Time To Split
by Peter Shive (#7240)

In 2008 the PDGA released that year's detailed budget. Mindful of Deep Throat's advice to Woodward and Bernstein that, if they wanted to best understand what was going on they should "follow the money", I posted an extensive four-part analysis of that budget to the Discussion Board. My analysis showed that almost 90% of the discretionary budget went to support programs for Open Pros, a group that makes up about one eighth of the PDGA membership. My feeling was (and is) that, while I support a significant disparity in favor of the Open Pros, the situation had gotten out of hand. The PDGA has not released any subsequent detailed budget information, but changes in the last two years insure that the disparity has increased.

I have written often about the continuing losses of opportunity for Amateurs and older Pros. The PDGA has come to regard those members primarily as sources of spectators and revenue streams to support Open players. For example, PDGA income in 2009 was $1.36 million, $600,000 more than in 2005, but program expansion has gone almost entirely to the Open division, with little or nothing to the seven eighths of the membership that generated most of the increase.

By September 1, four of the seven PDGA Board members will be sponsored Open Pros. The Amateurs and older Pros have no effective representation, either on the Board or within the PDGA Committee structure. While I admire the Open players' initiative in packing the Board, I worry about their motivation.

I believe that the situation will deteriorate. Likely agenda items include: 1) Elimination of the Masters division; 2) Massive increases in the NT budget, plus parallel measures to make NT's even less available or friendly to older players; 3) Efforts to increase the proportion of added cash that goes to Open players in all events; 4) Measures to shunt even more PDGA cash directly to Open players; 5) Increases in budget items like publicity and marketing, that selectively support Open players and 6) New Open-only events.

We need the Masters Division. Ratings data show a real decline in ability starting at age 40. It is a large and very active division -- a key part of many events. It contains many of the most energetic contributors to our sport. It is also the first domino in the elimination of all age protection. If there is no need to protect 40-year-olds from 39-year-olds, why protect 50-year-olds from 49-year-olds, etc? And if Ken Climo's ability to cash in Open means that all MPM's should play Open, it is not much sillier to argue that Rick Voakes' ability to cash in Open means that all players in their 60's should also play Open.

The main (but seldom voiced) reason that the Masters are under attack is that the Open players want the money won by the 40-50 group. The Masters players, like the rest of us, are already heavily subsidizing the Open division. Open players have many other sources of income; they don't need to extract it from older players.

What about the other items (#2-6 in the above list)? I would actually favor many of them if only they were accompanied by increases for Amateur and Age-Protected Professional programs. But based on past history, they won't be.

How would such changes affect the membership? Most Open Pros would welcome them. But would you like them? The easiest way to judge is to ask yourself the question, "Would you rather play disc golf or watch Open Pros play disc golf?" If you would rather play, you probably won't like the future. And I'm guessing that you are a player, because there is no need to join the PDGA to become a spectator.

What to do? As recently as three years ago I wrote that it was important to preserve what I called the "PDGA Family". I believed that the available resources were sufficient to favor the Open players and at the same time support ample opportunities for Amateurs and older Pros. I worried about the duplication of effort that fragmentation would require, and the "loss of love" that separation produces.

I no longer believe that. The Open Pros want too much. It's understandable, because they have been led to believe that they can have it. But I now prefer the inefficiency to the disparity. And unfortunately, when money comes in, love goes out.

The Open Pros will have the power, come September, to take over the PDGA. That is, they could vote to require that all members be Open Pros. Ironically, this would help, because a new DGA would quickly form that would satisfy our needs. But the Open bloc on the Board won't vote for it because they depend on the subsidies from the other divisions to fund their programs.

The most efficient solution would be a split within the PDGA umbrella, with a separate Open section. The other section could be Amateur/Older Pro together. Each section would have a predetermined proportion of Board representation, and a predetermined portion of the budget, with separate oversight of the discretionary part of that budget. Will this happen? Certainly not now or soon, because without representation there is no mechanism within the PDGA by which such steps could be seriously contemplated, let alone enacted.

So what might you do, on an individual basis, if you share these concerns? Until the next election, not much. In the meantime, consider joining the Divisional Series Newsgroup. The main purpose of this Newsgroup is to identify, promote and financially support important PDGA events that offer the best opportunities for older players. To join, or for more information, contact me ([email protected]).

Everyone,

The above post shows the unedited editorial, just as I originally submitted it, so it still contains all the alleged errors that disturbed the PDGA.

Randy asked me to keep it under 1000 words, and preferred closer to 900 (it's around 950). That forced me to be concise, and left no room for extended narrative even of complex themes. I can expand on some of these themes as necessary in future posts.

I will try to respond to all meaningful questions and comments from the membership. My first priority, however, will be to respond in detail to the PDGA objections, which I expect will be articulated here in the near future by Brian Graham.

By September 1, four of the seven PDGA Board members will be sponsored Open Pros. The Amateurs and older Pros have no effective representation, either on the Board or within the PDGA Committee structure. While I admire the Open players' initiative in packing the Board, I worry about their motivation.

I believe that the situation will deteriorate. Likely agenda items include: 1) Elimination of the Masters division; 2) Massive increases in the NT budget, plus parallel measures to make NT's even less available or friendly to older players; 3) Efforts to increase the proportion of added cash that goes to Open players in all events; 4) Measures to shunt even more PDGA cash directly to Open players; 5) Increases in budget items like publicity and marketing, that selectively support Open players and 6) New Open-only events.

Peter,

I enjoyed reading your editorial. I think you made some very valid points about the future of the PDGA and I share many of your concerns. I too worry about the future of our sport if money which is currently spent on programs to grow the sport of disc golf through youth, minorities, older disc golfers, etc. is diverted to simply subsidize our National Tour and touring Pros.

There was discussion on this topic in the 2010 PDGA Elections Discussion (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=34153) thread when the election results were released. And the problem I have is that we're not giving these new BoD members a chance. I think it's entirely premature to just assume what the motivations of these new BoD members are. Is it not very possible that they have the future of our sport in mind and the business acumen to vote responsibly on how PDGA budget dollars should be spent? In my opinion, it is a HUGE leap of faith for us to assume that "the situation will deteriorate." It's not like these new BoD members ran on a publicly stated platform based on your "likely agenda items." Essentially, I think it's very unfair to make all these assumptions.

Only time will tell, but in the meantime I think the right thing to do would be to give our new BoD members the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

I'm not sure it's fair to say the Ams will have no effective representation, since it is almost certainly the Ams who voted these Open Pros onto the board to represent them.

I have less fear that these 4 will vote only in the immediate interest of Open Pros. If the other divisions support the Open Pros, then it's in their best interest to support the other divisions. It is in their longterm interest to build a huge non-Open-Pro field, to reach the critical mass that would bring in outside money.

The track record of at least one open pro on the BOD shows that he very much is concerned only with and favors the open pros. I'm hoping the others recently voted in do not have the same tendency.

Let's see, four of the seven BOD members: Nesbitt, Andrews, Decker and Korver are not Open (male) Pros. Although sponsored, Juliana has not been actively touring for several years now. According to her Innova profile, the next title she might try to win is World Master Women (when she's old enough). I believe Allind is the only Open male pro among PDGA staffers and consultants (although they serve at the consent of the Board).

First off. Peter thanks for the posting. This helps.

I am of the mindset that your fears and concerns are spot on. However I think that Jeff does make a good case that lets not throw the baby out with the bath water initially. Lets see what happens.

It is opinion piece that was asked, and you gave a strong opinion. I personally feel as though this article would not be the best piece of information to give to a prospective parks department, or sponsor which is typical of what I use my magazines for. From that stance I completely understand the need to not have this information put into a magazine that should only be showcasing our sport in most favorable lights. Lord knows we have enough negative items in our sport to drown us all with.

One thing that I kept on thinking as I was reading this though was the numbers that you report, and how did you substantiate them?

As a new entrant into the Masters realm, I have not really felt that I am being singled out. Now that the added cash is bigger in the Open Field to me as a TD only makes sense as its a larger component of the pro playing field. It is historically what people that do come to watch our sport want to follow, so in essence you give what people want or you lose them.

The fact that so few people voted in the elections in my mind does not show that the majority of people in our sport care about what really happens. It is a select few that try to put our sport in a better place that allow it for all the others to follow. The fact that top touring pro's are sitting on the board to me shows only that the names of the people that most like were selected. However the people that were elected and those that ran were/are passionate about the sport. They had better have good vision for the growth of the sport and the ability to draw beyond their own perception for the benefit of us all.

Nez has a ton of experience and I personally was please he got on. I think that his stances in the past of being very diligent and strong will hopefully allow him a true retrospect at how things within the organization have not truly changed or developed our sport over the last decade.

My thoughts are like this. What is different today than in 2003? We have a live internet feed for events.....(raves have been doing that since the 90's, glad we caught up). We have online scoring (some indications were that tweeting was a faster method at this years worlds, so we are adapting to the current technology....ok good).

As for growth in a grass roots efforts where the clubs are still the driving force for the PDGA and the PDGA is not driving the events is something that I have a problem with. The PDGA is you me and everyone, but at what point does the PDGA step up and truly do for the community instead of using the community to do for it?

I have issues with those more so than I do on wether or not Masters is getting hosed.

OUr biggest secret in my mind is still our age. I would like to see average ages of our players over the last decade. If it has not gotten older, I guarantee it has not gotten younger, and that my friend only spells the doom of our sport. If we do not get youth involved and push this to them, what we talk about here with masters is only the push to our own extinction.

Thanks again for sharing. I for one though unfortunately can see clearly how this without all the supporting documentation (i understand the length may have had that) that this is a one sided argument in a quarterly magazine that may not be beneficial.

Only time will tell, but in the meantime I think the right thing to do would be to give our new BoD members the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

I am in agreement with this opinion. Instead of assuming that the Open Pros on the BoD are in it for a bigger piece of the pie, it may also be that they go to work in their new positions and search for a way to have a bigger pie. That's what I am hoping for.

Peter Shive and I had a very nice telephone conversation yesterday and I explained to him our reluctance in publishing his article in DiscGolfer Magazine and our feeling that it was better suited for the discussion board, which would allow healthy discussion and debate of the topics by the members.

I explained to Peter that it was not his opinions that we were in conflict with, as I actually agree with many of his points, it was the fact that he interspersed his opinions with information and numbers that I felt were inaccurate and potentially misleading. In fact some board members and I are in agreement with much of what Peter suggests in terms of splitting the org to better serve sub groups with different needs and it was discussed by the board at the 2009 fall summit and we are continuing to explore the possibilities of moving in that direction.

See Strategic Planning Session agenda item:
http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/2009-9-18BODMeetingMinutesApproved.pdf

Peter and I agreed that it would be best if he posted his editorial as submitted on the discussion board and that I would politely counter the inaccuracies and leave it up to the members to discuss and debate:

I told Peter that I felt he was not being fair to the incoming board members by assuming that they have a pro-centric agenda before they have even taken office. Just my opinion but it appears that it is shared by others.

Middle of first paragraph, Peter writes:

"My analysis showed that almost 90 percent of the discretionary budget went to support programs for open pros, a group which makes up about one eighth of the PDGA membership."

I challenged Peter on this statement and said that this number was nowhere near accurate. Peter countered by sticking with his numbers but admitted that some of his figures were derived by using a 20% sampling of data pulled from the website rather than year end actuals. We came to the agreement that the validity of this statement depends heavily how you define the very broad term "discretionary budget".

End of first paragraph, Peter writes:

"The PDGA has not released any subsequent detailed budget information, but changes in the last two years insure that the disparity has increased."

Summary PDGA budgets, tax returns and year end audit results are published annually and can be found in the PDGA Financial Documents (http://www.pdga.com/organizational-documents) section of the website. I informed Peter that there had been no major changes to the budget since I was hired in 2007 to increase support specifically to the open pros.

End of second paragraph, Peter writes:

"...program expansion has gone almost entirely to the open division, with little or nothing to the seven-eighths of the membership that generated most of the increase."

I read off a list of 14 programs to Peter that have been implemented or expanded since 2007 and absolutely none of them are geared specifically towards open pros. In fact, many of them benefit not only all PDGA members, but all disc golfers. They include the International Disc Golf Center, innovation grants, competition endowment program, new website development, association owned magazine, digital archives, video archives, supporting level membership, e-news brief, marketing DVD, NT clinics and the international program to name just a few. There have been no new programs started or expanded which benefit only the Open division and Peter could not name one.

Middle of third paragraph, Peter writes:

"The amateurs and older pros have no effective representation, either on the board or within the PDGA committee structure."

I find this statement to be very suspect as our board and committees both contain quite a number of amateurs and older players. One could very easily argue that it was the amateurs and age protected players who elected the current board as their representatives. I guess it comes down to Peter's definition of "effective".

These were my objections and concerns to printing the article in the magazine and I still think that this discussion board is the most appropriate place for it. You can see that my objections are not necessarily directed at Peter's opinions but are mainly directed at the numbers and stats that he used to support them. Sorry to disappoint those who thought that big brother was trying to clamp down on free speech as it was never our intention. It was made very clear to Peter that he was free to post it on the discussion board , where we felt it was more appropriate, and I even encouraged him to do so. As I explained to Peter, our quarterly magazine reaches 15,000 subscribers in its three month cycle while the discussion board is viewed by nearly 100,000 unique users in the same three month period.

