I think the PDGA should be given some credit for doing something smart here, even if it has not trickled down to where you live and play disc golf.

Two years ago I was thinking, "How could we increase the field of competitors for my wife and daughters [who were rated in the 800-850 range] and give them the same kind of tournament experience that, for example, the rec men get?" And then I thought, what if we added a division below MA3?

I ran it by Jon and Brett. They were skeptical that we could draw players into a division for Under 835 rated PDGA members. There weren't quite twenty men in that category in Illinois.

I sent a letter to everyone of them and to a dozen or so in Wisconsin, letting them know that they would have a ratings protected division if they wanted one. They could compete for trophies, prizes and get PDGA ratings, even though the PDGA would not recognize the division in the formal stats. That year we had ten to 15 players in MA4 at every tournament. The next year the PDGA added MA4 to the format.

This is why this was so smart of the PDGA. Throughout the twenty years that I've been paying attention, every time the PDGA has added a lower division and local tournament directors have started offering it, it has attracted new players who have become members. Three years ago there were less than 20 Illinois male PDGA members rated less than 835. Now there are 57. Growth in this PDGA skill demographic has tripled, TRIPLED, in three years in an area where ratings based competition has been offered for players of that skill level. We now have 23 male players rated less than 800.

How many of these would be dues paying PDGA members if we did not offer them a division?

One reason certain areas of the country don't see MA4 offered is the format of events they run compared with the upper Midwest. Events have become so big in many areas that they fill with the higher divisions so TDs see no reason to offer MA4 or even MA3. Bruce and his organizers run split field events with some divisions on one day and some on the other which is also common in Wisconsin and a few other states near Illinois. Certain parts of the country prefer the two day format for everyone. So unless there's more than one course being run simultaneously, there's less need for MA4 and MA3 to have a full field. As with many PDGA competition options, the TDs are the ones who control what types of events and formats players see in their region.

Bruce forgot to mention the number of players that many of those players have gotten better and moved on to higher divisions. So of the 57 there now I would wager 5 or less of them were part of the original 10-15 showing up at those tournaments.

It is always nice to see new faces come into the sport and climb the ratings ladder.

One reason certain areas of the country don't see MA4 offered is the format of events they run compared with the upper Midwest. Events have become so big in many areas that they fill with the higher divisions so TDs see no reason to offer MA4 or even MA3. Bruce and his organizers run split field events with some divisions on one day and some on the other which is also common in Wisconsin and a few other states near Illinois. Certain parts of the country prefer the two day format for everyone. So unless there's more than one course being run simultaneously, there's less need for MA4 and MA3 to have a full field. As with many PDGA competition options, the TDs are the ones who control what types of events and formats players see in their region.



Many TD's feel the need to allow all PDGA divisions as that is easy to write on the flyer so many times we end up with 90 players with 25 in Ma4. To me events that are known to fill and be highly sought after should not offer MA4 and maybe it should be C-tier only just like Masters should be B-tier and above.

Just curious Bruce, but how many MA1, MA2, and MA3 players who are not members have, or continue to participate in your events without becoming PDGA members?
Seems like looking at results, there are always quite a few in those skill ranges who are not members.
If you had included a membership as a prize at each of your events in the same time period as you mentioned above - how many memberships would you have given away?

(This is not a dig at your thoughts on MA4 - just a thought about how the PDGA could readily increase membership within the ranks of already participating players)

Matt, What's wrong with having over 25% of the field in MA4? Looks like a large field that is in demand by the player base. Your post smacks of elitism.

Craig, about 1/6th of our field is non-members. I had a different thread for that, but I've concluded that the $10 non-member fee did not have much of an impact on the frequency of non-members playing our tournaments. I'm glad about that.

