An Invitation to Players Over 40

[petershive]

Do the following statements describe you?
1) You will be 40 years or older in 2010.
2) You would much rather play disc golf than watch someone else play.
3) When you play, you don't want to be babied, so you are OK with fierce challenges like Blue Valley and Idlewild long.
4) You do not believe that your major purpose as a PDGA member is to provide galleries and/or financial support for Open players.
5) You believe that you are entitled to support from the PDGA that is at least remotely proportional to your contributions.
6) You would occasionally travel regionally, perhaps nationally, or possibly even internationally to play in an event that offered good value to your division.
7) You wish that there were some way to identify such events well in advance.

If so, you are invited to join the Divisional Tour Newsgroup. Our goal is to identify, promote and support important events that offer good value to older touring players. Newsgroup members nominate events that they feel are good candidates for our Tour. We then solicit more detailed information about candidate events from our members and from TD's. A constantly updated spreadsheet showing selected Tour events is sent to our membership.

Some of these events will be supported with grants from the Senior Foundation Grant Program. The Foundation will award up to $10,000 to the top events in the 2010 Divisional Tour. Details and application forms will be available by Thanksgiving.

If you would like to be part of this discussion group, just send an e-mail to shive@uwyo.edu. There is no cost to join. I honor confidentiality, and will not share contact information with any third party. Also, I will remove your name from our mailing list anytime upon request.

[Dick]

2) You would much rather play disc golf than watch someone else play.
3) When you play, you don't want to be babied, so you are OK with fierce challenges like Blue Valley and Idlewild long.
4) You do not believe that your major purpose as a PDGA member is to provide galleries and/or financial support for Open players.
5) You believe that you are entitled to support from the PDGA that is at least remotely proportional to your contributions.
6) You would occasionally travel regionally, perhaps nationally, or possibly even internationally to play in an event that offered good value to your division.
7) You wish that there were some way to identify such events well in advance.

In what way does this not describe all AM players? Who is contributing this 10k? the pdga? sounds like another special interest group getting a handout to me. the pdga should not be supporting any divisons over another IMO, as a matter of fact, the huge majority of the pdga that are ams shouldn't have to subsidize pros and have much more legitimate concerns about

support from the PDGA that is at least remotely proportional to your contributions

As usual Shive, you are certainly looking out for number one...

[johnbiscoe]

i don't believe the pdga is donating the 10k.

[cgkdisc]

I'm pretty sure Shive created the Senior Foundation Grant Program independent from the PDGA which I believe had significant seed money from Peter and possibly other senior tour players. So, if he's looking out for number one, he at least has to win to get some of it back.

[petershive]

to Dick:

1) No Senior Grant Foundation money is coming from, or has ever come from, the PDGA. All comes from private sources.
2) Most of it comes from me. I resolved some years ago to use at least half of all the money I won to support future events.
3) I certainly try to attend the fine events that qualify for these grants, but past Foundation Grants have also gone to events I have not attended, and part of the grant has often supported other divisions than mine in events I did attend.
4) Amateurs are welcome to be part of the Divisional Tour newsgroup. Many already are.
5) I agree with you that amateurs are oversubsidizing pros. I made exactly that case (and quantified it) on this discussion board last fall.

[rhett]

I'm three months shy of 48, and that should put me in the Self-Interest Sweet Spot for this organization.

However, I don't believe disc golf is currently big enough to support more that two cash divisions, and those two divisions are MPO and FPO. I truly believe that all other divisions should be revenue generating divisions for tournaments, and that MPO and FPO are the only ones that should be paid in cash.

It's not a popular position, but I don't see any other way to gather the 990-1000+ rated players into one division instead of seeing them spread out in MPO/MPM/MPG at the same events like they are now.

[johnrock]

As someone who has been competing as a PROFESSIONAL for over 20 years, I believe it's fine to seek a division that is a little less, umm shall we say, cutthroat. I see no reason that players over a certain age (especially those who have put in the time and paid their "unwritten" dues) should not have the opportunity to compete (for cash) with other players of similar instance.

[Martin_Bohn]

Originally Posted by rhett

I'm three months shy of 48, and that should put me in the Self-Interest Sweet Spot for this organization.

However, I don't believe disc golf is currently big enough to support more that two cash divisions, and those two divisions are MPO and FPO. I truly believe that all other divisions should be revenue generating divisions for tournaments, and that MPO and FPO are the only ones that should be paid in cash.

