dthrow
Sep 25 2007, 10:08 AM
I was just wondering what people thought about PDGA pros earning their pro card.
I personally believe they should have to.
I also wonder how top rated pros feel about a 935 rated player calling themselves a "pro" just because they bought their pro card. I mean it took lots of time and practice for these top players to achieve the ratings they have just to be lumped in with any player who want to call themselves a pro.
I am sure they like the added money for them to win but how does it make them feel besides the added cash?
All thoughts are welcome and i really would like to hear from some of the top pros.

ck34
Sep 25 2007, 10:14 AM
You do know there's been a PDGA Touring Pro card awarded for the past several years now?
www.pdga.com/documents/td/07TouringPros.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/07TouringPros.pdf)
I believe the only benefit available at this point is slots reserved for them in NT events up to a specified deadline. Restricting others from playing pro divisions would just hurt their payout at lower tier events and reduce turnout for TDs.

dthrow
Sep 25 2007, 10:26 AM
Yes Chuck i know about the touring pro card but like you said right now that really has no benefit. Now if only touring pro card holders could play NT events that would be different. Yes the numbers would be smaller but there would be more legitimacy to the NT. When the big sponsorships do come in and a NT event has 25,000 or more dollars added and only touring pros can play these events do you think more of the other players(non touring pro card holders) will spend more time to practice to earn their card, so they can play? I think they would.

davidsauls
Sep 25 2007, 11:55 AM
When...and IF...the big money comes, everything changes. Wouldn't it be great to have players striving and begging to be Pros, instead of begging Ams to go Pro?

The trick now is having events be so desirable that people want desparately to get in. USDGC, for example.

magilla
Sep 25 2007, 11:57 AM
IMO - I think that to be a "PRO", you should have to pass a "Rules Test" /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Far too many people THINK they know the rules...

Why couldnt PROS take the "Officals Exam" to get a "card".. :D

On the "touring Card"....Yea..that worked.. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
All it really did was reserve a spot in certain events up to a date.......BUT events were still filling with those players FAR ahead of the date....All that did was create an issue because SOME players didnt understand the whole concept :p

MCOP
Sep 25 2007, 12:04 PM
I think any there should be something, rules test, and players test. I also think any AM1 player who wins a A or B tier should get one automatically.

I would like to see our sport start acting like a Pro sport and enforce things more like the PDGA does.

lafsaledog
Sep 27 2007, 09:17 AM
mcop said : I think any there should be something, rules test, and players test. I also think any AM1 player who wins a A or B tier should get one automatically .

responce :
First I do believe there should be an officals test , and also an ability test . I will take it one step further .
With the tiered system we have now , you could make it that as you go up the ladder in tiered events ( with the " lower level of compition " at those lower tiered events that normally happens ) base a whole step up process of who plays pro where and when .
Example ,
a 945 rated over 40 player could " cash " ( yea probably last place ) at a PDGA C tier event , and at that point he is a " pro " at all C tier events
Now does that 945 have a chance at a B tier ( very slim unless he gets better )
Really NO chance at an A tier .
SO at B and A tiers he can still be an AM untill he cashes at the higher events .
ONCE he cashes at an A tier ( and of course his rating would rise to do this ) he stays a " pro " until his abilities take him back down ( via ratings )
With a few tweaks and OMG new ideas instead of the old " tried and true ( a term I use very loosely ) " I am sure there is a way to get a qualification process going .

kostar
Sep 27 2007, 09:44 AM
also wonder how top rated pros feel about a 935 rated player calling themselves a "pro" just because they bought their pro card.

I'm not sure this person knows the difference between signing up as a PRO, and earning a PRO tour card .

Click,Click Back, Back.......Another amnesty bagger.

dthrow
Sep 27 2007, 10:24 AM
I am well aware of the difference. But does the generally public or sponsors? I would think to them a pro is a pro. WHen i hear someone call themselves a pro i assume they are at the top of what they do, otherwise they would not be pro.
I wonder how many of the touring pro card holders call themselves that when they are asked about the sport. "hey i am a touring pro card holder not just a pro". And what about those pros who do not tour. Should they be called touring pros?
I also wonder how these "touring pros" feel when they go to a NT Event and get stuck playing with a player rated 935 who doesnt know all the rules, throws many shots into the woods and then asks the touring pro to help them find there disc. DO you think it affects their play? I would say yes. My point is there should be some type of level a player needs to reach before being able to play certain events. Look at the USDGC, you NEED to qualify to play in that event(exceptt for sponsor exemptions). To me that makes the event a more legitimate professional event than the PDGA pro worlds or most any other NT Event.
I am suprised that top pros don't feel abit offened or cheated when a low rated player buys there pro card and groups themselves with them.
Are there any other sports in which players can just buy themselves "pro" status?

dthrow
Sep 27 2007, 10:27 AM
Another thing, since the PDGA now has the Expert division, why not take away the "touring pro" idea and just make it Pro and make the players earn it. Let the others sign up as experts.

dthrow
Sep 27 2007, 10:40 AM
Oh one more thing as far as the amnesty bashing, GET OVER IT. This also brings a point to what i am saying. when the amnesty was offered, i thought to myself i enjoy playing with the more skilled open players, if i move back to Adv will i ever get to play with these players again. You kow what, with the PDGA current system i could. There is nothing that can keep me from playing pro again so why not. So i took the amnesty. When i want to move back up i can do so at my choice.
IF there was a rule or some sort of qualifing process to become pro i may have made a different choice but there is not.

dthrow
Sep 27 2007, 10:58 AM
One last thought for this morning, If we keep allowing anyone buy their pro card, then the major events including worlds, A tiers and NTs should only allow the "touring pro" who earned the card the right to play pro. Let the other pros only play B tier or less and earn the right to play the other big events. I only think this would add legitamacy to these so called "Major events" .

krupicka
Sep 27 2007, 11:01 AM
The problem is that all those "touring pros" need all the "donor pros".

dthrow
Sep 27 2007, 11:09 AM
You are right, and that is the problem.

MTL21676
Sep 27 2007, 11:26 AM
I've posted this before....

Currently, we are an amatuer based sport. Here is why.

Think about the PGA. When someone goes to a PGA event, they know no one but pros will be there. When someone comes to a PDGA event, they expect all divisons to be there.

Sometimes, the PGA does hold events where amatuers play, they call these pro-ams. Sometimes, the PDGA holds pro - only tournament, we alert people of this on the PDGA calender by placing the word "Pro" beside the Tier.

That is a major difference - we actually advertise when the Professional Disc Golf Association is holding a Pro only tournament - that just doesn't make much sense to me.

Also, take my father for example. He has played disc golf maybe 15 times and is 60 years old. Technically, he could walk up to any B, C or D Tier, play pro, and then be paired on the same card as Ken Climo or Barry Schultz.

On the PGA there are major qualifications to be on the PGA tour, much less to even play in one event. Imagine if me, a golfer who just shot a 97 this weekend, walked up to a PGA event and said, man I'd like to play this week, they said sure, and then 45 min. later I was teeing off with Tiger or Phil.

The problem is we don't have enough financial backing to do the things that the PGA does. They are able to limit who plays thier events b/c of millions upon millions of sponsership money. Until then, the only way we can truly define who is a pro and who is not is simply if they have won cash or not.

kostar
Sep 27 2007, 11:44 AM
I've posted this before....

Currently, we are an amatuer based sport. Here is why.

Think about the PGA. When someone goes to a PGA event, they know no one but pros will be there. When someone comes to a PDGA event, they expect all divisons to be there.

Sometimes, the PGA does hold events where amatuers play, they call these pro-ams. Sometimes, the PDGA holds pro - only tournament, we alert people of this on the PDGA calender by placing the word "Pro" beside the Tier.

That is a major difference - we actually advertise when the Professional Disc Golf Association is holding a Pro only tournament - that just doesn't make much sense to me.

Also, take my father for example. He has played disc golf maybe 15 times and is 60 years old. Technically, he could walk up to any B, C or D Tier, play pro, and then be paired on the same card as Ken Climo or Barry Schultz.

On the PGA there are major qualifications to be on the PGA tour, much less to even play in one event. Imagine if me, a golfer who just shot a 97 this weekend, walked up to a PGA event and said, man I'd like to play this week, they said sure, and then 45 min. later I was teeing off with Tiger or Phil.

The problem is we don't have enough financial backing to do the things that the PGA does. They are able to limit who plays thier events b/c of millions upon millions of sponsership money. Until then, the only way we can truly define who is a pro and who is not is simply if they have won cash or not.



WRONG......

Every PGA event has atleast 1 Am. All majors have many am's.

Most PGA events have a Pro-Am Wednesday before the event. PGA events Thursday thur the weekend are not PRO-Am's !

sandalman
Sep 27 2007, 11:45 AM
thats not entirely true. the PGA tour has lots of imposters and posers playing at any given event. sometimes sponsors place a favorite into the field. most of these folks dont make it past friday though so you never see them on TV.

lien83
Sep 27 2007, 07:26 PM
I have had multiple outsiders tell me that the amount of divisions and especially the new ones are making a mockery of our sport :( Especially since ball golf has ams and pros...no divisions except for Seniors. Expert....enthusiast? What are we running a self-esteem camp? There needs to be regulations and enforcements on who plays pro!! some sort of test to measure skill and knowledge of the game

ck34
Sep 27 2007, 07:45 PM
I have had multiple outsiders tell me that the amount of divisions and especially the new ones are making a mockery of our sport Especially since ball golf has ams and pros...no divisions except for Seniors.



I guess since they're misinformed, you should try to educate them, don't you think? Here are the various divisional championships supported by the USGA. And of course they have a division for everyone with the thousands of handicap events many times with narrower ranges of handicaps than our ratings ranges, which are still actual not adjusted score competitions: http://www.usga.org/championships/index.html

A little research would show you that our sport has a moderate number of divisions compared with several other sports, especially when you include all of the school level divisions (and you didn't include men and women teams at HS and college levels for golf which also have school size sub-categories).

dscmn
Sep 27 2007, 07:49 PM
the self-esteem camp idea is intriguing. does the pdga have plans to run something like this? i think it would be really special. after all, we're all winners! group hug.

ck34
Sep 27 2007, 07:56 PM
I think you might find the group hugs already in the Legends division and at EDGE sessions...

dscmn
Sep 27 2007, 08:06 PM
really? what does that look like? is it teary-eyes or embarrassment chills provoking?

ON TOPIC: the pro division is way too big as it is. anything to "cull the herd" would be beneficial to the sport. after all, whatever doesn't kill it only makes it stronger.

ck34
Sep 27 2007, 09:04 PM
Seeing a group of wrinkly old guys might be cute, uplifting or disquieting depending on your perspective...

I think a page should be taken from the special four man, made for DVD events we've heard about with Climo and Schultz. (Have the shows been completed for viewing yet?). Consider a pro event where the same amount of added cash is raised as for an NT. However, those who play would be three top pros, likely by invitation, and the regional pro who wins a qualifier the week or possibly day before which also helps raise funds for the event. No entry fee for the four players and only pay the top 2 so first might be $5000.

If you have an event where you can guarantee the World Champ and top rated player are playing in a feature 2-round 4-man showcase on Sunday, I think you might be able to break thru with the media a little easier. It's also a lot easier for the TD and staff to run.

sandalman
Sep 27 2007, 09:26 PM
I was just wondering what people thought about PDGA pros earning their pro card.

yes.

someday soon. as payouts increase, the average skill of a full open-only field rises. when enough events either require qualification, or serve as qualifiers, earning a card would probably work.

bruce_brakel
Sep 27 2007, 09:33 PM
I think a page should be taken from the special four man, made for DVD events we've heard about with Climo and Schultz. (Have the shows been completed for viewing yet?). Consider a pro event where the same amount of added cash is raised as for an NT. However, those who play would be three top pros, likely by invitation, and the regional pro who wins a qualifier the week or possibly day before which also helps raise funds for the event. No entry fee for the four players and only pay the top 2 so first might be $5000.

If you have an event where you can guarantee the World Champ and top rated player are playing in a feature 2-round 4-man showcase on Sunday, I think you might be able to break thru with the media a little easier. It's also a lot easier for the TD and staff to run.

I think in a format like that, if you want the top three to show up, you're going to have to pay all of them. But you could pay the touring pros an appearance fee that gets them there and then just pay the purse to the top two.

I guess the difference between a pro and an am is the difference between a player pack and an appearance fee. :D

ck34
Sep 27 2007, 09:39 PM
It can be worked several ways. It just seems that if we care about watching the best 4 players in a final 9, why not focus the efforts on featuring the top 3 or 4 "true" pro players available in a longer format in the same way that these 4-man DVD productions are being made. That's assuming enough outside sponosrhips similar to an NT can be produced not just from retail/wholesale differential from running a simultaneous Am event.

sandalman
Sep 27 2007, 09:48 PM
good lord chuck... what is
retail/wholesale differential

???

could we call it "profit"?

ck34
Sep 27 2007, 09:51 PM
It might be profit for some TDs if it wasn't used to pay expenses, boost am merch payout and/or boost pro purses.

sandalman
Sep 27 2007, 10:20 PM
i was thinking of net rather than gross. theres lots of ways to increase revenue.

CRUSHn
Oct 01 2007, 07:21 PM
I personally would love to see the pro card earned at a certain proven proficiency level.Of course I`d also like to have my sponsors pay me to compete in thier name(appearance fee) above and beyond entry, airfare ,etc.These times aren`t quite here.At some point this might end the Age protected debate as former "pro`s" opt to compete in age protected divisions by forfieting their current pro status.This would mean more if renewing pro status had a time factor built in!there would be no more jumping back and forth between divisions.Being "Pro" would have to have more tangible benefits for this to work.Of course,limiting donators means some other source of prize money,something in short supply at this time.

marshief
Oct 06 2007, 01:32 PM
the pro division is way too big as it is.


Exactly what sort of logic leads one to this conclusion? By just about any metric I can come up with, I get a pretty measly amount of pros. Also, I'm not under the impression that there are pros chomping at the bit unable to get into pro-only events or the pro side of pro/ams, but that's me.

Doing a quick check of Pennsylvania events (since that's where you live), it looks like there are about 30 pros (included open, women, masters, gms) on average (no math done, just quick glances at numbers). You consider that too many pros?

dscmn
Oct 06 2007, 02:32 PM
marsha,

please forgive my poor writing skills. i was hoping to convey sarcasm.

kevin

ck34
Oct 06 2007, 10:47 PM
You consider that too many pros?



If you consider the typical definition of a pro in many sports is a player who can reasonably expect to make a living at it, we have very few pros and should have mostly Ams.

Oct 07 2007, 01:48 PM

marshief
Oct 07 2007, 02:37 PM
marsha,

please forgive my poor writing skills. i was hoping to convey sarcasm.

kevin


well then that settles it. Thanks for the clarification.

Also, great post by Brian. I am one of those ams that would rather have ams payed out in players packs and trophies. However, I do still see the need for rewarding new players, especially in the women and junior divisions.

I think the one thing that we can ALL agree on, no matter where you sit, is that we still need more players and a bigger sport to be where all of the visionaries want us to be. For now, the system works well enough to keep attracting new players, which I think is exactly where we need to be. Maybe in 50 years (hopefully not that long though) we can revisit this and see merit in these discussions of creating a more elite pro field and a more "typical" am field.

ck34
Oct 07 2007, 03:12 PM
The imposition of a system that declared us to in fact be Ams and not Pros, which appears to be the position of some posters, would alienate how many of us ? And in this light the logic/ realistic purpose of said imposition would be ...WHAT ?




My beef isn�t that those who play for cash call themselves Pros versus call themselves Ams who play for cash. The issue is more the sense of entitlement accorded to the majority of those who play in pro divisions that don�t pay their way in terms of covering event expenses versus Ams. I�d rather play for cash and usually do. But I also feel like I�m getting treated better as a pro playing in protected divisions than ams who many times shoot better scores than I do.

I realize that the PDGA only requires 85% payouts for pros in C-tiers. But I�m guessing that the TD feels they need to at least pay 100%, if not more, to pros. Seems to me that the PDGA should suggest that maybe 15%-20% of the base pro entry fees in B & C-tiers be deducted to go to the tournament operating fund so pros come closer to the am contributions. The TD could certainly put much of that money back into payouts and I�m sure many will. But at least the ams might feel better that the players who happen to be playing for money are pulling their weight in lower tier events where not even the best players would be looking to make enough to survive more than a few days.

I�m fine with continuing our ego stroking tradition to call players pros when they get to the top skill level for their gender or age division. It�s at least one perk of getting better that�s free to award, considering there�s not a big payoff on the financial side. But from a fairness standpoint, unless outside sponsorship or spectator money is flowing into the event in our higher tiers, our pros who play for cash should be supporting the tournaments at a similar level to the ams.

Our TDs deserve to be the next group in our sport to earn a decent amount for making the effort to host events. Our Park Depts both blanche and laugh when they hear they shouldn�t earn anything from running events, and few do. If they try to run an event with minimal payouts similar to their other amateur sports, very few play.