We have a bunch of problems with giving non-members memberships as prizes: We let our players pick their own prizes. We offer as prizes, disc golf related stuff that we can get for wholesale, but memberships we can only get for retail. We have low entry fees compared to a lot of tournaments and decent player packs, so not many ams win enough funny money that they could buy a membership. If an amateur membership is $50, it would cost 100 funny to buy that.

On top of all that, I'm not convinced that giving memberships as prizes is an effective way to grow the PDGA. Is that new member going to renew? Beats me. I'm not going to buy him a membership year after year. He'll join when joining makes sense.

Giving players reasons to join is a better strategy. We gave players MA4 a reason to join and have seen huge growth there compared to growth in Illinois membership generally. Before that we gave Intermediates and Recs reason to join, back when most Illinois TDs were not offering Int and Rec as PDGA sanctioned divisions. We've turned that completely around. I don't know if any Illinois TD runs rec and int unsanctioned at tournaments where they are sanctioning pro and advanced anymore.

Matt, What's wrong with having over 25% of the field in MA4? Looks like a large field that is in demand by the player base. Your post smacks of elitism.



Maybe it does but I don't think Ma4 should be offered at A-tiers and if there is a B-tier with lots of anticipation it would be nice to see the upper divisions have more than 5-10 players before filling.

Now C-tiers on the other hand are geared towards newer players and is in many ways more about fun than competition and that should be where the Ma4 players go to get tourney exp and if they would like to play a B-tier that is filling fast and not offering Ma4 they can play REC!

I don't remember complaining when I was rated 830 about getting beat and whereas I do feel MA4 is actually good in that it brings in new players to the tourny experience but if you are wanting to play a A-tier or a B-tier that will fill fast I would rather have PDGA members and the upper divisions given a little more wiggle room.

Sorry for the run-on but maybe this should just be a member thing where you must be a member at B-tiers and above or maybe non-members would only be able to signup within the last week.

Sorry to sound elitist but I like to have a decent sized division and since the masters guys are skeered and Open players are slow to sign up having 25 MA4 slots taken up in a 90 person field only tightens the belt at the top end.

The yearend stats show 980 PDGA male members with ratings in MA4 between 800 and 849. There were 950 male members with ratings of 970 and higher. Tell us why the higher rated group is more deserving of a division at an A-tier? Many of the older players under 850 are not beginners but have played and run more PDGA events than you have in your life. Not only that but there are 400 male members with ratings under 800 with no division but to play up in MA4. Compare that with the 210 female pros of all ages in the PDGA.

I think part of your assumption is that the MA4 players are not members. Yes, there is a higher percentage of non-members, but if it's the MA4 players that are willing to register before they see the long range forecast, then by all means they should be able to get in before those fair weather disc golfers sitting on the fence waiting for Tom Skilling.

I agree with Matt that if a tournament director thinks a tournament is going to fill, he should cut out divisions. What divisions he cuts out should not be dictated by the PDGA.

If the IOS ever gets to the place where it is filling all the time, we'd probably cut out redundant age-based divisions. Currently the age-based divisions give some players the option to play either or both days and that increases participation and we see that as a good thing. But without them, all those players can still compete somewhere.

If I was running a tournament on the Kensington Tobbogan and I thought it would fill, then I'd cut from the bottom. That course is not very fun for sub-900 players and is not really designed for lower skill level types.

I have no problem with the Peoria Open or Great Lakes Open or any other tournament cutting whatever divisions do not fit their tournament purposes.

I'd agree, the TD should be able to make his choices of divisions that suits his purposes. Matt's implications were that the PDGA should make rules relegating MA4 to C tiers. I would disagree with that.

I didn't list any of the Am age protected divisions for the Spring Fling. I have no idea if that will hurt the tourney or not. It does save me some time making trophies. Of course the first email question I fielded was "Are you going to run Am Grand Master?"

I'd agree, the TD should be able to make his choices of divisions that suits his purposes. Matt's implications were that the PDGA should make rules relegating MA4 to C tiers. I would disagree with that.

