Rather than continue to talk about this in the "Why does it cost more to play Open" thread, I figured it might be good to have it by itself (so that hopefully the other thread can get back on track).

Also, there's a poll:

Can you give details on what the Expert division would be ? It take it this means a division above Advanced. Payout in cash or merchandise ?

basically the same thing that pro2 was that everyone disagreed on.

basically the same thing that pro2 was that everyone disagreed on.



Not even close. It's everything the Pro2 experiment did not live up to. Apparently you didn't read the other thread.

Everybody has different ideas about.

Common ideas: an amateur division that pays out in merch for players rated 955 and above. You would have to be rated below 955 to play in the Advanced Am division after the Expert division is created.

Not discussed that I am aware of: Pros playing am cutoff? for consistency with the other divisions, I would say below 995 maximum. Maybe a little lower through some kind of compression factor that Chuck would figure out.

Disputed ideas: when to offer it. Chuck say only at A-tiers and Majors. I say if you make it a division, make it a division for all tournaments. It doesn't make sense to me to not allow a 970 rated am to play Advanced at an A-tier but to allow the same player to play advanced at a lower tiered event.

The Expert division needs to be created for all PDGA events. There absolutely needs to be a ratings cap for Advanced. The rating for Pros to play Am needs to be adjusted as well. If this is implemented, the PDGA should offer another round of amnesty to those 955-995 rated Pros that want to turn Am.

I like the idea that Pros can choose cash instead of prizes at 50% of the value of the prizes. Of course, any player that took the cash option, would be considered a Pro and would not be eligible for Amateur titles.

I really think this idea will keep more players in the PDGA and possibly bring back players that moved up and out.

I agree. All tournaments. 970, 980 rated players should not be allowed to play advanced. But they should be allowed to compete as wwcc amateurs if they so choose.

The Expert division needs to be created for all PDGA events. There absolutely needs to be a ratings cap for Advanced. The rating for Pros to play Am needs to be adjusted as well. If this is implemented, the PDGA should offer another round of amnesty to those 955-995 rated Pros that want to turn Am.

I like the idea that Pros can choose cash instead of prizes at 50% of the value of the prizes. Of course, any player that took the cash option, would be considered a Pro and would not be eligible for Amateur titles.

I really think this idea will keep more players in the PDGA and possibly bring back players that moved up and out.

All the way up to 995 are you serious? Nearly every 995 player I know cashes at mor ethan 50% of their events so why consider them eligible to ba an AM? To me that is insulting. Plus we don't have any 995+ rated AMs playing. I would say to cut it off at 985 or maybe lower if they did create this division.

Oh and Expert to me implies that they are the best golfers out there and I would suggest a different name.

I don't think getting paid in cash should be an option. We already have 10 cash divisions and there obviously isn't enough cash for those let alone one more.

There does seem to be plenty of plastic for the merch divisions, so adding another one to reduce the scoring spread in Advanced shouldn't be a problem.

Oh and Expert to me implies that they are the best golfers out there and I would suggest a different name.


To me, Expert sounds like an am division name, with Open Pro defintely sounding above it on the skill scale.

Nearly every 995 player I know cashes at more than 50% of their events so why consider them eligible to ba an AM? To me that is insulting. Plus we don't have any 995+ rated AMs playing.



Are you sure? How many 995 players are making a living at DG like pros in other sports? An Expert implies someone who is good at an activity. Some Experts are better than others. If a talented Expert makes a living based on their expertise, I'd call them a pro. How many DG pros meet that definition?

Our current pros are the higher rated descendants of the original weekend warriors who have been playing for cash since our sport started. At that time, it was easier to play for cash (few with merch) and various people volunteered to run events. Merchandise appeared once clubs and some entrepreneurs came along to support merch certificates for prizes in lower skill divisions. It wasn't long before our new type of am who played for merch instead of cash was born.

discette, did you mean you want to make it mandotory for all PDGA events, or make it available to all PDGA events if they want it?

The Expert division needs to be created for all PDGA events. There absolutely needs to be a ratings cap for Advanced. The rating for Pros to play Am needs to be adjusted as well. If this is implemented, the PDGA should offer another round of amnesty to those 955-995 rated Pros that want to turn Am.

I like the idea that Pros can choose cash instead of prizes at 50% of the value of the prizes. Of course, any player that took the cash option, would be considered a Pro and would not be eligible for Amateur titles.

I really think this idea will keep more players in the PDGA and possibly bring back players that moved up and out.



Im on the fence with this one...........

I dont see where making ANOTHER division helps things any...

It just seems to create a Higher level of BAGGERS...

Not counting the "age protected" divisions, We started with 2 Am divisions (Am1 & Am2)
The they tried out Am3....That didnt work out so well
soooooo for some reason the following year everything changed to Advanced, Intermediate, AND Recreational(wasnt this the Am3..that didnt work so well?) :p

Now there is talk of an "Expert Division".. :confused:

Great now advanced players can have the under 955 division and the EXPERTS will soon have the 1000 rated player.....conclusion--the ULTIMATE sandbagger-- :o

It seems like this just another attempt "thin out" the current Adavnced field so mabye some other players can "Cash" too :confused:

I guess Im in the "demographic" that this is steered toward.
Long time PRO with a rating of 952 :o:o:o:o

Could play for Merch...BUT never will....Getting Amnesty is worthless because I WILL CASH more than 50% of the time as a MASTER..... :D

It just seems to create a Higher level of BAGGERS...
<snip>
Great now advanced players can have the under 955 division and the EXPERTS will soon have the 1000 rated player.....conclusion--the ULTIMATE sandbagger-- :o



(Since I spent so much time culling throught the ratings pages to get this, I will repeat this here.)

Please prove that there is a problem with bagging in the PDGA.

It has been a slow day (snow day), so I manually went through the top 72 Am men (down through 968).

I did not see anybody legitimately hanging around for more than a year really cleaning up the loot. In fact what I saw was a lot of fast improving guys who went Pro after Am Worlds, USADGC, and season series finished.

Out of 72 people, here is a list of what I would call bagging (hanging out in Am after their rating topped 965 and playing more than 1 (+/-) event per month). I have made their PDGA number harder to find so as not to shame them, but easy enough to look up if you want to verify since the info is public anyways.

1815x � was a bagger waiting for Am Worlds. Looks like he is playing Open now.
1501x � bagged in 2006. Not many events or a high rating before then
2437x � bagged in 2006 until Am Worlds. Looks like he is playing Open now.
2222x � borderline bagger
2379x � was bagging in 2006, but has moved up
2533x - bagged in 2006 until USADGC and a local series to end. Looks like he is playing Open now.
2559x � possibly a legit bagger
2424x - possibly a legit bagger
2466x - possibly a legit bagger

Conclusion: I would not say 4 possible baggers out of the 72 top Ams is a legit problem worth wasting lots of posts on and devising complicated tournament formats to combat.

Disclaimer: I know nothing about any of these guys and their circumstances. I am not judging or impugning their motives, just the patterns of their historical finishes as they relate to their player ratings.

An interesting counter study would be to see what the average $$ winnings are for pros under 985 who played Open in A-tiers .

I'll enter my bet - $0.83.

You asked for it, here it is. A-Tier Events held Sept-Dec 2007. MPO only. Ratings based on current ratings, not at time of event (should be close enough).

12 events
412 total players (43 MPO players/event avg)
Total purse: $67,889
<font color="red">231 won $0.00. (44% payout) </font>

<font color="purple"> 60 players 985-999:
$10,724 won
$178.75 average
17 won $0.00</font>

246 under 985 (60%)
$6517 won
$26.49 average
<font color="red">204 won $0.00 </font>

Per Scooter�s proposal to pull in all the 960 rated players to MPO
54 players 960-969
$1038 won
$19.22 average
(of course this number would go up since the ratings cut-off for payout would go down)
<font color="red">46 won $0.00 </font>

<font color="blue">33 players 950-959
$481 won
$14.58 average
29 won $0.00</font>

There you have it. I guessed low it appears.
:o

What percentage won $0 in each of those categories? In this ratings range, my suspicion would be that fast track guys like Matt whose rating ramped up quickly thru that range were more likely to cash.

I added that info above. Here are the 960-969 guys (not necessarily in that range at the time of the events) that cashed:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Nelson Bennett</td><td>9586</td><td>969
</td></tr><tr><td>Chris Schmidt</td><td>16799</td><td>968
</td></tr><tr><td>Dash Harrison</td><td>26216</td><td>964
</td></tr><tr><td>Zac Cobus</td><td>20165</td><td>963
</td></tr><tr><td>Derek Sonderfan</td><td>23797</td><td>963
</td></tr><tr><td>Chris Howard</td><td>28055</td><td>963
</td></tr><tr><td>Dan Buettgenbach</td><td>23862</td><td>961
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Here are some more stats:

0.6% of the now-current Ams in the PDGA are rated 975 or above. Yes that is zero point six percent. As in 36 out of 6369.

4.7% (297 out of 6369) are rated 955 and above.

Those numbers include any pros that chose amnesty to save $25 on their renewals, too.

Interesting stats - I wonder how they would look if all the Masters and advanced players were put all together - and then cash redistributed on that basis.
An expert division is just yet another dilution of the open division. Come on people step up and PLAY!!

I think those stats clearly show that guys are stepping up to play....errrrr donate.

I do not understand your comment/challenge at all: 60% of the field is made up of guys knowing they have almost no chance at not donating at least $73 of their hard earned cash to "the big boys".

246 players under 985 (60% of the field)
$6517 won
$26.49 average
204 won $0.00

Would not a better goal be to keep the 960-985 guys in the sport and develop them to 1000+ rated players so that a 72 player A-Tier MPO field would be made up of 1000-1040 rated players (hopefully with lots of other 1000+ rated players banging at the door to try to get into the event). When the sport gets to that point the real competition you are craving will be happening.

Your wanting to include MPM &amp; MA1 in the mix will simply lower the payout line and have lower rated players propping up the payday for the higher rated players.

You are simply begging people to "move up, move up, move out" with your challenge.

Since the NT is the showcase event series, it should be the most highly competitive. Just for grins I did the same analysis on the 2006 NT events.

11 events
636 competitors (MPO only)
$125,220 total purse for MPO
371 did not cash (42% payout)

<font color="purple">127 players 985-999 (20%)
$14,806 paid out to them (12%)
$117 average each
71 of them did not cash </font>

302 players <985 (47%)
$6639 paid out to them (5.3% of the purse)
$22 average each
272 of them did not cash

70 players 960-969 (11%)
$205 paid out to them (only one person cashed!)
$3 average each
69 of them did not cash

<font color="blue">40 players 950-959
$480 won
$12 each average
37 did not cash
</font>

MP3, since we're talking about including the 950-959 Open pros in there for Expert, can you please add their stats to both charts. Did they win anything in those events?

Even though we know there are travel, lodging and other expenses related to playing, if everyone paid $90 for entry fees on average, what was the net for each group?

I say chuck it all and initiate flighted play. Let the chips fall where they may and break the entered players up after they sort themselves out.

More divisions isn't the answer as I see it.

Joe

done

Thanks Dave. I think our Competition Committee will find your stats real helpful. One other thing we might want to look at is the actual number of players that cashed/didn't cash in those stats since we know that many players in those stats are counted more than once since they entered more than one event.

discette, did you mean you want to make it mandotory for all PDGA events, or make it available to all PDGA events if they want it?




Yes - once you are over 955 its time to move out of Advanced. Another Am division makes sense to me as a TD. I like the fact "Pros" can play in the division and take 50% as well. More Ams makes my events easier to run. If I run a successful Am event, I don't have to raise as much sponsorship.



For those that think the PDGA doesn't need another division, how about adjusting the current divisions to meet a new 40-50 point spread?

940 and up Advanced
900-939 - Intermediate
899 and under - Recreational

Dave, since you have the data, the inevitable question will be whether the 985-999 players will "suffer" not cashing if the 984 and lower players decide to play Expert. What did that 985-999 group earn in the A-tiers and NTs you looked at? Thanks.

it cant be all events, cuz of events like the USDGC.

personally, i think the PDGA should set policy on how events are run, and let all divisional issues to the TD/market. no solution fits all situations. if a TD wants AM only, fine. if they want <899 / 900-940 / 940+ thats awesome too. if they want all women, all men, all juniors, all masters, who cares... the players will let them know right pronto if it works or not.

most complaints i hear in conversations with players around here are not about divisions. its about late results, inconsistent application of rules, stuff like that.

set an event performance standard that covers the presentation and management of the event. and thats it. let the details on divisional boundaries be determined locally. that will breed more ideas and more winning formulas. ratings still work, traditional divisions still work, everything still works.

For those that think the PDGA doesn't need another division, how about adjusting the current divisions to meet a new 40-50 point spread?

940 and up Advanced
900-939 - Intermediate
899 and under - Recreational



Around here at least, you would then need to split Rec into two divisions. 899 and under would put around 60-70 players in one division for any of the IOS tournaments. If a new player shows up to play a tournament and finds that after two rounds he was 25 strokes (which is roughly a 100 point rating difference at that level) behind the top player in the recreational division, he will be discouraged and is not going to come back for quite a while.

Interesting stats - I wonder how they would look if all the Masters and advanced players were put all together - and then cash redistributed on that basis.
An expert division is just yet another dilution of the open division. Come on people step up and PLAY!!



Craig - Until there is true sponsorship money added to the Open division everyone is just gambling for their own entry fees. You can never force a player to the $100.00 table with the Sharks. Some people are happy playing at the $5.00 table. You want players to man-up and open their wallet, but that won't make the Open division larger in the long run. The Open division will explode with players when the incentive (read: big cash money) is added to the table. Again, until the big cash comes, everyone gets to choose what table they play at and how much they want to wager.

If you take my Advanced players and put them in the Open pool, I have to raise even more sponsorship to cover my tournament expenses. Open players cost me money, Am players create money to cover everyone's tournament expenses. To pay Pros 100% of their entry I need to raise money somewhere to cover the PDGA fees, the park fees, the player's packs, the lunches, etc. I can't do that with less Ams and more Pros unless I get more sponsorship. Why on Earth would I want to do even more work to make some whiny pros happy?

I think all the whiny pros out there complaining Ams win more money than me or saying there should be more players and more money in Open should get off their arses and go get that big sponsorship money instead of spinning their wheels trying to get as many other players as possible to come play on the $100.00 table. Most TD's are simply not motivated enough to raise that money for you.

done. Now there is so much data that I hope that it is digestable for 1st time readers. :confused: ;)

The initial proposal is to have Expert be available if the usual minimum 3 or 4 want to enter it only at A-tiers NOT on the same weekend as NTs. In addition, TDs running B-tiers could offer it if they added at least $1000 of outside cash, which would be a few more events. No Majors would offer it, although from a practical standpoint, it's essentially already an Expert division at Am Nats & Worlds, just without the pros being allowed to enter.

Even though on the surface it might make sense to have Expert available to all lower tier events, both the Master and Open divisions might disappear or be so small that they effectively are destroyed at a local level. That's not what we want with this proposal. One alternative might be to allow Expert in "Am only" lower tier events.

The other option that would be more controversial would be to cap the Advanced division rating at maybe 965 for lower tier events. Ams over 964 would just not be allowed to enter an Am division at lower tiers. They could play Trophy Only in Open. TDs would be required to allow that option then for those 20-30 Ams at that level around the country. So, they're not actually forced to turn pro and can retain their eligibility for Am majors.

If you do an expert divison then in 5 years we will be saying should there be a super expert.

That's a negative Ghost Rider.

Interesting stats - I wonder how they would look if all the Masters and advanced players were put all together - and then cash redistributed on that basis.
An expert division is just yet another dilution of the open division. Come on people step up and PLAY!!



Craig - Until there is true sponsorship money added to the Open division everyone is just gambling for their own entry fees. You can never force a player to the $100.00 table with the Sharks. Some people are happy playing at the $5.00 table. You want players to man-up and open their wallet, but that won't make the Open division larger in the long run. The Open division will explode with players when the incentive (read: big cash money) is added to the table. Again, until the big cash comes, everyone gets to choose what table they play at and how much they want to wager.

If you take my Advanced players and put them in the Open pool, I have to raise even more sponsorship to cover my tournament expenses. Open players cost me money, Am players create money to cover everyone's tournament expenses. To pay Pros 100% of their entry I need to raise money somewhere to cover the PDGA fees, the park fees, the player's packs, the lunches, etc. I can't do that with less Ams and more Pros unless I get more sponsorship. Why on Earth would I want to do even more work to make some whiny pros happy?

I think all the whiny pros out there complaining Ams win more money than me or saying there should be more players and more money in Open should get off their arses and go get that big sponsorship money instead of spinning their wheels trying to get as many other players as possible to come play on the $100.00 table. Most TD's are simply not motivated enough to raise that money for you.



/msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

I agree......

I hear far to often from TOP PROS that for some reason think we as TD's owe it to them to have BIG tourneys with LOTS of money.....

Where is that supposed to come from???
In my case my event is held in a town of around 2500 residents.there is NO sponsorship money coming from them.

I have to rely on my own fund raising techniques...ie Raffles, Fundraiser Discs & General Disc Sales.....

I still dont see the need for yet ANOTHER division.........

Maybe broaden the Pros playing AM to include Higher rated players....not that many use it as is now....I just cant bring myself to it :p Maybe Ill test the waters this year....as my rating has crashed :o

There will always be a controversy....Why are those guys playing Masters when they can compete in Open?? WHY??
Because we CAN!! As a Low-Rated Pro, I dont compete that well in the Open Div these days(Dang youngsters).....But still can CASH in Masters MOST of the time....
Im not so sure what playing AM for Merch will do for me...except fill my closet up once again with plastic /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
:D

mp3 you are looking at some skewed/limited data in my opinion. A-tiers and NT events don't attract the local pro and scare the mid-level pros with $100+ entry fees. So I don't think open division stats at the A and NT tournaments don't have "the average field." You're missing half your data since half of the fields are staying home.

Your other data looks at advanced players with extremely high PRs. These aren't baggers. These are super-baggers. Until a year or two ago, there weren't hardly any Ams with PRs higher than 955. Now it seems there are hundreds. I would use data from the range say from 945-970. These are more realistic golfers to use.

One last observation is that PRs in the players you are looking at have changed over the last year. If you looked at those tournaments and those player's ratings AT THAT TIME your data might be different. I also don't think that just one year of data is enough to draw conclusions either.

Or it might all be the same. :D

I'm not even going to start my argument that PRs are complete BS.

Open players cost me money....



Why can't we do away with this per player fees for Pros? This might make TDs not resent pros as you seem to.

PDGA- want to make cash quick? Just play AM

Making another division would just be moving the PDGA backwards. There are already too many divisions at A-tiers and majors(Masters division). Age protected divisions should start at 50 because we all know that 40+ year olds can still golf....

