Y not?

If you run a tourney and plan the finances, you'll quickly see why big am entry_fees/paydays are a good thing.

When was the last time your local club ran an unsanctioned, $5 entry fee, trophy-only tournament, and what was the turnout like?

When was the last time your local club ran an unsanctioned, $5 entry fee, trophy-only tournament, and what was the turnout like?



Uh, never?

Bruce does a fine job with it and still gets good turnouts

I've done that, and providing much flatter payouts has no effect on the finances of the event. They're exactly the same, just more people get more stuff.

Good for Bruce! If he ever moves here and still wants to put them on I'll go and play. :)

Hey! That's my line.

When was the last time your local club ran an unsanctioned, $5 entry fee, trophy-only tournament, and what was the turnout like?



Tuesday, August 12, 2003. Sturgeon Full Moon. Our attendance compared favorably to any other mid-week. I lost money on that, but intended on losing money. I think I added $100 to that event out of my own pocket which was cheap for the size of the party!

For the MDGOs that the Waterford Junior Girls' Club is hosting, the trophy-only fee is $10 after rebate, if you take the rebate. We have to charge a little more to cover the series fee, increased sanctioning fee from last year and mandatory PDGA insurance, which was not mandatory last year. [Mandated by park, that is.] The entry fee is about 50 cents more than our per player costs, but that depends on how many play.

The brass cash is in: brass cash (http://discontinuum.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=944&st=60&#entry12171)

If you run a tourney and plan the finances, you'll quickly see why big am entry_fees/paydays are a good thing.



Rhett is correct, but you don't have to actually run the event to understand the numbers. Send me e-mail and I can explain it. A typical $45 B-tier advanced entry fee nets the club $15-$20 per advanced player after fees, insurance, payouts and miscellaneous expenses. A $10 trophy-only entry fee nets the club about 50 cents.

Send me e-mail and I'll send you the spreadsheet showing my numbers. I have to go take Kiralyn to dance right now.

We don't "net" anything out here, except hopefully a "net zero" at the end. Better is to come out $100-$200 ahead for a nice staff dinner.

Do you guys think that the TD culture of sacrifice "no gain or taking a loss" is a plus for our sport or a negative?

What would happen if TDs took the 15% allowed by PDGA Sanctioning Agreement and used it for a volunteer dinner, course improvements, or even to take their family on an outing? And I'm not talking about the difference between retail and wholesale discs either.

But, if as you say Rhett, that you are at "zero", then why not offer a Trophy Only division? An Open Amateur division? Zero is zero, right?

Entry fees would only have to be substantiated by the amount of services, fees and players packages; which could be pretty significant, JUST NOT BASED ON PERFORMANCE OF THE PLAYERS (other than the trophies that is).

But, if as you say Rhett, that you are at "zero", then why not offer a Trophy Only division? An Open Amateur division? Zero is zero, right?



Because people here like playing for "stuff" and money? Most all of our events fill up (albeit at the last second usually) so it appears the people are getting what they want. Plus when you factor in park permits/insurance/trophies/PDGA and series fees we are well over $10 a head already, so even to offer a player pack disc we'd have to go to at least $15. We could drop all sanctioning, but we already have a monthly at almost every course so that type of competition is well covered.

I don't really see the difference between the $10 tourney and a monthly. Except it's a monthly with PDGA points, I guess. Prease exprain.

I don't really see the difference between the $10 tourney and a monthly. Except it's a monthly with PDGA points, I guess. Prease exprain.



I don't even know what a monthly is. I guess it is something we don't do around here.

Do you guys think that the TD culture of sacrifice "no gain or taking a loss" is a plus for our sport or a negative?



Given the number of Am B / Pro C events on our schedule, this must be something else we don't do around here.

Because people here like playing for "stuff" and money?

I thought our "ams" prefered to play for stuff until I gave them choices. Given the choice between an 80% cash payout and a 120% merch payout, the "ams" will take the cash nine times out of ten. [unsanctioned of course] Given the choice between a cheap trophy-only fee related to my actual costs and an expensive gamble for prizes fee, more and more are playing for the points and trophies-only.

But if you fill your events, do what works for you. The heck with what works for me. I don't play your events.