I didn't list any of the Am age protected divisions for the Spring Fling. I have no idea if that will hurt the tourney or not. It does save me some time making trophies. Of course the first email question I fielded was "Are you going to run Am Grand Master?"



No just for me I would not have Ma4, probably Ma3, and Possibly Ma2 (wait that isn't int anymore is it?

So mostly Int and above with some Adv Pro only dictated by space allowed on the courses.

If anyone thinks I am a horrible guy you should also know that Most A-tiers should be on courses that are challenging enough that they would be pretty rough for their skill level and would be Blue level courses.

At B-tiers I would only limit it if you are an awesome people puller like Rusco and only have room for 90 players. These events aren't necessarily anti-Ma4 btu why not play Ma3? Of there is a reason then that may be the reason you should wait for another event.

I am happy to see more TDs going for a 100% payout in which everyone gets to chose the same amount of plastic and they have awesome personalized trophies. This discourages bagging and may wean us off the plastic greed some become overcome by.

C-tiers, screw Pros Ma4 can take up every spot if they can get in.! These events are what we should use to introduce players but I agree that we should encourage new members to join and they should have a better reason than playing 5 events which is perceived by some who do not join.

I run events for ALL of players in the area that want to come and play in it. Open players are not any more due a spot at my events than anyone else. I wonder why you think that you are so much more deserving of a spot quite frankly unless it is a NT or a Major, everyone is equal is my mind. They are all Disc Golfers who love the sport and want to play. Too bad you don't see it that way...

Actually, Open players are less deserving of a spot at Michigan tournaments given our laws against cash payouts and pools.

I do not think that Open players are more due a spot for just any event but I would include A-tiers as they at least should be geared more towards the Pro player as well as Adv as they are usually held on higher level courses.

In B-tiers I am just for division cuts where players can play the same divisions as two years ago but not Ma4 if the event is going to fill weeks in advance. I also think there should be system in which non-members could only sign up in the last week of an event since tournaments have become more sought after.

Matt, You seem to equate MA4 players and non-members. This is not the case. Quit mixing them in your arguments. MA4 players are not second class members. They pay the same membership fees and finance the tournaments just as much as any other Am.

Matt, You seem to equate MA4 players and non-members. This is not the case. Quit mixing them in your arguments. MA4 players are not second class members. They pay the same membership fees and finance the tournaments just as much as any other Am.




I am not saying Ma4 players are all non-members but that is just another way of controlling the registration of popular events. It seems we are getting to the point where the PDGA member rule will extend past A-tiers to B's as well, as many areas such as TX have become saturated with events but still fill week end and week out.

No Ma4 at A-tiers and above + B tiers which will have limited spots.

The non-member is totally separate but just something else I threw out there.

...that is just another way of controlling the registration of popular events. It seems we are getting to the point where the PDGA member rule will extend past A-tiers to B's as well, as many areas such as TX have become saturated with events but still fill week end and week out.

No Ma4 at A-tiers and above + B tiers which will have limited spots.



Matt, there is only one class of player who wants to limit the number of players that know they want to play a tourney and sign up early to make sure they get in.

That would be the Open Pro players who typically wait until the last minute to sign up because they want to see what the size of the Open field is before they commit.

I say "too bad". If you want to wait and see what the field size is, then you risk getting shut out and not getting it. It's a choice. What the Open pros don't seem to realize is that if they went ahead and signed up right away for the tourneys they like, then other Open players would see then signed up and might sign up earlier too, thus creating a big pre-reg Open field that would draw even more Open players to sign up early.

Here's what I define as "the tourneys they like" above: those tourneys that they will complain about not getting into when they sell-out.

I'm sorry to sound harsh to the Open players, but it makes no business sense to turn away amateur players who are pre-registering way in advance in the hopes that pro players will sign up at the last minute. Each am player adds to the bottom with the retail/wholesale markup while each pro takes away due to added cash requirements. If the positive cash-flow am is excited to play and register early, why would you turn him down in hopes that pro will sign up late? Plus the late sign-up pros usually complain that $400 for 1st stinks compared the tourney the other week where it was $600 with less players.