By making another division, you'd be taking away from the much needed cash total in the Open division. Right now at most A-tier and majors, you need to play around 990-1000 rated golf to cash. If you were to eliminate the Masters division, this would add more players to the Open division and bring down the last cash closer to 980-990. On a good day, any 955-980 golfer can play 980 rated golf.

Once the sport grows some more, there will be a point that there are many 1000 rated ams, and a 915 rated player won't be able to compete in the same division. If you want to change the divisions, start at the bottom and move the advanced rating range to 930-970 and adjust the intermediate range too.

More divisions are not what we need...

Open players cost me money....



Why can't we do away with this per player fees for Pros? This might make TDs not resent pros as you seem to.




I am allowed to deduct the per player fee out of the Pro payout, so changing that won't change a thing.

I still have to pay the PDGA for sanctioning the event and insurance which I am not allowed to deduct from the Pro Entry fees (ie. payout). I also can't deduct the park fees, the player's pack or the lunch from the 110% payout I have to pay the Open division at a B-Tier.

I do not resent Pros. (I am a Pro.) I resent the whiny pros. It makes my skin crawl when Pros come on here and want Masters and Advanced players to contribute to the Open purse because they want more money. The worst are the whiny Pros that come on here and complain that Advanced players earn more per event than they get. I dislike the whiny pros that think the $3,800 in added cash put into my event isn't enough.

Thank God that most of the Pros are thankful for what the average TD has to go through to put extra money into an event. Thank goodness the average Pro realizes when there are twice as many Advanced players at an event, that the Advanced players will have a bigger betting pool and will win probably more money.

Again, Pros cost money at a Tournament, and it has nothing to do with the per player fee collected for the PDGA.

I think some are missing the theory that by adding an Expert division, the open division would actually gain additional players. By capping ADV, those above the line would have to choose between playing open or in a micro division. To really make this work, the same divisional structure should be used regardless of tier.

IMO offering pros 50% cash for placing in the expert division just muddies things up. Let expert be a straight AM division, with pros < N be allowed to play by the same rules as pros < 955 in advanced.

I agree with you about it making the players have to choose, but would this be a positive or a negative thing?

In theory, it seems that as you say, capping ADV, these players would be forced to one or the other, which then makes the expert division seem like nothing more than a ploy at the majority of the tournaments

however, it seems like this would be encouraging the move up, move up, move out routine, due to the fact that after moving up to the expert level, they are forced into a micro division or the pros... well, they can't compete with the pros and due to the above theory, the expert division would hardly be worth competing in, which sounds like it would only make more players quit...

Not sure what you mean by "micro" division? The example I did on the other thread where I redid last year's Z-Boaz event showed the Expert division went to 44 players and the Advanced dropped from over 50 to 37.

mp3 you are looking at some skewed/limited data in my opinion. A-tiers and NT events don't attract the local pro and scare the mid-level pros with $100+ entry fees. So I don't think open division stats at the A and NT tournaments don't have "the average field." You're missing half your data since half of the fields are staying home.



I agree that this is limited for the reasons you point out. The point of what I did however was to take a look at the ultimate un-bagger - the guy that plays knowing full well he will be donating. It was the counter-point to my proving that bagging is not a significant problem for the PDGA in MA1.

Analyzing all B-Tiers (and C?) nation-wide, is much more than I am willing to do. All I did was copy-paste the MPO results into Excel and do a couple of sorts. If you get a huge sampling of data, then you have to break it down geographically, entry fee wise, etc, etc to have the stats yield any real and useable meaning. I suggest people do this analysis geographically when deciding whether or not to offer Expert division, should it ever come to that.

IMO, if we can have a tour that will fill a course (72 or 90) with just 1000+ players, we will have the real competition level that might start to be of interest to an audience....and then hopefully sponsors. So....anything that can be done to curb the "move up, move up, move out" dynamic is a great thing. That is why I like the Expert division idea.


One last observation is that PRs in the players you are looking at have changed over the last year. If you looked at those tournaments and those player's ratings AT THAT TIME your data might be different. I also don't think that just one year of data is enough to draw conclusions either.
Or it might all be the same. :D



Yes, I agree....and I stated that in my posts. I recently asked Chuck why they do not list players' ratings that chronologically match the event they played in. It would make it easier and more accurate to do this sort of analysis. Chuck told me that this has not been an issue that has bubbled up to a high enough priority for the volunteer programmers to address yet.

But, like you said, it may actually make no difference since things probably average out with some guys' ratings going up incrementally and others' going down. BTW, the reason I only did 3-4 months of A-Tiers was to minimize this effect.

I am thinking that the data sample I took gives a decent ball-park snapshot that might work as a starting point.

The data sample is exact for the purposes of the analysis. These are players at a certain rating level that chose to play Open in the last 12 A-tiers of 2006 and what their financial outcome was. There's not much change in ratings from Sept until now anyway even though the average might be slightly different. The fundamental proposal for 2008 is to only offer Expert at A-tiers that don't occur concurrently with an NT, even though others would like to see it extended to lower tiers.

PDGA- want to make cash quick? Just play AM



Scooter, not everyone weasels on their Am status by selling their plastic prizes. I expect that an objective survey of this would show most Ams either using what they win, collecting it, trading plastic to get what they want, or, like me, giving plastic away - to other players and for charity.

No matter how many anecdotes there are about some Ams selling stacks of plastic, I suspect that those are mostly a handful of very young Ams on their way to Pro, who got good very fast, and who don't care about the ethics of being Am. I've won lots of plastic, probably more than you have, but I've never converted a single disc into dollars.

ooops

who cares about ethics when our formats are allegedly illegal in a couple states? :D

does selling plastic you own make you as weasel? or only if you came to own the plastic in a test of skill? :p

how is trading your winnings different than selling them?

how can you have expectations about the results of a truly objective survey?

I agree with Terry. :)

I also find it very disturbing that scoot_er milked the am division as long as he did, only to become such a righteous opposer of it and Champion of True Amateurism(tm) now that he plays pro and wants all those am entry fee dollars in his pro payout. :mad:

Not sure what you mean by "micro" division? The example I did on the other thread where I redid last year's Z-Boaz event showed the Expert division went to 44 players and the Advanced dropped from over 50 to 37.



I was only looking at the conversion of Advanced to Expert, I did not consider others sliding over to the Expert division from other sources. ie. In the example above, the expert division would be 13 people based on those forced from Adv. I do not recall where the other 31 came from to arrive at your 44. Of a 56 player Adv field at a local B tier last year, only 6 would be forced up to Expert (using 955 as cut-off).

who cares about ethics when our formats are allegedly illegal in a couple states? :D


I do. And note the "alleged": Opinions may change if it ever was a fact instead of someone's minority opinion.


does selling plastic you own make you as weasel? or only if you came to own the plastic in a test of skill? :p


Selling plastic does not make someone a weasel. I did not call anyone a weasel.


how is trading your winnings different than selling them?


That's so obvious, I think .. . maybe . . . you can figure it out for yourself.


how can you have expectations about the results of a truly objective survey?


The same way scientists have hypotheses before running experiments.

I agree with Terry. :)

I also find it very disturbing that scoot_er milked the am division as long as he did, only to become such a righteous opposer of it and Champion of True Amateurism(tm) now that he plays pro and wants all those am entry fee dollars in his pro payout. :mad:



I'm still looking for those Ams in this area that do sell off their plastic. The only ones I know of were the TDs of the local series who just let their winnings stay in their inventory. :)

Them, and Matt during the summers. :o

(And as we know, Matt never milked the system to his advantage...) (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=3321&year=2006&include_ratings=1#Novice)

ok, lets try these...

how long do i have to hold onto the collection of my Am winnings before selling it becomes "weaseling"?

when someone "verbs", are they a "verber"? (if i drive, am i a driver; if i race am i a racer; if i weasel am i a weaseler)

hey, its friday afternoon :D

The other 31 were pros in Open and Master in the same ratings range as those 13 Ams. I'm not saying all will slide over but more than enough to not make Expert a micro division. I just wanted to show the maximum case, but the system still works even if only half that can, do.

The obvious thing to do if Expert were available would be to just never have Expert and Advanced play the same weekend or day as the Pro divisions. For example, in the midwest, it's common to have events over 2 days where Open and Advanced play one day and other Am divisions the other day. Several Intermediates will play both days by stepping up to Advanced the second day.

Now, consider how this could work for C-tiers: Have all Ams including Expert but no Intermediates play Saturday. On Sunday, all Pro divisions and Intermediates play. This is the best of both worlds for many players. The TD can bank some money on Saturday for potential added cash on Sunday for Pros. Int players can play up on Sat. Expert and Advanced can play both days by playing up on Sunday to make Open even bigger than it is now.

With this dual option, I can see some players who have been over 950 for a while that don't plan to play Am Worlds finally becoming pros because they'll have options to slide back and forth. This also will keep the Master Pro division healthy because many of these guys in the 950-985 range could also play both days. Even Pro Women over 914 ratings could play both days - on Saturday against their ratings equals and on Sunday as top Women Pros. It certainly provides a better chance for pro women to make something out of their weekend in areas with few pro women.

how long do i have to hold onto the collection of my Am winnings before selling it becomes "weaseling"?


It's a mental state, an intent: If you won them with the intent of converting them to dollars, that's weaseling your Am status; a phrase I just invented!


when someone "verbs", are they a "verber"? (if i drive, am i a driver; if i race am i a racer; if i weasel am i a weaseler)


A human cannot literally become a "weasel" by weaseling; like he or she can become a "driver" by driving. Some might call that person such, but that some would not include me; I don't think that kind of name-calling is ever useful except in demagoguery.


hey, its friday afternoon :D


I know, and we <sigh> have an important conference call at 7 pm.

ok, lets try these...

how long do i have to hold onto the collection of my Am winnings before selling it becomes "weaseling"?

when someone "verbs", are they a "verber"? (if i drive, am i a driver; if i race am i a racer; if i weasel am i a weaseler)

hey, its friday afternoon :D



I agree with you Terry,

I've been hearing about Ams collecting and selling plastic for years but I've never seen it. The Ams I've seen moving plastic for the most part were donating it to me to give away as CTPs in mini's I've run here (Thanks Tony, Neal, Nez, and others). I've only seen one person trying to move plastic to make money and that was Matt. However, that occurred after he was a Pro and because of the poor way I structured my event, i.e. not Matt's fault.

Has anyone ever done an Ad Hoc analysis to see just how much plastic the top ams take home? Has anyone ever thought about how much effort is involved in actually moving that plastic? Just curious.

I'm still looking for those Ams in this area that do sell off their plastic. The only ones I know of were the TDs of the local series who just let their winnings stay in their inventory. :)

Them, and Matt during the summers. :o

(And as we know, Matt never milked the system to his advantage...) (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=3321&amp;year=2006&amp;incl ude_ratings=1#Novice)



Holy cow! In reviewing the top 72 highest rated MA1's (968+) to see how big a problem bagging was I never saw anything even close to something like 1813x's history.

But frankly, it doesn't really bother me since he was a junior in 2004 and played Am Worlds in 2005 and some local series championships as an Am after that. He has been playing Pro since then (and some before then too). His rating only got Pro-ish mid 2005.

His "bagging" appears to be more a "fault" of the cost structure and cashing constraints of the PDGA than anything else. Now if he had played Am in 2006 to take a 2nd crack at becoming Am World Champion, then......

I am buying this idea to a degree , cause it allows players as you said to slide up and down a scale of am to pro .
I still would not take cash however cause at this time I would not be able to go back to my " TRUE " division
Advanced Masters .
Once again if we are going to cap divisions cap ALL DIVISIONS . AM AND PRO .

I know, and we <sigh> have an important conference call at 7 pm.



For those flying over the mid-west this evening Calhoun will be nude in the tub on the cellular around 1900.

But even in 2005 Matt might have won plastic in 13 events. If we really exaggerate and assume he won $300 on average, that's about $4,000 for the year in plastic or about 270 discs. Beyond the cost of moving them (even if you stayed local you have to get them to the guys you're selling to) just hauling around all that plastic and working on guys to buy it would be a ton of work.

Frankly, if Ams are doing this, they're earning their pay. I'd be willing to bet that not many will do it for long, just way too much work involved.

For those flying over the mid-west this evening Calhoun will be nude in the tub on the cellular around 1900.



Dang, what a good idea! :D Thanks, Hawk!

Interesting stats - I wonder how they would look if all the Masters and advanced players were put all together - and then cash redistributed on that basis.
An expert division is just yet another dilution of the open division. Come on people step up and PLAY!!



Craig - Until there is true sponsorship money added to the Open division everyone is just gambling for their own entry fees. You can never force a player to the $100.00 table with the Sharks. Some people are happy playing at the $5.00 table. You want players to man-up and open their wallet, but that won't make the Open division larger in the long run. The Open division will explode with players when the incentive (read: big cash money) is added to the table. Again, until the big cash comes, everyone gets to choose what table they play at and how much they want to wager.

If you take my Advanced players and put them in the Open pool, I have to raise even more sponsorship to cover my tournament expenses. Open players cost me money, Am players create money to cover everyone's tournament expenses. To pay Pros 100% of their entry I need to raise money somewhere to cover the PDGA fees, the park fees, the player's packs, the lunches, etc. I can't do that with less Ams and more Pros unless I get more sponsorship. Why on Earth would I want to do even more work to make some whiny pros happy?

I think all the whiny pros out there complaining Ams win more money than me or saying there should be more players and more money in Open should get off their arses and go get that big sponsorship money instead of spinning their wheels trying to get as many other players as possible to come play on the $100.00 table. Most TD's are simply not motivated enough to raise that money for you.



I guess if that's the only thing you'd ever read from me you might interpret me that way, but I know better, so let's get a few things straight. I don't want to hear from anybody "go out and raise the sponsorship" - I started my DG career 20 years ago - at which time I decided if I could earn any $$ from it I was gonna use it to build a golf course. 3 yrs later Seneca Creek came into being. Then I started running events - the Seneca Creek Soiree is celebrating its 16th anniversary this year, has been an ATier for over half its life, and an inaugural NT event. I understand fully what it takes to run a big event, and have been paying my dues doing it probably for longer than you've been playing.

So don't feed me the whiny pro line - my views are not about comparing what I might win to what a 960 Advanced player might win - I seem to have to say this alot - it's NOT ABOUT ME!! It's about making the entire competitive environment fair and equitable. I don't ask anyone to step to the $100 table. There are literally 100's of sanctioned events across the country and across every PDGA region where competition (both sanctioned and non) can be had affordably. No player EVER need step up to the $100 table.

This whole attitude that pros are a drain on your efforts sounds more like a financially motivated TD than a player/competition motivated TD. If you are unwilling to either do the legwork yourself, or engage the volunteers to help you do it, then maybe you shouldn't be trying to run the upper tier events!! This is exactly part of my point - if you want to be an A-Tier, or NT, but can't raise at least 3-4K in added cash - then your purse minimum is being borne by entry fees alone!! That is a defacto BAD EVENT. This is the sanctioning animal being fed with poor event management, making the divisional structure unpalatable.

If you are one of the guilty ones - someone who feels this way about pro divisions - doesn't bother raising added cash for your "big event" and saddles the merchandise profit potential of your event to prop up your pro purse (instead of merely supplementing it), and further saddles the dwindling and divided pro divisions by forcing them to in effect "pay for their points" through higher entry fees....THEN YOU ARE THE PROBLEM!!!!

There's something I don't understand here. This whole discussion of divisions has at its foundation, the basic issue of how to appropriately divide players in sanctioned competition. I don't care much for the labeling of our current divisions, they seem to serve us poorly. So understand that when I speak of competition, and when I look at event scores, I try and look at a larger group - you know - the group where all the scores are.

You see I advocate analyzing ratings by single round scores - that is how they are generated right? One round at a time? So when I see the existing Open Divisions with scoring ranges of 10-18 strokes PER ROUND at an average sanctioned event, I have a hard time understanding someone who wants to claim that a 40-50 point swing is appropriate.

Swim up to the surface of in depth analyzing of player scores... to the basic argument of Open, Master, Advanced, Expert, whatever ..........and answer the question, what divisions are appropriate? The fairest way I can see to do it is kinda like we do it on the course - send everyone out, let em play, look at their scores and WAIT - instead of what we do now - just break em into 2 or 3 groups (See Marshall Street DGC, See every European tournament I ever played). Gee - having seen how they play, and quantifying their skill level, gee shouldn't we be able to split em into 2 or 3 groups before they even show up? Wow what a great idea!!

Instead, people have to be able to have more choice (didn't I see someone post that WHATEVER FORMAT YOU OFFER - THE PLAYERS WILL COME? It's true you know. ), people have to have a chance to cash, or even win just by gracing the event with their presence. This is the environment of entitlement that we currently endorse as the sanctioning body. It's one that I find unhealthy, and I wish it would change.

Maybe the answer is to split all events into cash only / merch only events. Ratings wouldn't even be an issue - anyone can play - fee could be progressive based on rating - and everyone could play for the same prize pool. Merch events would remain popular as lower entry fee events and provide clubs and TD's with revenue stream, and could play a continuing role in supporting course & club development, and the cash events.

That has always been my thinking. It is better to sell plastic (or give it away) than have stacks of it you'll never use. But if you want to make money, getting a side/night job will net you much more money much more quickly.

His "bagging" appears to be more a "fault" of the cost structure and cashing constraints of the PDGA than anything else. Now if he had played Am in 2006 to take a 2nd crack at becoming Am World Champion, then......


I don't know. Out here in the West, the Junior Champ and 2nd Place finisher went straight to pro instead of knocking out 10 straight wins in Advanced afterwards!

I have no dog in the fight, but I see nothing wrong with a 19/20 year old player entering the year with a 956 rating setting his sights on an Am World Championship.

That would be fine, but he was 15/16. :)

That legal issue is not just an allegation. So far I've asked two prosecutors, a lawyer who practices in the legal gambling horse racing industry, a judge, a lawyer who advises municipalities, and two lawyers who are on staff in circuit courts. They all agree, objectively, not being paid to take one position or another. I heard Terry's local club looked into it and their lawyer said, "Well, no one is actually being prosecuted."

If you don't have any ethical issues with winning the plastic you should not cast aspersions on people who are fine with selling it.

I'm always buying at 50 cents on the dollar. Whether I buy it from Erich or from the kid who just won it at my tournament playing intermediate does not matter to me.

I've reorganized the mp3 data into the following table that shows the results for the final 12 A-tier events in 2006. You can see the stark transition that occurs exactly at the 985 rating break being proposed as the top end for the Expert division. Those from 985-999 had almost a 3 out 4 chance of cashing at an A-tier. Those from 970-984 had a 1 in 3 chance. Those with ratings from 950-969 had a 1 in 12 chance. Under 950 it was about 1 in 75.

