I just played in my third event at the Almance Pro-Am. Nice Event by the way. I was just asking the question. How can a non PDGA member take home the top prize in Rec or Intermediate when they are not members. A local came in and blew the Rec division out of the water playing better than most intermediate players, with close to a 950 rating that day. I thought Membership had its rewards. I am new to the sport, but i joined the PDGA to respect the other players and work towards a rating. Would it be better if the Non Members play, but Members get placed in prizes or awards ahead of these till they sign up as a Member.. A little help if I am completely wrong..Enjoy the game!!!!

Only in A Tiers or higher do you have to be a pdga member. Otherwise anybody can play in a sanctioned event. Some people just aren't "joiners" but you don't want to limit the lower tiered event because you want to attract as many as possible to help the TD

i had a similar question a while back. a non-member who refused to join, kept winning rec year after year and would not move up because he was not rated. nothing really to do about it... but after a while i guess he got tired of being boo'ed and called a bagger that he finally moved up this year

TDs have the right to restrict which divisions a non-member is eligible for. We've been doing that for years to help ensure fair competition for the Am divisions.

The winner of the Rec division at this event won by 4 strokes. 1 shot a round. Throwing .019% less shots than the runner up. I certainly don't consider that running away with the field.

The winner of the Rec division at this event won by 4 strokes. 1 shot a round. Throwing .019% less shots than the runner up. I certainly don't consider that running away with the field.
And he shot rounds rated at 932, 945, 860, and 891. Hardly the "close to a 950 rating" that the original poster alleges (907 average, to be exact). According to PDGA guidelines, Rec is for players under a rating of 900. Based on that, I'd expect that the winner of the Rec division averages a rating at or just over 900.

Also worth noting that what every non-member is doing when they pay the extra $10 charge is buying a temporary membership. Of course, all the player gets out of this temporary membership is the right to play that one event and nothing more. So technically speaking, EVERY participating player in a PDGA tournament is a member of the PDGA.

If a tournament were to pay out prizes to full members only, I really really really hope they don't charge full price to non-members who want to participate. Nothing says you're not welcome than saying to someone "gimme your money, just don't expect anything in return".

Since the O.P. is new, I'll add that the "career bagger"---the guy who never joins the PDGA to keep playing and winning lower divisions---is very very rare, almost non-existent. In the meantime, we're always trying to get non-tournament players to give tournament play a try. If they like it, they're overwhelmingly likely to join. If you add the stipulation that you must pay an extra $50 (join the PDGA) or not receive the prizes you win, it's that much harder to get them to take that first step.

as a td i can tell a known local non member that he or she can not play in the rec/intermediate divisions. if a player is recognized as an advanced level player then thats what i would let them sign up. if they can beat my scores sometimes but not all the time, then intermediate. it really is up to the td to place a non rated player.

People look far too hard at ratings and not enough at what the ratings imply; if you look at what the "REC" division is "supposed" to score, it is 63+. I could care LESS if you are rated 899 and consider yourself a REC player, you are NOT a REC player if you can consistently shoot 50-55 any given day. Get over yourselves, move up and actually get better rather than steal plastic from younger and less talented players.

Ratings at sanctioned events generally come from harder-to-play course settings and thus puts a disadvantage at local tournaments and non-sanctioned events where the course plays "easier."

The PDGA really needs to adjust all division ratings requirements to make up for the lack of education 90% of players have with ratings and SSA algorhtims.

It's a sad day for me to play with people that can throw 350+, score 5 under, and still have an 870 rating so they can bag the crap out of local and sanctioned tournaments.

People look far too hard at ratings and not enough at what the ratings imply; if you look at what the "REC" division is "supposed" to score, it is 63+.

Can you cite a source for this fact?

And how does it apply to different courses? I average 53 on one course, 70 on another---am I a REC player one place, but not another?

