Chuck,

I am running the Las Vegas Gentlemen's Club Challenge (of course, with help from many). We likely will have 72 Open players and I want to pay back 50% of the field. But neither the payout tables nor the TD report provides such payouts. What is the formula?

Also, we are adding some big cash this year (like collecting $11,000 in Pro entries and maybe adding $10,000 in cash to the Pro payouts). I am not probihited from paying more than 50% of the field....correct? (The Sanctioning Agreement states a minimum of 40%.)

Thought...Why should only the top 50% of the Pro players benefit from all the cash added (which again, is almost 100% of their entries)? If the 1st place Open still wins the same amount of money we paid out in the 2007 Gentlemen's Club Challnge, (which beats some National Tour payouts) then it may make since to pay out 60% or 70% (or something greater than 50%) of the field so (1) more players are happy, (2) more players benefit from the sponsorships, and (3) since a lot of sponsorships are locally driven, more local players actually win some money at THEIR local event. (Note - not many Vegas players can beat 50% of the field that flies in for the tournament, but the locals helped collect the large cash sponsorships through disc/CFR purchases for the tournament and various sponsorship collections.)

Maybe a payout guideline should be something like...
1) If 100% or less of entries are paid back in cash winnings, then pay 40% of the field (most C-Tier events);
2) If 115% of entries are paid back in cash winnings, then pay 45% of the field (most B-Tier events);
3) If 130% of entries are paid back in cash winnings, then pay 50% of the field (a 125% payback use to be the requirement for Major/A-Tier Events);
4) If 145% of entries are paid back in cash winnings, then pay 55% of the field;
5) If 160% of entries are paid back in cash winnings, then pay 60% of the field;
6) If 175% of entries are paid back in cash winnings, then pay 65% of the field;
7) If 190% of entries are paid back in cash winnings, then pay 70% of the field; and
8) If more than 200% of entries are paid back in cash winnings, then pay 75% of the field.

I still think it is important to pay out BIG to the winners of A-Tier & National events, but a $50 to $100 difference to the top winners of each Pro division (between a 50% payout table and a 60% to 70% payout table), really doesn't impact someone's livelihood that much versus paying more players who likely helped make the event such a great success.

P.S. Including player packages, trophies, CTPs, and Ace Pools, the 2008 GCC will likely have a +200% payback for the Pro fields. Last year, our total Pro payback was 181%.

P.S.S. Our success is because of Innova's CFR, InnColor, and other tournament assistance progams, and disc sales by DiscGolfValues.com/Mark Molnar!!!

Jeff Jacquart
State of Nevada PDGA Coordinator
Las Vegas Club President
GCC TD
PDGA #10749

The printed Pro payout table has had the 50% option in it for years and TDs have been able to choose 40%, 45% or 50% for each pro division in the Excel TD report since last year. Here are some alternate suggestions on what to do with any "extra" cash versus paying more than 50%: Cash CTPs, pay for player meal(s), reduce entry fees (such as rebates for everyone), do more for staff in terms of paying for meals, mileage, clothing, discs and 'yes' even stipends (pay).

Both the table (which I am looking at right now) and the Excel TD report does NOT provide a 50% payout for 72 players. It stops at a 45% payout for 72-74 players.

The Excel TD report doesn't calculate anything when you submit 72 players and 50% payout.

Is there a formula that I can use instead?

Check your email. The 2008 Payout calculator for large fields hasn't been set up for downloading but the 2007 version still works for pros in 2008 with option for up to 50% getting paid.

Awesome read--I love how the original question was never answered.... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I think it is fair to say Chuck may not be the best person to ask about whether or not you should pay more "pros" or pay "pros" more (quotes for Chuck's benefit). After all, he answered your statement, "We are adding cash..." as though you had asked, "Should we add cash...?"....a question to which his response is pretty much automatic if you read these boards.......

My hat is off to the TD/club for what you guys are up to--now I really wish my plans for Vegas/Memorial hadn't fallen through! It is nice to see people realizing that paying more and deeper in the open division is a good thing. :D

72 Open players and I want to pay back 50% of the field

best thing I have read on this bored in a long time. Good job Vegas

72 Open players and I want to pay back 50% of the field

best thing I have read on this bored in a long time. Good job Vegas



Sadly, What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. :confused: :D

lol :D

no kiddin, how far is the bunny ranch from the course? :D

about an hour... so how deep do they pay out in tx these days? most va events have been going 45-50% for a good while.

