So the question is how can we come up with something simple that works?
On the Pro side, the PDGA has a ratings system, and that system does reflect the same concept discussed here except not everyone is in the PDGA.
For the RCF, we have intangibles such as; course layout changes, turnout and home field advantage. I think each event, course, and results have their own identity, and should be the source of the ratings. Here is a suggestion, we just had the CC’S, there were over 100 players who played all 3 rounds. Lets look at each round individually, use some simple averaging and see how things land for the (round 1 JB) (round 2 the temp course) for the players. Rate the players and make divisions from the results of those two rounds. Then, prior to showing scores of the (round 3 Sioux), put the players in the divisions the math says they should be in. Then post the results by divisions and see what it looks like. Let's compare.
Divisions names for now 1,2,3,4,5,6 and to make it simple no age or sex divisions yet.
I want to thank Shawn Streeter for volunteering to help me on this endeavor to make future RCF events competitive, fun, fair and well attended.