that why it didn’t go through but I agree that the committee needs to be full. The D1 is a huge part of our competition and they need full representation.
      2. Kurylas: I agree with trying to fill it but if we are going to do it, we need to follow the outlined process. We’ve spent a lot of time on this already, we need to follow the TOR. To me, this falls under transparency.
      3. Turner: In regards to your apology, you’re failing to reference the three other times that this failed to get done. This has been an issue since June 16, I’m sick of revisiting this issue. If a D1 club wants to make an official challenge to our ruling from last meeting than I’m ready to hear that. Until I see that I’m not willing to revisit this issue.
      4. Fosco: I feel the same way. If they really wanted to have D1 reps they would have followed up with the prior chances. Also are we going to be able to get a quorum?
      5. Young: It does need to be a quorum or at least 2/3rds need to vote. This isn’t noted in the TOR but is something that has evolved through our minutes and procedures on the website.
      6. Dodge: To Monique’s point, I have had people call me so that is why I am bringing it up again. As a D1 club, I do feel that we need more representation.
      7. Turner: As far as D1 representation, are we not satisfied with having Gross, Kolberg, Keuppens and yourself and your positions within various D1 clubs?
      8. Dodge: I think that is besides the point, the committee is meant to be made up with two reps for each division. Also as Chair, I don’t get a vote unless there is a tie.
      9. Young: I also feel that we gave ample opportunity to have representation. I feel badly that they aren’t fully represented but they had their chance.
      10. Dodge: Does anyone have a motion on this?
        1. Kolberg: I would be remiss if I didn’t fight for this. I would like to see the voting for the D1 seat open again. I would agree with Kurylas that we should follow the process. This is their last chance and if it isn’t completed then it’s closed for good.
          1. Dodge: For clarity sake, Kurylas you were saying that you would like a club to step forward and challenge the ruling.
          2. Kurylas: Right, that would be following the TOR.
          3. Dodge: I tend to agree with that, and I imagine that the challenge would be forthcoming.
  5. TRU Forfeit policy
    1. Dodge: This is more of an FYI from the TRU as they are making some recommendations on forfeit fines and such. We would like to release this along with an update to the RRRC Competition guidelines.
  6. Tweak to RRRC Forfeit Policy
    1. Dodge: Under the current RRRC Forfeit policy, all forfeits (played or unplayed) result in 5 competition points and a +28 points differential to the non-forfeiting team. Points differential is the first tiebreaker if two teams are tied at the end of the regular season.  Last year it was pointed out that the +28 point differential may unfairly deprive teams of the ability to obtain a higher points differential.  Potential fixes for this are:  (1) for the teams tied on competition points at the end of the season, dropping all results—forfeits and played matches—against any team that forfeited to either of those teams for purposes of making the tie-breaker calculation; (2) using the forfeited to team’s average point differential in matches that were not forfeits in lieu of +28; or (3) using the forfeiting team’s average point differential in matches that were not forfeits in lieu of +28.  (Note, under all these scenarios, a forfeited to team would get 5 competition points.  That would not change.).
      1. Kurylas: The first that is listed is head to head, why wouldn’t it be point differential?
      2. Dodge: Not all teams are going to play each other, but what I think you’re suggesting does make sense. What would you suggest as the next tiebreaker?
      3. Kurylas: Point differential as the second tiebreaker if they have played each other.
      4. Young: So our current RRRC tiebreaker policies is win/loss in head to head and then point differential, so I’m confused what we’re discussing?
        1. Win Loss record in head to head matches
        2. Best point differential (Points for less points against)
        3. Best try differential (Tries for less tries against)
        4. Most points scored
        5. Most tries scored
        6. Toss of a coin
      5. Kolberg: I think we need to drop the forfeited teams results completely, that is the fairest way.
      6. Young: That is very clean and perhaps the easiest way to do it. Is this for if they forfeit two matches?
      7. Kolberg: No, it starts with one forfeit and if we need to go beyond head to head.
      8. Dodge: So if anyone forfeits, the 28 points differential doesn’t matter as it would be dropped.
      9. Kolberg: Clarification, if the HARC forfeit to Blacks and Reds each…all the results are thrown out, correct?
      10. Dodge: Right, all the HARC scores would be dropped out of the calculation/standings.
      11. Fosco: They still keep the five competitive points but not the point differential?
      12. Dodge: Correct.
      13. Young: This might have to get a bit manual as CMS requires the 28 points to give the five in the standings.
      14. Dodge: Right, we just need to be aware of that.
        1. Kurylas: I motion that the order of priority is competition points and then follow these adjusted tiebreaker policies:
          1. Head to head matches win loss record
          2. Head to head points differential
          3. Head to head try differential (Tries for less tries against)
          4. Average point differential excluding forfeits of non-common opponents
          5. Aggregate points differential excluding the results of matches against any common opponent that has forfeited to either team
          6. Average number of tries, excluding forfeits (Tries for less tries against)
          7. Most tries scored excluding forfeits
          8. Toss of a coin
            1. Dodge: Any objections to the above? NONE. APPROVED.
  7. RRRC Logo
    1. Young: I motion we approve the logo.
    2. Turner: Second.
    3. Dodge: Any objections? None. APPROVED.
      1. Young: I will get these up on the website and will send to publication outlets as well.
  8. WD1 Competitions Waiver Update
    1. Dodge: We haven’t gotten final NCC approval on this waiver request. There hasn’t been an NCC meeting due to some personal issues with the Chair. No one has objected to this waiver but it hasn’t been heard officially.
    2. Young: Correct, I got a soft yes from the Chair earlier in the year (via email) but he wanted to have the entire committee hear it as well.
  9. WD1 Matches against Rocky Mountain
    1. Black Ice vs Austin (Nov 5)
    2. Glendale vs Austin (Nov 4)
    3. Black Ice vs HARC (date TBD)
    4. Glendale vs HARC (date TBD)
      1. Young: This is really to help out with Rocky Mountain as they don’t have enough league matches on their end. We’ve always encouraged our D1 teams to play outside the RRRC, so this is good to go.
      2. Turner: So two of these matches have already taken place?
      3. Young: Yes, but the teams did ask a few weeks ago but I wanted to discuss it on this call.
        1. Fosco: I motion that we add these four matches to our current WD1 waiver that is sitting in front of the USAR NCC.
          1. Dodge: Any objections? NONE. APPROVED.
  10. Lone Star folding into Woodlands
    1. Dodge: We got notification about a month ago that Lone Star was having a hard time getting numbers. A number of their guys got picked up by the SabreCats and some joined Woodlands. Travis and I had a series of calls with Lone Star and Woodlands and worked out a compromise. We’ve worked out that the Lone Star matches will be friendlies and Woodlands will help fill out their side. If the other D3 teams don’t want to play that match then they are still OK with their match requirements.
    2. Young: Whatever decision we make, just let me know and I can ask Erik to change those matches to friendlies in CMS.
  11. New Business?
    1. NONE
  12. Adjournment (9:20 PM)
    1. Watson: I move we adjourn.
    2. Fosco: Second