Ware you going to the GCC?; with the bunny ranch only being an hour from the course I may just have to make arrangements for this one. ;) John- In Texas the payouts are usually 40% for Ams and 30% for Open, we have about 20 or 30 tournaments a year and this year we are going to have 4 A-tiers with 1 of them being at Circle R; you should try to make it down this way.

probably not but with the payout spreading out some sure makes it more interesting. :D

here in texas I think td's are still paying top 1/3rd but dont ask me WHY

I developed the formula for extended payout several years back and I believe it is being used by the PDGA today. My formula will payout to over 250 places and you can pick any percent. PM me and I will send the formula along.

Rob,

In defense of Chuck, I developed the formula for extended payout several years back and it is not easy to explain. It is a three dimensional equation based on players and % payout. It is much easier to use the spreadsheet to calculate it.

I just completed the update for 2008 and sent it to Gentry to set up for downloading from the PDGA 2008 Tour page. It uses fixed percentage choices of 40%, 45% or 50% for Pros and 45% and 50% for Ams. The Pro table hasn't changed for 2008. For Ams in 2008, paying 45% uses a flatter percentage table and paying 50% uses a steeper table. These are all built into the 2008 TD report which has been available for a while. The main use of this Payout Calculator is for planning purposes and handling our few events with very large fields as Jerry mentioned.

I still think it is important to pay out BIG to the winners of A-Tier & National events, but a $50 to $100 difference to the top winners of each Pro division (between a 50% payout table and a 60% to 70% payout table), really doesn't impact someone's livelihood that much versus paying more players who likely helped make the event such a great success.

I think this is a fine sentiment and it's great that you want the chance to support the pros who worked on the event. However, be prepared for some complaints from the 10% or so who are "losing" money to support the bottom end of their division. There seems to be a strong push for steep payouts and a larger percentage of added cash (to the open field) among traveling pro players. Good luck with your tournament!

I think you are only partially correct Greg. Most of the top Pros including Feldberg and Shultz have stated that paying deeper and a little less steep are healthy moves for the Open division.

You are right, however, that most Open players feel the added cash should go mostly to our two top divisions, Open and Pro Women. This has nothing to do with who is raising the cash. Most top pros appreciate and respect our volunteer TD's and will help out with promotion when asked. I would venture to say that most top pros also agree that TD's should be paid for their efforts.

The Open and Pro Women divisions represent the best players in our sport. Despite the fact that anybody can "cash" and call themselves a Pro Disc Golfer, if we have any resemblance to an actual Professional Sports model we should at least embrace that there are players so good that they deserve to play for the lions share of any added cash.

We may see more tournaments that follow the Maple Hill Open when staring at a large sum of added money.
"Make the Cut, Get Paid" :D

I think you are only partially correct Greg. Most of the top Pros including Feldberg and Shultz have stated that paying deeper and a little less steep are healthy moves for the Open division.

You are right, however, that most Open players feel the added cash should go mostly to our two top divisions, Open and Pro Women. This has nothing to do with who is raising the cash. Most top pros appreciate and respect our volunteer TD's and will help out with promotion when asked. I would venture to say that most top pros also agree that TD's should be paid for their efforts.

The Open and Pro Women divisions represent the best players in our sport. Despite the fact that anybody can "cash" and call themselves a Pro Disc Golfer, if we have any resemblance to an actual Professional Sports model we should at least embrace that there are players so good that they deserve to play for the lions share of any added cash.

We may see more tournaments that follow the Maple Hill Open when staring at a large sum of added money.
"Make the Cut, Get Paid" :D



I think I just saw a Yeti...heard him at least though... I agree!

