17TH ANNUAL
SENECA CREEK SOIREE
NOVEMBER 15/16, 2008
A PDGA A-TIER EVENT

TO BE CONTESTED ON THE 27 HOLE SENECA CREEK STATE PARK DISC GOLF COURSE IN GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND

DIVISIONS OFFERED: PRO DIVISIONS ONLY � (NO SEPARATE AMATEUR DIVISIONS)
MPO (Open to all Men) � SLIDING ENTRY FEE BASED ON PLAYER RATING (AS FOLLOWS)
1000 and over = $90
980-999 = $80
960-979 = $70
940-959 = $60
920-939 = $50
919 and under = $40

MPG (Men over 50) = $60
FPO (Ladies) = $50



TD Craig Gangloff has come up with one of the most novel ideas in ages - a sliding entry fee for Open division players based on player rating. Personally, I hope this format catches on because "mullet" pros with little chance at cashing then don't feel like they're donating large sums of money, and it also encourages up and coming amateur players to try out the Pro ranks at a discounted price. Way to go Craigger! :cool:

Depending on your rating you go from playing with odds like blackjack at 990 down to odds a bit better than Powerball at 920. Should be interesting to see who plays and what happens.

I like it

its hard for the higher rated players to complain because they are the ones expected to cash in the first place, so it is encouraging lower rated players to basically donate to their projected payout

This idea was proposed by Craig last year (click here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=710467&page=5&fpart=2&vc =1) to beat the dead horse....er, read the original post). :D

In all seriousness, I applaud Craig for trying something new in the ratings-based arena. I'm not so sure I agree with the "fairness" of the idea, but I completely understand the concept. I know Craig is one of the more opinionated discussionists when it comes to traditional divisional structure vs the ratings-based competitions and I'm glad to see he's following through with a sanctioned format he's passionate about.

Thanks for bringing something different to the table, Craig. As you know from my PMs yesterday, my 972-rated entry fee is already in the mail. :)

Interesting concept. If more tourneys did this I think there would inventiably be some "Ratings Bagging." Once a low-integrity player is out of cash, he could easily take a few extra strokes to artifically lower his rating.

Cool idea nonetheless. Especially for an isolated event like this where nobody would really have an opportunity to tank their rating prior to the tourney...

This basically benefits players in the am division b/c they can play open and the bottom pros who will probably play the event regardless and might cash.

The top players kinda get jobbed by this on the surface, but I think in the end, it helps them b/c more people are likely to sign up that would have. However, more players in a division spreads the added cash out, so it could go either way.

I really like the idea, however, My only question would be if someone was 979 and signed up today by had jumped to 980 at the time of the tournament, do they owe more?

All I can say is the following:

course - heard NOTHING but good things
park - heard NOTHING but good things
people involved - heard NOTHING but good things

with all that said there is no way I would attend this event had Craig NOT placed this sliding scale. as a 873 rated player that would just be ludacrious, one division. however, the scale is in place, so to follow the lines of Gotcher-Money, my 873-rated entry fee is already in the mail!

TEAM YINZER REPPIN'!

great idea Craig, I cant wait to see who it draws in, and I commend you for trying something different.

I had suggested this idea a while back too. Maybe not formally on the message board (if that's considered official) but in some form the same idea came from my mind on a separate occasion. I like it and hope it succeeds. The key ingredient is ams pay am fees, pros play pro fees, everybody plays together. I like it and hope it succeeds.

For ams who want to play for something, invest the saved money in side bets! But you didn't hear that from me!

For ams who want to play for something, invest the saved money in side bets! But you didn't hear that from me!


Or ancillary events. That's the way to make some ca$h in the sport! :D

I am hoping that there are more pros than cons to this idea (no pun intended). So far the response has been all positive, and the range of ratings of intial respondents is very wide - so that too is encouraging.

The sliding scale is being supplemented with another concept I am calling "shadow divisions". The idea is that there will be a set aside prize pool for what would normally be separate player divisions (in this case MPM and MA1), where the top performers in each "class" shares the set aside prize pool. So a guy who normally plays MA1 who may not cash in the larger group - may get rewarded for being "best in class" and walk away with something anyway. Or an MPM player who finishes well and cashes, may get a bonus for being old too!! We're not talking a big $$ figure - probably $2-300 for each division split into the top 4-5 players. I envision the $$ coming from added cash - so no money coming out of entry fees for this. This might also address the old - bagging for ratings issue - as you would still have something to play for if you're not doing great in the larger field.

The one thing I do like about Craig is his ideas clearly do not benefit him. He is of masters age, yet, does not like masters divisions and has a rating over 1000 and is forcing himself to pay more.

Can't claim he is doing this for self gain!

I truly hope they benefit us all ;)

The fact that he is doing this is GREAT for the most part .

I believe he is trying too hard to get too many people who dont stand a chance in one division, but at least those who probably dont stand a chance are donating a hell of alot less money then those who will win the money . ( thread drift to best rated players in pro worlds were the best in each division and those who have the best ratings at a given event normally place the best )

I have to admit with the " best in class " added however it seems balanced enough to me . I dont care that the " best in class " is not alot of money . PROTECTED players should at sometime realize they only deserve a % of what they put in to the tourney instead of profiting from those same protected players .
IF you are not willing to play against the best then you dont deserve MORE profit then those who are willing to play against the best .

Once again Craig and I in theory believe in the same thing
The players who show they can play with the best should have to play with the best .

I truly hope they benefit us all ;)



Thanks for running an Event using your ideas.
One thing to think of since you are taking reg now and will have a rating change in a couple of weeks is to declare which ratings period YOU are using for the Event, so that you can lock in the players at 1 ratings bracket.

I did this while in Tucson, having an advanced pool playing for cash, but I locked in the ratings from the current ones as there was another one coming out 2 weeks before the event, and I didn't want to have everyone have to wait until the last minute to sign up.(I'm all about the early sell-outs :D)

I'm just sorry it's on my anniversary weekend as I would have liked to play that format. 943 rated and old could have it's benefits! :eek:

I applaud any TD's who run things the way they want to, and still benefit the players, because without the players, it would leave us standing in a field all by ourselves. :D

Keith

COuld get tough on TDs that runn event a short time after a rating s update. Im sure you're thought of that though. I like the idea and will try to aTTend.

I figure there usually aren't giant swings in ratings - so it's not terribly unfair to anybody if someone moves above or below one of the breaks. I will just use whatever rating the player has at the time I receive their registration. I can see how if this method were widely used - that planning event dates around ratings updates could be more of a concern. But if $10bucks is gonna cause someone a lot of grief, I think they have to set better priorities :)

Let's get us some Frizzaks at the Soiree babeeeee!

Tour guidelines allow a 2-week grace period to still use the older ratings after an update so TDs like Keith don't need to deal with ratings changes related to pre-reg.