Dan Doyle just ran what sounded like an excellent NT at Sugarbush. But if you read what he said after the tournament, the majority of the added cash came from his own pocket. The sport at the highest level will continue to bounce along at this level if we�re relying on a few philanthropic TDs and manufacturers like Discraft and Innova who finance our events with the highest payouts. If the money isn't there for those who run the events, how do you expect to provide any incentive for TDs to try and find outside money if they can't justify even the effort to run a basic event?

gang4010
Oct 08 2007, 08:52 AM
My beef isn�t that those who play for cash call themselves Pros versus call themselves Ams who play for cash. The issue is more the sense of entitlement accorded to the majority of those who play in pro divisions that don�t pay their way in terms of covering event expenses versus Ams. I�d rather play for cash and usually do. But I also feel like I�m getting treated better as a pro playing in protected divisions than ams who many times shoot better scores than I do.





Does this actually happen in your neck of the woods Chuck? I've called you out on this point on more than one occasion - yet you still allude to this as a commonly occurring practice.

For the record - this IS NOT a common occurrence in the Mid Atlantic. ALL PLAYERS are (and should be) charged the same fees, which should include: PDGA fees, Club fees, Series fees, park fees, and tournament expense fees (which should be flat across the board.) No player should pay more than another. Now - does the Am player pay a higher percentage of his overall entry in fees? It makes sense that if an Am player paid $40 to play - and there are $10 in overall fees - that yes he paid a higher percentage than the pro who paid $100 to play - but that is not inequitable. Fees are per player and not affected by the size of the divisional entry fee.

Chuck - if TD's in your area are using some practice of charging pros disproportionately than AMs - then you have a problem IN YOUR AREA. Please do not assume that that problem exists everywhere - because it does not. Please also cease and desist with your portrayal of this problem as somehow being a slight on the "pro" player - if it exists in your area - it is a problem with your TD's not using "best practices" for running their events.

ck34
Oct 08 2007, 10:17 AM
Does this actually happen in your neck of the woods Chuck? I've called you out on this point on more than one occasion - yet you still allude to this as a commonly occurring practice. For the record - this IS NOT a common occurrence in the Mid Atlantic. ALL PLAYERS are (and should be) charged the same fees, which should include: PDGA fees, club fees, series fees, park fees, and tournament expense fees (which should be flat across the board.) No player should pay more than another.



I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I looked at reports for the following events in your area: Rockburn Rumble, Codorus Spring Pro Am, Breeze, Philly Open and Sherando Spring Breakout and they look no different from event reports from across the country in how they do the finances. And the pros do not pay the same toward the event as the ams. I also looked at your Seneca Soiree and the Ams paid in the neighborhood of $400 more than the pros toward the tournament operating fund. But I'm not picking on A-tiers in this discussion.

I'll give a simple example of a current event. Let's say there's a C-tier with 30 ams and 30 pros with $25 net entry fee for ams and $40 for pros. Let's say both groups had $5 already deducted from these numbers for PDGA and series fees. Using wholesale at 60% of retail, the ams provide about $300 to the event operating fund (30x$10). Under current practices, the PDGA payout for Ams at 100% might be $750 for merch and trophies. Pros might get $1400 for 117% (30x$40+$200 added) where the TD keeps $100 from the am differential as profit, buying lunches for volunteers, gas, flyers, etc. The Ams are the only ones to contribute to the tournament operating fund. This is how a typical event would be handled following PDGA guidelines.

Now under what I'm proposing, the TD would deduct 20% from the base pro entry fee after the $5 for series and PDGA fees have been deducted. In the above example, that would be $240 toward the operating fund (30x$40x20%). The TD then has $300 from the Ams and $240 from the pros. Let's say he adds $150 at wholesale ($250 retail) to the Am payouts and the $250 to pro payouts. The Am payout is now $1000 in merch and trophies (133%) and the pro payout is $1210 at 100%. The TD is left with $140 instead of $100 toward profit and all of the expenses that usually go unreported including the TDs time which is rarely if ever rewarded for its true value to the event. In this example, pros pay toward the event much closer to the ams contribution than any current event. This example wouldn�t be accepted by pros as appropriate under current practices. And if the $250 wasn�t added back to the pro divisions, it wouldn�t be accepted under PDGA accounting under current guidelines.

james_mccaine
Oct 08 2007, 10:26 AM
My beef isn�t that those who play for cash call themselves Pros versus call themselves Ams who play for cash. The issue is more the sense of entitlement accorded to the majority of those who play in pro divisions that don�t pay their way in terms of covering event expenses versus Ams.


Chuck, you should go into politics. Having the gall to call black white and white black. I'm sure all the open pros who pay more in PDGA fees, pay higher entry fees, take risks with little reward feel that sense of "entitlement" you yap about. If it is such a freaking cush position, one would expect TDs fending off hordes of folks looking to grab those cush open slots. You are either being dishonest or purposely spouting propaganda to support your vision of the sport.

By the way, enough of this "Pros don't support the event expense" nonsense. If this is even true, and it is such a glaring inequity, then fix it. You are on the competition committee. Write language into the sanctioning agreement that all players will pay equally to cover event costs.

discette
Oct 08 2007, 10:33 AM
Does this actually happen in your neck of the woods Chuck? I've called you out on this point on more than one occasion - yet you still allude to this as a commonly occurring practice.



I can confirm that this is a common practice in both California and the Midwest.

Ams absolutely help cover Pro expenses and can help add money to the pro purse. I can pay out Pros over 100% and still provide trophies, player packs and lunch for the Pros. It is done through two common ways.

First, mark up or the difference between wholesale and retail. If I pay $40.00 for an Am prize worth $50.00, I can use that $10.00 to cover event expenses or add to the Pro purse. Multiply that by 50 Am players and there is now $500.00 in extra money courtesy of the Ams. This is not by valuing a DX disc at $20.00, but at the going retail price of $7.00 to $9.00. Other events give funny money. An Am gets funny money of $50.00 to choose their own discs and merchandise, which did not cost the vendor or the TD $50.00.

Next, Ams subsidize the pros through sponsorship donations. If a sponsor gives me $100.00 in merchandise, I then have $100.00 that I would have spent on Am prizes that can go directly to other event expenses or the pro purse.

Ams at my events get generous payouts plus extras like lunch and awesome player packs, so all the extra dough does not always go to the pros.

Again, this is common practice at many, many events. Ams do cover a share of the Pro expenses and add to the Pro purse.

ck34
Oct 08 2007, 11:18 AM
By the way, enough of this "Pros don't support the event expense" nonsense. If this is even true, and it is such a glaring inequity, then fix it. You are on the competition committee. Write language into the sanctioning agreement that all players will pay equally to cover event costs.



Future agenda item. But we already did a lot for 2008, so perhaps in 2009. It will cost me more money from this proposed change, but I think it's better for the sport. On the other hand, by not running events any more, I'll still be way ahead paying higher fees versus the amount of time and money lost running events probably by a factor of 20.

You already have Doyle not willing to support the cash for the NT out of his pocket for next year at Sugarbush. But that's just a more public example. There are many others who might be capable of running bigger events or have run them that will not do so because our environment doesn't support TDs getting much compensation for running events. Pros want bigger payouts but TDs better get higher "payouts" first or you won't have anyone trying to raise the outside money to move beyond where we are today. If Innova said no more USDGC and Discraft no more Player's Cup, who would take on these events and have the kind of payouts and volunteer effort that they both have pumped into their events?

davidsauls
Oct 08 2007, 02:33 PM
Does this actually happen in your neck of the woods Chuck? I've called you out on this point on more than one occasion - yet you still allude to this as a commonly occurring practice.



I can confirm that this is a common practice in both California and the Midwest.



....and the southeast.

The tournament structure is propped up on the wholesale/retail margin of Am prizes and player packs. Unless a TD has (1) considerable outside sources of money, (2) greater than the amount of "added cash" on the pro purse, this is how it's done.

Which is not to say it's a "glaring inequity" in need of correction. I wouldn't even say the Pros are supported on the backs of the Ams. It's just as fair to say the Ams are treated well, getting back 100% of their fees (retail value), and the "profit" on the wholesale/retail margin is earned by the TD for handling all that merchandise, which the TD then uses to cover event expenses, add to the pro purse, or keep.

Don't believe it? Run a pro-only tournament without significant outside sponsorship, and you'll learn quickly.

james_mccaine
Oct 08 2007, 02:55 PM
I assumed Chuck was talking strictly about event expenses in the form of PDGA fees, park fees, TD expenses, etc., and not the issue of using retail/wholesale differential to add to the purse. I think everyone should pay their part towards those expenses, out of their entry fee.

discette
Oct 08 2007, 03:18 PM
The retail/wholesale difference DOES pay for park fees and all kinds of tournament expenses (including Pro Player packs and trophies) that the pros would otherwise have to pay.

james_mccaine
Oct 08 2007, 03:45 PM
Well, that does seem like an inequity that needs addressing. Everyone should pay that fee off the top. It also helps from a public perception standpoint to list those costs upfront, and separately. For example, when we have tourneys on pay-for-play private courses, the sign up sheet will reflect entry fees and greens fees separately. For example $65 for entry; $10 for greens fees. This will help the sharper pros in ciphering the total purse, and keep the unjustified moaning to a minimum.

gang4010
Oct 08 2007, 04:52 PM
don't think you understand what I'm saying.



Thanks for the clarification Chuck - but as usual your version of reality is behind the mirror with Alice. Every time you spout off that pros don't pay their share - it's a big fat lie, a half truth - intended to deceive and divide. You should be ashamed. To back up your supposition - you then basically say that the predominant fashion for TD's to add cash back into their tournament (using wholesale/retail differential) is thanks to the AMS!!!! PLEASE already with the backhanded BS. IF TD's give their rightfully earned PROFIT back to their own event out of the goodness of their hearts (in any form or fashion - be it in lunches or additions to the purse) - then any benefit to "so called" pro players is on the backs of the TD!!!!! There is no other possible argument. TD's handle all finances - many are too inexperienced, or plain lazy to get actual added cash outside their event. The most convenient AND ACCEPTED means for them to get some added cash (with the least amount of effort) is to DONATE THEIR OWN PROFITS. This is not a donation from ams to pros - this is a donation from the tournament organizer (which you conveniently lament elsewhere as something we need to get away from).


I also looked at your Seneca Soiree and the Ams paid in the neighborhood of $400 more than the pros toward the tournament operating fund.

Another lie. Every player - regardless of division - paid $1 to the club (which paid basic expenses, and $4 to the PDGA. How you get the Ams paying $400 more is a mystery to me.

If you continue in this vein - I will most certainly address this issue with the moderators, the PDGA administrator, and anyone else who will listen.

Lyle O Ross
Oct 08 2007, 05:10 PM
don't think you understand what I'm saying.



Thanks for the clarification Chuck - but as usual your version of reality is behind the mirror with Alice. Every time you spout off that pros don't pay their share - it's a big fat lie, a half truth - intended to deceive and divide. You should be ashamed. To back up your supposition - you then basically say that the predominant fashion for TD's to add cash back into their tournament (using wholesale/retail differential) is thanks to the AMS!!!! PLEASE already with the backhanded BS. IF TD's give their rightfully earned PROFIT back to their own event out of the goodness of their hearts (in any form or fashion - be it in lunches or additions to the purse) - then any benefit to "so called" pro players is on the backs of the TD!!!!! There is no other possible argument. TD's handle all finances - many are too inexperienced, or plain lazy to get actual added cash outside their event. The most convenient AND ACCEPTED means for them to get some added cash (with the least amount of effort) is to DONATE THEIR OWN PROFITS. This is not a donation from ams to pros - this is a donation from the tournament organizer (which you conveniently lament elsewhere as something we need to get away from).


I also looked at your Seneca Soiree and the Ams paid in the neighborhood of $400 more than the pros toward the tournament operating fund.

Another lie. Every player - regardless of division - paid $1 to the club (which paid basic expenses, and $4 to the PDGA. How you get the Ams paying $400 more is a mystery to me.

If you continue in this vein - I will most certainly address this issue with the moderators, the PDGA administrator, and anyone else who will listen.



So what you're really saying Gang, is that TDs need to get a clue, sponsor only Am events, and pocket the profits instead of paying the Pros to play. Makes sense to me.

BTW - You've posted this belief that many TDs are too lazy etc. to get sponsorship dollars. Now, I don't know about your event, but I do know about Texas States and how hard it is to raise sponsor dollars. I see guys like Marshal Street getting burnout after only a few years and frankly, I think, despite your aggressive stance, that it's a lot harder than you are presenting.

davidsauls
Oct 08 2007, 05:28 PM
I'm not sure I've ever seen a TD I'd characterize as "lazy".

Lyle O Ross
Oct 08 2007, 05:29 PM
The concept of good politics has come to disc golf. The observation that a TD at a given event takes in X from Ams, and Y from Pros and then Pays out Y+Z to Pros doesn't mean that the Pros are taking out more has arrived. Even if I get Y+X from sponsors, that is, a ton of money from sponsors, the plain and simple fact is that if Pros take out more than they've put in, and Ams, in relative plastic value take out less than they've put in, the Ams are donors and the Pros are getters.

I've yet to see any event where Ams took out more in relative value than what they put in, period. Were not talking retail value here, we're talking what the TD pays. If you have an exception to this, please, show me. Now, I'm pretty confident you can find some so when you're done with that, tell me what the average across all events is.

gang4010
Oct 08 2007, 05:31 PM
So what you're really saying Gang, is that TDs need to get a clue, sponsor only Am events, and pocket the profits instead of paying the Pros to play. Makes sense to me.

BTW - You've posted this belief that many TDs are too lazy etc. to get sponsorship dollars. Now, I don't know about your event, but I do know about Texas States and how hard it is to raise sponsor dollars. I see guys like Marshal Street getting burnout after only a few years and frankly, I think, despite your aggressive stance, that it's a lot harder than you are presenting.



No Lyle, that's not what I'm saying at all. But I hear that some folks run events specifically for that purpose, They make arguments like " how can a td make any profit if he has to give it to the pros", and we give away "funny money as prizes" (insuring full or near full retail cost of prizes charged to Ams).

It's just a little piece of reality - not necessarily a slight on TD's. The piece of reality is this - our body of tournament directors are 99.9% volunteers - to my knowledge their are zero professional fundraisers who run PDGA sanctioned events - which means..... they all have lives that in the end - take priority over the event(s) they run during the year. A huge majority of those TD's (lets say 75-85% of all BTiers and below) spend probably an average of a couple weeks in preparing for their tournaments, at most. This is my take on it after being involved with the tournament scene for over 20 years. This is the reality that makes it that much harder to raise outside sponsorship. And the reality we accept when we sanction every event that fills out the form and agrees to pay the player fees.

So.....I'm not saying it's easy, and I'm not saying it can't be done, there are plenty of TD's who are quite successful at it. What it takes - is constant commitment and attention. The players and the clubs that are most successful have developed ties to the community through years of contact and interaction. Supporting local vendors, restaurants, and other businesses AS A GROUP (Not just the TD every once in a while showing up) is what gets sponsorship dollars. So while occasionally it may seem as if I say TD's are lazy which means sponsorship is easy - naaaah - I mean the PDGA should have higher standards for what tournaments should be eligible for sanctioning, who is eligible to be a TD, etc.

ck34
Oct 08 2007, 05:34 PM
Gang, take a look and see how the pros get a relatively free ride versus the Ams. At the Soiree, you took in about a $1000 from the Ams and paid out $1000 in merch according to your TD report. At a conservative 60% for wholesale, you likely got around $400 toward tournament finances from the Ams. You paid out the pros with $800 added cash over their entry fees. Regardless where that $800 came from, Ams contributed in the neighborhood of $400 toward the event finances above the $1 ea charged for an event fee. Pros paid just the $1 ea event fee. If the extra $400 from Ams went to lunches, charity, the club or course development and ABSOLUTELY not to the pro purse, the Ams are still the ones who effectively made that contribution.

The Soiree was an A-tier and not the focus of my argument regarding B & C-tiers. The primary difference is not in the finances but that top pros are usually attending A-tiers and I think it's in our best interest to support them at the highest level for the future of the sport. At B & C tiers, players who get to play for cash, especially in protected divisions, should be supporting the event finances more than they do now.

sandalman
Oct 08 2007, 05:42 PM
from another thread, prolly shoula put it here in the first place...

factoid (using 2007 data through 10/7/2007)

Per event, the PDGA receives $20.86 from a Pro member-player, and $17.36 per Am member-player. ((membership fee + event fees) / number of events played)... someone please explain how paying MORE PER EVENT equates to getting a free ride?!?

maybe TDs NEED to move some money into the Pro payout, because at least viewed this way the PDGA gets 10% more per event from Pro players than from Am. the median yearly earning for members classed as Pro is $37! and 60% of this year's Pros have earned less than $100 in payout. not much of a return on the $25 extra bux Pro members pay. should Pro memberships cost the same as Am membership?

gnduke
Oct 08 2007, 06:41 PM
Per event, the PDGA receives $20.86 from a Pro member-player, and $17.36 per Am member-player. ((membership fee + event fees) / number of events played)... someone please explain how paying MORE PER EVENT equates to getting a free ride?!?



I think the point is that the pro players are not in fact paying any of the event fees, therefore your comparison is incorrect.

