PDA

View Full Version : Team of the Year Board Debacle


kihrer
12-01-2011, 04:06 PM
After listening to the BoD debate I think there should be only one head cook listed for a team. I know people are probably tired of NASCAR references but let's take the 99 team. The team driver is Carl Edwards but there are several who make up the team. If Carl is sick and doesn't race, the 99 team doesn't get any cup points towards the championship even though a backup driver will most assuredly race the 99 car that week. It seems to me you could do away with all the potential unethical practices (hired guns) if you just ensured the head cook had to be present at the competition. If they're sick, that's just a bad break.

Now if the rest of the team wants to cook without the head cook, that should be fine. They can still win prizes and money but not gain points towards TOY or qualify for invitationals.

What are your thoughts?

Mornin' Wood
12-01-2011, 04:12 PM
OOOh, I love debacles!

Jorge
12-01-2011, 04:28 PM
After listening to the BoD debate I think there should be only one head cook listed for a team. I know people are probably tired of NASCAR references but let's take the 99 team. The team driver is Carl Edwards but there are several who make up the team. If Carl is sick and doesn't race, the 99 team doesn't get any cup points towards the championship even though a backup driver will most assuredly race the 99 car that week. It seems to me you could do away with all the potential unethical practices (hired guns) if you just ensured the head cook had to be present at the competition. If they're sick, that's just a bad break.

Now if the rest of the team wants to cook without the head cook, that should be fine. They can still win prizes and money but not gain points towards TOY or qualify for invitationals.

What are your thoughts?

Following your logic it should be Cook of the Year, and that was discussed.

I know too many teams where there ARE multiple cooks. If someone can't make it the slack is picked up. If there was a rule that said the chief cook was required to cook everything, I could go along with what you suggest but that's not the case. I don't want to see anyone penalized, for the sake of convenience.

The discussion was...painful, but I think they are on the right track. Pick a # and track that and allow an additional cook or two to fill in if needed. Beyond that teams interested in ToY need to opt in at the beginning of the year and declare their cooks. There is record keeping overhead involved but it addresses the immediate issue.

The database issues are manageable either through the new software and database management software or separate operations that could filter the data provided by the software.

Fat Freddy
12-01-2011, 04:41 PM
After listening to the BoD debate I think there should be only one head cook listed for a team. I know people are probably tired of NASCAR references but let's take the 99 team. The team driver is Carl Edwards but there are several who make up the team. If Carl is sick and doesn't race, the 99 team doesn't get any cup points towards the championship even though a backup driver will most assuredly race the 99 car that week. It seems to me you could do away with all the potential unethical practices (hired guns) if you just ensured the head cook had to be present at the competition. If they're sick, that's just a bad break.

Now if the rest of the team wants to cook without the head cook, that should be fine. They can still win prizes and money but not gain points towards TOY or qualify for invitationals.

What are your thoughts?

99 team would get owner points just not driver points.:grin:

Sorry back on subject though. I can only dream about TOY, heck i can only dream about GC at this point but saying that my team consists of myself and my wife and for whatever reason if one of us couldnt cook the other is just as important, though my wife says she is more important than me-she only needs me to watch the temps at night so she can sleep. But regardless this team is BOTH of us together.

kihrer
12-01-2011, 05:56 PM
Following your logic it should be Cook of the Year, and that was discussed.

I know too many teams where there ARE multiple cooks. If someone can't make it the slack is picked up. If there was a rule that said the chief cook was required to cook everything, I could go along with what you suggest but that's not the case. I don't want to see anyone penalized, for the sake of convenience.

The discussion was...painful, but I think they are on the right track. Pick a # and track that and allow an additional cook or two to fill in if needed. Beyond that teams interested in ToY need to opt in at the beginning of the year and declare their cooks. There is record keeping overhead involved but it addresses the immediate issue.

The database issues are manageable either through the new software and database management software or separate operations that could filter the data provided by the software.

