My two cents worth: All the extra points we're giving away in Games 5 & 6, the doubles Chicago, are a little ridiculous. In addition to awarding a point to each of the two players who win the best of three series, a point to the player who throws the winning dart in each leg, a point to each player who throws the double-on in 301, and a point for each QP, we are adding on top of all that a point to EACH OF THE TWO players who win EACH LEG.

It seems to me that, in order to keep the scoring consistent with the rest of the match (and consistent with the way we've been scoring for years), in addition to the points for QPs, ins and the game (best of three) win, we should be awarding ONLY ONE point for each leg win, to the player who threw the winning dart. If we're going to give BOTH players out points for winning a single leg, we should at least do away with that extra point for throwing the out. I've heard the argument that, if not for the two additional points for each leg win, it won't be clear how many legs each team played or won. That's ridiculous. Each out point represents a leg win; just count the number of out points on each side of the score sheet (just make sure that any IN points are clearly marked as such).

Now that I'm done suggesting how to bring the Chicago games to the status quo, I'd like to share some thoughts about the status quo.

I don't agree with out points going to the individuals who throw the winning shots in doubles and quadruples. The last shot of the game is not that much more important than all the other shots it took to get there, especially in Cricket. Granted, in '01 games, the double out holds a lot of weight, and many games have turned around on the out, but I'd still rather see us do away with out points. And I've always been against the double-on points, especially in the Gold divisions. However, if I recall correctly, when that came up for a vote, I was the only one in the room who didn't vote for it. I don't expect a following; I'm just sharing my opinion.

If it were up to me, points would be earned for QPs and wins only. Each player on the winning side of a game would get one point. A best-of-three-legs series would be worth two points to each of the winners. QPs would be worth their point value (for throwing a T40 you would get 140 points, and for throwing a trip-16, a 17 & a 15 in Cricket, you would get 80 points, etc.). The two point categories would be tracked seperately with no total points.

I'm surprised that we've never made ton-80s and rounds of 9 worth two points. I know we've voted on it, but the proposal I recall was more complex and involved half points (e.g. a T20 would have been worth 1.5 points). I'm not surprised that that didn't fly. I would suggest giving two points for an 8-mark or better in Cricket or a T52 (19x8) or better in '01.

Why is it that in '01 we write our Qs as 95, T, T21, etc., but in Cricket we don't write 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9 for a 5-mark, 6-mark, etc.?

Again, I think the great majority of our membership wants to keep the IN and OUT points and would like to keep scoring QPs as we do now. However, I really hope we can reform the Chicago scoring.

I guess I had a lot on my mind. Thanks for reading this far.

I just got done reading your post on pointing format used by CADA here in Austin. My wife and I just moved here from Atlanta, so I figgered I'd give yall the low down on our old scoring setup.

Cricket
5 - 6 count = 1 point
7 - 8 count = 2 point
9 count = 3 point
Bullseye counts as 1.5 per bull, so three bulls + 1 from another number = 5 count. With this method, you could still achieve a 9 count with a six bull shot.

For 01 games,
95 - 125 = 1 point
126 - 160 = 2 point
161 - 180 = 3 point

For in's or outs of 100 or better, you recieved an additional point for the throw. This also allowed for the high outs using the bullseye to qualify for additional point values.

We also tallied our total darts thrown in all singles 01 games, and recoeded the remainder of our score if we didn't win the game. We found that this was the easiest and fairest way to calculate our rankings for the league play. Using this method calculates our darts per game average for the season, as well as historical data for as long as your a member of the league. This allowed us to know where to allow players to compete in different divisions, so you don't have a player throwing an average of 21 darts in a 501 game to languish in a lower division with folks throwing 34 dart averages and taking the thunder away from their competition. We were looking for the fairest ballance accross the leagues.

I'm new here and not wanting to stir up any trouble around here. Maybe we could discuss this at the next meeting???

Just some thoughts on the setup I came here from.

Mike Novak