I must be missing something here, because I can't see how this is a good thing? Seems to me like you're just getting stiffed for being talented, and rewarded for being indifferent?

I've always said that the only way we'd introduce a 'pro' division in the UK is if we mandate a flat entry fee structure (ie Ams pay the same as Pros) and all prize money comes from added cash, none from entry fees whatsoever.

That way we can set a hard ratings cap on Am, and force people to move up...

If we truly had significant added cash from sponsors based on their expected return from people watching the event, then flat fees would be fine and players would pay them. The fact that a sliding fee structure may work to adjust players' risk/reward assessment indicates we're still using ways to "fairly" compete mostly for each other's money. And really, there's nothing wrong with that.

If we truly had significant added cash from sponsors based on their expected return from people watching the event, then flat fees would be fine and players would pay them. The fact that a sliding fee structure may work to adjust players' risk/reward assessment indicates we're still using ways to "fairly" compete mostly for each other's money. And really, there's nothing wrong with that.



I don't see what's fair about it? It's like forced gambling. Taking a blackjack hand as an example, you get dealt an ace, so the house forces you to bet $100, but if you get a 5, you only have to bet $50.
Sure, your return is more likely to be higher, but there's no guarantee, and you can't choose your level of risk like you would in blackjack

If it works, the high-rated players who feel they are being penalized for being better, might see instead that by enticing more lower-rated players to play open, even at reduced fees, the payouts for top finishers will be greater, and pay deeper. A 980-rated player in an open division of 20 players, all rated 980 & above, will most likely not cash. If instead he's playing in an open division of 40 players, half of which are rated below 980, he has a much better chance to cash.

I wouldn't want to see tiered entry fees become the standard, or PDGA-required, necessarily. But I think it's terrific that someone's testing the idea. If players like it---high-rated, low-rated, whoever---then bravo. If after trying it, they don't---well, we'll know a little more than we did before.

So it's basically dangling a carrot in front of potential donaters, or more to the point, not beating them with the 'higher fees' stick if they move up.

It'll be interesting to see if the total purse is perceived to be higher or not, I guess there must be a critical number of additional entries to make it viable.

As I understand it, the perceived problem which this is trying to address is that open players want these lower-rated players to play open, as donators.....but at full fees, with little chance of cashing, it's a different kind of "forced gambling"---pay the same money to get in the game, but play with a different deck (different skills or athletic ability). Not enough are willing to take that bet.

I'm not bothered by the current system, myself. There are others who clearly are. Some of whom just post gripes without doing anything. So here's someone willing to demonstrate a different idea, not just talk about it. Which I think is great.

So here's someone willing to demonstrate a different idea, not just talk about it. Which I think is great.



http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/97/51/22595197.jpg

yea I think dangling the carrot is the better metaphor, because your not forcing them to do anything

nobody is making them play open, just giving them cheaper options if they choose to do so

I look at it this way. I'm only a 902 rated player and I'm not expecting to cash at this event. But, I have played the course before and its in my top 5 so that right there is enough for me to make the trip.

Also, I truly believe that if you play with better players you play better yourself. This is a perfect way to improve your game during a PDGA event without the feeling of knowing your wasting your money playing open.

This also gives players like me a chance to actually play with friends that play open.

I think its Great.

Tour guidelines allow a 2-week grace period to still use the older ratings after an update so TDs like Keith don't need to deal with ratings changes related to pre-reg.



And the smart ones will know if they are going up or down in ratings, so they'll know to pay now before the update or later after the update. :D

I did mine BETWEEN the ratings breaks at the time using 935(in AZ 95% of the players over 935 were already playing pro) which kept the pro players from bagging down for cash, and it gave all the Int. and Adv. a chance to play for cash with no repercussions. It worked real well for a 930 rated Bagger from Cali, that is suspended for a year for arguing with Mikey. :D

In my opinion people will play Seneca that want to play, no matter the fee, but it may draw some rapidly improving players that haven't had their ratings catch up to their skill at a lower price, and i'm willing to bet someone from the middle ratings bracket will end up in the top 5, and enjoy the extra winnings! :D

Keith

I really love the idea. It would definitely entice me to want to move up to higher divisions and not feel like I've wasted money, esp. at away tournaments.

Craig,
I'll add my name to those with kudos for your innovation in the fee structure. Hoping I can make it. And I hope this idea catches on -- especially for courses like this that can hold more players. With 27 holes instead of 18, it's less likely this tourney would fill with full-price players, so this helps fill out the course and make the total purse as high as possible.

If this were Sweden, it'd fill with 100+ players playing the full on Open division.

We have grown too accustomed to our "Extra Value Meals" that we are unwilling to change.

The true value of playing a tournament is not whether you are going to cash, it's playing under tournament conditions on a prepared course against good players and using your skills to play the very best you can. If more people were happy with results, not just winnings, we'd have a lot more tournaments that relied on less divisions to achieve the goal of providing a good challenge for everyone. Reasonably priced entry fees for one division tournaments would also solve this problem. A 2-3 division tournament with all entry fees of $50 will fill faster than one where the entry is $80. Even if there is lots of added cash. The lower the entry fee for all, the easier it will be to fill low division tournaments.

I do like the idea of "skill-relief" though, at least to test.

If this were Sweden, it'd fill with 100+ players playing the full on Open division.

We have grown too accustomed to our "Extra Value Meals" that we are unwilling to change.

The true value of playing a tournament is not whether you are going to cash, it's playing under tournament conditions on a prepared course against good players and using your skills to play the very best you can. If more people were happy with results, not just winnings, we'd have a lot more tournaments that relied on less divisions to achieve the goal of providing a good challenge for everyone. Reasonably priced entry fees for one division tournaments would also solve this problem. A 2-3 division tournament with all entry fees of $50 will fill faster than one where the entry is $80. Even if there is lots of added cash. The lower the entry fee for all, the easier it will be to fill low division tournaments.

I do like the idea of "skill-relief" though, at least to test.



The idea that the venue, the actual "event" is what we should be promoting, and developing - and basing our competitive structure on - is at the heart of many of my railings against the status quo. Events like MSDGC/Maple Hill - were the first in many years to truly depart from the status quo. The focus was taken off the money (weird huh? considering a 30K+ purse, and a $150 entry fee) and put back on the event. Ancillary activities, skins, dubs, food, entertainment, merchandise, dvd's, players packs - all led to the enjoyment and satisfaction of all the participants regardless of player rating or final score. To a man, I have not heard a single detractor of the format or the results - and this was from guys ranging in rating from around 850 to 1030+. Not a single complaint about having to compete against guys X # of ratings points above you.

My sliding entry fee is really a search for the middle ground that might help break the cycle, and bring people back together to play in "the event". Don't know about you - but all my best DG experiences have been at events where there was more to it than just the golf.