I believe he is referring to the old division guidelines sheet which described the amateur divisions by throwing distance, putting accuracy, etc. I have not been able to find that lately. The problem is that we need 4 names for the Amateur divisions, but only three make sense. Coming up with the fourth division name either below (Novice) or above (e.g. Expert, semi-pro, etc) those three has been left wanting..

Personally, I think the player ratings work very well---certainly much better than pre-rating days when divisions were self-selected, with perhaps the assistance of peer pressure.

I think the division structure works fairly well, though it's not how I would structure it if I were dictator.

The division NAMES, on the other hand......though they strike me as silly, I tolerate them by avoiding any thoughts that Advanced players are advanced, or Recreational players just in it for the recreation, or Novices are novices.

I believe he is referring to the old division guidelines sheet which described the amateur divisions by throwing distance, putting accuracy, etc. I have not been able to find that lately. The problem is that we need 4 names for the Amateur divisions, but only three make sense. Coming up with the fourth division name either below (Novice) or above (e.g. Expert, semi-pro, etc) those three has been left wanting..

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteyBear
People look far too hard at ratings and not enough at what the ratings imply; if you look at what the "REC" division is "supposed" to score, it is 63+.

Quote:
Originally posted by Davidsauls
Can you cite a source for this fact?
And how does it apply to different courses? I average 53 on one course, 70 on another---am I a REC player one place, but not another?




ANSWER:
It is on the New or Renew letter from the PDGA that gets mailed to you with your card, rule book, and other member goodies.

David - if you know what you shoot on different courses, the paper doesn't apply to you - it really is just a par 54 mentality stat from 10+ years ago that continues to find it's way onto the form every year :)

Okay, thanks. I've read the rules book and competition manual, Q&As and other posts.....but just scanned over that letter.

Certainly an out-of-date concept considering the variety of courses in existence.

It's a sad day for me to play with people that can throw 350+, score 5 under, and still have an 870 rating so they can bag the crap out of local and sanctioned tournaments.


Whitey, this statement just does not make sense. It is not possible for someone to consitantly throw 350+, shoot -5 and be at an 870 rating.
Unless they only shoot those scores in non-sanctioned events. It would appear to me that you have found someone in your division that you are not able to beat, at least not very often. Just because someone wins in a division most of the time does not make them a bagger, it just makes them better than you are. AND no matter how good you are, someone will always be better.

Don't worry about their game, work on yours until they call you a bagger.

Here is my opinion. Yes, thier are players out there that are not members and play in a division they know they can win. It happens often that non rated players finish high in rec division. I have always thought that a non member whom has been playing a while should register in advance. Ratings keep the field on an even playing field. A disc golfer whom is not a member, but has played for years, probably wont rule the advance field. However, after a few events, and one recieves a rating. He/She will know where to play.

Whitey, this statement just does not make sense. It is not possible for someone to consitantly throw 350+, shoot -5 and be at an 870 rating.
Unless they only shoot those scores in non-sanctioned events. It would appear to me that you have found someone in your division that you are not able to beat, at least not very often. Just because someone wins in a division most of the time does not make them a bagger, it just makes them better than you are. AND no matter how good you are, someone will always be better.

Don't worry about their game, work on yours until they call you a bagger.

It wasn't someone who bagged down a division, but it came/comes from peoples mouths that I played with and it makes no sense. They have a sub-900 rating (870 specifically from one example) and yet did all those things mentioned above. And yes, it was non-sanctioned. But the point remained, their ranking gave them the green light to play in a novice level at a PDGA event, which is such a dissapointment to the current status of how divisions are broken up. It's not really a PDGA problem, its a mindset problem.

I'm not worried about people better than me, they are there no matter what walk of life you are in, and no matter who you are; my point of contention are those that refuse to accept their own ability and play with a competitive division, rather than stay complancent and receive compensation continually. That does nothing than discourage other players from coming back.
I play because I have fun and I love competition. My focus is on how I can improve personally, all other complaints are peripheral and do not impact my own performance, but I rather not just sit back and be complacent about them.