[quoteI don't even know what a monthly is. I guess it is something we don't do around here.

[/QUOTE]

(Almost) Every course out here has a monthly tourney. First Saturday is one place, third Sunday is somewhere else. It's an informal, unsanctioned, low entry-fee get together that doesn't do any trophies but pays back the low entry in low payouts. The club/pro shop/course pro running the event typically makes the wholesale/retail exchange on the am entries and pays all the pro cash back.

It sounds like it fits the same bill as your $10 tourneys, except there are no PDGA points awarded.

Presto Chango: I thought you were concerned with the "finances".

I'm not saying you have to do anything, just that trophy only events can generate just as much revenues for the local clubs as "Pro-Style" payouts in the Amateur Class divisions.

I like both options: BB's low entry fee trophy only or high entry fee trophy only events. The key is to make sure that value is inherent in either.

The main difference between high entry fee pro-style payout am events and high entry fee trophy only am events is that more people get stuff. If they don't want the stuff, then BBs option would seem logical.

Trophy-only option update:

Just to catch you up to speed, I've been running tournaments where paying for a $10 player pack and paying to get in on prizes is optional. For example, in Advanced at my B-tier yesterday you could pay $40 to be fully in for all amenities. If you wanted to forego the mandatory $10 player pack, which in this case was $15Funny, you could take a $10 cash rebate. If you wanted to opt out of competing for prizes you could take another $20 off your entry fee. So if you wanted to play for trophies, PDGA points and ratings, MDGO points and the CTPs, you were only out $10. This is what Tony Kroes calls the Chinese menu of entry fee pricing.

This time we decided that these options would be available to anyone who asked, but we were not going to spend 15 minutes explaining everything to everyone who showed up unaware. It was all on the flyer.

I'm finding that lower divisions prefer the $15Funny player packs over the $10 cash rebate. Am Masters tend to take the player pack because they know the junior league makes a small profit on that. Advanced players like to see what is available for $15 and then decide. Guys who are light in the wallet like the cash rebate option. $15Funny seems to be close to $10 real in value based on the numbers.

Playing trophy-only for $10 is less popular than tropy-only for $5. That makes sense. But when I have PDGA and series fees, sanctioning and insurance and trophies to cover, I have to price the option accordingly. I'm finding that the MA2s and MA3s who play up to Advanced like the trophy-only option. Now it seems that the advanced players who finish in the prizes feel like they play better if stuff hangs in the balance and I'm seeing more top-half players pay the full fee.

Players who exercise their options continue to tell me how much they appreciate it. I continue to tell them that I would rather they play for a reduced fee than not at all, and I'd rather not force players to pay for stuff they don't want in order to play a sanctioned tournament.

Sounds good Bruce,

Seems like a best practices policy for TDs more than a way of adjusting divisional conflicts, which I suppose is it's intention after all.

I wish you'd move to PA so I could try one of these events. While on the wish list, how about Chris Himing coming up and running a Texas 10, or Shimbosan coming in for a Japan Open?

Sounds good Bruce, ...

I wish you'd move to PA so I could try one of these events.

Like my brother Jon, I'm running the kinds of events I want to play. The barriers to entry to becoming a TD are pretty low and the financial risk is pretty low too.

You line up a good course and I'll bring the leaderboards and merch. I don't live in Byron, Shelby, Fairfield or any of the other places where Jon and I run tournaments.

A typical $45 B-tier advanced entry fee nets the club $15-$20 per advanced player after fees, insurance, payouts and miscellaneous expenses.



Wow, I'd like to be president of that club.

This is what Tony Kroes calls the Chinese menu of entry fee pricing.



What a headache. Running a tournament, figuring payouts, dealing with CTPs, dealing with whinners, trying to play up to my potential, filling out the PDGA paperwork, etc. is bad enough. How do you find time to deal with the chinese menu too?

I'm all for giving the player's what they want, but I don't feel like dealing with 37 different "divisions".

A typical $45 B-tier advanced entry fee nets the club $15-$20 per advanced player after fees, insurance, payouts and miscellaneous expenses.



Wow, I'd like to be president of that club.



