frankgarcia
Jun 24 2010, 04:05 PM
First let me say that the assumption here is that there will always be two tiers of events, top players ("pro") and everyone else. Yes, if you want to complete for cash instead of plastic you could play in the Open divisions however, we all know that just because you want to compete for cash there are many golfers who have slim odds of actually cashing.
That being said, why do Ams play for plastic? Ostensbily the reason is "well, that's how every other sport does it". You are a "professional" if you get paid money to play. I think it's just simple semantics though to pay someone in cash or pay them in plastic, you are still getting paid just in different and inflated currency.
It's the inflated part that makes me crazy. Why do entry fees keep going up? Most of the labor to run a tournament is unpaid and the course usually doesn't incur a cost from the local park entity (I am basing this on my experience in Ohio so don't get crazy on me if it is different where you live). What I'm getting at is if ams are playing for the "experience" then why not have a $5 entry fee and call it a day? The reason is boys and girls is entry fees have to go up because the price of plastic has gone up and this is the "inflated" part of my comment. Basically if you're a pro you pay your fee in US dollars and get your cash prize in US dollars, ams pay in US Dollars and get their prize in...well...basically...pesos and the difference is profit for the club/TD. It's even worse when the players package is paid for out of the entry fees since then the club/sponsors have taken your money and decided what you will get rather than at least getting to pick what you want. Yes,yes, I know in some cases the players pack is "valued" at more than the entry but in many cases that's just the dollars/pesos exchange rate difference again. Another issue is some of that "profit" from the Ams gets diverted to the pro purse, if I wanted the pros to have my money I would've signed up for Open in the first place.
I do have to say it is better in some regards now since so many clubs give you vouchers so you have a chance to get some discs you actually want to throw rather than just giving you a bunch of stuff the club needed to get rid of. But just because the double standard isn't as bad doesn't mean that it's still right.
Now I'm all for the club/TD get paid for their effort but why not just make it a cut of the purse with the rest going to the players? I just think the club should be able to earn a profit without having to go through the hassle of buying plastic and both classes of players get treated equally with all the transactions transparent and above board.
I propose we end the shadow game of cost/retail for ams and the whole secondary market of won plastic and just pay everyone in cash. If a guy with 1016 rating can complete as an Am I don't see why a player is suddenly over qualified to play as an am if we wins a few bucks.
I've been told over the years the the prize payment was in place to give players an incentive to move to Open but that has apparently failed miserably since am fields just keep getting bigger and bigger. Again, I don't see the logic of keeping the current system unless it is to keep forcing Ams to buy plastic with their winnings.
To keep in the spirit of amateur play make the available cash smaller or just give out trophies but keep the entry fees smaller as well. Ams will still get thrill of competition, learn how to play in a competitive environment and become familiar with the rules of play.
Lastly, if you want Ams to play for prizes then at least they should be paid at what the club paid for the discs and not the retail. Let the club have a cut of the entry as I stated earlier but then at least Ams then will be paid in Canadian dollar instead of pesos (still taking a hit for the exchange rate but not as bad).
Angst
Jun 24 2010, 05:16 PM
As an AM I loved winning some plastic if I played well, so I would be hesitant to suggest eliminating discs as prizes completely. In the northwest we have gradually been increasing the value of our players packs and decreasing the amount of the payout. This means every AM player gets a little more for their money, yet the winners still get a little something for their efforts.
otimechamp
Jun 25 2010, 11:15 AM
The rabbit hole goes much deeper than AM's getting paid in plastic!
davidsauls
Jun 25 2010, 11:55 AM
I think there are two primary forces supporting the current Am payout system:
The retail/wholesale margin supports the tournament structure. It covers tournament expenses, supports clubs which then supports local courses, goes to the Pro purse, and/or to the TD for his efforts. Taking a cut of the entry fees and payout the Ams in merch at wholesale would do the same thing, of course.
The second is that this is what players want. Most players, anyway. Raising entry fees means a bigger payout to the Am winners. A poll on this website is dwarfed by the poll of players voting with their entries; these higher-entry Am events are drawing well.
......or, at least, TDs believe this is what players wants. We can run an event with a $15 entry fee, trophy-only or small payouts, but oftentimes turnout is light. People complain about the low payout, ignoring the low entry fee. Some have made it work, of course, but when considering whether to put the enormous effort into TDing an event, it's much easier to go with what we know works rather than gamble on what we think might work, or should work.
There are other factors, of course, but it seems to me that these are the main reasons.
For myself, I lament the whole payouts-to-Ams culture of our sport. There are many other sports in which participants pay a modest fee just for the chance to participate. I wish disc golf was one of them.
otimechamp
Jun 25 2010, 12:43 PM
I think there are two primary forces supporting the current Am payout system:
The retail/wholesale margin supports the tournament structure. It covers tournament expenses, supports clubs which then supports local courses, goes to the Pro purse, and/or to the TD for his efforts. Taking a cut of the entry fees and payout the Ams in merch at wholesale would do the same thing, of course.
The second is that this is what players want. Most players, anyway. Raising entry fees means a bigger payout to the Am winners. A poll on this website is dwarfed by the poll of players voting with their entries; these higher-entry Am events are drawing well.
......or, at least, TDs believe this is what players wants. We can run an event with a $15 entry fee, trophy-only or small payouts, but oftentimes turnout is light. People complain about the low payout, ignoring the low entry fee. Some have made it work, of course, but when considering whether to put the enormous effort into TDing an event, it's much easier to go with what we know works rather than gamble on what we think might work, or should work.
There are other factors, of course, but it seems to me that these are the main reasons.
For myself, I lament the whole payouts-to-Ams culture of our sport. There are many other sports in which participants pay a modest fee just for the chance to participate. I wish disc golf was one of them.
yep yep and yep.... and the PDGA and its income from the Am's would take a huge beating.
Being in the Pro/Am purgatory state of my game. I wish there were better payouts in the pro fields. I used to get excited about plastic pay outs but got to a point where I was getting discs that I didn't throw. I wound up giving my "winnings" away or trying to sell them off. I think the tweener stage of Pro Am needs some work. Trophy only would def thin out am fields, and cause more guys to test the pro field waters. I don't know such a tough question.
davidsauls
Jun 25 2010, 01:09 PM
Actually, the PDGA might earn more if someone could sell the concept of low-entry, no-payout Am events. If players actually liked it, presumably more players would play, and the PDGA would get more per-player fees and maybe even more members.