Well, 870 did not let anyone play Novice. And an 870 player who throws 350 probably three putts a lot to maintain his 870, so he is no better or worse than an 870 player who throws 250, unless the course has a lot of open 1000 foot holes.

Before Mike Krupicka was calculating ratings we had this non-member bagger in Rec who could not be persuaded to move up. So we awarded him a PDGA membership and the PDGA moved him up.

Non-member bagging seems to be talked about a lot more than it actually happens. Usually what looks like non-member bagging is a player playing where he belongs while half the field or more is playing up a division. I checked a couple of tournaments in Whitey's great state of Oklahoma, and it looks like half the PDGA members there play up a division.

People look far too hard at ratings and not enough at what the ratings imply; if you look at what the "REC" division is "supposed" to score, it is 63+. I could care LESS if you are rated 899 and consider yourself a REC player, you are NOT a REC player if you can consistently shoot 50-55 any given day. Get over yourselves, move up and actually get better rather than steal plastic from younger and less talented players.

Ratings at sanctioned events generally come from harder-to-play course settings and thus puts a disadvantage at local tournaments and non-sanctioned events where the course plays "easier."

The PDGA really needs to adjust all division ratings requirements to make up for the lack of education 90% of players have with ratings and SSA algorhtims.

It's a sad day for me to play with people that can throw 350+, score 5 under, and still have an 870 rating so they can bag the crap out of local and sanctioned tournaments.

I think that the problem is more of a mentality. people get pressured to move up then get creamed and move back down. maybe that 870 rated player got his rating because he played up and couldnt handle the mental part of the tougher division. did you see if his rating maybe fell? has he ever had a rating as high as the skills he appears to have? additionally is it possible that he is very comfortable on that particular course and always scores well there? the course i play the most has an extremely low ssa and there are 870 rated players that will shoot a -5. but that is only rated 930 or so. not impossible for someone who is playing one of their best rounds. while the last item could be considered bagging and he may need to play up there, how were the scores spread? did he win by 12 strokes? there are so many more issues than just his rating. additionally i think there is a strong misunderstanding of the divisions. a friend of mine played a tournament in NC where the top 5 or so in rec beat all the intermediates on the same layout. that is just ridiculous. I think the rec division should be eliminated completely or mixed with novice and cutoff at 875. if you are under 875 and have multiple rounds (10 or more) nobody should care if you have a great day and play beyond yourself. its the 898 rated people that clearly are not Rec any more but cling onto it because they are (playing their rating) same goes for (932) in intermediate. at that point you have clearly demonstrated your ability to put consistent tournaments together. for the most part to get a rating that high you need to be shooting in 950's consitently. i have had my rating go as high as 925 but am now a 912. as my rating crept up i planned to move up. then i stopped getting better and began to decline. i am just now figuring some things out and hope to get to the point where i can be forced to move up.

A total rant. hopefully some points in there make sense. lost my place a few times! :eek:

Not at all I think you made a good bit of sense I'd say a solid 900 rated post.

Not at all I think you made a good bit of sense I'd say a solid 900 rated post.

912. thank you.

I think people play up a lot because TDs make the rec division trophy only, and many rec players like their chances of cashing in int better than their chances of winning rec, especially with how often unrated new members or non-members sweep in and win rec by a mile.

I think people play up a lot because TDs make the rec division trophy only, and many rec players like their chances of cashing in int better than their chances of winning rec, especially with how often unrated new members or non-members sweep in and win rec by a mile.

Simple solution to that is to make Intermediate trophy only too. Oh wait, then people will move up to Advanced to play for prizes. Make Advanced trophy only, too.

Hey, look at that...a true "amateur" competition. :eek:

Simple solution to that is to make Intermediate trophy only too. Oh wait, then people will move up to Advanced to play for prizes. Make Advanced trophy only, too.

Hey, look at that...a true "amateur" competition. :eek:

That would be great. but then i think some other changes should occur. An even lower fee to be a PDGA member maybe 25 bucks. as well as greatly reduced entry fees. at least half of current fees. maybe even 3/4.