12 A-tier Events from Sept thru Dec 2006
<table border="1"><tr><td> Rating</td><td># Paid</td><td>Cash</td><td>Pct of</td><td># Entries</td><td># Entries
</td></tr><tr><td>Range</td><td>Entries</td><td>Won</td><td>Cash</td><td>Cashed</td><td>No Cash
</td></tr><tr><td>1000+</td><td>104</td><td>$50,648</td><td>74.6%</td><td>95</td><td>9
</td></tr><tr><td>985 - 999</td><td>60</td><td>$10,724</td><td>15.8%</td><td>43</td><td>17
</td></tr><tr><td>970 - 984</td><td>86</td><td>$4,866</td><td>7.2%</td><td>30</td><td>57
</td></tr><tr><td>960 - 969</td><td>54</td><td>$1,038</td><td>1.5%</td><td>8</td><td>46
</td></tr><tr><td>950 - 959</td><td>33</td><td>$481</td><td>0.7%</td><td>4</td><td>29
</td></tr><tr><td>950 ></td><td>74</td><td>$132</td><td>0.2%</td><td>1</td><td>73
</td></tr><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td>411</td><td>$67,889</td><td>100%</td><td>181</td><td>231
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

I added that info above. Here are the 960-969 guys (not necessarily in that range at the time of the events) that cashed:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Nelson Bennett</td><td>9586</td><td>969
</td></tr><tr><td>Chris Schmidt</td><td>16799</td><td>968
</td></tr><tr><td>Dash Harrison</td><td>26216</td><td>964
</td></tr><tr><td>Zac Cobus</td><td>20165</td><td>963
</td></tr><tr><td>Derek Sonderfan</td><td>23797</td><td>963
</td></tr><tr><td>Chris Howard</td><td>28055</td><td>963
</td></tr><tr><td>Dan Buettgenbach</td><td>23862</td><td>961
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>



I think this is a great topic, but I must now interject with a WOO HOO!!! (I was 947 at the time...) :) Back to your regularly-scheduled bitc...conversing...

I think that helps make the point that the lower rated players who do cash are likely the ones who are on the upswing and currently underrated versus the players who have been in the same rating zone for a while.

Bruce, does it make a difference whether the prizes are merch versus cash in the states where you feel our format is a problem?

At some point, I thought you mentioned that as long as the prizes were announced before the event starts, you're on better ground? I'm thinking with many of our events getting sold out in advance, or even if they aren't but the TD won't take "day of" entries, TDs should be able to post the prize payouts before the event starts. Does that meet the acceptable criteria any better?

I know, and we <sigh> have an important conference call at 7 pm.



For those flying over the mid-west this evening Calhoun will be nude in the tub on the cellular around 1900.



We DID NOT need that picture in our minds :p

Responding to Chuck, it goes state by state. In most states that don't allow what we do, what is prohibited is offering a game for valuable consideration where anything of value is paid back based on the outcome of the game. Most states have an exception allowing what we do so long as it is a game of skill, endurance or speed, and the person paying in is benefiting only from his own performance or that of his team. Some states don't have this exception and those are the problem states. Some states have a purse exception where if you announce in advance your payout, you're o.k., so long as it is a game of skill, strength, endurance or speed.

It is a state law issue and every state has different laws. If you want me to look at Minnesota or Wisconsin law, pm me. I know Wisconsin was good two years ago because I looked up the law when the Illinois Open Series started running a Wisconsin tournament.

Meanwhile, the reason why Chuck is for the "or 50% in cash" clause in Expert is because it might get more pros over there and it is TD neutral.

I don't care whether you take brass or 50% in cash. I'll buy my brass back for 50% in cash if you wait until I'm done with more pressing business. Last year, according to my books, I bought back about 2200 Brass for $1100. If I won't buy back my brass, other vendors won't accept it.

I'm fine with amateurs selling and trading what they win. I encourage it. It puts me two rungs from the top of the network and all my players are my downlines. If the TD can encourage the attitude that prizes are for converting to cash, it makes his tournaments that much more attractive to the amateurs who are cashing. If you don't see this happening, you aren't reading the Discontinuum message board.

Bruce, If you look at my post above this one, I was just wondering in general if posting our prizes or payouts in advance satisfies the requirements in states where that seems to be the issue? It would seem that with pre-reg being more popular, that condition could be met better than in the past if the TD doesn't take registrations on the day of the event and posts payout before tee-off.

I've reorganized the mp3 data into the following table that shows the results for the final 12 A-tier events in 2006. You can see the stark transition that occurs exactly at the 985 rating break being proposed as the top end for the Expert division. Those from 985-999 had almost a 3 out 4 chance of cashing at an A-tier. Those from 970-984 had a 1 in 3 chance. Those with ratings from 950-969 had a 1 in 12 chance. Under 950 it was about 1 in 75.




Would a bunch of the 985-999 players stop cashing if we removed the 970-984 players from pro?

If so, would this make the, move up to pro - move out of the PDGA conundrum more pronounced?

I think that helps make the point that the lower rated players who do cash are likely the ones who are on the upswing and currently underrated versus the players who have been in the same rating zone for a while.



I'm glad I accidentally made a point.

But what can I say, Chuck, I guess I am doing a terrible job following in the you-dubbed Mitch Sonderfan Rating's Curve. Unless I spike 80 pts this year...

It can still happen. But then, genes are only one predictor of future performance (Peyton v Eli?). Or look at Tiki v Ronde. One was great on offense and one on defense. Maybe you're the DG defensive specialist which, uh... Well, maybe you and Mitch could switch to soccer? :D

Steve, this is a long way around to answer your question, but I think useful for the purpose of this thread. (You can jump ahead to the second last paragraph for the short answer)

This discussion is fundamentally about fine tuning our competition structure in places where it forces unfair options versus providing fair choices for members at different skill levels. The sequence of competition format advances over the years included separating genders, then age divisions, then offering Am divisions. For several years before ratings, we had broadly defined Am levels which have now been fine tuned into 40-50 point ranges. Recent advances have been to allow women to enter "mens" divisions at the appropriate skill level, then allowing pros below 955 the same option and finally, providing a discounted entry fee for players to enter divisions and play for "trophies only."

Every one of these advances has been for the benefit of members at almost all skill levels, age and gender to make their competition experiences as enjoyable and fair as possible. Seems like that's one of the important things the PDGA should be about as a member organization - providing competition options our members will enjoy choosing. If members enjoy the options, they continue to renew as members.

The final frontier which everyone seems scared to address is providing better choices for players in the 950-990 zone. This is the ratings range where historically our ams switched to being our pros. No one has wanted to force the choice at a magic ratings number. Complicating any potential solution is our unconventional definitions for am and pro and the emotional attachments people have to their traditional meanings. Another complication is that we're talking about improving choices for a relatively small portion of PDGA members albeit some of our highest profile and vocal players.

With these above mentioned constraints any improvement is going to require a creative and flexible solution. One thing we know is that 40-point ranges work in the Am track and the range of ratings in the Advanced track, especially at A-tiers can be 55-70 points. Players at the bottom of any 40-point range have to play their best to even win last place merch. They have little chance in A-tiers and we might as well just hand the top awards to the Advanced players over 955.

It's not the fault of most Ams over 955 that they are still Ams. The PDGA is mostly responsible due to the requirement that these players remain Ams for 7 months until many graduate to pro following Am Worlds. It's one place in our competitive system where a PDGA competition policy explicitly provides an unfair advantage to a relatively small group of members at the detriment of many more members in the 915-935 range. It's basically a green light to go out there and pillage the Advanced division for at least 7 months. And, of course, no policy actually forces them to ever leave Am.

Woe be to those who then do crossover to Open with ratings above 955. They then face a daunting challenge to overcome an 85-point rating range in Open at A-tiers. Remember, I'm primarily focusing on A-tier dynamics for this discussion because that's where the problem is most evident and the money involved is highest. We can now segue to the chart I posted above where I recast the mp3 data.

It's apparent that players with ratings below 985 have little chance of doing well at an A-tier from a financial standpoint. That's not to say that many A-tiers don't provide an economically fun and fulfilling experience regardless whether you cash or not. However, all other players but those in this 950-985 range have better economic return prospects built into our current competition options. The proposed Expert division for A-tiers simply provides the same competitive options to these players that the PDGA has provided to all other levels and removes the inequity enforced on the Advanced division from top players waiting for Am Worlds (or permanently entrenched in Am).

OK Steve, here we go with your answer. There's no question that the 985-999 group will have a lower cashing percentage at A-tiers. But they are starting with a 3-to-1 edge. Even if it drops to 50-50 or 2-in-5, those have been the odds for players in the middle of our 40 to 50 point ratings ranges. We also shouldn't feel too sorry for those fellows in that range since A-tiers are only 1 of every 20 events available to them on our calendar. Heck, even Marshall Street must feel these players are competitive since you've deliberately eliminated the Master division not just by using incentives such as the proposed Expert option. For most local and regional events, these 985-999 players will be in the top third if not the top seed in Open and have many opportunities to consistently cash.

Even though the Open division may be smaller at A-tiers, the quality of play will be better and the payouts equal to or higher than they are now from the extra cash available. Players with ratings below 985 will not be prevented from entering Open. We already know many will still buy their "lottery ticket" and play with the best players. But at least those who have no choice but to play Open from 985 and higher will have a chance to cash in a division with a built-in 40-50 point range like all of our other PDGA sanctioned ranges.

It's not the fault of most Ams over 955 that they are still Ams. The PDGA is mostly responsible due to the requirement that these players remain Ams for 7 months until many graduate to pro following Am Worlds. It's one place in our competitive system where a PDGA competition policy explicitly provides an unfair advantage to a relatively small group of members at the detriment of many more members in the 915-935 range. It's basically a green light to go out there and pillage the Advanced division for at least 7 months. And, of course, no policy actually forces them to ever leave Am.



Of they could play Pro and decline cash if they place. I've known several Ams "waiting for that last shot" who have done just that.

I don't think bagging is as big a problem as people make it out to be, and I sure as hades don't think those Ams waiting for Am Worlds or Nationals are "pillaging" their division during that time, but playing Open and declining is a very valid option.

I don't think bagging is as big a problem as people make it out to be, and I sure as hades don't think those Ams waiting for Am Worlds or Nationals are "pillaging" their division during that time, but playing Open and declining is a very valid option.



The problem isn't the players but the system. Let's say there are only 15-20 of these players every year with ratings over 965. It doesn't make any difference that there's a different group every year. Players who are long term 915-935 players (way more of them in the PDGA than those passing thru) always have some group of "predators" above them. It's not fair to force the predators to pay up to $100 Open entry fees for 7 months and have to decline any winnings. It's just as unfair for others in Advanced by having them stay Advanced for that period.

Any time a player with a rating over 914 sneaks by the TD and plays Intermediate, we hear about how unfair it is, especially if they win. Our Advanced players should have the same fair division that we provide Intermediate members. This should be a no brainer as Bruce points out.

I don't think bagging is as big a problem as people make it out to be, and I sure as hades don't think those Ams waiting for Am Worlds or Nationals are "pillaging" their division during that time, but playing Open and declining is a very valid option.



The problem isn't the players but the system. Let's say there are only 15-20 of these players every year with ratings over 965. It doesn't make any difference that there's a different group every year. Players who are long term 915-935 players (way more of them in the PDGA than those passing thru) always have some group of "predators" above them. It's not fair to force the predators to pay up to $100 Open entry fees for 7 months and have to decline any winnings. It's just as unfair for others in Advanced by having them stay Advanced for that period.

Any time a player with a rating over 914 sneaks by the TD and plays Intermediate, we hear about how unfair it is, especially if they win. Our Advanced players should have the same fair division that we provide Intermediate members. This should be a no brainer as Bruce points out.



Funny? or Stupid? thing is that SOME local areas HAD "Bump Rules" that dealt with this all together......

When he rating system took over they were "eliminated"....The issue was that the ratings NEVER dealt with the Advanced players as seems to be the major discussion now :o
:D

The problem with local bump rules is that players are not bumped up at the same performance level across the country/world. When players met at worlds or large national draw events, there was no standard level of competitor.

I also would like to rebut a point you made while I was otherwise occupied. The Rec division has been one of the fastest growing divisions in Texas where it is virtually always offered. If you encourage player to play where their rating dictates instead of where their ego or peer pressure says they should play, the excitement of competition and level of player retention increases.

Bump rules sort of worked in the few places I was aware of them such as Norcal, MN and NC for non-sanctioned play. The one sticking point for broader use in sanctioned play is forcing a player from Advanced into Pro. Few really want to force an Am into Pro in any sport. Having the crossover division of Expert on the Am side effectively finesses that issue.

The problem with local bump rules is that players are not bumped up at the same performance level across the country/world. When players met at worlds or large national draw events, there was no standard level of competitor.

I also would like to rebut a point you made while I was otherwise occupied. The Rec division has been one of the fastest growing divisions in Texas where it is virtually always offered. If you encourage player to play where their rating dictates instead of where their ego or peer pressure says they should play, the excitement of competition and level of player retention increases.



Gary,

Yes the Bump Rules were affected by the fact that some regions didnt have them. Players from those regions were more competitive at Worlds.
In NorCal's case we were losing MORE Am players because some just would not move up and kept on Winning...
Sure we lost a few when we made them move to Pro but we GAINED far more back that returned because the fields evened out. Once the PDGA started ratings, divisions evened themselves out, BUT the issue of ADV returned full force.. :p

I didnt say that I didnt like the Rec division, BUT that it appeared SOON after AM3 was deemed a failure..
In my own case I charge very little for Rec Div &amp; PAY OUT 100% of them.....

The rec div also was started BEFORE ratings were started as well......
I like the ratings system for AMS because it does place people into divisions by skill level...BUT it still has it faults (by region) and does NOTHING to TOP AMS..

Sure as our sport grows there will be a LARGE amatuer base. That is the future of the sport...BUT as long as those [players are playing for LOADS of merch we will just roll along as we are.......

:D

Having the crossover division of Expert on the Am side effectively finesses that issue.



Why Not!!! I already need trophies for 11 divisions...why not 12 :p

No money out of your pocket. That's like saying if I have 4 more Ams enter, I'll need 4 more player packs.

I feel the need to respond to this summary as provided by Chuck. Like so many posts on this board, the substance of this post is full of half truths - and largely reflects the status quo (that the divisional structure currently in place is both functioning, and is functioning well).


This discussion is fundamentally about fine tuning our competition structure in places where it forces unfair options versus providing fair choices for members at different skill levels.


Our current competition structure does not force unfair options - it has at its core unfair choices available for players to exploit, because the structure itself is NOT BASED ON SKILL LEVEL.

The sequence of competition format advances over the years included separating genders, then age divisions, then offering Am divisions. For several years before ratings, we had broadly defined Am levels which have now been fine tuned into 40-50 point ranges. Recent advances have been to allow women to enter "mens" divisions at the appropriate skill level, then allowing pros below 955 the same option and finally, providing a discounted entry fee for players to enter divisions and play for "trophies only."



"Broadly defined" is a very generous way to put it. How about defined solely by player choice, or not defined at all. And as regards "recent advances" - if there have been so called "advances" - they would include all divisions offered in sanctioned competition. Changing the bottom rungs of the ladder should not be considered "advances" at all if the remaining rungs are left to hang with no support.


Every one of these advances has been for the benefit of members at almost all skill levels, age and gender to make their competition experiences as enjoyable and fair as possible. Seems like that's one of the important things the PDGA should be about as a member organization - providing competition options our members will enjoy choosing. If members enjoy the options, they continue to renew as members.



Ok this is where the "status quo" support get to be a little overbearing. All the divisional "changes" that have occurred have been more about propping up "choice" than they have been about promoting fair competition. All the many and varied AM, and age protected divisions have been more about supporting either those with lesser or declining skills, than they have been about those with advancing or superior skills. More often than not, divisional changes promoted by the PDGA have been to the detriment of the best players - with few if any exceptions. There is no argument I have seen that shows otherwise.


The final frontier which everyone seems scared to address is providing better choices for players in the 950-990 zone. This is the ratings range where historically our ams switched to being our pros. No one has wanted to force the choice at a magic ratings number. Complicating any potential solution is our unconventional definitions for am and pro and the emotional attachments people have to their traditional meanings. Another complication is that we're talking about improving choices for a relatively small portion of PDGA members albeit some of our highest profile and vocal players.

Aren't these the players with the most # of choices already? Why is it that we are worried about IMPROVING their choices? Shouldn't we be making their choices easier by providing FEWER items on the menu? Wouldn't that provide FAIRER competition?


With these above mentioned constraints any improvement is going to require a creative and flexible solution. One thing we know is that 40-point ranges work in the Am track and the range of ratings in the Advanced track, especially at A-tiers can be 55-70 points. Players at the bottom of any 40-point range have to play their best to even win last place merch. They have little chance in A-tiers and we might as well just hand the top awards to the Advanced players over 955.



Here's that status quo again. NO the 40-50 point range does not work. When you guys say a 965 Adv player has no chance of cashing at an ATier - you must be taking that single player's score and throwing it into the Open division by himself. When.......... if you took all the Advanced players, and all the Masters players with ratings at that level and lumped them all together, I'm positive that the numbers would change dramatically. Your comparisons in this vein are continually misleading and incomplete.


It's not the fault of most Ams over 955 that they are still Ams. The PDGA is mostly responsible due to the requirement that these players remain Ams for 7 months until many graduate to pro following Am Worlds. It's one place in our competitive system where a PDGA competition policy explicitly provides an unfair advantage to a relatively small group of members at the detriment of many more members in the 915-935 range. It's basically a green light to go out there and pillage the Advanced division for at least 7 months. And, of course, no policy actually forces them to ever leave Am.



Say it with me - it's not their fault - WHY??? Because they have a CHOICE. If the choice is not there, then they would compete in the division available to them (ideally that means against more COMPETITIVE players ay?)


Woe be to those who then do crossover to Open with ratings above 955. They then face a daunting challenge to overcome an 85-point rating range in Open at A-tiers. Remember, I'm primarily focusing on A-tier dynamics for this discussion because that's where the problem is most evident and the money involved is highest. We can now segue to the chart I posted above where I recast the mp3 data.



Woe is me, boohoo, I'm gonna pay bick bucks to compete and I might actually have to be GOOD to win??? Oh the travesty - who could ever think of such a draconian thing to do? What percentage of available sanctioned events are ATier anyway? Isn't a huge majority of PDGA sanctioned events something OTHER than ATier? Shouldn't our vision and solutions for competitive format be wholistic and all inclusive of ALL sanctioning levels?


It's apparent that players with ratings below 985 have little chance of doing well at an A-tier from a financial standpoint.


