Here's my system.

Use gender and age to split the money-divisions and simplify the amateur divisions. Pay the Pros out in cash, pay the Ams out in merch and have Rec and Juniors be trophy only with huge player packs. 7 divisions. That's it. That's the list.

Have Am entry fees be no less than 75% of Open fees--preferably 100%. Have Ladies, Rec and Junior be no more than 50% of Open fees.

Put ALL the added cash into the Open and Ladies divisions only to discourage baggers in Masters. Pay Money divisions flatter to 40%. Pay merch divisions to 50%. Trophies to top three Rec. Pay Ladies and Juniors out 100% if possbile.

Open
Masters
Grandmasters
Ladies

Amateur
Rec (<900 rating cutoff)
Junior (<14)

How hard is this to understand?

Advanced used to be a bagger division. Now Advanced is a superbagger division, the Intermediate division is half full of baggers and Rec even has baggers.

This "X-Spurt" division is just another band-aid for a system that is hemorrhaging and in need of a tournaquet and, IMO, amputation of a few limbs.

The only place for double-protected divisions is Am Worlds. No offense to Am Masters.

here here whorley....It doesnt get any easier than that! I 100% agree, especially with the expert division...WTF is that...Its silly...How many divisions do we need...If you dont want to play tournaments cause you cant win, DONT PLAY>

W3rd.

How does this solve the Am bagger problem?....980-rated Ams just add the 900-915 rated players to their victims.

If Am fees are no less than 75% of Open fees, will the real-world result be an increase in Am fees....or a ceiling on Open fees?

How is the system hemorhaging if, as I understand it, we have more players every year, not less?

Women play pro....or with the guys in lower divisions?

Don't get me wrong---I agree with your premise. I much prefer a streamlined division system, fewer divisions with larger fields. But the devil's in the details; most proposals fix some problems while creating new ones. In the meantime, as much as you and I and others dislike the division proliferation, apparently a lot of other players do like it.

Simpler yet and more fair is 6 ratings based divisions. Cash to Gold Open and merch in Blue, White, Red, Green and Purple. Courses with tees designed to match or at least be close to your skill level. You can enter your level or higher at events. Nonmembers enter Gold at full price or can play for trophies only in lower divisions.

here here whorley....It doesnt get any easier than that! I 100% agree, especially with the expert division...WTF is that...Its silly...How many divisions do we need...If you dont want to play tournaments cause you cant win, DONT PLAY>



I wonder....

How much of the division proliferation is to make it possible for everyone to WIN....or is it to make it possible for everyone to "cash" ("merch", I guess, for Ams)? I hear and read a bit of disc golfers saying that if they can't win their entry fee back, they don't want to play. This strikes me as odd---an attitude that the player is essentially entitled to play for free. My background is in other sports where, if you play in a league or a tournament, you expect to pay an entry fee just for the right to play, to cover expenses and the efforts of those who make the event possible. No winning your entry fee back; it's the cost of admission. It doesn't seem to me too much to be asked to pay at least a small fee, $20 or $30, just for to be in a tournament. It does seem to be too much to ask of a lot of disc golfers, though.

None of which excuses this mess divisional mess we've created.....but just musing that, like government programs, how much of the blame goes to the leadership, and how much to the demands of the players?

Simpler yet and more fair is 6 ratings based divisions. Cash to Gold Open and merch in Blue, White, Red, Green and Purple. Courses with tees designed to match or at least be close to your skill level. You can enter your level or higher at events. Nonmembers enter Gold at full price or can play for trophies only in lower divisions.



I like it, but it may be harder to sell to our version of the AARP lobby....the Masters & older divisions.

simpler? probably. more fair? maybe. more popular? not so sure.

90% of our events dont have any serious claim to the term "pro". we will never solve the pro/am question if we try to do it within either the heritage or ratings-based divisional structures. that does not mean i wish to end those structures - in fact i hope they prosper for many years as the "social" or "recreational" track. just dont look for the solutions to come from within our current structures. it will take a new competitive structure that is seperate from the existing collage to solve this puzzle, imo.

Is this some preview of what is to come?

Basically, have as many freaking divisions as one wants, and have a flat payout for all of them but open. Bagging will disappear and the number of divisions will eventually shrink. More creative pricing options for open divisions will be be created because the lower division players will demand it.

Change the incentives and the rest falls into place.

There's also the small but increasing number of tournaments offering "one division" or a very limited number of them. They seem to be popular. The free market solution.

simpler? probably. more fair? maybe. more popular? not so sure.



I probably should have put a smiley in that post. The point is that there ARE simpler ways to do the competition system but not that are necessarily better for members and the PDGA growth. Part of the reason for the growth in the number of players is due to our payout structure. If we had to pay for officials and course fees like many sports, player participation would go down simply based on economics, real or perceived. If you pop $50 for an event fee with only a trophy at stake like many sports, you're not likely to do that as often versus getting merch or cash back sometimes in disc golf events. That seductive and successful part of our system should not be disrupted by any alternative simpler ideas whatever they may be.

"Part of the reason for the growth in the number of players is due to our payout structure."

i dont know about that. in one way i completely agree with you, but i cant help notice that many of the comments i get from these aprts is more like "we are growing in spite of our payout structure". i think it depends on the event.

also, we do pay for officials at larger events, dont we?

Simpler yet and more fair is 6 ratings based divisions. Cash to Gold Open and merch in Blue, White, Red, Green and Purple. Courses with tees designed to match or at least be close to your skill level. You can enter your level or higher at events. Nonmembers enter Gold at full price or can play for trophies only in lower divisions.



Chuck I love this style of system. No women/men problems, just pure ratings. Also everyone would need to be rated wich I believe is a good thing also.

Since did women/men divisions become "problems"? Why wouldn't a real sport want to structure itself for women to excel amongst their peers rather than hiding them amongst the middling men? Would it be good for tennis if Venus and Serena bowed out to some nobodies on the first day?

Pat, thanks for not accepting Chuck's assertion about the payout structure as anything more than "Chuck's view of things."

here here whorley....It doesnt get any easier than that! I 100% agree, especially with the expert division...WTF is that...Its silly...How many divisions do we need...If you dont want to play tournaments cause you cant win, DONT PLAY>



I wonder....

How much of the division proliferation is to make it possible for everyone to WIN....or is it to make it possible for everyone to "cash" ("merch", I guess, for Ams)?

Very close. The divisional system with all its overlapping divisions is designed to make everyone play. I know from running tournaments [and everyone else knows from reading the message board] that there are Am Masters who won't play Am 3 even though that's how good they are just like there are pro women who won't play Am 3 even that's how good they are. Rather than have all four of them stay home, we make a division for them. The value that balances competition here is participation. These two values are often at odds.

also, we do pay for officials at larger events, dont we?



Transparent to the players since it's the PDGA Marshal program.

If you don't believe the payout structure has anything to do with PDGA success and participation in all discs golf events including leagues, then just run a non-sanctioned event with entry fees like we have now, pay out only trophies and player packs, and keep the profits for yourself and your staff. That's how it works in some other sports, especially those run by Park & Rec staff. Or try the low entry fee event with trophy only and see how it goes. Or, payout to top 10% only with first getting 3 times as much as second place on down.

i said "in one way i completely agree with you" so please assume i believe the current system has a ton of merit. i spent this morning running stats on the tour and the numbers are impressive. unprecedented participation highs suggests the market likes our system, at least in general.

we run a low entry fee event withOUT the trophies each and every week like clockwork. its going very well, thanks. on a slow week we still have more players than the 2007 canadian open, an NT event. we collect pdga memberships and pump up the sanctioned events in our region yearround, all at no charge to the association. i'd be very, very careful before suggesting our low entry fee events dont work.

when we started including sidebets in official NT purse reports, we started paying out at least a portion of NT payouts at a much steeper slope than 3-1-0.3, wouldnt you agree?

i didnt catch your meaning about the marshalls program. did you mean the cost is a wash to the players?

Sorry Pat, but the "you" wasn't directed at your response in that part of my response regarding payouts. Just a response to those who don't believe that our typical payout structure has accelerated growth in the sport versus one where organizers get most of the entry fees. Typically, our second place is about 60% of first so the ratio is less than 2 to 1 as it steps down. I was suggesting a grossly different payout scheme with 3 to 1 ratio between first and second and only 10% of players getting paid, I believe would be seen as unfair and stall participation and growth.

I didnt catch your meaning about the marshals program. did you mean the cost is a wash to the players?



No. Just that the players don't see it in the event expenses since I thought the PDGA picks up the tab, unless I missed something?

Is this some argueing technique where you misrepresent the opposition in order to make your own ideas stronger?

What is it about flat payouts that confuses you? and what makes you assume that the money in flat payouts goes to the organizers? and ad naseum, doesn't the competition committee owe something to the sport as well as the members? It's more like an enabling committee than a competition committee.

no, you are right about that. but one dollar over here means one less over there. btw, i do like the idea behind the marshalls program; who better to provide on-site rules support at our biggest events than the folks who write the rules.

I didn't say it did go to the organizers. I was just giving examples of quite different payout scenarios than what we currently have that may or may not produce the same level of member satisfaction and participation as the system that has evolved thru much trial and error. Making significant changes quickly would be foolish from a Board standpoint when there's no emergency need to right the ship but just some impatience from some players to move faster in a direction that may not better.

