A couple of not-thoroughly-thought-through ideas, tossed out to see what merits, or demerits, wiser minds can find in them....

Under the current division structure---overhauling which is a subject for many other threads----there are frequently discussions of when Pros can play Am or return to Am status, and almost as many of when Ams are sandbagging and should be pushed to turn Pro. Two thoughts passing through my mind:

[ 1 ]
Pros could return to Am status if they have not cashed in a period of time (say, 2 years), regardless of rating. Whether they had been out of the sport for a while, or injured, or just found that they had moved up to Pro prematurely and are unable to compete at that level. With a sufficient time period it's hard to see how anyone would really take advantage of such a rule, and it would be long enough to establish that they really don't belong in the Pro division. An alternative for those players who otherwise drop off the tournament scene because they're stuck as pros, but unable to compete and unwilling to pay the increasingly high entry fees.

[ 2 ]
A bump rule for Ams that says, for example, that if an Advanced Division player wins an A-tier, or 3 B-tiers, or 5 total tournaments, he must go Pro. I'd think that most people would agree that at this level of accomplishment, a player should be ready for the Pro division. I'm not sure there's much room for sandbagging, either---how many players, with a chance for 1st place, would throw the last round to give up 1st, and the difference in merch., just to stay Am?

I have no problem with #1. But I think the pros-playing-am rule makes it unnecessary, especially with the new divisional structure for 2008.

#2 doesn't make a lot of sense. We should use ratings if we are going to bump anyone out of amateur. Next year ratings will bump players out of Advanced anyway. Half the Advanced division is moving up come January 1.

#1- For what you describe there is the petitioning process
#2- Ams should never be forced to become Pro.

[ 2 ]
A bump rule for Ams that says, for example, that if an Advanced Division player wins an A-tier, or 3 B-tiers, or 5 total tournaments, he must go Pro. I'd think that most people would agree that at this level of accomplishment, a player should be ready for the Pro division. I'm not sure there's much room for sandbagging, either---how many players, with a chance for 1st place, would throw the last round to give up 1st, and the difference in merch., just to stay Am?



There have been some very good "Bump Rules" in the past that have worked........NorCal, N. Cakalacky and others.

When the ratings system started, the PDGA abolished ALL of them. The only problem is that they NEVER dealt with the AM to Pro issue.

There have been MANY "discussions" on this........

Some feel that we are ALL PROS because Merch has Cash Value.
"True Ams" play for ribbons and trophies....not piles of Merch. And that we should start a 3rd tier of "True Ams"

At this point....."Peer Pressure" is the best tool for getting Ams to move into Pro...
:D

So the expert thing is going to happen.

Sandalman said on another thread they approved it. I don't know if they have published the details yet.

it was approved in the July meeting. i am unsure as to whether it has been officially circulated or published.

Guess I wont be playing any PDGA events next year I like playing in a big field now I would have to play against like 5 people. Unless its Bowling Green then it would be maybe 50.
I was going to try for the points title next year with my last Am Worlds guess that cant happen now.

Thanks.

I framed original post as "under current division" because I'm uncertain what 2008 brings (I'm personally in favor of scrapping the whole division mess and starting over, but that's a whole different discussion), and avoiding the "True Pro / True Am" argument (again, another post).

I do think "peer pressure" works pretty well, at least around here, for the better Ams. And though I posted this concept, I do agree with the post that Ams should not be forced to turn Pro (I just offer this as an option for a bump rule if we must have one).

On the other hand, for #1, I know there's a petition process....but propose this as an alternative that would be less subjective.

re: #2 (Am bump)

Just an alternative to a bump rule based on ratings. With ratings, there is some uncertainty; a player won't know if he's cleared the thresshold until ratings are issued (perhaps just a few days before the tournament, though maybe a an allowance is written into such a rule). Players who are not online don't have access to their ratings. And it is possible, to a limited degree, for a player who doesn't want to be bumped to sandbag a few rounds and keep his rating down.

A bump rule based on wins is clear-cut. A player would know, the moment he gets this threshhold win, that he's moving up.

On the other hand....such an idea may be impractical from a recordkeeping angle for the PDGA, or more difficult for TDs to verify. And I hate making anything more difficult for TDs.

Guess I wont be playing any PDGA events next year I like playing in a big field now I would have to play against like 5 people. Unless its Bowling Green then it would be maybe 50.
I was going to try for the points title next year with my last Am Worlds guess that cant happen now.

The points thing is going to be strange. Used to be the am points winner was a good advanced player who played Bowling Green and a lot of other tournaments. Now it is going to be a player who managed to keep his rating under 935 while beating a lot of players, maybe someone who played Intermediate at BG and moved to Advanced with the June ratings. There might be enough points at Worlds for an Expert to catch up, but only maybe.

what is the purpose of the "points thing" anyway? it seems that if you dont go to BG you have no chance... which leaves the vast majority of players out of the points game.

It's been years since I heard anyone mention points. Does it make any difference, other than whether you're mailed an invite to Worlds without asking, or have to request entry?

Some people dont think like you some people care about points I mean that is part of what we pay for to.

I do play BG to play against 300 other players and see how I stack up. I dont want to play in a division where there are only 5 players in it that is not fun to me.

I don't think a cut at 935 will completely gut your competition. If that is the case, how much fun have you been having being 20 points ahead of the majority of your division ?

Plus pros of all ages under 975 rating will be able to slide over and enter Expert helping boost the field size.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound critical or dismissive. I just used to hear a fair amount about points---players caring where the finished because each place up the ladder meant more points---but in recent years I haven't heard it among players I've played with or tournaments I've helped run. Seems like ratings have sort of supplanted that interest. (As you state with points, ratings is another thing that some like, some don't). Points would seem to matter more if there was Worlds were more exclusive, with a limited number of spots to fight for---which, by the way, I do not advocate---or some other events in which points were the key to entry.

Plus pros of all ages under 975 rating will be able to slide over and enter Expert helping boost the field size.



Are the 2008 changes published somewhere?

Dave has an article in the next DGWN on the changes. Don;t think they've been posted otherwise.

I don't think too many pros will slide over. The pros under 955 aren't sliding over right now. I might slide over from Expert to Am Master.

Why would Pros with players ratings below 975 want to slide back down. When I got Pro next year I dont want to play for plastic again why would they? I believe the division will be between 5-10 players.

First, it's sliding sideways not down. A 960 GM Pro might have tougher competition with a division including 985 "Ams" and better net payout in Expert with a larger division.

Second, it might depend on the difference in entry fees that sways some player choices between $100 in pro and $60 in Expert. That will depend on how the TDs set the fees.

Third, don't just think of open pros. Masters and older pros, most with ratings under 975, don't always have a big division and Expert may be a better choice. I played in five different divisions (MPO, MPM, MPG, MA1, Blue) last year depending on the event, not for economic cost/benefit reasons but to play with different groups of players.

First, it's sliding sideways not down. A 960 GM Pro might have tougher competition with a division including 985 "Ams" and better net payout in Expert with a larger division.

Second, it might depend on the difference in entry fees that sways some player choices between $100 in pro and $60 in Expert. That will depend on how the TDs set the fees.

Third, don't just think of open pros. Masters and older pros, most with ratings under 975, don't always have a big division and Expert may be a better choice. I played in five different divisions (MPO, MPM, MPG, MA1, Blue) last year depending on the event, not for economic cost/benefit reasons but to play with different groups of players.




Da who da what?? huh??

Plus pros of all ages under 975 rating will be able to slide over and enter Expert helping boost the field size.



Great! boost whose field size? and to the detriment of which other field? The expert division is a TERRIBLE idea BOOOOOO!

What have y'all done and if it is decided, why do we have to wait for the magazine?

It sounds like you have expanded upon a lame idea: more strategically placed carrots along the trail to make sure the bunnies get distracted, fat and lazy. And those bunnies sure know how to proliferate. Soon, they will overrun the place. Oh wait.......

I had expected these changes for next year to be posted when they were approved by the Board and am disappointed that they haven't been.

Can't wait to read about the changes. Sounds like the PDGA could see some chin music coming their way. I plan on having an objective point of view on this.

Why would Pros with players ratings below 975 want to slide back down. When I got Pro next year I dont want to play for plastic again why would they? I believe the division will be between 5-10 players.



Because Pros who are playing in an area with tough competition at a level below 975 sometimes get tired (and broke) of donating money every weekend. I would be playing more tournaments this year if I was getting anything in return for playing.
(I know, practice, get better, and cash. I'm still working on that one.)

I had expected these changes for next year to be posted when they were approved by the Board and am disappointed that they haven't been.



I'm not generally one to complain about board openess, but it seems a decision that affects us as much as this may, should have been published as soon as possible after it was decided. (Just guessing at how much it affects us, of course, since I don't know exactly what has been decided).

If a TD is trying to start planning any split day tournaments for next year, he needs this info now.

Plus pros of all ages under 975 rating will be able to slide over and enter Expert helping boost the field size.



Great! boost whose field size? and to the detriment of which other field? The expert division is a TERRIBLE idea BOOOOOO!



W3rd. Makes it even less economically feasible to be a touring pro (as if that were necessary). :mad:

Why don't we just give <u>everybody</u> their entry fee back &amp; a trophy if we're gonna have 742 divisions anyway?

Thread drift time.....

New PDGA slogan

The PDGA: Postponment of Decisive Governing Assertions

everyone, this is prolly more to do with process than openness. we are working on how to get documents, or synopses of them, distributed to the members more quickly.

david just said via email that he would get something posted by end of tomorrow, so all will be good then.

If I wanted to play in a field of 5-10 every event I would just play some C-tiers. If I want to play in a big field I will have to lower my rating, thats an idea.

This idea is just as bad as Pro 2 wait it is Pro 2 just with plastic.

Here is a related topic that I hope someone has an answer to.

To begin I would like to say congrats to the winners of the U.S. Masters disc golf championships!! This issue is related to a ratings issue and the recent winner of the Advanced Masters Division at th USMDGC. I always thought if a pro master wanted to play in Advanced Masters his rating would have to drop below 925. The gentleman who won this year is a 947 rated ex-pro master. I am not trying to knock his victory, just trying to make sense of the issue of re-classification from pro to am. This man played advanced this year and was mainly a pro master last year. I can understand him being allowed into the advanced divsion, but as I stated I thought for a re-classified pro-master to return to Adv. master you had to have your rating drop below 925. Are these two differnt issues all together?

The amnesty was without qualifications or limitations. Hence, a 967 rated amnestied pro won am master at worlds. Still, I have no problem with it.

You may be thinking of the former Pros Playing Am rule that required pros playing am master to be rated less than 915. Next year that number moves up to 935.

Thanks Bruce :D

Amnesty for renewing this year was for all pros at all ages to revert to Am status with no ratings restrictions. Highest profile example was Board member Pete May switching from Pro Sr GM to Am Sr GM after losing the World title by just 2 at 2006 Pro Worlds.

chuck powell was part of the general amnesty program that we did last year.

i completely regret either a) allowing amnestees to play in majors OR b) not allowing regular reclassified players to play in majors

both types of reclassified players should have the same benefits.

Seems sort of strange to me as well. I mean there should have been one or the other. I mean there should have been a ratings restriction for both or majors events restriction for both....

I fully agree that reclassified players should have full rights post-amnesty. You could make that happen.

If I was against amnesty, I'd still be a Hindu. :cool:

you may over-estimate my powers, bruce. i can suggest it, but i'll be gone before it could become policy.

This is a bit of drifting, but it reminds me of that recent letter I read regarding that illegal immigration bill. Some guy wrote a letter to the INS requesting he be re-classified as an illegal citizen.... Then he could reap all the benefits through amesty of living in the US without all the responsibility and taxes etc... I mean those illegals have it great... Kind of ironic that the guys who went Am through the original accepted method are being penalized when those taking amnesty get it all... Only in America eh...

I don't see the difference between an Am via amnesty or an Am that never was a pro in regards to how they are currently treated in the Am divisions. How is one penalized over the other?

A pro re-classified to Amatuer status cannot play in any major event until the next year:

Reclassification
A player may change classification from amateur to professional status at any time by contacting the PDGA Office. A player may
request reclassification from professional to amateur status by petitioning the PDGA Competition Director. Players who are
reclassified from professional to amateur are not eligible to compete in all PDGA Amateur Major Events (World and US
Championship events) during the year in which they are reclassified, but will be eligible to do so in the following year.
Reclassification within Amateur divisions (for example, from Intermediate to Advanced or vice versa), is based on updated player ratings.

Hence my original question. Amnesty players going from pro to am have all rights any other am has, no restrictions....
I was not aware that an amnesty player had this benefit. So every time I see an ex-pro winning a Am major it makes wonder how they got away with it. Amnesty, thats how...

tim, there's three ways....

1) regular Am, never was Pro - full rights
2) amnesty 2006 Am - full rights these are the 154 players who took the one-time no-questions reclassification last year.
3) reclassified Am - not allowed to play in M events as Am. these are the folks who followed the normal reclassification path, including any who did it last year.

Oh, you're comparing an amesty am to a reclassified am. Got it.

Can a td of a sanctioned tourny force someone to play in a division higher than what they are registered as with the PDGA? I know there is a ratings cap for INT, is there any for advanced? Sorry if this is on the wrong thread.

There is no ratings cap for Advanced. One thing you might nudge him with is the fact that Am players (who finish high enough in Pro divisions to recieve cash) can accept prizes in leiu of cash and still retain their status as Am's.

But, there's really nothing you can do to force a current PDGA member with a rating to play up.

A TD can restrict non-current of Non-PDGA members to Open if they wish or to a higher Am division than the player might request.

The only other way the TD can force someone up, is to not offer the division at all (e.g. By not offering advanced, all over 934 have to play open if they want to play.)