In my next event (The 1st titleDISC Open), I'll be adding cash to the top 5 spots in MPO and MA1. There will also be donated prizes for the winners (maybe 2nd place as well) of FPO and FW1.

some of the complaints I've been hearing about the current payout structure, especially for MA1, are that the payout isn't steep enough and that a victory isn't properly rewarded. Of course, this event will be capped at 100 players, so the top 5 spots is a decent-sized percentage of these two divisions. My next event will do something similar, but I hope to have two courses for that event and will be able to host more players. More players gives me more options for distributing added cash.

I know this doesn't apply to the OP's situation, but I wanted to drop in my 2 cents since we're discussing how to divvy up added cash :)

We may see more tournaments that follow the Maple Hill Open when staring at a large sum of added money.
"Make the Cut, Get Paid"

I Vote Yes for that.... :)

Wow--I didn't realize we were going to start paying spots in MA1 in cash this year regardless of the player in the spot. I was under the impression that a "pro" rated under 970 could play MA1 and accept cash in lieu of prizes. So.....if you are not a "pro" you can accept cash and stay an "am" unless you are an "am" and your rating gets too high in which case you must play with "pros" but if you take cash then you are a "pro" but if you don't you are still an "am." Clear as mud. I just hope that someday we abolish the silly monikers "am" and "pro." They mean nothing.

Just out of curiosity, will the 2008 year-end stats for "ams" have a cash prize listed next to their point total like the "pros" do? I wonder, who will be this year's "am" money leader?

Does anybody think adding cash to MA1 is a good idea?

Jerry, in defense of myself (and with all due respect to you), I stand by my criticism earlier in the thread. The original question was about paying more than 50%. Chuck didn't even bother to acknowledge the question posed in the original post--he just jumped in with his usual litany of reasons why not to give money to the pros in our sport.

Peace,

Rob

I don't quite agree with your stance on that..

"Cash CTPs, pay for player meal(s), reduce entry fees (such as rebates for everyone), do more for staff in terms of paying for meals, mileage, clothing, discs and 'yes' even stipends (pay)."

Cash CTPs
Free Meals
Less Entry Fees

I see all of that as money in the pocket of players in the Open Division.

Rob, curious how much money you've raised for Pro payouts? I just busted it to raise money for hosting the Pro Worlds (which no one else bid to do, wonder why?) with the second highest payout in PW history. And as Mark pointed out, three items I mentioned all provide the equivalent of cash to those who will finish lower than 50% which responded to the original question.

Rob, curious how much money you've raised for Pro payouts? I just busted it to raise money for hosting the Pro Worlds (which no one else bid to do, wonder why?) with the second highest payout in PW history. And as Mark pointed out, three items I mentioned all provide the equivalent of cash to those who will finish lower than 50% which responded to the original question.



Chuck,

In the interest of accuracy, you gave the second highest purse at Pro Worlds that did not have the benefit of an Am Worlds going on at the same time in the same place. Overall, you were fourth.

2000 Ann Arbor $92,640
2006 Augusta $83,150
2004 Des Moines $80,740
2007 Highbridge $78,050
2003 Flagstaff $75,000
2005 Allentown $72,000

I couldn't find numbers for Minnesota in 2001. The main site for 2001 is still up, but a lot of the files are inaccessible, but you'll know what those were as I think you were intimately involved there as well.

But that's taking nothing away from you on your purse. I'm frankly flabbergasted you were able to come up with that much sponsorship $$$ for such a remote location. Kudos!

Chap

Yes, I forgot to mention second among "standalone" Pro Worlds, which of course indicates how having ams included can support the pro purse.

Yes, I forgot to mention second among "standalone" Pro Worlds, which of course indicates how having ams included can support the pro purse.



There are other factors as well. Des Moines and Michigan both had lower entry fees. Des Moines had an unprecedented number of amenities and entertainment. Those things would have to be factored in as well.

Hilarious. I'll assume the personal attack was your form of concession.

Again, I stand by my criticism. Go back and read the first post. It states "...we are adding some big cash this year..." then poses a question: "I am not probihited from paying more than 50% of the field....correct?" That question was NOT answered. That subject was not entertained. That is all.

This is a discussion board where ideas get discussed, right? Statements like "Rob, curious how much money you've raised for Pro payouts? I just busted it to raise money for hosting the Pro Worlds..." are offensive. Defend your ideas. Don't tell me I can't vote for president because I haven't held the office.