I wouldn't. Being president of anything would be annoying. :D

But if you are calling me a liar or just plain whacked, here's a hypothetical:

$45 X 40 advanced players=$1800
Three Z-tourney discs mounted on plaques= <65> : 1735
PDGA $3 fees = 135 : 1600
Cost of 1600 worth of merch = 800.00 : 800.00
PDGA Sanctioning and insurance=125 : 675.00
Miscellaneous expenses=15.00 : 660

660/45 players = $14.67 per advanced player.

Under this hypothetical you've paid all your sanctioning, insurance and miscellaneous expenses on your advanced players so you'll do pretty good on those lower divisions too. If you spread your sanctioning and insurance over the entire amateur field, your profit per advanced player will perk up by 50 cents or so.

You should show me your math and maybe I can help you figure out how to get these numbers.

I don't get these numbers because I pick up the sanctioning and insurance and $3 fees and trophies on my side of the equation. Then I throw in some CTPs if I have that kind of attendance from the amateurs. The PDGA lets you take that out of the payout, but given the amount of profit that generates, I'd rather be more generous.

You've got a deal, and I'll through in room and board (couch and home cookin').

If you are serious shoot me an email with a date that might work for you and I will get to work on making it happen. We have a ton of great courses and organizers hungry for checking out best practices.

We have a thing called "Park permit Fee" around here that will eat up at least half of your $660. Then we do player packs, too.

So much for profit! :)

More like it is expected by the players around here:

$45 X 40 advanced players = $ 1800
Cost of 1800 worth of merch = $ 900 : $ 700
(payout figured from full entry fees before deductions)
Three Z-tourney discs mounted on plaques = <$ 65> : $ 635
PDGA $3 fees = $ 135 : $ 500
PDGA Sanctioning and insurance = $ 125 : $ 375.00
Miscellaneous expenses = $ 150 : $ 225
CTPs and give aways = $200 : $25
Profit for club/TD $25

Of course this does not include the value of sponsorships generated by the TD/club, 100% of which is expected to be added directly to payout.

Well actually, the CTPs line is way too low, more like $350 leaving the club a deficit of $125.

Cost of 2300 worth of merch = $ 900



You get some mighty good deal on merch in The Republic.

That better, I was figuring $500 in sponsorship stuff that doesn't count into the purchase price.

[quote
$45 X 40 advanced players=$1800

PDGA $3 fees = 135 : 1600


[/QUOTE]

now 'splain how 40 times 3 equals 135 :D

no wonder bruce makes money,confusing entry fees with number of players....

surprised none of the other message board nit pickers that posted here(jim, gary and rhett) caught that :D

[quote
$45 X 40 advanced players=$1800

PDGA $3 fees = 135 : 1600




now 'splain how 40 times 3 equals 135 :D

no wonder bruce makes money,confusing entry fees with number of players....

surprised none of the other message board nit pickers that posted here(jim, gary and rhett) caught that :D

[/QUOTE]

Hmmm, I was wondering where those extra dollars came from when I got the "football" to the bank yesterday.

More like it is expected by the players around here:

$45 X 40 advanced players = $ 1800
Cost of 1800 worth of merch = $ 900 : $ 700
(payout figured from full entry fees before deductions)




That's what Jon and I do. You don't have to. It does eat into the bottom line.

Bruce,

Next time you run one of these could you write down a kind of journal of what goes into it? Perhaps post it to the DGLC?

[quote
$45 X 40 advanced players=$1800

PDGA $3 fees = 135 : 1600




now 'splain how 40 times 3 equals 135 :D

no wonder bruce makes money,confusing entry fees with number of players....

surprised none of the other message board nit pickers that posted here(jim, gary and rhett) caught that :D



Hmmm, I was wondering where those extra dollars came from when I got the "football" to the bank yesterday.

[/QUOTE]

:D:D

The Sturgeon Full Moon is this Saturday. The tournament will be at the BRATS course. The celestial object will be in the sky well after we are done.

PDGA Sanctioned. Limited to 45 players. Limited divisions, also. For $5 you get a choice of pro or the division we currently call Advanced Amateur.

For complete info go to http://home.comcast.net/~illinoisopen/sturgeon.html

That's just too sweet! Are you going to do this with a B Tier or 2?