Hi Jorge,

I know they discussed Cook of the Year but what they are proposing doesn't solve the problem. Let's say they go with two head cooks. You and I could form a team and you are down in Texas and I am up in the northeast. Our team consists of you and me as head cooks and we also have 4 or 5 assistant cooks. Now if we plan carefully (and we're both pretty good cooks), we could cover a lot more contests. I might not be able to travel every weekend and you may not be able to either but we could work our schedule out so we didn't miss many weekends. We can even pick up a few weekends were we can score double because you might find a Saturday comp and I a Sunday comp. The entire year we may never even cook together.

If we did this, we would not be breaking the letter of the rules or the possible proposed change by the board. But wouldn't we be breaking the spirit of the competition? Couldn't we hit more qualifier comps that would also give us an edge getting an invitational bid or a chance at the Jack?

I go back to NASCAR, when the championship is awarded, while the driver is the main recipient of the championship, the crew chief and crew also say they were part of the "championship team." They had their part and while they weren't the driver, they certainly played a major part in the championship. This year, one additional dropped lug nut by a tire changer could have changed the outcome.

I just don't see what they are proposing will change anything. Maybe I am not seeing something.

kihrer
12-01-2011, 06:00 PM
99 team would get owner points just not driver points.:grin:



Exactly! And owner points don't count towards a championship. That's why I say the team should still be allowed to compete without the head cook and even win awards and prize money - just not points towards TOY. Nor do I think they should be able to win a GC that would count towards an invitational if the head cook isn't present.

Smoke'n Ice
12-01-2011, 06:03 PM
Simple way to do it would be have a team declare at the start of the season or prior to their first competition the following:
1. Team name
2. Team member 1 and their kcbs membership number
3. Team member 2 and their kcbs membership number
4. Etc………..
5. Other team members can be listed but at least one person in attendance must be a card carrying member of kcbs and present and on the list submitted at the start of competition for any points to be earned.
No person can declare themselves as members of more than one team for TOY purposes.
The only numbers tracked are kcbs membership numbers and must be verified by the above criteria.

Scottie
12-01-2011, 07:26 PM
Go down the list of top 25 teams for TOY. How many have multiple cooks? Are multiple cooks on the majority for those that are going for TOY?

This whole comparing to NASCAR is a bunch of crap. This isnt NASCAR folks. If they need to change it to Cook of the Year, then do it. But for so many folks to ne in an uproar over this issue that will never have any effect on them, just makes me scratch my head. I believe someone came up with 1% of the KCBS members are going for TOY points.

jbrink01
12-01-2011, 07:30 PM
Go down the list of top 25 teams for TOY. How many have multiple cooks? Are multiple cooks on the majority for those that are going for TOY?

This whole comparing to NASCAR is a bunch of crap. This isnt NASCAR folks. If they need to change it to Cook of the Year, then do it. But for so many folks to ne in an uproar over this issue that will never have any effect on them, just makes me scratch my head. I believe someone came up with 1% of the KCBS members are going for TOY points.

Precisely.

dmprantz
12-01-2011, 07:48 PM
Go down the list of top 25 teams for TOY. How many have multiple cooks? Are multiple cooks on the majority for those that are going for TOY?

This whole comparing to NASCAR is a bunch of crap. This isnt NASCAR folks. If they need to change it to Cook of the Year, then do it. But for so many folks to ne in an uproar over this issue that will never have any effect on them, just makes me scratch my head. I believe someone came up with 1% of the KCBS members are going for TOY points.

You may be correct for TOY. It doesn't change the fact that teams are entities unique from cooks and show have their own entity within a database. A big part of the point is to reduce errors in spelling. Having each team member enter team name seperately (duplicating data) is part of how you introduce errors into a system, not to mention increasing the space it takes. One team, one field to hold the team name.

dmp

Dan - 3eyzbbq
12-01-2011, 07:52 PM
I say we just keep it the same. But thats no fun. For discussion:

We couild make an iron man division. Only 1 cook, no assistants, no runners, just the cook.

Or maybe declare what your 10 contests will be for the year (that would count for TOY) ahead of time, which would take away an advantage of cooking lots of contests.

Or lets assign a handicap to cooks to level the playing field. Therefore hired guns wouldn't really help, they would have to score too high to make up the points of a new team. Boy, wouldn't THAT be a nightmare to track?

Or.... I dunno, just leave it be and try and win without changing the rules.

