I have attached the results of the survey, as well as all of the comments that were included in the survey responses. There were 18 responses submitted.
The intention of the “Best Two of Three” format was to accommodate those players who could not commit to all three tournament days in an effort to increase participation. The downside to the format is that if a player does poorly in one of the two first rounds, they have an almost impossible task to overcome that deficit in the third round against players who did very well in the first two and are not required to count the third round, even if they decide to play. Those players who signed up to play, knowing they would only be able to play two rounds, did so knowing that risk in advance.
To summarize briefly, we had 25% more participation in 2010 (26 players) than we did in 2009 (20 players).
There seemed to be at least a few ladies that felt the participation had dropped off because 6 ladies who played last year did not come out this year. I called each player that played in 2009 and not this year to find out why they did not participate this year: 1 had moved and left the area, 4 had schedule conflicts that prevented them from playing, 1 was not reached for comment. What is important to note is that we had 14 ladies play this year that did not play last year, for a net increase in participation of 25%.
Of the 18 respondents, 14 ladies indicated they liked, many even preferred the best two out of three format. 3 did not like the format at all, and 1 did not indicate an opinion.
One option I thought we might consider for next year that would address both the desire for less of a schedule impact AND a equalized play requirement would be to have the tournament only be two rounds, played in one week (Tuesday & Thursday). Think about it.
Thank you for taking the time to respond to the survey and for your additional comments.