My Sister-in-law is a realtor in SE PA�

I wish all tournaments were like this. Charge $5 or $10 for participation only - club fees, PDGA fees, ace pots and trophies. Add an optional entry for those who want to gamble for others monies. This would likely severely reduce or even end all sandbagging arguments for good.

This could be the future of disc golf. I'd probably play most every tournament in my region if this were the case.

sandbegger :cool:
sorry i couldn't help myself :)

That's just too sweet! Are you going to do this with a B Tier or 2?



I did, with the Kensington and Flip City MDGOs. With the mandatory player packs, series fees and PDGA fees, the trophy-only had to be $20 at those, but that included a 15FunnyMoney player pack.

At $20, trophy-only was less chosen, but I don't care. I'm pro-choice on this issue and don't care what you choose.

For complete info go to http://home.comcast.net/~illinoisopen/sturgeon.html

trophies and players packs for ams , isnt that what ams is all about? also lower entries>>

When was the last time your local club ran a sanctioned, $5 entry fee, trophy-only tournament, and what was the turnout like?

Today. 24 players. The club broke even on the event. Scores are posted.

[Note: The original query was regarding unsanctioned events.]

For reasons discussed on another thread (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=252669&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1) I ran a PDGA sanctioned trophy-only-only tournament today. The tournament itself was a $5 entry fee, trophies-only, no-payout event. There was an after-the-tournament cash payout tag playoff that I hoped might draw the 40 or so tag holders. It only drew about 18 tag holders.

We had 24 players which was pretty much exactly enough to cover PDGA sanctioning, $2 fees and the inexpensive homemade trophies.

For this event, the concept seemed to be popular mainly with the amateur PDGA members who play a lot of tournaments. 22 of the 24 players were amateur PDGA members.

Because the standard PDGA format is illegal in Michigan, both for the TD to offer and for the players to win or lose at, our club members will not be playing Michigan tournaments in 2005. Because amateur disc golf cannot compete with gambler disc golf, it seems doubtful that we will run any more of these $5 events, but we will talk about this at the bonfire event next weekend.

Because the standard PDGA format is illegal in Michigan, both for the TD to offer and for the players to win or lose at, our club members will not be playing Michigan tournaments in 2005.



Is this per your mandate, or merely based on legal advice from you?

Because the standard PDGA format is illegal in Michigan, both for the TD to offer and for the players to win or lose at, our club members will not be playing Michigan tournaments in 2005.



Is this per your mandate, or merely based on legal advice from you?

I'm not driving them to illegal events and neither are their moms. I have not talked to the other dads, but all the dads just do whatever the moms tell us to.

we have offered low cost trophy only am options at pdga events in spotsy twice this year. neither time was the response overwhelming. our entry fees do tend to be pretty reasonable anyway however, so there is probably less incentive here than in some other places with exorbitant am fees.

So Bruce, how can you be on the governing board of an organization that sanctions apparently illegal activities in the state you reside? Seems like this needs to be legally resolved rather than your stated approach of just not participating.

So Bruce, how can you be on the governing board of an organization that sanctions apparently illegal activities in the state you reside? Seems like this needs to be legally resolved rather than your stated approach of just not participating.

The short answer is that I do not think that the PDGA does anything illegal when it decides keep stats, track points and calculate ratings on an event which may have been structured in a way as to expose the TD and players to misdemeanor criminal liability.

I am doing what I can to let Michigan players and TDs know what the law is, but so far they are incapable of hearing it. Not counting myself, the opinions of other lawyers run 6-0 as to what the law says, but as far as my disc golfing peers are concerned, I'm just plain nuts. Even Mark Ellis will grudgingly admit that the law says what it says before he argues that the law is archaic and not actually being enforced.

And that last point is not entirely true. At least one park district in Michigan does not allow payout events or $5 leagues because their lawyer has advised them that that is illegal.

I would think the process and agreement of PDGA sanctioning and especially supplying insurance would put the PDGA in legal jeopardy if that's truly the case.

we have offered low cost trophy only am options at pdga events in spotsy twice this year. neither time was the response overwhelming. our entry fees do tend to be pretty reasonable anyway however, so there is probably less incentive here than in some other places with exorbitant am fees.