Many thanks to Peter for discussing the article with me yesterday and for presenting his ideas to the members in this forum so that they can be discussed and debated.

Discuss....... :)

Yeah, but if the baker keeps getting left out of consuming the pie, how much longer until he decides to offer his pie to a different group that knows how to appreciate the work he puts in?

So, everything was fine when the membership elects a majority of ams, but hell breaks loose when the membership votes in pros?

btw, I find the whole editorial misguided. Basically, it is the tired old "I don't want to address the greater good, I want mine."

I am too tired to rant on this same issue for the hundreth time, but I find it to be in extremely bad taste when an am or an age-protected pro implies that the system favors open pros. Comical. If so, join up, it is open afterall.

Disclaimer, I mostly play masters and occasionally cash. IMO, masters should be eliminated, but that is only one of many things that should change.

Without Masters and master aged players, there wouldn't be a PDGA.

Summary PDGA budgets, tax returns and year end audit results are published annually and can be found in the PDGA Financial Documents (http://www.pdga.com/organizational-documents) section of the website. I informed Peter that there had been no major changes to the budget since I was hired in 2007 to increase support specifically to the open pros.


I guess with all the added tournaments and the added players, I wonder why this has not happened yet. It seems to me with all the added numbers that we shuold see an increase to cater to the top in our sport to some respect. While maintaining a balance for all levels of competition this would/could explain why payouts at the pro level have remained flat over the past decade.


I read off a list of 14 programs to Peter that have been implemented or expanded since 2007 and absolutely none of them are geared specifically towards open pros. In fact, many of them benefit not only all PDGA members, but all disc golfers. They include the International Disc Golf Center, innovation grants, competition endowment program, new website development, association owned magazine, digital archives, video archives, supporting level membership, e-news brief, marketing DVD, NT clinics and the international program to name just a few. There have been no new programs started or expanded which benefit only the Open division and Peter could not name one.


This list to me is slightly silly. First off how many people that are members of the PDGA have been to the International Disc Golf Center? I have had friends that show up on Sunday from Atlanta and told me the place was closed. I have had more than one experience trying to reach someone after my work schedule to much voice-mail. If its truly international more availability to all people should happen. Web development is standard practice in any business, and the PDGA is heavily relied on it, so its a good thing to hear, but too many times things are not getting done through the web, and subsequent follow ups are not being met with a sense of urgency that deem an avid response team. Having the election ballots continue to go into many "spam" folders yet another year shows that more attention needs to be displayed in this area. Having the information stored and archived is simply protecting the history, as is the magazines being done "in house" yet many outside people not on the PDGA board are really making that happen.

The DVD's to date have been moderate in my opinion and stale. I am hopeful that will change, but I don't hold much hope. As a former TD of the worlds, I never once saw my video, nor have I received any video from the final product, nor was I consulted on the project, so who is really running the information accordingly? Seems you may want to have some insight on this event from the people running it.....I guess I again am wrong here.

I guess I am just bitter that I see great things being done in small areas and that the sport has this organization that we need to support yet the people that are running the PDGA do not seem to get what the rest of the sport is doing. When with all this information available will the folks that are to be doing the work realize that we are the people that need to be served. I have not gotten that feeling, and in fact have had more frustration at times with trying to get simple things done. The staff is over worked, and I get it, but if you alienate those that supply your income, no one wins.

This has nothing really to do with Peter, but it has a lot to do with the fact that in 4 years now nothing has changed with the agenda or the budget or for that matter the growth of the sport in the primary field of our competition. If we are not adapting to the changes of our sport as the discs are, what are/is the PDGA really doing except hosting an internet site to get this information out to? A majority of the information comes from the internet, and I get that, but then lets tackle it and make it a bigger presence, have better information FAST to the customers if that�s what they want. Its about time that the PDGA is getting to that point, but it has been working on it for years. Our income streams have been sufficient enough to get us there faster, yet with Theo as an IT expert it still took time, and much information was lost in the transition. So�..

More importantly is the PDGA growing the sport, or merely a storage vessel of a sport that has some rules, but no real body to push it. If we don't take the sport to the people (get out and take it there, don't just arrive, but be the facilitator for implementation) only our passion for those that love the sport are really needed, or am I just missing it? (if its just a storage vessel, then I am missing it.....)

I get that we are all the PDGA, but with the money and budgets that we have seen we need to not be status quo. We need to do things much differently. At least with Sportsloop we tried something different, I am not seeing that now, I am seeing complacency, anyone else think that?

Without Masters and master aged players, there wouldn't be a PDGA.

yes, and without people competing to be the best, there wouldn't be a sport.

so james and Twoputt, then is the PDGA only a vessel for competition? IF that is the real reason then it is missing the boat in several areas.

Maybe as I type I am thinking that we are in need of having the split between a community driven organization that promotes the sport and a governing body that solely supports competition. THat could be the issue at hand is that our growth has prevented that from happening to a truly strong sense on either end, and in turn is making the PDGA spread so thin that it it must be redefined. I am not opposed to that, but I would suggest then that only A-Tiers and above be at that strong competition level and everything else be a stronger local supported by the organization body.

Brian pointed out that a committee is developing a transformation plan along these lines. Read the Strategic plan section: http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/2009-9-18BODMeetingMinutesApproved.pdf

There should be 2 organizations ....

PDGA - Responsible for the Tour (analagous to PGA). This could split into 2 or more affiliated groups (Open Tour, Senior Tour, Women Tour, etc). Owns the National Tour.

USDGA - Responsible for the game & the rules (analagous to the USGA). They can have their championships for ams and open (WORLDS). Very similar to the what the USGA does. The USGA has junior and am championships and owns the US Open (that's our Worlds).

To me the ownership of the game and its rules and growing the sport are different than the tour. As long as they are tied together the tour can't grow to its full potential. They also have competing objectives. What's best for the tour may not always be in the best interest of the game and vice versa.

Brian pointed out that a committee is developing a transformation plan along these lines. Read the Strategic plan section: http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/2009-9-18BODMeetingMinutesApproved.pdf

its a year old.....so what has happened along these lines then.

Ill go read all the minutes Chuck to come up with my own conclusion, I quit reading them up to 2007 after I didn't get elected. I had read what we had into there.

Thanks for pointing it out to me sometimes I need to be beaten over the head a few times to make sure I get it!
8^)

To me the ownership of the game and its rules and growing the sport are different than the tour. As long as they are tied together the tour can't grow to its full potential. They also have competing objectives. What's best for the tour may not always be in the best interest of the game and vice versa.
At this point, what's good for "the tour" is that it's not on its own. It likely would not have the financial resources to afford the staff to support it. Would enough join an org just for the tour? Likewise, would enough players join an org that was simply about the rules and running Championships? That's why the strategic planning session lead to the umbrella idea as our next evolutionary step.

The USGA survives on the sheer numbers of players paying lower dues ($25) than the PDGA plus tours of their "IDGC" in Far Hills, NJ that has a museum, 9-hole course, testing facilities paid from equipment approval fees, handicap and publications staff, plus selling lots of logo merch there and online. The PGA survives because they have outside sponsorship, partly as a result of sufficient spectators and value of equipment in the sport. We don't yet have those parameters in our sport to support either type of org similar to ball golf.

Coming soon........a PDGA program designed for the Pros which the pros pay almost 10x more than the avg member!

Nikko would pay $50, I would pay $25-30, and your local AM might pay $3 throughout the year........

Just got to get this all in writing 1st.....anyone want to help?

After reading that I figured I would post my scenario for limiting MPM at tournaments based on ratings.

At a C-tier any "Pro" player over 970 MUST play MPO, 985 at B-tiers, and no limit at A-tiers and above.

The area near me has a C-tier every month and if there are 7 MPOs it is a miracle yet a field of 7 MPMs is common. My whole issue is that based on the ratings the two divisions are very competitive with most of the MPOs being <970 but the MPMs just seem to hide from the 1-2 1000 rated players who may show up and instead of having a large 14 person division we end up with two small divisions.

970+ at C-tiers leaves room for all the lower rated masters to stay in MPO and keeps the high rated MPMs from taking easy money in MPM. Making the 985+ MPMs play up at B-tiers would hopefully do the same thing.

At this point, what's good for "the tour" is that it's not on its own. It likely would not have the financial resources to afford the staff to support it. Would enough join an org just for the tour? Likewise, would enough players join an org that was simply about the rules and running Championships? That's why the strategic planning session lead to the umbrella idea as our next evolutionary step.

The USGA survives on the sheer numbers of players paying lower dues ($25) than the PDGA plus tours of their "IDGC" in Far Hills, NJ that has a museum, 9-hole course, testing facilities paid from equipment approval fees, handicap and publications staff, plus selling lots of logo merch there and online. The PGA survives because they have outside sponsorship, partly as a result of sufficient spectators and value of equipment in the sport. We don't yet have those parameters in our sport to support either type of org similar to ball golf.

The USGA and PGA are not surviving they are thriving and have been so for many years. You've failed to address the issue that what's best for the tour isn't always what's best for the "game".

I'd argue the PDGA Tour should follow the model of the PGA and use its NT events as fundrasiers for charity. This will increase sponsorship and thus purses. If that was managed as one organization rather than seperate TDs we could get better larger sponsors. All of the things you mention about the USGA is what the PDGA is doing.

Also you are starting to see the seperation happening already with orgs just leaving the PDGA and running their own tour that isn't affiliated (Southern Nats). Although its affiliated, it isn't run by the PDGA.

I also think its comical that as an Amatuer I am a member of the "Professional" Disc Golf Association.

I don't think Southern Nats is moving away from the PDGA. If anything, more events are affiliated with both. Seems I recall a time when even the Southern Nationals championship wasn't PDGA-sanctioned.

It has been stated before on the D-Board and in PDGA planning sessions that if an independent pro tour org was started, that would be fine. The top players have talked about a player union for years now, and have made some attempts to do so, that would pursue exactly what you suggest in terms of sponsorship. But the funding and people willing to work mostly free haven't materialized yet.

Southern Nats is essentially run on free labor. Not sure those running it try to raise sponsorship but let the TDs do so just like the PDGA. The NT as originally proposed "should" at least be breaking even by now with outside sponsorship offsetting the costs of running it. But even with some of the hard earned sponsorship that Duesler has been able to obtain over the years, the NT is still an expense item that could be considered as underwritten by the difference in pro member versus am member dues if you wanted to look at it that way. Brian could confirm if this was accurate.

Brian pointed out that a committee is developing a transformation plan along these lines. Read the Strategic plan section: http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/2009-9-18BODMeetingMinutesApproved.pdf


Ok so reading through these at lunch, I wonder what has been done? I also wonder about it all as it is all over the place with similar ideas and conflicting ides both present. Split the PDGA keep it together, under one umbrella, then finally a subcommittee. Well it�s a year later and I will go through the rest of the minutes, but I am not sure that all these items could ever be addressed.

I would like to know where the leadership is on this list. It looks (or give the appearance) of a brainstorm list that would be hard pressed for action plans to be derived from. I have heard mention of Pat's transformation model but have not seen it to date, so that would be something that I would take an interest in.

I am not sure if the minutes are a good resource for this as I would hope that a high paid ED for this organization would come in with a plan to make it work. I understand that the board must approve what comes to them, but this information seems to be more of a conversational piece versus an actual plan and development.

Being from Kansas City where we had a 5 year plan for the Chiefs to win the Superbowl with our GM, I may be a bit more skeptical than most, but the BOD is an all volunteer organization, the ED is not. I would expect to see a more direct approach to a plan and ideas than what the minutes initially indicate at this level. The fact that the ED was not listed on the committee also makes me wonder what visions are being shared to envelope the sport and make it grow from this viewpoint.

Guidance comes from leading hand-in-hand I get that, but that list was not exactly a bullet item list of ideas and ways to develop.

I know we have to start somewhere, but this was in the 3rd year of the position, and these items in my mind should have been after the first complete year in the position to develop the sport that you are the representative ambassador of.

Enough about that. In all honesty I like the ideas that were flown about. I think that it is good information to be seeing and thinking about, I just think that it is very slow given the nature of the business that should be all encompassing of the time devoted to the sport.

The next thing as I was reading this was the notion that TD's need to do more. Membership registration for non-members was thrown at them.....Education program for TD's.....TD Conference/Seminar, or even a school.......create a template for TD's to give to spectators, preview payout from TD's (as soon as all the players sign up in advance then MAYBE that can be an option, our top violators are still the MPO division, so.....ironic) The TD's have a ton on their plate. Having this added responsibility would personally drive me nuts.

The PDGA and the "marketing arm" needs to take over these responsibilities for the spectators and the casual golfer. Having this information available to use by the TD to hand out would be an option that would get both done, but it would have to be a cookie cutter approach and the events are not all this. Player profiles would be a nice feature but its also not going to be the same at every event. Your top players may be able to have this done, but what happens when yo-u have a local pro that steps up and does it at home? Alienate the local guy in his own backyard? Its tough.