Perhaps that's true with our existing unfair divisional structure. Perhaps untrue if all the "peers" actually played together. Perhaps folks with mid 900 ratings shouldn't play in Upper Tier sanctioned events with the expectation of being amongst the top players. But just because their rating doesn't place them amongst the top at our top events, doesn't make it fair to give them their own division AT THE SAME VENUE where they can magically become the top player - that's not fair competition AT ALL.

That's not to say that many A-tiers don't provide an economically fun and fulfilling experience regardless whether you cash or not. However, all other players but those in this 950-985 range have better economic return prospects built into our current competition options. The proposed Expert division for A-tiers simply provides the same competitive options to these players that the PDGA has provided to all other levels and removes the inequity enforced on the Advanced division from top players waiting for Am Worlds (or permanently entrenched in Am).

So now it's the 950-980 rated AM player who is treated inequitably? Puhlease CK - that's the ultimate status quo quote yet.

And here comes the most magical part of Chuck's summary.

OK Steve, here we go with your answer. There's no question that the 985-999 group will have a lower cashing percentage at A-tiers. But they are starting with a 3-to-1 edge. Even if it drops to 50-50 or 2-in-5, those have been the odds for players in the middle of our 40 to 50 point ratings ranges. We also shouldn't feel too sorry for those fellows in that range since A-tiers are only 1 of every 20 events available to them on our calendar. Heck, even Marshall Street must feel these players are competitive since you've deliberately eliminated the Master division not just by using incentives such as the proposed Expert option. For most local and regional events, these 985-999 players will be in the top third if not the top seed in Open and have many opportunities to consistently cash.



OK - so make the shrinking Open fields EVEN smaller than they already are, and let's not feel sorry that a guy rated 990 now can't cash, while we give the 980 Expert a pat on the back with his phat payout and big smile on his face. That's definitely fair - yes I'm a very good driver.

Oh - sorry - here's the magical part;


Even though the Open division may be smaller at A-tiers, the quality of play will be better and the payouts equal to or higher than they are now from the extra cash available. Players with ratings below 985 will not be prevented from entering Open. We already know many will still buy their "lottery ticket" and play with the best players. But at least those who have no choice but to play Open from 985 and higher will have a chance to cash in a division with a built-in 40-50 point range like all of our other PDGA sanctioned ranges.



Where is this "extra cash" supposed to be coming from? The TD's that already are devaluing the pro fields because they don't MAKE MONEY off them at their events are magically going to go out and raise EVEN MORE $$$ for an EVEN SMALLER group of pros? And when you say "all of our other divisions" with 40-50 point ranges - of course what you mean are the 2 divisions under 955 right? This is absolute and pure FALLACY.

Thanks for making my points look so good, Craig. Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking will see the errors of your ways.

Thanks for making my points look so good, Craig. Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking will see the errors of your ways.


Typical response Chuck - ignore everything - counter nothing - it will all go away, and in the end you'll get your way, we'll have MORE divisions, and the best will get less and less.
What we need is people WILLING to think critically - which you have proven incapable of.

Actually - how about countering just ONE item. Explain how - if the Expert division were put in place (I'll even go to the ATier only option with you) that there would be larger Open purses?

Have I missed something? Less than 985 is no longer in the Open field, you're not requiring the over 40 players over 985 to play Open right? Fewer entrants means less event income as entry fees - so how are event purses going to grow? Sounds like on the backs of the Open entry fees or on the TD's (who don't want to raise money in the first place!) Splain it to me Lucy - I must be slow.

one guy's talking about how to develop a Pro tour, and the other is talking about appeasing Ams. the more i think about it, the less sense it makes to have more than ONE division at a top tier event (i guess that means NT). B-C-D, who cares how many divisions you have and how they are created... have a 50, a 20, a 10 or a 3 point divisional band, it doesnt matter. if the PDGA doesnt, someone else will. but for the bigtime, divisions seems wierd. there was no "under 985, over 40 years old, amnesty Am" division in Dubai or Scottsdale last weekend.

In your ideal world, everyone of all skills would play together because as long as we paid out half the field, it would be "fair." How 'kumbaya' simple. If that were true, then the same logic could be applied in any other sport. I wonder why they haven't come to the same brilliant conclusion that players in College, HS, Jr High, and Elementary football, golf, basketball, soccer, tennis, etc. should compete together? It's the same idea - half of those participants would win and half would lose. Perfectly fair.

Well, disc golf doesn't have those school based and after school developed distinctions that evolved in other sports for amateur play. So, all of the historical elements I discussed above have been efforts by our organization to create more fair competition options that members support. To some extent, what is "fair" is not our call but the call of our members because we are a member organization. So, whether you don't think something is fair or is too fair for "other players" not in your skill range, it's just one person's opinion. The Expert ratings range is one final frontier where equity equivalent to our other divisions is still missing. Not better or worse, just equivalent.

Craig, I am trying to understand your perspective, but I keep feeling that there's no place in it for players like me to compete.

If you could wave your hand and reconfigure everything, division-wise, in what division should a 60-year-old player whose rating is 942 (highest it's ever been) but whose game is 960s on short courses and low 900s on long courses, be forced to play?

Right now I can pick and choose from everything except Women's divisions, Juniors divisions, and Legends. I mostly compete in Advanced Am, sometimes in Advanced Masters, sometimes in Pro Masters, and once in a while in Pro or Am Grand Master.

At Worlds in Wisconsin this summer, I will compete in Senior Am Grand Master. I know players who feel that an Am Senior Grandmaster Worlds title is a joke, but I assure you that it won't be for me. How about you?

In your re-drawn divisional world, where am I told that I must play?

Actually - how about countering just ONE item. Explain how - if the Expert division were put in place (I'll even go to the ATier only option with you) that there would be larger Open purses?



I already showed what would happen at the Z-Boaz A-tier with an Expert division (see link below). The payouts were the same with 8 less players in Open. Since there was limited outside cash in that particular A-tier purse (~$300), the increase in top payouts wasn't noticeable. But, in other A-tiers which have up to $3000 or more added, the improvement in top payouts would be obvious. The Open purse increased by $500 from the retail/wholesale differential from more Am players in Expert and from the loss of the Master division which had taken some of the added cash.

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=646065&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=7&fpart=8&vc=1

BTW, I agree that NTs would be more appropriate with just Open for Men and Women. From a TD standpoint, if the Expert division became available for A-tiers or any other tier, the smart thing to do would be to have Ams including Expert not play on the same weekend or day as the pros. That would allow the players in the 950-984 range the opportunity to play in Expert and Open, potentially being more willing donors than they are now, but at least getting the shot at some prizes when they play Expert. For TDs and Open, it becomes a win-win.

I already showed what would happen at the Z-Boaz A-tier with an Expert division (see link below). The payouts were the same with 8 less players in Open. Since there was limited outside cash in that particular A-tier purse (~$300), the increase in top payouts wasn't noticeable. But, in other A-tiers which have up to $3000 or more added, the improvement in top payouts would be obvious. The Open purse increased by $500 from the retail/wholesale differential from more Am players in Expert and from the loss of the Master division which had taken some of the added cash.


What your chart shows is that even lumping the Masters players with ratings above 985 into Open - that fewer people get payed - essentially continuing the same inequities we have in the system now. The folks being punished are the Open players at the cash line - the very people that are at the core of this "expert" division discussion. This discussion isn't about what reward the top player might get - but more about the reward the last cash player might get - and how it compares to other players in other "divisions" who shoot the same score. In your example - a 940 something rated player shot a total score of 195 - one shot higher than the Open player who was one stroke out of the money - and was rewarded with over $120 worth of merchandise.

I think it is you who are proving MY points for me Chuck. Your expert Division scenario might be a minor variation on the "equity" problem we suffer from in our divisional strructure. But that's all it is - it's certainly not a wholesale fix - not even close. I guess the part I don't get is that this scenario is as close as you come to dictating divisions based on skill - yet you still cling to the imperative of player choice. You can't have both, and still have equity AND actual real competition.

The notion that someone with a 6 to 8 stroke per round disadvantage will want to play up at an A tier is just that, a notion. I'm not saying Chuck is right, but until someone addresses this issue there's a problem.

BTW - The reason this issue exists is because we are still such a young sport. Ball Golf doesn't have it because in a tournament you can get 40 or 50 top rated players (for us that would be 40 or 50 guys rated between 1020 and 1040). They all have a realistic chance of winning.

You'd never expect a top Am, even a good one :), to step up until they were ready in Ball Golf, yet that is what we're looking at here. If you want a large Open pool you're going to have to incentivise the marginal players (relative to the top players) to step up. Otherwise, as Pat pointed out, you're simply slicing and dicing smaller bits of the pie.

Well, disc golf doesn't have those school based and after school developed distinctions that evolved in other sports for amateur play.



A self-fulfilling prophecy; one that you continue to thwart by propping up the present system.



So, all of the historical elements I discussed above have been efforts by our organization to create more fair competition options that members support. To some extent, what is "fair" is not our call but the call of our members because we are a member organization.



Tanslated to mean: We forgot we were stewards of a sport, or leaders at all, but we were capable of recognizing that the middle of the bell curve holds a majority and we aim to please.


It is always convenient the way you first flat out ignore arguments and then when you finally feel compelled to respond, out comes the tired old response "but we just aim to please the majority." It is never about what is right for a sport, it is only about satisfying the multitudes in the middle; by god, we all know they deserve it.

It is never about what is right for a sport, it is only about satisfying the multitudes in the middle; by god, we all know they deserve it.




If we did what's right for the country, 90% of our citizens aren't "qualified" to vote. If we did what's right for nutrition, we wouldn't allow restaurants to serve whatever people like and grocers to sell what people want to buy. Why is disc golf any different from the reality of choice in our country?

If we did what's right for nutrition, we wouldn't allow restaurants to serve whatever people like and grocers to sell what people want to buy.



That's already happening. Trans-fat is being banned at restaurants around the country.

Similarly, let's cut the fat out of our bloated competition system as well, even if that doesn't satisfy the multitudes in the middle. Because it's the healthy thing to do, no matter how unpopular.

McDonald's can go completely healthy with little or no fat and sugar in any items. Mmmm, rice cakes... Guess where people will go? McDonalds goes out of business. Their TDs (franchisees) switch to another chain.

It is never about what is right for a sport, it is only about satisfying the multitudes in the middle; by god, we all know they deserve it.

Far from "never," this whole discussion is about what's right for disc golf. We just have disagreements, because there is no objective measure.

The middle of that bell curve holds the majority of our members, who pay dues, and it's their club. That's one way of deciding who gets to decide what's right.

What are other ways?

Whatever a TD decides? If a TD wants to hold a tournament, then - he/she who does the work gets to decide.

Whatever a major sponsor decides? If Nike comes in with $4M I would expect that it could make some decisions.

Whatever I say? Hey, I like that . . . I am the "decider."

Matt Hall was paid les cash than a guy who shot a worse score last weekend. Let's address that inequity in the pro divisions first, shall we? That seems to be the problem that is always ignored around here.

In your ideal world, everyone of all skills would play together because as long as we paid out half the field, it would be "fair." How 'kumbaya' simple. If that were true, then the same logic could be applied in any other sport. I wonder why they haven't come to the same brilliant conclusion that players in College, HS, Jr High, and Elementary football, golf, basketball, soccer, tennis, etc. should compete together? It's the same idea - half of those participants would win and half would lose. Perfectly fair.



Come on Chuck - don't be such a putz. I have not ever advocated that literally ALL players be placed together in competition. But for the sake of evaluating our divisional structure - I have suggested looking at the top 3 competitive divisions AS IF they were a single player pool and using that comparison as a guide to devise more equitable divisions for sanctioned play.

You understand perfectly WHY I approach it this way - it's because I start from the premise that our divisions and the reward system associated with them are inherently inequitable - and thus unfair. What was it you called it - a strawman argument? That's what you continually choose to throw up as a smokescreen to avoid dealing with the issues head on.


So, all of the historical elements I discussed above have been efforts by our organization to create more fair competition options that members support. To some extent, what is "fair" is not our call but the call of our members because we are a member organization.



That's nothing more than a total copout. You post elsewhere that you acknowledge inequities - even try and provide solutions - but none of your solutions actually CHANGES anything - only shuffles them around a little. Falling back on past decisions to justify future ones, when the past decisions are the source of our problems hardly seems practical to me.


So, whether you don't think something is fair or is too fair for "other players" not in your skill range, it's just one person's opinion. The Expert ratings range is one final frontier where equity equivalent to our other divisions is still missing. Not better or worse, just equivalent.



If a system is equitable, it's inherently more fair than if it's inequitable. My opinion has no part in that equation. There's your kumbaya brotha. If your fix is not better or worse - just equivalent - then it aint a fix at all.

Craig, I am trying to understand your perspective, but I keep feeling that there's no place in it for players like me to compete.

If you could wave your hand and reconfigure everything, division-wise, in what division should a 60-year-old player whose rating is 942 (highest it's ever been) but whose game is 960s on short courses and low 900s on long courses, be forced to play?



Terry, not having ever seen you play, not having looked at any event results to compare your finishes to other players I might know - and going purely by your 942 rating - is there something objectionable to you being in a mens over 50 division? Is the player pool ever to big for you to feel out of place? Or is the possibility that you may end up at an event with Dave Greenwell, Tom Monroe, or Dr Rick so daunting that you would choose not to play?


Right now I can pick and choose from everything except Women's divisions, Juniors divisions, and Legends. I mostly compete in Advanced Am, sometimes in Advanced Masters, sometimes in Pro Masters, and once in a while in Pro or Am Grand Master.


Wow Terry, that's a lot of choices. Tell me something, looking back at the choices you've made, are there wide ranges of scores being posted between divisions you've chosen, and others you haven't? Isn't it possible/probable that you'd find a comfortable place to participate with fewer choices?


At Worlds in Wisconsin this summer, I will compete in Senior Am Grand Master. I know players who feel that an Am Senior Grandmaster Worlds title is a joke, but I assure you that it won't be for me. How about you?

In your re-drawn divisional world, where am I told that I must play?


In my redrawn World - you would probably still have more choices than most - and they would still be categorized as exactly the same group of players as at least two of the choices you make now. Those choices would be an Age division (50+), or a skill based division where you'd play against folks of a similar skill (at 942 - I would imagine you'd be somewhere in the middle of a divisional ratings range).

Matt Hall was paid les cash than a guy who shot a worse score last weekend. Let's address that inequity in the pro divisions first, shall we? That seems to be the problem that is always ignored around here.



I can show you similar results in ADV Masters Rhett!!

Quit crying over Pro Masters.........while playing Adv Masters :p

All of your perceived inequities can be addressed by like-minded TDs. The PDGA provides the playing field options and TDs make the choices that work for them and their players. If a TD wants to offer only pro divisions or even just the Open division and limit the number of Advanced to 28 players, they can do so. No one including the PDGA has the power to make TDs offer any divisions other than what they wish to offer. If a TD doesn't believe in ratings, they can still offer a sanctioned event with an X-tier twist or doubles. It's just another choice.

Adding the Expert option is no different from providing TDs the discretion to prevent predatory nonmembers in the area from playing down in Intermediate. With no ratings, the nonmembers have no standing do anything other than what division options the TD provides. With Expert, the PDGA prevents hopefully temporarily high rated Ams from taking advantage of Ams who are properly playing in their skill level range. This is what players expect their member organization to provide thru their TDs - events with certain elements they can count on including fair competition IF the intent of that particular division is based on skill level.

rather than adding a predefined new "division", why not do what you say we can already do - let the TDs decide. if TDs want to use ratings to base their events, great... give them the choice of what ratings breaks they want to use. there is no reason to codify yet another division... leave it open and let the market decide

All of your perceived inequities can be addressed by like-minded TDs.



Geez Chuck, do we have to compile quotes from multiple threads to keep you from adopting a "fall back" argument for everything? I believe you used the term in jest - but its meaning no less appropriate - I think you said something about "herding cats" when getting TD's to agree?

Leaving TD's with myriad choices for sanctioned divisions is yet another copout. The player organization owes it to the players to LEAD. To provide an EQUITABLE framework for competitive divisions. It does not owe it's members a loosey goosey, do whatever makes you happy and we'll still sanction your event, framework. That is what we have now. No it doesn't work, no it's not ok as it is, changes need to be wholesale across the board and applicable to all sanctioned events.

That doesn't mean we can't have different divisional standards for different forms of competitive events. It doesn't have to be a one size fits all for every event every weekend - so don't come at me with some BS about alienating the rec/intermediate players, or anyone else for that matter. There's plenty of room for promoting events that are affordable for players at all skill levels, of all ages, without approaching it from a total "freedom of choice" standpoint. The organization owes it's members leadership, not unchecked freedom of choice.

