Ratings issues

"In all cases, a player is not allowed to play in a division where the top end of the bracket is lower than the player’s current rating. The one exception to this is for local or regional series, where a TD can allow a player to play in the same division for one entire series, based on the player’s rating at the beginning of the series."

One issue I have with ratings, is how to deal with non-PDGA members. I'm not so concerned with newbies as we deal with them exactly the same way we did before. I'm more concerned about the numerous long-term players that for whatever reason don't join, or don't renew their PDGA membership.

I understand that the PDGA is tracking ratings for non-members that play PDGA events, but not making them public. Presumably, this is done in the hopes that the non-member will join. This has the drawback of allowing sandbagging by not renewing. If a player has a rating above 925, but doesn't renew, he could hide out in the intermediate division, and nobody will be able to do anything about it (without a local bump rule).

Jim,

Your last statement isn't completely true: The TD has everything to do about it. Placing non-PDGA players (regardless if they were never members or are non-current members) into divisions is left to the TD: If the TD knows that this person is definitely an Advanced player, then he can state that the player will play Advanced. If the player doesn't want to play Advanced (or the division stipulated by the TD), then he/she doesn't play at that tournament.

Jason

[ck34]

Nonmembers have no standing at PDGA events so TD has full control over how to handle them as long as the policy is consistent.

I sure would like to have objective evidence before forcing a player to play in a division that he/she doesn't want to play in.

[ck34]

Jim, you stated that the potential problem is people with a "secret" high rating not renewing so they can bag in a lower division. Why should we be worried about "subjectively" forcing them without evidence to play in Pro let alone Advanced? These players have been described by you as attempting to take advantage of the system so why is it we should cut these players any slack?

If they are a non pdga member, why not just play them in a non pdga member division? Put all non members in one division (like rec. division).
If they don't like it then they can join and play in a more competitive division.

[neonnoodle]

Because then we would be essentially boning the good PDGA members that are accurately in the Rec Division Mike.

My solution remains to gather all membership information from these non-members, collect their $5 fee, include them in our ratings, and make them associate members (no mag, card, invites to the worlds, vote, ACCESS TO THE MESSAGE BOARD [img]/msgboard/images/clipart/proud.gif[/img] ). The alternative is to leave it to the TD to decide. Not full-proof but considering that the PDGA wants as many participants, member or not at their events, it is a solution that meets the needs. At least immediately.

This is not something new here. TDs have been in this position since the dawn of all of the different age and gender am and pro divisions. Now, we can just be more confident that at least the PDGA members are playing in the right skill division. This is an improvement, no matter how you slice it.

Chuck, maybe they're doing it unintentionally, or maybe they're playing tourneys out of their local area and the TD doesn't realize it until too late.

If I can't prove that they're sandbagging, and I don't know their rating, it's not fair to force them up.

Case in point. Our top two intermediates from last year are not currently registered (at least they don't show up on the ratings page). I expect them to move up to advanced, however, with the way divisions worked out here, very few advanced are actually over 925. These two might only be rated around 900-910 while the rest of the Intermediate division was hovering in the 870-890 range.

[ck34]

They don't have any "proof" either. Your lack of proof trumps their lack of proof (nonmembers without ratings) meaning it's your call. You just said you knew these players and expected them to move up to Advanced. If that's where you think they should play, that's your right as TD. If they think they're not really at Advanced level, they can either prove it by joining and getting a rating below 925 or choose not to play. Of course, you can see how they play in Advanced at the event and determine which division seems right for the next event.

[neonnoodle]

Jim, that's why you, as a TD are there, to factor in all of those intangibles.

If you are really concerned about this, the Ratings Committee has a couple worksheets where you can track these players and determine an approximate Player Rating.

Certainly this will be less of a problem than it has been in the past with all PDGA members getting a PDGA Player Rating, right?

Chuck, I've long fought against bumping people up without some objective criteria. Now we have it, and I think it's great, except that it only applies to PDGA members. And if we do come up with objective criteria (say, winning two tourneys, or being in the top-5 of 5 tourneys), or even some subjective criteria (you're kicking [*****], I won't let you play in that division any more), that can't apply to PDGA members because as long as their rating is below 925, they're allowed to play intermediate. So now we've got two seperate sets of criteria that apply to two seperate classes of players who are playing in the same division.