One thing that I have always said that the PDGA MUST do is a better job of knowing the top 50 markets in the US for players and media contacts. The PDGA should be the instigator of events that are at the A-Tier or above and then the local staff should be the follow up. IT would help on all areas of dependability and respectability, and elevation of our sport to have the ED show up in the major cities and then have the local staff fill in and follow up with local contacts that the PDGA provided that inroad with.

Hi I am from the Professional Disc Golf Association and we are hosting one of our top events in your backyard. Local representative Sally Herman is the tournament director and we want to get her in front of you to discuss. The Executive Director will be in town in 3 weeks, what days would work for you as their time is limited.....build that database and then funnel it to the TD's of our bigger events to make their lives easier for the event, and in turn gain notoriety of our sport and legitimacy.....

Sorry Pete, I did not mean to hi-ME your thread, but these issues are what bothere me enough to run for the BOD in the past and many of your same items hit home along these lines that bleed into it.

I guess I followed suit with ramblings all over the place like I complained about. Again though I am merely an un-elected participant of this organization. At this time not even a TD this year with no plans to do so, but I want to help our sport, and I am hopeful that others may see something good in my ramblings to take with them where they want to go.

Seems to me that the players union in most major sports has done little to protect the lower paid player. Sure the average salaries have increased, but I think thats mostly because the top players make a disproportionate amount of the money. The best player's salaries (payouts) increase faster than salary cap (sport growth). The rest of the players increases in pay are slower than salary cap growth. I would be concerned with a players union in disc golf.

I recall something about a player's union, but no brain cells connect when I try to apply it to disc golf. Seriously, they aren't akin to labor. No other group (akin to management in traditional union affairs) even exists. What is the parallel? No other group "needs" them to thrive.

But your observation about player unions is apt. If there was ever a need for organization of a class of disc golfers, it would be the lower paid, or rarely paid, or never paid group of open players. They are more analogous to labor, while the top guys are more analogous to management. Of course, they aren't needed in the classic sense either, so the union idea for them is also non-sensical.

However, until gobs of sponsorship arrive, policies addressing the plight of those guys and gals and supporting their ethic would be a good place to start. In my opinion, they are the backbone of the sport, but they are always last in line.

btw, I find the whole editorial misguided. Basically, it is the tired old "I don't want to address the greater good, I want mine."



Part of the problem is the "greater good" isn't defined the same by all the members. What you see as the greater good isn't necessarily the same as what I see as the greater good.
As a matter of fact what you see as the greater good may actually being doing the org harm as I see it.

So define "greater good" as you see it.

In theory, this is what the BOD members pledge to follow for the organization:
http://www.pdga.com/documents/mission-statement

Part of the problem is the "greater good" isn't defined the same by all the members. What you see as the greater good isn't necessarily the same as what I see as the greater good.
As a matter of fact what you see as the greater good may actually being doing the org harm as I see it.

So define "greater good" as you see it.


No doubt, thus the continued debate. You mention what is good for the org. My allegiance, and as Chuck has pointed, one of the the theoretical allegiances of the BOD, is not to the org, but to the sport. Specifically, the "competitive sport."

Now, your basic point remains: each individual's idea of what is for the greater good of the competitive sport may well be harmful to the competitive sport. However, as long as everyone shares the same goal, discussion of disparate ideas is healthy.

If Peter had demonstrated that his facts are accurate, and then used those facts to make a convincing argument that the competitive sport was being harmed, not just the age-protected divisions or the ams, my reaction would have been different.

Yes, the phone call was nice, but Brian's account (on "the editorial" thread) of my part of it is so misleading and insulting that my reaction needs a new thread so it won't get lost in the shuffle. Parts of it make me seem like a cheap-shot artist who does shoddy incomplete work ("he admitted that some of his figures were derived by using a 20% sampling of data pulled from the website rather than year end actuals") and that I am incapable of backing up important statements in my editorial ("Peter could not name one").

His call came while I was eating lunch at home, not in my office. I did not have access to my computer, data, records and notes. He knew that, because I told him. He asked me if I would talk about the editorial, and I said I would to the best of my recollection. And so we went through the items that he disagreed with.

The 20% comment is garbled. And "admitted" sounds like I was confessing to something; "proudly explained" is more like it. I explained to Brian that, in the "Income" part of my 2008 study, I wanted to estimate what percentage of tournament fee income comes from the different membership categories. To do this I looked at EVERY player in EVERY event in the five weeks of the June calender, and I even broke it out by tier. This is an enormous undertaking, more detailed than even the PDGA has done. This kind of breakdown would not have been available in the year-end actuals. Besides, it's absurd to suggest that I should have used year-end actuals, because it was only September when I did my study.

Now we come to "Peter could not name one". The truth is that I declined to be specific because I did not have access to my records and didn't want to make a mistake.

In all, Brian's report of that call makes it seem that my entire defense to PDGA objections was made by me over the phone, and that he should be the one to report my side of it. Brian was wrong to speak for me; he needs to let me speak for myself. And I will, tomorrow, after I've had time to cool off.

For those of you who wondered about why I have proceeded so slowly and deliberately in this matter, this is a good example of the kind of pitfall I try to avoid. For those of you who chided me for not calling Brian right away when my editorial was rejected, I now believe that it was a very good thing that I didn't. If I talk with the PDGA in the future, I'm probably better off talking with a Board member.

when is enough attention too much attention? or when is too much attention enough attention? this all seems to be about needing attention.

I agree, Paul, that there seems to be a bit of pleading for attention going on, but Mr. Shive's account of his interaction with Mr. Graham & the latter's subsequent reportage of it is all too illustrative of the dismissive, condescending, and often downright rude attitude the PDGA brass (particularly the ones on whose tables our dollars put bread) display towards those with the audacity to break out of the required lockstep & suggest creative alternatives to the status quo. (Don't even get me started about the sad & shocking - but hilariously pitiful in retrospect - confrontation thrust upon me by Dr. Duesler at Vibram Open.)

This belittling tone, and accompanying behavior, the self-crowned cognoscenti employ to 'lead' is something I hope the new BOD takes into consideration when examining the performance of the current paid brass & deciding whether to keep them on or look for fresh blood.

when is enough attention too much attention? or when is too much attention enough attention? this all seems to be about needing attention.


What he said....I was thinking about starting another thread just to let you know that I agreed with you md, but decided against it.

Southern Nats is essentially run on free labor. Not sure those running it try to raise sponsorship but let the TDs do so just like the PDGA. The NT as originally proposed "should" at least be breaking even by now with outside sponsorship offsetting the costs of running it. But even with some of the hard earned sponsorship that Duesler has been able to obtain over the years, the NT is still an expense item that could be considered as underwritten by the difference in pro member versus am member dues if you wanted to look at it that way. Brian could confirm if this was accurate.


maybe the PDGA should stop paying BG to fly across the country to take pictures at NTs then.

BG never flies anywhere with the express purpose of taking photos. His presence is either required for specific event duties, meeting with potential sponsors, CVBs or hosts, or at the express request of the host such as the Japan Open who indirectly covers most of his expenses, and in some cases, all of those activities. He does the photos and stories as additional contributions to support the event.

No doubt, thus the continued debate. You mention what is good for the org. My allegiance, and as Chuck has pointed, one of the the theoretical allegiances of the BOD, is not to the org, but to the sport. Specifically, the "competitive sport."



James, I said org, you said sport. Excellent distinction. Sport is a much better word for what I was trying to say. However, the "competitive sport" illustrates my point I think. Not that you disagreed)

Some feel the greater good to the sport is by growing it from the top..increased payouts to top players etc, you know the argument. . others feel the best way is to grow the base, more rec and Am players, courses, etc, you know that argument as well.

Both feel they have the greater good in mind, both sides aren't correct. the rub is no one knows for sure which side is right or wrong.

Of course, the Mission Statement covers both:
"To develop disc golf into a globally-recognized competitive sport and recreational activity..."

Brian makes the following arguements:

1) My 90% figure is wrong, and tainted by incomplete sampling of data. This is not true, as he would know if he read my 2008 data analysis. The term "discretionary budget" refers to that part of PDGA expenses that benefit wholly or largely one of the three classes of membership.

2) Changes in the last two years have not increased the disparity. I compared the 2008 Actuals to the 2010 Budget. What jumped out were the $50,000 increase in Personnel (with an added Consultant) and the $28,000 increase in Marketing/Promotional. John Duesler was not a PDGA consultant in 2008. I'm not sure when he came back on board, but if it was in 2009, then I estimate that the PDGA will have spent the better part of $100,000 for his efforts (that includes salary and expenses) over the last two years. A major goal of John's is marketing Open players. He does not, to my knowledge, market Amateurs and older pros. The same holds for whatever part of the increase is in the Promotional part (it is lumped with Marketing so I can't see the breakdown). As with marketing, the PDGA promotes the Open players almost to exclusion, not the other seven eighths.

3) No expansion of Open programs since 2005. Again, large increases in marketing and promotion. In addition, PDGA support of the NT clinic program, increases in the NT series bonuses, and increases in PDGA staff travel to big events. This last item costs us a great deal, most of which is buried in the "Personnel" part of the budget, which has increased by $189,000 (100%!) over the last five years.

4) Amateurs and older pros really do have effective representation on the Board and within the Committee structure. I disagree, but this does hinge, as Brian notes, on the definition of "effective". To me "effective" means accomplishing something useful, not just insisting how concerned and dedicated you are.

Two closing comments: Brian did read a list of many new programs instituted by the PDGA since 2005. I applaud this, but it is beyond the scope of my study. I'm not trying to evaluate everything the PDGA does. I'm addressing only the question, "How does PDGA treatment of Open pros compare with its treatment of amateurs and older pros?"

And finally, if you want to fully understand my financial arguments, you should read my study of the 2008 detailed budget. The advanced search facility that you need to use to find it is giving people problems. I'll be happy to e-mail you a copy ([email protected]), and then you get it in one piece, not four.

What a great discussion. Thank you Peter for starting it. Regarding your Masters comments, I would like to rebut your claims as best I can.

We need the Masters Division. Ratings data show a real decline in ability starting at age 40.

You state that there is a "real decline". In my discussions with Chuck Kennedy (Chuck, correct me if I'm wrong), there is an average drop of 10 ratings points of players from 40 to 50. This would be easily explained (especially in my case) by family and job interfering with our ability to play as often. Using words like "real decline", while technically accurate, imply quite a bit more than reality. In order to have this discussion properly, we need numbers. Hopefully Chuck can chime in with some meaningful stats here.

It is a large and very active division -- a key part of many events. It contains many of the most energetic contributors to our sport.

You seem to imply that if we get rid of the Pro Masters division, then these 40-50 year old energetic contributors would stop being energetic contributors. Speaking as a 40-50 year old energetic contributor, I take offense to this statement. It minimizes why I am energetic. Also, the way you word it makes it sound like the PDGA is being held hostage by this group to keep the Pro Masters division. If true, then it is better to get out from under this bad situation as soon as possible and follow the stats in the decision. If false, then it seems this point is moot.

It is also the first domino in the elimination of all age protection. If there is no need to protect 40-year-olds from 39-year-olds, why protect 50-year-olds from 49-year-olds, etc?

Actually, it is simply aligning the pro side with other individual pro sports (tennis, golf, bowling). They've been around longer than us and I suspect there is a reason that the pro side of these sports do not have a lot of age-protected divisions. Furthermore, I also suspect that the reason is to give people a chance to watch the best players compete head to head in the same division. To increase the number of spectators.

The main (but seldom voiced) reason that the Masters are under attack is that the Open players want the money won by the 40-50 group. The Masters players, like the rest of us, are already heavily subsidizing the Open division. Open players have many other sources of income; they don't need to extract it from older players.

This is just silly. You are attacking an argument which few (if any) people have voiced. The real reasons to eliminate the Pro Masters division, in my opinion, are:

1. There is minimal decline in performance up to 50.
2. At events that want to draw spectators all of the top players should be put together to make the event easier to watch and enjoy.

Peter, I guess I disagree at top events where the PDGA is trying to draw in spectators, but I think the Pro Masters division would be fine to have at other events (although I personally won't ever play in it.)

Yes, thanks for starting this discussion. Our division structure should always be subject of debate, as it's never going to be perfect---and some would say, is far from perfect.

But the editorial strikes me as being full of straw men. "Likely agenda items" that aren't on the agenda, and mostly unlikely to be. "The main (but seldom voiced) reason...." assigning motives that that may be seldom voiced because, well, they're not the main motives.

I read complaints that Ams are supporting the Pros, and that Pros are paying 50% higher fees without getting additional benefits. Which makes me wonder if the PDGA is perhaps doing a good job balancing the desires of a diverse membership.