On the other hand, if the PDGA tried to mandate the change and TDs and players migrated to non-sanctioned events that paid lots of plastic, the PDGA would lose money and those of us in the low-entry camp wouldn't get what we want, anyway.
frankgarcia
Jun 25 2010, 01:23 PM
David makes an excellent point, getting paid in plastic either is a worthy incentive or not enough of a disincentive to get players to play pro because Am fields just keep getting bigger and bigger. Of course recently I have heard some grumbling about payouts getting lighter and ligher in the am fields so I'm again curious on how the accounting is done but of course without hard data the payouts may not be as light as the perception, especially when player packs are thrown in. But this gets back to my original point of accounting. With the shadow plastic economy there is the potential for abuse and as it stands now the players don't have any recourse but to gripe and maybe not play the following year. The problem with that is with the growth of our sport there are new players who sign-up for the tournament not knowing it's history or players moving up in skill who didn't cash in year's before so again were unaware of any issues.
But as David said players are voting with their entry fee dollars so it appears I'm in the minority.
Does anyone know if their is a PDGA standard for valuing discs/equipment? I was just curious how those tournaments that give out the prizes versus letting you "buy" them arrive at the values.
davidsauls
Jun 25 2010, 01:50 PM
Background to my post is that I'm both a lifetime Am, and a TD.
I liked the Am plastic payouts when I started. But that was in the DX-only days, when replacement of discs was an ongoing need because they didn't last long.
Around here, most tournaments are 100% payout to Am, at the suggested retail price set by the manufacturer. Common is a voucher for the players pack, and payout in vouchers, exchangeable for the plastic of your choice. Ams, as a group, are getting 100% of their entries back, except PDGA & local fees.
Other regions may have different experience, of course.
Going fees for Am events are around $40. Take out about $5 for fees, $10 players pack, $25 goes to prizes.
I've run events with $25 entry fee. Take out same fees and players pack, only $10 per player goes to prizes. So prizes are 40% of what players expect, and some complain.
*
Also, my experience is that the plastic isn't much of a disincentive to go Pro. Higher Pro entry fees are. Around here, there's a tendency to "play up", so by the time people reach 950, many have moved up. Besides, at that point many are tired of winning plastic....but the beginners and intermediates still seem to love it.
Again---that's my experience in and around South Carolina. Other areas may have other experiences.
A few TDs HAVE pulled off fundraisers and other low-entry events successfully, with free food and contests and generally great events. It can be done. But it's not the norm.
exczar
Jun 25 2010, 10:39 PM
What if there were two kinds of Am events:
1) Just like they are now, except no points are awarded.
2) Trophy only, but points are awarded.
Those AMs that are serious enough about their game will play to qualify for the next year's AM worlds, which means that they will play for trophy only, at least until they believe that they have enough points to qualify for AM worlds.
You could, theoretically, even mix the two types at the same event, and let, say, the Advanced Masters all play together, grouping by score, but they would select by the deadline specified by the TD, how to play - for plastic or for points.
Of course, the entry fee to play for points would be less than the fee to play for plastic.
Do you think that this would fly?
bruce_brakel
Jun 25 2010, 11:06 PM
For five[?] years the Illinois Open Series offered a low entry fee trophy-and-player-pack option for every amateur in every division. This year they've quit doing it at every tournament but they used to.
Not that many players want that option. Given the choice 80 to 90% choose to pay $15 or $20 more and play for prizes. Guys who wanted to play both days at a split-weekend format tournament would take that option, and guys who could not play on their day would too. I'm not being sexist here. Amateur women seemed less interested in the option than amateur men. Old men seemed more interested than young men.
Having said that, if you eliminate the plastic payouts there are low barriers to entry for anyone stepping up to run a tournament. Anyone who wants to see that option just needs to call the park and find out what hoops they have to jump through to throw a tournament.
frankgarcia
Jun 26 2010, 09:00 AM
I love discussion! The responses have not only taught me a lot but they have helped me clarify in my own mind what exactly is my issue.
Here's my main problem after I really think about it: Why do Ams have to bear the brunt of raising money for the sport??
As was mentioned, the "profit" clubs make between the cost of the plastic and the retail value used to calculate prizes goes to help grow the sport. This is undisputed, very worthy and worth keeping in place.
So why aren't the pros contributing from their entry fees/winnings? Every dime the pros pay in entry fees leaves in the pocket of some pro and if their is any added cash they get that too! Now an Am pays his $50 entry fee and $25 of that stays with the club (I don't know what the markup is so someone please educate me)!!
How is this fair? The whole idea of playing for prizes instead of cash was to encourage people not to sandbag and to grow the pro ranks which ostensibly would help increase the popularity of disc golf. But somehow that has morphed from Pro and Am into Moneymakers and Fund-Raiser divisions and I don't think that was the intent or fair.
If Ams have to get paid in prizes then I want the pros to have to give up half of their entry fees to the club as well and then they can divvy up the rest. Let the added cash be the incentive to play pro. Why should the future of disc golf be built solely on the backs of the Ams, let the pros contribute, after all they get the most from the sport.
All you ams out there reading this, do you think it's fair that your money is the only one going to help build the future of disc golf? T
bruce_brakel
Jun 26 2010, 10:41 AM
This is fair because this is what the tournament host wants to do and it is his tournament. Your participation is voluntary.
There are am-only tournaments and pro-am tournaments where there is ACTUAL sponsor added value for the amateurs and there are am-scam events like you described. You might need to be a better consumer.
Columbus has been an am-scam town for a long time. I would expect the same from the tournament this week in central Ohio, based on tradition alone. But you have Roscoe's Revenge in Medina and the Harbin Rat in Cincinnatti that have 200+% value for the amateurs.
More importantly, I don't think those Columbus guys actually own the courses where they offer tournaments. Nothing would prevent you from running an amateur tournament, with or without prizes, where the amateurs' entry fees are spent on tournament value for the amateurs.
I'm off to Worlds.
And I'm stoked!
exczar
Jun 26 2010, 02:26 PM
Bruce,
I can see where an isolated tournament or series would have a tough time doing what I suggested, but what if all PDGA sanctioned events were run this way? From what I have read, points seem to mean more to Ams than they do to Pros, so there is more incentive for the Ams to play just for trophy and points.
And, I don't see how awarding prizes with the same (or close to the same) value as they would pay if they went to a brick and mortar store and paid for the same items is a scam. If the players are able to pick the discs they want, then the value of the discs should not be compared to mail order, where you request a disc, but do not get to hold it until after you have paid for it.
audi12
Jun 26 2010, 09:20 PM
My two cents:
I like to play for plastic and I like to play for points.
My reasoning:
Plastic: If it's new and I haven't tried the disc I am more likely to pay for it out of my winnings then to buy it in a store. The clubs in Michigan and North Carolina are cheaper then the actual stores and online ( from where I have been anyway). Not to mention stocking up on back-ups too.
Points: We travel a bit to play and we prefer the bigger tourney to the same local ones. Not to mention we enjoy the competition of that serious level of play as well.