That would be great. but then i think some other changes should occur. An even lower fee to be a PDGA member maybe 25 bucks. as well as greatly reduced entry fees. at least half of current fees. maybe even 3/4.

Absolutely on reduced entry fees. That's a given if it's a trophy-only event. If anyone believes that trophy-only would happen without greatly reducing entry fees, they're deluded.

But I'm not sure why trophy-only amateur divisions would or should lead to reducing PDGA membership fees. None of the membership fees go into funding prizes at tournaments. They go toward things like maintaining ratings and points and the staff at HQ, among many other things. None of which would go away if the big piles of prizes went away.

Unless you want to argue that dumping the prize structure would result in a huge influx of membership which would off-set any reduction in membership fees. Then maybe you have a case.

Absolutely on reduced entry fees. That's a given if it's a trophy-only event. If anyone believes that trophy-only would happen without greatly reducing entry fees, they're deluded.

But I'm not sure why trophy-only amateur divisions would or should lead to reducing PDGA membership fees. None of the membership fees go into funding prizes at tournaments. They go toward things like maintaining ratings and points and the staff at HQ, among many other things. None of which would go away if the big piles of prizes went away.

Unless you want to argue that dumping the prize structure would result in a huge influx of membership which would off-set any reduction in membership fees. Then maybe you have a case.

Honestly I was thinking the opposite. that if PDGA events start only awarding trophies then there may be a large amount of Non sanctioned tournaments popping up in there place. and those would most likely payout everyone. when demand is down, price needs to follow. otherwise whats the motivation. and if all divisions are trophy only then who really cares about ratings. dont join, dont get a rating, win which division you choose to play and get a trophy. part of the reason people move up is because the payouts are better and less flat. unless you are ready to go pro, why join?

The best way to move the sport forward is to try and set an environment and policies that elevate all players to a higher level and have them motivated to do so.

Catering to the lower levels and not setting a the right expectations just perpetuates this 'i want something even if i didn't play well' mentality.

An example of this is when the pro payout went from 33% (somewhat reasonable) to 40% (unreasonable). In my opinion this was the wrong direction and we should have gone for 20-25% for pros, and 30% for ams.

Paying half of the field is one of the root problems with the PDGA.

The best way to move the sport forward is to try and set an environment and policies that elevate all players to a higher level and have them motivated to do so.

Catering to the lower levels and not setting a the right expectations just perpetuates this 'i want something even if i didn't play well' mentality.

An example of this is when the pro payout went from 33% (somewhat reasonable) to 40% (unreasonable). In my opinion this was the wrong direction and we should have gone for 20-25% for pros, and 30% for ams.

Paying half of the field is one of the root problems with the PDGA.

I couldnt agree more. paying half is ridiculous. they already give out players packs(participation awards) they should reward the top few. when you pay out half the bottom 15% or so only usually get 10 or 15 in merch. not a huge loss. i wouldnt be opposed to only paying a max of 10 players. regardless of size. use a percentage until it gets to 10 players then thats the cutoff. i think it would push players to get better.

An example of this is when the pro payout went from 33% (somewhat reasonable) to 40% (unreasonable). In my opinion this was the wrong direction and we should have gone for 20-25% for pros, and 30% for ams. Paying half of the field is one of the root problems with the PDGA.
Proof? PDGA participation and membership growth continue to increase despite a down economy and TDs are the ones making the choices of formats based on what they think will attract players. So unless you step up and demonstrate your ideas are actually better with actual tournament results, you're just pontificating with nothing to back it up.

Proof? PDGA participation and membership growth continue to increase despite a down economy and TDs are the ones making the choices of formats based on what they think will attract players. So unless you step up and demonstrate your ideas are actually better with actual tournament results, you're just pontificating with nothing to back it up.

I really don't think 10,000 active PDGA members is in line with the actual growth of the sport over the past 10 years, which is mainly growing on a novice/rec level.