Dan - 3eyzbbq
12-01-2011, 07:56 PM
You may be correct for TOY. It doesn't change the fact that teams are entities unique from cooks and show have their own entity within a database. A big part of the point is to reduce errors in spelling. Having each team member enter team name seperately (duplicating data) is part of how you introduce errors into a system, not to mention increasing the space it takes. One team, one field to hold the team name.

dmp

Yes, but I believe what he is saying is you could also make the cook the unique entity and the team around them is irrelevant. Not saying I agree with that, but that would be a COY (cook of the year) system.

Smokedelic
12-01-2011, 08:10 PM
Go down the list of top 25 teams for TOY. How many have multiple cooks? Are multiple cooks on the majority for those that are going for TOY?

This whole comparing to NASCAR is a bunch of crap. This isnt NASCAR folks. If they need to change it to Cook of the Year, then do it. But for so many folks to ne in an uproar over this issue that will never have any effect on them, just makes me scratch my head. I believe someone came up with 1% of the KCBS members are going for TOY points.
How many teams have multiple cooks? Only a few, probably. How many teams could have multiple cooks? All of them. Why not get ahead of the game and come out with a system that addresses a few major potential issues instead of always being reactionary?

And while this issue may or may not affect me, it does and has affected people I am friends with, as I'm sure is the case with others here. So if I express concern over the fact that the system needs to be proactively addressed, even though it may not affect me directly, just know that it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside to think that a thoughtful discussion on the matter may eventually help out some of my friends. Fair enough?

kihrer
12-01-2011, 08:12 PM
As it has been clearly pointed out, I have no dog in this hunt as I am in no way one of the few who are competing for TOY. If it is preferred that I keep my mouth (keyboard) shut, I can do that. It will be hard but I can do it:becky:

kihrer
12-01-2011, 08:16 PM
Or maybe declare what your 10 contests will be for the year (that would count for TOY) ahead of time, which would take away an advantage of cooking lots of contests.



I kind of like this idea. It would allow more teams to compete for the title. Or maybe just take your top 10. That way those who invest more have a better shot.

dmprantz
12-01-2011, 08:20 PM
Yes, but I believe what he is saying is you could also make the cook the unique entity and the team around them is irrelevant. Not saying I agree with that, but that would be a COY (cook of the year) system.

You certainly could do that. I know a lot of the top teams only have one cook. On my team, we each take two meats though, so we really are a team. Would it be fair that only I got an award? How would Chris feel if you and only you were recognized at some point?

Even if you still feel that it should be cook of the year, teams enter competitions, not individuals. It makes sense to me from a database perspective that teams should be recorded in the database. The reason why it is right now (I bet) is that member pay fees, so KCBS only tracks members. From an accounting standpoint, they have what they need, but from a data standpoint, it's not normal(ized). If you and Chris are both members and you have your team set to "3Eyz" and due to a clerical error, he is "3 Eyz" or "3eyes" or "Three Eyz" or even "3eyz" then you are not on the same "team" in the system being proposed. Is that acceptable to you? (I'm not asking to be snarky, but you are the customer, and the customer should get what he expects.)

dmp

Dan - 3eyzbbq
12-01-2011, 08:27 PM
dmp - I worked with quite a few database systems. You just assign a unique number to either the team or the cook. It works either way. So, #1 can equal 3Eyz or it can equal Dan Hixon. So, you track the #1 and eliminate that data variation.

If you read the thread I was saying to keep it the same. Just pointing out it would be just as easy to track COY as TOY for discussion.

YankeeBBQ
12-01-2011, 08:39 PM
I think this special meeting shows the need for active committees. All of this stuff should be hashed out in a committee meeting and then their suggestions should be presented to the board. To try and resolve these issues in an open meeting of the board is next to impossible. They talk and talk and talk and nothing gets resolved

YankeeBBQ
12-01-2011, 08:44 PM
If it's cook of the year then the team name shouldn't even matter. I should be able to cook as a different team every week with a different supporting cast and have my points count towards cook of the year. I'll cook as the 99 percenters one week and Team Breast cancer awareness the next. Who cooks with me is obviously inconsequential so If I can get Rod Gray as an assistant one week then tuffy the next and Woz the following I'll be rockin.

kihrer
12-01-2011, 08:53 PM
For the record, I never said who you cook with is inconsequential. The stronger the team the better. I think I was clear on my concerns about the current system. Maybe it's just too complicated for anyone to figure out the proper solution.