Also I have ran a league (women's in NC) and I found that the girls were more excited to play for prizes ( plastic or set stacks of goodies ie: shirts discs minis) then cash or anything else.
Happy golfin'
audi
readysetstab
Jun 27 2010, 12:22 PM
not a huge point here, but no one has mentioned it so i feel like i should...
if AM divisions were to play for cash, you know the baggers would all come out to play. the guys who are winning a lot of plastic now wouldn't win much if it were cash payout because lower end pros would move down and take all the cash anyway. or a lot of unrated guys would just play down to the lower divisions to guarantee themselves a cash spot. speaking as a 950 rated player who mostly donates to pros.. i know that i would move down and take some easy cash if it were available. i just don't need plastic and i'm tired of selling it so i play open now. I know lots of guys in the same situation. i think the system is fine the way it is because it encourages players to move up. i know i've gotten a lot better in the short time that i've been donating, so i'm glad i did it.
davidsauls
Jun 28 2010, 08:46 AM
To answer one of frankgarcia's questions---
The wholesale cost of discs is about 60-65% of the retail cost.
The PDGA standard is paying Ams at retail. It doesn't say what retail is. Manufacturers have suggested retail prices, though.
*
I'm not quite sure what AmScam is. Around here, many events post their calculations before Sunday's rounds. It'll be something like:
Advanced
$40 entry fee less $3 PDGA fee and $2 state fee
20 players x $35 = $700
20 players packs x $10 = $200 players packages
$500 in prizes (and then the breakdown for 1st place, 2nd place, etc.)
Discs are priced at suggested retail, whether sold, or given in prizes. Prizes are usually a voucher, exchangeable for discs at suggeted retail. Players packs are either a $10 voucher or, if merchandise, frequently worth more than $10.
Ams (and I'm one) have no complaint---they're getting back everything they pay at retail.
Don't know if this is the way it's done elsewhere, but it's the tradition around here.
*
Ams supporting Pros is the little secret a lot of people don't realize, especially when campaigning for bigger pro events or bigger pro payouts.
The TD (or club) makes a profit on handling the merchandise....but they're doing all that work, I think they're entitled, just as anyone else handling merchandise would. Think your corner grocery.
Part of that profit covers tournament expenses. For the rest, whatever the TD (or club) wants to do with it is fine with me....including adding it to the Pro purse....or not.
exczar
Jun 28 2010, 12:28 PM
David,
I think it is important what you said at the end of your post, and if I may rephrase it, it is that Ams do not support Pros, but Ams support the TD. Yes, many TDs use most if not all of the Disc Value Differential (DVD) to add money to the Pro pot, but that is entirely up to the TD. If a TD has raised added money to be added to the Pro pot, then the DVD can go to tournament amenities, player's packs, or to the TD's pocket.
How is the DVD handled for large Am only events like the one in BG? Does the net after tournament expenses are handled go to increasing the player's packs or improving the event amenties? Do they make the prize value closer to the cost, thereby decreasing the DVD, or does this event end up being a nice fundraiser for the sponsoring organization?
davidsauls
Jun 28 2010, 12:43 PM
Bowling Green is an interesting question.
I'm not sure how many other large Am-only tournaments there are. In my neck of the woods the only ones I can think of are events that have split the Pro & Am weekends. I wouldn't make policy based on them.
All of our opinions are colored by our own experience. Mine, as a TD or assistant TD, falls into two categories:
(1) club-run events, where any remaining profits go the club, and eventually into local courses.
(2) private-course events, where any remaining profits are a slight offset to the course owners' expenses.
If a TD puts money in his pocket, it's fine with me, but he's probably working for about $2 an hour. I rather feel better not getting any money, being a volunteer, because I'm insulted by the low pay if I take it.
bruce_brakel
Jun 28 2010, 01:56 PM
Bill, if the PDGA were to abolish paying ams prizes, several things would happen:
First, there would be a big outrage from the parts of the membership that are invested in the Merchastravaganza (TM).
Second, the PDGA would quickly reverse its decision. But if it didn't,
TDs who are in it for the Am-scam would go away.
I would be running sanctioned tournaments in Michigan again.
Pro B-tiers would mostly cease to exist, because those are almost always run on the profits on the ams.
In a couple of years there would be a Pro 2 for players under 970 and a few years after that there would be a pro 3.
At the 2020 Worlds the Senior Grandmasters would be reminiscing about amateur payouts and the Advanced players would not know what the heck we were talking about.
exczar
Jun 28 2010, 02:07 PM
Bruce,
My what-if did not suggest that the PDGA abolish paying Ams prizes, only that if an am played for prizes, that they would not get any points.
Basically, what I was floating up as a trial (lead) balloon is that an am that played for prizes would be ineligible to play in a national or world amateur event.
I guess that they could still receive points, but they would not really mean anything.
trig40
Jun 28 2010, 02:23 PM
Good chatter going back and forth and all good points.
Here is my "New Guy" perspective - I would suggest the PDGA look at this from the "Bottom up" (Kinda like I do when I go to the Beach)
Restructuring the AM Grid would be a great start. Many tournies will have just enough High 800 players (850 - 899) in the Rec Division playing against new guys to take up the Payout. Novice and sometimes Rec divisions are not offered offered under the "You Gotta Play up to get better" ruse. and that just trickles through the field.
Once the PDGA gets "Slingers" in the right divisions than we can worry about Pay Outs.
Luckily I am old enough to play in a Division where "How many Wrinkles" I have determines what Division I am in.
FWIW.
Pvt. Trig out
davidsauls
Jun 28 2010, 02:30 PM
Bruce,
If the PDGA abolished Am prizes, we can speculate what the results, intended and unintended, would be.
Many of us speculate that many events would go non-sanctioned and continue paying Am prizes. Perhaps most events. Which would not be good for disc golf or the PDGA.
I think the best hope for prizeless Am divisions lies in the pioneers who are running prizeless events now. If they tempt more players into low-entry, low-prize events, more TDs will follow. But I have my doubts.