Money comes in from Ams, Pros and sponsors.
Paying out the Pros generally requires more cash than was collected from the Pros.
Paying out the Ams generally requires less cash than was collected from the Ams.
Sponsorship makes everyone's life easier.

I'll agree that the TD is the owner of all of the finances and ultimately, whatever is paid out is paid out from the TD's pocket and not the Ams pocket, but the Ams do furnish the most convenient revenue stream for funding the Pros.

It has been my experience that as long as the Ams are getting good value for their money, they are not upset that the profit margin from their prizes goes to finance tournament expenses and pro purse. I think most players think that is a fair way to cover the expenses as long as the "retail" values are not inflated.

james_mccaine
Oct 08 2007, 06:46 PM
As already pointed out by Craig, your whole thesis is misleading. If I go to the store and buy $200 in groceries, and that supermarket takes the profit and invests it in the United Way, is their donation being subsidized by me? Who writes it off on their taxes, them or me? Do I have a right to complain about how they spend their profits?

Also, if we are at a C-tier and the TD adds nothing to the pro purse, but still profits from efforts, do ams have any right to say what the TD does with their profits?

ck34
Oct 08 2007, 07:25 PM
I completely agree that the TD can do whatever they want with the amounts that come into the operating fund. However, from a TDs perspective, the ams are "good" customers and the pros "bad" customers. The ams get the high margin items and the pros go for the loss leaders, using a retail store analogy. An Am playing an event provides a net revenue gain and the pro is a net revenue loss or at best breakeven. Anyone running a businesss would it see it the same way.

Brakels have recognized this and have been building large am events from the grassroots level doing about as good a job as anyone getting beginner ams to play and continue playing. But most TDs haven't run events like a business and the current model will not support getting more business people and sports authorities like Park Departments or private pay-for play facilities to run events with the model the way it is.

If the promoter can't even cover their own expenses and time, why would you expect them to go out of their way to raise outside money that's expected to be paid out with little to be retained for their efforts? Since many TDs are pros and even older, they have grown up with this volunteer model and have a chance to win back some of their added money by playing. However, I think having permission to get contribution to tournament expenses from the pro entry fees in the same way ams contribute would become a more favored model and more sustainable for the future expansion of the sport and encourage our better promoters to continue expanding their efforts plus draw in new ones perhaps with ties to bigger money.

For those who toss around the idea of separate orgs for pros and ams, who would run the smaller pro events without contributions from pros toward the event expenses beyond a few bucks for pencils and scorecard printing?

sandalman
Oct 08 2007, 08:36 PM
However, I think having permission to get contribution to tournament expenses from the pro entry fees in the same way ams contribute would become a more favored model and more sustainable for the future expansion of the sport and encourage our better promoters to continue expanding their efforts plus draw in new ones perhaps with ties to bigger money.



Result
Method used: Flesch-Kincaid (English).

Flesch-Kincaid Grade level: 29.
Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score: -6.

The Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease score indicates how easy a text is to read. A high score implies an easy text. In comparison comics typically score around 90 while legalese can get a score below 10.

The Flesch-Kincaid Grade level indicates the grade a person will have to have reached to be able to understand the text. E.g. a grade level of 7 means that a seventh grader will be able to understand the text.

http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rix/


i musta got lost somewhere around grade 20 :D... you mean get permission from the players to use say, $5, to cover event expenses? how would u do that?

ck34
Oct 08 2007, 08:49 PM
Perhaps "permission" is the word causing the confusion? "Become an acceptable practice" that's not only understood by pros as appropriate, but it also gets incorporated in the PDGA event payout guidelines is more like it. It still doesn't mean old school TDs won't pay those expense deductions back to the pro purse. However, the payout percentage will go up with the base entry being the amount after the deduction. But at least the structure is more economically sound, fair and hopefully desireable to attract future promoters and not burn out the ones we have.

sandalman
Oct 08 2007, 09:04 PM
ok, so you are saying that as the players better understand how the event finances are really structured, they would better support TDs giving a higher priority to covering expenses? if so, i think i agree. altho theres no real reason to believe they dont already understand where the money comes from.

ck34
Oct 08 2007, 09:18 PM
Yes. But the procedure I'm suggesting is not supported by current PDGA guidelines and payout calculations. If the pro entry fee is $45 which includes $5 in fees, the base entry is considered $40 for payout. I'm suggesting that if 20% is deducted from that same entry fee toward tournament expenses under the proposed plan, the base entry fee for calcualting 100% payout would become $32 (80% of $40). That would be considered acceptable for a C-tier. If the payout averaged $40 that would become 125% payout not 100% as it is now and more like a generous B-tier percentage.

reallybadputter
Oct 08 2007, 09:25 PM
Of course I took too long writing this post trying to translate Chuck into English and he beat me to it...


Really, what I think Chuck is trying to say is:

The PDGA should make it clear and obvious that if there's a 2 day tournament with 72 players, and the pavilion that is used as tournament central costs $35/dayand there's another $74 in printing for flyers, field paint for marking drop zones and OB, etc. that it is OK to subtract $2 per player from their entry fee for tournament expenses, just like the direct PDGA and series fees. Then use this number to determine payouts.

Right now it is customary to pay for these things out of the retail/wholesale differential on the AM merch.

As for non-flat payouts being necessary... if they weren't in existence they probably wouldn't be necessary now.

The Charlottesville Virginia Marathon costs $80 to enter. What do you get for that? Probably a tee shirt and some real sore muscles...

ck34
Oct 08 2007, 09:30 PM
No, I'm saying it's much more than $2 per player. 20% from pros is much more but not as much as the typical 35-60% per player contributed to the tournament from ams.

reallybadputter
Oct 08 2007, 09:37 PM
No, I'm saying it's much more than $2 per player. 20% from pros is much more but not as much as the typical 35-60% per player contributed to the tournament from ams.



Agreed, but I didn't want to come up with huge numbers of example items that end up adding up to the huge amount that they do.

CRUSHn
Oct 08 2007, 10:00 PM
From a TD`s prospective? Many TD`s are vendors who see each tournament as a big sales opportunity,selling thier merchandise to the tournament.The more customers they draw in the more they sell.They also benefit from the advertising which goes along with the event as a spill- off into routine business.These "promoters" make bank off the Ams with no more expense than a normal business transaction,less in fact because they are making sales in bulk lots!
Now under some logic,the pro`s are seen to be a draw for Am players/spectators.While this is not always true,a lot of forward looking planning seems to be built around this idea.I believe the theory is that when advertising dollars actually roll in to tournaments,the pro`s will be the focus that channels more money into our sport.(I guess it`s good to have pro`s endorsing your -whatever-)
The higher member and entry fees which pro`s pay do discriminate against the open divisions.Also,at any tournament,around 55% of the pro division will be donators .Are you suggesting that they should shoulder more fees (for the common good of course!)
this looks like thread drift ...so, What does a "Pro" recieve in return for being held to a higher standard of conduct?What benefits would a card convey ?

sandalman
Oct 08 2007, 10:04 PM
"that it is OK to subtract $2 per player from their entry fee for tournament expenses, just like the direct PDGA and series fees."

i dont see any reason to not like that idea. whether its $2 or 20% or scales by number of players, you just itemize the costs and put it out there as a standard. disclosing it like the other fees makes it right out front and understood that it aint part of the payout. TDs who find the most appealing blaance between expense, amenities and payout do well and prosper.

right?

ck34
Oct 08 2007, 10:11 PM
Unless the percentage is defined in the tournament guidelines as standard practice behind the scenes, you'll see weird flyers where it says tournament fee for pros (in addition to the $5 everyone pays for PDGA, ace and series fees) will be $8 per player and none for Ams.

CRUSHn
Oct 08 2007, 10:25 PM
this is all LOW overhead expense a VENDOR assumes when making the huge sale called a "tournament.There are TD`s who run events purely from the goodness of thier heart .this in no way reflects upon these individuals.Just the common large event TD! GET BACK ON TRACK THREADJACKERS!

CRUSHn
Oct 08 2007, 10:37 PM
Once again,what does a pro recieve in return for being held to a higher standard of conduct?What benefits does a card convey?

sandalman
Oct 08 2007, 10:37 PM
why would that be a problem? maybe Pros get lunch paid for them or something.

CRUSHn
Oct 08 2007, 11:15 PM
Once again,what does a pro recieve in return for being held to a higher standard of conduct?What benefits does a card convey?


Anybody ? I would enjoy having "proof of Professionalism" to justify benefits recieved ,but what benefits does a card give? If my player rating is above a certain point I HAVE to get a pro card (as I`m no longer allowed to play in the lower divisions)I can`t "help the poor TD "pay for his tournament! Is this a benefit?Did I earn something for my excellent play?I guess it gives me the" Right" to play against my peers? Other than bragging rights,what benefits does the card give?

marshief
Oct 09 2007, 12:03 AM
Why does it have to have benefits? Could it not just be a demarcation of reaching a certain point of athleticism in our sport? Why not just have it be something that you strive to get as a competitor in the sport? Kinda like a boy scouts merit badge :D I suppose then the "benefit" would be the opportunity to play in NTs.

Karl
Oct 09 2007, 09:21 AM
FWIW...

I rarely seem to agree with Chuck on issues but I believe his following statement needs re-emphasizing:

"Brakels have recognized this and have been building large am events from the grassroots level doing about as good a job as anyone getting beginner ams to play and continue playing. But most TDs haven't run events like a business and the current model will not support getting more business people and sports authorities like Park Departments or private pay-for play facilities to run events with the model the way it is. If the promoter can't even cover their own expenses and time, why would you expect them to go out of their way to raise outside money that's expected to be paid out with little to be retained for their efforts?"

Combine this with Gary's...

"Money comes in from Ams, Pros and sponsors.
Paying out the Pros generally requires more cash than was collected from the Pros.
Paying out the Ams generally requires less cash than was collected from the Ams.
Sponsorship makes everyone's life easier."

...and you'd almost wonder why Ams "put up with" the inequities. All extra cash goes to Pros. All extra merchandise goes to Ams, but this really is just seen (by the TD) as a "savings"...and thus he "turns it around" and has extra cash for the Pros.

Yielding: Extra cash, Pros "win" and Ams are neutral. Extra merchandise, Ams "win" and Pros "win". To paraphrase Mel Brooks "It's GOOD to be a Pro!" (...at least a GOOD one).

Karl

james_mccaine
Oct 09 2007, 09:58 AM
Yeah, you've just described a dysfunctional system that does little for the sport as a whole. We would be much better off if ams were ams and played strictly for competitive reasons and pros played for only their entry fees and sponsorship dollars. A system were people can argue that pros are beholden to ams is a terrible state of affairs.

Lyle O Ross
Oct 09 2007, 11:12 AM
As already pointed out by Craig, your whole thesis is misleading. If I go to the store and buy $200 in groceries, and that supermarket takes the profit and invests it in the United Way, is their donation being subsidized by me? Who writes it off on their taxes, them or me? Do I have a right to complain about how they spend their profits?

Also, if we are at a C-tier and the TD adds nothing to the pro purse, but still profits from efforts, do ams have any right to say what the TD does with their profits?



Come on James. On a very surface level what you and Craig are supporting sounds good, but in reality it's just another argument that sounds right but is misleading. If you want to put in in purely mercenary terms, Kroger donates to the United Way because it's good for business. It pays off more in increased business than it costs Kroger. Even more so, most businesses that sponsor charity events don't directly subsidize, they get their employees to pay. On the other hand, the TD isn't donating to the Pro purse because it's good for business, or brings in more money down the road, they do it because of peer pressure and ego. Comparing the two is ludicrous and you know it. Even more so comparing the needs of a Pro and the motivation to give money to a Pro with the needs of the United Way is awful.

The reality is that Bruce's model is the correct one; it focuses on Ams, allows the TD to come out with their shirt still on their back and it leaves the players pretty happy.

Pro tournaments don't work well based on the current state of the sport. Pros argue vociferously that they are needed but the reality is that Ams are supporting the Pros and TDs know that well when they structure their events (or at least every one that I've talked to confirms this). If it wasn't necessary, you'd have Pro only events and Am only events. there'd be no reason to mix the two together. Even more significantly, you wouldn't have a PDGA agreement that requires more than 100% payout to the Pros. Wanna bet that'd fall off in a hurry if they removed the requirement?

james_mccaine
Oct 09 2007, 11:29 AM
Comparing the two is ludicrous and you know it. Even more so comparing the needs of a Pro and the motivation to give money to a Pro with the needs of the United Way is awful.



Y'all are the ones who characterize it as charity to the pros. I'm just going with your analogy.

As to "Bruce's way," it is hardly great for a sport. However, it is great for attracting and retaining weaker players motivated by profit. Otherwise, they wouldn't play. I hear it all the time from people like you.

The people who want to excel are burdened and the people with no desire to excel are rewarded. In fact, they fight to retain their entitlement, using the perverse argument that retaining their likes is what the "sport" needs.

Fact is, many ams are sporting people who would play regardless, they don't need to be enticed by "Bruce's system." Those are the people that create a solid foundation for a sport. They love the sport and the competition. Sport's aren't built by catering to whiners demanding easy rewards. I'm all for ending what y'all perceive as ams subsidizing pros. Then there would be no plausible reason left to prop up this anti-competitive system.

gang4010
Oct 09 2007, 11:32 AM
No Lyle - you're wrong - it's not about ego or peer pressure - it's about the motivations of the TD and their willingness to give back to the competitive DG community.

TD's like me give it all back - and I always break even - there is no loss for me in running any event - either the player fees pay for the event, or the player fees + sponsor dollars.
TD's like the Brakels say FU to the higher caliber players and run events geared towards merchandise payout - which allows them to profit.
My motivations are for providing a competitve venue - and rewarding the best performer. Theirs appears to be to maximize revenue for themselves - and rewards for lesser performers. It's great to want to attract and retain new players - it's pretty stupid to discourage those that have proven to be supporters of organized DG for years and years.

davidsauls
Oct 09 2007, 11:50 AM
The people who want to excel are burdened and the people with no desire to excel are rewarded.



To characterize Ams as having "no desire to excel" is to assume their motives, often incorrectly. "Desire" isn't enough. Some lack experience---they're on their way to Pro---some lack athletic ability, and may "desire to excel" as much as Climo, but it will never get them, er, us, any further.



I'm all for ending what y'all perceive as ams subsidizing pros. Then there would be no plausible reason left to prop up this anti-competitive system.



Running a pro-only event will do just that.
Of course, the Pros will have to be happy with smaller purses.

By the way, I'm a lifelong Am who doesn't think Ams should have any complaint in this department. If we're getting 100% payback, in retail dollars, we should be happy. Why should we Ams care whether the TD pays tournament expenses or pro purses from profit on merchandise, or sponsorships, or his own pocket?

james_mccaine
Oct 09 2007, 12:05 PM
To characterize Ams as having "no desire to excel" is to assume their motives, often incorrectly. "Desire" isn't enough. Some lack experience---they're on their way to Pro---some lack athletic ability, and may "desire to excel" as much as Climo, but it will never get them, er, us, any further.




I'm talking about ams that won't play unless they are playing for economic reward. Excellence is not an ideal to them. Otherwise, they would naturally support a system that increases rewards as players improve and feel uncomfortable propping up a system which encourages stagnation.

btw, as stated above, in my experience, this attitude does not characterize the majority of ams, but the PDGA seems hell bent to appease those who do think this way.

Yeti
Oct 09 2007, 12:51 PM
The thing is that most AMs are not playing for the "EXPERIENCE". Sporting Amateurs should be paying an entry fee for the product that is given. If it is a good product, a lot of folks will purchase it. What the TD does with that entry money is a matter of personal business. Brakel likes to $Profit$, Craiger likes to break even and give it all back. Both are fine.
Our sport suffers from the heavy AM payout structure set up in days gone by. There is really no reason AMs shouldn't have low entry fees that make up quality player packages and great tournament amenities that make up a wanted product that creates a great "EXPERIENCE".
Discs still have to be gotten somewhere. I know, lets still have vendors and quality merch at events and create a real disc golf economy where AMs purchase their disc golf goods instead of winning stuff they don't want.
This model is not a guarantee, it forces TD's to be true business folks and promoters. TD's like Bruce will take the easy money every time and why shouldn't he since it is the standard model we created.

davidsauls
Oct 09 2007, 12:52 PM
Sorry for my misunderstanding and mischaracterization of your remark.

Most Ams I've seen do not stay Am for the prizes, or only play if they can win prizes, but still prefer the prize system to the trophy system. We had several events around here some years back that were low-fee, trophy-only, but they eventually migrated to the system we generally see.

Other than the fact that a handful could or should move up to Pro, and might if not for the rewards, the Pros benefit financially from (1) having their full fees go to payout, without contributing to tournament expenses, and (2) allowing the TD to add cash, from the profit on Ams directly or from using this profit to pay tournament expenses.

I agree with your ideals in principle, but I don't think they'll work so well, in practice.