It's not so much about "the carrot", or about MPO players looking for "donators" - and more about addressing exhorbitant entry fees, providing value and playing opportunitites that have largely been taken away - for no discernably good reason. It's also about hopefully trying to provide some factual data about what it takes to cash in a larger field and range of skill levels. In the end the numbers won't lie - but it would be even better if we had multiple data points - so I would encourage other people to try it and see what we get!!

Some of us others are already discussing trying it ourselves....and in the meantime, quite interested to see how it works for you.

To further persuade the older players to try this format, I think promising to pair them in the first round with their age group (if they prefer) would be another incentive. We put women and older players with their peers in the Mid-Nationals within their ratings brackets for the first two rounds and had a positive response to that accommodation.

Doesn't that sort of defeat the whole idea. If the idea is to get everyone playing together, why would you want to segregate the old men and women out?

They can elect not to play because we know they/we like to play with our age peers. If they can play together in the first round, that's one accommodation to the popularity of age divisions and still get more players in one division.

They can elect not to play because we know they/we like to play with our age peers. If they can play together in the first round, that's one accommodation to the popularity of age divisions and still get more players in one division.



It might be worth considering CK. Maybe that's another myth worth dispelling - that the MPO division is full of people that aren't any fun to play with - or that lower rated players somehow have less etiquette. Personally - I continue to have good experiences with players in all skill and age ranges - so I don't put a lot of stock in the MPM argument for "playing with their peers". I think that attitude is more in tune with the "social" event - and less so with a "competitive" one. I guess we'll see :) So far I have 2 MPM players, and 3 M10, and 1 M20 players signed up - so it doesn't look like the older or less experienced are going to shy away from this event. I have a feeling it will fill................limit 90 players...................get yours in soon ;)

It's just one less argument for joining your party among the older group. I hope it works well. Makes payout calcs a little less automatic and I'm not sure the sliding scale is optimized quite yet but you'll find out and go from there.

I agree there will always be folks who don't want to participate for one reason or another. I accept the possibility that offering a venue basically without divisions may disenfranchise somebody. I will remain hopeful that the majority of people in this area will set aside their attachment to the divisional structure and join in for the fun of the event and the challenge that is Seneca. So far - the MPM and MPG players I've heard from think it's great. :)

I think players are pretty open to playing different formats they feel are fair just for the variety. It's when an organization forces you to play a specific format that they resist. If the sliding scale became the only format allowed, then the age division preference people would complain. But if all kinds of formats are available throughout the year, it makes for a rich set of regional event choices.

But if all kinds of formats are available throughout the year, it makes for a rich set of regional event choices.



This is part of what I have advocated for a long time now. Ultimately, the choice I think that is most important - is whether or not to enter - instead of who to compete against. I'm hoping this format will illustrate that limiting choices is not detrimental to attendance.

BRILLIANT!! This is the perfect solution for the problem women face, which is measley turnout, no competition and no money. In Craig's system, a woman can show up to a tourney and when one one or no other women show, then she can retreat into the division where her rating puts her.

OPTIONS! I've been writing on this board for two years now that women need another option other than "Play one on one or by yourself or don't play." With this it would be: "No women? Play with the 30 men rated similar!"

Now, for this to work, nobody has to accept funny money, correct? We're all dealing in real, US currency and TDs can sell discs legitimately or allow vendors to do so?

Finally, regarding the post that says you're rewarding less-talented players and punishing better ones by making them pay more, how about this:

The lower the division you play, the higher percentage of your entry money pool gets kicked up to the pros. Say, you play the divison that's 900 - 930, then your division gets paid out 80% of the entry money and the pros get 20% added cash.

This is incentive to move up. There is ALWAYS added cash. At an event like Worlds where you draw 140+ pros and an embarrassing 21 women, at least the women who come can count on there being more than a thousand dollars added cash if there are 600+ Ams playing.

Go Gangloff....can you move to Michigan?

You do realize that you can play in any division your rating allows you to now, don't you?

I see Sarah Stanhope play mens advanced a lot in smaller South Carolina events - and she even won one :cool:

Not if I don't recognize the legitamacy of funny money. You know many TDs who pay cash for Am2?

Now, why would I want to go exchanging my hard-earned US currency for another piece of plastic? My basement says No More!

Kelsey plays in men's divisions most of the time. Sarah has Kelsey convinced that if a woman wants to ruin the fun in disc golf, the easiest way is to go pro.

Hey Bruce, can you convince my dad to run tournies to sell the discs I win in the Am divisions?

ha ha, it's nice to hear I have influence somewhere in the world, but what's Kelsey going to do now that she's got an Am World title? Stick around in Am to win the boys' Am title next year?

Is she going to play Pro in the Discontinuum A-tier coming up in a couple of weeks? I'm thinking about coming out for that, but have been hoping it will be more than just me vs. Barrett. You wanna pre-reg me for that one and not make me pre-pay? That could get more women to pre-reg, ya never know.

In all seriousness, tell Kelsey GREAT JOB on her win in Kzoo. I was so stoked that she played so well and won herself a World Champ title.

Not if I don't recognize the legitamacy of funny money. You know many TDs who pay cash for Am2?




So with Craigs idea you are playing Pro Open at a reduced entry fee and more than likely based on your rating, not your sex, you are not going to cash.

Seems like getting merch in Am 2 is a lot better.

I'm just failing to see your point......

I'm not positive, but I think the point is that a sliding scale could have many applications / variations.

My initial use of the idea limits overall number of divisions, but still leaves room for rewards to top finishers in (shadow) divisions. I'm sure that creative TD's could find lots of ways to use a sliding scale to accommodate their ideas for what appropriate divisions should be.

I haven't actually extended the sliding scale to the Ladies - although it could work for them too - as the event I'm running is intended to be pro only divisions. What I try and do for the ladies is make the entry fee affordable, and then pay deeeep.

I like this idea and the side pot idea too. What many players do not want to admit is that like in the poker world, Disc Golf needs dead money and sponsorship to make payouts sizable.

If this were Sweden, it'd fill with 100+ players playing the full on Open division.

We have grown too accustomed to our "Extra Value Meals" that we are unwilling to change.

The true value of playing a tournament is not whether you are going to cash, it's playing under tournament conditions on a prepared course against good players and using your skills to play the very best you can. If more people were happy with results, not just winnings, we'd have a lot more tournaments that relied on less divisions to achieve the goal of providing a good challenge for everyone. Reasonably priced entry fees for one division tournaments would also solve this problem. A 2-3 division tournament with all entry fees of $50 will fill faster than one where the entry is $80. Even if there is lots of added cash. The lower the entry fee for all, the easier it will be to fill low division tournaments.

I do like the idea of "skill-relief" though, at least to test.



Best post Ive read in a long time. Bravo!!

If this were Sweden, it'd fill with 100+ players playing the full on Open division.

We have grown too accustomed to our "Extra Value Meals" that we are unwilling to change.