If Rhett still runs tournies, he sounds like he is one logic circuit click away from running Am-only tournaments.

I agree 100% with Rhett here. Tournaments are first come, first served. If 30 players who are AM4 sign up for a tournament and there are (later on) no more spots for Open players, then too bad! The Open players had every opportunity to register themselves. And the event tier does not matter. If the TD wants to offer AM4 to his A-tier event, and 30 AM4 players get their registrations in, then so be it! Disc golf does not have a caste system. AM4 players should not be considered 'untouchables.'

One recourse for a TD is to hold spots ahead of time and announce on the flyer that there will be 20 spots reserved for Open, 15 for Master, 10 for Open Women, 20 for Advanced, etc. and then if those spots don't get filled, open them up to any division.

Or just hold separate Pro and Am tournys on different days if that is feasible.

I have heard our local Pro's grumbling about Jr divisions taking spots away from Pro players. My family and I (wife and 2 KIds) sign up for a event that is definetly going to fill, We always sign up early. If my kids are not welcome at a event I will not go back to that tourney. Even if it is the closest event to my house. We are a well known disc golf family around here; 4 entry fees and we always sponser a hole. First Come, First Serve.

I have heard our local Pro's grumbling about Jr divisions taking spots away from Pro players. My family and I (wife and 2 KIds) sign up for a event that is definetly going to fill, We always sign up early. If my kids are not welcome at a event I will not go back to that tourney. Even if it is the closest event to my house. We are a well known disc golf family around here; 4 entry fees and we always sponser a hole. First Come, First Serve.




I wouldn't get rid of Juniors btu many events already cut some of the lower divisions. I don't hear anyone griping about worlds and it is all ADV and up so why is it a big deal if an A-tier would like to have it be Rec and up (like it was just over a year ago)?

Recreational and Novice are stupid divisions. If you compete you are neither. You can be a crappy intermediate but not those. Age protected should not go away. Good young players need their own spot to play so they can leave us old guys alone.

The names for MA3 and MA4 may be misnomers, but the divisions are helping grow the tournament player base for the PDGA. Do you have a better idea on how to rename them? How about "Inconsistent" and "3-putters"?

The names for MA3 and MA4 may be misnomers, but the divisions are helping grow the tournament player base for the PDGA. Do you have a better idea on how to rename them?



Yes I do. But I would get put on probation again or possibly suspended from this message board.

Yes I do. But I would get put on probation again or possibly suspended from this message board.



I'm sorry you think the 3.7 strokes you average each round better than I do makes your division warrented and not mine, to the point where you would use (I assume) vulgar language to describe players of my skill if given the chance.

(We won't discuss the fact that technically, your division IS mine.)

I enjoy playing Recreational, and I'm not sure why you claim that "competing" makes you neither recreational or a novice. Good luck with your argument, as unless I am mistaken players of my rating are one of the fastest growing PDGA sections.

You play INT what are you talking about?

Click, click, back, back
Click, click, back, back

What he's talking about is that your division is MA3 even though you choose to play up. His division is MA3 and he prefers to not play up.

No he actually plays MA2 mostly. Click click yourself and see.

But if you clicked a little more you'd see that the tournaments where he played MA2 didn't offer MA3.

TDs know what they are doing.

It is also interesting that none of the events he played MA2 in filled except maybe the Clash and Player's Cup.

Sounds like the TDs should think about inviting the MA3s at least.

It's also interesting to note that he was WILLING to play "up" in the majority of his sanctioned events, and only played "down" when offered another "choice" of division. And even more interesting that in the instances he played "down", on one occasion he would have placed 3rd in the next division up, and in the other, he would have beat about 1/3 of the field in the next division up.