Lyle O Ross
Oct 09 2007, 01:28 PM
The thing is that most AMs are not playing for the "EXPERIENCE". Sporting Amateurs should be paying an entry fee for the product that is given. If it is a good product, a lot of folks will purchase it. What the TD does with that entry money is a matter of personal business. Brakel likes to $Profit$, Craiger likes to break even and give it all back. Both are fine.
Our sport suffers from the heavy AM payout structure set up in days gone by. There is really no reason AMs shouldn't have low entry fees that make up quality player packages and great tournament amenities that make up a wanted product that creates a great "EXPERIENCE".
Discs still have to be gotten somewhere. I know, lets still have vendors and quality merch at events and create a real disc golf economy where AMs purchase their disc golf goods instead of winning stuff they don't want.
This model is not a guarantee, it forces TD's to be true business folks and promoters. TD's like Bruce will take the easy money every time and why shouldn't he since it is the standard model we created.



As usual, Yeti is closer to the target then most. As in the past I will refer to the running model where everyone is an Am who gets a t-shirt, food, and a ribbon. A couple of top Pros cash and are very much supported by the Am pay-in.

Relatively speaking, our Pro to Am ration is way out of wack. The problem is that everyone wants to be a Pro. The same as James accuses Ams of all wanting a bigger payout than they should get relative to being an Am, the same can be said of the Pro.

The concept that the TD should make money is a good one. Craig is a Saint. No sarcasm intended. It's a hard business to TD an annual A tier and make no money at it. Few can do it for more than a few years. I've seen some very motivated individuals go by the side. As I said before, look at MSDGC and the indications that Jason make take some time off. Good will is great, but in general it isn't enough no matter how hard you argue.

I do agree that Ams should play for love of the game, but the problem is much deeper than that. Even if you fix that problem, you still have a small sport that is overloaded with Pro wannabees who are necessary to support the real Pros.

whorley
Oct 09 2007, 01:29 PM
The thing is that most AMs are not playing for the "EXPERIENCE". Sporting Amateurs should be paying an entry fee for the product that is given. If it is a good product, a lot of folks will purchase it. What the TD does with that entry money is a matter of personal business. Brakel likes to $Profit$, Craiger likes to break even and give it all back. Both are fine.
Our sport suffers from the heavy AM payout structure set up in days gone by. There is really no reason AMs shouldn't have low entry fees that make up quality player packages and great tournament amenities that make up a wanted product that creates a great "EXPERIENCE".
Discs still have to be gotten somewhere. I know, lets still have vendors and quality merch at events and create a real disc golf economy where AMs purchase their disc golf goods instead of winning stuff they don't want.
This model is not a guarantee, it forces TD's to be true business folks and promoters. TD's like Bruce will take the easy money every time and why shouldn't he since it is the standard model we created.


Jay Reading for President of the United States

Lyle O Ross
Oct 09 2007, 01:44 PM
No Lyle - you're wrong - it's not about ego or peer pressure - it's about the motivations of the TD and their willingness to give back to the competitive DG community.

TD's like me give it all back - and I always break even - there is no loss for me in running any event - either the player fees pay for the event, or the player fees + sponsor dollars.
TD's like the Brakels say FU to the higher caliber players and run events geared towards merchandise payout - which allows them to profit.
My motivations are for providing a competitve venue - and rewarding the best performer. Theirs appears to be to maximize revenue for themselves - and rewards for lesser performers. It's great to want to attract and retain new players - it's pretty stupid to discourage those that have proven to be supporters of organized DG for years and years.



In a perfect world with perfect people you're right. I don't know a lot of perfect people Craig. Now, I volunteer here in Houston, and I see a lot of other volunteers here in Houston. All of them have suffered burnout at some time and all of them limit what they can do to keep their sanity.

Like you, at a lower level, I've given plenty, nonetheless, I stand by my position. I have an acute understanding of human nature and the number of people who are willing to give with no return over long periods is very small. Altruism exists, but it is not the most dominant human characteristic.

It is much better to find a middle of the road position that combines both altruism and self benefit. You may not like what Bruce and Jon do, but I see them giving a great deal beyond their desire to make money. They are more of a compromise position than you give them credit for.

As for the noble art of supporting the very best, come on. 90% of the Pros our there are anything but. Of that 90% the majority are not ever going to make it into that very best category. Yet you need all of them to make the Pro purse pay. I don't see you limiting your events to the "very" best and I don't see James refusing to play with anyone but the very best.

The notion that you are somehow doing more for the sport than Bruce is is based on your perception and opinions. You are working on an ideal that doesn't exist (again I grant you that the world would be a better place if it did). No sport really took off until some promoter figured out a way to make money at it. That may be repugnant (in fact I'll grant that it is), but ignoring that reality just means we sit and spin our wheels while arguing morals.

Someone needs to find a middle of the road, one which motivates by offering advantages (pay etc.), while requiring (and I do mean requiring) the best altruistic natures of TDs. Then you'll get the best events. Until then, we limit our growth and potential due to all the human frailties that one can possibly envision.

Lyle O Ross
Oct 09 2007, 01:50 PM
BTW - Let me give you one classic example of combining both. Locally, one of the long time disc golf supporters is Andi Lehmann. Andi has given tons of her time and money to the sport and yet has a strong desire to make a living promoting some aspect of disc golf. She has been instrumental in course development in the past and continues to do so. Currently, the best course (based on all characteristics) in Houston is Oak Meadows, a course that Andi was involved in for the primary reason of making some money. Still, the course, while private, is open to the public and both sides have won.

It is not impossible to combine making money with doing good things, it is necessary.

Lyle O Ross
Oct 09 2007, 01:54 PM
BTW Jay,

How do you get your vision to go forward? I support it, as have others, but to get it to work you need to disincentivise (I love creating bad words) the winnings model. I've argued in the past that the model you're proposing will actually make more money for the manufacturers but perception often supplants reality.

spamtown discgolfer
Oct 09 2007, 02:14 PM
A little thread drift, but on topic.

My vision is one where B & C tiers remain as they currently are (merchandise outlets) with only the biggest (Am Worlds & Am Nationals) being trophy only tournaments with the top 3, 5 or 10 or whatever qualifying to become the next pros.

Yeti
Oct 09 2007, 02:21 PM
Amateur and Casual disc golfers are the majority and the life blood of getting courses played, creating galleries and growing the sports popularity.
The stuff that kills me is when I see all of the AMs, casuals and fans at the USDGC respecting the heck out of the mad talent they are witnessing. Then you hear Bruce Brakel try to say how Pro's are worthless, money grubbing cry babies. Do we need to do more for TD's that are wanting us there and are raising sponsorship $, you bet and we are getting more folks involved and in this mind set.

Here are a few of things we Pros accomplished at USDGC:
--Several pre-tournament demos at area schools
--Filming of another Clash DVD for sport promotion
--Countless autographs and pictures
--Articles and interviews for local papers, news and USDGC site/blogs
--Showcase distance demo at the finals for spectators
--Sunday e-bay tee times with Team Innova players playing with Casual / AM disc golfers

It shows the potential power of having a fan base. We need to connect the AMs and Casual disc golfers to these players of mad skills. We work very, VERY hard at getting to and attaining this level of athleticism. It is something to be admired and emulated.
The disc golf economy I spoke of is very achievable when we start to market these Pros at your events in areas that have a strong disc golf casual base. I think a study would show that having Ken Climo at your event would bring in more AM players and more spectators if marketed correctly and thus sell more disc golf merchandise, raffle tickets, food, whatever.

bruce_brakel
Oct 09 2007, 03:55 PM
So long as you represent the pros, somehow i just don't have any motivation to give it up for the pros. :p

Keep it up. I need people like you to remind me why I'm me! :D

davidsauls
Oct 09 2007, 04:57 PM
BTW Jay,

How do you get your vision to go forward?



Ah, the million-dollar question. If we had a million.

The PDGA can't force it, at this point, because Ams like the current model and would support non-sanctioned events.

It's a change in the mindset and perhaps the Memorial, if it goes trophy-only and succeeds, will at least be a start in the right direction.

magilla
Oct 09 2007, 05:07 PM
It's a change in the mindset and perhaps the Memorial, if it goes trophy-only and succeeds, will at least be a start in the right direction.



The Wintertime AM held at the former "Oak Grove", now "Hahamunga?", held each year has gone to the trophy only format...CHEAP entry fees...nice packages....it hasnt hurt its turnout at all..... /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

Yeti
Oct 09 2007, 05:14 PM
I guess I poked you first based on your consistent statements of the like. Many of your IOS players have indicated they wish we would come and play in some of your tournaments.

Don't worry, Des will still sign your girls' discs and give them tips on playing better when asked.

Only you know why you held a nearby tournament against Women's Nationals and gave free entry to women under a certain player rating :confused:

The USWDGC even placed all the women together this year based on your feedback of wanting the juniors to be able to get player ratings with propagators.

Sorry for the thread drift. Bruce why don't you PM me if you want to discuss more on how I remind you of how you love this sport and strive to make it the very best it can be on all levels.

enkster
Oct 09 2007, 07:41 PM
As to "Bruce's way," it is hardly great for a sport. However, it is great for attracting and retaining weaker players motivated by profit. Otherwise, they wouldn't play. I hear it all the time from people like you.




James,

As a 679 rated player, who plays in Bruces tournaments, I resent the idea that I am playing for profit. If I decided that the only motivation for doing anything was monetary benefit, I would work all the time and probably have multiple jobs.

You want to know why I play in Bruce's tournaments? He is generally very organized, they run on time, they are affordable, they are a good time and it provides me with an opportunity to challenge myself. I thoroghly (sp) enjoy myself and appreciate that he offers an option that keeps me from frustating tons of players.

This type of attitude is not a method of keeping us AM's in the sport, (especially those of us with children and well paying jobs).

I understand that the idea that I am getting a $15.00 in funny money may make me not a true am. But if you look at other sports with this sort of deliniation, many have perks.

Stenky

discette
Oct 09 2007, 08:51 PM
Stenky is a new PDGA member. He is a prime example of how Bruce's IOS events grow the sport and help grow the PDGA.

IMHO, catering to the Am divisions does far more for the sport than throwing money at NT's and Majors.

Lyle O Ross
Oct 10 2007, 10:41 AM
BTW Jay,

How do you get your vision to go forward?



Ah, the million-dollar question. If we had a million.

The PDGA can't force it, at this point, because Ams like the current model and would support non-sanctioned events.

It's a change in the mindset and perhaps the Memorial, if it goes trophy-only and succeeds, will at least be a start in the right direction.



I'm not sure you're correct here David. Remember that we are unique in terms of small growing sports. Most of them are Am based. Do you remember Nick Night. He was an avid supporter of the Am model and got booed out by the Pro voices. Of course he was pretty aggressive in stance and deserved some of the booing.

Nonetheless, he had a lot of ideas about pursuing the Am model.

james_mccaine
Oct 10 2007, 11:03 AM
What on earth are you talking about?

I think you filter most everything through some "how are the pros trying to get rich" filter. To his credit, Nick had a vision of creating a true am class. Also to his credit, he advocated it. He didn't however advocate elimination of the present system, and instead proposed the two systems to run concurrently. That is a mistake imo.

Back to the point of the post, namely the complete mischaracterization that "he got booed out by the Pro voices." Huh????????????? The resistance to Nick's ideas is the same resistance most encounter when mentioning reform of our system. It mostly comes from ams who demand "payouts" or by people who feel that this method is the best way to attract new players.

btw and for the record for like the fiftieth time, I am not being critical of any effort to attract ams to our sport. I'm really not that stupid. My criticism of "Bruce's way" or simply the current PDGA model should not be translated as "The PDGA should not cater to ams." An accurate representation is that "The PDGA should not cater to ams who demand payouts in order to play but instead create a strictly amateur class where their is no financial incentives to win, or bag, or stagnate, or to insult those who actually take risks, etc."

spamtown discgolfer
Oct 10 2007, 11:16 AM
"create a strictly amateur class where their is no financial incentives to win, or bag, or stagnate, or to insult those who actually take risks, etc"

This has not been my experience at all and I've been playing Adv for 12 years. Everybody new to the Am ranks is an aspiring pro, where some make it and some don't, but every one of them try. So, with my experience, I don't see why the pro division is entitled to a payout but not the Ams. If it is the title Am, then lets remove that title and save it for academic disc golf when it is available. My 12 yr old son and my 7 yr old daughter are the ones that should receive the no payout type format through school, imo.

Jeff_LaG
Oct 10 2007, 11:23 AM
Do you remember Nick Night. He was an avid supporter of the Am model and got booed out by the Pro voices. Of course he was pretty aggressive in stance and deserved some of the booing.



I'm very sure that it was his "holier-than-thou" stance, aggressive demeanor, and willingness to argue you until you were blue in the face that caused him to get booed. It definitely wasn't his idea of offering a true Am class of low-entry, trophy only competition which was a fantastic one, and sorely needed in our sport.

james_mccaine
Oct 10 2007, 11:51 AM
I don't see why the pro division is entitled to a payout but not the Ams.


Very simple: a true competitive system at least attempts to reward performance, our system thumbs its nose at the very idea. At almost every tournament I attend, the system routinely bestows higher returns to those who play poorer disc golf than others in the tournament. The fundamental driving force behind this travesty is am payouts. It is a corrosive element damaging our sport in many ways. There is no ethical reason to continue the practice, the only thing that really prevents it is some misguided fear of losing members.

spamtown discgolfer
Oct 10 2007, 12:00 PM
I don't really get how it is damaging the sport, but you're entitled to your opinion. I've played in pool and dart tournaments and won cash and these were big tournaments of around 200-300 people. I've played in a couple of local golf tournaments and they payed out in prizes, too.

Why force no payouts on the PDGA's biggest demographic of 30 something males?

I'll be honest and say that if the PDGA suddenly forced no payouts on all tournaments that I would personally run a payout format tournament. However, I believe I would still support the PDGA at other levels.

Lyle O Ross
Oct 10 2007, 12:06 PM
As to "Bruce's way," it is hardly great for a sport. However, it is great for attracting and retaining weaker players motivated by profit. Otherwise, they wouldn't play. I hear it all the time from people like you.




James,

As a 679 rated player, who plays in Bruces tournaments, I resent the idea that I am playing for profit. If I decided that the only motivation for doing anything was monetary benefit, I would work all the time and probably have multiple jobs.

You want to know why I play in Bruce's tournaments? He is generally very organized, they run on time, they are affordable, they are a good time and it provides me with an opportunity to challenge myself. I thoroghly (sp) enjoy myself and appreciate that he offers an option that keeps me from frustating tons of players.

This type of attitude is not a method of keeping us AM's in the sport, (especially those of us with children and well paying jobs).

I understand that the idea that I am getting a $15.00 in funny money may make me not a true am. But if you look at other sports with this sort of deliniation, many have perks.

Stenky



No No Stenky, you're not really growing the sport unless you add 950 rated players. :D

ck34
Oct 10 2007, 12:09 PM
Very simple: a true competitive system at least attempts to reward performance



While this is true, those rewards don't come from the players but from those who want to pay to watch, sponsor their efforts, pay to learn, pay to teach, etc. Since we still have little to indicate that outsiders care to support our pros efforts at excellence, the only source of rewards must necessarily come by winning from others in their division and only in their division. In which case, comparing rewards among different skill divisions is irrelevant as long as the best finishers within a division are getting rewarded from funds paid into their division. That is true competition which you have failed to recognize.

Until such time as outside money comes in from those other sources, there's nothing unfair about the current reward structure. The very fact that little outside money is coming in to justify the effort to become better for higher rewards (which aren't there yet) would indicate there is little incentive to move to the pro level. It's too bad for those who call themselves pros but the economics that fuel higher rewards in other sports aren't here yet. It looks like only by creating more Ams can that possibly change down the road. The current structure appears to be is popular, is arguably producing more ams, is helping fund tournaments and supporting manufacturers. All which are good things for the sport and pros in the long run.

james_mccaine
Oct 10 2007, 12:12 PM
I have no idea about dart tournaments, and I would hope disc golf sees itself with a higher ceiling than darts. I also have no personal experience with ball golf tournaments, but everytime this is brought up, it is easy to point out that ball golf has it right: almost every ball golfer aspires to move to the next higher skill classification, not only in a quest to get better, but to receive better rewards. There are no incentives to stagnate or bag, and thus there is no stagnation. Ball golf is no haven for those desiring to hang back for easy pickins. Ball golf also doesn't insult players who take risks and improve themselves. Those types in disc golf often get to watch people of similar skills hang back and milk the system. Disc golf can hardly say the same.

james_mccaine
Oct 10 2007, 12:19 PM
Lyle, do you just like inciting the mob by mischaracterizing everything to inflame passions. I'm going to assume that since you have a Rice degree, I can't chalk it up to reading comprehension issues. To clarify for the fifty first time to people who refuse to read. Ams who play competitively, without seeking financial returns grow the sport; those that will only play for profit, retard the growth. I suspect the second group is much smaller than most think, most ams just refuse to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Lyle O Ross
Oct 10 2007, 12:22 PM
I don't see why the pro division is entitled to a payout but not the Ams.


Very simple: a true competitive system at least attempts to reward performance, our system thumbs its nose at the very idea. At almost every tournament I attend, the system routinely bestows higher returns to those who play poorer disc golf than others in the tournament. The fundamental driving force behind this travesty is am payouts. It is a corrosive element damaging our sport in many ways. There is no ethical reason to continue the practice, the only thing that really prevents it is some misguided fear of losing members.



Holy Cow! A true competitive system and ethics all in one paragraph.