You state that there is a "real decline". In my discussions with Chuck Kennedy (Chuck, correct me if I'm wrong), there is an average drop of 10 ratings points of players from 40 to 50. This would be easily explained (especially in my case) by family and job interfering with our ability to play as often. Using words like "real decline", while technically accurate, imply quite a bit more than reality. In order to have this discussion properly, we need numbers. Hopefully Chuck can chime in with some meaningful stats here.
The drop in rating/skill for pros started at age 40 and was 10 pts/1 throw every five years until age 60. The drop appears to accelerate in the 60s although we only had few pros to look at over age 60. The study looked at men of all ages who had been pros at least three years to be included in the study. Their ratings were compared five years later. The average rating of male pros remained stable over five year periods studied up until age 40. Then, average ratings declined as stated above, twice as fast as Steve stated.

Steve,
You stated:

"Actually, it is simply aligning the pro side with other individual pro sports (tennis, golf, bowling). They've been around longer than us and I suspect there is a reason that the pro side of these sports do not have a lot of age-protected divisions."

Be careful here!

Track & Field - one of the largest individual participatory sports world-wide - actually has their divisions (as of a few years ago) now broken down into FIVE year divisions (35-39, 40-44, etc.)!

And as for tennis, when was the last time you saw a "world-class" 45 year old? Heck, before their 40th bday, they've all hung up their rackets and taken up ball golf ;) .

Karl

to Steve Dodge,

Steve, here's what Chuck had to say on the matter: "Fortunately, there's a statistical basis for retaining the 40-year age level for starting age protection. We looked at the first 10 years of rating data and ratings start declining by one throw every 5 years on average once you turn 40 and continues at that rate up to age 60. Up to age 40, there's no indication age has any bearing on rating."

You explain this decline, saying that it's due to family obligations, as though that means it isn't real. You might as well say that the decline in the sixth decade is due to arthritis and loss of muscle mass, and so it isn't real.

Later you argue that Masters don't belong at NT's because spectators don't want to watch them. I'm fine with that, but then I wonder why you would allow Grandmasters at Vibram.

I don't expect that age-protected players will be allowed at NT's much longer. In 2008 a PDGA policy magically appeared to that effect, and than magically disappeared a month later. A motion to that effect was made in 2009, but did not succeed. It has a much better chance with the new Board. I actually support elimination of older pros from NT's, but only if commensurate opportunity is offered elsewhere.

Your message here is music to Open players' ears. You are a superb TD of big events for Open players. But it doesn't offer much to the members among the remaining seven eighths who would rather play than watch.

Peter
You have done your research and served on the BOD. Some may feel you have an agenda to enable yourself to make more prize money. Few understand that you give back considerable funds and truly want to improve the experience of the older competitors.
You may have tipped your hand with the title of the editorial "TIME TO SPLIT". Sort of like going to the doctor and the receptionist tells you "Your prostate is enlarged but first let the physician's assistant probe to confirm my theory."

Chuck and Steve Godge
You can spout your statistics and opinions about masters and their drop in ratings/skills all you want. I have heard from many DGers that they enjoy playing with their age group more. That joy brings players back and they introduce others to the sport.

Brian G and PDGA leadership
Please make the financial disclosure that our membership deserves. 2008 is the only year that detailed (budget) information has been available. The present, vague summary financial info is worthless. I know, one can request that information. The info may be provided if the request has a "proper purpose" presented. It feels more like a road block than an offer to share information.

To conclude, Peter may be more of a wordsmith than I give him credit. Is that a double entendre of the term SPLIT? Does Peter want to divide or leave.

steve timm

to Steve Dodge,

Steve, here's what Chuck had to say on the matter: "Fortunately, there's a statistical basis for retaining the 40-year age level for starting age protection. We looked at the first 10 years of rating data and ratings start declining by one throw every 5 years on average once you turn 40 and continues at that rate up to age 60. Up to age 40, there's no indication age has any bearing on rating."

You explain this decline, saying that it's due to family obligations, as though that means it isn't real. You might as well say that the decline in the sixth decade is due to arthritis and loss of muscle mass, and so it isn't real.

Peter, I can't believe you are actually naive enough to believe this straw man.

There is a world of difference between a degradation in performance due to personal choice (opting to focus on family and not practising) and one due to the inevitable ageing process that will befall us all. On this premise you can justify separate divisions for lefties, people over 6 foot, the unemployed, or any other category you can dream up.

I'm struggling to see any justification for your feeling that age protected players are somehow discriminated against. In my experience Masters and Grandmasters receive a greater return on the investment of their entry fees than Open players relative to their performance. If you shoot more shots than me at an event, how do you justify that you should take home more money than me?

You dismiss marketing and promotion as purely for the Open division, when it surely benefits us all for the sport to have a higher profile.

Statements about the new board being more receptive to banning age protection at NT and all the other 'agendas' you have dreamed up to support your position pre-suppose selfish motives that are in no way justified by anything they have said or done to this point.

Again, large increases in marketing and promotion. In addition, PDGA support of the NT clinic program


this supports the pro touring players how? Sure, some pros are payed a nominal amount to do demonstrations, but the clinic is NOT FOR PROS! It is for amateurs. Now, an argument could be made that amateurs are not taking advantage of these clinics and thus the money could be better spent elsewhere, this is reasonable. And if the PDGA was paying out so much money to get pros to do the clinics, then everyone on tour would be trying to do them, instead its primarily the same group of people.

I suspect that we all are very close to agreement...

Later you argue that Masters don't belong at NT's because spectators don't want to watch them. I'm fine with that ...

(although I would actually word it by saying it is easier and more fun to watch the top players competing for the same title.-)

I have heard from many DGers that they enjoy playing with their age group more. That joy brings players back and they introduce others to the sport.

Steve makes a great point and we should pay attention to it.

I believe at events trying to draw in spectators, the Pro Masters division should not exist, but I think the Pro Masters division would be fine to have at other events.

I see no disagreement here.

Creating a competitive sport and placating the desires of people who want to play together are incompatible goals. The more we give in to the latter, the further we are from the former.

I don't expect that age-protected players will be allowed at NT's much longer. In 2008 a PDGA policy magically appeared to that effect, and than magically disappeared a month later. A motion to that effect was made in 2009, but did not succeed. It has a much better chance with the new Board. I actually support elimination of older pros from NT's, but only if commensurate opportunity is offered elsewhere.

I believe this was because of the realization that many NTs would fail to fill, and having empty spots at an event which could otherwise be filled with age-protected disc golfers made far more sense. Open-only events which are only half full would often be finanicial failures, as well as look silly to spectators or any potential sponsors.

This will still be the case. Other than the most popular events like the Vibram Open, many NTs with only Open and Open Women divisions (and no age-protected golfers or concurrent amateur B-tier events) will not succeed. Both the exisiting and new Board members surely realize this.

I don't think Southern Nats is moving away from the PDGA. If anything, more events are affiliated with both. Seems I recall a time when even the Southern Nationals championship wasn't PDGA-sanctioned.

The only reason it is sanctioned is so it can be a USDGC qualifier.

Creating a competitive sport and placating the desires of people who want to play together are incompatible goals. The more we give in to the latter, the further we are from the former.


bingo! i've said this time and time again.

either you want to compete or you want to have a tupperware party. peter seems to like tupperware parties.

Creating a competitive sport and placating the desires of people who want to play together are incompatible goals. The more we give in to the latter, the further we are from the former.

This goes without saying. The decision was made long ago for a system which makes everyone happy, rather than to actually make the foundation for a healthy competition system without multiple overlapping divisions of the same skillset. The current system is so entrenched that we are well past the point of no return, and were perhaps a decade or more ago.

While I embrace anything that challenges the status quo when it comes to our longstanding competition structure, ultimately I know it is just playful chatter. People would cry bloody murder if any wholesale changes were ever made.

To take things to the extremes (which is good for analyses, rarely good for practical application), it seems that some here James, MD, Jeff, others? would prefer only 1 division...because they equate "healthy competition system"* and "competitive sport" with something that the PDGA is not now because we are a lot of differing divisions presently.

Remember, anything other than 1 division for EVERYONE (including women) playing or 1 division for each person playing (which seems kind of silly), is just "something in the middle - no better, no worse".

If you DO wish "only 1 division", so be it. I can accept that (as your definition of "better", "more competitive", etc., although I may (or may not) agree with it). But anything "less" than that, i.e. even 2 divisions (unless everyone gets their own division ;) ) and I think you're being a hypocrite.

So understand that ANY way you split up players (unless one-for-all or one-for-each) is "equal to any other way"...just a different way to slice the pie.

Karl

*although Jeff's usage of the word "healthy" has little to do with "health" and everything to do with subjectivity in trying to influence others with superfluous adverbs

I think "healthy" is also intended to imply "lack of redundancy" in the competition system meaning ideally just one division is available per player unless they choose to play up.

To take things to the extremes (which is good for analyses, rarely good for practical application), it seems that some here James, MD, Jeff, others? would prefer only 1 division...because they equate "healthy competition system"* and "competitive sport" with something that the PDGA is not now because we are a lot of differing divisions presently.

Remember, anything other than 1 division for EVERYONE (including women) playing or 1 division for each person playing (which seems kind of silly), is just "something in the middle - no better, no worse".

If you DO wish "only 1 division", so be it. I can accept that (as your definition of "better", "more competitive", etc., although I may (or may not) agree with it). But anything "less" than that, i.e. even 2 divisions (unless everyone gets their own division ;) ) and I think you're being a hypocrite.


That logic is kind of like saying you must be a hypocrite unless you advocate a separate division for every player.

I agree with Jeff that the train left the station a long time ago, as we have selectively bred a species that values disc golf as a recreational acitivity rather than a sport.

That logic is kind of like saying you must be a hypocrite unless you advocate a separate division for every player.

I agree with Jeff that the train left the station a long time ago, as we have selectively bred a species that values disc golf as a recreational acitivity rather than a sport.

<---- Strongly feels that a new train will likely be the only way to change the system.

Within the next 10 years thing will either; stay the same in regards to the competition/payout structure, change with the PDGA taking action to more avidly raise finds and find sponsors, or (my favorite) a new company will come into the picture and throw money into 4,8,or maybe 12 events and themselves finding ways to promote such an event along with their company name.

I have no clue if the company will be from inside the sport or out but I can see someone with the tools taking it upon themselves to change the way the sport is played and presented to the public.

10 years ago disc sponsorships were very basic and then 5 years ago they sweetened it for the top players. Today, in 2010, there is even more competition with Lat 64 trying to build its own team and I can see them making cash offers to players with possibly a salary of some sort to a few key players.

It is finally getting to the point where there are much better incentives to be the best golfer in the world and in reality it will be those players seeking outside sponsorship for themselves which leads to sponsorship for the sport as a whole.

My comments about master divisions has and will always be the following:

If events like the Vibram Open and USDGC are considered some of the best (and in USDGC's example, THE best) events we have, why do more tournaments not follow their models?

James,

My point is that IF you "go pure" (one extreme or the other), you HAVE to have either 1 division for all players or 1 division for each player...there is nothing "outside" of those parameters. Sooooooo, ANYTHING inside those is "just a different way to do things - not better or worse" (conceptually).

The hypocrisy part comes in IF one were to say that 1 of the non-extreme scenarios was "better" (from a competitive standpoint) than another non-extreme case. You couldn't make a valid argument proving 1 was 'better'; it just would be a 'different' splitting of players.

Also, I know of not one sport where there is only ONE division (for EVERYONE). Not that there COULDN'T be - say disc golf :) , but it would be QUITE the rarity!



MTL,

In asking your question...
"If events like the Vibram Open and USDGC are considered some of the best (and in USDGC's example, THE best) events we have, why do more tournaments not follow their models?"
...I know you realize that the answer to it is that it is the considered the "best by the best disc golfers" and "best for the best disc golfers" - but there are more disc golfers than just "the best", and thus we have to cater to THOSE players too!


Karl

My comments about master divisions has and will always be the following:

If events like the Vibram Open and USDGC are considered some of the best (and in USDGC's example, THE best) events we have, why do more tournaments not follow their models?


Robert,

I can't speak for the VO, but isn't the USDGC purse get a good deal of subsidation, directly or indirectly, through a disc manufacturer? Not sayin thats a bad thing, since Wham-O used to highly subsidize the World Frisbee Championships, but no other tournament, including Worlds, has such a special disc produced for it, which is highly collectible, and produces a good deal of revenue for the tournament.

I reserve the right to be wrong, though, but there if the event is a PDGA event, then the Assocation should have financials on it.

I actually think we give way to much to pros (and while I'm technically one, an injury set me back pretty bad in my play. So I've seen both sides of the fence here). I was just referring to the division structure.

I believe that we need to do more with youth with our sport to grow the sport. Some of the most populated courses in North Carolina are those near college campuses and I don't think that is a coincidence.

I don't see Peter's argument regarding promoting senior and junior disc golf simply because these are two totally different sides of the fence. With the exception of the family element, I do not see what these two things have in common.

I can speak for the Vibram Open and these folks here are how we can payout over $50,000 (including Dubs and Extra Event Payouts): http://maplehillopen.com/sponsors.html

And there is another event on the horizon that Mike Barnett and I have cooked up which is in fact one division:

http://www.vibramdiscgolf.com/playerscup/

(new preview video on the home page, enjoy!)

thread hijack complete. please resume masters debate.