YankeeBBQ
12-01-2011, 09:00 PM
For the record, I never said who you cook with is inconsequential.

You didn't say that but one of the current board members pretty much did during that meeting. They were making the argument for cook of the year and said well the head cook does all the work anyway. Rod Grays team might work like that (although I bet his wife wouldn't agree) but my team doesn't . I only bring up Rod because his name was used a few times during the meeting.

kihrer
12-01-2011, 09:11 PM
I noticed that. Bet Rod would have wished they left him out of that mess.

Jeff_in_KC
12-01-2011, 11:53 PM
In looking at the top 25, I don't see many who compete by themselves. There's no reason to make something "Cook of the Year" just because KCBS doesn't want to work it out and fix the issue correctly. It's a cop out to just say "we're going to call it CoY". I may or may not ever be in a points chase again as I was in 2010 but I can tell you this - if I am and it's for COOK of the year and I'm recognized and not my wife for all of her hard work and dedication to this, I'll never do it again. Cook of the Year discounts the efforts and contributions of a LOT of people, who in many cases, make it possibly for the so called chief cooks to do what they do. I feel really, really strongly about this! Find a way to make "Team of the Year" work within the guidelines we need it to be under and implement it already!

Rookie'48
12-01-2011, 11:54 PM
Yeah, it did seem like Rod's name was mentioned a time or two :rolleyes:. I just wonder how much Don Harwell would have to pay Rod to cook under his (Don's) team name for a year - I'll bet Don doesn't want to hear the answer to that one.

I want to say that if my grandkids acted like some of the BoD members did in that download, those kids would at the least be standing in corners.

BritToby
12-02-2011, 02:19 AM
I do not understand the issue when one of the comps wasnt sanctioned by KCBS? Maybe i am missing something :laugh:

Should be pointed out i was referring to the conversation that took place with about 10 mins left of the meeting.

Jorge
12-02-2011, 09:16 AM
How many teams have multiple cooks? Only a few, probably. How many teams could have multiple cooks? All of them. Why not get ahead of the game and come out with a system that addresses a few major potential issues instead of always being reactionary?

And while this issue may or may not affect me, it does and has affected people I am friends with, as I'm sure is the case with others here. So if I express concern over the fact that the system needs to be proactively addressed, even though it may not affect me directly, just know that it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside to think that a thoughtful discussion on the matter may eventually help out some of my friends. Fair enough?

Exactly what are you proposing?

I have no problem with Team X, being able to cook for points if the normal chief cook is unavailable on a given weekend and another cook that was declared as a member of the team at the beginning of the year cooks the contest. I think that team deserves the points. I'm not willing to penalize a team for family illness, work obligations, etc....

If your concern is that Team X could split in order to cook two different contests in areas of the country that one normally couldn't drive to in order to cook both I can listen to that argument. That can be solved by making it a rule that the same head cook must be present at both contests on a given weekend to earn points. Beyond that the team is able to designate in advance which contest they are cooking for points, and in the other they cook simply for $ and bragging rights.

I think we need to be careful in this discussion, and I'm not calling ANYONE out. My primary concern since this has become an issue is making sure that we don't end up with a system that effectively tells people who they can or can't cook with either by design or as some unintended result.

The data management issues are there, but they can be handled. What's more important are reasonable rules that won't have to constantly tweaked and massaged from year to year to correct mistakes made now.

Rich Parker
12-02-2011, 09:23 AM
All of this drama for less than 1% of the teams? Why don't we leave it alone and put this effort in to figuring out how to get the other 95% of the members involved.

Jorge
12-02-2011, 09:25 AM
I think this special meeting shows the need for active committees. All of this stuff should be hashed out in a committee meeting and then their suggestions should be presented to the board. To try and resolve these issues in an open meeting of the board is next to impossible. They talk and talk and talk and nothing gets resolved

Exactly.