Just let me remind you all...The TTrue baggers are the ones who do it for cash. Merch bagging? Who cares...they will move up eventually, believe me. The only division that seems strange to me is Advanced Masters...Play advanced until your scores are up there with the masters and move up...just my opinion...

Just let me remind you all...The TTrue baggers are the ones who do it for cash. Merch bagging? Who cares...they will move up eventually, believe me. The only division that seems strange to me is Advanced Masters...Play advanced until your scores are up there with the masters and move up...just my opinion...



Speaking as an Advanced Master......I agree. It is a strange division. Whorley describes Advanced as the Supersandbagger division, but I've seen Advanced Masters stay in the division and win 10 or 15 or 20 events, with scores that would cash in Pro Masters or come close to winning Advanced. There are also Advanced Masters like myself (901 rating), who would be in intermediate but for the age-protected division, yet choose not to.

But the thing is---at least around here---the company's often better in the Advanced Master's division. If you're going to spend a whole weekend and view it as a friendly competition, this most suits certain players under the current division structure.

Which is just an element of the current division mess being nevertheless popular.

It might be a mistake to believe that the opinions of message board posters, or even the circle of disc golfers one of us travels in, represents a consensus. People vote with their feet and their dollars, and the growth in participation is evidence that many like the system. Not proof---perhaps we would be growing even faster with another system---but at least evidence.

It's more like an enabling committee than a competition committee.


LOL. That's good stuff. Thanks for the laugh.

Simpler yet and more fair is 6 ratings based divisions. Cash to Gold Open and merch in Blue, White, Red, Green and Purple. Courses with tees designed to match or at least be close to your skill level. You can enter your level or higher at events. Nonmembers enter Gold at full price or can play for trophies only in lower divisions.


We all understand your system. Please don't hijack my thread trying to shove it down people's throats. No one likes it except the gentleman with the 840 rating.

Have an open mind. Every idea you EVER present is tied into ratings. Since you created them, it's a huge conflict of interest. You argue against anything that doesn't doesn't revolve around ratings. Your opinions are too partisan to respect. Sorry.

LOL!!! Your structure would alienate so many people, it isn't even worth discussing. How can you believe that your structure is better?

If I lived in your area, I would run normal tourneys just to counteract your silly tournaments. I would be willing to bet the current structure would be more successful than what you proposed above. Have you ever tested another system? The current system allows the most people to have the most fun (except for 940-970 rated players because they are either sandbaggers or donaters and the really low skill players).

discgolf = fun

Ah, mellow out. Thread ownership rights are tenuous, at best. If we stop posting from people who think their ideas are the best, and keep presenting them, what will be left?

As a philosophical aside, I might ask a chicken/egg question ...

Which came first - the game of disc golf or the competition structure?

I notice a lot of back patting because; a) there is a competition structure, and b) the numbers are growing.

Has anyone quantified how the numbers of competitiors are growing relative to the numbers of casual players?

I think if everyone stopped competing, you would KNOW you had a problem with the system. And if every guy or gal that ever picked up a disc competed, you would know you had the perfect system.

I find Chuck's challenge above interesting in which he suggests trying different competition structures. He goes on to say "cash and merchandise are undoubtedly the only way to fly, calling it the "seductive and successful part of our system."

Yet there as many competition structures as there are games or sports. In most cases they have evolved gradually reflecting the evolution of the game or sport.

I am willing to bet that for disc golf there are any number of competition structures that would prove successful in the current state of the sport.

I like Whorley's latest riposte. While the ratings system is a most impressive monolithic accomplishment, basing an entire sport's competition structure on some combination of player ratings and eventually course ratings and maybe weather ratings and seasonal ratings and course food ratings and travel stipend ratings and rules enforcement ratings and volunteer service ratings seems unduly regimented.

Bottom line ... a percentage of people who pick up a disc will NEVER compete, a percentage will compete in a desultory fashion (maybe just leagues or tosses where they ACTUALLY PAY MONEY WITH NO EXPECTATION OF TANGIBLE RETURN) and another percentage will compete regularly REGARDLESS WHAT THE CURRENT COMPETITION STRUCTURE LOOKS LIKE.

Just because the gross numbers of those competing is increasing doesn't mean the current system is either good or not good ... and it certainly doesn't mean that if you tinker with it in such a revolutionary (as opposed to evolutionary) way, you are doing the sport a service.

I have been told several times on this very forum that the fact that the number of Southern National tournaments and participants increases annually DOES NOT mean that we in SN land have discovered a trove of magic disc golf beans. I accept that.

By the same token, the fact that there are more courses every year ... and more good courses every year ... doesn't mean the SSA Course Design Enhancement Protocol is way groovy ...

And by the same token, the fact that more people are competing every year doesn't mean we have discovered the perfect current competition structure (and if we DO use that as justification, why then do we want to tinker with radical change?)

The game and the sport are going to grow regardless of what we in SN land do or what the PDGA board does. It is just fun to watch a disc fly. It is just fun to hear the crash of chains (or remember the joy of the thump of a lid against a tree trunk on an object course?)

Those who would help organize and guide the growth of the SPORT as opposed to the growth of the GAME, need to realize they have a feisty, spirited horse in the corral. Saddle 'er up, boys and enjoy the ride ... try not to bust her spirit.

with pro purses being so dependant on fieldsize, anything that decreases pro fieldsize reduces a pro's ability to tour.
whorley is right-on about that.

ams taking merch when they cash in pro divisions will help increase the pro field size.

whorley, why keep masters at 40? the best 40-49's can cash in open. make it Open, Masters(50), and Women.

The current system allows the most people to have the most fun (except for 940-970 rated players because they are either sandbaggers or donaters and the really low skill players).

discgolf = fun



This attitude is part of the problem. Activities are fun; sports are sporting. Is disc golf a sport or merely an organized activity. In recent years, the PDGA Competition Committee has become more like a social club, organizing activities aimed to be the most fun for the most people. Sure, real competition still exists and it is growing (at a rate slower than the organization as a whole), but are we creating an atmosphere condusive to future growth of the competitive aspect of disc golf?

I say no. By catering to the "everyone must be a winner" or "everyone must have fun" mentality, we have emasculated the sport, attracting and retaining too many people who rarely embrace the concept of sport, and are often downright hostile to it. Conversely, we have difficulty attracting younger athletes, who really aren't attracted to a sport where competition is a secondary consideration.

with pro purses being so dependant on fieldsize, anything that decreases pro fieldsize reduces a pro's ability to tour.
whorley is right-on about that.

ams taking merch when they cash in pro divisions will help increase the pro field size.

whorley, why keep masters at 40? the best 40-49's can cash in open. make it Open, Masters(50), and Women.


It is making my head spin to hear PDGA brass float three such excellent ideas in one post. Unprecedented!

Because the more people that compete, the $ for the org....Making the system better for the actual players seems to be _______. The truth is, there will be so many world champions in so many divisions you wont be able to name them all in awards ceremony...More divisions is silly...Ratings based divisions is silly...I know there are guys who play one event and are 1011 rated...There are awesome golfers who played one event badly an now are rated 930...CUT and dry divisions is where it should be...You want a trphy, there....you want discs, there.....you want to put your skills against the best with hopes of taken their money and trophy, and the claim as I am the best..there...Bang bang bang...

Let me try to sum up all the ratings and divisional debate with one only slightly tongue-in-cheek link:
You Can't Please Everybody All Of The Time (http://www.thehouseofusher.com/ColumnsandSubpages/Jasoncolumns/pleasingeverybody.html)

This is my problem with this debate, I believe there is three directions that will need to be taken - one for super pros, one for true amateurism and one for people that are not pro but prefer a prize payout structure.

The current structure will not fulfill the super pros needs. True amateurism can be accomplished through the current structure, but not at the same current tourneys. I personally prefer the current structure because I will never be a super pro and I prefer playing for stuff.

Ratings are nothing more than a stand-in for a player's skill level. Whether it's the PDGA Ratings system or some other, it's hard to argue against having a simple system where you play based on your current or higher skill level. Simple as that.

My whole point about the simple system using ratings is not to force it on anyone but to point out it's more viable and fair than any other "simpler" system with fewer divisions being proposed. But I'll continue to support a wide array of competitive divisional options for our membership and let the TDs choose a simpler set of divisions from among those choices they wish to offer our: "ams" who play for cash, our ams who play for merch and our ams who play for trophies only, whether it be divisions based on skill, age and/or gender.

You will always have sandbaggers. I know people that tank rounds at smaller events what will stop them now.

There's not enough value in sandbagging to make it worthwhile. The amount of entry fees you would have to pay to play enough events to drop your rating could not be repaid by what you might win at a lower level before bouncing back up again.

CUT and dry divisions is where it should be...You want a trphy, there....you want discs, there.....you want to put your skills against the best with hopes of taken their money and trophy, and the claim as I am the best..there...Bang bang bang...



....and if it doesn't work out for you, stay home (and take your membership fee and entry fee with you).

The more people who compete, the more money in the prize pools, too. This extends to Ams, under the current prize system, because TDs profit about 1/3 of every dollar of Am entry fees from the wholesale/retail split. In our case, this goes right back to the "cash added for pro purse".

Just a reminder to keep in mind the consequences of any proposed "fix" for the system.

