Team of the Year Board Debacle

[dmprantz]

Originally Posted by Dan - 3eyzbbq

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by kihrer

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]

I noticed that. Bet Rod would have wished they left him out of that mess.

[Jeff_in_KC]

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]

Yeah, it did seem like Rod's name was mentioned a time or two . 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]

I do not understand the issue when one of the comps wasnt sanctioned by KCBS? Maybe i am missing something

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

[Jorge]

Originally Posted by Smokedelic

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]

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]

Originally Posted by YankeeBBQ

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]

Originally Posted by YankeeBBQ

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]

Originally Posted by Candy Sue

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