The true value of playing a tournament is not whether you are going to cash, it's playing under tournament conditions on a prepared course against good players and using your skills to play the very best you can. If more people were happy with results, not just winnings, we'd have a lot more tournaments that relied on less divisions to achieve the goal of providing a good challenge for everyone. Reasonably priced entry fees for one division tournaments would also solve this problem. A 2-3 division tournament with all entry fees of $50 will fill faster than one where the entry is $80. Even if there is lots of added cash. The lower the entry fee for all, the easier it will be to fill low division tournaments.

I do like the idea of "skill-relief" though, at least to test.



Best post Ive read in a long time. Bravo!!



Thanks. One thing this also does is reduce the CHORES that our TDs have to do. The less chores, the less burnout. With more reasonably priced tournaments that require less effort to put on, we'll see more tournaments, allowing more players to enjoy and experience tournament golf, and thus increasing PDGA membership.

Nah, I'll go with the Filet'o'Fish Extra Value Meal please, and Super Size it.

An interesting pattern is developing in the pre-reg for this event. There is no shortage of lower rated players - perhaps seeking the opportunity to play at a reduced rate? And there are multiple MPG players opting for the MPO option - perhaps also due to the lower ratings cost? I'll be curious to see how it all plays out. 69 spots left - don't wait til November - or you'll miss out all together!!

OK - a couple days before the event and here's the tally.
79 players
10 FPO
8 MPG
61 MPO
The MPO field breaks out like this (A nice even spread if I do say so myself)
899 < (5)
900-919 (7)
920-939 (11)
940-959 (9)
960-979 (10)
980-999 (9)
1000+ (7)

Anyone care to guess where the cut line is for cash if I pay 45-50% of the field?

956.23

[a]Hey Bruce, can you convince my dad to run tournies to sell the discs I win in the Am divisions?

{b]ha ha, it's nice to hear I have influence somewhere in the world, but what's Kelsey going to do now that she's got an Am World title? Stick around in Am to win the boys' Am title next year?

Is she going to play Pro in the Discontinuum A-tier coming up in a couple of weeks? I'm thinking about coming out for that, but have been hoping it will be more than just me vs. Barrett. [c]You wanna pre-reg me for that one and not make me pre-pay? That could get more women to pre-reg, ya never know.

In all seriousness, tell Kelsey GREAT JOB on her win in Kzoo. I was so stoked that she played so well and won herself a World Champ title.

Sorry, Sarah, I never saw your post.

(a) Give me your dad's number and I'll try.
(b) Kelsey's post-Worlds plan was to start college in a pre-med biology program at one of Michigan's toughest small colleges. She's not playing much disc golf. But, she played Intermediate Men at the Homie and finished in the middle somewhere. If we can get to KC Worlds, she says she's playing Advanced Men. I doubt we are going. No linkage there.

[c] Hope you had fun. It looks like the IOS A-tier might become a biennial thing, like the Japan Open, but without the sushi and yen. It was too much work fundraising to do it every year.

Oh, watch your pdga mail. I'm about to send you something.

An interesting pattern is developing in the pre-reg for this event. There is no shortage of lower rated players - perhaps seeking the opportunity to play at a reduced rate? And there are multiple MPG players opting for the MPO option - perhaps also due to the lower ratings cost? I'll be curious to see how it all plays out. 69 spots left - don't wait til November - or you'll miss out all together!!

Can you refresh my recollection for what you are charging for entry fees? I won't be a complete slug. I'll go look. I'll post it if I can find it...

1000 and over = $90
980-999 = $80
960-979 = $70
940-959 = $60
920-939 = $50
919 and under = $40

MPG (Men over 50) = $60
FPO (Ladies) = $50

I've included a survey in the event program to try and get a handle on how people feel about the whole concept. I figure it should help provide more than just my own take on the numbers.

I love the idea of sliding entry fees.
Why are we not going this way? This make the most
sense. Especially if you pay out 45%.

I love the idea of sliding entry fees.
Why are we not going this way? This make the most
sense. Especially if you pay out 45%.

Well, first, it's a newish idea made possible by ratings, and it has taken about eight years for most of us to understand what ratings are and to start thinking up clever ideas for what we can do with them. It's like, why aren't all doubles tournaments based on combined team rating rather than requiring that both partners be rated near the top of their division to have a good team? The old idea just discourages half the player base from playing.

Second of all, I don't think most of us would want to play this format every time if we had choices, and, unlike the Swedes, we do have choices. I think the bottom fourth of the player base would wise up and slowly lose interest, over time, if they had a choice between this or just competing against other Rec players rated 850 to 900. The Recs will soon learn that they are just donors under this system and will go back to the divisional system which will then make the intermediates donors so then they'll drop out and so on. From a purely behavioral point of view, the reinforcers for entry fee paying behaviors for lower rated players are pretty thin in this system compared to your standard PDGA B-tier. So TDs like me, who can analyze the behavioral contingencies of a system [all three of us] will never run this system. But we'll applaud Gangloff for being creative, experimental, innovative and all that.

Third, its different. TDs who aren't so smart as Gangloff or me are at least smart enough not to try something different. :D

I love the idea of sliding entry fees.
Why are we not going this way? This make the most
sense. Especially if you pay out 45%.



I agree it makes a lot of sense on the surface. I think there are probably more pros than cons. But to be fair - I can't really say that until after trying it and seeing how its received.

Personally I think it addresses a few different issues.
1) The hole notion of dividing 90 players up into 6-8-10 divisions whose scoring ranges all overlap is pretty silly - this takes care of that.
2) The inequities in rewards between the overlapping scores also goes away. You are rewarded for your score compared to a larger group - so no one gets an advantage based on an arbitrary "choice" of who they want to play against.
3) The "chance to cash" that so many mid level players complain about in the current eensy weensy MPO fields goes way up - as the field size is 2-3-4 times larger.
4) The exhorbitant entry fee deterrent goes away. The notion of scaling seems to be perceived as offering greater value for the lower rated player (this isn't my opinion - this is what players have told me that fit that category that have signed up)

Should this be a model to run all sanctioned events? I'm not sure I'll go there just yet. Is it better than the current divisional structure? I'd say ABSOLUTELY :)

The bottom line is, do enough players want to play it that the TD wants to offer it?

So, is this sanctioned or unsanctioned?

Chuck, if you're still reading, if you wanted to adjust the sliding entry fee to reflect the LOC [LOC: Likelihood of Cashing] but still be something fairly simple, and assuming Gangloff's distribution of players, how would it go?

Maybe more like

1000 and over = $90
980-999 = $75
960-979 = $60
940-959 = $45
920-939 = $30
919 and under = $15

???

The bottom line is, do enough players want to play it that the TD wants to offer it?


Agreed - to a point. Striking a balance between "what players want" - and "what's the best way to promote a fair competitive environment" is the trick. (I hope/think we can agree on that?)