Bill,
The weakness in the no-points concept is that it's just a matter of getting an invite. Virtually everyone who wants to play Worlds, can play Worlds. Unless Worlds changes from a convention to a true championship---only those good enough to compete for the championship can play---points won't matter. I'm a lifelong Am, and haven't heard any Am mention any interest in points since player ratings were introduced.
zbiberst
Jun 29 2010, 04:26 PM
i love it when someone makes what is supposed to be a factual statement out of nothing.
i check the message board for the first time in six months and see something that i cant help address.
bruce you played one columbus event, six years ago. that means youve missed 40+ tournaments here.
there are now more than one per month in columbus during the season. and we have a wonderful report with our ams as well as our pros. our tournaments are 110-150+% payout (including the ice bowl and our for-charity NT) and we own all our baskets and have lease agreements for our courses. as well as do all the maintainence and repairs. including several thousand dollar erosion repairs within the last month. all volunteer,..
even before i was involved with running events, i traveled as an am, and nowhere could compete with how things were done here consistantly. yea harbin was great, but you notice those events didnt even happen this year, they cant be sustained in the capacity in which the existed.
you can have your opinion, but dont make everyone think its fact, when its actually nonsense. if you came recently and had an opinion, id be ok with you telling everyone how it was. but comeon its been 6 years.
i dont mean to sound harsh, but it seems a bit ignorant to classify a whole area of tournaments off of one experience and in turn shape the opinions of everyone else to assume something is bad, when in fact we have probably the best consistant reputation in the state for events.
wow. silly.
Columbus has been an am-scam town for a long time. I would expect the same from the tournament this week in central Ohio, based on tradition alone. But you have Roscoe's Revenge in Medina and the Harbin Rat in Cincinnatti that have 200+% value for the amateurs.
More importantly, I don't think those Columbus guys actually own the courses where they offer tournaments. Nothing would prevent you from running an amateur tournament, with or without prizes, where the amateurs' entry fees are spent on tournament value for the amateurs.
exczar
Jun 29 2010, 08:28 PM
David,
I thought that there was more of a likelihood of a waiting list in Am divisions that there is in Pro divisions. If there is not, then that definitely weakens my argument.
davidsauls
Jun 30 2010, 08:31 AM
I can't say for certain, but I understand that neither has filled, except for certain pools (say, a limit on Advanced Masters). And even at that, they have filled with non-invitees. Most, if not all, can get in regardless of points.
otimechamp
Jun 30 2010, 04:30 PM
[QUOTE=trig40;1430175
Restructuring the AM Grid would be a great start. Many tournies will have just enough High 800 players (850 - 899) in the Rec Division playing against new guys to take up the Payout. Novice and sometimes Rec divisions are not offered offered under the "You Gotta Play up to get better" ruse. and that just trickles through the field.
Once the PDGA gets "Slingers" in the right divisions than we can worry about Pay Outs.
FWIW.
Pvt. Trig out[/QUOTE]
Thats a good point. I wonder what the % of registered PDGA players fall into each category on the grid?
cgkdisc
Jun 30 2010, 04:32 PM
I wonder what the % of registered PDGA players fall into each category on the grid?
http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PlayerRatingDistribution2008YearEnd.pdf
davidsauls
Jul 01 2010, 08:29 AM
If by "restructuring the AM grid" you mean changing the threshholds that define divisions, I don't see where that makes a bit of difference. In whatever ratings range you have, some players are going to be at the high end. Nor would it change TDs' desire to offer, or not offer, the lower divisions.
otimechamp
Jul 01 2010, 10:31 AM
http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/PlayerRatingDistribution2008YearEnd.pdf
that was educating thanks for pasting that. 75% of registered men where below 980. Thats a lot.
otimechamp
Jul 01 2010, 10:36 AM
If by "restructuring the AM grid" you mean changing the threshholds that define divisions, I don't see where that makes a bit of difference. In whatever ratings range you have, some players are going to be at the high end. Nor would it change TDs' desire to offer, or not offer, the lower divisions.
I think He was talking about the lower end of the Am field. Rec to Int. I don't think it would solve the problem but it would put a few more guys in the right divisions.
ishkatbible
Jul 01 2010, 11:47 AM
I think He was talking about the lower end of the Am field. Rec to Int. I don't think it would solve the problem but it would put a few more guys in the right divisions.
i don't really know if that would do anything. you really can't PUT guys in the right divisions. unless you forced players to play their rating.
example... although i'm rated and CAN play rec, i choose to play intermediate. if i was to drop down to rec, that would **** a lot of people off. since they all know i've always played the int. division. and you would hear the "bagger" comments and people complaining.
cgkdisc
Jul 01 2010, 11:51 AM
We've had some discussions about not allowing players to play up more than one am level than their rating unless the lower divisions weren't offered. Like a Rec rated player couldn't play Intermediate unless Novice and Rec weren't offered or a Novice rated player couldn't play Advanced unless Advanced was the only am division offered.
trig40
Jul 01 2010, 12:16 PM
Why am I reminded of the "Even a Kid knows it's wrong to hide behind fine print commercials"?
I'm just saying defining the divisions (Fine Print) would come before, deciding what to payout. Not a kooky thought if this was a "Business" and we wanted to stay in the "Black".
Have a Happy and Safe 4th.
Pvt Trig out
davidsauls
Jul 01 2010, 12:46 PM
As a slow learner, I need some help understanding.
Are you saying divisions are only defined fine print?
They've always seemed pretty clear to me. Even where I disagree with them, I understand them. I've never had a hard time finding them, either.
ishkatbible
Jul 01 2010, 01:20 PM
We've had some discussions about not allowing players to play up more than one am level than their rating unless the lower divisions weren't offered. Like a Rec rated player couldn't play Intermediate unless Novice and Rec weren't offered or a Novice rated player couldn't play Advanced unless Advanced was the only am division offered.
i know you said discussions but you also said "more than one level" rec-int is only one level. was what you said a mistake?
trig40
Jul 01 2010, 01:30 PM
For myself, I lament the whole payouts-to-Ams culture of our sport. There are many other sports in which participants pay a modest fee just for the chance to participate. I wish disc golf was one of them.
I agree with 100%.
Pvt Trig out
otimechamp
Jul 01 2010, 01:33 PM
I agree with 100%.
Pvt Trig out
I also agree
cgkdisc
Jul 01 2010, 03:27 PM
i know you said discussions but you also said "more than one level" rec-int is only one level. was what you said a mistake?
Yes. I meant Novice not jumping to Intermediate and Rec not jumping to Advanced unless the division one step up was not offered.
mule1
Jul 04 2010, 09:31 AM
In Charlotte we are seeing a huge growth in the ranks of the masses of people playing disc golf who do not play in any tournaments. We are also seeing a much larger demand for our club to run more weekly events, (Monday Women's League, Tuesday Club Random Draw Doubles, Thursday Am League and also a Glo League, Saturday Club Singles and Sunday is another Am League). If the growth here in Charlotte is indicative of the growth of disc golf's popularity nationwide then it seems to me that the demand for participation in competitive events is soon to explode into record numbers. I see the $5-$10 events as being in the domain of the local club like we do here in Charlotte. I really don't claim to have any answers, just these observations. The demand is there for all the types of events you have described in this thread. Our profits go to our club treasury to pay for new courses. We don't pay ourselves for running events or the work that we put into building our courses. We have club members go out to raise money to add to the purse for the pros. If I had my way we would not run any more pro events, but that would be food for another thread. I want our club to run a large am event every year that gives each player more than their entry fee back in the form of retail value with the merchandise in their players pack. Then they also have the opportunity to win merch bucks to choose their prizes. It is my understanding that this is way better than am's in other sports get for payout, which is often and perhaps usually merely ribbons or trophys.