I dug back in my files since I'm not sure if I ever posted the stats behind the current 40-50 pt ranges. I created a model containing 22 players with two at each 5-pt rating step from 925 to 974. All of these players have roughly a 3-shot standard deviation in their scoring on an SSA 50.4 course, which is our baseline reference. Using random number generation, these 22 players played 1000 tournaments each of 1 round, 2 rounds, 3 rounds and 4 rounds. The table below shows how often a player at each level won, finished in the top 40% or top 50% at the event.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Player</td><td>1 Rnd</td><td>1 Rnd</td><td>1 Rnd</td><td>2 Rnds</td><td>2 Rnds</td><td>2 Rnds</td><td>3 Rnds</td><td>3 Rnds</td><td>3 Rnds</td><td>4 Rnds</td><td>4 Rnds</td><td>4 Rnds
</td></tr><tr><td>Rating</td><td>Win</td><td>Top 40%</td><td>Top 50%</td><td>Win</td><td>Top 40%</td><td>Top 50%</td><td>Win</td><td>Top 40%</td><td>Top 50%</td><td>Win</td><td>Top 40%</td><td>Top 50%
</td></tr><tr><td>974</td><td>13.3%</td><td>75.3%</td><td>81.9%</td><td>14.5%</td><td>81.5%</td><td>89.2%</td><td>17.4%</td><td>87.2%</td><td>92.6%</td><td>19.7%</td><td>89.3%</td><td>94.4%
</td></tr><tr><td>970</td><td>11.9%</td><td>72.0%</td><td>79.1%</td><td>12.8%</td><td>75.7%</td><td>84.2%</td><td>13.3%</td><td>81.7%</td><td>88.8%</td><td>13.9%</td><td>84.1%</td><td>91.2%
</td></tr><tr><td>965</td><td>8.6%</td><td>65.3%</td><td>74.7%</td><td>8.9%</td><td>68.6%</td><td>77.9%</td><td>8.4%</td><td>72.9%</td><td>82.0%</td><td>8.0%</td><td>75.2%</td><td>84.9%
</td></tr><tr><td>960</td><td>5.8%</td><td>58.0%</td><td>68.4%</td><td>5.7%</td><td>58.9%</td><td>69.0%</td><td>5.1%</td><td>62.2%</td><td>72.1%</td><td>4.1%</td><td>65.7%</td><td>77.0%
</td></tr><tr><td>955</td><td>4.2%</td><td>50.6%</td><td>63.7%</td><td>3.6%</td><td>51.3%</td><td>63.9%</td><td>2.9%</td><td>51.4%</td><td>64.6%</td><td>1.8%</td><td>52.6%</td><td>65.4%
</td></tr><tr><td>950</td><td>2.7%</td><td>46.2%</td><td>57.9%</td><td>2.2%</td><td>43.3%</td><td>55.9%</td><td>1.7%</td><td>41.8%</td><td>54.3%</td><td>1.5%</td><td>39.9%</td><td>54.4%
</td></tr><tr><td>945</td><td>1.9%</td><td>38.2%</td><td>50.2%</td><td>1.2%</td><td>34.0%</td><td>45.8%</td><td>0.9%</td><td>32.0%</td><td>44.0%</td><td>0.8%</td><td>28.3%</td><td>41.3%
</td></tr><tr><td>940</td><td>0.4%</td><td>32.6%</td><td>42.6%</td><td>0.4%</td><td>25.2%</td><td>37.0%</td><td>0.1%</td><td>21.9%</td><td>31.5%</td><td>0.1%</td><td>17.9%</td><td>27.8%
</td></tr><tr><td>935</td><td>0.8%</td><td>24.7%</td><td>33.9%</td><td>0.5%</td><td>19.4%</td><td>28.7%</td><td>0.2%</td><td>14.9%</td><td>22.9%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>11.4%</td><td>19.4%
</td></tr><tr><td>930</td><td>0.3%</td><td>26.0%</td><td>32.8%</td><td>0.1%</td><td>14.7%</td><td>22.9%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>7.8%</td><td>14.7%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>5.7%</td><td>11.0%
</td></tr><tr><td>925</td><td>0.1%</td><td>18.3%</td><td>24.7%</td><td>0.1%</td><td>9.7%</td><td>16.1%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>5.0%</td><td>9.4%</td><td>0.0%</td><td>3.1%</td><td>6.6%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Note that each of the 925 players won once in 1000 events such as a league that contains just one round. However, a 925 player does at least cash at league 1 in 5 if the payout is 40% and 1 in 4 times if the payout is 50%.

Let's consider the A-tiers with 4 rounds. Working our way down from 974 to 935 is a 40-pt range. The 935 player never wins but cashes somewhere between 11-19% of the time (1-in-6) if the payout is 45% like the current Advanced table. At 35 points (which is the range proposed for Expert) the 940 player cashes better than 1-in-5 times.

I think the lower rated players should have a larger standard deviation.

Leaving TD's with myriad choices for sanctioned divisions is yet another copout. The player organization owes it to the players to LEAD.



The high profile effort to do such a thing has shown how difficult it is to do without the power of money. As someone pointed out, NIKE comes up with $4MM, then TDs listen. Look how succssful the NT has been in holding it to Open Men & Women, certain format for number of holes, number of rounds, closed venues, hard surface tee pads, payout guidelines. All of the things you would expect to be consistent at our showcase event series haven't come close to being achieved. Is it failure to lead or failure to follow?

The table below shows how often a player at each level won, finished in the top 40% or top 50% at the event.



Playing against the same 22 players in the model? Or does this model pit this 40 point range against higher rated players? Shouldn't models supporting a divisional range be supported by ACTUAL tournament data?

It shows what happens in a 22-person division with a 50-pt range. The only thing data from 1000 actual events would show is the higher rated players winning even more since, at this rating level at least, there are a few more players in the lower half of the range average. And, in real events, players below the range also enter. This also boosts the winning percentage of the higher rated players.

In the Intermediate division, the numbers are pretty uniform across the range and in the Rec division, there are slightly more in the top half. The standard deviations of the players and scores used in the model are as close to real world as you'll get for this rating level. As you move toward 1000 rating the standard deviation drops to only 2.5 throws on average meaning scores would be even tighter and favoring the higher rated players in the range even more.

Is it failure to lead or failure to follow?

wow, thats a very good question. how would you answer this question, Chuck? (in the context of the current discussion of course)

First of all, that question pre-defines the NT as a failure for reasons that not everyone would agree with. The question is based on that assumption/pre-definition.

All of the things you would expect to be consistent at our showcase event series haven't come close to being achieved. Is it failure to lead or failure to follow?

Really?

(1) All things that . . .

(2) A generic person would expect to be consistent . . .

(3) Haven't come close to being achieved . . . ?

Wow. The "leadership" question is limited by the context to purely the question of consistencies expected by some generic person.

Is it failure to lead or failure to follow?

wow, thats a very good question. how would you answer this question, Chuck? (in the context of the current discussion of course)

I think Chuck already answered that a few posts ago. Leading the PDGA is like herding cats, I think he said.

Leadership in the PDGA is like a lesbian foxtrot. It's not always clear who should be leading, but whoever leads becomes the leader.

I'm curious how much leading by whom went into the expansion of our format from wherever we started, one or two divisions, to the 32 we have today. Maybe some longtimers could clue us in. Did the PDGA go first in creating Masters or were TDs offering it so the PDGA adopted it? How about the lower ams? I'm pretty sure that the eight junior divisions were purely a PDGA creation.

to be clear: i am not the one calling anything a failure. my question is the same regardless of whether the showcase event series is a success or not.

now, if you all want to jump Chuck's bones for criticizing PDGA Staff, BoD, and volunteers for publically calling the NT a failure, thats your perogative... just lets be clear he said it, not me.

Let me respond on TtPC's behalf:

Yeah, but you said, "that's a very good question" and in the context of the question in Chuck's post that was criticism of the PDGA. So, you are directly implying that the PDGA has had poor leadership in the past. That hurts my feelings, since I was a leader in the past.

Now you will see clearly why governance through the MB will never work. And you will see that you are not a team player since you deliberately campaign on the MB when you do not get your way in BoD discussions.

You are a blight on the PDGA and a spawn of the devil!


:D

Nice attempt at some verbal trap. I didn't point fingers at any particular group or individual regarding the failure of the NT committee/TDs to agree upon certain uniform standards for NT events. It just hasn't happened as originally envisioned in Govang's transformation model ( www.pdga.com/transformation_model.php (http://www.pdga.com/transformation_model.php) ) and by the original NT Committee.

More money infused into the process anywhere along the way might have solved that. Short of sufficent additional money, it indicates that the PDGA isn't in a position to dictate certain guidelines even for a limited series of high profile events. Consider one of most popular big events about to unfold. How many PGA tour events does Tiger tee it up with the TD or have to wait for rollerbladers to clear the fairway? I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that it's not the kind of standards most would want at an event in the showcase series for the sport. In all fairness, some standards not imposed in the past have been firmly upheld for the NT this year and an NT event dropped off the schedule for not being willing to comply.

Let me respond on TtPC's behalf:

Yeah, but you said, "that's a very good question" and in the context of the question in Chuck's post that was criticism of the PDGA. So, you are directly implying that the PDGA has had poor leadership in the past. That hurts my feelings, since I was a leader in the past.

Now you will see clearly why governance through the MB will never work. And you will see that you are not a team player since you deliberately campaign on the MB when you do not get your way in BoD discussions.

You are a blight on the PDGA and a spawn of the devil!


:D



I don't think Terry was replying to Pat, rather to Chuck, even though he did reply to Pat's post. Perhaps we could dig up a link on MB etiquette?

Nice attempt at some verbal trap. I didn't point fingers at any particular group or individual regarding the failure of the NT committee/TDs to agree upon certain uniform standards for NT events. It just hasn't happened as originally envisioned in Govang's transformation model ( www.pdga.com/transformation_model.php (http://www.pdga.com/transformation_model.php) ) and by the original NT Committee.

More money infused into the process anywhere along the way might have solved that. Short of sufficent additional money, it indicates that the PDGA isn't in a position to dictate certain guidelines even for a limited series of high profile events. Consider one of most popular big events about to unfold. How many PGA tour events does Tiger tee it up with the TD or have to wait for rollerbladers to clear the fairway? I'm not saying it's good or bad, just that it's not the kind of standards most would want at an event in the showcase series for the sport. In all fairness, some standards not imposed in the past have been firmly upheld for the NT this year and an NT event dropped off the schedule for not being willing to comply.



Don't stop there Chuck, explain why the event dropped.

I'm not on the NT Committee, I only know that one did, specifically because they were not willing or able to meet the NT guideines established by the committee this year. I'm sure Pat could dig up their memo if necessary. One need only look at the PDGA calendar and compare it with the PDGA tour online listings to see who it was. Again, the point has nothing to do with who dropped or why, just that someone did and that several other events remaining as NTs still will not have consistency in some areas as originally mentioned.

I'm not on the NT Committee, I only know that one did, specifically because they were not willing or able to meet the NT guideines established by the committee this year. I'm sure Pat could dig up their memo if necessary. One need only look at the PDGA calendar and compare it with the PDGA tour online listings to see who it was. Again, the point has nothing to do with who dropped or why, just that someone did and that several other events remaining as NTs still will not have consistency in some areas as originally mentioned.



I think you should look it up Chuck. You might find that their reason for dropping supports your position... :D

One need only look at the PDGA calendar and compare it with the PDGA tour online listings to see who it was.



I'll save everyone the hassle, although it only narrows it down to three events. The following were NT events last year, and are 'A' Tier events this year:

<ul type="square"> Melbourne Open Texas State Championships Skylands Classic [/list]

The latter should probably not be included in this list since Dan Doyle, the TD of last year's event, is choosing to run a NT event this year in Warren, VT instead. The local club is stepping forward to present the Skylands Classic as an A Tier.

wasnt trying to trap you, chuck. i've actually read Govang's Model... most recently over xmas break. we've experienced an expected range of success across its initiatives and concerns - it was rather broad. it would be interesting to see how we have progressed towards fulfillment of that Model, and bounce it off the realities of today to see how and where it still best fits.

btw, i'm all for total standardization of NT events, for the reasons you mentioned. i dont have a real opinion about A tiers. for B-X tiers, as long as the Rules of Play are followed, there's no such thing as a bad idea, imo.

It shows what happens in a 22-person division with a 50-pt range. The only thing data from 1000 actual events would show is the higher rated players winning even more since, at this rating level at least, there are a few more players in the lower half of the range average. And, in real events, players below the range also enter. This also boosts the winning percentage of the higher rated players.

In the Intermediate division, the numbers are pretty uniform across the range and in the Rec division, there are slightly more in the top half. The standard deviations of the players and scores used in the model are as close to real world as you'll get for this rating level. As you move toward 1000 rating the standard deviation drops to only 2.5 throws on average meaning scores would be even tighter and favoring the higher rated players in the range even more.



Exactly what is this mathematical model supposed to show? If you take a hypothetical group (a small one at that) with a narrow skill range and run a model like this, aren't you basically generating numbers to support a predetermined conclusion? And how does this model help us evaluate what is fair and appropriate for the body of current tournament players?

Wouldn't an appropriate model include a comparison of skill levels that actually DO compete against one another? (Existing Open fields certainly cover more than a 50 point ratings range, as does Masters, as does Advanced). And wouldn't it be valuable to compare results ACROSS current divisions to identify where action needs to be taken?

If this is the sort of model you are using as the basis for claiming that a 50 point range is appropriate, it's no wonder it makes no sense to me. That's like George Bush math - it just doesn't add up!!

Maybe you don't understand the math here, but widening the range to 60, 70 or 80 points will not make it any better for the bottom players and only improve it for the top players even more. If you double the number of players to 44, then just take the percentages in the win columns and divide them by two.

The whole idea behind these models that were done back in 2002 was to determine the ratings range that players at the bottom would have at least some chance to cash. Based on estimating the range that player's scores would fall into (and we now have several 100,000 rounds on file), our estimates were right on.

The one thing we don't hear is a complaint that the current Am ranges are too wide with the exception of the open high end in Advanced. It shouldn't be any surprise that players intuitively feel the high end Ams shouldn't be there because stats actually show they shouldn't be.

Event referenced (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=629938&page=2&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=93&fpart=1)

And we are able to meet the criteria, but not willing to compromise the rest of the event.

It is what it is. Instead of just "wink-wink" accepting the NT agreement, we openly and honestly withdrew from the Tour.

Whether TX or any other NT stayed in or withdrew doesn't matter for the sake of the point I was making which is we can't yet get TDs/clubs for elite events to agree on standards that all feel comfortable meeting. It's no slam on any player in this NT process, just what it is for now.

Whether TX or any other NT stayed in or withdrew doesn't matter for the sake of the point I was making which is we can't yet get TDs/clubs for elite events to agree on standards that all feel comfortable meeting. It's no slam on any player in this NT process, just what it is for now.



I agree Chuck. But for the sake of consistency, I'd rather the specific event be talked about openly.

Save the veiled secret stuff for things like calling out cheaters and BoD meetings. :)

I've always been curious what motivations are behind the notion that a 50 point ratings range is how divisions should be broken up. One reason I'm curious, is because based on my experience and observations - that is not a condition that exists in our competitive environment now!!

I took a sample of all the A/NT events in the first 4 months of 2006, and looked at some very basic statistics.
1) Avg # players in Open/Masters/Advanced. There were 11 events in that time period offering data for pro divisions, and 7 for Ams.
2) High/Low individual ratings for players entering those divisions.
3) Overall range of ratings in each division (intended to identify peoples tolerance/willingness to pay to play against higher rated players.

Here is what I found. With everyone participating given the CHOICE to compete wherever they want - the stats seem to show that divisional ratings ranges far exceed the 50 points advocated by our ratings guru CK.
1) Avg# Open players: 46, high 98, low 24
Avg low rating 912, Avg High Rating 1037 125 POINTS
Avg # Masters: 26.5, high 62, low 14
Avg low rating 896, Avg High rating 1019 123 POINTS
Avg # Advanced: 92.85, high 284, low 27
Avg Low Rating 858, Avg high Rating 983 135 POINTS

So I guess I have lots of questions for you Chuck :) Is your "appropriate" 50 point range intended to take the most competitive portion of any one division (the cashing portion if you wish) and separate them into their own unique division? That's how it appears.
If the notion of "free will, and freedom of choice" are paramount to how divisions are set up for sanctioned competition - why is it that existing patterns of participation have basically been ignored when quantifying and breaking up players into skill groups?? Shouldn't existing patterns of participation be one of our guides in determining how people will participate under a new divisional system? If not - why not?

From a common sense standpoint - I just don't understand the logic. Perhaps you could elaborate on the thinking behind your numbers - and how (if at all) they relate to the existing competitive environment and the statistics they provide.

- Pros under age 40 who wish to play for cash must play Open regardless of their rating.
- Masters in Pro or Advanced choose to play based on age regardless of their rating.
- Advanced players currently have no choice but to play in a division with no ratings cap.

Those who play in Intermediate and Rec are our only divisions where grouping by skill is the specific intention. Thus, selecting a rating range that was fair was the purpose of the model. And, if you recall, we did have ratings events at one time so those stats models were relevant for the ratings events. In addition, the option for Pros playing in Am division has specific fair criteria for the maximum rating a pro sliding over to Am can have. We've protected Advanced players from pros over 954 from sliding over and "poaching". And yet, for some reason people are resisting protecting the lower advanced players from their own higher rated Ams in a division that was set up specifically so they could play with those in their skill level.

Whether TX or any other NT stayed in or withdrew doesn't matter for the sake of the point I was making which is we can't yet get TDs/clubs for elite events to agree on standards that all feel comfortable meeting. It's no slam on any player in this NT process, just what it is for now.



I agree Chuck. But for the sake of consistency, I'd rather the specific event be talked about openly.

Save the veiled secret stuff for things like calling out cheaters and BoD meetings. :)



Hear Hear!




btw, i'm all for total standardization of NT events, for the reasons you mentioned. i dont have a real opinion about A tiers. for B-X tiers, as long as the Rules of Play are followed, there's no such thing as a bad idea, imo.



I'm not sure I agree with this position. An argument can be made that the reason two of the top events in the country, SN and MSDGC, are not PDGA events is because of over-standardization.

Perhaps Jason's argument that the NT structure should be a guideline that allows the TD more freedom isn't such a bad idea after all...

I've always been curious what motivations are behind the notion that a 50 point ratings range is how divisions should be broken up. One reason I'm curious, is because based on my experience and observations - that is not a condition that exists in our competitive environment now!!

I took a sample of all the A/NT events in the first 4 months of 2006, and looked at some very basic statistics.
1) Avg # players in Open/Masters/Advanced. There were 11 events in that time period offering data for pro divisions, and 7 for Ams.
2) High/Low individual ratings for players entering those divisions.
3) Overall range of ratings in each division (intended to identify peoples tolerance/willingness to pay to play against higher rated players.

Here is what I found. With everyone participating given the CHOICE to compete wherever they want - the stats seem to show that divisional ratings ranges far exceed the 50 points advocated by our ratings guru CK.
1) Avg# Open players: 46, high 98, low 24
Avg low rating 912, Avg High Rating 1037 125 POINTS
Avg # Masters: 26.5, high 62, low 14
Avg low rating 896, Avg High rating 1019 123 POINTS
Avg # Advanced: 92.85, high 284, low 27
Avg Low Rating 858, Avg high Rating 983 135 POINTS

So I guess I have lots of questions for you Chuck :) Is your "appropriate" 50 point range intended to take the most competitive portion of any one division (the cashing portion if you wish) and separate them into their own unique division? That's how it appears.
If the notion of "free will, and freedom of choice" are paramount to how divisions are set up for sanctioned competition - why is it that existing patterns of participation have basically been ignored when quantifying and breaking up players into skill groups?? Shouldn't existing patterns of participation be one of our guides in determining how people will participate under a new divisional system? If not - why not?

From a common sense standpoint - I just don't understand the logic. Perhaps you could elaborate on the thinking behind your numbers - and how (if at all) they relate to the existing competitive environment and the statistics they provide.



Couldn't it be said that the distribution of players is biased by what is available? If the current structure is flawed then using current patterns of participation might not provide useful information.
I would think one item to look at, one which is often mentioned, is the players who have checked out and why they did so.

We're back to the question, what is the goal? Are we here to uphold a set of standards, or are we here to grow the sport? The two might not be as compatible as common sense might suggest.

I agree with Terry. :)

I also find it very disturbing that scoot_er milked the am division as long as he did, only to become such a righteous opposer of it and Champion of True Amateurism(tm) now that he plays pro and wants all those am entry fee dollars in his pro payout. :mad:



Milked the AM division? I played AM long enough to go to Am worlds and I believe that I played 5 pro events during that time as well. I would have payed to play AM for a trophy only if it was available buit since it wasn't I payed the normal fee and took home a lot of freaken merch. I sold the merch to pay for my travel expenses and I think that is WRONG but who would say no to cash? I mean in reality it was cash.