I think the proof is that these numbers have now switched in regards to what was going on in the 90's. Sure your PDGA participation and members are inching up, but its merely a side effect of the sport gaining exposure to the general public, more and more of which will never play in touraments.

When you pay out half of the field as if we are children, I think it gives the wrong impression and expectations to new players, and you don't give them the incentive to move to a higher level.

Proof? PDGA participation and membership growth continue to increase despite a down economy and TDs are the ones making the choices of formats based on what they think will attract players. So unless you step up and demonstrate your ideas are actually better with actual tournament results, you're just pontificating with nothing to back it up.

TD's dont have a choice when it comes to payout. they have to pay out the specific percentage decided by the guidelines. so no, the TDs are not making the choices.

TD's dont have a choice when it comes to payout. they have to pay out the specific percentage decided by the guidelines. so no, the TDs are not making the choices.

Bingo. By setting these 'minimums' of 40% and up, that is leaving the TD's alot of room to take the payout as high as they want. How about some maximums? When I see a field of 20 players and you've got the payout going all the way down the list, $5 , $4, $3...... it just makes us seem like a joke.

Sorry but it doesn't matter how the sport is growing relative to the PDGA. The PDGA is a member org and the members' main 'vote' is to choose to join or not, and participate in events or not. And they have been joining, renewing and playing in events. As a leader in the org, you would be a fool not to adopt what members have indicated they prefer.

Europe and Japn would do well to copy our model. Total payouts outside the U.S. are weak in comparison and their payout percentages are as you suggest in the 25-33% range. Guess what's missing? A big base of amateur players competing. Guess what was missing in the U.S. before the sport and PDGA membership started taking off in the early 90s? A big base of amateur players competing. What generated the amateur participation? Payouts for starters versus just trophies. Then, bigger and deeper payouts over the years. It's hard to argue against that track record. None of that was dictated. It happened organically simply by players making the choices to participate and TDs paying attention and doing what works.

TDs have had the choice by not sanctioning or hosting as an X-tier. The PDGA has been all about TDs experimenting with formats. After some period of time, if certain approaches are more successful, it will guide members in that direction.

TD's dont have a choice when it comes to payout. they have to pay out the specific percentage decided by the guidelines. so no, the TDs are not making the choices.
Absolutely TDs have a choice in how much they payout. I run a highly successful B-tier that has been trophy-only to the am divisions for eight years running. Player packs and trophies = 100+% returned to the players at our events.

As for paying 50% of the field being a root problem...it hasn't been a problem for the PGA and ball golf, has it? Every player that makes the cut to Saturday's round at a typical PGA tour event gets paid. Typically the cut is half the field. You do the math.

And as Chuck has already pointed out, the PDGA has experienced exponential growth over the last ten years. You can say it's just a by-product of the overall growth of the sport, but I would think that if the structure of the system was broken or wrong, it would have stagnated and a viable competitor would have emerged at some point over the last 10-15 years. Something is working about the system the way it is.

I'm not saying it's perfect, but I don't think it's a detriment to the growth of the game, at least not the way you guys are arguing it.

I have a hard time believing that the change was organic, but whether it was or not, this is not encouraging beginners and lower skilled players to improve their game, its just allowing them to sit where they're at and be rewarded for it, and that is where we differ philosophically I suppose. In the boundary of a Professional association, I think its a poor choice.

I have a hard time believing that the change was organic, but whether it was or not, this is not encouraging beginners and lower skilled players to improve their game, its just allowing them to sit where they're at and be rewarded for it, and that is where we differ philosophically I suppose. In the boundary of a Professional association, I think its a poor choice.
Could you cite instances where players are actually sitting where "they're at" and being rewarded for it?

If these players are members, their ratings will soon push them up and out of the division they're "sitting" in. If they're not, then I believe it's incumbent on the local club/TD to force this player to move up. It wouldn't be difficult to build a case against him if he's doing it in PDGA events. Simply determine what his ratings would have been by comparing his scores in the event to members who shot similarly. Average it out and see where it puts him. If the average is high enough that he'd be bumped up if he were a member, then make it happen anyway.