Given this kind of overlap - what exactly is the argument for yet another "division"? Oh yeah - everyone should have a chance to get first place! I forgot.

Bingo. We have a winner.

No, the idea is player attraction and retention. The purse in the lower divisions is flatter than other divisions, there is no huge carrot for winning. What is the problem with allowing players that are not ultra-competitive by skill or nature to have a comfortable place to compete in a sanctioned event?

I agree that when events are filling weeks out, then the events need to be split into multiple weekends or certain divisions dropped. I do not believe that lower divisions should be offered on courses that do not have appropriate teeing options, but I do believe that they are PDGA members too and entitled to play in whatever division they are qualified to play.

Plus if events are not filling without them, they are the group with the greatest potential for quick growth if they are made to feel welcome at tournaments.

The arguments for amateur divisions make sense in areas where TDs offer the divisions and the players voluntarily sort themselves by ratings. In regions where half the rec players and virtually all the intermediates play Advanced, there is really no reason to offer more than two divisions.

MA4 is working in Illinois to bring more players to tournaments and to increase the PDGA membership.

I disagree. I think there are players that would play where they were rated that avoid playing where they feel pressure to play up and donate. The irony is that given a chance to play in tournament conditions consistently, their ratings would likely improve enough to force them up to the next division.

If you feel like you played like crap and your still on the lead card then you should move up, that's my method.

If you feel like you played like crap and your still on the lead card then you should move up, that's my method.



I think that is pretty good, if unscientific standard. I am an AM4 and have long been an also ran in that illustrious division. I have gotten to the point where I will win some frisbees if I play well and win nothing if I play poorly in AM4.I have not yet gotten to this standard in AM4 but aspire to it If I play great I can get "last cash" in AM3 if there is no AM4 and there is a large field. For a long time AM 4 was a draw for me as it was nice to have a chance to win something. Now, I have enough plastic and don't really care as long as the tournament is fun, the prices are reasonable and I do not think that my money is already beiing counted by better players who see me as a fish. Here is my college basketball analogy: If I am playing like Eastern Illinois. Why would I play every game against North Carolina or Michigan State? I will play most of my games against my own conference so I am not humiliated every time and the games are competitive. I don't need to be conference champion but who wants to have a winless season (like DePaul in the Big East)?

It's also interesting to note that he was WILLING to play "up" in the majority of his sanctioned events, and only played "down" when offered another "choice" of division. And even more interesting that in the instances he played "down", on one occasion he would have placed 3rd in the next division up, and in the other, he would have beat about 1/3 of the field in the next division up.

Given this kind of overlap - what exactly is the argument for yet another "division"? Oh yeah - everyone should have a chance to get first place! I forgot.



Are you talking about amateur divisions or pro division?

We have about 60 players pre-reged so far for our weekend thing.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=9027

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=9028

Curiously, the largest division so far is Am 4. And, we have another half dozen Am 4s playing up in other divisions. These guys rarely came out to tournaments three or four years ago, before we started offering Am 4.

It really makes me wonder where the fat part of the bell curve would be if our tournament structure was designed for the vast majority of the players. If we were to start running Am 5 next year, would it be the largest division three or four years from now? We have five Am5 signed up to play Am 4.

It is also causing my head to swell with pride. I won't be able to wear a hat this weekend.

Jon was commenting to me on the phone last night about all the innovations we've tried that have worked well for us that the PDGA has adopted or approved. One of the things that I think has made Am 4 work better for us than for some TDs is we charge them the same entry fee as any other amateur division and give them the same tournament value as any other amateur division. It is not a gutter division that pays a cheapo entry fee and gets little or no payout. They get a player pack, payout, CTPs, trophies and etc. just like any other amateur division. If they have the best attendance, they'll get the biggest payout.

Bruce, it's funny how that works, isn't it...