1) You want true competitive James, make one Pro class and only reward the top two or three players in any tournament.

2) Ethics schmethics. People do what works. You don't want to recognize that, and never have; I'm forced to conclude that is because it doesn't favor you. There is nothing wrong with the system as it exists ethically, morally, ecumenically, communistically, capitalistically, socially, religiously, pig latinistacally, or by any ally measurement you can find. Until they pass a law making it illegal stop or the Pope says otherwise, stop with the "it's morally bankrupt argument."

On the other hand, you're welcome to your notion that it somehow hurts the growth of our sport, even though you've yet to provide any evidence other than your faith that your position is correct. I will of course continue to counter that with examples such as skateboarding, a multi million dollar sport that grew through supporting the local pimply kid buying a skateboard and has few "professionals," Squash, racquet ball, and numerous other sports all of which out compete us for cash flow and don't have an obsession with the Pro player.

None of those sports worries about that incredibly talented pool of pros that should be nurtured and supported so that the sport can be as great and magnificent as it can be. All of them make tons more money than we do! Are we somehow more noble? Not according to the public who views us as that group of toking teenagers flipping lids out in the park.

lafsaledog
Oct 10 2007, 12:27 PM
Chuck said :

Since we still have little to indicate that outsiders care to support our pros efforts at excellence, the only source of rewards must necessarily come by winning from others in their division and only in their division. In which case, comparing rewards among different skill divisions is irrelevant as long as the best finishers within a division are getting rewarded from funds paid into their division. That is true competition which you have failed to recognize.

Only one problem there Chuck , OVERLAPPING capabilities AMONG DIVISIONS .

I would agree with you whole heartedly about the lower am divisions who could use the protection from those at the top for both compition and prize avialability . BUT with the overlap in player capability at the top of our sport there is NO INCENTIVE for those who can play against the best to do so .

AT that point there is NO REASON a player who could play at the highest level and does not BY CHOICE , and this choice is normally easy financial incentive , there is NO WAY that person should be rewarded more then a person willing to play agasint the best of the best

Lyle O Ross
Oct 10 2007, 12:28 PM
Lyle, do you just like inciting the mob by mischaracterizing everything to inflame passions. I'm going to assume that since you have a Rice degree, I can't chalk it up to reading comprehension issues. To clarify for the fifty first time to people who refuse to read. Ams who play competitively, without seeking financial returns grow the sport; those that will only play for profit, retard the growth. I suspect the second group is much smaller than most think, most ams just refuse to look a gift horse in the mouth.



Oh man, that hurt my feelings! Can I go to the Moderator now and get you banned...

Come on James, first, it's all in fun, second, Hey, I added a smiley face, didn't that make it all O.K.!

BTW - lest anyone misunderstand, I like James a lot and feel very comfortable harassing him! Mainly cause he's darn smart. I also avoid playing rounds with him because I fold under pressure and he's a very good player.

Oh yeah, I forgot, James, you value the Am, but only on your own terms. Ams should take their trophies and shut up. On the grounds that Ams should be Ams, I agree, but on the grounds that Ams should be trophy only so that we can properly support the Pros, I disagree. I think the crux of our growth and our focus should be Ams period.

Lyle O Ross
Oct 10 2007, 12:36 PM
I was just reflecting on my comparison of disc golf and our obsession with the Pro player, and skateboarding etc. One has to wonder if we wouldn't have been better served eliminating the PDGA and allowing a more laissez faire growth of the sport similar to skateboarding? Has our reliance on structured growth hurt us?

spamtown discgolfer
Oct 10 2007, 12:44 PM
"almost every ball golfer aspires to move to the next higher skill classification, not only in a quest to get better, but to receive better rewards."

Like I said, this has been my experience in disc golf, too. Every player I know would like to be better, especially the newbies. You sound insulting to people like me that have reached their peak. Can you provide me an example of people that are not trying to make it to the next level.

By the way, when I was getting attendance numbers for past KCWOs, I thought it was interesting to see so many big names winning in Advanced at past KCWOs. It seems to me that most people know when they are ready to move and do move up.

james_mccaine
Oct 10 2007, 12:47 PM
"Rewarding pros" is a continual mischaracterization. It is rewarding performance that I am after, and yes, I do have a lot of faith in that concept. It is the driving force behind most successful human endevours. Kids work hard in school, to earn the best grades, to go to the best schools, to get the best jobs, often in aneffort to receive prestige and money. If at any point in that system, some kids realized that they would be better off by slacking off, then waalaah, many kids would slack off and society as a whole would suffer. Same with all successful and truly competitive sports; it is not about supporting the pros, that happens when it happens, it is about encouraging people to work hard and improve, rather than the opposite.

You can call it "faith in some ideal," but it is simply an inevitable result of a set of rules coupled with the idea that people will seek to maximize their return. I look at it in game theory terms. Establish these incentives, and see what occurs. Establish other incentives and see what occurs. The consequences over millions of iterations are rather predictable.

johnrock
Oct 10 2007, 12:48 PM
Squash, racquet ball, and numerous other sports all of which out compete us for cash flow and don't have an obsession with the Pro player.




I have participated in many Racquetball tournaments, starting at the bottom rung of their ladder. I worked my up from a lowly "D" level player, to a very competitive "B" player trying to advance to the next level. In all of my years of competing in that sport, I never, ever, entered for the chance of winning merchandise. Every event for the lower level players had only a trophy for First, Second, and Third places, plus usually free food and plenty of free beer for the players. The main draw for me was to be at the place where all the rest of the good players in my area were going to be, so I could compete at my level with other similarly skilled players, and , more importantly, to be able to watch and learn from the better players who were competing for the $$$ that was generated from sponsors and lower level entry fees. Even when I didn't play well for the tournament, I felt I always got my money's worth. And I never expected any kind of payout, that was for the top players. This kind of structure promotes growth among players that want to get better and improve their skills.

james_mccaine
Oct 10 2007, 01:02 PM
Like I said, this has been my experience in disc golf, too.


Really? What about guys with similar skills to yourself, that go play open? Even if they realize that they might simply be donators and have a net loss of $600 for the year, and are comfortable with that, is it really a good system when they look over at someone else with similar skills and see them with net profits for the year?

Does this make one lick of sense? These guys take risks and the system can't reward them yet (see Chuck's reasons). Okay, that is their present fate. Most every one of these guys understands they won't be making a living, or any money from playing disc golf, but do we really need to insult them by financially rewarding their skill peers who refuse to challenge themselves?

Lyle O Ross
Oct 10 2007, 01:04 PM
"Rewarding pros" is a continual mischaracterization. It is rewarding performance that I am after, and yes, I do have a lot of faith in that concept. It is the driving force behind most successful human endevours. Kids work hard in school, to earn the best grades, to go to the best schools, to get the best jobs, often in aneffort to receive prestige and money. If at any point in that system, some kids realized that they would be better off by slacking off, then waalaah, many kids would slack off and society as a whole would suffer. Same with all successful and truly competitive sports; it is not about supporting the pros, that happens when it happens, it is about encouraging people to work hard and improve, rather than the opposite.

You can call it "faith in some ideal," but it is simply an inevitable result of a set of rules coupled with the idea that people will seek to maximize their return. I look at it in game theory terms. Establish these incentives, and see what occurs. Establish other incentives and see what occurs. The consequences over millions of iterations are rather predictable.



Beyond the fact that real life doesn't work that way (one only has to look at our President to realize that), even if it did, this is a sport, heck for most of us it's entertainment. The same rules don't apply James and I've told you that before. You can't put people on a work = success pathway in something they do for entertainment. Otherwise, I'd never get to go to any movies, I just don't buy enough soft drinks or popcorn. Even worse, I wasn't willing to spend the night to see Star Wars when it came out and I'm really a hard core fan! Only the true geeks would be rewarded with viewing privileges!

Now, before you say it, I understand that disc golf is a sport, but it is a sport where the majority of players do it for entertainment. Even most Pros do it for entertainment. We aren't anywhere near the size where you can treat this sport like a job. Even if we were, the problems in that philosophy have been well covered by other pundits.

James, you're ahead of the sport by 30 or so years. In actuality, I think you're out of step with the sport. Disc golf, will never translate into the kind of bucks that people who want to play Pro think about. It's structure isn't fan generating, and as a consequence it's never going to generate the kind of sponsorship dollars you need. There are too many competitive "things" out there. The sooner we realize this the sooner we can actually think about what can be accomplished and put ourselves on the right path.

Ahhhh the right path. Start thinking about Am growth James. Only in that venue can you get the kind of bodies involved to get some revenue into the sport. There is only one other possible path, and that is image. Even if you don't really mean squat, if the public views you as cool it doesn't much matter, you have marketing appeal and thus sponsorship appeal.

bruce_brakel
Oct 10 2007, 01:06 PM
I have participated in many Racquetball tournaments, starting at the bottom rung of their ladder. I worked my up from a lowly "D" level player, to a very competitive "B" player trying to advance to the next level. In all of my years of competing in that sport, I never, ever, entered for the chance of winning merchandise. Every event for the lower level players had only a trophy for First, Second, and Third places, plus usually free food and plenty of free beer for the players. The main draw for me was to be at the place where all the rest of the good players in my area were going to be, so I could compete at my level with other similarly skilled players, and , more importantly, to be able to watch and learn from the better players who were competing for the $$$ that was generated from sponsors and lower level entry fees. Even when I didn't play well for the tournament, I felt I always got my money's worth. And I never expected any kind of payout, that was for the top players. This kind of structure promotes growth among players that want to get better and improve their skills.

I'm fairly certain that bolded assertion is factually incorrect. If you look at the racquetball numbers, racquetball had a growth spurt that pretty much exactly corresponded to the Baby Boomer athletic activity years. Since the late 80s Racquetball growth has been slow. Only about 1/2 of 1 percent of racquetball players join the association or play sanctioned tournaments. I could not find any factual basis for an argument that Racquetball's am-scamming approach to tournaments is resulting in anything special in the area of membership growth or tournament participation.

Lyle O Ross
Oct 10 2007, 01:11 PM
Hey Bruce,

I'm sure you've done this before but I'm too lazy to go look. Can you give a brief overview of your event structure and philosophy. Not that I expect anyone to pay attention but I'd like to cut and paste a copy of it for myself.

BTW - You do admit you are the great deceiver corrupting the proper growth of the sport... right?

spamtown discgolfer
Oct 10 2007, 01:18 PM
Like I said, this has been my experience in disc golf, too.


Really? What about guys with similar skills to yourself, that go play open? Even if they realize that they might simply be donators and have a net loss of $600 for the year, and are comfortable with that, is it really a good system when they look over at someone else with similar skills and see them with net profits for the year?

Does this make one lick of sense? These guys take risks and the system can't reward them yet (see Chuck's reasons). Okay, that is their present fate. Most every one of these guys understands they won't be making a living, or any money from playing disc golf, but do we really need to insult them by financially rewarding their skill peers who refuse to challenge themselves?



I see your point, but it seems flawed to me. I believe this is why ratings breaks are being implemented and I'm sure you can agree that most current pros are really Ams anyways. I'm going to wait a little while for others to pick through this one.

spamtown discgolfer
Oct 10 2007, 01:19 PM
What about ball golf's crappy PGA players? I shouldn't have a chance to be rewarded at my local tournament just because these crappy PGA pros can't make a living?

spamtown discgolfer
Oct 10 2007, 01:22 PM
Or even the Nationwide Tour. They should not be rewarded just because the PGA's crappy players can't make a living?

ck34
Oct 10 2007, 01:29 PM
Only one problem there Chuck , OVERLAPPING capabilities AMONG DIVISIONS .



Doesn't matter as regards the "true competition" argument. For example, take a typical day at a quality ball golf course. Four foursomes tee off in sequence. The first group are club pros who are playing for $10 bucks each nine. The next group is women with handicaps in the 15 range. They are playing for yogurt sundaes. The next group of young guys work together as software engineers and are hackers without handicaps but they're playing for $50 each nine. The last group is retired guys in their sixties and are playing 555 ($5 first 9, $5 second 9 and $5 overall). They all paid their greens fees. None of the pros would ask the engineers to give them some of their winnings because they shot better. Each group is its own division. Since there's no outside money coming in, the pros should be happy winning what they can from the fees paid in from their group, regardless what other groups are winning. Likewise, the women shouldn't expect to get money from the geezers even if they shot similar or better scores.

Karl
Oct 10 2007, 01:35 PM
Lyle wrote:

"I was just reflecting on my comparison of disc golf and our obsession with the Pro player, and skateboarding etc. One has to wonder if we wouldn't have been better served eliminating the PDGA and allowing a more laissez faire growth of the sport similar to skateboarding? Has our reliance on structured growth hurt us?"

Bingo! Smart man, Lyle...very astute. The only difference - and it's a big difference - is that skateboarding is DEFINATELY a young person's sport. In dg, a 50-year old can be 1000-rated (...read, really good). Could you see a 50-year old shredding with Tony Hawk? NFW...or at least not on that level. Young, recalcitrant, independent, loner types can skateboard until they're really, really good...and THEN, PERHAPS make some money. But in dg, the "I'm a Pro, I make money doing this" is such a delusionary preversion that yes STRUCTURE came into the game (and all the ego-centric trappings along with it) and "muddied the waters".

Too late now, the horse has left the barn; but it probably wouldn't have worked anyway because dg CAN be played (and profited by) we older people and thus the "purity of youth" was never in it from the beginning.

Karl

sandalman
Oct 10 2007, 01:59 PM
"Only about 1/2 of 1 percent of racquetball players join the association or play sanctioned tournaments."

that means if DG somehow has exactly the same ratio in its market, there'd be 2.3M people playing DG. i wonder how that fits with other estimates.

spamtown discgolfer
Oct 10 2007, 02:11 PM
Like I said, this has been my experience in disc golf, too.


Really? What about guys with similar skills to yourself, that go play open? Even if they realize that they might simply be donators and have a net loss of $600 for the year, and are comfortable with that, is it really a good system when they look over at someone else with similar skills and see them with net profits for the year?

Does this make one lick of sense? These guys take risks and the system can't reward them yet (see Chuck's reasons). Okay, that is their present fate. Most every one of these guys understands they won't be making a living, or any money from playing disc golf, but do we really need to insult them by financially rewarding their skill peers who refuse to challenge themselves?



This is exactly why there are ratings breaks being implemented. If somebody moves up and out of amateur when they know they won't be competitive, that's their problem, not mine. You're talking about incentives to stay an Am, but I have not seen anybody staying an Am for the incentives. Can you provide me an example?

tbender
Oct 10 2007, 02:13 PM
Or even the Nationwide Tour. They should not be rewarded just because the PGA's crappy players can't make a living?



Sponsors think they're worth rewarding. ... which is a different argument altogether.

lafsaledog
Oct 10 2007, 02:24 PM
Chuck , I am not argueing about the different levels of ability not haveing the " protection ": in both compition and ability to win things within their perspective areas .
If there are true boundries ( where no one can cross ) to another protected entity then fine .

Once again , I agree with your logic except these players are not there for an event , they are there just to be there .
The event that we have is " sanctioned " by an entity that is supposed to make the sport better .


As a side note of thread drift , chuck ., I brought up the am eniquities YEARS ago when only $8 discs were given out as prizes to ams and the profit I raised went to the park , but in the pro ranks there is no " fee " or profit made from them and people did not want to hear it then either .

IN SHORT answer , when I run a PDGA event , this is the breakdown of profit basically .

TRUE ams ( intermediate , jrs and the like ) the profit from the " prizes " goes to the PARK and betterment of disc golf in the communiity .
My reasoning behind this is , those players will benifit the most from the betterment of disc golf in the communitiy .

Advanced players their profit mostly goes to the pros that show up on that day . reason is this is the little I can do for a pro who comes to one of my events .

All added cash goes to OPEN players only .
Masters or any protected pro player ( other then female open ) does not deserve to win as much as someone who goes up against the best of the best .

spamtown discgolfer
Oct 10 2007, 02:36 PM
Or even the Nationwide Tour. They should not be rewarded just because the PGA's crappy players can't make a living?



Sponsors think they're worth rewarding. ... which is a different argument altogether.



That is really part of the problem because McCaine's argument is that there is not an incentive to keep moving up, so instead he argues that we should force no payout on the lower divisions so that people want to keep moving up. However, I don't know anybody staying an Am for the prizes and I could provide plenty of examples of people moving through the Am ranks to pro.

I argue that people do want to move up regardless of payouts or not and the ones that do become good enough do move up. However, most people realize they can't. So, I propose we provide payouts as part of the entertainment for these people.

accidentalROLLER
Oct 10 2007, 02:59 PM
As an Adv player, I would be in favor of no payouts and trophies to 1st, 2nd, (3rd, whatever) provided one of 2 things happen:
1) Entry fees are much lower than they are now. (like in the $10-15 range)
2) Player packs, lunch, drinks (even water coolers), etc. are provided that have a real value equal to or greater than the entry fee.

james_mccaine
Oct 10 2007, 03:01 PM
I understand that disc golf is a sport,


I really question this. Like Chuck, you always describe Disc Golf tournaeys in terms of recreational activities, and then go on to apply actions which are reasonable for recreational activities. Seems like in your view, Disc Golf is just a big social club, not a sport.