Am's are the future and the now of the sport.
james_mccaine
Jul 05 2010, 02:04 PM
Run multiple iterations of no-pro tourneys and adding money to ams. What do you get?
Ams would be the ONLY future. Why would anyone want to get better?
Flattening am payouts a few years ago has not hurt the sport, despite what the doomsayers predicted. The BOD should note that fact. I mean note it. One more time, note it, and stop fearing an exodus and start building a true sport that appeals to competitive spirits.
frankgarcia
Jul 05 2010, 07:33 PM
Run multiple iterations of no-pro tourneys and adding money to ams. What do you get?
Ams would be the ONLY future. Why would anyone want to get better?
Flattening am payouts a few years ago has not hurt the sport, despite what the doomsayers predicted. The BOD should note that fact. I mean note it. One more time, note it, and stop fearing an exodus and start building a true sport that appeals to competitive spirits.
Let me see if I understand this correctly, by structuring tournaments a certain way we would discourage people from wanting to get better?
Based on what I've seen that's is clearly not the case. Why do Ams buy the majority of plastic? they are the ones who think that the next disc will be the one that will make them instantly better. All golfers want to get better but a lot of them like to have the glory of winning and the way to win is to play against inferior competition unless you are at the top of the food chain.
That being said what do you think would happen if tomorrow every am player decided they would move up and play pro? Some Ams would realize they were better than they thought and surprise themselves by cashing here and there, a lot of pros would become a lot wealthier, some lower pros would then decide they could afford to play full time with the increased money in the purse- those are the positives but let's look at what else might happen.
I don't believe that having huge pro fields is suddenly going to make our sport so popular that we would instantly get on TV, attract non-disc golf sponsors, get added as an Olympic sport, etc, etc. What I feel with some degree of confidence WOULD happen is:
the current disc golf economy would collapse with clubs unable to generate revenue to build new courses and host events.
Disc manufacturers would see a big decline in sales because clubs would not be buying thousands of discs to give as prizes.
Disc prices would go up, since every manufacturing process depends on economies of scale.
Now some of this could be avoided but a much larger percentage of the purse would have to go to the club. Probably something like the current 40% the ams give (difference between cost and retail of discs).
This scenario would only last as long as the majority of golfers was willing to keep paying entry fees WITHOUT. EVER. SEEING. ANY. RETURN.
The majority of replies to my original post seem to fall into two categories; keep it the same because we like getting plastic and the other is to stop coddling people by having all the divisions and "force" players by some means to move up through the ranks.
If golfers feel the price of being an Am is to get a return of 60% while the pros get 100% I don't see a problem with that then there isn't a problem. Oh, for those of you who keep insisting that Ams are getting over 100% that isn't true because you are still taking at retail and giving at cost so the only way this could work would be for "added cash" to be included and I haven't seen too much of that.
As for forcing players to move up, that isn't going to happen as long as the vast majority of the purse is derived from player entry fees and not outside money.
All I was hoping for was to see if anyone had an idea on how to make the contributions to club money a more equitable solution while at the same time keeping the sport competitive but so far I haven't really seen that.
james_mccaine
Jul 05 2010, 10:36 PM
Our competitive structure does provide disincentives to look up the chain. It nurtures the non-competitive mindset, both by payout incentives, and by five thousand divisions.
I'm not sure how ams wanting the next greatest disc, if even true, implies anything about their competitive nature.
Nothing about my post implied anything about everyone playing pro, or forcing people to play pro. I'm not sure why you would think that, or why you feel you need to rebut an argument not made.
Btw, I'm no advocate of large am fees to prop up the pros, but I don't know where you get the idea that TDs should be giving out discs at wholesale, to ams or pros. Why would they, or anyone for that matter want to do that?
schick
Jul 06 2010, 08:49 AM
Frank,
I would just suggest running a big Am Tourney yourself and see how things go. Maybe you have run a tourney in the past, but I do not remember that happening. Once you run an event (a large one at that) you will see the expenses that add up, the hours you spend getting everything perfect, and the people you can never please. It amazes me anyone takes their own time to run tournaments any more. Pros complain more than anyone and they get nothing from them. Ams are less needy and are typically more appreciative which is nice.
I realize you are not necessarily complaining, but try running a few events with your ideas and see how everyone likes it. Ams may love it if you sell all of your stock at cost, but you may be losing money after you pay the misc expenses.
When you go buy a pair of shoes are you upset that they are not selling them to you at cost?
Also, the more pro players an event can draw does not really effect the top of the payout scale. It almost always spreads the money out further down the field which is great. There seems to be a big misconception that more players brings the big prize way up.....that is not really the case.
davidsauls
Jul 06 2010, 08:49 AM
If golfers feel the price of being an Am is to get a return of 60% while the pros get 100% I don't see a problem with that then there isn't a problem. Oh, for those of you who keep insisting that Ams are getting over 100% that isn't true because you are still taking at retail and giving at cost so the only way this could work would be for "added cash" to be included and I haven't seen too much of that.
I agree with much of your post, but---
From the players' point-of-view, they ARE getting 100% back. Ignore fees and other tournament costs, and consider this hypothetical:
20 Pros pay $50 each --- $1,000 in entry fees.
As a group, they receive $1,000 in cash payouts.
That $1,000 will buy them $1,000 in goods, whether it's disc golf merchandise from the tournament, or groceries, or whatever. Its value is its retail value.
40 Ams pay $25 each --- $1,000 in entry fees.
As a group, they receive $1,000 in merchandise (valued at retail)
That $1,000 has the same value as the Pro payout, though it's not as liquid.
The margin between wholesale and retail that the tournament "profits" off the Ams---besides covering tournament costs---is from the handling of merchandise. Just like a retail firm making money on its sales.
If Ams received payouts at wholesale cost, they'd actually be receiving MORE than the Pros. They could sell their merchandise at more than wholesale, and make a profit in cash.
krupicka
Jul 06 2010, 09:04 AM
From the players' point-of-view, they ARE getting 100% back. Ignore fees and other tournament costs, and consider this hypothetical:
You can't make an argument based on ignoring all of the real costs of running a tournament. The margin on the Amatuer's prizes is what allows tournaments to be run without losing money.
davidsauls
Jul 06 2010, 09:40 AM
You can't make an argument based on ignoring all of the real costs of running a tournament. The margin on the Amatuer's prizes is what allows tournaments to be run without losing money.