And Karl, two divisions seems plenty pure enough and my two divisions would be:

Division 1: People that pack their lunch
Division 2: People that ride the bus

I know this may sound ludicrous but why has there never been talk of a:

Professional Disc Golf Association

and an

Amateur Disc Golf Association

both with there own set of guidelines and requirements for competition?

I know this may sound ludicrous but why has there never been talk of a:

Professional Disc Golf Association

and an

Amateur Disc Golf Association

both with there own set of guidelines and requirements for competition?

There has been, but it usually stops when the Pros realize they need the Ams cash, and the Ams realize they need the Pros cachet.

There has been, but it usually stops when the Pros realize they need the Ams cash, and the Ams realize they need the Pros cachet.

I don't think the Ams NEED the Pros' cachet. Perhaps WANT is more accurate.

Other than the fact that local Pros (not top pros) are often the ones running local tournaments which the Ams play in.

Until now, my posts here, including the editorial, have been of a whining, alarmist nature, and probably make you think I don't care about Open players. And while I have criticized, I haven't offered a solution. The solution is very simple.

Fix the Tour.

Shortly after you take office, the Staff will prepare a draft budget for 2011, and you will be under pressure to digest it and crank out a final version. At this point you must ask the hard questions and take strong action, because if you don't we will be stuck with "same old, same old" for at least another year and the Tour will suffer. It will be very hard to do this, because many of you aren't experienced with budget analysis and it takes much time and effort. I'm going to suggest some places you should look very hard.

If you follow the PDGA money, here's the big picture.
1) We're spending almost $100,000 a year on Marketing and Promotion, and that doesn't even include the Marketing Director's salary.
2) Personnel expenses have doubled since 2005.
3) During that same five-year period, Tour expenses have increased by less than 15%, and there are fewer NT's now (9) than there were in 2005 (14).

Almost all PDGA members joined the PDGA because they love to play in competition. The Tour is their number one priority. The Open players should care most of all about the Tour, because they have the biggest stake in it. So while I worry about this new Board, at the same time I know that IT WILL BE THE ONLY BOARD IN YEARS WITH THE UNDERSTANDING, MOTIVATION AND POWER TO GET THIS JOB DONE. I just have to hope that, when they fix it for the Open players, they also fix it for the rest of us.

The Open players know best what's wrong with the Tour. It isn't the overall number of events, which has been increasing steadily for years. It's the number and quality of top-end events, because that has not kept pace. They also know that it will take big money to fix it, and my "big picture" comments above suggest where I believe the money should come from. But I need to justify that belief.

So tomorrow I will comment in detail on Marketing and Promotion, and ask all Open players for their opinion on the matter. On Saturday I will comment in detail on Personnel issues, and put some questions to the entire membership.

Krup,

"There has been, but it usually stops when the Pros realize they need the Ams cash, and the Ams realize they need the Pros cachet."

Darn egotist :0 !!



Hey Steve,

What's the difference in an orange? ;)



All,

In reality, "the best" (presently) equates with the most prize money. For "Pros", this kind of makes sense (even though a bit of it is their own "gambled" money); for "Ams" it may be other things. And there ARE a lot more Ams than Pros (but still WAY too many "Pros" in our sport than in just about any other sport) :( . But just like most sports, we focus on "the top echelon of players and what's pertinent to them (not unexpected - just the way we creatures tend to be).

Karl

Related to comments regarding too much money going to Open pros and the best events for them, did everyone see the post that the USDGC will now be hosted every other year? Next year, a new event at Winthrop will be for amateurs:
http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=33620

In reality, "the best" (presently) equates with the most prize money.



you clearly have never been to Vibram, USDGC, or the Japan Open.

I played the Japan Open this year, and there is a reason players with almost no shot of cashing traveled across the world to play in it, and started saving up as soon as they got back so they can go again in 2 years.

Luke,

Your statement...

"you clearly have never been to Vibram..."

...made me laugh! I live ~32 miles from the course, have played it a WHOLE lot, know virtually everyone associated with, etc. True, I've never "played in it" (but chose not to because I'm a AM-for-life by choice) but that doesn't mean I don't "know all about it". I totally "get" the atmosphere around it thing (as I believe the atmosphere of Japan, USDGC, etc. also is great), but you'll never convince me that a great atmosphere tournament with small cash will be perceived - by the REALLY GOOD PLAYERS - as "better" than a really good atmosphere tournament with big cash.

Karl

My post yesterday, "A message to the new Board: Please fix the tour", pointed out that the top-end part of the tour, that part of greatest concern to Open players, is hurting. We have five fewer NT's than in 2005. Innova's USDGC move yesterday represents another serious loss. And PDGA support of the tour has not kept pace with other budget increases. This last observation is most curious, because a prime reason for joining the PDGA is to play in competition. So for almost all our members, the tour is the major focus of interest.

I also noted that, to fix the tour, big money is required. I suggested two sources. Today I want to talk about the first, which is Marketing and Promotion.

The 2010 budget shows $97,000 for Marketing/Promotion. This does not include the Marketing Director's salary, which is probably about $30,000. So the PDGA is spending around $130K on this item, which is more than it spends on the tour ($117K).

We have been told often over the last several years that our path to success lies in marketing and promoting the Open players to exclusion. If so, then you would expect that they would benefit from it. However, I don't believe that they do. Or at least, they aren't getting good value for it. The amount of support generated by this program over the years is far less than the amount that the PDGA has put into it. In my opinion, in the areas of marketing and promotion that sort of performance defines failure.

My opinion doesn't count much in this issue, so I will put it in the form of a question to the Open players, and most particularly to David and Cale and Avery. "Do you believe that you are getting $130,000 worth of value from the PDGA's Marketing/Promotion programs, or would you rather see most of that money go back into tour support, especially the top-end events which have stagnated in recent years?" Certainly if you are not getting good value from it, neither are the rest of us.

Finally, we need to remember that Innova isn't stupid. They believe that the path to success includes creating top-end events for everyone, even (gasp) recreational players. I agree, and believe that this should also be an important part of "fixing the tour".

you clearly have never been to Vibram, USDGC, or the Japan Open.

I played the Japan Open this year, and there is a reason players with almost no shot of cashing traveled across the world to play in it, and started saving up as soon as they got back so they can go again in 2 years.

Word. That event is like no other and should not only be emulated, but an awe inspiring idea of how to make your event have parts of it, as you will never have all of it. (unless you get a HUGE title sponsor that wants to throw in $$$,$$$ yep, hundreds of thousands of dollars!)

I think that the USDGC going to an alternate year scenario will create a HUGE payout for the years it happens. THis will also increase the demand for the event, and drive that desire to sponsor and play more so. Supply and Demand, limit the supply and the demand rises!

I have determined that we are all spinning our wheels. I have decided the best thing to do is to stay local with our goals to help our sport, and if the people that make up this PDGA thing help, so be it. THe bottom line is like this. We all are selfish. We all like disc golf. If in our selfish ways we help to improve our sport we help each other.

Some of the money that is being spent currently needs to be scrutinized. The office needs to be more efficient, or more staff allocated to help meet its customers needs/demands. More development from the PDGA needs to be defined by it leaders to help us understand how it works with the mission statement. It would help to let us all know what that vision is from each BoD in my mind as well. I am not sure I get that or got it from a few on the board now, nor the Bio's at elections (though some were quite clear...)

The reality of why tournaments big ones is down is simple, it takes a toll on the organization of all volunteers to run these events. USDGC and Japan Open are paid for by the sponsors including the help, if all events had paid staff trust me it would be a better event. Also the biggest issue is that they only have 1-2 courses to staff and when you can put all your energy into that one course instead of 3-4-5 courses you will have a better event.

We are it, and until us as members with our voices either tell the BoD that we are unhappy, why would they change it? With the last constitution rewrite the BoD could just make all of the current membership null and void, so lets let them know that we have a voice, and share your concerns with the people that make the decisions. If the PDGA is not taking the actions needed to drive our sport and you don't like it, tell people with direct communication not information in a chat room. Be courteous and concise though, and no flaming needed just be definitive in your thoughts would be what I would ask if I was in their shoes.

Some have tried to talk with BOD members to get pDGA office issues resolved, only to get an answer similar to, "It's not my job to micro-manage everything they do. I've got other fish to fry."

since our high dollar website will not seem to let me send a PM to you John....If enough people bring it to the attention of the BoD they will be forced to take a stronger look at it. So don't despair, just get others that have this opinion to share their voices. Afterall the squeaky wheel gets oiled, but most mechanics would prefer to work on a shiny new corvette over a Yugo, so display it nicely with a cherry on top and it may be viewed by others!

Sometimes I've noticed vehicles with squeaky wheels (or shocks, springs, or whatever), and the owner just turns up other noise to try to mask the real problem.

edit: I wonder why you can't send a pm?

The 2010 budget shows $97,000 for Marketing/Promotion. This does not include the Marketing Director's salary, which is probably about $30,000. So the PDGA is spending around $130K on this item, which is more than it spends on the tour ($117K).

We have been told often over the last several years that our path to success lies in marketing and promoting the Open players to exclusion. If so, then you would expect that they would benefit from it. However, I don't believe that they do. Or at least, they aren't getting good value for it. The amount of support generated by this program over the years is far less than the amount that the PDGA has put into it. In my opinion, in the areas of marketing and promotion that sort of performance defines failure.

My opinion doesn't count much in this issue, so I will put it in the form of a question to the Open players, and most particularly to David and Cale and Avery. "Do you believe that you are getting $130,000 worth of value from the PDGA's Marketing/Promotion programs, or would you rather see most of that money go back into tour support, especially the top-end events which have stagnated in recent years?" Certainly if you are not getting good value from it, neither are the rest of us.



Peter,

How do you ascertain that the entire 2010 PDGA Marketing/Promotion budget is exclusive toward the Open players and/or National Tour?

to Gotcha:

Good question.

I have often questioned the direction and effectiveness of the Marketing/Promotion program before, both here and as a Board member. I argue, "We should be marketing the game, not just one division". The response is always, "The best way to market the game is to market the Open players." Sometimes the response is highly charged, as though I were an idiot for suggesting we should put much effort into marketing any other aspect.

It doesn't matter much at this point. If marketing is pitched toward the Open players, then I'm content to let them judge whether they are getting good value for it, or whether they'd rather see much of that money switched toward the tour. If it isn't pitched toward them, then the rest of us are entitled to our opinion of its effectiveness. My opinion is that it is not successful, and I'd rather see a switch.

What do you think?

to Gotcha:

Good question.

I have often questioned the direction and effectiveness of the Marketing/Promotion program before, both here and as a Board member. I argue, "We should be marketing the game, not just one division". The response is always, "The best way to market the game is to market the Open players." Sometimes the response is highly charged, as though I were an idiot for suggesting we should put much effort into marketing any other aspect.

It doesn't matter much at this point. If marketing is pitched toward the Open players, then I'm content to let them judge whether they are getting good value for it, or whether they'd rather see much of that money switched toward the tour. If it isn't pitched toward them, then the rest of us are entitled to our opinion of its effectiveness. My opinion is that it is not successful, and I'd rather see a switch.

What do you think?

I think that "answer" doesn't really show any hard evidence of what you're claiming. Only a gut feeling. Is there any way to provide solid proof? Maybe point to the minutes of meetings where you've brought up the subject of marketing, show threads in here with the discussion, or something conclusive instead of how you're perceiving their response. I don't doubt your claims, in fact I can relate to some of your concerns.

I have lived with a Marketing Director (home medical supplies) for many years and I see how the position works (or should work). There is a lot of behind the scenes work that has to happen for the MD to be effective, as well as the work of being the "front man" of the org. Accountability needs to be at a premium, with the possibility of replacement.

Is it time to take a hard look at our friendly MD? Or possibily remove that position and replace it with something different?

to Johnrock:

You ask for proof that I have opposed our Marketing and Promotion strategy in the past, both from Board minutes and from threads here.

Board Minutes: Look at the minutes from September and October, 2007. The Board was asked to approve an expansion of the Marketing program, and refused to do so. I was a key part of the opposition. Afterwards the Marketing Director declined to serve in 2008. After I left the Board, the Marketing Director was rehired. Presumably his program has been expanded from its 2007 level.

Message Board: Look at the thread "Ask ex-Board Member Peter Shive" from September 2008. My position is probably best expressed in posts #61, 90 and 122, but you should also look at the posts from others who opposed my position.

The simplest bottom-line test of these programs is to compare the total amount the PDGA has spent on them over the years with the total amount of support they have generated. We did this informally in 2007, and I opposed expansion because I felt the comparison did not justify it.

I'm not arguing that a different Marketing Director would do a better job. I believe that the PDGA can't be effectively marketed until it changes its philosophy. Innova's USDGC move is a great wake-up call. Hopefully we can learn from it.

maybe the PDGA should stop paying BG to fly across the country to take pictures at NTs then.

This is ridiculous.