I agree with Terry. :)

I also find it very disturbing that scoot_er milked the am division as long as he did, only to become such a righteous opposer of it and Champion of True Amateurism(tm) now that he plays pro and wants all those am entry fee dollars in his pro payout. :mad:



I'm still looking for those Ams in this area that do sell off their plastic. The only ones I know of were the TDs of the local series who just let their winnings stay in their inventory. :)

Them, and Matt during the summers. :o

(And as we know, Matt never milked the system to his advantage...) (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=3321&year=2006&include_ratings=1#Novice)



C'mon man I was 13 and could only throw 320'. I shot some of my best rounds and at that time I was rated in REC.

I'm still looking for those Ams in this area that do sell off their plastic. The only ones I know of were the TDs of the local series who just let their winnings stay in their inventory. :)

Them, and Matt during the summers. :o

(And as we know, Matt never milked the system to his advantage...) (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=3321&year=2006&include_ratings=1#Novice)



Holy cow! In reviewing the top 72 highest rated MA1's (968+) to see how big a problem bagging was I never saw anything even close to something like 1813x's history.

But frankly, it doesn't really bother me since he was a junior in 2004 and played Am Worlds in 2005 and some local series championships as an Am after that. He has been playing Pro since then (and some before then too). His rating only got Pro-ish mid 2005.

His "bagging" appears to be more a "fault" of the cost structure and cashing constraints of the PDGA than anything else. Now if he had played Am in 2006 to take a 2nd crack at becoming Am World Champion, then......



BTW I didn't play AM after 05 worlds. Check my stats again

His "bagging" appears to be more a "fault" of the cost structure and cashing constraints of the PDGA than anything else. Now if he had played Am in 2006 to take a 2nd crack at becoming Am World Champion, then......


I don't know. Out here in the West, the Junior Champ and 2nd Place finisher went straight to pro instead of knocking out 10 straight wins in Advanced afterwards!



Hey Rhett it was 11 :p

I agree Chuck. But for the sake of consistency, I'd rather the specific event be talked about openly.
Save the veiled secret stuff for things like calling out cheaters and BoD meetings.



It wasn't my place to discuss details and this isn't the thread to discuss it if anyone cares. It's a side show to the topic of this thread. Again, the point for this thread is an NT dropped out based on disagreeing with the proposed guidelines and others struggle to agree with several of the ones proposed in the original NT vision.

- Pros under age 40 who wish to play for cash must play Open regardless of their rating.
- Masters in Pro or Advanced choose to play based on age regardless of their rating.
- Advanced players currently have no choice but to play in a division with no ratings cap.



Not sure what you're saying CK, these are choices people get to make (or not make - I wouldn't call the Advanced option "no choice") - are you saying these are the things that are trying to be preserved when addressing divisional issues? If so - that would preclude much of anything happening wouldn't it?


Those who play in Intermediate and Rec are our only divisions where grouping by skill is the specific intention.


OK so the whole ratings effort has basically yielded us enough info to make us comfortable saying to the newest and lowest rated players: "We'll give you small enough ratings ranges to compete in to make you comfortable enough to keep coming back".

Seems like a pretty limited application of what is arguably the most objective system we've yet had to determine skill level.


Thus, selecting a rating range that was fair was the purpose of the model. And, if you recall, we did have ratings events at one time so those stats models were relevant for the ratings events.


How many total rb events were there that supplied us with usable statistics?

In addition, the option for Pros playing in Am division has specific fair criteria for the maximum rating a pro sliding over to Am can have. We've protected Advanced players from pros over 954 from sliding over and "poaching". And yet, for some reason people are resisting protecting the lower advanced players from their own higher rated Ams in a division that was set up specifically so they could play with those in their skill level.



Blah Blah Blah - If we're gonna talk about dividing players, lets start to work away from the stigma laced labels of Am and Pro. This whole sliding back and forth business is a bandaid that's been dropped in the dirt - it does no-one any good and highlights the infectious inequities in the system.

So bottom line - whether by your doing, or the PDGA's doing, the rating system has been denied a place in determining a complete divisional structure for sanctioned competition. Correct? And the reasons are basically the fear of alienating those wishing to promote the entitlements inherent in the status quo. (Like the TX States folks who would rather reward top Masters players by giving them more added cash).

I understand that folks will be resistant - I applaud the NT committee for sticking to their guns in this instance. Whether all their standards are reasonable or not - the PRINCIPLE of having certain standards for our various levels of event sanctioning is sound - and shows at least a willingness to try and LEAD!! I only wish the organization as a whole would adopt this approach in a more wholistic fashion.

All Chuck is talking about is very simple:

Currently a 960, 970 rated amateur can go pro or he can have an easy time of it competing against a large field of lesser skilled players.

Under Chuck's proposal, that guy can go pro, or he can compete against a smaller field of similarly skilled players, at some tournaments.

Y'all can throw out as many diversions and red herrings as you want, but it comes down to a couple of simple questions: Should we have a competitive format where similarly skilled players compete against each other? The PDGA answer to that question has always been "Yes." Do we have that now in Advanced where 970 and 980 rated players are competing against 920 rated players? The stats say, "No."

Couldn't it be said that the distribution of players is biased by what is available?

If a group of people willingly participates, and the skill range is "X" to "Y" how is it biased?


If the current structure is flawed then using current patterns of participation might not provide useful information.

That's a pretty general statement :) It might not, but it seems just as likely that it will, and does. There are many statistics and patterns that can be garnered from our event results that should be relevant to ANY discussion of changing our divisional system.


I would think one item to look at, one which is often mentioned, is the players who have checked out and why they did so.


Get back to us when you're done tracking down 20000 folks who now have another hobby. While DG may be a lifestyle for
a few hundred or even a few thousand, I would bet the majority of PDGA #'s issued were to those who simply ebbed and flowed through the experience and didn't make it a lifestyle.

We're back to the question, what is the goal? Are we here to uphold a set of standards, or are we here to grow the sport? The two might not be as compatible as common sense might suggest.



Agreed - the goal. The Mission Statement - promotion of competitive events, public exposure, development of rules & standards for play. Those are the basics right? Do they need to be re-prioritized? Certain facets have definitely improved - the # of courses has at least tripled since I started playing (maybe quadrupled!), so exposure is on the upswing. But competition has been fractured, split up into so many groups, it's just silly. Which is why the topic of this thread - adding a new "Expert" division is so inappropriate.

Not sure what you're saying CK, these are choices people get to make (or not make - I wouldn't call the Advanced option "no choice") - are you saying these are the things that are trying to be preserved when addressing divisional issues?



You asked why the ratings spread is wider than 50 points in those divisions and I gave the reasons. Advanced players have no choice if they're under 40 and have a rating of at least 915. A 915 Advanced player is forced to play against players up to 1000 rating in Advanced because it hasn't been capped for some reason for Ams, just Pros sliding over.

If a player is choosing a division based on age or gender, their choice has little to do with ratings so the actual spread you see in events doesn't mean anything from the standpoint of fairness.

If you have division choices available as an option for players based on ratings, then having fair ranges is the most important criteria for setting those division ranges. Either you do it right, so it's fair, or not at all. Even though ratings ranges are primarily for providing fair ranges for Am men, the fact that they are there has also provided a fair competition alternative if a player's first choice division is too small or unavailable.

In other words, let's say a player's first choice is to play in GM against players of their age, even if they might be giving up 80-100 rating points to other players. If only one or no GM players show up, they at least can play in a division based on fair ratings ranges against players and gender they wouldn't have chosen as a first choice. In essence, "If I can't play with my peeps, at least make my second choice fair."

What baffles me is why adding the additional rating break for Expert seems so contentious. As Bruce points out, we should also add a break for another division below Rec since that's where new players are coming from in some markets with big rec divisions. If we're going to have ratings divisions for Ams, then do it right. Otherwise, scrap ratings completely.

Couldn't it be said that the distribution of players is biased by what is available?

If a group of people willingly participates, and the skill range is "X" to "Y" how is it biased?

<font color="red">You're assuming that everyone willingly participates. It is possible that people want a different structure and are accepting what is available. We also know that a lot of players have dropped out of the sport because they felt they were being taken in Open. Yes, some are playing there but assuming that they are all happy might be a mistake. </font>


If the current structure is flawed then using current patterns of participation might not provide useful information.

That's a pretty general statement :) It might not, but it seems just as likely that it will, and does. There are many statistics and patterns that can be garnered from our event results that should be relevant to ANY discussion of changing our divisional system.

<font color="red"> I agree, but we need to assess the value of that based on the knowledge that there is a problem (those who've stated clearly that they've left the sport due to being "trapped" in the Open pool). </font>


I would think one item to look at, one which is often mentioned, is the players who have checked out and why they did so.


Get back to us when you're done tracking down 20000 folks who now have another hobby. While DG may be a lifestyle for
a few hundred or even a few thousand, I would bet the majority of PDGA #'s issued were to those who simply ebbed and flowed through the experience and didn't make it a lifestyle.

<font color="red">You have a very good point, but some of those 20,000 have stated clearly that there is an issue. I know several Pros rated in the 930 area that dropped out due to their inability to compete. I admit that there have been some options opened to them that they've not taken. </font>

We're back to the question, what is the goal? Are we here to uphold a set of standards, or are we here to grow the sport? The two might not be as compatible as common sense might suggest.



Agreed - the goal. The Mission Statement - promotion of competitive events, public exposure, development of rules & standards for play. Those are the basics right? Do they need to be re-prioritized? Certain facets have definitely improved - the # of courses has at least tripled since I started playing (maybe quadrupled!), so exposure is on the upswing. But competition has been fractured, split up into so many groups, it's just silly. Which is why the topic of this thread - adding a new "Expert" division is so inappropriate.



<font color="red">I can't argue that, mainly because I agree with you. </font>

Below 825 = "Newbie" Division (AM4)

Above 955 = "Bagger" Division (AM0)

/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

My question is what is the process to get this done? Proposal to and approval by competition committee, BoD?
I'm curious how such a significant change to the structure would be approved and enacted. Can we put it to a membership vote on the next ballot?

It seems as if this is the inevitable future of our current competitive system. It seems more likely than a new structure springing forth any time soon, eh.

BTW Craig, if you were in control, what structure would you put in place? There is a simple option that is logical. Ratings based. You could even add an age rider :D to it, but you wouldn't need to... yet.

I often wonder if the only reason why we haven't converted over is because no one with a strong enough personality has pushed it?

My question is what is the process to get this done? Proposal to and approval by competition committee, BoD? I'm curious how such a significant change to the structure would be approved and enacted.



Competition Committee is where it starts. This year, we're more on top of getting proposals reviewed in the spring so that ideas in the pipeline can be commented on by TDs and players during summer and finally tweaked or approved for the next year by the Board at the Fall Summit in late September.

The Competition Committee members are having an exchange on the Expert topic right now and there are several other proposals to be discussed prior to their presentation at the Spring Summit just before the IDGC Grand Opening and HOF NT in late April.

Yes if it was "Craig's Disc Golf World", I would advocate for skill based divisions. From my perspective - and from watching groups of players in 20 years worth of tournaments - 3 mens groups would basically cover all but novice players.
I would also advocate for sliding entry fees based on skill.
I would advocate for mandatory membership prizes at sanctioned events
I would advocate for bonus recognition prizes for aged base participants instead of separate competitive divisions.
I would advocate for course quality/difficulty standards for elite events.

Ahh but alas, while very opinionated, Craig's Disc Golf World exists only in my head, and I don't have much passion for bashing my head against the brick wall that is the status quo.

Instead I lead by example (wherever I can) I'm 42 and won't play Master, I run alternative format events, I run standard events, I participate in my local clubs, I work on the course. I do what I can do here in my backyard. Some of what I do rubs off - some doesn't - sort of just how it is.

I think the real reason we have failed to adopt a skill based divisional structure is fear of alienating the entitled. Of course the entitled are well represented in the organization, so it's not surprising. It seems that the PDGA has had a history of having few visionaries actually on the board together at the same time. There have been many great personalities that have graced us with their time and efforts, but there have also been those that have sought to serve their own interests above the collective.

In Bruce's World we only have skill based divisions that get paid in merch. My last two tournaments used that format and so will my next one. I'm hoping my next one will be sanctioned.

I would also advocate for sliding entry fees based on skill.


Done. It may not be Craig's way, but the concept is essentially in place. We do it by having lower entry fees stepping down from Adv > Int > Rec in both men's and women's tracks and usually Open > Master > GM whether Am or Pro. And within age levels usually men's entry fees are higher than women's.



I would advocate for mandatory membership prizes at sanctioned events


I've been trying to get the economics worked out so this could happen. But the PDGA loses money net if memberships were discounted to TDs at the same percentage that TDs can offer discs or other merchandise as prizes. There are some other angles though.



I would advocate for bonus recognition prizes for aged base participants instead of separate competitive divisions.


Can be done by any TD now.



I would advocate for course quality/difficulty standards for elite events.



Has been done for Worlds since 2002 and now other majors by outside reviewers. Even Harold gets feedback regarding new tweaks at USDGC. I should be heading to Ohio this spring for prelim review of the sites for the 2010 Am Worlds. I believe that few or no course SSAs at NT & A-tiers have been under the 49 guideline for a few years now which is at least a start.

I believe that few or no course SSAs at NT & A-tiers have been under the 49 guideline for a few years now which is at least a start.



The first round of the Skylands Classic NT was under two years ago but the short Silver-Silver layout was abandoned for last year's event. Blame it all on Jay Reading who torched the course with a 40. :eek: ;) :D

being masters age, i am currently playing in an age protected division because it is offered. i would gladly play in a ratings based division if that was what was offered, and i think it is where pdga events should be going. unfortunately many of the movers and shakers play masters and have a set whine about how they only go to events to play with their old guy buddies and aren't interested in playing with the younger guys or whatever. doens't really make sense to me though, since if your buddies are equivalent in skill they WILL BE IN THE SAME DIVISION ANYWAY!!!!

I agree with craig there should only be 4 divisions. the idea we are in any way true amatuers should be thrown out and we need to move to being just the professional disc golf association. 4 divisons based only on ratings for men. ( another 4 for women?) cash to the top 2 divisions and prizes to the last 2. it doesn't get simpler than that. and everyone would have a chance to still compete with their peers. and would be welcome to play up if their friends were higher than them.

I would also advocate for sliding entry fees based on skill.


Done. It may not be Craig's way, but the concept is essentially in place. We do it by having lower entry fees stepping down from Adv > Int > Rec in both men's and women's tracks and usually Open > Master > GM whether Am or Pro. And within age levels usually men's entry fees are higher than women's.



Not done at all. Sliding entry fee in Craig's World would be within a division, not because of them.



I would advocate for mandatory membership prizes at sanctioned events



I've been trying to get the economics worked out so this could happen. But the PDGA loses money net if memberships were discounted to TDs at the same percentage that TDs can offer discs or other merchandise as prizes. There are some other angles though.


Nothing needs to be worked out, TD's don't have to discount it, just take the money from the prize pool and give away a membership - pretty simple really. If the TD is a PDGA advocate by sanctioning in the first place - is one memberships worth of $$ out of their prize pool going to affect their profit margin?



I would advocate for bonus recognition prizes for aged base participants instead of separate competitive divisions.



Can be done by any TD now.


Choices are great, standards to live by are better.



I would advocate for course quality/difficulty standards for elite events.



Has been done for Worlds since 2002 and now other majors by outside reviewers. Even Harold gets feedback regarding new tweaks at USDGC. I should be heading to Ohio this spring for prelim review of the sites for the 2010 Am Worlds. I believe that few or no course SSAs at NT & A-tiers have been under the 49 guideline for a few years now which is at least a start.

[/QUOTE]
That's great for Worlds - I'm talking about difficulty standards tied to all sanctioning levels.

Sorry to go off topic here -




I would advocate for mandatory membership prizes at sanctioned events






I've been trying to get the economics worked out so this could happen. But the PDGA loses money net if memberships were discounted to TDs at the same percentage that TDs can offer discs or other merchandise as prizes. There are some other angles though.



If your club is an affiliate club you can already purchase a PDGA membership for a $5.00 discount.



Perhaps the PDGA could offer TD's $5.00 off the Am membership price - when memberships are awarded as prizes. Then, as an affiliate club, I can offer memberships as prizes with a full 20% discount. This will help bring the discount a little closer to disc and merchandise markups.


Anyone who receives a PDGA membership as a prize will surely recognize that it is worth $50.00 even if it only costs the TD $40.00.

Can be done by any TD now.


Choices are great, standards to live by are better.



I would advocate for course quality/difficulty standards for elite events.



Has been done for Worlds since 2002 and now other majors by outside reviewers. Even Harold gets feedback regarding new tweaks at USDGC. I should be heading to Ohio this spring for prelim review of the sites for the 2010 Am Worlds. I believe that few or no course SSAs at NT & A-tiers have been under the 49 guideline for a few years now which is at least a start.

[/QUOTE]
That's great for Worlds - I'm talking about difficulty standards tied to all sanctioning levels.

[/QUOTE]

i disagree. td freedom is where its at. dictate too much to me and i will simply take my ball and go home (so to speak)

i also disagree on difficulty standards. just because a course has a higher ssa doesn't make it better neccesarily. quantifying what courses should be able to host what tier events is way down the list of what to do IMO. if a course is so bad, don't go.

Don't read too much into it John, I'm not an advocate of total control - just some. For instance - for the places you have run events - Hawk Hollow and the Grange are more deserving of A Tier sanctioning than say - Dorrey Park.

Personally - I've been a big fan of ways to make places like Dorrey (Where I shot -14 the first time I played it) and other courses like it that generally fall into the "older course" category, but sometimes just into the "pitch and putt" category - viable for events. One idea was to make the easier SSA course only able to sanction events that constrict disc type to increase difficulty (could be 150class, vintage class, retro class, etc) - sort of my way to promote a wider variety of disc skills.

I understand the notion of not wanting to be told what to do. But if we are a "sanctioning body" then we should have standards for what we sanction. If TD's or DG communities choose not to find value in what is being sanctioned - they are free to not associate with the PDGA - I see no harm in that. But to say that we are a sanctioning body and you can have our endorsement and do anything you want - seems to promote anarchy instead of organization. We ought to be able to strike a balance I would think.

i also disagree on difficulty standards. just because a course has a higher ssa doesn't make it better neccesarily. quantifying what courses should be able to host what tier events is way down the list of what to do IMO. if a course is so bad, don't go.


Or....if a course is so bad - don't sanction competition there.