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=8973

It just so happens the recreational division I'll be playing in in a few weeks is also the largest division in its' tournament. I'd be interested to see how it would break down between MA3 and MA4 if it were offered, but I think the point is proven that the lower divisions are helpful in increasing tournament participation. Does the increase in numbers of people playing in PDGA sanctioned tournaments reflect "growth of the sport"? I think it does...

Congratulations on getting so many MA4 participants in your tournaments, it's great to have a good place to compete for people that are just starting or have worked hard to improve their game to an 800+ level.

Bruce, it's funny how that works, isn't it...

http://www.pdga.com/tournament-results?TournID=8973

It just so happens the recreational division I'll be playing in in a few weeks is also the largest division in its' tournament. I'd be interested to see how it would break down between MA3 and MA4 if it were offered, but I think the point is proven that the lower divisions are helpful in increasing tournament participation. Does the increase in numbers of people playing in PDGA sanctioned tournaments reflect "growth of the sport"? I think it does...

Congratulations on getting so many MA4 participants in your tournaments, it's great to have a good place to compete for people that are just starting or have worked hard to improve their game to an 800+ level.

Looking at that list, there are only four registered for MA3, that are not eligible for MA4. And all the players registered for MA2 are eligible for MA3.

Looking at that list, there are only four registered for MA3, that are not eligible for MA4. And all the players registered for MA2 are eligible for MA3.

That's true, just goes to show how big these lower, "unnecessary" divisons really would be if everyone played exactly where their rating put them.

TDs know what they are doing.

Thank you. As TD of last month's A Tier Lexington Open (April 19-20), I was very happy to offer ALL PDGA divisions, including MA4. In fact, MA4 tied MA2 as my largest division with 47 participants. Dave gentry suggested that it may have been the largest MA4 field in that division's short history. We had more MA4s than all pro divisions combined, and we offered the pros $4,000 cash added.

MA4s accounted for 20% of our total attendance of 231. They took no one's spots: we turned no one away. That division helped us to our largest tournament in the 11 years of the event and to a possible spot in the world's top 10 largest disc golf events for 2009.

So why would I not offer MA4. They were great, had fun, and didn't complain like other divisions. They were treated with dignity and class and as equals with the Open players. Now they, or course, did not receive the same amount of payouts as higher divisions, but they were treated with respect. Are they great golfers? Not at all. I myself am only rated 815. We don't tend to take ourselves so seriously. But we love the game, and we really love having our division offfered.

Someone asked, "Why not play rec?" Because I do not want to have to play against people who have ratings that are more than 80 points above my own. Let's say you are 930 rated. Would you fee it appropriate to have to play in the same division as pros rated 1010? I doubt it. Yet that is what is being suggested here.

MA4 is a great division. From a TD's perspective they are low maintentance and high fun. And frankly, everybody has to start somewhere. Give more of the tens of thousands of casual players a reason to play in tournaments and watch the PDGA's past meteoric growth rate look small.

Lyle McCoon, Jr.
PDGA #30215

Excellent going Lyle!

People like you, Brakel, McHale and others growing the AM ranks are the bricks and morter of the sport. Others (higher-rated, pro-Pro) will get the "props" in the future because, inherently, people focus on 'celebrities' - but rest assured that your work IS making huge inroads toward growing the sport.

Karl

Thank you. As TD of last month's A Tier Lexington Open (April 19-20), I was very happy to offer ALL PDGA divisions, including MA4. In fact, MA4 tied MA2 as my largest division with 47 participants. Dave gentry suggested that it may have been the largest MA4 field in that division's short history. We had more MA4s than all pro divisions combined, and we offered the pros $4,000 cash added.

MA4s accounted for 20% of our total attendance of 231. They took no one's spots: we turned no one away. That division helped us to our largest tournament in the 11 years of the event and to a possible spot in the world's top 10 largest disc golf events for 2009.