Besides creating high quality photo galleries, BG's activities at an NT typically include all of the following:



Event Marshal
Rules Official
Daily story and photos for PDGA.com
Feature story and photos for DiscGolfer Magazine
Final round live scoring
Organizational representation at PDGA Major event
Availability to members, spectators, promoters, volunteers, and media
Recruitment of committee members



It's foolish to think that it's not in everyone's best interest for the PDGA Director or the Tour Manager or the Marketing Director to be present at our biggest events. I can only imagine the howls of protest if something weird was going on at a PDGA National Tour Event or Major and a PDGA representative wasn't on hand to immediately handle and address the situation.

In fact, a unique situation happened at this past weekend's National Tour Event where the Tournament Director was admitted to the hospital on Friday night with severe asthma and remained there for the entire weekend. Fortunately, we had Pro Worlds 2005 Tournament Director and PDGA Marketing Director John Duesler on site to step in and take over the reigns as TD. Despite Steve Dodge's contention that he "could disappear and things would keep on keeping on" (http://www.pdga.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=1436501&postcount=72) during an NT event, I'm of the mindset that we could have had anarchy and a historical disaster if John hadn't been there to take over as TD. Having a former Pro Worlds 2005 TD on hand was extremely valuable and I truly think his background and experience saved the day. Imagine if Dan Ginnelly, Mike Barnett, Timmy Gill, Steve Dodge, etc. were forced into the hospital at 6:30 PM on Friday evening during their respective NT events earlier this year - would "quality staff and good prep" been enough to run the event? Whatever the marginal cost is to send a PDGA representative to our biggest events, this insurance and peace of mind is worth every penny, imo.

At the Vibram Open, qualiy staff and good prep would have been enough, because by quality staff, i meant (in addition to the dozens of spotters, parkers, video crew, scorers etc.) that we had John Duesler and David Gentry on hand. They would have been able to step in and take over just fine. Heck, they may have even found the keys to Ketih Burtt's truck faster than I did!

Jeff,

First of all, I hope that Dan is doing well.

Secondly, I tend to agree with Steve Dodge's assertion in most cases. I think that here in Kansas City, or even in Minnesota with Timmy, that if something happened to the TD on Friday, we would have someone capable of stepping to fill those shoes. (Adam Gorres comes to mind immediately, as he's been asst. TD for that event before, and certainly CK is more than capable of filling in, as is Matt Koerner, Mike Snelson, or a number of others) Most of the TD's job is done before the tournament weekend. MOST NTs have staff capable of carrying on those duties if something happens to the TD. I think that if either Jack or I or BOTH had gone down during Worlds, Rick Rothstein would stepped in, or Dan Cashen, or Ed Gonzales, or Kevin Montgomery, all of whom have been instrumental in running the KCWO before (and all but Kevin have been the head TD of the Wide Open). Still, it's good to know that PDGA has someone on site that can handle those sorts of decisions if that siutation occurs and there's no one local that can handle it.

This is ridiculous.

Besides creating high quality photo galleries, BG's activities at an NT typically include all of the following:



Event Marshal isn't there often both a marshal and BG ?
Rules Official isn't the marshal and TDs enough?
Daily story and photos for PDGA.com can be done by locals for free, might even be better written and more entertaining
Feature story and photos for DiscGolfer Magazine anything he writes could be done from home based on looking at scores, and uses pics taken by local tournament staff
Final round live scoring somestimes good, sometimes iffy, could be done by locals for free though
Organizational representation at PDGA Major event I said NTs not majors
Availability to members, spectators, promoters, volunteers, and media doesn't everyone use email these days?
Recruitment of committee members really?




looks to me that for some tiny fee, or a few frisbees most of BGs work could be accomplished by local staff, with zero travel expenses.

...... and then eveyone can complain on how the org wasn't present at the biggest tournament of (insert your area, affiliation, demographic or long term tournament series here). Complain that the coverage was lacking, pictures were poor, promotions were inadequate, that the face of the PDGA wasn't present for sponsors or press, and so on. Spout that the PDGA isn't doing enough to promote our biggest events.

No win here. Many expect all sorts of things from the org, complain when they dont get it, yet after the fact pick at the figures and spout that money was wasted. Wash, rinse repeat.

If the message was consistent (either the org is not doing enough and needs to do more, or it needs to back off and allow the locals to handle everything) it would be easier to understand, appreciate and discuss the position.

Peter: Sorry for the continued derailment of this thread away from your editorial.

Steve: Thanks for the clarification on your earlier post, which seems to agree with what I was getting at with having PDGA representation at our biggest events.

Chappy: I think that Kansas City is a different animal - you are very fortunate to have perhaps the most experienced and capable crew in disc golf, having run two PDGA World Championships and dozens of Kansas City Wide Open events which have always traditionally been big National Tour or Supertour events. I'm not familiar enough with all the other NT event local scenes to be able to say with a good degree of confidence that someone local would have been able to adequately step in should the TD fall ill. The important point is that, to me, having a PDGA representative like John Duesler or Brian Graham on site (both former TDs of PDGA World Championships) as insurance is worth the marginal cost. It's far better to be safe than sorry, in my opinion.

Luke: You seem to think that there are dozens of locals lining up to perform all of BG's activities for free. I can assure you that this is hardly the case. Furthermore, even if you had locals agreeing and arranging in advance to do this work, there's no guarantee they are qualified to do so. It's not rocket science, but activities like writing the daily story for PDGA.com and taking photos, writing a feature story and photos for DiscGolfer magazine, live scoring, etc. take some measure of skill which may not be easily picked up on the fly. I've written articles for Disc Golf World News, Disc Golf Magazine, Flying Disc Magazine, and course reviews for my private website going back for more than a decade now and I still get self-conscious about my writing. Of the more than 200+ pictures I took each day at the Vibram Open, Dave Gentry found about two dozen which were worthy of posting. I've never had any photography training so why should I have thought that I could take good photos? The point is obvious: why not have someone like our Marketing Director or Executive Director present at the event to assure with 100% confidence that the work will get done right?

This whole argument is silly. What would you imply, Luke, that the couple of thousand of dollars saved each year by not sending PDGA representatives to our biggest events be used on? Should this money instead go to PDGA programs aimed at growing the sport of disc golf for youth, women, older golfers, minorities, etc. Or as a sometimes touring pro, is it a bad assumption to project that you've rather have this money just go straight into the NT event purse and given away? Yeah, that's a better use of the money. :rolleyes:

One thing's for sure: this is volunteer-driven sport. Having worked behind the scenes on three of our largest events in the past 30 days, it's annoying to see how much of this work gets taken for granted. It's also ludicrous how there's now a Catch 22 where if the PDGA steps forward and spends a little dough to maintain the high standards which people have grown accustomed to then they get called out for it; but if there's a lack of coverage at an event, all of the whining & complaining which Tim Keiffer describes will come to fruition. It's definitely a no-win situation.

Kansas City has ran 3 worlds in 10 years....1999-Rick Am Worlds, 2003-Jack Am Worlds, 2009-Chappy/Jack Pro/Am Biggest PDGA EVENT EVER.....

We are very blessed that we love the sport of disc golf to give the thousands of hours of our time to the sport from people that many in here do not know. WIthout our volunteers these events would not happen. Chappy mentioned a few names of the more well known, but suffice it to say it takes an entire disc golf community to pull these events off, and the only way that they happen is with local volunteers.

The PDGA helps support the fuel to make that known with their existing resources, but as the question is in context here is it doing it the right way.

Right now without local organizations of grass roots individuals giving thousands of hours of donated time for the love of the sport, most of these events would not happen.

How can the PDGA help local clubs, and in turn help the sport grow.

We are blessed with not only great people here in KC that give countless hours of time that go unappreciated by many (some of you are great at thanking those volunteers, some not so much....) but also with a great working relationship with several municipalities to develop our sport to players of all levels.

Again what is the PDGA, is it a vessel for the tour, is it a vessel for the sport? Is it only a marketing ploy to develop our sport?

I think that we are getting a point where we need to define more so the actions of our governing body. Our growth is taking us there. Its not a fault of the ED or the Marketing arm, its a growing pain that we all need to adapt and ask the questions from those that have again volunteered to steer our sport. Once we have a much clearer definition we should then start to game plan our future better.

Transition time is coming on us. This new board will face decisions that many have not, I wish them well, and only ask that they remember it wasnt large purses that got them to fall in love with the sport, it was the simple act of throwing and counting. You don't have to be a pro to enjoy that feeling, and you don't have to be in a competition to have fun with our sport. THat is the beauty of it. What will our governing body decide to do with the future players and how do we get them involved?

Jeff, you're not hijacking this thread. I have been meaning to address this issue, and your posts provide a good opportunity.

I disagree strongly with your belief that PDGA Staff members should help run tournaments in remote locations. This has become quite common, and PDGA Staff can be found at big events all over the United States, in Japan, and perhaps even Europe. I think it hurts the organization in several ways:

1) It is very expensive. The average PDGA Staff member is compensated at about $200 per day. There are probably about 50 staff-days involved this year (at least 14 at Pro Worlds alone, not counting travel days), for total compensation of about $10,000. Then you must add the travel, food and lodging costs, perhaps another $10,000. If help is needed, I think the wrong people are being paid. It would be better to compensate local people. They would be happy to work for far less, and we wouldn't have to pay the associated travel expenses.

2) It is inefficient. First of all, it has to handicap the smooth functioning of the PDGA office to have staff leaving so much. Secondly, much duplication of effort is involved. We've all been to wonderful large events at which all the items on Jeff's list were, or could easily have been, performed by local team members. It can even cause hard feelings. PDGA staff will say, "This is the way you must do it", and this may well be different from the way the local club would have handled it.

3) It is unnecessary. Jeff argues that we need PDGA staff at big events as a sort of insurance policy in case a TD gets sick, but the eminent TD's he mentions don't seem to be at all worried about "anarchy and historical disasters". I believe that local teams are far more competent than Jeff thinks. Besides, if issues arise, PDGA staff members don't actually need to be on site. You can talk to them on the phone, as was done at the Majestic when unforeseen storms mandated a format change.

We should stop this practice. Let local teams run their own events. Instead of sending staff from Augusta, hire local people. At most, assign a staff member to be "on call" in Augusta. It would be far less expensive, and far more efficient.

1) It is very expensive. The average PDGA Staff member is compensated at about $200 per day. There are probably about 50 staff-days involved this year (at least 14 at Pro Worlds alone, not counting travel days), for total compensation of about $10,000. Then you must add the travel, food and lodging costs, perhaps another $10,000. If help is needed, I think the wrong people are being paid. It would be better to compensate local people. They would be happy to work for far less, and we wouldn't have to pay the associated travel expenses.


$200 + travel, food, and lodging? Really? Whoo hooo! Then show me the money because I didn't see a dime!!

As with any business trip, a chart is used to calculate expenses: Per Diem Rate Chart (http://www.gsa.gov/portal/category/21287)

...but I enjoyed the laugh nonetheless. :D


I arrived to work at Pro Worlds on Saturday, July 24th and "finished" working Saturday, July 31st which equals 8 days. No Per Diem is received for travel days as these are not working days. "Finished" is in quotes because the work for Worlds goes beyond the time we are in the host city.

It is an absolute joy to be with our members and have the face to face interaction. Phone calls and emails are great for quick messages/questions. Not many events can we see so many members in one location...after all, it is the PDGA Disc Golf World Championships.

Alright....I agree and disagree here. Mainly with the marshal aspect. I think that having the same people learn and know how to deal with the scenarios that some of our traveling pros are prone to do is a good thing for the sport. Many marshals are located in areas that allow less money to happen for NT's.

On Major's I believe that it is essential that the ED be there for the entire time. In fact I think that the PDGA is missing the boat on not sending the ED to the locations earlier to promote the events as a trumpet calling measure. If in this case Brian needs to be there to help defray the Marshal aspect, and is able to accommodate more roles in his time there, I think that it is good money spent.

I think that there are too many times though that the office does get "shut down" for our events, and as such it should be looked at ways to meet the demands of the other 12,000 members and/or the people that try to visit to mirror the needs of the customers.

My own opinions on this are vastly different on many of my stances. I for one as a person that has ran a couple of Majors feel as though that the PDGA must do more to promote at the level that it has propelled itself. It is a fine balance but it is something that must be done. The ED should be viewed in the same respect as Gary Bettman, Roger Godell, Bud Selig, David Stern, as examples. Walk into an area with a big stick and showcase our sport, drive that enthusiasm up, and then leave it to local talent, then follow up about a week out for the major events. If we want to treat NT's as majors, I have no issue with the money going that direction at all.

More radio/television/print/internet media driven to the local markets by our organizational body will only mean that our local efforts will be viewed more favorably.

We must go this direction. We should be in contact with at least the top 50 major metropolitan markets to know the best and most desirable media outlets. We then harness that relationship to build. If 50 is too much then let�s start at the top 20 for disc golf that are known good events and then capitalize on the other Majors for the year at least around Ice Bowl time to drive the charitable cause and cross pollinate it with the need to drive local sponsorship to the clubs to help.