It's not a popular position, but I don't see any other way to gather the 990-1000+ rated players into one division instead of seeing them spread out in MPO/MPM/MPG at the same events like they are now.

rhett, maybe at the higher level tournaments, NT, A tiers this should be encouraged. try to get a 950 rated-over 40 player to go head to head with a 1000+ rated player at a lesser tournament, and you will soon not have enough players to fill the field.
rhett the day will come when age protected division will be a thing of the past and divisions based on ratings will be the rule.... someday...

[tkieffer]

As someone turning 50 next year, I'd echo all of the sentiments presented with exception to the one directly above.

As for added cash, if it is an 'old guys only' tournament, no problem. Otherwise, I also have a difficult time justifying taking added cash out of Open unless specified by the sponsor. I have no problem though if such a sponsor (in this case the Senior Foundation Grant Program) comes forward with that mission.

[bruceuk]

Originally Posted by Martin_Bohn

rhett, maybe at the higher level tournaments, NT, A tiers this should be encouraged. try to get a 950 rated-over 40 player to go head to head with a 1000+ rated player at a lesser tournament, and you will soon not have enough players to fill the field.
rhett the day will come when age protected division will be a thing of the past and divisions based on ratings will be the rule.... someday...

Martin, Rhett
Come to the UK, that's how we roll

[rhett]

Originally Posted by Martin_Bohn

try to get a 950 rated-over 40 player to go head to head with a 1000+ rated player at a lesser tournament, and you will soon not have enough players to fill the field.

Yeah, but my position is that the 950 rated player should be playing Advanced in a revenue-generating division unless they really want to step up to Open and pay the huge entry fee for a [really slight] chance at cashing.

I don't think we're big enough yet to have more than two cash paying divisions (MPO and FPO), but that's just my opinion.

[johnbiscoe]

Originally Posted by Martin_Bohn

rhett the day will come when age protected division will be a thing of the past and divisions based on ratings will be the rule.... someday...

i wouldn't bet the farm on it...

[rhett]

Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to age protection. Just age protection for cash right now when we don't have much cash to go around. Even if you don't "add cash" to the age protected divisions, you are at best hoping for a revenue-neutral chunk of players and usually settling for a slight drain on tourney finances after fees and such. I think all the protected players, whether ratings protected or age protected, should be revenue generating for the event.

Go big or contribute to the bottom line, I guess. It sounds pretty reasonable to me.

[Martin_Bohn]

Originally Posted by rhett

Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to age protection. Just age protection for cash right now when we don't have much cash to go around. Even if you don't "add cash" to the age protected divisions, you are at best hoping for a revenue-neutral chunk of players and usually settling for a slight drain on tourney finances after fees and such. I think all the protected players, whether ratings protected or age protected, should be revenue generating for the event.

Go big or contribute to the bottom line, I guess. It sounds pretty reasonable to me.

a difference of opinion then, rhett. most tournaments, pdga or otherwise typically take from the ams and give to the open. ive always opposed this behavior. the majority of players in tournaments are usually the am divisions, why should the majority support the minority? why discourage up and coming players, and other players with lesser abilities than open players? ive seen lots of "am" players leave the tournament arena for this single issue. not to say there arent 5 other players to take one players place when they quit competing, i see it becoming a vicious circle with no real end in sight.
i understand the need to promote the open division. i also understand the need to promote disc golf in general so there will be future open players, who come from the am ranks at one point or another.
i dont have a solution to this situation, your right rhett, there is not much money to go around. i just dont think the am players and all other divisions should support just the open division and not get back what they put in at equal value.

[Martin_Bohn]

Originally Posted by bruceuk

Martin, Rhett
Come to the UK, that's how we roll

well speaking for myself that would be a dream come true. playing in the UK that is.

[tkieffer]

Originally Posted by Martin_Bohn

a difference of opinion then, rhett. most tournaments, pdga or otherwise typically take from the ams and give to the open. ive always opposed this behavior. the majority of players in tournaments are usually the am divisions, why should the majority support the minority? why discourage up and coming players, and other players with lesser abilities than open players? ive seen lots of "am" players leave the tournament arena for this single issue. not to say there arent 5 other players to take one players place when they quit competing, i see it becoming a vicious circle with no real end in sight.
i understand the need to promote the open division. i also understand the need to promote disc golf in general so there will be future open players, who come from the am ranks at one point or another.
i dont have a solution to this situation, your right rhett, there is not much money to go around. i just dont think the am players and all other divisions should support just the open division and not get back what they put in at equal value.