Unless you're talking about someone who's consistently finishing middle of the pack. If that's the case, what difference does it make? Perhaps he's peaked as a player (not everyone is capable of improving their game to a pro level). I doubt he's giving strokes away intentionally to stay in the middle of the pack, that's for **** sure. And if it is the prizes that motivate him, why would a player settle for 10th place prizes rather than play for the bigger better ones given to 3rd or 4th place, or *gasp* 1st place.

Seems to me, the only result of cutting back the payout percentage is rewarding the best players, not adding motivation to the middle/back of the pack guys.

The name of the PDGA is one thing. What its members like is another. Our competition has evolved to not represent traditional definitions of pro or am. What we have is mostly players. The better ones play for cash and the rest play for merch. But they like to play for something and there's not enough money in the sport for but a few to scrape out a living from net tournament income and sponsorships.

PDGA events for the most part are like a larger scale version of buddies getting together to play for skins. You like playing with buddies who aren't so good that you never win anything. Thus, we have skill divisions in events so you can play with new buddies where you know you have a chance to win something, not necessarily win the division. I believe that's what most of our members aspire to: have fun but have something on the line to test yourself.

Many new players over the years have developed false hope that there might be money in it if you practice and get really good. Hasn't happened yet. But even those fast improving players whose hopes may eventually be dashed still like competing enough that most still stick around and play as weekend warriors. Our model is much more like softball where there's no future winning money playing as a professional. The pros in softball get paid as teachers, promoters and school coaches. Monroe, Feldberg and Readings are some who have been leading the disc golf wave into getting paid as our teachers, promoters and coaches, not only from winning tournament payouts.

And as Chuck has already pointed out, the PDGA has experienced exponential growth over the last ten years. You can say it's just a by-product of the overall growth of the sport, but I would think that if the structure of the system was broken or wrong, it would have stagnated and a viable competitor would have emerged at some point over the last 10-15 years. Something is working about the system the way it is.



Growth yes, exponential growth no. According to PDGA demographics chart active membership went from 6230 to 14329 from 2000-2009.

Which means membership retention isn't very good, a related part of growth.

Going from 6230 to 14329 is an exponential growth rate of 9.6% annually over that period.

Membership retention could be better but the PDGA percentages are a bit better than other organizations of similar size that Terry Calhoun researched a while back.

Growth yes, exponential growth no. According to PDGA demographics chart active membership went from 6230 to 14329 from 2000-2009.

Which means membership retention isn't very good, a related part of growth.
All I know is I joined in 2000 as member 17393. ~17000 members in the first 24 years of existence (1976). Since then, we're closing in on (or have we passed?) 50000 total members. An average of about 700 new memberships per year in 24 years to a rate of close to 3000 members added per year over the course of the next 11 years is exponential growth, IMO. I wasn't speaking of retention, simply total growth.

But my other point still holds...if the PDGA model is completely broken as some posters indicate, why is there not a clear-cut alternative organization taking up the slack and bringing in those that the current PDGA model is supposedly chasing off? My point being, the PDGA model is doing something right...maybe not everything, but something.

Part of the divergence in opinions is due to the fact that the same organization, PDGA, services the serious players- pros, MA1 as well as hackers like me, MA4. We are looking for different things in tournament play. Better players want to compete at a high level and want a better payout if they win. I am playing against myself and want to play better than my rating regardless of the other players around me.When I started playing it was more important to win some plastic. I now have more than I need and really don't care. I would be happy to play mostly trophy only tournaments that have lower entry fees as long as I am playing the same course as everybody else and have rated rounds. Perhaps there may be some value to allowing tournament directors to alter the payout by division. Higher divisions can get closer to the 25-33% payout suggested above and lower divisions can have a wider, flatter payout to encourage new members. I really don't care either way. Of course I will always think that those 930-960 rated players who got conned into "playing up" will just continue to be sucker-donors if pro payouts are steeper. I would advise them to play MA1 but perhaps my testosterone level just isn't high enough to cloud my judgement. I would play advanced grandmasters more often because I like the company. I have no problem with coming in DFL. However, most TD's price this division the same as advanced so a decent prize can be awarded. I'm not willing to throw the money away and will continue to mostly play MA4 or if its not offiered, MA3.