Yes if it was "Craig's Disc Golf World", I would advocate for skill based divisions. From my perspective - and from watching groups of players in 20 years worth of tournaments - 3 mens groups would basically cover all but novice players.
I would also advocate for sliding entry fees based on skill.
I would advocate for mandatory membership prizes at sanctioned events
I would advocate for bonus recognition prizes for aged base participants instead of separate competitive divisions.
I would advocate for course quality/difficulty standards for elite events.

Ahh but alas, while very opinionated, Craig's Disc Golf World exists only in my head, and I don't have much passion for bashing my head against the brick wall that is the status quo.

Instead I lead by example (wherever I can) I'm 42 and won't play Master, I run alternative format events, I run standard events, I participate in my local clubs, I work on the course. I do what I can do here in my backyard. Some of what I do rubs off - some doesn't - sort of just how it is.

I think the real reason we have failed to adopt a skill based divisional structure is fear of alienating the entitled. Of course the entitled are well represented in the organization, so it's not surprising. It seems that the PDGA has had a history of having few visionaries actually on the board together at the same time. There have been many great personalities that have graced us with their time and efforts, but there have also been those that have sought to serve their own interests above the collective.



I agree, maybe not with every detail, but the general principal.

One possibility might be to make your top division cash, and your second division merch, I'm not advocating, but some think that merch gravy-train is important.

I've never understood the entitled thing. If you're a big fish in a small pond, it's still a small pond. Conversely, if you're in a ratings based division, you know everyone there is there because they are similar to you in skill. On any given weekend, the most dedicated and focused should win.

i also disagree on difficulty standards. just because a course has a higher ssa doesn't make it better neccesarily. quantifying what courses should be able to host what tier events is way down the list of what to do IMO. if a course is so bad, don't go.


Or....if a course is so bad - don't sanction competition there.



I suspect this happens by default. Nobody would ever propose having a major at Moffitt, the most popular venue in Houston. Everyone agrees, the top event in Houston should be at Tom Bass, one of the least popular venues in Houston (it's too big for casual play).

The reality is that people with enough gumption to hold a major, have enough gumption to make sure the course is a "decent" one.

also disagree on difficulty standards. just because a course has a higher ssa doesn't make it better neccesarily. quantifying what courses should be able to host what tier events is way down the list of what to do IMO. if a course is so bad, don't go.



I'm not sure it's a sanctioning level thing as much as which divisions play what courses or layouts that are appropriate for their skill level. For BG Ams, they play the tougher, longer courses for Advanced and the shorter ones for Intermediate.

lyle, i agree that most are unaware of other possible arrangements for disc golf competitions and accept the way it is without much thought.

i'm not so sure about the being "taken" in open part however. while this may be true for some, i've always felt the trouble isn't losing to better players, but not getting acknowledged for beating say 90% of the competing "humans" that showed up for the event. there's a difference there.

i would also add side bets to craig's world as a viable option. oh yeah, and get rid of the pro and am labels already, they're useless.

i've always felt the trouble isn't losing to better players, but not getting acknowledged for beating say 90% of the competing "humans" that showed up for the event. there's a difference there.




I'd guess the Raiders and Browns feel just the same way...

(oh wait, they still make millions of dollars)

i'm not so sure about the being "taken" in open part however. while this may be true for some, i've always felt the trouble isn't losing to better players, but not getting acknowledged for beating say 90% of the competing "humans" that showed up for the event. there's a difference there.

There's probably as much or more of this kind of disenfranchisement (is that a word?) as any other.


i would also add side bets to craig's world as a viable option. oh yeah, and get rid of the pro and am labels already, they're useless.



This is similar to an entry fee format I used going back to the early 90's - it was called the "super pro" pot - and was essentially a second level of optional entry fee for those willing to play for a little "higher stakes". It was generally held at a lower entry fee type 1 day event where base entry fee was $20-$30 bucks - add $10 or $15 for the "super pro" option. While I mimicked whatever PDGA divisions there were at the time, I could see how this kind of tiered entry fee system could work to make grouping larger ratings ranges together more palatable to the pocketbook of the up and comer.
It would also address the issue someone had with my sliding entry fee scale - who felt his higher rating would be punished by higher fees. Of course I just looked at it as the 1000 rated player paying the base rate, and declining ratings get discounts - but whatever /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

The way the pot worked was like this. Player A enters just the standard fee, while player B enters both. Player A wins the tournament but is only paid the first place portion of the base entry fees for their division. Player B gets second place, but gets the first place portion of the "super pro" pot, and second place from the base fee.
This format was very well received, and most who experienced it appreciated the option to compete for less.

You see - I've been trying this stuff for years - mostly at local events, in hopes of infecting my local DG community with progressive ideas of their own. The bottom line is that the PDGA has an enormous pull on organized events. Whatever standards they apply to their sanctioning agreement are pretty much the standards people run their unsanctioned events by (not all I understand). When newbies step up and run events - where do they turn? Most I would say turn to the example of the best run events in their area which are what? Usually PDGA sanctioned events (probably not my once a year local event). So whatever standards we set - people WILL follow. Would I expect ANY change substantial or not)to be followed without dissent? Well duh - no. But by not imposing divisional requirements across the board, we give no guidance, and we promote inequity as the basis for our competitive outline. How can this be good for us as a sport?

Ratings were created in late 1998 but not used in the core competition system until 2003. That took a lot of extra work on the part of very few people to try ratings events with various options including the famous Ferrite division (need to remind Stancil of that term). Even after five years, it only got applied in some parts of our Am system that are still there today (and not completed). Sorry, but you have to bust it with demonstrations that show that new ideas work and players are willing to play that format. If not, it dies. It's not the PDGA that decides as much as it is the players who choose what elements become institutionalized. Even when institutionalized, they usually become options not dictates.

Sorry, but you have to bust it with demonstrations that show that new ideas work and players are willing to play that format. If not, it dies. It's not the PDGA that decides as much as it is the players who choose what elements become institutionalized. Even when institutionalized, they usually become options not dictates.



When it was offered as "an option" how many TD's tried it? I asked this ?? before - how many rb events were there to provide us w/ statistics? If they started in '03 were there 10 a year - more? less? Is that 1%? 5% of all sanctioned events? ( if that)

If people don't choose the option because that's all it is - and they might actually have to change what they do, answer questions, explain a new system - why would they? The "least effort theory" is alive and strong in TD world!! If the sanctioning body just said - this is how we're gonna do it - try it for a year - and here are your choices for how to sanction your event (check box a, b, or c) then maybe there would be enough ACTUAL event data to prove or disprove the value of ratings, to show us where the right divisional breaks are. But again - the "freedom of choice" mandate we operate under does nothing but promote the status quo. Only a very few progressive TD's push the rb angle - and with no organization pushing behind them, they go nowhere BIG SURPRISE!! :p

With a payroll to meet, the PDGA has too many financial obligations to risk an experiment to dictate something that people may not want, may not work or they haven't even asked for. What if it takes three years to recover? Someone have deep pockets out there to keep the national org afloat? Why is Craig's World any better than Kevin's World, Bruce's World or Chuck's World? The very fact that your approach is 'take it or leave it' means that it's not a format that players naturally find enjoyable. There might be an opening soon on an island near Florida for someone to impose their ideas on those residents.

A good example of a poor format is Best Shot doubles compared to several other formats. However, unless you force it such as World or National Doubles, people do not naturally select the better formats unless they are bored. Do we want to force formats on members because it's good for them like castor oil?

The PDGA never gave these other formats such as ratings-based events and the Pro 2 option a chance. From what I saw, they were unveiled with little support from above, and tournament directors were never fully educated about them or urged to choose to run them. The Pro 2 option was yanked almost as fast as it appeared.

I'm far from convinced that an Expert division is the right thing, but if it is piloted, will it at least be given a chance to succeed?

Chuck has a very valid point and this is where this discussion always ends up. The reality is that no organization (except one with a certain bravado) is going to "experiment" with their revenue stream.

However, there are a couple of things to consider. The first is MSDGC which does not use the standard format and does quite well. The second is that the basic assumption is that this change will cause everyone to... quit. I find this highly unlikely. In the past several years a number of changes have occurred, and none of them have met with an "I quit" response. I admit none of them are as significant as this, but I suspect the fear is exactly that, fear. We don't play because we are dying for the current tournament structure, we play because we either love disc golf, or we're competitive buggers who have chosen this sport in which to flex our muscles.

FDR "We have nothing to fear but fear itself."

Something to think about is that the only real financial danger comes at renewal time (and at TD signup time). A change like this could be rolled out just after the annual renewal period, this would give the membership an entire year to get used to it before the next cycle. Furthermore, to get TD buy-in you could roll back TD fees and player fees for that year. Yes it would be a tough year for the PDGA, but the greater long term benefit would be huge.

Think of it this way, every year of growth makes it that much harder to change. If we aren't careful, we will end up entrenched in a system we know is flawed for a long long time. Every year small changes will be tried, none of which will work. Sort of like sending an additional 20,000 troops to Iraq... We should really change now, before it is too late.

Last, what is better? I'm not thinking, like Craig, about what is best for the sport. I'm in your park Chuck, people will always migrate to what they like. However, a simplified format will be easier to understand, easier for TDs to manage and make money at, and in the long run, funner for players overall. That is a powerful attractant.

Last points, When I first began playing competitively 6 years ago, I didn't go in and say, hey, sign me up in MM1. I went to the TD and went "Duh, where do I play?" I still don't know half the codes we use to designate different divisions. I suspect I'm not alone. Finally, the local leagues in Houston all run on a ratings system. Those leagues do quite well. The system is used because it's easy to manage. I've yet to hear a single player complain that we don't have that cool PDGA structure...

BTW - one of you guys with more brains that I have should start a survey, Would you quit if they changed the structure to. I think such surveys in the context of the MB are flawed, sort of like looking at what current players like in a flawed system... :D, but might give an indication of the way the wind blows.

If the question is worded carefully you might even get some useful info.

"If the PDGA changed it's competition structure from the current format to one with 4 ratings based divisions, would you, drop your PDGA membership, play fewer tournaments, play more tournaments, mug Craig etc."

There are a number of important questions that could go into such a survey that could really tell you if Chuck's or anyone else's fears are justified.

It's pretty easy to test. All a TD needs to do is offer only Open, Advanced, Intermediate, Rec, Women Int and Rec and see how many are interested. Women above 800 would have to play in a men's division as would players older than 39. That's our current pseudo ratings event available now. Although it would be better with Epxert included.

BTW - one of you guys with more brains that I have should start a survey, Would you quit if they changed the structure to...


There were a noticeable number of masters players that quit playing PDGA tourneys for up to 5 years when the age was raised from 35 to 40.

Not all, not most, not even a large percentage. But some did.

Think of it this way, every year of growth makes it that much harder to change. If we aren't careful, we will end up entrenched in a system we know is flawed for a long long time. Every year small changes will be tried, none of which will work.



I fear it's already too late. I think Masters have already grown so accustomed to playing with their own age group that they would never accept anything else.

Rhett, given that your tournaments fill anyway, why do you offer overlapping age and gender divisions?

I figured Byron Big D Doubles would fill so I just offered four divisions. No gender or age based divisions, just four ratings based divisions. I didn't think Byron Small D Ice Bowl Doubles would fill, so I didn't see any reason to break up the field by offering overlapping divisions. Either way, I went with four ratings based divisions.

My thought is, "Why ever bother with a bunch of overlapping divisions for the fussy people who demand them? Doesn't that just attract fussy people to your tournament?"

Well it's good to see that I am not totally alone in thinking there are problems with the existing divisional system.

Chuck - you're stuck man. You won't budge, won't even consider any but your own ideas (or so it seems). You won't even acknowledge that any changes need to be FULLY supported and backed by the PDGA. I find this ironic as you do your behind the scenes lobbying to add YET ANOTHER division to the mix.

I think the masters guys talk a big game, but most would still play no matter if they had to play a ratings based division. you may lose a few, but you have to start somewhere. i will have to agree with craig that divisions not based on skill are ridiculous. why do 970+ rated players need a protected division?

I think the masters guys talk a big game, but most would still play no matter if they had to play a ratings based division. you may lose a few, but you have to start somewhere. i will have to agree with craig that divisions not based on skill are ridiculous. why do 970+ rated players need a protected division?



I agree, in reality, I find that the local Masters tend to move around to the divisions that best support their goals. Some play down to IM when they want points, and some play up when the competition supports their winning cash. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying, the Masters have it sweet and they're using it for all it's worth. BTW - this fits exactly what Chuck always says, people take care of themselves, but this should surprise no one.

Think of it this way, every year of growth makes it that much harder to change. If we aren't careful, we will end up entrenched in a system we know is flawed for a long long time. Every year small changes will be tried, none of which will work.



I fear it's already too late. I think Masters have already grown so accustomed to playing with their own age group that they would never accept anything else.



I disagree, it's never too late, it's just a matter of how much work it's going to take and how clean the transition would be.

BTW - one of you guys with more brains that I have should start a survey, Would you quit if they changed the structure to...


There were a noticeable number of masters players that quit playing PDGA tourneys for up to 5 years when the age was raised from 35 to 40.

Not all, not most, not even a large percentage. But some did.



Them Masters, they're too darn smart! You'll notice that you didn't say they quit, they just quit till it was in their "best" interests to play again. The question is, would they really quit if we took away the slick setup they currently have?

Hmmmmmmm.

Well it's good to see that I am not totally alone in thinking there are problems with the existing divisional system.

Chuck - you're stuck man. You won't budge, won't even consider any but your own ideas (or so it seems). You won't even acknowledge that any changes need to be FULLY supported and backed by the PDGA. I find this ironic as you do your behind the scenes lobbying to add YET ANOTHER division to the mix.



O.K. Craig, here's the challenge, it's a two parter. While some might argue this medium is very important, I'd argue it's marginal. I think if you really want to communicate this message we need a wider audience. If you lead a discussion on the format and utilize the advice and input submitted here, then send me the format, I'll write an OP ED piece and submit it to DGWN. Part two, once that is done, we should submit the proposal to the Board to be included in the annual survey that should go out this summer. Are you game?

Here's some data from the last age change transition:

Number of Points records in each year:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Division</td><td>1999</td><td>2000
</td></tr><tr><td>Advanced GrandMaster </td><td>176</td><td>88
</td></tr><tr><td>Advanced Master</td><td>2135</td><td>1473
</td></tr><tr><td>Pro GrandMaster</td><td>809</td><td>298
</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Master</td><td>3606</td><td>2295
</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Sr GrandMaster</td><td>89</td><td>72
</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>6815</td><td>4226
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Total number of different players - 1999: 1733
Total number of different players - 2000: 1121
612 fewer players in 2000 vs. 1999

Players who participated in one or more of the above divisions for 2000, who did not participate in 1999 (new to 2000) 282

894 players who played in an age protected division in 1999 did not play in an age protected division in 2000. Of these 894 players, 465 played in other divisions (Open, Advanced�), while 429 did not play at all.

Here's some data from the last age change transition:

Number of Points records in each year:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Division</td><td>1999</td><td>2000
</td></tr><tr><td>Advanced GrandMaster </td><td>176</td><td>88
</td></tr><tr><td>Advanced Master</td><td>2135</td><td>1473
</td></tr><tr><td>Pro GrandMaster</td><td>809</td><td>298
</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Master</td><td>3606</td><td>2295
</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Sr GrandMaster</td><td>89</td><td>72
</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>6815</td><td>4226
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Total number of different players - 1999: 1733
Total number of different players - 2000: 1121
612 fewer players in 2000 vs. 1999

Players who participated in one or more of the above divisions for 2000, who did not participate in 1999 (new to 2000) 282

894 players who played in an age protected division in 1999 did not play in an age protected division in 2000. Of these 894 players, 465 played in other divisions (Open, Advanced�), while 429 did not play at all.



That's compelling Chuck. Was there a corresponding decrease in membership? Also, where were our Masters in 2001, 2002, 2003 etc. both in terms of participation and membership? Also, did we see other transitions, that is, were there other shifts in play and membership that offset the Masters exodus, that is, did other Advanced players and Pro players feel better about the situation and thus step up more frequently?

One other question Chuck, traditionally, how many of those masters shift around year to year? You'd expect that some would shift with the change, they lost their protected status, but does some of that happen anyway? Also, I'm interested in what happened to the 429 who didn't play, did they quit, or as Rhett suggested, wait for an age change?

BTW - some of your numbers don't make sense to me Chuck. I have a meeting to go to but I'll come back later.

[sarcasm]
Let me respond on TtPC's behalf:




Oh, yeah! You know you're doing good when someone's gotta make up stuff you never said 'cause what you did say was so right! :D

- Just under half (48%) of membership by 2008 will be women and players over age 39
- In 2003, 55% of events had TDs over age 39

It's not too late Jeff, I will not play Masters this year except if I go to Worlds. We do not need an expert division, we need less not more to grow. Why does the NT still have Masters divisions? Just eliminate it and make the best play with the best. :cool:

- In 2003, 55% of events had TDs over age 39


ding ding ding

chuck, i'm somewhat flattered by the nfl comparison...thanks, i think. anyway, in your opinion, what does it take to be loved by the pdga? i'm having trouble finding that love and others don't seem to have this same problem.

why is it that some people are targeted for retainment and others are not? why does the pdga love that 875 rated am but not love me? do i smell? is it my love for competition? thanks.

- Just under half (48%) of membership by 2008 will be women and players over age 39
- In 2003, 55% of events had TDs over age 39



Can I interpret? Are you trying to tell us that any change that gets made has to be acceptable to the protected Masters Class? I'm not sure that's true but even so, 4 divisions, and one Masters Class division is easy enough. BTW, where do those Masters reside, Pro, Pro Masters, or Advanced Masters, just curious?

why is it that some people are targeted for retainment and others are not? why does the pdga love that 875 rated am but not love me? do i smell? is it my love for competition?



The PDGA does put more "love" toward pros and you saw the extra effort they put forth to assist with the great job your team did with Pro Worlds. However, the love you and other pros are lacking needs to come from the population at large that so far doesn't care to pay to watch pros play. The PDGA does what it can to support pros and raise sponsorship. But the 875 player pays their way and doesn't need much more than the PDGA can offer.

Here's some data from the last age change transition:

Number of Points records in each year:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Division</td><td>1999</td><td>2000
</td></tr><tr><td>Advanced GrandMaster </td><td>176</td><td>88
</td></tr><tr><td>Advanced Master</td><td>2135</td><td>1473
</td></tr><tr><td>Pro GrandMaster</td><td>809</td><td>298
</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Master</td><td>3606</td><td>2295
</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Sr GrandMaster</td><td>89</td><td>72
</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>6815</td><td>4226
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Total number of different players - 1999: 1733
Total number of different players - 2000: 1121
612 fewer players in 2000 vs. 1999

Players who participated in one or more of the above divisions for 2000, who did not participate in 1999 (new to 2000) 282

894 players who played in an age protected division in 1999 did not play in an age protected division in 2000. Of these 894 players, 465 played in other divisions (Open, Advanced�), while 429 did not play at all.