To me that is a quite simple way that the PDGA can not only ensure that the value from Brian is helping, but also is putting us in a more elite class. Now, I for one do not know if Brian would like to take on some of the road-warrior like stances that this may require, I am not him. It needs to be a consistent message. It must be concise, and genuine to the sport and the local community. If its not one person, I think that part of that message may be missed....

If locals want to do the other items that Pete mentions (and I for one feel that many would, a self sense of pride and honor for making it) then we should let them. If Brian was there, he may and should complement the items that locals do, but this would then allow him to do other things like local chambers Q&A, media outlet days, prepare it from a much larger standpoint.

Again though, this is not what the ED was hired to do. I for one have came to the realizatino that much of my anger stems not from the fact that items about the sport are not being done, but from anger in the fact that I was unaware of the duties of the ED. I owe Brian a big apology and plan on penning one privately to him for some of my comments.

My passion for the sport and what "I FEEL" is right overshadows the reality of what he was hired to do. I have a vision for the role that Brian may never be able to live up to. That is my problem, not his. I am sorry for my single sightedness and my own selfish interest. I tend to wear my emotions on my sleeve and it gets me in trouble.

It still all boils down to this though. We are all the pDGA and ultimately we all want what is best for the sport. Some people grasp it and help, others question it, and well some just do.

I try to do all and I can't. Its way to easy to pontificate from behind the computer, I owe you all an apology for my tones, but mostly I owe the offices of the PDGA and the BoD some slack. 5-6 people to run a town of 13,000 is a daunting task. Lets hope collectively we all work on helping them make it better and in the process help ourselves make our sport better.

The important point is that, to me, having a PDGA representative like John Duesler or Brian Graham on site (both former TDs of PDGA World Championships) as insurance is worth the marginal cost. It's far better to be safe than sorry, in my opinion.



Jeff you describe the cost of having BG and/or JD on site as a marginal cost.

Can you please estimate what you think the cost to the PDGA/members was for this event. Also, how many events do you think we (PDGA/members) are paying this marginal cost.
Maybe with some actual numbers you would be better able to demonstrate your point.

Just calling it a marginal cost and saying it is worth it in your opinion isn't convincing many people.

Please clarify and help us understand your point.

Peter,

Say you are successful in convincing others in the wisdom of a split.
At a high level, what would the 2 organizations look like and how would each of these players benefit.

1 - An Intermediate or Advanced player
2 - 1000 rated Open player
3 - A 49 yr old Pro Master rated 940.
4 - A 1020 rated Open player
5 - An Advanced women player

Thanks, just looking for high level benefits

Peter,

Say you are successful in convincing others in the wisdom of a split.
At a high level, what would the 2 organizations look like and how would each of these players benefit.

1 - An Intermediate or Advanced player
2 - 1000 rated Open player
3 - A 49 yr old Pro Master rated 940.
4 - A 1020 rated Open player
5 - An Advanced women player

Thanks, just looking for high level benefits

I didn't even really realize this until you asked about the split as I did not focus on the split, cause I did not (and still do not) see his core concern in that light. But, regarding the split, Peter is not proposing an am/pro split which I just assumed, but he is proposing an open/(am/older pro) split. After awhile, we can have further splits as those groups don't align. First, the older pros split from the ams. Then, the lower rated ams say "those advanced players are leaches, they get all the benefits, let's split." On and on. One day, an organization for every division. Five thousand organizations. :)

Addie questioned my estimate of expenses for PDGA staff to attend Pro Worlds. I estimated that at least fourteen staff-days were involved, and she noted that she was gone only eight days.

I figured for two staff persons, because Addie and Brian were both there. That would be sixteen staff-days, two more than my original estimate. The per diem for lodging and food, from the chart she provided, is $116/day per person. Then you must add airfare for two, rental car or cars, and miscellaneous expenses.

And none of these expenses would be incurred if local people were used.

Note that I am not including expenses for Marshalls. I'm only considering PDGA staff members who would normally work at the IDGC office in Augusta.

to Pete Kenny:

You ask how different kinds of PDGA members would fare under the reorganization I proposed. That would of course depend on how the two parts of the PDGA designed their programs.

Here's how I put it in the editorial. "The most efficient solution would be a split within the PDGA umbrella, with a separate Open section. The other section could be Amateur/Older Pro together. Each section would have a predetermined proportion of Board representation, and a predetermined portion of the budget, with separate oversight of the discretionary part of that budget."

I would expect that each of the two sections would have a Steering Committee. The most important duty of the Steering Committees would be to decide how to allocate their portion of the discretionary budget to the Tour, because the Tour is the prime concern of most PDGA members.

But I don't know in advance what the Steering Committees would recommend.

to Pete Kenny:

You ask how different kinds of PDGA members would fare under the reorganization I proposed. That would of course depend on how the two parts of the PDGA designed their programs.

Here's how I put it in the editorial. "The most efficient solution would be a split within the PDGA umbrella, with a separate Open section. The other section could be Amateur/Older Pro together. Each section would have a predetermined proportion of Board representation, and a predetermined portion of the budget, with separate oversight of the discretionary part of that budget."

I would expect that each of the two sections would have a Steering Committee. The most important duty of the Steering Committees would be to decide how to allocate their portion of the discretionary budget to the Tour, because the Tour is the prime concern of most PDGA members.

But I don't know in advance what the Steering Committees would recommend.

I think this idea could work if we could produce two capable groups of individuals to promote each individual organization while promoting the sport as a whole.

This may be the best way to progress the sport instead of trying an approach to make everyone in the current org happy when that isn't possible.

Local clubs and players "promote" disc golf
more than anyone. Always have always will.

In my mind the PDGA should be catering to
the best group of players. Who wants to watch
people that are not good? I don't. I want to watch
Nikko, Climo, and all the other 1000 plus rated guys.
Maybe we do need a casual organization that caters to
older folks and weak players. Sounds like a blast!

In order to become a real competitive sport that the
common person recognizes then we must push the most
talented players. The Worlds is the perfect event to send
representatives and spend some of the budget. Maybe we should
spend some of the money and resources becoming an Olympic sport.
Of course only the top rated players would ever be able to represent
USA in the Olympics but then again WHO WANTS TO WATCH WEAK PLAYERS.

No offense this is just my personal opinion. I am a 915 rated player. I won't
ever reach 1000 rated but so is life.

While I don't discount the need for programs like EDGE, and generally spreading the sport through grass roots efforts, I don't believe that 1, 2, or 3 million people playing disc golf casually because of these efforts will be the trick to get us on TV, corporate sponsorships, large purses.

Sammy's absolutely right about promoting the top talent. When did the PGA tour ascend to its current popularity? When Tiger started dominating. Before that, the purses were much, much smaller, and only die-hards really cared about the game.

Fastforward a decade: the kids who grew up wanting to be Tiger, to achieve dominance in the game (Anthony Kim, Rory Mcilroy and others) are now fueling the next generation of incredible talent.

Who did the game's current elite all want to beat when they were developing? Climo. And the next generation will want to be the current elite. And so on.

Give people incentive to become the world's best disc golfer, and a lot of the other things take care of themselves.

Traditional golf on TV was a staple for the networks for years long before Tiger was born. Major advertisers were not golf equipment manufacturers, but large corporations like automobile manufacturers, etc. Why was it popular? To me stick golf on TV is not visually exciting to watch. It was popular because a lot of people played.

Sports make it on TV because a) their are exciting to watch (think X-games) or b) because everyone has played it or was familiar with it (think baseball). As much as we may enjoy watching the flight of a disc, it just doesn't have that wow factor for most. Thus if we aren't going to get the sponsorship from the wow factor, we'll need it to do it based on it being a past time for a lot of people.

I think this idea could work if we could produce two capable groups of individuals to promote each individual organization while promoting the sport as a whole.
ROFL. I think we need to be concerned with producing one capable group of individuals first.

Jack: Make that three PDGA World Championships in KC; I apologize for the oversight. KC is perhaps the most capable group in all of disc golf, but I cannot just assume that every other local group is in the same boat. Some of my reaction is an emotional one, still fresh in mind, of being text-messaged at 11:30 PM on a Friday night from the Tournament Director in the hospital that he might possibly have pneumonia. The realization that he could be out for the duration of the tournament, and that the responsibilities of a National Tour event (and one with a highly unique format making for many timing and rules issues) were now falling mostly on my shoulders, hit me like a ton of bricks. I doubt that some of the responses on here would be so measured if these folks were personally placed in that situation.

Pete Kenny and Peter Shive: While I'm sure we could come up with estimates or actual numbers as to how much PDGA Office staff spends on being present at National Tour Events and Majors, I have yet to get an answer about the motivations for these inquiries, and what you would suggest be done with the money "saved." If the answer is to put that money back into PDGA programs aimed at growing the sport of disc golf for youth, women, older golfers, minorities, etc. then I could rationalize some altruism in the point you are making. But if the notion is that this money should instead just go straight into the NT event purse and essentially just given away, then this scrutiny reeks of "what's in it for me" which is prevalent in many arguments made on this forum.

Furthermore, the point keeps getting belabored that "local team members" can perform these duties. Who are these people? Where are these people? You make it sound like there is a line a dozen deep of qualified folks available for the duration of each tournament to be rules officials, write competent daily stories and take photos for PDGA.com, write publication-worthy feature stories and take photos for DiscGolfer Magazine, etc. What if these local team members, for whatever reason, aren't able to meet these obligations and then there is no coverage of the event? If all this was so easy, don't you think that these alternatives would have already been looked into? Don't you think that paid PDGA staff, who are salaried and make no overtime money on these trips, would prefer to delegate these responsibilities and not give up weekend time they could be spending at home with their families?

Bottom line is that all this scrutiny sounds penny wise and pound foolish. We have a 7-member Board of Directors who preview and approve the budget each year. We have an independant auditor who reviews our budget and expenses. I for one have confidence that PDGA employees and contractors are thrifty with our members money and take their responsibilities with the association very seriously. I assume that they make these trips not necessarily because they want to, but because they have to, in order to assure that we are meeting the high standards of coverage of our feature events which PDGA members have become accustomed to over the years. And that should we begin to fail to meet these standards, the complaining, finger pointing, and backlash would be significant.

Pete Kenny and Peter Shive: While I'm sure we could come up with estimates or actual numbers as to how much PDGA Office staff spends on being present at National Tour Events and Majors, I have yet to get an answer about the motivations for these inquiries, and what you would suggest be done with the money "saved." If the answer is to put that money back into PDGA programs aimed at growing the sport of disc golf for youth, women, older golfers, minorities, etc. then I could rationalize some altruism in the point you are making. But if the notion is that this money should instead just go straight into the NT event purse and essentially just given away, then this scrutiny reeks of "what's in it for me" which is prevalent in many arguments made on this forum.

Furthermore, the point keeps getting belabored that "local team members" can perform these duties. Who are these people? Where are these people? You make it sound like there is a line a dozen deep of qualified folks available for the duration of each tournament to be rules officials, write competent daily stories and take photos for PDGA.com, write publication-worthy feature stories and take photos for DiscGolfer Magazine, etc. What if these local team members, for whatever reason, aren't able to meet these obligations and then there is no coverage of the event? If all this was so easy, don't you think that these alternatives would have already been looked into? Don't you think that paid PDGA staff, who are salaried and make no overtime money on these trips, would prefer to delegate these responsibilities and not give up weekend time they could be spending at home with their families?

Bottom line is that all this scrutiny sounds penny wise and pound foolish. We have a 7-member Board of Directors who preview and approve the budget each year. We have an independant auditor who reviews our budget and expenses. I for one have confidence that PDGA employees and contractors are thrifty with our members money and take their responsibilities with the association very seriously. I assume that they make these trips not necessarily because they want to, but because they have to, in order to assure that we are meeting the high standards of coverage of our feature events which PDGA members have become accustomed to over the years. And that should we begin to fail to meet these standards, the complaining, finger pointing, and backlash would be significant.

Jeff I'm confused. Yesterday you seemed adamant the cost to the PDGA was marginal to send staff to PDGA big events and the benefits are worth the cost. Now, when asked what the marginal cost was you decline to answer because you question the motivation of the question.

Here is the motivation... I am trying to understand all sides of the issue before I take a position on it. I am NOT advocating just putting the money into the NT. I am trying to understand the issue. If the cost really is marginal, then that would be a point in favor of their presence as you suggested. If the cost isn't as marginal as you claim, that very well could make a difference. Thats why I asked the question. Unlike you, I would like to have a discussion about the issue, to try to understand what the future may actually look like or if there is a need for a split in my opinion. I haven't pre-judged the issue without a discussion.

And by the way, if you think I am in the "what's in it for me" camp you are sadly mistaken. I'm a 932 rated pro master who is looking forward to playing Pro Grand Master next year and who manages to squeak out a couple of cashes each year in B and C tiers so the answer of what is in it for me remains the same ... there is nothing in it for me, except wanting what I see as best for the sport.

So can you help me understand what you claim is a "marginal" cost or should I infer that your unwillingness means maybe that cost isn't as marginal as you claim and you don't want the cost to be part of the discussion.