Could you cite instances where players are actually sitting where "they're at" and being rewarded for it?

If these players are members, their ratings will soon push them up and out of the division they're "sitting" in. If they're not, then I believe it's incumbent on the local club/TD to force this player to move up. It wouldn't be difficult to build a case against him if he's doing it in PDGA events. Simply determine what his ratings would have been by comparing his scores in the event to members who shot similarly. Average it out and see where it puts him. If the average is high enough that he'd be bumped up if he were a member, then make it happen anyway.

Unless you're talking about someone who's consistently finishing middle of the pack. If that's the case, what difference does it make? Perhaps he's peaked as a player (not everyone is capable of improving their game to a pro level). I doubt he's giving strokes away intentionally to stay in the middle of the pack, that's for **** sure. And if it is the prizes that motivate him, why would a player settle for 10th place prizes rather than play for the bigger better ones given to 3rd or 4th place, or *gasp* 1st place.

Seems to me, the only result of cutting back the payout percentage is rewarding the best players, not adding motivation to the middle/back of the pack guys.

The system rewards players to not really improve much. Its not needed because we pay out so much of the field, half of them walk away with something and it has to come from somewhere, which means taking from the top to pay the lower performers.

This really belongs in another thread I started before called Rethinking Payout and I still believe it needs to be done, but doubt it will change now that the expectation is set and those in charge seem to agree with this path.

Going from 6230 to 14329 is an exponential growth rate of 9.6% annually over that.


You are the stat guy but my understanding of exponential growth is growth that starts very slowly then eventually shoots up to the top of the graph. Not a steady growth like we have seen.

I think the number of new members is less important to the discussion than number of active members. The point was made that since we are growing we must be providing the service the members want.

One could easily make the point since we aren't retaining members we aren't giving the members what they want after we got them to join.

Just another take on the sae numbers

The system rewards players to not really improve much. Its not needed because we pay out so much of the field, half of them walk away with something and it has to come from somewhere, which means taking from the top to pay the lower performers.

I would argue that in the am ranks, the system rewards players for coming out and participating in the event. It adds to the payback (return) that justifies the investment made by the participants, especially in the lower divisions. Without a good AM turnout, the system in regards to tournament finances breaks.

The desire to improve is an internal thing, and no tournament payout structure will change that. Some people will be content just to come out and have fun, and they are encouraged to do so by the implementation of player's packs, deeper payouts and so on. The majority of people I notice complaining that payouts are too deep are the baggers at the top of the scale who feel they aren't raking in enough loot. Often losing a couple of these is a good tradeoff for gaining 10s of the true ams playing for and contributing to the good of the sport.

Part of the divergence in opinions is due to the fact that the same organization, PDGA, services the serious players- pros, MA1 as well as hackers like me, MA4. We are looking for different things in tournament play. .
Is it an association of professional disc golfers? No.

Is it a professional association of disc golf? Yes. The FAQ here says 75% of members are Ams.

Semantics.

Regarding divisions, I belong solidly in Novice (834). I choose to play MM1 or MM2 due to the people I'll likely be playing with. I have little in common with teenagers or 20-somethings, and that can make for a longer round than I inflict with my own play.

would it be within guidelines for the TD to have a non-member division with those people not having to pay the additional non member fee and the payout at the discretion of the TD?

You cannot do that. From the sanctioning agreement
Agree that all players competing in the event will enter an officially recognized and reported division. Due to tour insurance liability issues non-sanctioned or unofficial divisions will not be allowed.

You can on the other hand limit non-members to certain divisions or only play trophy Only

You cannot do that. From the sanctioning agreement


You can on the other hand limit non-members to certain divisions or only play trophy Only

thanks