Disc golf, will never translate into the kind of bucks that people who want to play Pro think about. It's structure isn't fan generating, and as a consequence it's never going to generate the kind of sponsorship dollars you need.



Although I do think it is far, far into the future, disc golf could really blossom. The biggest problem disc golf has in becoming an established sport well into the future is the very attitude you exhibit and the PDGA all too often cater too. Simply put, if you think it is just a recreational activity and not a sport, it will inevitably conform to your expectations. On the other hand, if the PDGA actually believed Disc Golf was a sport, and actually demanded those qualities from it, disc golf would grow to fit those demands.

As a glaring example that you might understand, look at the USDGC. It screams sport, it doesn't scream recreational activity, and before Chuck intervenes, that quality is not solely a result of some subsidized purse, but comes from the mindset of the creators and competitors. They probably pride themselves on creating a serious sporting event and not surprisingly, the event fulfills their vision. If their vision had been for it to be a recreational activity, it probably would have become one.

I find it extremely weak when I hear people say disc golf can't become like ball golf. Sure, it might be 100 years away, but there is absolutely nothing about the core game that would prevent that growth, but in an effort to appease people who see disc golf as a recreational activity, we are running the risk of turning it into croquet or darts, or some other semi-known recreational activity.

bruce_brakel
Oct 10 2007, 03:04 PM
Hey Bruce,

{a} I'm sure you've done this before but I'm too lazy to go look. Can you give a brief overview of your event structure and philosophy. Not that I expect anyone to pay attention but I'd like to cut and paste a copy of it for myself.

{b} BTW - You do admit you are the great deceiver corrupting the proper growth of the sport... right?



{a} I'll try to get to that. I really got to get caught up on some other things. Two tournaments this month and I've been pretty sick the past few days. Diverticulitis.

{b} Who wants explosive growth? The explosive growth we've seen in the Detroit area absolutely sucks. Everything I propose is all about one of two things, {1} lining my pockets with gold pressed latinum or {2} keeping a lid on the growth of this game. ;)

tbender
Oct 10 2007, 04:43 PM
As an Adv player, I would be in favor of no payouts and trophies to 1st, 2nd, (3rd, whatever) provided one of 2 things happen:
1) Entry fees are much lower than they are now. (like in the $10-15 range)
2) Player packs, lunch, drinks (even water coolers), etc. are provided that have a real value equal to or greater than the entry fee.



My platform exactly, although I have no problem going higher at bigger events (provided the pack matches the cost) to cover fees and even give the TD a couple of bucks for his time and effort.

accidentalROLLER
Oct 10 2007, 04:58 PM
Well, that's 2 advanced players who aren't trying to profit off plastic.....that's pretty much a majority on the message board.

rollinghedge
Oct 10 2007, 05:04 PM
As an Adv player, I would be in favor of no payouts and trophies to 1st, 2nd, (3rd, whatever) provided one of 2 things happen:
1) Entry fees are much lower than they are now. (like in the $10-15 range)
2) Player packs, lunch, drinks (even water coolers), etc. are provided that have a real value equal to or greater than the entry fee.



My platform exactly, although I have no problem going higher at bigger events (provided the pack matches the cost) to cover fees and even give the TD a couple of bucks for his time and effort.



Anybody want to list some negatives to this? It sounds ideal to me.

spamtown discgolfer
Oct 10 2007, 05:06 PM
Well, that's 2 advanced players who aren't trying to profit off plastic.....that's pretty much a majority on the message board.



I hope this isn't a jab at me, oh superior one.

davidsauls
Oct 10 2007, 05:09 PM
As an Adv player, I would be in favor of no payouts and trophies to 1st, 2nd, (3rd, whatever) provided one of 2 things happen:
1) Entry fees are much lower than they are now. (like in the $10-15 range)
2) Player packs, lunch, drinks (even water coolers), etc. are provided that have a real value equal to or greater than the entry fee.



Would you be in favor of the PDGA mandating this?

IF YES---what stops the Ams from going to non-sanctioned events and getting what they want?

IF NO---how can we make it happen?

(Also an Am, I'm also in favor of this. The "How?" is the question).

accidentalROLLER
Oct 10 2007, 05:10 PM
Well, one negative that pros will gripe about:
Ams are not subsidizing pros. They really are playing only for each other's entry fees and little to no added cash from the Ams. The only added cash would come from sponsors, which many TDs don't work hard to get (many, not all). It is easy for TDs to buy $500 worth of plastic and sell or give it back to the players as player packs and value it at $1000, of which, they put $300 into the pro purse as "added cash".

accidentalROLLER
Oct 10 2007, 05:13 PM
Well, that's 2 advanced players who aren't trying to profit off plastic.....that's pretty much a majority on the message board.



I hope this isn't a jab at me, oh superior one.


That wasn't a jab at you, honestly. That was a jab at the entire message board. I don't even know what you said or didn't say about majorities on the message board.

accidentalROLLER
Oct 10 2007, 05:22 PM
As an Adv player, I would be in favor of no payouts and trophies to 1st, 2nd, (3rd, whatever) provided one of 2 things happen:
1) Entry fees are much lower than they are now. (like in the $10-15 range)
2) Player packs, lunch, drinks (even water coolers), etc. are provided that have a real value equal to or greater than the entry fee.



Would you be in favor of the PDGA mandating this?

IF YES---what stops the Ams from going to non-sanctioned events and getting what they want?

IF NO---how can we make it happen?

(Also an Am, I'm also in favor of this. The "How?" is the question).


Am I in favor of the PDGA mandating this? Hmmm....I don't even know what that means. The PDGA doesn't really "mandate" anything. TDs are free to do whatever they want anyway and has shown resistence to "force" TDs to do anything. But to answer your questions:

YES---what stops the Ams from going to non-sanctioned events and getting what they want?


What's to stop them from doing that now? If TDs offer a format, sanctioned or not, if the format is liked, people will continue to attend, if not, they won't. Many players would welcome lower entry fees, many players would welcome the idea of:
Player: Here's my $35 entry.
TD: Here's your $30 player's pack and $5 lunch coupon.

IF NO---how can we make it happen?


Am only events. Or, host these tourneys in an area with pro's who are very understanding.

sandalman
Oct 10 2007, 05:23 PM
why should it be mandated? a TD can offer it now. what option will you give to those events that say "well our local market gives that approach the big raspberry and we're gonna keep fees at $45 for our event. do you want to sanction us or not."

accidentalROLLER
Oct 10 2007, 05:34 PM
To reinforce my point.....
2006 St. Louis Open, when I played I did not have an "advanced" rating, but played in that division. I think my entry fee+ace pot was $62 (i think). This is what I got:
1 - 4 round tournament on awesome courses
1 - St. Louis Open t-shirt
4 discs - St. Louis Open Z-Avenger, 2 St. Louis Open Wizards, and a 20th Anniversary Ed. Gold Champ Aviar
1 pack of coupons
stickers, bottle opener, mini, etc.
1 player's party with food and beer
1 sunday lunch
What I paid for the event: $62
PP value: at least $75
Food and beer value: at least $20

If I knew events were going to follow this structure, I would go everytime and not even care about a payout. I don't know how many others agree, but mark me down.

davidsauls
Oct 10 2007, 05:47 PM
why should it be mandated? a TD can offer it now. what option will you give to those events that say "well our local market gives that approach the big raspberry and we're gonna keep fees at $45 for our event. do you want to sanction us or not."



I don't think it should be mandated. I was asking someone who thinks it's a good idea, whether he thinks it should be mandated. Just trying to clarify someone else's opinion.

My personal preference is a system without prizes, but it's not a big deal to me either way. I believe the PDGA should do what the membership wants in this case, not what I want, and that is to continue the status quo. I'd love to see the attitude of disc golfers change over time, and as a free-marketeer, it would be through demonstration events being good enough to draw Ams without the prizes, or perhaps with the lower fees. Rumor has it that the Memorial will be trying this, which I applaud.

I believe if the PDGA simply demanded Ams go trophy-only in sanctioned events, it would be disastrous. I'm curious as to how many who dislike the Am prize system would go that far, and why they believe it would not result in significant defections of players and events to non-sanctioned status, to the detriment of the sport.

sandalman
Oct 10 2007, 06:03 PM
youre assuming that "significant defections of players and events to non-sanctioned status" would be "to the detriment of the sport" :)

bruce_brakel
Oct 10 2007, 06:03 PM
My personal preference is a system without prizes, but it's not a big deal to me either way. I believe the PDGA should do what the membership wants in this case, not what I want, and that is to continue the status quo. I'd love to see the attitude of disc golfers change over time, and as a free-marketeer, it would be through demonstration events being good enough to draw Ams without the prizes, or perhaps with the lower fees. Rumor has it that the Memorial will be trying this, which I applaud.

I believe if the PDGA simply demanded Ams go trophy-only in sanctioned events, it would be disastrous. I'm curious as to how many who dislike the Am prize system would go that far, and why they believe it would not result in significant defections of players and events to non-sanctioned status, to the detriment of the sport.

It is not a rumor. It is advertised on their website in a prominent way. It's a lot more like a fact unless they change their mind.

If I was going to the Memorial, the big player pack and no payout would not discourage me from attending. I would be going because Arizona disc golf in February or March beats anything but crack cocaine in Michigan that time of the year, and I'm off the crack cocaine.

I assume they are doing a DGLO or better quality player pack. When I played the DGLO this year I was like, "Wait there is a good payout too? I thought the player pack was it."

Just because it simplifies the process, I would love it if this idea were to catch on. It may catch on too. Mandatory player packs were vilified when they were imposed. Six years later, most players love player packs. We did HUGE payouts at our last C-tier and all we heard was, "No player pack???"

If the big player pack and no payout concept works for the Memorial, if players learn about it and still play in large numbers, I could see picking one IOS and trying it on the lower day. Our lower day players like player packs more than our upper day players, but even our upper day players were blase about the "Let it ride" player pack sidebet.

accidentalROLLER
Oct 10 2007, 06:15 PM
IMO, there is nothing worse to a person's experience than to pay for an "event" or whatever, and leave empty handed and with no positive memories (whether its a concert, dg tourney, charity event, etc.). So if a 916 rated player pays $35 for a tournament that provides no lunch, no player's pack, and he doesn't cash, he has basically wasted his money. So he gets to see someone who "cashed" in advanced getting an $80 voucher of stuff he'll probably just toss in the closet. That's when we lose people, negative experiences. I have been on both sides of this scenario and don't care for either one.
Here is my criteria for a great event:
Good courses (free), good people (free), decent player's pack, lunch, and water on the course. Decent player's pack means, say I pay $35 entry fee, a t-shirt and disc, or 2 tourney discs would be above decent.
I could give a crap less about payout. If I want payout, I'll play pro or mini's. I play for the whole experience.
I have played tournaments just because of the pro's who had pre-registered....just for the chance to talk to them, watch them play, or just to see how my score stacks up against theirs.

One of the things I will remember forever is last years Oklahoma Open. After meeting MaceMan and helping him break into Conner's house, I got to meet PJ Fry, Chris Flesner, Sprague, and some other guys (sorry I am bad with names), Awesome people. Then, as I was watching the Pro's final round, Sprague pulled me over and told me how he was doing on his round and answered all my questions about what people were throwing and other stuff. It was like I was able to ask Tiger Woods how he was doing and he shot the [censored] with me about players and stuff.
How did I shoot that day? Couldn't tell ya. Did I cash? Hell no. Was it one of the best tourney's I ever attended? HELL YEAH!

tbender
Oct 10 2007, 06:30 PM
why should it be mandated? a TD can offer it now.



Problem is no TD in my area (ie, Texas) is.

Why doesn't the HQ/BoD mandate that TD's have to offer (in conjunction with standard fees) the trophy-only option?

ck34
Oct 10 2007, 06:43 PM
Why doesn't the HQ/BoD mandate that TD's have to offer (in conjunction with standard fees) the trophy-only option?



There appears to be little support on the Competition Committee to force this additional requirement on TDs.

accidentalROLLER
Oct 10 2007, 06:44 PM
If it is not offered, then it is not wanted (by the majority). One problem with this whole discussion (and many others) is that we are lumping all amatuers across the country into the same group, when in fact, they are very diverse. Ams in NC may bag because they have more high-level pros. Ams in St. Louis may not bag at all. Ams in California may bag because they can profit from it. Ams in Texas may bag because they are afraid of the next frontier. Ams in WI may bag because they have jobs and can't practice to get to the next level. Why shouldn't TDs have the flexibility to offer what they're customers want? So what if Ams profit from plastic? TDs make money, the Am makes money, TDs can subsidize the pros. If people don't like that, they will not attend the event and it will die. If people do attend, then they are basically admitting that they don't have a problem with the format.
I think all options should exist and even combinations: Players Pack only, Trophy only, Payout only, Players Pack+Trophy+payout, why not? If the Ams don't like it, they won't attend.

spamtown discgolfer
Oct 10 2007, 08:03 PM
28003, your last two posts were really good. I've been very vocal on here lately and I have made it known that I prefer payout formats, but I am curious to see how this pans out. If the majority prefers trophy only, then so be it. I won't ridicule anybody if that is what they prefer, but I expect the same in return. Format options are a good thing at this point.

accidentalROLLER
Oct 10 2007, 08:23 PM
Well I am the
superior one.

;)

davidsauls
Oct 11 2007, 09:01 AM
youre assuming that "significant defections of players and events to non-sanctioned status" would be "to the detriment of the sport" :)



I am assuming that.....not certain, but assuming. I see value in the sport being organized. The organization we have is the PDGA. If less of the sport is organized, we lose some of that value.

davidsauls
Oct 11 2007, 09:08 AM
Well said, 28003.

I hope more people will TD with more of these options so we can test them out.

You ask, "Why shouldn't TDs have the flexibility to offer what their customers want?" I agree wholeheartedly. There are dissenting opinions, however, that the customers have no right to get what they want, for a variety of reasons they've already cited.

davidsauls
Oct 11 2007, 09:17 AM
IMO, there is nothing worse to a person's experience than to pay for an "event" or whatever, and leave empty handed and with no positive memories (whether its a concert, dg tourney, charity event, etc.). So if a 916 rated player pays $35 for a tournament that provides no lunch, no player's pack, and he doesn't cash, he has basically wasted his money.



I'm sure I'm in the minority but if I'm in this situation, having a chance to meet and compete with players that I wouldn't if no one had organized the event, playing a course that someone else spent many hours maintaining and grooming for me to play, having someone else manage the scoring and organization of the event and all the hassles, I don't feel, personally, that I've wasted my money.

spamtown discgolfer
Oct 11 2007, 09:26 AM
Hey, maybe it is alright having no payout because now we can all do sidebets and then we can all play for cash. That's alright with me.

tbender
Oct 11 2007, 10:20 AM
If it is not offered, then it is not wanted (by the majority).



False.

The power to offer is held by the TDs. It is their choice to offer it or not. It's been offered only once and that TD (a now retired-from-DG Australian) got a fairly good response, IIRC.

From what I've seen, it's the TDs that are scared of losing the Am money.

Being forced to have it as an option is the only way to really test the market.

Lyle O Ross
Oct 11 2007, 10:41 AM
Although I got shot down when I said this before, peer pressure. These kinds of events aren't offered because there is a high level of peer pressure from a few individuals not to. It's the same reason why, despite Craig's assertions to the opposite, TDs offer Pro events at a high level despite the fact that it doesn't pay.

BTW - while on one hand, James and Craig decry the notion that peer pressure forces TDs to act in ways that aren't wanted or good for themselves, usually in the same sentence they decry TDs who are too lazy to get sponsorships or run "proper" Pro tournaments. They've essentially labeled Bruce the great evil because he doesn't run Pro-centric events.

If you think peer pressure doesn't drive this sport and isn't a lead reason why Tony and I can't get a trophy only event to play in, you're wrong.

As Tony said, take a look at Himing's old events in Texas. They were essentially trophy only (not quite but close). He compensated with free food, beer, bad music, and lot's of give aways. His were by far the most popular events this state has ever seen. BTW - he was not PDGA certified and while part of that was due to beer issues, I'm wondering if part of it was also that the payout structure of his charity events didn't match the PDGA payout scale?

sandalman
Oct 11 2007, 11:02 AM
i remember getting sweet payouts from chris at T10 events. far from trophy only.

accidentalROLLER
Oct 11 2007, 11:08 AM
If it is not offered, then it is not wanted (by the majority).



False.

The power to offer is held by the TDs. It is their choice to offer it or not. It's been offered only once and that TD (a now retired-from-DG Australian) got a fairly good response, IIRC.

From what I've seen, it's the TDs that are scared of losing the Am money.

Being forced to have it as an option is the only way to really test the market.


NO! I hate to say this, but you are dead wrong. I am not attacking you, but let me ask you these questions?
1. Do many people in your area want a certain type of event structure? If no, then we are done. If yes, then:
2. Is there a TD willing to offer said event structure? If yes, then you have your event. If no, then it is not recognized as being wanted. So:
3. Are you willing to run said event, as you have the power to do so? If yes, no problem. If no, then that is the problem, you don't want it badly enough.