So, is this sanctioned or unsanctioned?


This is sanctioned as an A-Tier event


Chuck, if you're still reading, if you wanted to adjust the sliding entry fee to reflect the LOC [LOC: Likelihood of Cashing] but still be something fairly simple, and assuming Gangloff's distribution of players, how would it go?

Maybe more like

1000 and over = $90
980-999 = $75
960-979 = $60
940-959 = $45
920-939 = $30
919 and under = $15

???


The only issue I see with lowering the bottom entry fee "ceiling" is that after fees are taken out - the lowest rated players are playing almost for nothing - or contributing almost nothing to the purse ($4 PDGA fee, $X in tournament expenses, etc)
The balance to strike there is providing fair value in experience/participation for a fair fee. $40 for a 2 day event is pretty cheap by almost any standards. I don't disagree that adjusting the scale may be necessary - with this as a first run through - I tried to keep simple increments - DG'ers are sometimes easily confused ;)

I had already posted what I thought might statistically be more balanced on a risk reward basis. I honestly don't think there's a need for a discount on the entry fee down to the 970-980 area. If that base fee is say $100 for ratings 980+, then the number should probably drop $2 per point from there. That would mean 970 would be $80, 960 would be $60, 950 and lower would be $40 with no further drops.

But as you point out, the players will determine what they're willing to risk when this format is tried. There's going to be a learning curve once players see the results and adjust their perceptions for the next time. I think this format has a future and this is a good start.

For A-tiers and higher, I really think we should disallow players below a certain rating (935?) from entering Open based on the idea we want players with good skills playing with the top players in the first round and not having some pros in Open with weaker skill when we do have spectators.

For A-tiers and higher, I really think we should disallow players below a certain rating (935?) from entering Open based on the idea we want players with good skills playing with the top players in the first round and not having some pros in Open with weaker skill when we do have spectators.



Until we have spectators, I wouldn't sweat it. I'm sure most our top pros would prefer not to play with players like, well, me. I know I wish I was good enough not to want me in my group. But will they accept it, for only the first round, in exchange for a bigger purse?

The thing is, a bigger division actually hurts the payout for the top players at higher tiers when there's significant added cash. Not sure how much Craig is adding here but I'll bet the first place finisher will win less in this format with 61 players than if the field was just 30, assuming the same percentage of players was paid, say 28 versus 14, respectively.

The reality is that the stepped entry fee format only helps the top payouts when the added cash is a small percentage of the purse. You can try it in the PDGA payout calculator or TD report payout system and see for yourself.

Oh, I hadn't thought about that. I guess you'd have to run the numbers to see where the breaking point is on the top pros.

Regardless, I still like it as a clever alternative format for some TDs to offer.

Note to self: think more, write less.

I guess I am less concerned about the top pros. They get theirs with regularity. This experiment is more about a more even handed approach accross the board. Maybe there won't be the top heavy big prize - but more people will cash - and the rewards will be more equitable relative to score than w/the traditional divisional clusterf***.

It's curious that on one hand people lament not being able to cash in the MPO (due to ultra competitive smaller field size-and hefty entry fees) and then when offered a larger more affordable field - they lament the top guy not getting paid as much. Strange, very strange.

Let's change our approach folks
More straight up competition.
More affordable entry based on skill
More equitable reward based on score

It aint that hard to fathom if you try :)

So I hope it doesn't read like I'm being mean or picking on you. I really like the novelty of the idea. If around here were doing this, I'd probably play just to encourage him to keep trying new ideas.

And like the TD, I wouldn't worry too much about the guys at the top. There are plenty of tournaments that have that covered. :D

Some thoughts on the results of my first �sliding scale� / pseudo - single division event.

Results / Statistics
Ratings groups # players # players cashed entry fees
1000+ 6 6 $540
980 - 999 10 10 $800
960-979 10 9 $700
940-959 12 3 $720
920-939 11 3 $550
919- 16 0 $640

Average entry fee $60.76

Paid 45% - 29 players

Added cash to tournament $2087

Lunch/water/sodas paid for both days + CTP�s total tournament expense ~$330.00

PDGA Player Fees $4/person

Shadow Division Payout (same for MPM and MA1 <940, $200 ea - $400 total taken from added cash)
1st - $80
2nd - $50
3rd - $40
4th - $30

After all expenses added cash was split like this:
Shadow divisions $400
MPO $960
FPO $200
MGM $100

I think what I learned is that the sliding scale does a couple things.
1) It reduces your expectation of what 1st place cash should be for a field of 65 players. It�s not a bad thing � just different � 1st place was a little over $500. A couple ways to deal with this � change the scale to make the bottom ceiling a little higher (maybe $60 for a 2 day event instead of $40), increase the ratings windows as CK suggested above ����or raise more added cash!! (Always a difficult task) or some combination of those.
2) It met my expectations for a nice even distribution. 15th place got over $100.
3) It met my expectations for equity across what would otherwise be separate divisions � of 31 players who cashed, 11 were masters aged players, 10 were what the PDGA would say qualify for MA1 (under 970).
4) I think overall there was good value offered for a fair price for all players (of course mine might be a biased opinion � so I am interested in how others feel)

I have yet to get much feedback from the survey I put in the program (Saturday�s rain storm probably trashed most of the programs) � but I am hopeful I will get some meaningful responses still.

One more note of interest. We had nine players in the MGM division. Only one would have cashed in the MPO division and he was rated 974 � and would have tied the one MGM player who did play in the MPO division. This to me validates the over 50 split for divisional play (at least to what I would consider a reasonable degree).

OK, so I'm already brewing up ways to tweak this whole thing to make it better. My initial thoughts are these;

1) Adjust the sliding scale like this
980+ full price (whatever that may be - we'll stick w/$90 - they all cashed anyway, and could probably expect to given a similarly sized field)
950-979 - $75 (this group accounted for almost 50% of those who cashed)
920-949 - $60 (11.5% of players in this group cashed) so getting them to participate might be tricky - or.......they may all see good value for lower price and want to participate anyway.

2) Brake out the 919 and below players into a true Am division and let them play against each other for merch. Keep entry reasonable at $40, but limit the overall number in some way to emphasize the larger group.

3) Eliminate the shadow divisions all together. While not a bad idea - I'm not convinced of its overall value. I'm sort of on the fence on this one.

I welcome anyone's thoughts, just bring an open mind and all your best ideas :)

Well, now you seem to understand why there are merch divisions and why we all don't play in one big division, so this experiment was useful for bringing you over to the darkside, at least! :D

Well, now you seem to understand why there are merch divisions and why we all don't play in one big division, so this experiment was useful for bringing you over to the darkside, at least! :D



I can understand the need for......... A......... merch division, I'm not sure I would go so far as agreeing that everyone under 970 should be eligible for one though. In fact I think my results prove quite the opposite.