My anology to what you describe is this: You were trying to sell Pepsi to a bunch of guys that only drink Coke.

Creating a classification of poeple that don't play for other players entry fees is going to take some long term effort.

I would think the process and agreement of PDGA sanctioning and especially supplying insurance would put the PDGA in legal jeopardy if that's truly the case.

I would need a lawyer to make the argument. I just don't see it. Maybe there is a PDGA RICO violation?

The insurance may be ineffective since most insurance has an "illegal acts" exclusion.

I have not followed these discussions too closely, so this may have been covered, but would the approach below if used not remove the illegal elements?

Have tournament attenders all be sponsors of the tournament. They would all sign a statement saying they are donating money to the sponsoring Club that would be used for course maintenance, course improvements and tournaments. Preferably this would be all done in pre-registration a week or so early.

How would this be different from corporate sponsors and TV contracts giving $ to a PGA? All are paying for services where they expect a return on their investments.

804.05-A.4 which prohibits "Activities which are in violation of the law or park regulation or disc golf course rule" might get the PDGA off the hook as well.

Applicable ?

I would think the process and agreement of PDGA sanctioning and especially supplying insurance would put the PDGA in legal jeopardy if that's truly the case.


You would think so. I also don't think this has been investigated throroughly by the PDGA.

With the total purse for all PDGA events topping $1 Million dollars, itmight be a good time to form a PDGA committee to investage the legality of our tournament format in all states.

we have offered low cost trophy only am options at pdga events in spotsy twice this year. neither time was the response overwhelming. our entry fees do tend to be pretty reasonable anyway however, so there is probably less incentive here than in some other places with exorbitant am fees.



My anology to what you describe is this: You were trying to sell Pepsi to a bunch of guys that only drink Coke.

Creating a classification of poeple that don't play for other players entry fees is going to take some long term effort.



those would be theoretical pepsi drinkers vs real coke drinkers. how many real events have you offered to your horde of theoretical pepsi drinkers? what has the result been?

for my part, i will continue to make jr divisions trophy only but doubt i will offer it again in the other am divisions.

we have offered low cost trophy only am options at pdga events in spotsy twice this year. neither time was the response overwhelming. our entry fees do tend to be pretty reasonable anyway however, so there is probably less incentive here than in some other places with exorbitant am fees.



My anology to what you describe is this: You were trying to sell Pepsi to a bunch of guys that only drink Coke.

Creating a classification of poeple that don't play for other players entry fees is going to take some long term effort.



those would be theoretical pepsi drinkers vs real coke drinkers. how many real events have you offered to your horde of theoretical pepsi drinkers? what has the result been?

for my part, i will continue to make jr divisions trophy only but doubt i will offer it again in the other am divisions.



And thus the PDGA marches on, blinders in full affect.

John,

Creating an entirely new classification of disc golfer is not something one person can hope to do on their own, particularly if surrounded by events and players with expectations of "pay outs". It has to be a concerted wide prolonged effort.

Trophy only events right now are beyond the norm and therefore generally disliked. But as more and more are offered and folks get used to them some coke drinkers might actually take a taste of pepsi, but that is not necessarily the main reason we are creating this new classification.

We are creating it because:

A) It is the "right" thing to do.
B) It opens a door of participation to an entirely new demographic of "sportsmen" (amateurs).
C) It will absolutely benefit our "pro" and "semi" pro competitions and the promotion of the sport beyond it's current entrenched boundaries (something I know for a fact makes some retro-folk nervous, but never the less is necessary if we ever to really attain our stated goals).

And to answer your question: No I am not in a "run tournaments" phase right now. I played for 4 years in a trophy only environment in Japan (other than the Japan Open and the Fujino Open - where I introduced US brand of tournaments). When I do start running events again, and I definitely will, it will likely be for schools, universities and community groups and possibly to build a local club. In all honesty, and though I love it (and have for 16 years now), PDGA Competitive Disc Golf, in it's current form, is not going to succeed in the way I want it to. It serves too narrow a self-interest group, with only mild and passive attention given to really engaging communities and the greater market. There are signs of this changing, but as it stands now, we have miles to go.

The rest of the PDGA is not willing to do what you want but aren't willing to do yourself. Sorry, that's reality.