PK, I don't even know what the actual cost is. So it's not like I don't want it to be part of the conversation. But as you have seen from the reasons I gave in previous posts, I believe in the importance of organizational representation at our biggest events; I believe that the services offered and the insurance provided that these jobs get done right are worth whatever the cost is; and I also have a little faith that PDGA employees and contractors are thrifty with membership money, and that multiple levels of oversight ensure that such is the case.

Maybe they spent $5k last year to travel to tournaments or maybe they spent 10k or even 20k as Shive suggests. Whatever it is, I really find this whole argument silly though. The 2009 financial report and 2010 budget is here (http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/09-10_PDGA_Financial_Summary_Public.pdf) and we're talking about a fraction of the $1.2M budget...a marginal cost. Does anybody publicly challenge what the PDGA spent on office equipment & supplies last year? Or maybe, just maybe, we all have a little faith that they shopped around and got the best deal they could on pencils, computers, software, internet phone & fax, etc.?

:rolleyes:

Give people incentive to become the world's best disc golfer, and a lot of the other things take care of themselves.


I loved the rest too but this is my exact thought on the subject!!!

Give people incentive to become the world's best disc golfer, and a lot of the other things take care of themselves.


I loved the rest too but this is my exact thought on the subject!

PK, I don't even know what the actual cost is. So it's not like I don't want it to be part of the conversation. But as you have seen from the reasons I gave in previous posts, I believe in the importance of organizational representation at our biggest events; I believe that the services offered and the insurance provided that these jobs get done right are worth whatever the cost is; and I also have a little faith that PDGA employees and contractors are thrifty with membership money, and that multiple levels of oversight ensure that such is the case.

Maybe they spent $5k last year to travel to tournaments or maybe they spent 10k or even 20k as Shive suggests. Whatever it is, I really find this whole argument silly though. The 2009 financial report and 2010 budget is here (http://www.pdga.com/files/documents/09-10_PDGA_Financial_Summary_Public.pdf) and we're talking about a fraction of the $1.2M budget...a marginal cost. Does anybody publicly challenge what the PDGA spent on office equipment & supplies last year? Or maybe, just maybe, we all have a little faith that they shopped around and got the best deal they could on pencils, computers, software, internet phone & fax, etc.?

:rolleyes:

Let's say Brian goes to 12 events in a year....9 NTs, Worlds, USDGC, and Japan Open. It would be safe to say that there was an average of $1200 per event. That is a conservative estimate of $14,400 in expenses for just one office member (albeit the most important one). If you add in the expenses for Gentry and Duesler it is probably another 12 trips worth of expenses between the two and when you add in everything else I think it is at least 30k per this year is expenses for just the PDGA staffers not including marshals


Also this needs to GO!!!!

Expenses

"Fulfillment Services 2009-$153,811 2010-175,900

Receive process & fulfill memberships, merchandise, event packages, promo & info kits, direct mails, incl supplies, postage, fees charged

Other Membership Benefits 2009-171,303 2010-198,000

Magazine, new member discs/minis, Ace/Birdie/Eagle Club gifts, ratings processing, 10 & 20 year member bag tags, stickers.


BTW that Financial Report is less detailed than anything I ever had in my accounting 101 class.

Also this needs to GO!!!!

Expenses

"Fulfillment Services 2009-$153,811 2010-175,900

Receive process & fulfill memberships, merchandise, event packages, promo & info kits, direct mails, incl supplies, postage, fees charged

Other Membership Benefits 2009-171,303 2010-198,000

Magazine, new member discs/minis, Ace/Birdie/Eagle Club gifts, ratings processing, 10 & 20 year member bag tags, stickers.

Of course Matt doesn't place any value on any of these services so they should be cut from the budget! Besides, how dare the PDGA spend our membership money on POSTAGE!!! What are they thinking??

Once Matt cuts all the fulfillment services out of the budget, he will wave a magic wand and have all this work done for free by trained mice!! Oh wait, I forgot that all the member fulfillments will magically materialize at each member's home, because everyone knows once you waive the magic wand there is no need for trained mice OR postage.


When Matt cuts all the money for ratings processing, he will personally volunteer to process results for over 1200 annual events and update the ratings for the membership 8 times a year. Better yet, he can wave the magic wand and instantly update the ratings for each and every player after each and every event.

Magic is so awesome - we should have thought of this sooner!

Let's say Brian goes to 12 events in a year....9 NTs, Worlds, USDGC, and Japan Open. It would be safe to say that there was an average of $1200 per event. That is a conservative estimate of $14,400 in expenses for just one office member (albeit the most important one). If you add in the expenses for Gentry and Duesler it is probably another 12 trips worth of expenses between the two and when you add in everything else I think it is at least 30k per this year is expenses for just the PDGA staffers not including marshals

Also this needs to GO!!!!

Expenses

BTW that Financial Report is less detailed than anything I ever had in my accounting 101 class.

I have to disagree here with Matt. I think that the fact that you are able to rationalize at $30,000 means that we are not spending enough attention on getting our message out. It needs to be bigger. This does not meant that we need more of the staff at events, but we need more of the leaders in the spotlight and getting them out in front of media at more timley events would be a stronger opportunity for a better ROI at a local level, which in turn would fuel the purse, which in turn would help Matt get more money for being a better player and allow him to spend more time on the course.

Its not magic, its hard work. You have to fill the membership needs. We need a true deliverable product to legitimize to a certain extent those that are unaware of our sport (magazine), we need to take care of the membership with the things to make us united.

I am not going to argue on the financial report, as you can make them as detailed or as vague as need be. I think that we have an idea of the money in vs. the money out in our sport most of the time. How we choose to spend it is based on the people that were voted on for the decision to be made in light of the others. Trust them.....or voice the concern to them.

Again I think that one of the biggest areas of opportunity for us is to find a person that will only work (even if PT) at developing media relations within the top 50 markets of the US to start and maybe rely on a few outside of the US for the bigger events.

Our bread and butter though is here in the US. Until we are almost on a first name basis with our major events media we are battling a much bigger hill than most of us realize. Once we attract that media, we should have some inroads to people wanting to support our sport more so at their local level, and then it spreads as people gain that comfort with us and our sport.

Everything is everything.....

I have to disagree here with Matt. I think that the fact that you are able to rationalize at $30,000 means that we are not spending enough attention on getting our message out. It needs to be bigger. This does not meant that we need more of the staff at events, but we need more of the leaders in the spotlight and getting them out in front of media at more timley events would be a stronger opportunity for a better ROI at a local level, which in turn would fuel the purse, which in turn would help Matt get more money for being a better player and allow him to spend more time on the course.

Its not magic, its hard work. You have to fill the membership needs. We need a true deliverable product to legitimize to a certain extent those that are unaware of our sport (magazine), we need to take care of the membership with the things to make us united.

I am not going to argue on the financial report, as you can make them as detailed or as vague as need be. I think that we have an idea of the money in vs. the money out in our sport most of the time. How we choose to spend it is based on the people that were voted on for the decision to be made in light of the others. Trust them.....or voice the concern to them.

Again I think that one of the biggest areas of opportunity for us is to find a person that will only work (even if PT) at developing media relations within the top 50 markets of the US to start and maybe rely on a few outside of the US for the bigger events.

Our bread and butter though is here in the US. Until we are almost on a first name basis with our major events media we are battling a much bigger hill than most of us realize. Once we attract that media, we should have some inroads to people wanting to support our sport more so at their local level, and then it spreads as people gain that comfort with us and our sport.

Everything is everything.....

FWIW I am not really against them traveling to large events assuming they are actively making an effort to promote the event/sport. The only reason I posted that was because Jeff seems to feel the cost is much lower when in fact it is highly unlikely.

Of course Matt doesn't place any value on any of these services so they should be cut from the budget! Besides, how dare the PDGA spend our membership money on POSTAGE!!! What are they thinking??

Once Matt cuts all the fulfillment services out of the budget, he will wave a magic wand and have all this work done for free by trained mice!! Oh wait, I forgot that all the member fulfillments will magically materialize at each member's home, because everyone knows once you waive the magic wand there is no need for trained mice OR postage.


When Matt cuts all the money for ratings processing, he will personally volunteer to process results for over 1200 annual events and update the ratings for the membership 8 times a year. Better yet, he can wave the magic wand and instantly update the ratings for each and every player after each and every event.

Magic is so awesome - we should have thought of this sooner!

Anything positive to offer?

It just seems like spending 400K on these two programs is quite high when the perceived benefits are low. .....not much bang for the buck

Membership cards are somewhat useless,

More details would be needed 1st but it seems like a lot of fat could be trimmed from these programs.

A thought - who other than the players would benefit financially from the expansion of the sport? Are these other persons/entities benefitting from the PDGA's promotion of the sport? They must be.

Shouldn't the PDGA and those entities be working hand in hand for the promotion of the sport?

I'm not commenting here on the main topic of this thread, yet.

The notion that the PDGA should not have its senior staff present at major events - especially Worlds, which is essentially our association's annual conference - is ludicrous.

The notion that the PDGA should not have its senior staff present at major events - especially Worlds, which is essentially our association's annual conference - is ludicrous.

Intuitively you'd think that everyone would agree 100% on that, Terry, but some others beg to differ. Some feel it is 1) very expensive 2) It is inefficient and 3) It is unnecessary.

Cost seems to be the primary issue though, and I guess that if Graham or Duesler or Gentry drove to these events, slept on someone's couch, and ate peanut butter & jelly sandwiches the entire weekend, the dissenters would grudgingly accept it. :D

Unfortunately Jeff people would still complain.
I agree with Terry on this one.
There are no easy answers on this subject.

Anything positive to offer?

It just seems like spending 400K on these two programs is quite high when the perceived benefits are low. .....not much bang for the buck

Membership cards are somewhat useless,

More details would be needed 1st but it seems like a lot of fat could be trimmed from these programs.



Perceived benefits are low? According to who? I would venture to say these two programs are providing most of the tangible value for a majority of PDGA members.

It is very easy to sit behind a computer screen and decide what expenses you deem "not worthy". Just because you don't read the magazine or don't think new members deserve a disc & mini or think that ratings are totally worthless, doesn't mean the rest of the membership agrees. Many members demand tangible proof that they are getting something in return for their membership dues and these programs provide that.



I trust our leaders to decide what is best for the majority of the membership, not what is best for an elite few that can shoot the lowest scores. This is what concerns Peter. He is worried that with more top pros on the board, our budget will be re-directed to support this small portion of the membership.

I'm not commenting here on the main topic of this thread, yet.

The notion that the PDGA should not have its senior staff present at major events - especially Worlds, which is essentially our association's annual conference - is ludicrous.

I don't think many disagree they should be at MAJOR events.
Should they be at every NT event? I think that is one of the items people are talking cost/benefits.

Without slighting the good folks at the Skylands Classic, is it worth sending senior staff to this NT event? I think that is more of a question.

What started this was pointing out we have fewer NTs and Majors now than in previous years yet the cost for support for senior staff at these events has increased.

Does that serve the members? Or does that serve the Open division more proportionally than some members would like to see. And if so, does it make any sense to split off the Open division?

Tough questions. No easy answers.
What serves the sport better?
Only years from know will we know if the right decision was made here.

Intuitively you'd think that everyone would agree 100% on that, Terry, but some others beg to differ. Some feel it is 1) very expensive 2) It is inefficient and 3) It is unnecessary.

Cost seems to be the primary issue though, and I guess that if Graham or Duesler or Gentry drove to these events, slept on someone's couch, and ate peanut butter & jelly sandwiches the entire weekend, the dissenters would grudgingly accept it. :D



congrats on making multiple posts in a row arguing a point that no one is arguing against(PDGA staff at majors).


while i know your trying to be funny(trying is the key word here), obviously they cannot drive to events because they have actual job responsibilities to attend to- you know, the jobs we as members pay them to do. The ED should not be responsible for writing up articles and taking pictures, or being a rules official- ever heard of specialization? The ED should have other jobs he is much more qualified for, and leave those other tasks for others more qualified

Many posts in this thread bring up the issue of the NT and how is serves a very small % of members- well when we pay BG to travel to events we are doing that so he can serve that very small %. spending money on services(not something that has a chance of raising awareness of the sport) for the elite few.

Now if you could show me a return on this expense, such as BG getting additional sponsorship or media coverage due to his presence at the event, you might be able to sway my opinion.

Not sure BG has been to more than a few NTs this year. He went to Masters Cup because Santa Cruz was bidding for Worlds next year. He needed to meet with the core team and review courses and facilities. Usually Marshals go to NTs and that has been budgeted and planned for as part of the NT structure from the beginning. Lagrassa and Duesler live pretty close to Blue Mountain and just drove there for the Skylands NT.

I want to thank the PDGA office staff for all their hard work they put in. I believe they are doing their best at what they think is right. It's a juggling act of job responsibilities. No matter what they do someone is going to complain. I truely believe they are trying their best to meet the needs of all members. They have some very difficult decisions to make. Is everything perfect? No. The sport is evolving at a rapid pace and it's going to get tougher. I will do my best to help. I am going to support the PDGA and be part of it.