Yeah, but now instead of talking about something revolutionary, you're just talking about tweaking the existing system, having a couple of ratings-based discount entry fees in Open.

Anyone care to guess where the cut line is for cash if I pay 45-50% of the field?



I guessed 956.23. The unofficial average rating for those tied for last cash worked out to 956.4 ;)

Yeah, but now instead of talking about something revolutionary, you're just talking about tweaking the existing system, having a couple of ratings-based discount entry fees in Open.



I don't recall ever claiming this was going to be revolutionary. However, I think the implications (or possible ones) go further than you suggest. If results like these could be shown to be consistent and expectable - it could be argued that both the MPM and MA1 divisions as we know them now are both redundant and unnecessary. Some might consider that a little more than "a tweak" ;)

Anyone care to guess where the cut line is for cash if I pay 45-50% of the field?



I guessed 956.23. The unofficial average rating for those tied for last cash worked out to 956.4 ;)



I can't disregard the accuracy of your prediction CK, however, it wasn't actually the question I was trying to ask (my fault). I was asking for guesses on the LOWEST RATED PLAYER to cash. In this case the three lowest were 938, 929, and 920. Funny - the two lower ones accepted the cash and are moving up - inspired to make their games even better, the highest of the 3 was the only one to turn it down.

Craig,

Your analyses are interesting, but there are two pieces of data that would help in anyone's evaluation of the Seneca results:

1) The PDGA event report does not show the actual amounts of money won by each of the "cashers".
2) We don't know how many of the "Open" players were over 40.

Could you give us those numbers?

Hi Peter,

I actually don't see a place to enter prizes in the online report - maybe it won't show there until the HQ gets my report. Anyway, of the 65 players in the MPO, 15 could qualify for MPM (one of which could also qualify for MGM) Of those 15, 12 cashed (including the MGM - that's 80%).

Here's the purse breakdown, with the MPM places noted.

Pay 29
507
377
288 MPM +$80 for shadow division
239
203 MPM + $50
182
170
162
150
138
130
122 MGM +40
114 MPM +30
109 MPM
105
101
97
93
89
85 MPM
81
77
73MPM
69 MPM
65
61
57 5 way tie for 27th 4 of which were MPM
57
53

You just copy and paste the Excel Scores sheet again into the upload window including the payout column along with the names and scores again.

OK so just from the standpoint of number of players cashing, in this instance the MPM players saw a huge benefit. If ALL the MPM players had been in a separate division - and I had paid 45% - that would be 7 players cashing. In this scenario 12 of them cashed. I haven't gone back and done a purse distribution to see the difference - but that's almost moot at this point.

This experiment has always been more about addressing the middle of the pack players than the top players. But it was also aimed at equity in rewards for score - and I feel pretty good about that facet.

I'm still reconciling how I feel about the overall purse in relation to the sliding scale. More merchandising in advance could help, as well as seeking out additional sponsors.

I guess the most telling comment I've had so far was from the 920 rated player who took his first pro cash and said - "those MPM players don't need protection from me".

Is the "chance to cash" sufficient for those 920-960 rated players to continue supporting this format? I hope so - but we will see.

Craig,

While it is an interesting format, you can look at the results from a number of different perspectives:

MPM - They did better
MPO players - GUARANTEED TO CASH
<960 players - only 15% cashed.

If you had shot your two worst rated rounds of the last year, you would have been right around last cash or just out of the cash.

Over time, I think the fact that no matter what, that a portion of their entry would go to pros having a pretty poopy day would begin to grate on those <960 players.

Now a tournament where you handicap the pros, rather than charge them more... that starts sounding more fair... :-)

I agree that there are many perspectives that can be drawn. What I seek is balance - something the current system can not pretend to have.

So...........................
is a 1 in 7 chance at being in the cash an unreasonable expectation for an up and coming player wishing to compete in a big regional event?

And how do you weigh your answer when comparing that chance to the inequity of rewarding the sub 960 player with anything at all and sending the 970+ player home with nothing for shooting the same score (which is often the result w/smaller MPO fields)?

I just got this email from an 876 rated participant (Mark Stiles) in this year's Soiree - and was asked to post it. Take it for what it's worth. And thanks for sharing your opinions Mark!

I think Craig�s experiment was a smashing success in at least two aspects. I think the combined open/masters/am field was great for all concerned especially when combined with the sliding entry fee. The important point is that this format rewards and encourages the people he wants to reward and encourage � those who want to compete against people better than they are not just people they can beat.

I don�t really know whether the top players felt the purse was too shallow or whether they thought the tournament was as great as I thought it was. However, they did say they had a great time and seemed to be enjoying themselves. If stretching the field diluted the purse at the top too much to attract those players, the distribution of payouts could be easily tweaked so that everyone would be happy. As far as the fact that all of the top rated players are extremely likely to cash � I think that is great. I think everyone who participated wants as many top rated players as we can get. I think most if not all of the lower rated players were thrilled to be playing in the same field as so many great players. I think most of us came out to see how we could do against the best, so we want the best to want to come.

I would be interested in seeing whether there is any evidence that 40 � 50 year olds need age protection. Although I did not do a systematic study, looking over a few Master level and GM level players� ratings history, there does not appear to be a significant drop off in skills until sometime after GM status is achieved. Certainly in MD, where Craigg, JG, PP, and NoSpin are all Masters eligible, it seems crazy to split the Open field into Open and Masters. Further, I think Craig�s shadow Master Division proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that a separate Maters field is crazy. Taken as a group, the Master�s eligible players did better than the younger crowd. I think that there may be a significant number of GM eligible players who would not come out if there was not a GM field, but I cannot think of many, if any, Masters eligible players who would stay home from a great tournament just because there was no age-protected field for them. It seems to me that eliminating the Masters field increases the level of competition and the rewards for both fields. Having separate fields forces people to choose even if they would rather compete against everyone.

It seems to me that there must be two types of Am�s rated 920-970 � those who want to break into the ranks of the tops players and those who want to collect plastic by beating people worse than they are. Craig�s format rewards those that want to break into the top ranks. Most of the players in this group could cash if they had a great day, as evidenced by a 920 rated player cashing. I think everyone in this group was thrilled at the opportunity to try and cash without the big expense of the full entry fee for a top pro. I think Craig picked a great fee structure in that for each ability level the benefits just of playing plus the chance at cashing was worth their entry fee. Many of this group went home disappointed that they did not have a great day and cash, but I don�t think any of them went away thinking that they had misspent their entry fee.