So why would I not offer MA4. They were great, had fun, and didn't complain like other divisions. They were treated with dignity and class and as equals with the Open players. Now they, or course, did not receive the same amount of payouts as higher divisions, but they were treated with respect. Are they great golfers? Not at all. I myself am only rated 815. We don't tend to take ourselves so seriously. But we love the game, and we really love having our division offfered.

Someone asked, "Why not play rec?" Because I do not want to have to play against people who have ratings that are more than 80 points above my own. Let's say you are 930 rated. Would you fee it appropriate to have to play in the same division as pros rated 1010? I doubt it. Yet that is what is being suggested here.

MA4 is a great division. From a TD's perspective they are low maintentance and high fun. And frankly, everybody has to start somewhere. Give more of the tens of thousands of casual players a reason to play in tournaments and watch the PDGA's past meteoric growth rate look small.

Lyle McCoon, Jr.
PDGA #30215

47? I wouldn't doubt if there have been more than that at our local C-tiers. Seems like there are 15 players ADV and above and the rest fill in below.

47? I wouldn't doubt if there have been more than that at our local C-tiers. Seems like there are 15 players ADV and above and the rest fill in below.

Just goes to show where the player base is. No wonder people in Intermediate, Advanced, and Pros want everybody to play up - there's few of them, and lots of us.

I have a tough time calling what this trend actually means though - whether it means that the level of a "professional" in this sport is lower than a lot of people think it is, or whether being a "professional" isn't a joke like a lot of people want to make it out to be, and is actually a significant accomplishment that takes a lot of practice and dedication, even if it is not as tough as some other sports to become "pro."

Just goes to show where the player base is. No wonder people in Intermediate, Advanced, and Pros want everybody to play up - there's few of them, and lots of us.

I have a tough time calling what this trend actually means though - whether it means that the level of a "professional" in this sport is lower than a lot of people think it is, or whether being a "professional" isn't a joke like a lot of people want to make it out to be, and is actually a significant accomplishment that takes a lot of practice and dedication, even if it is not as tough as some other sports to become "pro."


Actually I think it has more to do with these events being geared towards lower AMs as they are run by Rec players. Also the lack of payout and number of players higher up has a snowball effect which means less show up to future to populate the Int, ADV, and Pro division.

With that said I would love to see more Am only C-tiers for just this purpose.

Actually I think it has more to do with these events being geared towards lower AMs as they are run by Rec players.


I don't think a large number of tourneys are being run by "Rec" players.

From a TD's perspective there is ZERO incentive to cater to Pros. Pros don't generate any revenue for the club or whoever is running the event. Pros are a zero sum game or they actually cost the club money. 100% of the Pro entry does dierctly back to the pros plus usually added cash.

AMs generate revenue due to the mark up on the discs. As a TD I always try to cater to AMs, the more AMs the more money the club makes.

If is makes dollars it makes cents!

That is not so much a philosophical statement as it is an empirical statement. Why not just check a random sampling of tournaments and see? I'll be back in twenty minutes...

A quick survey of 20 tournaments in May suggests that most tournaments are run by pros who would not be likely to cash in Open. Intermediate and Recreatinal rated players run most of the rest of the tournaments. Advanced amateurs don't run tournaments much.

I don't think a large number of tourneys are being run by "Rec" players.

From a TD's perspective there is ZERO incentive to cater to Pros. Pros don't generate any revenue for the club or whoever is running the event. Pros are a zero sum game or they actually cost the club money. 100% of the Pro entry does dierctly back to the pros plus usually added cash.

AMs generate revenue due to the mark up on the discs. As a TD I always try to cater to AMs, the more AMs the more money the club makes.

If is makes dollars it makes cents!


I was referring to these particular TDs as being Rec players. Also in many C-tiers Pros are payed the Bare minimum of 85% which in many cases means they put more money into the tournament costs than a player in a lower division.

Interesting, I didn't realize you didn't have to pay out 100% to pros.