Candy Sue
12-02-2011, 09:40 AM
I think this special meeting shows the need for active committees. All of this stuff should be hashed out in a committee meeting and then their suggestions should be presented to the board. To try and resolve these issues in an open meeting of the board is next to impossible. They talk and talk and talk and nothing gets resolved

Would you then have all committee meetings recorded for MP3 like board meetings for interested members? I foresee transparency issues if they aren't handled this way.

dmprantz
12-02-2011, 09:53 AM
Would you then have all committee meetings recorded for MP3 like board meetings for interested members? I foresee transparency issues if they aren't handled this way.

Personal opinion based on past experiences with organizations that have boards and committees: I would think that committees could operate in a less organized fashion. No need for organized conference calls. Talk via eMail and other loose means to come up with a recommendation. As long as all the committee does is produce a proposal and it is up to the BOD member representing the committee to bring a proposal and/or motion to the BOD, and the text of the committee's artifact is public, and the vote is public, I don't see an issue with that. But that's me.

dmp

Jorge
12-02-2011, 09:58 AM
Would you then have all committee meetings recorded for MP3 like board meetings for interested members? I foresee transparency issues if they aren't handled this way.

I can't speak for Steve, but I'd begin with a committee composed of members willing to serve and have their names made public. The committee would have the responsibility of delivering a written report and recommendation to the BoD for action, that would be included within the minutes.

As it is now, we aren't getting recordings or minutes from committee meetings. I see it as a first step in the right direction.

ThomEmery
12-02-2011, 10:02 AM
I think this special meeting shows the need for active committees. All of this stuff should be hashed out in a committee meeting and then their suggestions should be presented to the board. To try and resolve these issues in an open meeting of the board is next to impossible. They talk and talk and talk and nothing gets resolved

That is the best a way to make this board workable

Dan - 3eyzbbq
12-02-2011, 10:07 AM
Would you then have all committee meetings recorded for MP3 like board meetings for interested members? I foresee transparency issues if they aren't handled this way.

What would the issues be? The Board makes the final call, the committees do research, brainstorming and submit their ideas. Interested members could be on the committees rather than just listening.

YankeeBBQ
12-02-2011, 10:41 AM
Would you then have all committee meetings recorded for MP3 like board meetings for interested members? I foresee transparency issues if they aren't handled this way.


Nope. The point of the committee is to be able to spend the required amount of time on a single subject and let all the dumb stuff be aired out and filtered before it comes to the board in an organized thought out manner via a written report. If the Board has questions about the report they go back to the committee, it gets hashed out and regurgitated some more until it's resolved to the boards satisfaction. All reports will be public and all suggestions would be public as well as the committees members. Complete transparency minus the awkward, embarrassing drama. This is of course just my opinion.

YankeeBBQ
12-02-2011, 10:51 AM
One other thing, I think all committee reports should have a short summary at the end that can be read during the meeting so when the BOD refers to a document in an MP3 recording the summery can be read and at least the membership knows what is being discussed and or voted on.

BritToby
12-02-2011, 10:56 AM
What about stating what time on the MP3 each point is discussed? Would certainly save time for those interested in certain issues.

dmprantz
12-02-2011, 11:47 AM
What about stating what time on the MP3 each point is discussed? Would certainly save time for those interested in certain issues.

I was thinking about this last night. A list of start times and topics would be helpful. I was also thinking maybe bookmarks or chapters in the recording would be useful, but I'm not sure if MP3 has that capabillity. Years ago when I was burning concert recordings to CD, there was a tool that allowed me to setup bookmarks in an MP3 and then cut it to each of those as a track. Maybe dividing up the big MP3 into smaller ones would work? If some one has the time and wants to do it, it would be cool to burn that to an ISO image playable as a CD. It could be mounted (MagicDisc on Windows) and played either in its entirety or for a specific track. I know I'm a geek and that seems like a lot of work, and may not be doable, but if some one was going to listen to it to make note of topic start/stop times, the act of cutting and/or burning takes only a little bit of extra time with the right software.

dmp

Divemaster
12-02-2011, 12:18 PM
Before I start asking questions, does anyone know where a copy of the rules for the TOY can be found on the KCBS site?

I just don't want to taste shoe leather again by inserting my foot in my mouth.