I thought that's what I was saying (and had said before).
I only expressed the hypothetical without other costs to keep the math simple, and demonstrate that Ams getting 100% payout at retail are, indeed, getting 100% payout.
krupicka
Jul 06 2010, 09:59 AM
I misread your post. Sorry.
davidsauls
Jul 06 2010, 10:32 AM
Quite alright. I'm pleased enough with my opinions to be happy to state them again.
davidsauls
Jul 06 2010, 10:41 AM
Our competitive structure does provide disincentives to look up the chain. It nurtures the non-competitive mindset, both by payout incentives, and by five thousand divisions.
The questions is, how much of a disincentive is it?
When players decide on a division, how much does the prize structure affect that decision? (I don't know the answer, except for myself, which is not at all).
I suspect many other factors than the prize payout, or finding a sure-to-win division, influence a lot of decisions. (Though I'm with you in lamenting both).
It'd be interesting to see someone run an event with normal Open entry fees and payouts, but low entries and payouts for Ams and older Pro divisions, to see if that many people really migrate to Open.
davidsauls
Jul 06 2010, 12:55 PM
I'll toss in that Harold Duvall is running the High Country Showdown this weekend. $25 for a 2-day event. Players packs, lunches, trophies, no payouts.
It is full (or 1 spot remaining).
Perhaps it only works because it's reputedly a great course....
but it'd be great if the idea catches on.
frankgarcia
Jul 06 2010, 01:44 PM
First let me apologize for sounding testy on my last post. I should never post something when I'm tired and grumpy, up late a lot and I'm still peeved about my four-putt during the World's last week:)
After listening to everyone I think the cost/retail issue is a non-issue with the players for the most part. I do want to point out that I have said many times that I am for the clubs making a profit because of all the good it does for our sports but my contention is why is this income only derived from one segment of our group? However, the Ams don't seem to mind so it really is a non-issue.
to the question about running tournaments, I see your point, if I think I can do better, then I should try. I've thought about it and in part this is why I started this discussion.
As to my street cred:
Club President - 2 years
Club Vice-President - 2 years
Course TD - 1998 Pro Worlds
Founder/TD - Flying Pig Open
Ken Climo knows my name:)
I will leave this discussion to whoever wants to continue it, I am going to be out trying out my new plastic I won at the Worlds, LOL!
Frank #6475
davidsauls
Jul 06 2010, 03:18 PM
I thought your post was fine.
Other ways of looking at the financial structure, other than that the Ams are supporting it, could be
(1) The TD (club, etc.) earns money by handling merchandise. They do all that work handling it---which is, indeed, work---so are entitled to the margin, which they use however they choose, including adding to Pro purses sometimes. This actually goes beyond the Am payouts to include merchandise sales at events, sometimes food sales too, to Pros & Ams alike.
(2) The manufacturers support the structure by allowing TDs to buy at wholesale, sometimes on consignment.
sammyshaheen
Jul 07 2010, 12:03 AM
Am scam that is funny. That is the only way I can ever
add any money to the pro purse. Not many want to donate
cash for obvious reasons.
At least the money (that goes into pro purse) stays in
disc golf.
Pro players do a lot for this game.
rhett
Jul 07 2010, 10:54 AM
It'd be interesting to see someone run an event with normal Open entry fees...
Hey, I haven't joined in this discussion (yet again) in quite a while... :)
That quote right there, IMHO, is the problem with the Open division. "Normal entry fees" are too high. Long time pro disc golfers were quitting competitive play in 1999 and saying "I'm tired of giving my cash to the same 3 guys every tourney." Entry fees have only gone up since then.
The elephant in the room that everyone always ignores is still quietly sitting there. People don't want to pay high Open entry fees and have no chance to cash. Since the top pros want to be paid and the donators drop out and don't speak up, we rarely hear a call to lower the entry fees. People just walk.
It's so much more convenient to look at the popular am half (or 3/4s to 7/8s) of the tourneys and try to figure out a way to force those greedy basterds to play pro. The problem is that once you come up with the perfect plan to force those lamers to move up to play pro with the $100+ entry fees...those guys will just play unsanctioned and casual because if they wanted to play under the current pro tournament structure they would already be doing it.
To me, this needs to be addressed from the opposite side. Unfortunately no one likes to do that. What can you do to make the open division more attractive so that more players choose to play in it? To me it always come back to the value proposition: $100+ and no shot to cash plus no player pack and I get to hear the cashers whine about how little they made off me isn't a good draw.
$45 plus a player pack plus lunch and maybe I'll donate for a while.
I know what comes next: hey now, if you want to play with the big dogs in Open then you gotta pay the price. Okay, that's fine. I don't really want to.
davidsauls
Jul 07 2010, 12:14 PM
Good points.
Though I was presuming as "normal entry fees" $50 or $60 for the Pros---common around here for 2-day B-tiers. Even that is a disincentive in itself for the seldom-cashing open players.
*
I do distinguish between what I'd like to see (personally), and what I think should be done. I'd like to see all Ams pay a modest fee and play for the competition, not payouts. But I think it would be foolish to mandate it.
I rather like the flexibility TDs now have to follow the standard model, or alter it in any number of ways if we think we've got a better idea, and see how the players respond.
PhattD
Jul 07 2010, 10:29 PM
Quite alright. I'm pleased enough with my opinions to be happy to state them again.
Best post ever.
the_kid
Jul 08 2010, 04:51 AM
Best post ever.
2nd and I'm glad I wasn't the first to enjoy reading that.
the_kid
Jul 08 2010, 05:00 AM
Rhett is also right about many players not wanting to pay $70-$100 to enter a tournament when they are probably not going to cash.
I have been running ideas through my head and keep going back to a sliding scale based on rating which Craig brought up long ago.
The Open divisions would see a lot more participation if the 1000 rated guy was paying $100, the 980 guy pays $80, and the 960 guy pays $60. I really think you will bring in the highest number of players in the 930-950 area is they are only paying $30-$50 to get in.
It just seems to me that Craig is actually onto something and more TDs need to try this out. Also if/when I run an event it will likely be one division based on a sliding scale entry. I'm pretty sure once the advanced guys got a taste of playing in a large highly competitive division for a reasonable entry many of them would prefer such an event over one where they play for plastic.
davidsauls
Jul 08 2010, 08:39 AM
I agree that Craig's idea is a great one, and we've given thought to doing the same.