The current system allows the most people to have the most fun (except for 940-970 rated players because they are either sandbaggers or donaters and the really low skill players).

discgolf = fun



This attitude is part of the problem. Activities are fun; sports are sporting. Is disc golf a sport or merely an organized activity. In recent years, the PDGA Competition Committee has become more like a social club, organizing activities aimed to be the most fun for the most people. Sure, real competition still exists and it is growing (at a rate slower than the organization as a whole), but are we creating an atmosphere condusive to future growth of the competitive aspect of disc golf?

I say no. By catering to the "everyone must be a winner" or "everyone must have fun" mentality, we have emasculated the sport, attracting and retaining too many people who rarely embrace the concept of sport, and are often downright hostile to it. Conversely, we have difficulty attracting younger athletes, who really aren't attracted to a sport where competition is a secondary consideration.



<font color="blue"> </font> **** SKIPPY !!!!!!!

Just a reminder to keep in mind the consequences of any proposed "fix" for the system.



Oops, didn't mean to end that way. I completely agree that the system could use "fixing"....just concerned that the fix chosen is the right one, and doesn't cause more problems than it solves.

This attitude is part of the problem. Activities are fun; sports are sporting. Is disc golf a sport or merely an organized activity. In recent years, the PDGA Competition Committee has become more like a social club, organizing activities aimed to be the most fun for the most people. Sure, real competition still exists and it is growing (at a rate slower than the organization as a whole), but are we creating an atmosphere condusive to future growth of the competitive aspect of disc golf?

I say no. By catering to the "everyone must be a winner" or "everyone must have fun" mentality, we have emasculated the sport, attracting and retaining too many people who rarely embrace the concept of sport, and are often downright hostile to it. Conversely, we have difficulty attracting younger athletes, who really aren't attracted to a sport where competition is a secondary consideration.



Right on, brutha! :)

The system we has evolved over time into what the current membership wants. Respectively, the new ideas coming in and being implemented by the board are IMO what the membership wants. If that is a stepping stone from advanced to Pro that is called expert so be it. I personally believe it will create a larger Advanced division once it catches on. The sandbagger players hiding in Am2 will move up and so will the sandbagger player hiding in Am1. Combine this new division structure with some from of ratings requirement to play in a ratings protected division and you are on your way to very competitive disc golf events.

Help me if I'm wrong here (which would be no novelty, but) ---

Whorley is free to run tournaments under his original proposal and demonstrate that it is a better way to go. Others can emulate that format, for even greater evidence. The only thing I see at first glance is that his Rec division can't have a 900 rating cut-off; it would have to use the existing Rec or Intermediate cut-offs. (Side question: are you still accepting the ratings system, for this one distinction?)

Chuck has the Mid-Nationals as something of a demonstration. Other than this, do I recall that there is no longer a provision for other ratings-based tournaments, or can other TDs also use this format to demonstrate its effectiveness?

SInce TDs are not required to offer all divisions, there is room for experimentation and demonstration of some, but not all, of the other proposed fixes. Not just with divisions, but fees and payouts. This doesn't fix the "32 world champions" issue or the fact that other tournaments may choose to continue with the current system, but demonstrating the success of alternatives would add interesting evidence to the theoretical arguments.

If the system is so whacked, then how come we don't hear of people trying other systems and being successful with them? I am serious about this question. I have heard of people trying other systems, but nobody has proven to me that it will be successful. Provide me with an example in an already discgolf healthy area that has shown that another system is better.

Other than this, do I recall that there is no longer a provision for other ratings-based tournaments, or can other TDs also use this format to demonstrate its effectiveness?




Another item that's been addressed for 2008 in the competition changes. Although ratings events can be done now, it's a little trickier to do it and next year's option will be more fair.

The system we has evolved over time into what the current membership wants. Respectively, the new ideas coming in and being implemented by the board are IMO what the membership wants. If that is a stepping stone from advanced to Pro that is called expert so be it. I personally believe it will create a larger Advanced division once it catches on. The sandbagger players hiding in Am2 will move up and so will the sandbagger player hiding in Am1. Combine this new division structure with some from of ratings requirement to play in a ratings protected division and you are on your way to very competitive disc golf events.



We're not talking about what most disc golfers want here....
We're talking about what WE want.

Just kidding, Senior.

I left out in my "demonstration" post that even more ideas can be demonstrated through non-sanctioned tournaments.

The interesting thing about Non-sanctioned events, is that they follow the system created by sanctioned events. Even more interesting to me is the level of bagger control in that environment. I play in a handicapped series and have for the past 5 years. Those handicaps ensure that no bagging occurs. And it is cut, stacked and dry.... No exceptions. If your handicap drops you move up. No bagging. You can try, but the handicap calc method makes it very difficult to achieve.

Handicaps have to be established and proven before you can cash. But in the end the division structure and rules are based on PDGA structure. We (the PDGA) set the standards for disc golf...

word!
or
right on!
or
yes!

The system we has evolved over time into what the current membership wants. Respectively, the new ideas coming in and being implemented by the board are IMO what the membership wants. If that is a stepping stone from advanced to Pro that is called expert so be it. I personally believe it will create a larger Advanced division once it catches on. The sandbagger players hiding in Am2 will move up and so will the sandbagger player hiding in Am1. Combine this new division structure with some from of ratings requirement to play in a ratings protected division and you are on your way to very competitive disc golf events.



You're completely right about the first part. You may be right about the expert division, though I remain skeptical until I see it in use. That "the system evolved into what the membership wants" explains the problems that gave us the current division mess----or perhaps refutes that there is a problem.

Am I wrong in recalling that the candidate for the board who received overwhelmingly more votes in the recent election, had defended on the message board the current number of divisions, or at least the age-protected ones? Did the membership vote, if not directly for the current structure, then for the current structure by proxy?

Thats is how most political structures work.... We vote them in based on their record and how we think they will vote on the issues. I am not saying that the system is perfect, just time tested. It is apparent to me that the we are making progress, and that is based in part on what is said here and what is discussed between TD's and the feedback TD's give to the PDGA following events. If we want faster membership growth and exposure, the organization will have to change (or evolve) into something that will fit with that profile better.

but chuck says we should not change except in an emergency

I didn't say that. I said there was no emergency that required moving quickly in some more radical direction. But taking steps to refine what we have and hopefully make it better where needed is what is happening for 2008.

maybe, but "Making significant changes quickly would be foolish from a Board standpoint when there's no emergency need to right the ship " can also be interpreted as "dont do anything significant unless there is an emergency"

that approach practically guarantees that emergencies will occur and that market opportunities will be missed. i am not suggesting we change for change's sake... that would be chaos. but not changing until there is an emergency is not a fully functional management philosophy.

when might we see the competition proposals to be instituted for next year??

david emailed me yesterday that he would post something by end of today.

"dont do anything significant unless there is an emergency"




"Significant" is greater than "incremental" but both involve change or improvement, not standing still. Believe me, I've proposed faster/bigger changes more than once and sometimes gotten approval for smaller steps so that's how it goes when there's no crisis.

http://www.pdga.com/documents/2007/2008CompetitionChangesSummary.pdf

whorley, why keep masters at 40? the best 40-49's can cash in open. make it Open, Masters(50), and Women.


Funny you asked--I deleted that part of my original post just before I posted. I personally think that Masters should be 45 and Grandmasters 55, but I'm ok with the current age breaks. 50 for Masters is too high IMO. As I said already, put ALL the added cash into MPO and FPO to eliminate bagging.

looks liek they are inticing more bagging by letting ams cash in the pro field and take it as merch.

I just reviewed this document and believe this is a step in the right direction. What is lacking is the control of non-members, and nonrated amateur players. We need a way to officially rate these players. Maybe a one-time amnesty for your first PDGA event to establish a rating, trophy only with no merching allowed and the TD reserving the right to bump someone to the appropriate division.

Click on the link in my signature. The Am side of the event was low entry fee and trophy only. The people that showed up didnt think it was so bad..in fact most if not all actually liked it. Reduced entry fee ($20 for all Am's), players package worth 250% of entry (including 2 discs and lunch both days), less upfront cost needed, shorter awards ceremony (getting peeps on the road quicker)....

I would say that my event was successful. I dont have much against the current (or new) structure, but I think a True-Am style competition structure would be better. If that could be coupled with the new competative structure and requireing PDGA membership for all sanctioned events (with low cost, number/rating only options) to get people rated, 'True Am' could work. There are some holes in that system, I know, but I think the major increase in memberships could offset the "$5 non-membership fee" losses. But alas......

Still going to give the new structure a chance. I dont think this is THE answer. I dont think the PDGA thinks that way either. As Chuck eluded to: more trial and error, more tweaking = getting it right (hopefully one day in the near future :D).

The thing about the options we have in the structure the way it is allows TDs to experiment with different formats to help us learn what elements might make it better. In addition, what's "better" absolutely depends on the maturity of the disc golf market in different locations worldwide. Narrowing the structure to rigid and limited choices may not work everywhere.

The PDGA is global and ratings are a primary reason for the international associations lining up to affiliate with the PDGA from what I'm told. And they aren't even using them for determining divisions in events yet. Their players like them for personal tracking and advancement and to compare with the rest of the world.

I think pure ratings events have two main applications. In new and growing markets with fewer players, it allows everyone to play in fair divisions at their skill level. With older and younger men and women playing together, it helps build and make local clubs stronger when all of these diverse people get to know each other better for making their local scene stronger.