It is one thing to say "I want something but I want someone else to make it happen and I can reap the benefits." It is another thing to say "I want something so badly that I am willing to make sacrifices to make it happen for a cause greater than myself."

You have the freedom and power to run pretty much any type of event that you want. If it fits with the "normal" PDGA structure, then run it as a sanctioned C-tier. If it doesn't fit the norm, but still want sanctioning, run an XC-tier. If it's way out of the norm, or you don't want sanctioning, run a non-sanctioned event. All have their advantages and disadvantages, but you have the freedom to run a plethera(sp?) of event structures.
Intrinsically, if people want something bad enough, someone, somewhere, will find a way to make it happen.

james_mccaine
Oct 11 2007, 11:09 AM
No duh. Just more complete disinformation. Who needs facts to make a point, just make some crap up.

Lyle O Ross
Oct 11 2007, 11:13 AM
Honestly Pat,

I don't have a great recollection of his exact payout scale, but given that he was raising money for charity, I'm guessing he wasn't paying everything back to his participants. That's why I didn't say they were trophy only events but essentially so. I would consider an event where more of the money goes to charity than payout on the trophy side of the scale. On the other hand, as often is true, I could be wrong.

However, I'm pretty confident that all the give aways were there as I got some of them, and I'm pretty confident that the reason people played his events wasn't the payout scale, but rather that his events had lots of things going on and a great structure. That is consistent with the notion that players are more interested in good events than the absolute best payout possible.

bruce_brakel
Oct 11 2007, 11:27 AM
Thank you for preaching the good news of personal empowerment.

I used to think like Tony and Lyle. Nobody runs the kind of events I want to play. The people I'm helping to run events don't even run the kinds of events i want to play. This sucks.

Then Mark Ellis said something to me like, "Bruce, you've got it all backwards. The problem isn't them. It's you. You're a leader. Get off your [censored] and lead. There's probably 50 or 60 people who want to play that tournament. Do it."

So I did. We almost filled with 80 people.

I ran tournaments for three years before I felt anything at all like a leader. Leaders almost never feel like leaders. They feel like the guy dumb enough to say, "This is what I'm going to do. Do you want to help?"

Lyle O Ross
Oct 11 2007, 11:34 AM
No duh. Just more complete disinformation. Who needs facts to make a point, just make some crap up.



You mean like saying that setting up a system that forces players to play up will help grow the sport when you have no evidence that such a thing will happen and indeed all the evidence that the PDGA has suggests the opposite will happen?

Lyle O Ross
Oct 11 2007, 11:38 AM
Thank you for preaching the good news of personal empowerment.

I used to think like Tony and Lyle. Nobody runs the kind of events I want to play. The people I'm helping to run events don't even run the kinds of events i want to play. This sucks.

Then Mark Ellis said something to me like, "Bruce, you've got it all backwards. The problem isn't them. It's you. You're a leader. Get off your [censored] and lead. There's probably 50 or 60 people who want to play that tournament. Do it."

So I did. We almost filled with 80 people.

I ran tournaments for three years before I felt anything at all like a leader. Leaders almost never feel like leaders. They feel like the guy dumb enough to say, "This is what I'm going to do. Do you want to help?"



I can't agree with 28003 and Bruce more. The problem is that both Tony and I have children, young children. Even with that, I've hauled my boy, and now boys, to many volunteer jobs to do what I could. Unfortunatly, running an entire event, in this format, is beyond what I could do and remain married. :D

That said, when the younger is a couple of years older I will be running said event. You don't think I asked Bruce for an outline just for kicks do you?

tbender
Oct 11 2007, 12:07 PM
i remember getting sweet payouts from chris at T10 events. far from trophy only.



Did you play his last Finals in Live Oak (2006)? Both days had Trophy-Only options.

james_mccaine
Oct 11 2007, 12:14 PM
You can't even rebut things without making up facts. "Forcing players to play up." What are you talking about? I have never advocated any such thing.

By the way, even if I had said that, the whole statement would have been my opinion, not a fact. Making up opinions, and making up facts are two entirely different things.

james_mccaine
Oct 11 2007, 12:23 PM
Having trophy only OPTIONS at two events out of forty or fifty is hardly akin to Lyle's statement that his events were "essentially trophy only."

btw, in anticipation of certain replies, I have no problem with Chris motivations, or economic model, or Bruce's motivations or model. It makes total sense from their perspective. My beef is that while that model might be good for TDs, it might be good at attracting and retaining certain types of people, it might be acceptable for a social club, it is terrible for a sport that is in need of long-term vision.

tbender
Oct 11 2007, 12:43 PM
NO! I hate to say this, but you are dead wrong. I am not attacking you, but let me ask you these questions?
1. Do many people in your area want a certain type of event structure? If no, then we are done. If yes, then:
2. Is there a TD willing to offer said event structure? If yes, then you have your event. If no, then it is not recognized as being wanted. So:
3. Are you willing to run said event, as you have the power to do so? If yes, no problem. If no, then that is the problem, you don't want it badly enough.

It is one thing to say "I want something but I want someone else to make it happen and I can reap the benefits." It is another thing to say "I want something so badly that I am willing to make sacrifices to make it happen for a cause greater than myself."

You have the freedom and power to run pretty much any type of event that you want. If it fits with the "normal" PDGA structure, then run it as a sanctioned C-tier. If it doesn't fit the norm, but still want sanctioning, run an XC-tier. If it's way out of the norm, or you don't want sanctioning, run a non-sanctioned event. All have their advantages and disadvantages, but you have the freedom to run a plethera(sp?) of event structures.
Intrinsically, if people want something bad enough, someone, somewhere, will find a way to make it happen.




Wow. For a non-attack, that's a nice attack. Save the empowerment spiel for someone else. I'm probably as knowledgable and well versed in the options and mechanics of an event as most TD's. The fact I don't run events is family and job driven. I do hope in the future that will change.

tbender
Oct 11 2007, 12:47 PM
Having trophy only OPTIONS at two events out of forty or fifty is hardly akin to Lyle's statement that his events were "essentially trophy only."

btw, in anticipation of certain replies, I have no problem with Chris motivations, or economic model, or Bruce's motivations or model. It makes total sense from their perspective. My beef is that while that model might be good for TDs, it might be good at attracting and retaining certain types of people, it might be acceptable for a social club, it is terrible for a sport that is in need of long-term vision.



I don't speak for Lyle, but Chris at least provided the option. It's a baby step in the right direction...and honestly it's one that has little exposure while opening up the opportunity to better gauge the true demand for T-O events. Then at least the Powers-that-Be could see that the world isn't going to end by pursuing Amatuer T-O further.

accidentalROLLER
Oct 11 2007, 01:18 PM
I honestly didn't mean to attack you, and I wasn't talking to only you. More of a generalized, "IF YOU WANT SOMETHING BADLY ENOUGH, THEN DO IT!" especially if you are free to do so. I sometimes do, I sometimes don't. I wish I did more of the things I am passionate about, but things like research, classes, etc. get in the way. Sometimes I use that as a crutch and sometimes its legitimate.
If you don't have the time to run an event, get 2, 3, 4, 5 friends to help you out. It can be as simple, or as complicated as you want to make.
One thing I found out is that I helped a friend run an Ace Race, and we did our best to make it simple, and it went over really smooth. I think when I run an event, I will use this model as a basis and add what I think will add value without adding alot of stress.

DISCLAIMER: I don't want to put anyone down in this discussion. I think all points are valid. One important thing is to remember that more knowledge, and more points of view, even extreme ones, will help all of us to understand the motivations for running different kinds of events. What works for Texas may not work in NC, but understanding why it doesn't work is more important. My local effort is a grass-roots approach, but I realize I am ignoring many of the current golfers. So, my personal belief is that "the more discs I can get in kids' hands, the better things will be in the future". Because I believe that someday these kids will grow up to be cops, doctors, teachers, managers, etc. and someday they will be on a city council board. I know it is a reach, but its possible. The more people that understand and connect to disc golf, the better the sport will be tomorrow.

magilla
Oct 11 2007, 01:30 PM
As an Adv player, I would be in favor of no payouts and trophies to 1st, 2nd, (3rd, whatever) provided one of 2 things happen:
1) Entry fees are much lower than they are now. (like in the $10-15 range)
2) Player packs, lunch, drinks (even water coolers), etc. are provided that have a real value equal to or greater than the entry fee.



Would you be in favor of the PDGA mandating this?

IF YES---what stops the Ams from going to non-sanctioned events and getting what they want?

IF NO---how can we make it happen?

(Also an Am, I'm also in favor of this. The "How?" is the question).



I think this would work BUT is NOT the way MOST people think when they hear "Trophy Only"... :p

I constantly hear the arguement of "Why should we pay all that money for Trophy Only"....??? :confused:

Thats the point...you WOULDNT pay all that money....Entry fees would be GREATLY reduced...This would bring in MORE players iMO because it makes the event more financially appealling to a BROADER scale of players....

The ones it hurts....

TOP AMS who really just want MORE merch... AND
TD's who are in areas where "fundraising" is a tough situation and the Wholesale/retail merch cost "HELPS" reduce overall tourney costs.
:D

ck34
Oct 11 2007, 01:36 PM
If you're already sold out, there's no reason not to rachet up the prices if you believe in supply and demand economics. BG might still get more than 200 players if the entry fee were jacked up to $100. If you're not filling then, you don't have enough players in the area willing to pay the current prices. So, lowering the fees and doing Trophy Only should boost turnout. Obviously, players' choices are impacted by other event factors. But entry fee is certainly an important one.

Lyle O Ross
Oct 11 2007, 05:33 PM
You can't even rebut things without making up facts. "Forcing players to play up." What are you talking about? I have never advocated any such thing.

By the way, even if I had said that, the whole statement would have been my opinion, not a fact. Making up opinions, and making up facts are two entirely different things.



YAWN! James, you're positively belligerent, but amusingly so. So, you don't believe that the divisional payout structure should be modified so that Amateurs will get less payout and thus be, IYO, motivated to move up?

BTW - Let's just accept that I've misread or misunderstood past posts. First, my apologies for mis-representing your position.

To get me back on the right path, explain to me what your goal is James? What is the structure you support? How would you deal with Ams?

Lyle O Ross
Oct 11 2007, 06:16 PM
Having trophy only OPTIONS at two events out of forty or fifty is hardly akin to Lyle's statement that his events were "essentially trophy only."

btw, in anticipation of certain replies, I have no problem with Chris motivations, or economic model, or Bruce's motivations or model. It makes total sense from their perspective. My beef is that while that model might be good for TDs, it might be good at attracting and retaining certain types of people, it might be acceptable for a social club, it is terrible for a sport that is in need of long-term vision.



Ah James, I should have just read back up stream. So why is it that these types of events are bad for a "sport of long-term vision." You can give us both opinion and factual comparisons that show your opinion has merit.

james_mccaine
Oct 11 2007, 06:18 PM
I'm not sure why you can't see the difference; it's an important distinction in my mind. Using the education analogy again. If a Company says that in order to have X-high paying job, one must have a college degree, are they FORCING everyone to go to college? Of course not. Every employee has a choice, just as every player would have a choice in a reformed competitive system.

My basic point is that people may disagree with each other's positions, and that's expected, but in an adult debate, people really shouldn't attempt to mischaracterize other's positions. I do get belligerent about that. Purposeful or sloppy deception in a debate is highly counterproductive and weak. If I ever mischaracterize your statements, please let me know.

magilla
Oct 11 2007, 11:34 PM
If you're already sold out, there's no reason not to rachet up the prices if you believe in supply and demand economics. BG might still get more than 200 players if the entry fee were jacked up to $100. If you're not filling then, you don't have enough players in the area willing to pay the current prices. So, lowering the fees and doing Trophy Only should boost turnout. Obviously, players' choices are impacted by other event factors. But entry fee is certainly an important one.



Sure....SOME events could charge ANYTHING and still get "numbers"....
Im not knocking "Trophy Only"......Its a decent concept that would be hard to put into place across the board without issues from the Am players... :p

:D

rolo14
Oct 12 2007, 07:55 AM
After reading this whole thread--James McCaine for president!

1. There is nothing wrong with competition or those who seek it. My personal dream is to watch Climo (or me :D) winning the USDGC on TV. My nightmarish fear is that the first disc golf program I see on TV will be some lengthy explanation of the differences between green, red, white, blue and gold level players (what, no black belt?), followed by a lengthy explanation of the differences between Majors, NTs, A-tiers, B-tiers, C-tiers, XC-tiers and D-tiers.... Chuck hosts.

2. The PDGA's primary motivation is cultivating its membership--not fostering competition. That is OK. There's nothing wrong with efforts made to attract new members and retain old ones. However, whatever "Competition Committee" we have needs a complete overhaul. Is it not obvious that forces outside the PDGA are driving the sport at its highest competitive level?

3. IMHO, the PDGA has helped blur the lines not only between am divisions, but more importantly between am and pro. We are currently drifting further away from what we should be striving for (I guess I must say at this point that in my mind, that is: to be an organization that both fosters competition and cultivates its membership). James is exactly right on this. The whole supply and demand tangent some of you guys get into is the equivalent of subjective truth. Just because a demand exists doesn't mean it is good for the sport. C'mon guys! :mad:

4. It is naive to think the top pros have little to do with attracting new members.

5. Himing had great am payouts. He offered trophy-only as an option a couple times. Despite the fact that many of his qualifiers were B-tier-sized he didn't bother sanctioning them, but for the finals he went the extra mile for an A-tier. He did whatever he could to get top pros to come to his final.... hrmm.... I see something of a model here....

5. The notion that TDs and ams will "defect" if we change the system to stop paying ams is bogus. If said tourney isn't sanctioned, what's to stop guys like me (pro donator/solid am) from poaching?

6. Wasn't this the tour card thread? ;)

$.02

davidsauls
Oct 12 2007, 08:58 AM
I'm not sure why you can't see the difference; it's an important distinction in my mind. Using the education analogy again. If a Company says that in order to have X-high paying job, one must have a college degree, are they FORCING everyone to go to college? Of course not. Every employee has a choice, just as every player would have a choice in a reformed competitive system.

My basic point is that people may disagree with each other's positions, and that's expected, but in an adult debate, people really shouldn't attempt to mischaracterize other's positions. I do get belligerent about that. Purposeful or sloppy deception in a debate is highly counterproductive and weak. If I ever mischaracterize your statements, please let me know.



James:

I've read a lot of your posts and my understanding is that you oppose all prizes to Ams, because they give financial incentive to players to compete at other than the top level. If I understand this right, your belief is players should not win anything unless they compete and win against the top players. Is this essentially correct?

If so, I have a few questions to help clarify your position to me, and perhaps to others.

Do you consider player packages or lower entry fees financial incentives as well? With either, a person is still financially better off playing Advanced than Open, even if there are no prizes.

What is your definition of "sport"? You refer to much of what we're doing as not being a sport, but a social activity. But it seems to me to be as much a sport as many other activities commonly referred to as sports in general public. Might you use a more specific phrase; i.e.; "professional sport", "major league sport", etc.?

What is your goal? What would determine success, in your opinion? ESPN coverage? Millionnaire players? Or the same premise, scaled down to local newspaper coverage, sufficient payouts for a number of elite players to make a middle-class living just competing in disc golf?

Exactly how would your proposal accomplish this? If we accept that removing financial incentives for players to compete in current Am division would encourage (not force) more of the borderline Pro/Am players to play Open---how would this bring in outside money, outside coverage, or otherwise move disc golf towards being a "sport" (your definition)? It seems to me it would just be a minor change, with similar events as we now have but slightly larger open fields, slightly smaller am fields.

What if the "vision" of the great majority of disc golfers, and their "leadership", is not to be a major league sport, but to be a great "social club" (your definitions)? Ever-growing, more courses to play, more chances to "compete" (their definition) as they do now, etc. Why would this be a bad thing?

wander
Oct 12 2007, 09:16 AM
Hey, Rob -

If you want to see some DG on TV in Austin, get in touch with your local access station and you can hook the whole community up with Disc Golf Live video magazine:

http://www.pactaustin.org/

I'd be happy to send program DVDs your way (or to anyone in any community where there is a broadcast opportunity). Disc Golf Live shows are free and full of a wide variety of disc golf stories. KC grabbing up this year's Ring will be there in a coming episode as well, along with other stories from Rock Hill.

Lots of talkers out there, far few doers, unfortunately.

davidsauls
Oct 12 2007, 09:51 AM
The whole supply and demand tangent some of you guys get into is the equivalent of subjective truth. Just because a demand exists doesn't mean it is good for the sport.

...

The notion that TDs and ams will "defect" if we change the system to stop paying ams is bogus. If said tourney isn't sanctioned, what's to stop guys like me (pro donator/solid am) from poaching?



The marketplace tangent is based on principle & practice. The principle is that a membership organization should do what the membership wants. Something like a representative democracy. In practice, there are innumerable examples in and out of disc golf to suggest that if the PDGA mandated something most players don't want, someone would offer what they do want, and the players who wanted it, would go there. (The key, and the trick, is changing the "demand"; changing what the Ams want).

Market forces are hardly subjective---they exert force whether allowed free reign, or reigned in.