And of course you think we are all a bunch of idiots because you are so smart.

The rest of the PDGA is not willing to do what you want but aren't willing to do yourself. Sorry, that's reality.

And of course you think we are all a bunch of idiots because you are so smart.



I think I mentioned that this needs to be a concerted effort...

and that it is not something that you can do in isolation, certainly not in as busy an area as the NE.

I will do it myself, and I will support those who do likewise. I see this as a natural progression, and signs of the PDGA moving (slowly but surely) towards recognition of this most critical of challenges we face.

I do understand your hostility Rhett, you see this as a challenge to your entitlement. It really isn't, but that's something you will have to come to terms with on your own...

In september every year at Cliff Drive the last 4 years in a row......Attendance-
2001-52
2002-68
2003-34 (Rain out)
2004-42
though 2004 Lion's Den 2 weeks before had 19 last year, and 78 this year.

This has been a doubles bring your partner event and it is to promote a new course that we were working to develop in KC, that is now working on being a fixture.

I like it a lot

Jack

There has been a debate in the Southern Nationals Tournament series about paying out AM's in trophies instead of plastic, bags, baskets and other merch.

Of course some people argue that the "cash" they pay to enter the tournament goes outside of their division, ie goes to the pros. But If these people are really concerned about "making money" at a tournament, shouldn't they play in the open division? Also with the PDGA creating the PRO2 division, this should allow for the amateurs who want to profit from a tournament to stay seperate from the rest of the am's who are just in it for the fun.

For the Am's that want to win and get better, I think that they will not fuss about getting trophies instead of "a stack of plastic", these Am's are serious about the game and strive to reach the professional level. I consider myself one of these Am's and I hope to be able to compete in the Open division at the beginning of next summer, which would be after only 15 months of playing. I would gladly like to look at my trophy shelf grow with disc golf trophies so it would balance out the track and cross country trophies I have.

Anyways, if you look at the discs that TD's give away for prizes, most are the unpopular molds in MAX weight, the majority of players cannot throw max weight. And all the plastic I win I trade off to other players or our local retailer for discs I actually want. You will not see people trading trophies.

I say to the people who want to profit from the game, play open, if you think you are not good enough, GET BETTER and PRACTICE. Leave Am's for the people who just want to have fun or are striving to attain the professional level and are just not quite there yet.

There is a difference between wanting to profit from the game, and wanting to get the full-value of your entry fee. Here in NC, I've not seen TDs padding the pro purse with ams' entry fees. We typically have excellent payouts in the am divisions.

I have no problem with going to low-entry-fee, trophy-only formats, but will play in a tournament that is trophy-only at the same entry fee as before, unless the players' packages are improved considerably.

trophy only is a good idea, but i'm not convinced combining it with regular payout is a good idea. i totally am against the am system payouts as it is and think entry fees need to be lowered to increase appeal in our sport. but i recently competed in an event and chose the trophy only option. after 2 tough days of playing i totally spaced when the td gave me a few discs and a shirt along with my trophy. i remembered afterwards on the way home, and had to fess up to the td later. it's just too much to add one more thing on the td to remeber while getting payout together. and it makes getting the payouts together beforehand tougher too. and what happens if a trophy only person cashes, does it bump all the payouts down the line?

IMO trophy only option doesn't seem to be working in this area at least....

For me this is 2 completely different discussions:

1) Creation of a completely new Amateur Classification with Trophies Only, leaving the carney and gambler classifictions untouched.

2) Messing with the existing carney divisions so they don't get prizes based on performance.

I am completely uninterested in the second discussion, it has nothing to do with improving our competitive system.

How about a trophy only option for Pro now that Pro2 is gone? Let me explain my reasoning:
I was very much looking forward to playing in some Pro2 events this year. Not only do I want a little taste of the Pro's but I would also like to give the local Am's a break. I am not very excited about donating almost double the entry fee's to Pro's pockets when I know I will most likely not cash and even if I did, I couldn't as I plan on playing Am World's and Nat's this year for the last time. Turning down money might be fine for J.J., I can't afford to do that. Not playing might be fine for Dave Shaw, I don't want to do that. I think a trophy-only option for Pro would make it easier for the top of the Am's to move up, or at least see if they ever want to.