The other place for pure ratings events is when you want a party atmosphere for an event maybe at a special location where a temp course is set up and/or camping is available. With all ages and genders intermixing, it reduces the disconnection that can occur when players of the same age and gender head off in each of their directions in a regular event.

The cool thing with the 2008 revisions is now the rating division structure has fully become the "trunk" of the competition tree. Those who are women and/or over 39 now have a place to play when no one or not enough players show up for their gender/age division. TDs aren't forced to be lenient and allow a two person division unless they want to.

I like the proposal, although I can see events where enthusiast will probably not exist, but I do think the break points are very well set.

I think there are developing locations where Expert will not exist in some C-tiers where the handful of Ams above 934 just decide to play Open. In some respects, even if there aren't enough who choose Enthusiast and play up in Intermediate at an event, the fact it's an official part of the structure will make players who choose to play up feel better about their choice.

Click on the link in my signature. The Am side of the event was low entry fee and trophy only. The people that showed up didnt think it was so bad..in fact most if not all actually liked it. Reduced entry fee ($20 for all Am's), players package worth 250% of entry (including 2 discs and lunch both days), less upfront cost needed, shorter awards ceremony (getting peeps on the road quicker)....

I would say that my event was successful. I dont have much against the current (or new) structure, but I think a True-Am style competition structure would be better. If that could be coupled with the new competative structure and requireing PDGA membership for all sanctioned events (with low cost, number/rating only options) to get people rated, 'True Am' could work. There are some holes in that system, I know, but I think the major increase in memberships could offset the "$5 non-membership fee" losses. But alas......

Still going to give the new structure a chance. I dont think this is THE answer. I dont think the PDGA thinks that way either. As Chuck eluded to: more trial and error, more tweaking = getting it right (hopefully one day in the near future :D).



Good job! I sincerely congratulate you on the good turnout. I believe there is a place for true amateur tournaments, however I envision them being academically affiliated. Why are you going to a prize payout next year, though?

I just think that if two tournaments were held year after year on the same day and they were similar courses and amenities except one offered a prize payout and the other was trophy only, there would be a difference in the people that showed up to each one. Personally, I would choose the prize payout tournament. Call me what you want, but it seems like a no-brainer to me.

Where the different Am divisions exist, will probably depend on area. Here in Northeastern IL, this is what the average field size would be for the four AM divisions based on the IOS tournaments to date for 2007.
AM1 21
AM2 46
AM3 38
AM4 18

The Advanced division will still be the largest, but AM1 and AM4 are still respectable in size.

Where the different Am divisions exist, will probably depend on area. Here in Northeastern IL, this is what the average field size would be for the four AM divisions based on the IOS tournaments to date for 2007.
AM1 21
AM2 46
AM3 38
AM4 18

The Advanced division will still be the largest, but AM1 and AM4 are still respectable in size.



Assuming that everyone plays within their ratings-based division. Many players will play "up" one level, skewing your numbers slightly.

Chap

And some Am1s will play pro sometimes and/or pros under 975 play Am1, especially older pros, and potentially women pros when no other women show up or they are rated 80 points below them.

There are a lot of other factors that influence where players play. We typically only have 10% in the int division that were playing up. The numbers for the advanced division are higher, but these are split day tournaments and they can then play adv trophy only one day and int the next.

Yeah, one would probably be an Adv./Open tourney and the other would be mostly Int/Rec/Women/ Jr. tourney...hehe. Although, I was surprised at the number of Adv. players that didnt compete in Open. I thought several of the ones that ended up at the top in Adv. would have been able to compete in Open...and judging by their score I was right.

I'm doing a normal payout style next year because there is a guy in our region who is starting a regional series. He will have a trailor full of goodies that he hauls around to raise money for the series and I want to support his efforts. So I am letting him take care of all the Am payout for me. If it werent for that, I would do this year's payout style again. But, there could be other events that I run using that payout style if I get the chance.

If the system is so whacked, then how come we don't hear of people trying other systems and being successful with them? I am serious about this question. I have heard of people trying other systems, but nobody has proven to me that it will be successful. Provide me with an example in an already discgolf healthy area that has shown that another system is better.



How about Marshall Street DGC? Largest purse outside PDGA ~$39000 this year. 2 mens divisions; Men, men over 50. Qualifying events to get in, players ratings range from 850 on up, merchandising out the ying yang, players packs, players party, volunteer film crews for DVD's, skins competitions,etc. Tournament was full months in advance with people clamoring to get in from around the country. Have you not heard of this?

It's not just the divisional system that needs changing, but the basic "venue" model for promotions. When a player gets value for their entry fee - any prizes become what they should be - gravy. As long as the only value being offered is the return of entry fees - the system will remain broken.

Well said.....unfortunately, you are not one of the 3 guys the Competition Committee listens to.

Don't belittle me! So, you propose every tournament should adopt the MSDGC format? Pffft! Are you serious? You're more intelligent than that.

Yeah, really well said. Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Now go away.

You said "Provide me with an example in an already discgolf healthy area that has shown that another system is better."

He did.

How is that belittling?

Anyways, I think your basic thesis is disingenuous. How do you measure the success of competitive formats? I assume you do it by total players in the entire tournament. There are others measurements for a competitive system, not only on a per-tournament basis, but on a long-term basis. Most of these discussions are essentially a battle of ideals.

Related to what Pat mentioned, I think it would be wise for the PDGA to separate traditional competition from recreational get togethers. I also think the PDGA should rethink this apparent mentality of all growth (read fees) is desirable. If that takes some serious reprioritization of their services, then they should do so. The goals of the sport are a priority, they shouldn't be refashioned to financially prop up an unfocused organization.

You said "Provide me with an example in an already discgolf healthy area that has shown that another system is better."

He did.

How is that belittling?

Anyways, I think your basic thesis is disingenuous. How do you measure the success of competitive formats? I assume you do it by total players in the entire tournament. There are others measurements for a competitive system, not only on a per-tournament basis, but on a long-term basis. Most of these discussions are essentially a battle of ideals.

Related to what Pat mentioned, I think it would be wise for the PDGA to separate traditional competition from recreational get togethers. I also think the PDGA should rethink this apparent mentality of all growth (read fees) is desirable. If that takes some serious reprioritization of their services, then they should do so. The goals of the sport are a priority, they shouldn't be refashioned to financially prop up an unfocused organization.



Pfft! He belittled me.

I agree, the PDGA or some org is going to need to pursue the competitive formats. So, you too believe every tournament should adopt the MSDGC format? C'mon, that doen't make sense to me.

Hey man, you asked for an example of a successful model - I don't see using MSDGC as an example as either belittling you - or as proclaiming it to be "THE" answer. It is what it is - a HUGE success - and there's no denying it. As for your dismissal (i.e. "pfffft are you serious") -perhaps you could offer some actual discussion as to why this model is so out of bounds?

The only reason the PDGA would not approach competition in this way - is pure and simple because of entitlement. There are too many people entrenched in the entitlement value system we've established. And folks like CK and the Competition Committee have already admitted that the "competitve system" is more about "customer service" than it is about competition.

Should every PDGA event be like MSDGC as regards divisions? - I'd say we have room for more flexible offerings than that. But dismissing or ignoring their successes and methodology for acquiring those successes is just plain ignorant.

Lately I've been wondering. Why is it that people are so worried about player retention? I've been playing competitve disc sports in one form or another for over 25 years. And if there's one thing that is amazingly obvious to me - is that disc sports like any other activity - attracts people in a transient fashion. People come and go from them all the time - it's a fact of life. I mean how many of the ~12000 current members have numbers under 10000? Under 5000? It's great to think that we could keep everybody whoever joined the PDGA as a current member - but how realistic is THAT?? Not very. We talk about encouraging new members - but we don't require membership either to play in sanctioned events, nor do we require or even encourage TD's to give memberships as prizes. On top of that - the BOD just raised membership fees!So how serious are we about membership? Sure seems to me we are content to put the expense burden of the organization on the existing membership with the hopes of self sustaining revenues from events. Sort of a vicious circle - need members, need revenue, only real revenue comes from event fees, only way to continue getting those is to have more events and make everyone a winner so they continue to be willing to pay the fees. End result - more events, more divisions, more winners, less competition.

You said "Provide me with an example in an already discgolf healthy area that has shown that another system is better."

He did.

How is that belittling?

Anyways, I think your basic thesis is disingenuous. How do you measure the success of competitive formats? I assume you do it by total players in the entire tournament. There are others measurements for a competitive system, not only on a per-tournament basis, but on a long-term basis. Most of these discussions are essentially a battle of ideals.

Related to what Pat mentioned, I think it would be wise for the PDGA to separate traditional competition from recreational get togethers. I also think the PDGA should rethink this apparent mentality of all growth (read fees) is desirable. If that takes some serious reprioritization of their services, then they should do so. The goals of the sport are a priority, they shouldn't be refashioned to financially prop up an unfocused organization.



Pfft! He belittled me.

I agree, the PDGA or some org is going to need to pursue the competitive formats. So, you too believe every tournament should adopt the MSDGC format? C'mon, that doen't make sense to me.

All I'm trying to do here is to calm the PDGA bashing just because they made a certain format change that is meant to encourage more participation at the many tournaments being held across the country on any given weekend. What many are complaining about here is goals of the PDGA and instead of seeing it that way, there is PDGA bashing of the current changes.

I agree, the PDGA or some org is going to need to pursue the competitive formats. So, you too believe every tournament should adopt the MSDGC format? C'mon, that doen't make sense to me.




Yeah, really well said. Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Now go away.

You too?

Yeah, really well said. Thanks for contributing to the discussion. Now go away.


Contributed about as much as you have.....oh yeah, pffft.

Arguing about this isn't going to change anything anyway. I know about 50 or so disc golfers in this area (along with myself) who are going to speak with their wallets.....by NOT renewing next year.

No, I'm trying to understand your point of view. Nobody has answered this question. Do you really believe that if the PDGA suddenly declared that all tournaments must run their tournaments with two divisions of straight up pro and am that participation would continue to increase at the local levels?

While you run your sanctioned pro and am tournaments, I will run one unsanctioned at the nearest course on the same day with the traditional format. I totally believe you would get some people, but I would get the better turnout, essentially killing the PDGA.

No, I'm trying to understand your point of view. Nobody has answered this question. Do you really believe that if the PDGA suddenly declared that all tournaments must run their tournaments with two divisions of straight up pro and am that participation would continue to increase at the local levels?


I do. Proof: Mini's
Most mini's I've played in draw the locals and they offer 1 or 2 divisions. Sometimes, in bigger areas, the mini's offer 3 mens and 1 woman's division. Pros play for cash, Ams play for merch. Considering mini's are run consistently in all areas, even areas where PDGA events are not, this shows the willingness of golfers to compete with a small number of divisions, if the price is right.

While I'm at it, I hope the PDGA leaders are reading some of this because I believe the PDGA needs to keep pursuing the NT or some form of it or somebody else will. I understand that it has been difficult because not every TD wants to run their tournament in a strict fashion, but they should not give up on it.

No, I'm trying to understand your point of view. Nobody has answered this question. Do you really believe that if the PDGA suddenly declared that all tournaments must run their tournaments with two divisions of straight up pro and am that participation would continue to increase at the local levels?


I do. Proof: Mini's
Most mini's I've played in draw the locals and they offer 1 or 2 divisions. Sometimes, in bigger areas, the mini's offer 3 mens and 1 woman's division. Pros play for cash, Ams play for merch. Considering mini's are run consistently in all areas, even areas where PDGA events are not, this shows the willingness of golfers to compete with a small number of divisions, if the price is right.



Yeah, it's exactly the same type of successful format that the PDGA offers, except with benefits and if the PDGA suddenly declared you couldn't run a sanctioned tournament with that type of format, would you sanction it? So what are you complaining about?

It's not just the divisional system that needs changing, but the basic "venue" model for promotions. When a player gets value for their entry fee - any prizes become what they should be - gravy. As long as the only value being offered is the return of entry fees - the system will remain broken.



You hit that nail on the head.

Any ideas how we change this attitude in so many disc golfers?

While you run your sanctioned pro and am tournaments, I will run one unsanctioned at the nearest course on the same day with the traditional format. I totally believe you would get some people, but I would get the better turnout, essentially killing the PDGA.



I suspect that this is a big fear of the PDGA. Personally, I think this is an idle threat, or a blessing in disguise. It is an idle threat because there will be a day of reckoning for you and your organization. You will eventually be faced with the same old bagging issues, and be forced to spend a lot of time and money dealing with it. Just witness the last 10 years or so of the PDGA.

The blessing part is that your organization would peel off the anti-competitive crowd who is only interested in easy rewards. The PDGA would then be leaner and populated by true competitors, both ams and non-ams, and would be ready for a long period of healthy growth as a sport. Meanwhile, your organization would be quibbling over which mediocre golfer gets the most treasure, or how to deal with those few people who want a system that rewards those who perform best.

[/QUOTE]

[/QUOTE]I suspect that this is a big fear of the PDGA. Personally, I think this is an idle threat, or a blessing in disguise. It is an idle threat because there will be a day of reckoning for you and your organization. You will eventually be faced with the same old bagging issues, and be forced to spend a lot of time and money dealing with it. Just witness the last 10 years or so of the PDGA.

The blessing part is that your organization would peel off the anti-competitive crowd who is only interested in easy rewards. The PDGA would then be leaner and populated by true competitors, both ams and non-ams, and would be ready for a long period of healthy growth as a sport. Meanwhile, your organization would be quibbling over which mediocre golfer gets the most treasure, or how to deal with those few people who want a system that rewards those who perform best.

[/QUOTE]

So, you agree I would get a better turnout?

You don't really say anything except that we need more competition. How? If you believe it will work so well, why don't you and others start to make it happen? Or is it happening? I don't know.

You're argueing for something I see the PDGA is working on. Isn't the NT and USDGC up to your standards? Pro and Am Worlds? Am-Nationals? I also think that these types of tournaments require certain types of TDs, which most aren't. (although I think the PDGA should embrace these types of TDs)

The local B &amp; C tiers are to just to try to get as many people to participate. I believe that is what the new change is meant to do and will do. Put your spin on easy rewards, that's just some more PDGA bashing rhetoric. I agree there are people out there like that and I do not have an answer for it, but not most people.

I am not the person to sit here and try to defend the PDGA because I do not have the info or the skills or the silly rhetoric to do it effectively, but I won't put up with constant bashing of the current system when it is doing what it is supposed to be doing.

And many of you seem to ignore the fact that everybody reaches a peak in their skill level but yet want to still play in tournaments. Do you really want want the "pay up or go away" tournament for every tournament? Is this what you want?

I didn't think so.

I am not the person to sit here and try to defend the PDGA because I do not have the info or the skills or the silly rhetoric to do it effectively, but I won't put up with constant bashing of the current system when it is doing what it is supposed to be doing.



What exactly is it you believe the PDGA is supposed to be doing? How bout we start w/ the mission statement?
From the organizational documents in the PDGA homepage - here it is:

1. Continue to develop the professional and amateur tours to compliment national sponsorship.
2. Work to develop the PDGA as the face of competitive disc golf.
3. Continue to add value to our membership while encouraging competitive growth.
4. Establish, enhance, and govern the standardization in the rules of play, tournament formats, and all other aspects of the sport od disc golf.
5. Prepare our organization for growth.

So let's evaluate this point by point - and you decide for yourself if we are living up to our purported "mission".
1. Development of Professional and Amateur tours: There has certainly been progress from the PDGA in trying to promote a "National Tour" - but not without a lot of hiccups. NT events have in large part - not lived up to the hopes of many - have not garnered the kind of attendance one might expect - and in large part - have become a sort of "BIGGER" more expensive set of the same kinds of tournaments as are run everywhere else. There are certainly some quality organizers on board trying hard to run the best events they can - and many are successful in that regard - but where is the complimentary "NATIONAL SPONSORSHIP?" There are certainly some good beginnings in John Dueslers efforts to make traveling easier (i.e. Microtel sponsorship, etc) - but still no actual added money that comes from outside the organization. And is there actually an Amateur tour? Are the few events we call AM Majors tied together in any way? And is there any National sponsors for them? You tell me!
2&amp;3 - Right there at the top of the list - competition seems to be a priority in the mission statement. There is little elaboration on exactly what that means. Does that mean the # of "competitions" available to attend? Does it mean development of systems to determine who is eligible to participate - and at what level? What do you think it should mean? When you see 90 players split into 6/8/10 divisions - does that appear to be "competition" or something else?

4. Governance is certainly in question - as the organization tends to manage a schedule, but largely leaves event formats in the hands of TD's. This is not entirely a bad thing. Having options for formats is great -but is there any actual management and coordination that encourages different formats? Is it fair to say that 90% or more of all sanctioned events are the same basic format? (singles play, 1 or 2 day events) Are there any quotas or other management of how many of any sort of event is held in a particular location each year? Or is it more a managing of trying to 1) minimize overlap on the schedule to avoid conflicts and 2) maximizing the total # of events around the country to garner the greatest possible level of player fees to finance the organization? And when it comes to governing competitve venues - it appears the general mantra has and continues to be - the players should not be dictated to - ultimately they should be able to choose not where they compete - but against whom!
5. On this front there are several big positives for the PDGA - the IDGC and the EDGE program are by far the two biggest - but from what I understand - the EDGE program is not "exactly" a PDGA program. The downside to this part of the mission statement is the schedule. First of all - managing the schedule has got to be a nightmare for David Gentry - big job - little thanks OR cooperation. Secondly - it "APPEARS" as if the biggest priority is simply to maximize the number of events - the unfortunate result is that there is a huge influx of inexperienced TD's that don't really know how to run events, don't know how to enforce rules, don't know how to promote their event - all of which are allowed sanctioning - which then in turn reduces the overall quality and consistency in sanctioned events. The schedule gets so packed that many events suffer in attendance - and players are not encouraged to travel to discover all the great places there are to play. Sort of a double edged sword.

So what kind of growth is it we are preparing for? Is it the growth of the orhanization? Of the sport in general? Of the # of competitions? Or in competition itself?

Didn't think so what. My ideas would kick no one out. There would still be a division for everyone to play in, however, the divisions where you play for profit would be limited to a very few. I would be quite happy with just a male/female breakdown or adding an age breakdown starting at 50 or so. For the true am divisions, I would allow many divisions, although I suspect the market would limit the actual number.

I would tell two groups of people that the system will no longer attempt to support them. The first is every amateur that expects to profit from disc golf. This is the last person I want to attract or retain in the sport, and I would have absolutely no problem telling them that "If you want to profit, here is your division; if not, here is the alternative division(s). If those don't appeal, see ya." I would then tell those that wish to profit that "We aim to set up a system that encourages people to test their skills and take risks, and that will increase participation in your division. However, it doesn't mean purses will increase or you will be one bit richer, it might not work that way at all."

Then I would run this system for fifty years, and watch it attract a more competitive base of players. Whether this base ever produces real pros is immaterial, because it will produce a real, competitive sport, and that is the goal. The rest is gravy.

Didn't think so what. My ideas would kick no one out. There would still be a division for everyone to play in, however, the divisions where you play for profit would be limited to a very few. I would be quite happy with just a male/female breakdown or adding an age breakdown starting at 50 or so. For the true am divisions, I would allow many divisions, although I suspect the market would limit the actual number.

I would tell two groups of people that the system will no longer attempt to support them. The first is every amateur that expects to profit from disc golf. This is the last person I want to attract or retain in the sport, and I would have absolutely no problem telling them that "If you want to profit, here is your division; if not, here is the alternative division(s). If those don't appeal, see ya." I would then tell those that wish to profit that "We aim to set up a system that encourages people to test their skills and take risks, and that will increase participation in your division. However, it doesn't mean purses will increase or you will be one bit richer, it might not work that way at all."

Then I would run this system for fifty years, and watch it attract a more competitive base of players. Whether this base ever produces real pros is immaterial, because it will produce a real, competitive sport, and that is the goal. The rest is gravy.



I knew I should have written you in as SC.

Didn't think so what. My ideas would kick no one out. There would still be a division for everyone to play in, however, the divisions where you play for profit would be limited to a very few. I would be quite happy with just a male/female breakdown or adding an age breakdown starting at 50 or so. For the true am divisions, I would allow many divisions, although I suspect the market would limit the actual number.

I would tell two groups of people that the system will no longer attempt to support them. The first is every amateur that expects to profit from disc golf. This is the last person I want to attract or retain in the sport, and I would have absolutely no problem telling them that "If you want to profit, here is your division; if not, here is the alternative division(s). If those don't appeal, see ya." I would then tell those that wish to profit that "We aim to set up a system that encourages people to test their skills and take risks, and that will increase participation in your division. However, it doesn't mean purses will increase or you will be one bit richer, it might not work that way at all."

Then I would run this system for fifty years, and watch it attract a more competitive base of players. Whether this base ever produces real pros is immaterial, because it will produce a real, competitive sport, and that is the goal. The rest is gravy.



I knew I should have written you in as SC.



Let's nominate him next year.

texas has a good SC already. james would be better on the Board.

Wow! gang4010 and McCaine, this is exactly what I was looking for. Your opinions are much clearer now. I'm speechless. I agree with much of what is written here.

For gang4010, you should distribute that to all of the BOD, although national sponsorship may be the achilles heal for the PDGA for quite a while yet. I believe people with an incentive to hold large tournaments, such as pay to play course owners, will be the gateway to the next level of national sponsorship.

McCaine, I agree that the PDGA could have taken a different direction 10 years ago and I'm not sure what things would be like now if that direction was taken. Although, I think your vision is exactly where academic disc golf should be headed, just not your everyday tournaments where our biggest demographic is 30 something males.

4. Establish, enhance, and govern the standardization in the rules of play, tournament formats, and all other aspects of the sport od disc golf.


Wow. I OD'd on disc golf once (about nine years ago at Peaks View), but I didn't know the association mandates it!

Just kidding. Well put, Craig.

Didn't think so what. My ideas would kick no one out. There would still be a division for everyone to play in, however, the divisions where you play for profit would be limited to a very few. I would be quite happy with just a male/female breakdown or adding an age breakdown starting at 50 or so. For the true am divisions, I would allow many divisions, although I suspect the market would limit the actual number.

I would tell two groups of people that the system will no longer attempt to support them. The first is every amateur that expects to profit from disc golf. This is the last person I want to attract or retain in the sport, and I would have absolutely no problem telling them that "If you want to profit, here is your division; if not, here is the alternative division(s). If those don't appeal, see ya." I would then tell those that wish to profit that "We aim to set up a system that encourages people to test their skills and take risks, and that will increase participation in your division. However, it doesn't mean purses will increase or you will be one bit richer, it might not work that way at all."

Then I would run this system for fifty years, and watch it attract a more competitive base of players. Whether this base ever produces real pros is immaterial, because it will produce a real, competitive sport, and that is the goal. The rest is gravy.



James McCaine for President of the United States

...My ideas would kick no one out. There would still be a division for everyone to play in, however, the divisions where you play for profit would be limited to a very few. I would be quite happy with just a male/female breakdown or adding an age breakdown starting at 50 or so. For the true am divisions, I would allow many divisions, although I suspect the market would limit the actual number.




I love this in principle but am curious about the details.

You don't refer to this split as Pro / Am, but for convenience I will. Would you restrict entrance into the Pro division, or migration from the Pro back to Am?

Would you restrict TDs from awarding prizes to Ams large enough to make it "profitable", as well? How?

How would you move us past the "entitlement" attitude described a while back? Could this be framed in a way that much of the membership would go along with?

Do you think the increasing number of limited-division events (USDGC, Marshall Street, etc.) may lead the way toward such a system as you describe?

You don't refer to this split as Pro / Am, but for convenience I will. Would you restrict entrance into the Pro division, or migration from the Pro back to Am?



I would hope TDs would encourage everyone to step forward to play non-am. If it was not a big event and there was room, I would leave it up to the enterprising TD to lure folks in thru pricing options, amenties, other value. But you must remember, since TDs are not having to meet some arbitrary purse threshold, since that is no longer an aim of the system, then entry fees could easily be reduced and/or staggered in ways similar to what Craig has described.

Since there is no financial incentive for people playing amateur, I wouldn't restrict downward movement, nor would I expect much of it. Basically, a player would hopefully be looking a similar pricing options to enter either division, with no possibility of financial reward in one. Players interested in gambling will probably enter one, other players wouldn't. It would also virtually eliminate all baging within the am ranks. what incentive is there to bag?



Would you restrict TDs from awarding prizes to Ams large enough to make it "profitable", as well? How?


Of course, that is the point, you could do it by something like "prizes cannot exceed 1.X times entry."



How would you move us past the "entitlement" attitude described a while back? Could this be framed in a way that much of the membership would go along with?



I'm not into sugarcoating, I've never understood why the PDGA doesn't just have the balls to say "Hey look, if you want to play for profit, here are your options....." The idea that one should take risks to profit is inately understood by almost everyone. The only possible rebuttal amounts to nothing more than "I am on the dole and dammit, I plan to stay there" or better yet "I've earned it." Rebuttals like this are not persuasive, and shouldn't deter the PDGA one bit.



Do you think the increasing number of limited-division events (USDGC, Marshall Street, etc.) may lead the way toward such a system as you describe?


Not necessarily, however, I think changing the basic system to match those events will make other events like those more likely to sprout up.

For gang4010, you should distribute that to all of the BOD, although national sponsorship may be the achilles heal for the PDGA for quite a while yet. I believe people with an incentive to hold large tournaments, such as pay to play course owners, will be the gateway to the next level of national sponsorship.



Perhaps it's me being naive, but I sort of assume that anyone willing enough to run for the BOD has familiarized themselves with the mission statement. This is part of why I occasionally rail on them for what I see as obvious conflicts to it. Some take my rants as unfounded flying off the handle BS. Others (in the minority) nod there head in silent acknowledgement of what they know in their heart to be true. None seem willing to actually do something about it. -Well that's not exactly true, there are currently a couple members on the BOD that would gladly see changes made - but it's sort of like 10-2 (not sure of the actual #'s) - and they are there beating their heads against the wall. The end result - see document describing competition changes for 2008 :(

Thanks for the clarification.

This is very much the way I've wanted to see disc golf go, personally.....but I draw a distinction between what I want, and what I think the PDGA should do. I'm unconvinced enough disc golfers would want this (but would be very happy to be wrong).

One concern would be the loss of TD profits from the wholesale/retail split on Am merch prizes and packages. It would be great if we could change the mentality of "return on entry fee" so Ams expected to pay a modest entry fee and get nothing in return but the chance to play in a well-run organized event. I suspect if the PDGA mandated such a system, non-sanctioned events would offer high-prize Am events as we have now, and the marketplace would win out.

Sideline---there are other, smaller events running in this direction. I ran two this year (no age-protected divisions, Am or Pro), one sanctioned and one not. There was another 1-division event up the road from me two weeks ago.

Wouldn't a more limited campaign, to remove the age-protected divisions or at least raise the threshhold to 50, be a step in the right direction? It would increase the fields in both Open and the ratings-based Am divisions, and greatly reduce the number of "World Championships" handed out. But this is the "entitlement" to which I refer, and it's not just the right to win or cash, but the desire to play with players of the same age.

david, i wouldnt mess with what we have, especially the masters age, except at the top levels of competition. if the 4X year old wants protection at a C tier, let him have it, no worries. if the 905 rated player wants protection from the 980 player at a B tier, okay.

its not that the system is broken - it isnt. the problem is that the system is designed for Amateur/Social/Recreational needs, and it does not address the needs of the highest competitive levels.

keep the current system but keep it in its place. (yikes, that doesnt sound like i want it to...) and build a new system for the Pros. Win/Win.

You can never separate the problem like you propose. I contend that is merely avoiding the problem.

As long as the current system exists as is, many players will naturally be tempted to exercise the option with the highest return on investment. The simple problem that must be confronted head on is: Why would a player risk a lower return by facing tougher competition if they can obtain a greater return by facing easier competition?

The PDGA must confront this issue honestly, as it is one of the major hindrances to creating a truly competitive sport.

because they are in it for the competition.

i played Masters last weekend when Adv and Grandmasters were both available to me.

different people play for different reasons.


avoiding the problem is absolutely part of the plan, you astute one :) get this never-ending discussion out of the way. if the current divisional spaghetti plan is what a lot of players want, then why not give it to them. just provide something more competition-oritented for those who want to compete. who knows - if you are correct then everyone will flock to a new competition-oriented plan and the current thing will die off naturally.

If I am right? If I am right, many people will continue to play down and exercise more lucrative options, thus perpetuating the status quo, which is fine to a lot of people, but is really ushering in the decline of disc golf as a sport, and permanently cementing it as a social club for non-competitors.

Typically, this discussion goes like this: the argument is made that our system is designed to reward non-competitive types. Some people respond with outrage that someone insinuated that they may be non-compeitive. Others acknowledge the system's faults, know it is wrong, but are unwilling to institute any sweeping change in fear of some revolution. Some agree, but are not passionate about the issue. Others admit that the system is probably unjust and anti-competitive, but say "hey, hooking people on crack is a great business plan, we'll build a sport of crack addicts." A few actually try to perversely portray the system as just.

Meanwhile, nothing is done and the hole just gets deeper.

I'm not sure exactly how to respond to you because I kind of see where you're coming from with non-competitive types, but what you just stated just doesn't seem completely in line with the way it is in reality. And FYI - you're little comments do not help your argument at all.

Let's take me for example. I'm 33, I've been been playing for 13 years, 12 in advanced and I've been rated 930 to 950 the entire time. I'm still trying to get better and I believe I am. The division has been and still is very competitive, in my opinion. I don't do it for profit and I don't know anybody else that plays adv or int for profit, per se, but I do prefer playing for a payout and I can't see it any other way now. Call me what you want, but I do not resemble any of those bs comments.

Well, it is a losing battle on my side, as the numbers unwilling to change and leaders who appease rather than lead keeps growing. I'm not sure if my comments are tinged by frustration or simply my view of things. In many ways, my comments about those avoiding competition apply to myself as well. What I'm asking for will take my options away also.

By the way, I know a lot of ams, just like a lot of masters, who play in those divisions for obvious financial reasons. I don't think their decisions are a result of character flaws, I just don't think the Association in charge of the sport should allow those temptations. It's not healthy for the sport.

Additionally, I often hear people say "I'm not in it for financial reasons, but I'm not interested unless there are financial lures." Seems inconsistent to me.

McCaine wrote:

"Additionally, I often hear people say "I'm not in it for financial reasons, but I'm not interested unless there are financial lures." Seems inconsistent to me."

I will be the first to admit this is the way I feel. Call me what you want, but it is still not about profit in the way you make it sound. Yes, when I recieve more than what I paid, it is a profit. But, it isn't going to get me or anybody else anywhere. Based on our biggest demographic right now of 30 something males, the current system is good and the true amateur divisions need to be pursued in the schools, in my opinion.

Dean, regardless of why you choose Adv instead of Open the fact remains that you have chosen something other than top level competition. there's nothing wrong with that, and some aspects of the experience will benefit you later in Open. i've been in the same place you are for some time as an Adv Master. i've got plenty of wins and high finishes in that division, and i got to taste what its like to hold a lead over the last few holes. the feeling of competition is a seductive voice that obscures the truth that i wasnt really playing competitively even when i won. its a question of which standards you chase.

james... "is really ushering in the decline of disc golf as a sport, and permanently cementing it as a social club for non-competitors. " ... well-said. i'm with ya.

Dang Pat! I looked at your stats and you were one of those master baggers!!! Nice to see you moved on to pro.....

I as well play adv. masters and love the competition level. At the same time I love the laid back environment. I have heard that the environment changes a bit when you move up and that's probably as it should be. More at stake = more seroius attitudes.

By the way, I know a lot of ams, just like a lot of masters, who play in those divisions for obvious financial reasons. I don't think their decisions are a result of character flaws, I just don't think the Association in charge of the sport should allow those temptations. It's not healthy for the sport.

Additionally, I often hear people say "I'm not in it for financial reasons, but I'm not interested unless there are financial lures." Seems inconsistent to me.



The simplest answer to this is lowering and limiting entry fee amounts in all divisions other than FPO and MPO. But no one wants to do that because then the TD can't <s>profit off the Am's</s> pad the Pro purse and the some of the older guys will complain about being disrespected.

regardless of why you choose Adv instead of Open the fact remains that you have chosen something other than top level competition.

This is where I get a little confused with everybody here. I agree that there needs to be tournaments like this, but isn't that what the NT and USDGC are for? I get the feeling that people want to do away with the current system all together in favor of a straight up pro and am tournament everywhere, everytime. That doesn't make sense to me.

:Di was indeed... i hope you didnt notice the margin of victory on this one (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=3807#Advanced%20Mas ters) :)

in all fairness tho, i've been trying Masters since 2003. maybe i should've moved up to Advanced instead of staying in AdvM for those years, but i did like the guys in that field and there were several who could win on any given weekend. it served its purpose.

Dean, i dont want to get rid of the current system. i want to augment it. i honestly do not know what the NTs are for - i've never seen it written anywhere. simply by looking at stats one cannot tell much difference between an NT and any other tour event. attendance in 2007 ranges from 47 (canadian open) to 210 (the memorial). purse ranges from $14,675 (canadian open) to $35,900 (memorial).

NTs offer pro only, but they also offer masters(40), GM, and Sr. GM. NTs are not typically "play your way in" either.

I play Adv. Master. I play it because I am relatively competitive in the division and because I enjoy the company. I used to play Open (many years ago) so I know what it's like to play at a highly competitive level. My game isn't at that level anymore, so I don't feel the need to fight to not be DFL at every tournament. I don't have the time to practice or play enough to be competitive in Open or Pro Masters (challenging job, kids, community volunteer responsibilities, no course in my town), but I applaud those who do. However, I don't see why I should be expected to donate cash to them on a regular basis.

My experience of late watching some of the Open and Pro Master cards makes me wonder why I would want to play in those groups. The amount of over-competitiveness is definitely not in relation to the money involved. I could spend a few hours consulting and make far more than the typical Pro Master wins for a 3-round event. Also, the amount of disdain that many in the upper divisions express towards less-skilled players is no incentive to play up. Pay more to be the target of snide comments? No thanks.

And please don't label me as "greedy" for wanting to be able to "merch" from time to time. I took 2nd in an event two weeks ago (field of 8) and won $75 (retail) worth of plastic. Most will go to my son (as it's too heavy for me to throw) or go on the wall as a memento. I'm really not making a killing playing in Advanced Masters. If I can learn to putt and raise my rating a bit I might try the Expert division and who knows, maybe Pro Masters. But not until I have a reasonable chance to be competitive and not DFL all the time.

OK, attack away.

I'm assuming that NT tournaments are requested by the TDs. USDGC and MSDGC are as big as they are because the TDs had a vision and pursued it. The way I see it, these tournaments are big because of the TDs and this is the way it is going to be in the near future. So, when people come on here saying the PDGA needs to do this and the PDGA needs to do that, I don't see it that way.

It really comes down to TDs pursuing their vision and utilizing PDGA support to achieve their vision. This is only because the sport is still in it's infancy and one day the PDGA will be able to dictate more requirements, but they don't want to shoot themselves in the foot now.

nothing to attack there, imo, those are great reasons to play Adv Masters. and unfortunately from my own experience, i know what its like to go into an event when staying out of DFL is a legitimate, even aggressive, goal

"The amount of over-competitiveness is definitely not in relation to the money involved." massive truth award for that observation. having separate tracks might help solve that problem by keeping the biggest bux in the Open tour.

Allen,
No attack - but a question for you. I didn't look at all your results - but a few. And from the finishes I looked at, your scores always fit right into one of the other "am" divisions - from top 1/3 to middle of the pack. So from that standpoint, my question for you is: if there were fewer divisions overall - would there still be a place where you would feel comfortable competing?

See - while it may sound as if I and others are advocates for abolishing all divisions - that aint it at all. I'm an advocate for increasing the size of all divisions offered, by streamlining the total # of divisions, and eliminating or minimizing the overlaps in skill levels between divisions.

I play Adv. Master.
OK, attack away.



you bastard! :D

Craig (and others),

A "potential" solution to the "problem" of having too many divisions may be something akin to what I ran into at a C-tier in Switzerland earlier this year. It seemed to work well, although I know some of the rules zealots will say that they didn't "do it" exactly as it should have been done (I guess according to strict PDGA standards, etc.). What happened was that the 1st round was "random" pairings. The second round was strictly according to scores. I was on the second card...with a Pro Open and 2 Pro Masters (I'm a GM).

I know that this doesn't always allow to be paired with "your nearest competition"...at least not the nearest competition in your age group but it does allow those who are throwing a certain score that day to play with others who also are throwing (about) that score. Even though I was playing with "other divisions", I felt that I was BOTH playing to get the top GM spot AND playing to beat / do the best against my playing partners.

I say ALWAYS group like-scores together (for subsequent rounds after round 1) and let the "divisions" be almost a "paper-thing" (to be calculated afterwards). You'd get the "fairest" [boy, people love to throw that word around...so I guess I'll try it ;)] competition for that day and you can STILL have the divisions - as many / as few as you want - count for something. The only draw back is that you can't always "keep a eye" on your divisional rivals; but I personally don't think this is such a problem.

Karl

If I am right? If I am right, many people will continue to play down and exercise more lucrative options, thus perpetuating the status quo, which is fine to a lot of people, but is really ushering in the decline of disc golf as a sport, and permanently cementing it as a social club for non-competitors.

Typically, this discussion goes like this: the argument is made that our system is designed to reward non-competitive types. Some people respond with outrage that someone insinuated that they may be non-compeitive. Others acknowledge the system's faults, know it is wrong, but are unwilling to institute any sweeping change in fear of some revolution. Some agree, but are not passionate about the issue. Others admit that the system is probably unjust and anti-competitive, but say "hey, hooking people on crack is a great business plan, we'll build a sport of crack addicts." A few actually try to perversely portray the system as just.

Meanwhile, nothing is done and the hole just gets deeper.



Do you include in your definition of "non-competitive" players who seek out others of similar skill and development, and compete like **** to beat them?

(Would your definition extend to high school &amp; colllege athletes as well?)

Personally, I feel less "competitive" when playing against someone ten-strokes-a-round better than me.

Yes, I am one of those who enjoys playing Advanced Masters, yet would prefer the division go away because I enjoy playing in larger divisions, even more. But I also accept that there's nothing wrong with a membership organization doing what the membership wants it to do.

Karl, this has been proposed before and has some merit....IF the PDGA would make it an option for TDs and IF the TDs had to announce it in advance. It would be nice for players to try it and see how the pros &amp; cons play out.

Not necessarily a solution....but an idea worth a try.

Caution to all in the system reform movement that assuming the motives of unknown persons almost guarantees a certain amount of error. Players choose among the available divisions for a variety of reasons, some of which may not be financial reward.

The current system, or any future system(s) that evolve or that we create, serves not only the developing disc golfer climbing the division ladder on the route to stardom as a cashing pro, but also the disc golfer whose skills have plateaued (?) at any of a number of lower levels.

Karl, this has been proposed before and has some merit....IF the PDGA would make it an option for TDs and IF the TDs had to announce it in advance. It would be nice for players to try it and see how the pros &amp; cons play out.

Not necessarily a solution....but an idea worth a try.



....bearing in mind, of course, that such a system will shine the light on something that really irks certain people---the player with the higher score in the end, winning more that the player he played with and was beaten by, because on "paper" the first player is in another division.

David,

Your...
"....bearing in mind, of course, that such a system will shine the light on something that really irks certain people---the player with the higher score in the end, winning more that the player he played with and was beaten by, because on "paper" the first player is in another division."

Understood! But isn't it amazing how as soon as you "bring $$ into the picture", everyone starts getting grumpy! I believe if you're only playing for "pride" or "bragging rights" things are a LOT nicer...and still can be WICKED competitive! But bring in bucks and the "mean" in people really shines...lovely :(. I know I'm in the minority when I say that I hate it when someones suggests "...we play for something...". The VAST majority of the time it just ends up being a pitiful, trivial little chestthumping at the end where that person is showing-the-world "I won!". Woopie.

Karl

Ps: As for my scenario mentioned in my previous post, as a Lifer Am, I of course declined the money (but would have "made" more than at least 2 of my playing partners) AND didn't get anything (monetarily...just had a lot of fun) for winning the GM division.

Allen,
No attack - but a question for you. I didn't look at all your results - but a few. And from the finishes I looked at, your scores always fit right into one of the other "am" divisions - from top 1/3 to middle of the pack. So from that standpoint, my question for you is: if there were fewer divisions overall - would there still be a place where you would feel comfortable competing?

<font color="blue">Yes, I could compete comfortably in Advanced, and next year in Advanced or possibly Expert, once I improved my game some more. I already compete in Advanced at non-sanctioned monthly tournaments at local courses. In fact, I won a monthly a few months back in Advanced.

</font>

See - while it may sound as if I and others are advocates for abolishing all divisions - that aint it at all. I'm an advocate for increasing the size of all divisions offered, by streamlining the total # of divisions, and eliminating or minimizing the overlaps in skill levels between divisions.



However, I enjoy playing in Advanced Masters more. Our regional club (SoCal) runs a year-long points series where there is an Advanced Masters division, and I'm competitive in that series. I also really enjoy the camaraderie of the MM1 group. We have close, competitive tournaments. We all complain about the aches and pains of being over-40. We have similar frames of reference when chatting about our lives (kids, jobs, mortgages, etc.). And there's far less bag-kicking, shouting and swearing than I encounter when I play in all-age groups. So there's more to my participation than just the competition - it's also about having fun.

Remind me again why you want fewer divisions?

Why do I want fewer divisions? Wow - the reasons are myriad!
I guess bottom line is that I feel the existing divisional system is the source of both inequity in rewards, and also contributes significantly to a divisive and derisive relationship between players. I feel fewer divisions would help alleviate both these conditions.

I am sympathetic to not wanting to play with those with anger management issues - but as a 43 y.o. myself - I take pride in providing a good example to younger players - and also accept providing that example as part of my responsibility as a teacher and a mentor. I don't think that attitude has anything to do with skill level. Being competitive doesn't have anything to do w/ being an ***** - and I have no problem enforcing whatever rules apply to someone elses poor behavior - regardless of age or ability.

If we had only 1 or 2 am divisions then the am's would be making more in merch then the pro's easily. Since the breakdown is based on how many people are in the event.

If we would break it down I guess I could see 3 divisions

Rec- Trophy only
Am- Deep payout of Merch, just not more then XX amount (first place caps of say 75.00 merch)
Pro- Medium depth of payout with all we can give them.

I'm in the minority with you, as far as playing for pride and caring little for the winnings. I point out the drawbacks so they can be fixed, or at least prepared for. I'd love to play events under this system. (Perhaps it could be hybridized, so players are grouped by division in the final round as they battle for their respective titles?)

One advantage to fewer divisions, and thus larger fields, is you get to play with more different players over the course of the tournament, move up (or down) cards between rounds, and it lends some value to being on the "lead" card. None of this happens in a 5-player division.

I play both Am Masters and Advanced in different events (although my rating says "Intermediate"). Advanced Masters frequently has a better atmosphere and comraderie, as described above. Nevertheless, I personally would trade it for fewer, larger divisions.

Karl has an interesting record also. his three most recent Adv Grandmaters victories have been by 15, 8, and 27 strokes. Karl, what are your reasons for playing AGM? it does not seem to be for the challenge. i'm am not criticizing your choices, just wanting to understand.

Pat,

At the beginning of last year (2006...my 2nd year playing PDGA events) I decided that I would play AGM if offered. If not, then I'd play AMM. If that wasn't offered, I'd play Adv. If that wasn't offered, it would be a Pro-only tourney and I'd play PGM, etc. on down the line (and of course always decline $$ if won in Pro). I'm sticking to that "formula" for this year also. Next year is another year to make another decision!

I inherently loathe the concept of gambling and believe that the existing "Pro format" (that we have in the PDGA) moreso reflect the "gambling concept" than does "Am format" (although I realize that the Am isn't exactly a true am either...it's just less so in my opinion). Therefore, I'm choosing the "less of 2 evils". I will play pro IF that's the only choice. Some may think it hypocritical...maybe so, but I enjoy the PDGA, wish to continue to be a member, and understand that I can't always "have everything exactly as Karl wants it". That's life.

But understand that, if given the choice to play in a REALLY low entry-fee tournament with zero pay-out (and it fits my schedule), I'm there!!

As for the "why don't you play with other 950+ GM's?"...if THEY want to come to AGM and play with me (for a much lower entry fee) and forgo the "gambling of each others money thing", I'd LOVE them to do so!

Karl

Also Pat (forgot to add this to the last post),

If you and I played, I'd have a "playing partner" NOT an opponent. I play AGAINST THE COURSE, not against the people I'm walking around the course with. You can have a bad day and if I beat you am I supposed to feel good? If I shoot a PR for me on that course and you beat me by 1 shot, I'm happier than a clam at high tide! I did great! What you did is almost inconsequential to me (yeah, I'm a little self-centered that way). It's me vs. that #@$%*$ course and I want to rip it to shreds. But good company accompanying me is always better than wup'n it alone.

Karl

from the looks of it, you signing up for AGM is not much of a gamble for you. for the other guys who sign up not knowing if you'll be there... well, that may another story :)

I will be playing pro as soon as my rating hits 920. I am only
875 right now and should hit 900 at the next update.

Play up and play better. Donate and learn.
One of the greatest thing about this game is that you can
play with the best in the world. All you have to do is try!