As far as the players rated 919 and below, the group that I can speak the best for, those with no chance of cashing, this tournament was great. The first round we got to play with top rated player, a chance we rarely get, as well someone much better and someone slightly better. It�s a great experience seeing how better players play under tournament conditions. The next two rounds were great rounds played with people of similar abilities all trying to climb up the ladder. For this group of players, the sliding entry fee was crucial. I�ll play in a tournament like this every chance I can get for $40 but won�t play ever for $90. For me, and this seemed to be true for everyone else in this group, the return on investment for a $40 entry fee was great even with no chance of payout. I enjoy trying to compete against better players and am thankful that I am not ending up with a pile of random plastic that I am never going to throw and have to figure out how to get rid of. I realize that there are people who like to win plastic and there are plenty of tournaments for them. Personally, I would like to see more tournaments using Craig�s format.

I think the particular shadow divisions Craig tried were less successful. The Master�s shadow cash all went to players who should be playing Open anyway and the Am shadow cash all went to players who were much more excited that they cashed in open than that they were near the top in some Am group. However, I think that the lack of success of this part of the experiment confirms the greater success of the bigger experiment � all of those people should have been in the Open field in the first place. The sliding entry fee made it possible.

Only an 876-rater player, so please discount my opinions appropriately.

Your opinion as a 876 player needs no discount.
Ratings merely show what your tournament scores are relative to other players.
Ratings have nothing to do with quality of opinions.

So who's the next TD to give it a try?? I wanna hear about your success story too :)

And where are my naysayers? I figured I'd have some resistance to the results from those who thought it was a bad idea - or questioned my motives for benefitting all the players. Neil? Peter? Thoughts/criticisms/ideas/reasons why the existing system is better? I'm even interested in places where you guys think there are flaws (as suggested by CK previously). Is there some reason why this sytem couldn't work as the default structure? (Not that I'm saying it should be).

Haven't had a chance to totally flesh this out but if the goal is to get more players of widely ranging skills to play together, then doing it as Ams is better than as Pros. What if an A-tier was structured so that the top 8 rated players were the only ones playing for cash? After all, they are the one that are closest to attempting to be pros in the conventional sense of making a living at this. And the top 4 in the last round is who anyone wants to watch if we have spectators. The rest of us are just Ams where some of us have been allowed to play for cash instead of merch.

The top 8 would have no entry fee and all would cash. The bottom 4 would get a token award like $100-$125 each. The top 4 would get the rest of the added cash usign the usual descending scale. All other players would be playing as Advanced Ams (for the moment set aside that some would be "pros" over 970). This Advanced group would go from 900 up to the rating of whoever had the 9th best overall rating and didn't make it into the cash pool. Intermediate would go from 900 on down. Both Am divisions would have some form of descending entry fee similar to what Craig has done.

Benefits of this format is that the top pros don't lose out by diluting the added cash, which in theory is intended for showcasing their expertise. With most of the field playing as Ams, the retail/wholesale differential helps defray tournament expenses and perhaps boost the amount added for the cash players. And of course, this format meets Craig's goal of getting more players to play together.

So who's the next TD to give it a try?? I wanna hear about your success story too :)





My brother and I are thinking about following your lead for the Stoney Hill Challenge in April. I was waiting to see how the initial experiment went.

One of the drawbacks for us is in the initial education---until explained, it looks like a fee system that penalizes the better players. As a 2nd-year C-tier, we're not sure if we'll draw enough players to make it worthwhile.

Another drawback, as a TD, is that enticing some Ams to play Pro hurts our bottom line. Hate to admit it, but true.

One attractive feature is creating a much larger division. What's so great about a 5-person division, playing with the same group all four rounds? Much more fun to have a 50-person division, where a few great shots---or blown putts---can make a big difference in where you end up.

So who's the next TD to give it a try?? I wanna hear about your success story too :)





My brother and I are thinking about following your lead for the Stoney Hill Challenge in April. I was waiting to see how the initial experiment went.

One of the drawbacks for us is in the initial education---until explained, it looks like a fee system that penalizes the better players. As a 2nd-year C-tier, we're not sure if we'll draw enough players to make it worthwhile.

Another drawback, as a TD, is that enticing some Ams to play Pro hurts our bottom line. Hate to admit it, but true.

One attractive feature is creating a much larger division. What's so great about a 5-person division, playing with the same group all four rounds? Much more fun to have a 50-person division, where a few great shots---or blown putts---can make a big difference in where you end up.



David - valid concerns - but I have some thoughts.

As regards your bottom line. Ams can now accept merch in lieu of cash - so regardless of where they end up - you should still be able to distribute merch - the only difference being that the rewards are based on where the score falls in relation to the larger group.

I agree that educating your player base can be a challenge. What I found was that there was very little concern expressed from the players who were signing up.

I also agree that a 2nd year CTier could have draw issues. But it seems to me that this is an even stronger argument for giving this system a try. To me it's silly to break up 90 players into 6-8-10 divisions. That silliness is exaggerated even more with smaller groups!! 40 or 50 people into all those division is just what you said - groups of 5-6 players!! Absurd I tell ya! :)

If it looks like the fee system penalizes the higher rated player, then that's exactly what you want because that's the hook that pulls in the no-chance donors! The higher rated players are not actually penalized because they are going to cash and get their entry fee back plus more.

Craig,

I revere TD's, and you clearly put your heart into Seneca Creek. I was a Board member, but I believe that TD's are more important to the average PDGA member than Board members are. I honor your efforts, and I wasn't going to comment unless you specifically asked. But you did ask, so here are the main reasons I believe your concept will not be widely popular:

1) I had said earlier that your format would be a sucker's bet for lower-rated players (if all ratings intervals were equally populated). I still believe this. Although some lower-rated players cashed, they were lucky that the over-1000 group was underrepresented and that you paid 45%. In most areas of the country where I have played, your scheme would lose entrants. Chuck's scheme (only pay the top eight rated), although truer to your purpose than your scheme, would lose even more (we might even have our first big event with eight entrants).

2) Your payout to your top pros, just the ones you most want to feature, was too anemic for an A-Tier with over $2000 added. The reason is that the total entry fees for Open was much reduced, because you paid 45%, and because you used a fairly flat taper. It is quite possible that the top Open players would have made more if you had used the traditional divisional structure you claim to detest.

Your scheme (and Chuck's) would appeal to older players and amateurs who believe that their main purpose as PDGA members is to watch and to financially support Open Pros. Clearly there are some such, and perhaps you can fill your event with them. But there are too many more who feel as I do:
1) We are players, not watchers.
2) You don't forfeit your entitlement to your dreams just because you are over 40.
3) All PDGA members should receive support that at least remotely reflects what they have contributed.

Thanks for your feedback Peter. I think perhaps you have made your evaluation with a few misconceptions.