I think it might be more of having all divisions other than Open actually pay for the services provided as opposed to expecting 100% payout. A percentage of any protected or restricted division fees going towards paying the expenses of the tournament, and any added cash going towards Open so the payback in that division is boosted. So, it's not so much taking from other divisions to pay the Pros, but having the other divisions pick up a larger percentage of the tournament overhead. They still get back what they put in, just perhaps not all in purse.

Fine line, I know.

[Martin_Bohn]

Originally Posted by tkieffer

I think it might be more of having all divisions other than Open actually pay for the services provided as opposed to expecting 100% payout. A percentage of any protected or restricted division fees going towards paying the expenses of the tournament, and any added cash going towards Open so the payback in that division is boosted. So, it's not so much taking from other divisions to pay the Pros, but having the other divisions pick up a larger percentage of the tournament overhead. They still get back what they put in, just perhaps not all in purse.

Fine line, I know.

yes a fine line. this is what i like about the current system though. leaving it up to the tournament organizers as to how monetary dispersment is handled. once youve handled the pdga obligation, how you pay out can focus on whom you try to get to your tournament. ams or pros, or specific protected divisions like Peter Shive is trying to do with his value added structure for over 40 players.
imho,
as far as the bigger tournaments are concerned a bigger push for pros is probably the best, especially with larger sponsorship input to help cover costs. which in turn should alleviate dipping into ALL divisions entry fees so EVERYONE gets 100% payout. the pro open division benefitting solely with +100% payout after all is said and done as opposed to the other divisions which only have their entry fees covered.
not so easy to do in smaller tournaments.

[rhett]

The thing is, with merchandise payout it's pretty easy to offer 110% retail value payout and still have money left over to pay for permits, fees, and sometimes even trophies. You can also do player pack and lunch with reasonable markup and the players come away feeling like they got good value, and that's what really matters. (Just don't charge the ams $50 for a cotton t-shirt and DX disc and no payout and try to tell them what a great deal *that* is!)

From my experience when you do it that way, the ams know they are footing the bill but are okay with it because they get good perceived value for $35-$40. If you dropped the cash age protected divisions I believe, after much grumbling, those guys would play open for the cash if they were rated over 960 and the appropriate MA1/2/3 or age protected am if not. The 950-980 range would be the tough one, but I think it would sort itself out. I really think this would make the Open division bigger and also help the tournament bottom line.

As always, just my opinion.

[Martin_Bohn]

Originally Posted by rhett

The thing is, with merchandise payout it's pretty easy to offer 110% retail value payout and still have money left over to pay for permits, fees, and sometimes even trophies. You can also do player pack and lunch with reasonable markup and the players come away feeling like they got good value, and that's what really matters. (Just don't charge the ams $50 for a cotton t-shirt and DX disc and no payout and try to tell them what a great deal *that* is!)

From my experience when you do it that way, the ams know they are footing the bill but are okay with it because they get good perceived value for $35-$40. If you dropped the cash age protected divisions I believe, after much grumbling, those guys would play open for the cash if they were rated over 960 and the appropriate MA1/2/3 or age protected am if not. The 950-980 range would be the tough one, but I think it would sort itself out. I really think this would make the Open division bigger and also help the tournament bottom line.

As always, just my opinion.

the 50$ shirt thing is exactly what i hate about it. most people who play am arent that stupid to put up with that kind of behavior more than once. and they dont want to donate their money to the open division either for the most part, so they quit going to those kind of tournaments.
as far as bumping up age protected divisions, and am players to compete against open players....well, take an A-tier tournament for example, pulling in pro players from the region rated 990 and up. usually 10-20 of them will be in that rating range, theres no way you will get anyone from the am division or age protected division with ratings below 960 to step up.
rhett, would you drive up to la mirada to play in, say the golden state classic, to compete against all the open players that show up for that one? i wouldnt. or even this last tourney at vegas.
i would have been on the last card in the open div. why go to tourneys if that is the most likely scenario?
its true it would work itself out if you change to that kind of system, but the fallout...... could you field a full tournament at this day and age (A and NT tiers)? thats my argument, i dont think you could.

SOMEDAY, and probably not in our lifetime, i can imagine a rating based field of players, the open division being +1000 rated players who have to QUALIFY to be eligible for the NT type of tournaments. all other tournaments being the qualifiers to get your rating up above +1000. lessers divisions, say you have a rating of 970 or less, will be merch divisions. i think this is part of the growing pains the pdga will be going through, to develop a system that is fair and equitable to mostly all competitors. and its going to take a long time from now before we're done with the system to be something everyone will like.