Peace,

Rob

You questioned my support of pros in this sport. I questioned yours. Discussion, right? Some of the various contributions I've made on their/our behalf including raising money are known but apparently not appreciated by some. I answered the question based on PDGA policy of not paying more than 50% and provided alternatives. What would you expect my answer as a member of the Competition Committee or anyone else who supports PDGA policies to be? The PDGA won't take anyone to court for going against payout policies but they can think twice about sanctioning a TD or an event at that level the next time around.

That is SO awesome you guys raised so much money! I woould vote for you to line your pockets a bit, as I am against being paid if more players beat you than you beat. I like the more ammenteties options as well.

Look forward to this one! Viva Las Vegas!

OK. This "discussion" is begining to confuse me. Where was I told that PDGA has a policy of not paying more than 50% of the field, and if I opt to, that future tournaments ran by me could be in jeopardy because I did so. The Sanctioning Agreement just states I must pay at least 40% of the field...nothing else.

I already have a CTP for each round, including a cool hand-carved trophy valued at $30 and a disc (so $100 in CTPs). I also have a $100 ace pool for each round (so $300 in Ace Pools). I also have a $35 players package for the Ams (about $2,800) and almost a $20 players pack for the Pros (about $2,400). I don't serve food because we have assigned tee times (so not all in for lunch at the same time) and have plenty of fast food joints across the street from the park.

I will likely go with the logic that if you can't beat half of the field, you should NOT get paid...but if some company steps up and donates $10,000 to one of the Vegas tournament, you can bet I will pay more than 50% of the field so all players get a better chance of enjoying the large sponsorship instead of throwing some big party or bumping up the player packages even more. Why should I be penalized for making such a decision. I am only required to add $1,500 cash to the Pros. At this time, we are adding over $8,000 in cash to the Pros, plus they get a $2,400 players package, plus they will likely will all three CTPs and Ace Pools. And, our trophies are dang cool and will cost about $400 as well.

I don't quite agree with the 50% policy. Why can't we think outside the box?

I answered the question based on PDGA policy of not paying more than 50% and provided alternatives. What would you expect my answer as a member of the Competition Committee or anyone else who supports PDGA policies to be? The PDGA won't take anyone to court for going against payout policies but they can think twice about sanctioning a TD or an event at that level the next time around.



I read back and didn't really notice the original question about whether it was OK to pay more than 50%. I also didn't notice you directly saying "no" with your first response.

Now, I realize that anyone who wishes to spread the wealth might be "dealt with" by the competition committee. Interesting. How many times has the competition committee thought twice about re-sanctioning a tourney where the TD paid less than the requirement?

At any rate, I realize that paying too deep is not a normal situation and therefore not a pressing issue, but I find the tone of your response odd. btw, kudos to the TD for exploring and contemplating new ideas.

Here's my very first statement: "The printed Pro payout table has had the 50% option in it for years and TDs have been able to choose 40%, 45% or 50% for each pro division in the Excel TD report since last year." It doesn't say 'no' but cites the PDGA policy. Then I suggested ways to handle the extra money versus paying more than the 50% policy. Then Rob implies I have some other agenda than just answering the question according to policy. And away we go...

I guess I had always assumed that the payout tables were intended to set minimums. I never assumed that they were also intended to set maximums. Therefore, your reply about 40%, 45%, and 50% didn't mean, in my mind at least, that higher percentages were forbidden. My mistake.

At any rate, I was surprised to hear that "unsanctioning" might be a result of paying deeper. btw, I have no qualms about your philosophy of putting that money into other player amenities, I just think that paying deeper is also a viable philosophy, and if a TD wanted to put that money into the payout, they shouldn't be prevented from doing so by the PDGA.

Nobody is saying money raised shouldn't be paid out, just where and how it's paid. Guidelines are there to provide at least some consistency in event that get the stamp of PDGA sanctioning. The Competition Committee does have and has had experienced touring pros as members and advisors. These policies aren't created in a vacuum nor ivory tower. TDs have been prevented from running future PDGA events but not following payout guidelines alone would not be the only reason.