1) The idea that 6 - 1000 rated players at an A Tier is "underrepresented" for that skill group is not very accurate. Out of the first 15 A Tiers of 2008 - only 3 had over 10 / 1000 rated players, and not counting those - the average was 7.5. So 6 is pretty average. ( I didn't go so far as to count the 1000 rated MPM players)
2) I would agree that the payout might be considered low for an A Tier - but that's more a factor of added cash than anything else. The average #of MPO players at those same 15 A Tiers was 40 - so to reach the purse levels that they did was a matter of money pumped in - moreso than total entry fees. I would agree though that the sliding scale reduced the average entry fee in a way as to reduce overall purse size. But I also look at that as something that can be rectified.
3) I think your notion that I want to feature top pros is just that - your notion. And while A Tiers offer the opportunity for "top pros" to be showcased - that has become more a function of the NT - relegating A Tiers to a "Big Regional" category of event. A Tiers largely draw regionally - not nationally, with only a few exceptions. So I look to cater to essentially a 4 or 5 state surrounding area - and I think it;s fair to say that is what "most" A Tier TD's expect also.

You went to the length of highlighting your opinion about entitlement, (that basically it would be considered a "sacrifice" for you to not be paid more for the same score than a younger player.) But didn't bother to comment about the fact that 80% of MPM players were rewarded under this system, where only 45% would have been under the status quo. I'm not sure how you reconcile that. I would encourage you to read the opinions above of 876 rated, over 40 y.o Mark Stiles and consider his comments in the context of your comments about participation for him being a "suckers bet". Because I think what he said was very poignant - it's not always about playing against people you can beat - it's about playing against people better than you. That's what competition is.

Thanks again for your opinions.

2) You don't forfeit your entitlement to your dreams just because you are over 40.
3) All PDGA members should receive support that at least remotely reflects what they have contributed.



I think Peter was making some excellent points until here. To me this reads that golfers a) should receive protection simply because they are old and b) should receive protection simply because they have contributed more financially or have contributed more volunteer time than their younger counterparts over the years. I don't agree with that entitlement.

I'll say it before, I'll say it again, older golfers deserve protection because of ability as compared to elite golfers, not simply because they are old. While at the same time, other golfers of any age who are also of that same ability also deserve the same protection.

Craig, what would the results/payouts look like if everyone had played in their typical divisions? If that would be too time consuming, just say so.

Craig and Jeff,

There is no point in reposting arguments that have already appeared on another thread, misrepresenting each other in the process. You want to run events that erode or eliminate age-protection, and to encourage other TD's to do the same. I have no objection, nor any agenda to convert you or to stop you.

Conversely, I have organized a group of older players who want to identify, promote and support a number of events (the "Divisional Tour"), that offer us good value. We prefer the current divisional structure, and it is natural that we would measure value in our terms, not yours.

Probably we should leave each other alone. Our attitudes are so deeply held that negativity is inevitable in the arguing, and there is little room for compromise. However, the PDGA is big enough for both philosophies. We can both proceed, even with good wishes for each other. In the end the market will decide.

You will win out if you can convince most amateurs and older pros that that their main purpose and delight as PDGA members is to watch and to financially support Open players.

The players I represent believe differently.

If there's one thing we can agree on, it's that these arguments can result in misrepresenting each other in the process. At no point have I ever made any indication that my stated goal is to "convince most amateurs and older pros that that their main purpose and delight as PDGA members is to watch and to financially support Open players." That is purely your projection and not based on anything I've ever stated.

If you've read carefully, you should notice that I agree 100% with your goals of providing protection for older professional golfers, but for the reason of ability, not age. It just continues to boggle my mind that proponents of age-protection argue for it without accepting that it is 100% based on ability-protection. And once people accept that notion of ability-protection, then age becomes meaningless. As long as we're all basically playing for each others' entry fees, there is absolutely no reason to have overlapping divisions of male golfers of exactly the same ability.

Probably we should leave each other alone. Our attitudes are so deeply held that negativity is inevitable in the arguing, and there is little room for compromise. However, the PDGA is big enough for both philosophies. We can both proceed, even with good wishes for each other. In the end the market will decide.

You will win out if you can convince most amateurs and older pros that that their main purpose and delight as PDGA members is to watch and to financially support Open players.

The players I represent believe differently.



I'm sorry you feel that way Peter. Discussing the viability of a divisional system and options for it does not require holding one another in a negative light. It only requires an open mind.

I am striving to find options for what I and many others recognize as an inequitable system of rewards (I've been witnessing this discussion since about 1991). I do so by using illustrations founded in real results (both of the existing system, and now from one using alternative ideas). And while I recognize there are many ways to interpret numerical results - defenders of the status quo seem to want to ignore the data all together.

You seem bent on defending and augmenting the existing system (which is your right). My only regret is that you do so with a foundation of beliefs that don't reflect objective and substantive criteria. This notion that only the top MPO players are being catered to (or that that is one of MY goals), or that wanting more people playing together as a group is an affront to the competitve nature of older players - those are the types of negative stereotypes that are unproductive to meaningful discourse.

Craig, what would the results/payouts look like if everyone had played in their typical divisions? If that would be too time consuming, just say so.



It is a bit of work. I'll see if I can't put it together - it would definitely be a good illustration.

So who's the next TD to give it a try?? I wanna hear about your success story too :)





My brother and I are thinking about following your lead for the Stoney Hill Challenge in April. I was waiting to see how the initial experiment went.

One of the drawbacks for us is in the initial education---until explained, it looks like a fee system that penalizes the better players. As a 2nd-year C-tier, we're not sure if we'll draw enough players to make it worthwhile.

Another drawback, as a TD, is that enticing some Ams to play Pro hurts our bottom line. Hate to admit it, but true.

One attractive feature is creating a much larger division. What's so great about a 5-person division, playing with the same group all four rounds? Much more fun to have a 50-person division, where a few great shots---or blown putts---can make a big difference in where you end up.



David - valid concerns - but I have some thoughts.

As regards your bottom line. Ams can now accept merch in lieu of cash - so regardless of where they end up - you should still be able to distribute merch - the only difference being that the rewards are based on where the score falls in relation to the larger group.

I agree that educating your player base can be a challenge. What I found was that there was very little concern expressed from the players who were signing up.

I also agree that a 2nd year CTier could have draw issues. But it seems to me that this is an even stronger argument for giving this system a try. To me it's silly to break up 90 players into 6-8-10 divisions. That silliness is exaggerated even more with smaller groups!! 40 or 50 people into all those division is just what you said - groups of 5-6 players!! Absurd I tell ya! :)



Thanks for your thoughts. As I said, we're thinking about trying it. We're into trying something different---we run a unique match-play event, with only 2 divisions, at another course, among other things---with the idea that if enough TDs offered enough different formats and ideas, players could play in whichever format suited their personal goals the best.

Cool - good luck. Let us know how it goes!

So now instead of low rated players just donating, you're giving them an actual chance to cash money and essentially giving them a fast ticket to not being able to play in Amateur
Major events?

So now instead of low rated players just donating, you're giving them an actual chance to cash money and essentially giving them a fast ticket to not being able to play in Amateur Major events?



Negative - players were offered the option of taking merchandise in lieu of cash, so Am status is unaffected in this scheme.