The biggest drawback is the initial response; at first glance it looks like it's punishing players for being better. A question of whether you can get people's attention long enough to educate them to the benefits.
davidsauls
Jul 08 2010, 09:20 AM
I should add that Craig's concept is a great example of the flexibility in the system for TDs who disagree with the status quo to demonstrate a better way. Or, at least, a different way.
exczar
Jul 08 2010, 01:20 PM
Another incentive to get the lower rated players to participate is to retain the same "random" groups for the first two rounds, if the event is more than two rounds. This would give the lower rated players an extra round's worth of exposure to a highly rated player. To insure this, the top 18 rated players could be allocated one per hole.
krupicka
Jul 08 2010, 01:41 PM
I like the concept, but if you are going to mess with the grouping it would be better to group subsequent rounds such that the top players have at least one other player on the card such that they have a gauge as to how other top players are doing. This can be done by filling the cards (using a 48 player field as example): 1,2,25,26; 3,4,27,28; ...
In efforts to making a tournament a learning experience we need to not forget that it is foremost a competition.
exczar
Jul 08 2010, 02:17 PM
I agree that Craig's idea is a great one, and we've given thought to doing the same.
The biggest drawback is the initial response; at first glance it looks like it's punishing players for being better. A question of whether you can get people's attention long enough to educate them to the benefits.
Let's run some numbers.
For example, let's say we have 20 Open players rated 1000, 980, and 960. If the 960 players are deciding not to play, then we have 40 players @$100 apiece, for a $4000 purse. Paying top 40%, say, 16 players, yields an average payout of about $250, with first place receiving 21% of the purse, or $840, using the PDGA Payout table.
Using a sliding scale (and getting the 960 players to participate) yields 60 players, and a purse of $4800. Paying top 40%, say, 24 players, would yield an average payout of about $200, with first place receiving 14% of the purse, or about $672 (for reference, if the 960 players paid the full $100, first place would receive 14% of $6000, or $840, the same as if they did not participate).
So, this would appear to be hurting the top players, who would receive less for a top finish, but it helps those players who finish in 17th-24th place, who would have received nothing at all if only 40 players were playing.
How do we not hurt the top players' payouts? One way is to calculate the number of players paid based on a scale cutoff. For instance, if we used only the players who paid $100 or $80, that would get us back to paying 16 players (40% of 40, which is the number of players that paid $80 or more), but the purse of $4800 would now yield an average payout of $300, with first place receiving 21%, or $1008.
This would be a big incentive for the top players to participate in a sliding scale event.
If we wanted to make it a wash, then we would count the 960 players, but give them a different weight.
By a wash, I mean that the first place would receive about the same amount, $840, that was received without the 960 players' participation.
So, for this instance, if we weighted the players who paid less than $80 as 40% of a player, for placed paid purposes, we would calculate a payout on a player total of 40 (the $100 and $80 players) plus 8 (40% of the 20 players who paid $60) for a total of 48 players.
48 players would pay out 19 places, 3 more than before, and first prize would be 18% of the purse of $4800, or $864.
Bottom line, if paying a lower entry fee will get a sufficient number of extra players to play, and these extra players are discounted as far as how they add to calculate the total number of players paid, doing this is quite workable, and will actually encourage top players to get more people to play with a discounted entry fee.
whew...
davidsauls
Jul 08 2010, 02:44 PM
What if there are more 960-rated players than 1000-rated players? And more interestingly, more 940s & 920s & maybe even 900s (me), willing to play a modest entry fee? Which would be my assumption from a sliding-scale, one-division event.
ishkatbible
Jul 08 2010, 02:50 PM
Let's run some numbers.
... LOTS OF STUFF HERE BEING TAKEN OUT ...
whew...
after carefull reading of that several times... i got lost. sorry...
what if the players who payed a discounted entry get a discounted payout? like if they paid 80% of the $100 entry ($80) and they should have won $800, then they would only recieve 80% of that ($640).
or is that sort of what you said
krupicka
Jul 08 2010, 03:05 PM
what if the players who payed a discounted entry get a discounted payout? like if they paid 80% of the $100 entry ($80) and they should have won $800, then they would only recieve 80% of that ($640).
or is that sort of what you said
We are already doing that with half-in. Entrants in the pro divisions have the option of paying half of the full entry fee. If they end up in a cashing position, they get paid half with the other half bumping up to first place. (if two half-in's cash, their shares bump to first and second, etc.) For the purpose of counting entrants, they count as half of a player. It has been helpful to get some additional players in the pro divisions that otherwise would not have played.
the_kid
Jul 08 2010, 05:32 PM
Another incentive to get the lower rated players to participate is to retain the same "random" groups for the first two rounds, if the event is more than two rounds. This would give the lower rated players an extra round's worth of exposure to a highly rated player. To insure this, the top 18 rated players could be allocated one per hole.
Thus upsetting every player who shoots a good round!!!
They did this at Worlds in Highbridge! To my dismay I would have made the LEADER CARD but had to play with the same guys from the 1st round.......one of which was 15+ strokes behind me.
Needless to say I wasn't happy after having a HORRID 2nd round and being beat by the entire card.
exczar
Jul 08 2010, 05:48 PM
I reserve the right to be wrong, but I believe that the PGA TOUR keeps the same group together for the first two rounds.
the_kid
Jul 08 2010, 06:52 PM
I reserve the right to be wrong, but I believe that the PGA TOUR keeps the same group together for the first two rounds.
Those guys have to go through Qualifying school to make the tour.........
If the tournament was all touring Pros it would be different but playing with someone 80pts below your rating back-to-back rounds can be deflating,
With that said I think that TDs should seed cards the 1st round so the lower rated guys get a chance to play with "that guy".
chains11864
Aug 03 2010, 07:27 PM
As was mentioned, the "profit" clubs make between the cost of the plastic and the retail value used to calculate prizes goes to help grow the sport. This is undisputed, very worthy and worth keeping in place.
It has been mentioned a few times about CLUBS making PROFIT off the difference between cost and retail of the AM prizes given away at awards... This may be a geographical thing, but I know of NO TDs or clubs ever running a tournament this way - in my experience the "profit" is immediately put back into the tournament in a few different ways...
1. Day of the tournament - adding to the PRO purse.
2. Day of the tournament - increasing AM pay-out to like 150+%
3. Next years event - using the "profit" to roll-over into making the event better the following year.
I do not know of any TD that pays themselves anything and I do not know of any clubs that pocket this "profit". I can only speak for my tournaments, but am confident that all of the Virginia Disc Golf scene does not keep any "profit" - I would venture to say that if anything is happening here locally, it is the TDs / Clubs put IN money verse taking any out.
Chains
cgkdisc
Aug 03 2010, 08:15 PM
They did this at Worlds in Highbridge! To my dismay I would have made the LEADER CARD but had to play with the same guys from the 1st round.......one of which was 15+ strokes behind me. Needless to say I wasn't happy after having a HORRID 2nd round and being beat by the entire card.