I know Nick, I've got the spreadsheets, and I did quite a bit of tracking, but to keep it is a lot of work. Yes, it's great for PDGA players, but many of our ams only play 2 or 3 tourneys a year, and don't bother joining.

[ck34]

"...that can't apply to PDGA members because as long as their rating is below 925, they're allowed to play intermediate..."

That isn't totally true. I believe the PDGA will still support bump rules pertaining to events that are part of some local or regional series if that's what you want. In other words, if your bump rules require a player to move up according to some objective criteria that applies to everyone, member or nonmember, then they can be forced to play up even if their rating allows them to play in a lower division at PDGA events outside that series.

We have two Advanced players who were bumped to pro for our series this year. They plan to keep their Am status for Worlds for the next 6 months but will play pro in any of our PDGA sanctioned events in our state series. We have voted to allow Ams to play in our Pro division at 1/3 the regular pro entry so they don't get hosed on high entry fees without the chance for merch. They are happy to pay the roughly $12 entry fee so they can earn pro points toward 2004 and get experience to prepare for Am Worlds this year.

I like your idea best Nick that makes better sence. In addition why don't we give them "non pdga member numbers" so the td's can track the non padga members at pdga events.
[img]/msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif[/img]

[drdisc]

Here is what I did in that situation once.
After two rounds, if the baggers score put them at least 3/4 of the way up in the next division, I just moved their card over. Not much they can do about. The scores show it all. And I did it for them at no extra charge. From then on , they were advanced, and everyone knew it.!

[neonnoodle]

Until a full-proof plan is created, it simply has to be left to the descretion of the TD or a person she/he appoints. Having run and helped run many ratings based events, I can tell you that this is not a major issue.

If it becomes a major issue, GREAT! Then we can fix it from actual data rather than hypothetical. Either way the PDGA competitive system has been enhanced and will continue to be improved.

These are good challenges. Learning challenges.

[pterodactyl]

That's fool-proof!

[rhett]

I've got an easier solution for TDs: only PDGA members play in PDGA events. Period.

is open really open if you limit participation to membership?

(a question asked to me by a pro athelete from another sport)

[gnduke]

Since when is a division limited to membership ?

Some events are limited to membership (A-tiers, NT, and I think Majors), but I do not think the division is. I think it is the case that if you pay your $5 at a B-tier, you can play open.

as you mentioned not ALL events are "open" to everyone...

the professional athelete i was having a conversation with did not feel that a competitive bracket should be considered "open" when it is actually restricted...

i just found that perspective interesting, from someone who had never even heard of disc golf-- and that was his first response upon being told about how the PDGA competitive structure works...

[chris]

It looks like for the Tower Ridge Open ( 5/12/02)tournament you guys calculated the ratings from the same SSA both rounds (49 = 1024 & 53 = 986) which would make SSA around 51.5 but that second round they moved the pins longer. I thought that the -1 was just as good as the previous -5 I shot. This is just FYI and I realize that the TD probably didn't specify that he moved the pins longer the 2nd round. (IMO Tower Ridge from the long pins & long tee's is the harder wisconsin course I've played)

Psssst, Chris, nobody is supposed to know I sent you your detail.

When the round-by-round becomes public, there will be many such instances for us to track down. I'm not sure we're prepared for it, but we'll do the best we can.

It will also become apparent that accurate and timely reporting from TD's will be very important for ratings purposes.

Good thing your buddy isn't running that midwest tournament anymore!

[discgolf6481]

Are non-sanctioned events included in the ratings calculation? It would seem obvious that they aren't, but just looking for confirmation.

Thanks

[bruce_brakel]

They are not.

[exczar]

Shannon Fosdick rules! (She) has the highest rating of any _FEMALE_ Pro player. Check out the ratings by division to see...

Way to go Mr. Fosdick!

SWEET!! I knew it would come out sooner or later. I've always felt I was diffeent....

Would you believe this is the FIRST time someone has assumed I was of the female persuasion.

lmao@ shannon

[seewhere]

with a last name like that who would have thunk it.. Hey Shannon Honey you playing seawright 2-nite? [img]/msgboard/images/clipart/happy.gif[/img]