The poaching argument is bogus---the non-sanctioned TD can handle it however he, or his customers, want. He can establish divisions, guidelines, bump rules, etc.

sandalman
Oct 12 2007, 10:08 AM
Is it not obvious that forces outside the PDGA are driving the sport at its highest competitive level?

obvious to the unoblivious.

Lyle O Ross
Oct 12 2007, 10:19 AM
I'm not sure why you can't see the difference; it's an important distinction in my mind. Using the education analogy again. If a Company says that in order to have X-high paying job, one must have a college degree, are they FORCING everyone to go to college? Of course not. Every employee has a choice, just as every player would have a choice in a reformed competitive system.

My basic point is that people may disagree with each other's positions, and that's expected, but in an adult debate, people really shouldn't attempt to mischaracterize other's positions. I do get belligerent about that. Purposeful or sloppy deception in a debate is highly counterproductive and weak. If I ever mischaracterize your statements, please let me know.



You've reiterated that I'm mistaken but you still haven't stated your plan, i.e. what your goal is and how it would be implemented nor given comparable situations that show it has merit. Since I'm wrong, I'd like to at least know what you're structure is, concretely, and why it is better than a model that supports Ams.

sandalman
Oct 12 2007, 10:29 AM
lyle, this is one place plans are hashed out. maybe he's thinking more of a principle. people can discuss differing principles without having to have day-by-day project plans for changing the world.


and btw, its "your", not "you're".

I'd like to at least know what you're structure is

davidsauls
Oct 12 2007, 10:54 AM
A question for anyone who disregards the "marketplace" or "supply & demand" positions of people like myself---

You assume that, if the PDGA mandated something that the players didn't want, such as no payouts for Ams, that TDs would not offer non-sanctioned events with these features, or that players would not leave the sanctioned events for the non-sanctioned events in a format they prefer.

If I suggest that you, or someone, run a tournament with no Am payouts---either sanctioned or non-sanctioned---I hear that it won't work because the PDGA is still allowing payouts in other events, so players won't play in your no-payout event.

Is there a contradiction here? Or does the marketplace not apply to the first example, but apply to the second?

Lyle O Ross
Oct 12 2007, 11:00 AM
See what happens when you type two fast.


Actually, this topic has been being hashed out at least back to 2005 and probably further; that probably explains why I have the mistaken notion that James wants to push Ams into the Pro division; I've mixed up the numerous posters on the topic. However, in this instance, since I've misrepresented James' position, I'm simply asking for a concrete model.

That said, if James is going to support a model that is based primarily on competition, that is, the best float to the top and everyone competes heads up (with the possible exception that you have an Open Pro Class and an Am class that is primarily trophy only), and if we are going to seriously consider something with that structure, should we not have some feel that it works? Should there not be some point of comparison that shows that it works?

sandalman
Oct 12 2007, 11:13 AM
MSDGC, USDGC have already shown that it works
Worlds, Players Cup and Southern Nationals also show it altho to a lesser extent

its not gonna have 847 events. a good Pro tour might only have 4-6 events at first. the error is not recognizing that this type of thing wants to exist! its not an Win/Lose or Either/Or. we can have both.

ck34
Oct 12 2007, 11:21 AM
MSDGC, USDGC have already shown that it works
Worlds, Players Cup and Southern Nationals also show it altho to a lesser extent




With the exception of Southern Nationals, since I'm not sure of their financials, all of those events are financially propped up by the host sponsors internal to the sport, including the PDGA. Take away that money plus the volunteer support and there's no indication those events would have anywhere near the attendance and notoriety that they do.

Lyle O Ross
Oct 12 2007, 11:29 AM
MSDGC, USDGC have already shown that it works
Worlds, Players Cup and Southern Nationals also show it altho to a lesser extent

its not gonna have 847 events. a good Pro tour might only have 4-6 events at first. the error is not recognizing that this type of thing wants to exist! its not an Win/Lose or Either/Or. we can have both.



Excellent examples. Who doesn't recognize that these types of events "want" to exist? It isn't the people who support the Am focus model who are telling others how they should structure their payouts.

BTW - Does that USDGC MSDGC model translate across the board? When I ask for a comparison, I'm talking about an entire sport that has followed this strategy... that has open competition as it's basis.

BTW - Let's begin with Softball. A sport that for the most part has no pretensions of Prodome (for the most part). It has huge levels of participation with some very good players and teams. There is a lot of money in the sport in many ways, just not a group of Pros making a living at it. Manufacturers make a lot of money at it but there is no real sponsorship. Of course, it's not a legitimate sport and no one aspires to be a world class softballer; nonetheless, I'd call it significantly more successful than we are at this time. And yes, I'd admit they've been at it a lot longer.

Last point, in this discussion it may have come across that I support the current Am payout model. I do not. I do see that it works, but I also feel it could be done away with, at some initial cost. I still feel that our focus of growth should be on the Am, not developing the Pro side of the sport.

westxchef
Oct 12 2007, 11:34 AM
With the exception of Southern Nationals, since I'm not sure of their financials, all of those events are financially propped up by the host sponsors internal to the sport, including the PDGA. Take away that money plus the volunteer support and there's no indication those events would have anywhere near the attendance and notoriety that they do.


Not sure what the finnacial contribution or breakdown was for these sponsors, but what about: Microtel, Kicker, Coca Cola, Wyndham, Rock Hill Tourism Bureau, Corestaff, First Citizens. Did they not also help "prop-up" USDGC?

sandalman
Oct 12 2007, 11:43 AM
not sure how the pdga propped up the msdgc either...

the people who support the Open model do not tell other how to structure their events. the USDGC and the MSDGC are not saying "make all events like ours". please dont misrepresent things.

"across the board"? thats confusing... who cares about across the board? what kind of "comparison" are you thinking of?

davidsauls
Oct 12 2007, 11:52 AM
lyle, this is one place plans are hashed out. maybe he's thinking more of a principle. people can discuss differing principles without having to have day-by-day project plans for changing the world.





True, but I suspect there's more to James's ideas than just no prizes to ams. Either a specific reason why that would be "good for the sport", or details beyond that first step.

I'll be very disappointed if he doesn't have more to offer than just that one item.

ck34
Oct 12 2007, 12:00 PM
They probably did to some extent. I know we could get no national sponsors to chip in for Pro Worlds except Bite did put in $230 in cash. We even promoted Enterprise and Microtel on the Worlds website showing where they were located for those traveling to Worlds. We estimate Whitecap Lodge brought in over $150K but we got no cash, no comped rooms, no comped space for the party and I believe they even charged players staying there to play their 9-hole practice course.

Unless Innova provides a tournament report with the overall financial breakdown to the PDGA (the sponsor part isn't required), only they know their numbers. In fact, they may not even know the total monetary value injected when you count the value of volunteer time including Innova people that was involved.

USDCG, Players Cup and MSDGC have been great events but there's no indication the financial and personnel model can be duplicated beyond those locations and without those key internal sponsors and staff. And there's also no certainty that players would strive to attend in the numbers they do without the large financial incentives involved (relative to our sport).

ck34
Oct 12 2007, 12:09 PM
not sure how the pdga propped up the msdgc either...




Not exactly propping it up but certainly helping. Ironically, MSDGC is one of the few places where having a high PDGA Player Rating is important to get into their Skins game. In addition, Dodge asked me to analyze their scoring data to see if any holes could maybe be better. Several players wanted to know what the SSAs might have been to see what their unofficial ratings might have been. Just PDGA volunteer activities that happen behind the scenes.

Lyle O Ross
Oct 12 2007, 12:17 PM
not sure how the pdga propped up the msdgc either...

the people who support the Open model do not tell other how to structure their events.

<font color="red">I'm not sure that's true, in intent. You're (hey look, I used it right, thanks!) right in the sense that we aren't currently doing that, but isn't that essentially what is being proposed? Or are you saying that the "more competition" proponents aren't saying that we should eliminate the Am payout structure, and that they don't feel the multiple classes we have protect weak players, that is, that some of the divisions should be removed? </font>



the USDGC and the MSDGC are not saying "make all events like ours". please dont misrepresent things.


<font color="red"> I'm sorry I confused you. I was making absolutely no reference to these events in trying to discuss how one party tries to determine how another structures their events, therefore couldn't have misrepresented their position. I'm also pretty confident I did not say "make all events like ours" but I could be mistaken. </font>

"across the board"? thats confusing... who cares about across the board? what kind of "comparison" are you thinking of?

<font color="red"> Again, sorry I was confusing. If the model is to make events with a more competitive model that is more open, i.e. similar to what the USDGC utilizes, what would happen if all events utilized that format, that is, "across the board" for the entire sport. Do you, or James feel that would work well? How is the average player going to feel about playing in an event that costs him $X at which he or she has absolutely no chance of winning? IMO the USDGC and MSDGC are unique events who's format might not translate into more mundane events. </font>

Lyle O Ross
Oct 12 2007, 12:19 PM
not sure how the pdga propped up the msdgc either...




Not exactly propping it up but certainly helping. Ironically, MSDGC is one of the few places where having a high PDGA Player Rating is important to get into their Skins game. In addition, Dodge asked me to analyze their scoring data to see if any holes could maybe be better. Several players wanted to know what the SSAs might have been to see what their unofficial ratings might have been. Just PDGA volunteer activities that happen behind the scenes.



NOOOOOOO! Say it isn't so! You mean MSDGC takes advantage of the PDGA's rating system. Well I never! Those free loaders!

Jroc
Oct 12 2007, 01:20 PM
A "no payout" Am touanament in Texas has happened. It was well recieved. It can work. It may be run with payouts next year (strictly to help support a regional series), but if that doesn't pan out, it will be "no payout" again.

I was at those Tx10 finals and played "Trophy Only"...was well worth my time and money.

ck34
Oct 12 2007, 01:29 PM
I'd like to see a major pro event, with no qualification required to play, where the bulk of the purse went to charity and supporting those running it. The entry fee would be low ($50-$75) so the pros weren't supporting the charitable donation, just playing for each others' money. Tickets would be sold for spectators with a venue in a major disc golf metro. Let's see how many would enter this one division, one champion event. Since pros are more in it for the competition, according to some, this should be a great draw for competitors just like the USDGC. If it's for a major charity, the spectators might also come out in force.

discette
Oct 12 2007, 01:45 PM
its not gonna have 847 events. a good Pro tour might only have 4-6 events at first. the error is not recognizing that this type of thing wants to exist! its not an Win/Lose or Either/Or. we can have both.



I thought that was the purpose of the NT. 10 or so events catering to the top pros. Three years later, only two NT events offer only Pro divisions - the Golden State Classic and the Canadian Open.(Arguably, USDGC &amp; Pro Worlds are Majors, but they would happen regardless of being NT events.) All other NT's have a corresponding Am event presumably to help provide the added cash to the pro purse. Every NT event except the Canadian Open offers all Pro divisions other than Open Men and Women. (**Canadian Open offered a side bet to the Masters players.) Why do NT events offer all the Pro divisions? Probably because the events don't draw enough players without offering these divisions. The events also don't work without massive fund raising (Worlds, USDGC, GSC), or a corresponding Am event to fuel the Pro event or financial help from the PDGA.

The NT is the closest thing we have to these "ideal" events that some people want to cater to the highest level of our sport and build "true competition". The events you are looking for to "add legitimacy to the sport" are already here and they barely work. Only 3 events out of thousands each year are run for Open Pros only. 3 events is a start, but in my opinion not worth the return on investment.

Ams build the PDGA, Pros suck the money and resources out.

sandalman
Oct 12 2007, 02:16 PM
good points discette. only 3 of thousands (more like 750 or so sanctioned anyway, but the point is basically the same) is almost ok. my biggest concern is that the association loses its market leader position for these type events.


Ams build the PDGA, Pros suck the money and resources out.

if true, is it time for a name change for the PDGA?

do you really believe that Pro players overall receive more benefits, especially in terms of actual dollars, for their extra $25 and all the event fees they pay? i have been trying to cobble together that kind of analysis, and so far have not been able to reach the conclusion that you reached. it is very nice to hear someone talk about ROI though!

Lyle O Ross
Oct 12 2007, 02:35 PM
good points discette. only 3 of thousands (more like 750 or so sanctioned anyway, but the point is basically the same) is almost ok. my biggest concern is that the association loses its market leader position for these type events.


Ams build the PDGA, Pros suck the money and resources out.

if true, is it time for a name change for the PDGA?

do you really believe that Pro players overall receive more benefits, especially in terms of actual dollars, for their extra $25 and all the event fees they pay? i have been trying to cobble together that kind of analysis, and so far have not been able to reach the conclusion that you reached. it is very nice to hear someone talk about ROI though!



What information comes in from TDs? At one point I tried to do a local analysis on sponsors and money/benefits from. My goal was to build a database. If you could actually get those numbers you could really do something. Unfortunately, most (I might even say all) TDs are very protective of that information.

However, if you simply do an analysis based on the cost of plastic to the TD, vs. what he pays out to Ams in plastic (that is at it's real cash value based on what the TD pays) and what he pays out to Pros in Cash, I'd be willing to bet loose change that the Pros are taking more away in value relative to cash.

That issue aside, James' issue is what will grow the PDGA, not whether the payout is fair, and whether Ams support our current structure (my interpretation, James please correct me if I'm wrong). The argument seems to be to me that a competition based system that focuses on skills will help the sport to grow. Now, if such a system cuts back on the number of Ams playing, and if the Ams are supporting the Pro purse (in the real world, not one where "lazy" TDs go get "real" sponsorships) then you have a problem. That is, less money for the Pros, although if you buy the model, more Ams will play Pro and so there will be more cash there to compensate. But, you'll have a problem with paying out over 100%.

Lyle O Ross
Oct 12 2007, 02:52 PM
Amateur and Casual disc golfers are the majority and the life blood of getting courses played, creating galleries and growing the sports popularity.
The stuff that kills me is when I see all of the AMs, casuals and fans at the USDGC respecting the heck out of the mad talent they are witnessing. Then you hear Bruce Brakel try to say how Pro's are worthless, money grubbing cry babies. Do we need to do more for TD's that are wanting us there and are raising sponsorship $, you bet and we are getting more folks involved and in this mind set.

Here are a few of things we Pros accomplished at USDGC:
--Several pre-tournament demos at area schools
--Filming of another Clash DVD for sport promotion
--Countless autographs and pictures
--Articles and interviews for local papers, news and USDGC site/blogs
--Showcase distance demo at the finals for spectators
--Sunday e-bay tee times with Team Innova players playing with Casual / AM disc golfers

It shows the potential power of having a fan base. We need to connect the AMs and Casual disc golfers to these players of mad skills. We work very, VERY hard at getting to and attaining this level of athleticism. It is something to be admired and emulated.
The disc golf economy I spoke of is very achievable when we start to market these Pros at your events in areas that have a strong disc golf casual base. I think a study would show that having Ken Climo at your event would bring in more AM players and more spectators if marketed correctly and thus sell more disc golf merchandise, raffle tickets, food, whatever.



One other thing to consider. Yeti rightly points out these huge benefits that Pros bring to the game (countering Discette's point that they provide no benefit). But there is one key item missing here. Cash! What sponsorships are Pros bringing in? If the argument is that a system that focuses on excellence is key to growing the sport, shouldn't those excellent players that exist be helping in that area, or are the growth potentials strictly those which by Jay's list, primarily help in the growth of Ams?

It should be noted that this supports James' view (if not as he intended, or perhaps that is what he intended) that is, the presence of an elite group helps to grow the base of the sport.

I guess the question would be how do you measure growth? Is it numbers of players, number of elite players, or is it in revenue? What is the most important parameter? James?

ck34
Oct 12 2007, 03:30 PM
For all of the scorecards and tourney info that gets printed at Fedex/Kinkos, you would think we could maybe just get what the last casher received at their new Fedex Cup final this year and support our NT in 2008: $112K

sandalman
Oct 12 2007, 04:53 PM
you think that would generate $500K or so of FexEx/Kinko's business?

ck34
Oct 12 2007, 05:07 PM
Just wishful thinking at this point.

sandalman
Oct 12 2007, 05:17 PM
then why should they give us $112K? mmmm... that would make for a tasty tour though, wouldnt it!

ck34
Oct 12 2007, 05:32 PM
I was just curious to see what last cash (30th) was for the Fedex bonus. That doesn't even count the millions of sponsorship in the events running up to the final. Not saying they should give us that. This fantasy was along the lines of the statements you sometimes hear where someone would love to just get the interest earned by Bill Gates in the last hour...

sandalman
Oct 12 2007, 11:19 PM
is interest really "earned"?

davidbihl
Oct 13 2007, 03:41 AM
The entry fee would be low ($50-$75) so the pros weren't supporting the charitable donation, just playing for each others' money. Tickets would be sold for spectators with a venue in a major disc golf metro. Let's see how many would enter this one division, one champion event. Since pros are more in it for the competition, according to some, this should be a great draw for competitors just like the USDGC. If it's for a major charity, the spectators might also come out in force.

[/QUOTE]

If you build a sweet enough venue, I am sure this would be feasible. The best pro's are golf junkies, and a beautiful course is irresistable to a junkie.

enkster
Oct 14 2007, 04:27 PM
Pat.

Yes it is. Interest is the value of the opportunity cost to allow the bank to use money. If there was no benefit to putting the money in the bank, there would be a lot more money invested.

Steve