They've done the same thing for several years at the Am Nats. There's no statistical benefit to playing with a group of players either much higher or much lower rated than yourself unless you let it bother you. The Champ was "forced" to play with groups lower rated than himself for all those years since 1990 and for some reason he continued to be Champ. Imagine that?
davidsauls
Aug 09 2010, 11:55 AM
It has been mentioned a few times about CLUBS making PROFIT off the difference between cost and retail of the AM prizes given away at awards... This may be a geographical thing, but I know of NO TDs or clubs ever running a tournament this way - in my experience the "profit" is immediately put back into the tournament in a few different ways...
1. Day of the tournament - adding to the PRO purse.
2. Day of the tournament - increasing AM pay-out to like 150+%
3. Next years event - using the "profit" to roll-over into making the event better the following year.
I do not know of any TD that pays themselves anything and I do not know of any clubs that pocket this "profit". I can only speak for my tournaments, but am confident that all of the Virginia Disc Golf scene does not keep any "profit" - I would venture to say that if anything is happening here locally, it is the TDs / Clubs put IN money verse taking any out.
Chains
Probably better to call it the "margin" between retail and wholesale rather than "profit". Around here it covers tournament expenses, adds to payouts in the ways you mention, but also goes to the club to be used for improvemetns to local courses.
CGPRush
Aug 18 2010, 06:55 PM
With that said I think that TDs should seed cards the 1st round so the lower rated guys get a chance to play with "that guy".
I would play up, paying the discounted entry fee based on my rating, for the sole purpose of playing a round (or 2) with a 1000+ player regardless of any payout implications or any perceived chance (or non-chance) of cashing.
james_mccaine
Aug 18 2010, 10:33 PM
I'd also pay less money to play on Matt's card. :)
circlek13783
Aug 19 2010, 10:36 AM
They've done the same thing for several years at the Am Nats. ?
They are seeded by rating and flip/flopped for the second day not random. Pro Worlds is also seeded. I thought you were there this year. ;)
cgkdisc
Aug 19 2010, 10:58 AM
They are seeded by rating and flip/flopped for the second day not random. That's what I said.
Only the top 18 MPO players at PW2010 were placed in separate groups. The remainder of the players were added to groups randomly.
Jroc
Aug 19 2010, 05:49 PM
A distinction that I dont think has been made yet is the PDGA's definition of the term "payout".
Am's see "payout" as only being the golden pot at the end of the rainbow....what they get for finishing high enough in the standings. The payout is NOT JUST the end-prize payout. It includes the retail cost of the players packs, trophies, and anything they get non gratis, or anything else they get free (meals, bottled drinks, etc). It should really be thought of more as their total return on investment and not just the prize payout.
The PDGA has set up a framework that is pretty flexible. The tour standards specifiy how much of a percentage of the players entry fee has to go back into the payout depending on the tier level of the event. How that "payout" is divided up within that framework is soley up to the event organizers. Am's get more value out of more tournaments than they realize, its just not necessarily the way they percieve that value.
IMO the best value to be had by the Am's are in trophy-only type events. I was really encouraged to see the Memorial go that direction a few years ago and hope more events follow their lead. Personally, I believe in low entry fee (say $25), phat players pack (say $100+ retail), trophy-only (some recognition for the top finishers) events with free lunch(s), bottled water, side games (CTP, Ring of Fire, distance, putting contest, etc.) as being the best way to draw the most tournament players IF those players realized just where their value was coming from. In that scenario, players are getting 5-6 times a return on their investment before they even step on the tee! How is that less valuable than paying twice that much in entry, getting a much smaller players pack, and having to compete in the hopes of finishing in the top half of your division? For those Am's that consistantly take home merchandise, I can see why they would have a problem with it....but not for the vast majority of Am's that do not or would not fall into that catagory.
I suspect Am's would grow to like lower-entry fee, phat players pack, trophy-only events if there were more of them around. And before you say "well why dont you run one"...I have. In the end, the attitude toward that kind of event is so time consuming and mentally frustrating to deal with thats its not worth it, even though I believe its the best way. The framework is there for event organizers to "get rid of the plastic", but the customers (the Am's) for the most part don't want that.
JerryChesterson
Aug 20 2010, 09:39 AM
A distinction that I dont think has been made yet is the PDGA's definition of the term "payout".
Am's see "payout" as only being the golden pot at the end of the rainbow....what they get for finishing high enough in the standings. The payout is NOT JUST the end-prize payout. It includes the retail cost of the players packs, trophies, and anything they get non gratis, or anything else they get free (meals, bottled drinks, etc). It should really be thought of more as their total return on investment and not just the prize payout.
The PDGA has set up a framework that is pretty flexible. The tour standards specifiy how much of a percentage of the players entry fee has to go back into the payout depending on the tier level of the event. How that "payout" is divided up within that framework is soley up to the event organizers. Am's get more value out of more tournaments than they realize, its just not necessarily the way they percieve that value.
IMO the best value to be had by the Am's are in trophy-only type events. I was really encouraged to see the Memorial go that direction a few years ago and hope more events follow their lead. Personally, I believe in low entry fee (say $25), phat players pack (say $100+ retail), trophy-only (some recognition for the top finishers) events with free lunch(s), bottled water, side games (CTP, Ring of Fire, distance, putting contest, etc.) as being the best way to draw the most tournament players IF those players realized just where their value was coming from. In that scenario, players are getting 5-6 times a return on their investment before they even step on the tee! How is that less valuable than paying twice that much in entry, getting a much smaller players pack, and having to compete in the hopes of finishing in the top half of your division? For those Am's that consistantly take home merchandise, I can see why they would have a problem with it....but not for the vast majority of Am's that do not or would not fall into that catagory.
I suspect Am's would grow to like lower-entry fee, phat players pack, trophy-only events if there were more of them around. And before you say "well why dont you run one"...I have. In the end, the attitude toward that kind of event is so time consuming and mentally frustrating to deal with thats its not worth it, even though I believe its the best way. The framework is there for event organizers to "get rid of the plastic", but the customers (the Am's) for the most part don't want that.
Come down to the Fly Ink Open in December. Players will be getting both. Players will receive at least $55 in players pack merch (and its good merch not DX crap that many TDs give out) plus the payout. :eek: Its December 3-5 in San Antonio.
Jroc
Aug 20 2010, 12:07 PM
I have that one in mind...Live Oak is one of my favorites. And my father-in-law lives in Converse. Just got to get the ok from the boss :eek:
How many holes does Live Oak have now? 100....200?.... :D
JerryChesterson
Aug 20 2010, 03:53 PM
I have that one in mind...Live Oak is one of my favorites. And my father-in-law lives in Converse. Just got to get the ok from the boss :eek:
How many holes does Live Oak have now? 100....200?.... :D
38 with 36 more on the way :eek: