While browsing the post on the 2008 changes a thought passed through my mind. Rather than carefully think it through, I thought I'd throw it out to see what pros & cons everyone else might find in it. What if we:

[1] Eliminate the point system altogether. Come up with a different method for World invites. (As far as I can think, the point system serves little other purpose).

[2] Eliminate the PDGA-determined divisions. Just have Pros & Ams (or save that debate for somewhere else).

[3] Set aside the debate on age-protected divisions for now.

[4] Allow each TD to determine what divisions he wants to offer, and where the ratings cut-offs would be. Just require them to post them in advance.

This would further allow TDs to experiment, or to customize their event to regional needs. If we had no point system, would it matter if one tournament set the intermediate cap at 915, while another set it at 890? Would it even matter what names the TDs gave their divisions?

The only drawback that comes to mind is in players identifying themselves by divisions ("I'm an Advanced player" or "I'm an intermediate"). Which seems hardly a big deal.

Ratings wouldn't be affected. Since everyone who wants to play Worlds, gets to, the World invite system wouldn't matter that much.

Thoughts?

David,

[1] I'm in agreement that the present points system does little else (say World's invites). This COULD be supplanted by the use of ratings (to determine such) OR the top x% in your state OR etc.

[2 and 3] Debates saved for later...

[4] Initially, me thinks this is fraught with trouble. Say I'm a TD and my best friend is rated 909. Instantly, a division becomes 910 and above, etc....

Karl

Allow each TD to determine...where the ratings cut-offs would be



YES YES YES YES YES!!!

karl, yes thats a concern. but i'll bet ya the market will sort that out very quickly.

(btw, does the points system truly serve the worlds invite purpose if the event doesnt come close to filling from the points-based invitations?)

You're overlooking the more important value of points. It's something that someone earns for participation no matter how far down they finish. In addition, there are friendly local and regional battles for points among players for bragging rights. Plus, you perhaps haven't seen the ovation players get when they walk up to receive their obelisks for the most points in their division when these are awarded at Worlds. The point system can be improved but should not be taken away. It's a benefit of emotional value at minimum for members and they are awarded automatically with software so there's little admin cost at PDGA HQ.

Having floating ratings breaks will not work for the many series run all over the world. Of course they could still set the standards for all events in their series. We've found how tough that is just to get standardization for the NT event formats and payouts. Still hasn't happened after three years now?

If some points system remains, then it becomes difficult to determine tier and division multipliers to be used at each event. One of the benefits of centralized standardization is the hope that players would know what to expect when they go to different events sanctioned by the PDGA. Floating breaks would seem to be moving backwards to where event standards might vary more than they do now.

floating breaks is not so much different from having a TD pick and choose which divisions to offer.

i wish i could design and build systems that were inflexible and then when my boss came and asked for changes due to emerging business requirements i could say "well, our infrastructure cant support that so you'll just have to continue doing it the way it is". :)

Points are so stupid how they are. They help those who can play in more events and thats about it. There's no cap, no real structure, and worlds invites for am's should be open anyways. Heck, if BG can take in 700 plus am's why shouldn't worlds? I think BG may be bigger and better then worlds anyway.

1. Eliminate points completely
2. Worlds is open registration, should be, point blank period

Also Sandalman's right, if you can drop any or all divisions, then the TD is saying where the breaks are.

one way to fix the points system would be to award percentile points instead of sheer volume points. that would take field size completely out of the equation and make the geographic availability of points a lot more fair.

Thanks for the info. I didn't know there were regional series for the lower Am divisions. Here, it's just the top division.

To ME, the point system is meaningless. It gives one standard of comparison between players, but I think ratings have largely supplanted it. There are other measures of cummulative accomplishment---total cash won, or cash value won in Ams---which I recognize aren't the same as points because nothing accrues to bottom-half finishers. Only a handful of players are in the running for total points leadership. For Worlds, it only determines whether you are mailed an invite, or have to request one.

Confessing to my own bias, though---I have not heard a disc golfer mention points, either among those I played with or tournaments I've helped run, in many years. Possibly another regional difference.

I also recognize that points do matter to some disc golfers, as I discovered when I once made the blanket statement on the discussion board that points are totally meaningless.

I'm pondering, though, that if we weren't tethered to the point system, it would give us freedom in other areas. Would it be a good trade-off? Would the loss of the smaller value of the points system be more than offset by improvements in other areas of the disc golf world?

one way to fix the points system would be to award percentile points instead of sheer volume points. that would take field size completely out of the equation and make the geographic availability of points a lot more fair.



The field size should be part of the equation, so that if someone wins one of Bruce's infamous 5 player tourneys they don't get the same amount of points that wins BG. To minimize the effect of huge anomolies like BG, it might be better to do something like:
Points Earned = Percentile points * sqrt(field size) * Tier factor.
Thus one win in a 512 person division is worth about the same as two wins in a 128 person division or 3 wins in a 64 person division.

nice, mike. i agree fieldsize should matter, and your solution makes it fair.

A simpler solution might be something like the current system, up to a certain field size. If the field size threshhold is 100 (random choice on my part), for higher fields, multiply the points you would otherwise win by a ratio of the field size to 100. This would have the merit of keeping the system simple for 99% of events.