O.K., here's the problem I have with your numbers. First, let me say that I'm not sure you're comparing apples to apples. In the 1999 case you took a subset of the Masters out of their protected division and left a big chunk in. In the case we're discussing here, you're treating everyone the same, that is you're removing the class in toto. I don't know how much of a difference that makes but I'm guessing it will.

Question #1, If I read your post correctly, 894 playes moved out of the age protected bracket, and 429 of them quit, so to speak (again, how many dropped their memberships?). However, 282 new age protected guys came in. How many more came in that would have been age protected that weren't? If you add those to 1121 what do you get?

Question #2 Even more so, it would be nice to know what the dynmaics of 1998 and 2001 were? Are these numbers truly significant or do they just look significant in a vaccum? Give us the control so we can actually see what happened.

why is it that some people are targeted for retainment and others are not? why does the pdga love that 875 rated am but not love me? do i smell? is it my love for competition?




The PDGA does put more "love" toward pros and you saw the extra effort they put forth to assist with the great job your team did with Pro Worlds. However, the love you and other pros are lacking needs to come from the population at large that so far doesn't care to pay to watch pros play. The PDGA does what it can to support pros and raise sponsorship. But the 875 player pays their way and doesn't need much more than the PDGA can offer.



To be added to this, the PDGA did a survey 10 years ago (give or take) and in that survey they asked the membership where they should focus. The reply was clear, "focus on growing the Pro aspect of the sport." The PDGA does this despite the fact that the 875 rated player pays his/her own way. Again, that's what they were told to do by the membership.

Question #1, If I read your post correctly, 894 playes moved out of the age protected bracket, and 429 of them quit, so to speak (again, how many dropped their memberships?). However, 282 new age protected guys came in. How many more came in that would have been age protected that weren't? If you add those to 1121 what do you get?

Question #2 Even more so, it would be nice to know what the dynmaics of 1998 and 2001 were? Are these numbers truly significant or do they just look significant in a vaccum? Give us the control so we can actually see what happened.




I didn't do the study. I just found it in my files, possibly from a report provided at a Summit meeting. I don't know any more than what you read. The net result was 612 fewer players in the older age protected divisions the year the 5 year age shift occurred. 892 disappeared from playing and 282 new players entered competition. Net 612 loss. No knowledge whether the ones who stopped playing also didn't join. Worst case scenario would have been a loss of around $25,000 in memberships and $2 fees. Less than 10% of our members don't have a competition round in a year. So, maybe 89 of those 892 lost may have retained their membership.

Thanks Chuck,

Well, that's not great news but still, I'm not sure how bad a change would be.

The question then becomes, is the current structure sufficient? And would the disruptions, whatever they are, be worse than not changing? A hard question to answer, especially given that the answer might not play out for years.

I still think it would be interesting to get a wide input from the membership. I also think we should consider the question, why does this topic come up over and over? And finally, is the only solution to change the structure while kow towing to the most powerful player groups (providing of course that is necessary)?

No one seems to be considering that fewer division might actually bring in people to offset the loss of quitters. Perhaps their are players out there who don't play because it seems silly to be in a division of 5-10 players time after time. Larger divisional fields might encourage more people to take a shot...


I know I can't beat those two guys, but give me a field of 15-20 and I can finish ahead of 10 of those stiffs.
-Discer Z-man in his black Metallica t-shirt & three discs in hand.

I know I can't beat those two guys, but give me a field of 15-20 and I can finish ahead of 10 of those stiffs.
-Discer Z-man in his black Metallica t-shirt & three discs in hand.


If laughter is the best medicine, then you are my doctor. :)

I know I can't beat those two guys, but give me a field of 15-20 and I can finish ahead of 10 of those stiffs.
-Discer Z-man in his black Metallica t-shirt & three discs in hand.


If laughter is the best medicine, then you are my doctor. :)



Thanks Fan.

No one seems to be considering that fewer division might actually bring in people to offset the loss of quitters. Perhaps their are players out there who don't play because it seems silly to be in a division of 5-10 players time after time. Larger divisional fields might encourage more people to take a shot...


I know I can't beat those two guys, but give me a field of 15-20 and I can finish ahead of 10 of those stiffs.
-Discer Z-man in his black Metallica t-shirt & three discs in hand.





I think this is a really important point, no - no, not that Hawk can beat a buch of stiffs, the part about bringing in new players. I do think there will be some of that, we see a lot of guys in Houston who only play league, they hate the competition structure at big events. However, you would have to consider costs. Somewhere, you need a trophy option (and I'm not saying that anyone is against that). Every time I read one of Bruce's posts on his and Jon's events I think, "that guy knows how to build an event." A simple structure where you can play anywhere without losing your shorts will attact a lot of blood.

BTW - I'm not saying that we should only do "Bruce type events," just that they should be part of the picture.

The expert division at the Cracked Plastic would have consisted of five bag -- I mean -- amateurs. Not much incentive to remain amateur for easy prizes if the five are playing Expert, but if they are Am-for-Nationals/Worlds, fine.

At the Z-Boaz there were ten 955+ rated amateurs in for easy pickings. 60 point spread there in Advanced not counting the players who were kidding themselves playing up.

When's the vote?

Whats wrong with making people move up once they hit a certain rating? If you are 975 or above you HAVE to move up...and if you are 950 or above and have turned down cash more than x amount of times you have to move up etc. They can still bag all they want in non-sanctioned events

to step up until they were ready in Ball Golf

there in lies the difference between PDGA and PGA. you dont step up in PGA you have to earn it. where as PDGA you play pretty much where ever you want. more divisions will just make the divisions offered even that much smaller.

I like the idea of having a step-up division, I just don't like the title....

How about the Amateur Legends, or Amateur Elite, or Semi-professional...... Expert sounds like it is above the pro level....

Whats wrong with making people move up once they hit a certain rating?


Because most people think that the hefty MPO entry fees you see these days are not a good value at all, and they will quit playing tourneys rather than pay the higher entry fee.

This sounds more like a plan to raise tourney income by providing another fee level inbetween almost high ADV and ridiculously high MPO.

I still think Pro2 was a great idea

Pro2 was before my time. What is the difference between the proposed Expert division and the now defunct Pro2 division? Cash v. prize payout?

The only people this change would help are the bottom and middle rung AM1's.

Who else would it help?

The bottom AM3's.

Expert is good for everyone.

It should have few enough players that there is no reason to bag there for prizes. Players might hang out there for Am Worlds or whatever, but the whole bagging in Advanced for prizes is eliminated. So that is good for pros who want more players stepping up to the pro pool if there really are amateurs bagging for prizes.

It is good for the Advanced players below Expert because now they don't have to compete against players 60 or 70 ratings points higher than them.

If it keeps some players playing who otherwise were not going to donate to the pro purse, that's good for the TDs.

Since most TDs add cash to the pro purse from their profit on the amateurs, Expert works for pros that way too.

It is good for the Experts because they can compete as amateurs and not feel bad taking candy from babies.

It is good for the Am IV types because creating a new division at the top will bump all the lower divisions a little lower. We've been having about a dozen players every tournament enter our Am IV division and these are players who only played a couple of tournaments last year. So that's good for TDs too.

Creating appropriately defined ratings based competitive groups for everyone works for everyone.

pro2 was a cash payout, I have no idea what the payout would be for expert division; but I have to agree with the post above stating that expert sounds better than open so why put that division in between ADV and Open.

I agree that a "expert" or semi-pro division would help.... I also think that defined ratings ranges for "all" Am divisions are needed to make things fair. Even the age protected Am divisions should have to bump if they reach a certain rating. If your rating is high enough, you can compete with the experts.

It should have few enough players that there is no reason to bag there for prizes. Players might hang out there for Am Worlds or whatever, but the whole bagging in Advanced for prizes is eliminated. So that is good for pros who want more players stepping up to the pro pool if there really are amateurs bagging for prizes.
<font color="red"> If that works, that would be great. </font>


It is good for the Experts because they can compete as amateurs and not feel bad taking candy from babies.
<font color="red"> I don't think anyone feels bad about winning alot. </font>

Creating appropriately defined ratings based competitive groups for everyone works for everyone.



It sounds good in theory, I wonder how it will work in practice. What would be the actual rating cutoff?

...but I have to agree with the post above stating that expert sounds better than open so why put that division in between ADV and Open.


I disagree. I think that "Expert" sounds like an amateur division name. Maybe that's because a million years ago I was in the U.S. Chess Federation and they all these fancy divisions that went like this:

E/Unrated: The least skilled players and those without a rating.
D: The next higher skilled ratings band
C: The next higher skilled ratings band
B: The next higher skilled ratings band
A: The next higher skilled ratings band
Expert: The next higher skilled ratings band. Also the best of what we would call the am divisions, although they had no am/pro designations, just a well-oiled ratings machine.

Master: The next higher skilled ratings band. Also the first of what we would call "pro" divisions.
Grand Master: The next higher skilled ratings band.
International Grand Master: The top division.


So to me, "Expert" sounds like the top amateur division, no problem.

But calling me an "Advanced Master" just ain't right, because I'm not very good. :)

LOL... i was thinking about that yesterday when all this discussion got rolling... I mean if you are going to start re-naming divsions do it right. In stick golf masters are the older, ex touring pro's who no longer compete with the younger tour players. You earned that title! Master of the sport, experienced, journyman material!
Advanced over 40 would sound more realistic... Or maybe APA1 or APA2 (age protected Am 40 or 50)

I agree with everyone who thinks are current and proposed divisional names are stupid or ghay. When I first started playing tournaments they called them Am 1, Am 2, and Am 3 around here. Those names work great. They might be counter-intuitive if you play roleplaying games, but otherwise they work fine. :D

I am a little concerned that we are basing all of our divisions primarily on ratings. Ratings are FAR from perfect and I don't think they give a very accurate reading on a players skill level.

True it is the best thing we have but there are flaws in the ratings system that makes it hard for people to generate "true" ratings, because it is totally based on your competitors and not the course or the conditions.

If you happen to be stuck in a state where there are not many 1000 rated players, it is tough for a player to shoot 1000 rated rounds in that state unless they play lights out. A player could shoot a good round and it may not be considered a good round unless a highly rated golfer shoots a good also.

I like the rating system but i still think it's slightly flawed and isn't the perfect tool to use to classify divisions

Actually it's the other way around. Your good round will look better when a highly rated golfer shoots lousy.

But isn't the problem with baggers etc... related to regions of players. In that case most players have estblished their own ratings over years of bagging in their home courses and therefore it would be realistic for the majority of Am players. We don't need a rating divisional system for open players of any caliber. We need one to gauge when a player is nearing the point of going open or maybe expert....
As they say: It's all realative.... Once a player moves out of Am and into the open division their rating will change/adjust based on that new relativity.....

The real problem of "bagging" is when 900 rated players play advanced instead of intermediate, and then yell "bagger" and complain at/about the 950 rated player that beat them by 20 strokes over 4 rounds, which should be the expected result.

Lets put that into perspective.... The 4 or 5 unrated, non-member locals who play lights out at home enter their first event as an intermediate and shoot 970 average rated golf and leave all the 915 and below rated players in the dust. So the touring 900 rated players choose to whine in the advanced division where they can at least justify losing to a rated advanced player :D

I'd call this new division purgatory.

This looks like an attempt to try &amp; force highly rated ams to move to the pro ranks. No one should ever be forced to play pro! Different people have different reasons for not wanting to turn pro. Telling a 960ish rated am he has to play in a tiny division (or go pro) because lesser rated players are more deserving of wins &amp; his scores/rating are comparable to pros is absurd.

You're overlooking the proposal that pros may slide sideways to enter Expert as desired with a higher ceiling than the 955 currently.

I'd call this new division purgatory.

This looks like an attempt to try &amp; force highly rated ams to move to the pro ranks. No one should ever be forced to play pro! Different people have different reasons for not wanting to turn pro. Telling a 960ish rated am he has to play in a tiny division (or go pro) because lesser rated players are more deserving of wins &amp; his scores/rating are comparable to pros is absurd.



Players should never be forced to turn Pro, but fairness of the ratings breaks really break down when the spread exceeds 50 points. This looks like it will add a division where the lower rated Pros and the highest rated Ams can compete for each other entry fees on a fairly equal footing.

Plus giving the 915 rated advanced players a shot at cashing when they play lights out.

Someone please reset the entire proposal. I'm not going to dig back pages...

This is ridiculous &amp; I hope the last 3 or 4 pages don't reflect the intentions of this thread...

The real problem of "bagging" is when 900 rated players play advanced instead of intermediate, and then yell "bagger" and complain at/about the 950 rated player that beat them by 20 strokes over 4 rounds, which should be the expected result.


totally agree

How does this work for doubles?

The real problem of "bagging" is when 900 rated players play advanced instead of intermediate, and then yell "bagger" and complain at/about the 950 rated player that beat them by 20 strokes over 4 rounds, which should be the expected result.



Can't this same logic be applied to the 950 vs 1000 rated player? Given that the 900 player is probably got much less overall DG experience than any 950+ rated player, why shouldn't the 950+ player have to play against the higher rated players?

I say stop all this nonsense. Protect the old and young in their own divisions. Let ALL THE AMS play in the same division, just pop them into flights after the first round. More divisions is just more headaches and another GREAT reason to just forgo PDGA sanctioning.

Joe

I think most of the headache of more divisions is self-created by TDs.

Headache #1: Ordering trophies for divisions that don't show up. Solution: Don't order trophies for unreliable divisions that don't pre-register. It's what I do.

Headache #2: All those different entry fees. Solution: Don't charge different entry fees for different amateur divisions. Just charge the same for everyone. It's what I do.

Headache #3: All the different divisions on the leaderboard are hard to keep track of. Solution: Color coded leaderboard cards or color coded dot stickers on the leaderboard cards. Card stock comes in more colors than we have divisions. So do dot stickers. It helps if you have a helper person who is not totally color blind, but I muddle through based on the shades of grey.

The idea of one division and multiple flights has its pros and cons. It violates the Mark Ellis rule that you never want to run a game that gives a player an incentive to not play his best. You can run that format if you want within the parameters of a PDGA sanctioned event. We do FlightLife at our tournaments for most cards in most amateur divisions but it is a small part of the total tournament value.

Card stock comes in more colors than we have divisions.

this travesty has been noted and we are working diligently to correct it. :)

You're overlooking the proposal that pros may slide sideways to enter Expert as desired with a higher ceiling than the 955 currently.



There aren't many pros taking advantage of this now, I doubt raising the rating ceiling will increase the number all that much. In fact, I haven't seen a pro playing am at any regional tournament all year.

No one can provide me the entire proposal?

Dave will be releasing it soon for player review. I'm not sure if he's still waiting for the Board minutes to be approved or just catching up from being gone for a few weeks at both Worlds.

I wonder how much trouble this would cause at Bowling Green next year. I play for trophy's and points I would have moved up at the beginning of next year if I would have got to play worlds so I am waiting 1 more. I like playing in big fields so with what eveyone is talking about I will have to play in a division that is cut in almost half. Not worth playing to me.

I'm curious about the points thing too. Will it be possible for an Expert to win the obelisk or will it wind up going to a lower division player who had the opportunity to play in larger fields? Whatever the answer, the solution is to correct the points system. The PDGA could increase the Expert multiplier or put a bonus on the Expert points award.

If the idea for the Expert division is that it is an amateur holding tank for guys staying Am for Worlds, maybe the points thing doesn't matter.

changing multipliers wont fix our points system. it needsto be reworked from the ground up, imo. it currently places far too much emphasis on single large events, effectively shutting the majority of our players out.

The real problem of "bagging" is when 900 rated players play advanced instead of intermediate, and then yell "bagger" and complain at/about the 950 rated player that beat them by 20 strokes over 4 rounds, which should be the expected result.



Can't this same logic be applied to the 950 vs 1000 rated player? Given that the 900 player is probably got much less overall DG experience than any 950+ rated player, why shouldn't the 950+ player have to play against the higher rated players?



You are absolutely correct. Any 950 rated player that plays MPO should expect to lose by 28 strokes to the 1020 rated players in that divisions, in a 4 round tourney.

The thing is, the 900 rated played doesn't have to play Advanced. A 900 rating puts them in the Intermediate ratings range. That's what I consider the biggest problem in bagging: people "playing up" and then complaining about the guy who was supposed to beat them.

To get to the "considered fair" ratings spread of 50 points, MPO players should have a minimum rating of 970. (970 to 1020 is 50 points). 950 is just like the 900 rated player stepping up to donate in Advanced. Except the 900 rated player probably has a much better chance in Advanced than the 950 player has in Open, due the 1020 players in Open being so much more consistent than the top guys in the Advanced division.

All IMHO, of course.

Let ALL THE AMS play in the same division, just pop them into flights after the first round.


It's a lot of fun that way. Everyone's got a chance to win their flight the final round.

Still might need to divide into blue and white pools to allow people to play from the appropriate tees.

Let ALL THE AMS play in the same division, just pop them into flights after the first round.


It's a lot of fun that way. Everyone's got a chance to win their flight the final round.

Still might need to divide into blue and white pools to allow people to play from the appropriate tees.



I'd try to find a way to let them sort themselves out by playing the same tees (for the first round at least) and then maybe splitting off the top flights for the next round(s).

Since there's no way to say where flight divisions fall (except that by shooting better you'd be in a higher flight and playing for more prizes) I don't know as there's too much incentive to "bag" and end up in a lower flight with only minor prizes available.

There'd be only one "champion" but lots of winners. Isn't that a sensible thing?

Denny, any word from your station? My fingers are crossed.

Joe

Has something recently happened with this idea? Why all the sudden discussion?

btw. The recent flattening of payouts in the ams has significantly increased the number of people playing up in Texas. Work on the payout structure and more equitable entry fee options is all that is left, imo.

The discussion was in response to the new competition structure proposal that most of us have not yet seen. It's much more fun to debate w/o any facts. /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

I would rather see the division re organized. In Ohio we have most players playing up. This is creates the whole "sandbagging" argument in my personal experience. If players would play in the correct divisions based upon there ratings then sandbagging wouldn't be as big an issue. I would rather see the caps for the divisions now be shuffled a little more and then look at hard capping them so players couldn't move up as much, something like this would be more preferable IMHO and from other organized competitions.

Rec under 900
Am2 875-930
Am 1 915 and up

By creating lower requirements you don't have people playing to far up and thus creating the sandbagging outcomes, but you give people room to move up when they are comfortably competitive.

I also have a hard time dealing with the fact that we don't either A. require everyone to be a PDGA member (thus ensuring a rating), or B. Due to the fact they are paying $5 per event they should be getting a number and a rating update.

Having all players with ratings will also help the structure of competition.