Ams can enter any pro division (they qualify for by age/gender) in Minnesota at 1/3 the entry fee to just play for trophies. It's (grudgingly) PDGA legal so we recommend other places consider this. It's not promoted as an option because it makes filling out the TD report more complicated and some TDs have enough trouble doing them as it is.

When I used to run tournaments in Michigan, I used to offer trophy-only for pros. One tournament I didn't because the PDGA would not approve it. Then I heard Chuck was doing it so I quit asking for approval! :D

Send nice e-mail to Jon and maybe he'll offer it for the Illinois Open Series.

Pro points plus no worry about players package. Its a win situation for ams who don't need any more prizes.

We're doing it only for Ams playing in a Pro division. Those with a Pro card cannot get the 1/3 entry fee deal and play for trophy only.

To bad that a trip to Minnesota would sort of destroy the point of saving half an entry fee. :D Cool! I may have to petition some (non-Minn) TD's next year!

We're doing it only for Ams playing in a Pro division. Those with a Pro card cannot get the 1/3 entry fee deal and play for trophy only.


Hmmm. That's an interesting decision. It seems like you should allow the "pros" to do it, too. Then being a pro would give you more options (play am for lower entry fee if you're not competitive, pay 1/3 if you're not competitive, pay full price) instead of less.

Seems like being a pro should have some kind of advantage, shouldn't it?

I think we all know that most pros are semi-pros as are most Advanced players. So no 'Am' should be proclaiming it's unfair for an equally rated semi-pro with a Pro card to compete with a semi-pro holding an Am card. However, when a person is a proclaimed 'Pro' and is playing in a pro division, it seems like the intent is for striving to win cash like 'real' pros do in other sports. So, the 1/3 fee for pros doesn't make sense even though I'm sure several would choose that opportunity on occasion like say when the big boys come to town. If we had lots of added cash, the potential purse erosion of pros paying 1/3 wouldn't be an issue.

1/3 or 0/3, if all your donators opt for Ams when the big boys are in town.

How about "1/3 and no winnings" option only available with 1 week to go before tourney time? That way you can at least fill the field without endangering your prize purse. (If you figure that the 1/3 guys would not play because the entry fees are so high.)

I could see the 1/3 being allowed for the pros who are really semi-pros with ratings below 955 who can move sideways to Advanced, dodge the big boys and still play. Maybe they would play in the bigger events.

If TDs/PDGA made it a standard policy to place the top rated quarter to a third of the Open Pro players in different groups at the start of an event, lower rated players might have more incentive to enter Open knowing they'll have an automatic chance to be grouped with at least one better player. Since the pairings are kind of random right now, it's less likely. You would think top pros would want to encourage any policy that gets more players to enter Open.

Why not allow everyone the option for reduced entry fees, but only let them win/earn a fractional part of the purse?

Just a question. Why does it seem to be an attempt to make the Pro division obsolete? First it was Pro 2 now this. What about going in different direction. How about paying more people in the Open division, maybe top half? I mean with all these rules changes the Open division just keeps shrinking and shrinking.

I am in a bad spot, I don't have any choices (other than dress up in a gorilla costume and play as King Kong :D) I can�t go to another division to avoid other players, but people over 39 can dodge me and people that have a rating < 955 now can dodge me. Am I going to have ANYONE to play against next year?

As for Pro's playing for trophies only. I wouldn't travel 35 feet let alone drive to another town to play for a trophy and not cash. Golf is Gambling Sport and I am either a compulsive Gambler or a rabbided disc golf fan, still confused about that one. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Just a question. Why does it seem to be an attempt to make the Pro division obsolete? First it was Pro 2 now this. What about going in different direction. How about paying more people in the Open division, maybe top half? I mean with all these rules changes the Open division just keeps shrinking and shrinking.

I am in a bad spot, I don't have any choices (other than dress up in a gorilla costume and play as King Kong ) I can?t go to another division to avoid other players, but people over 39 can dodge me and people that have a rating < 955 now can dodge me. Am I going to have ANYONE to play against next year?

As for Pro's playing for trophies only. I wouldn't travel 35 feet let alone drive to another town to play for a trophy and not cash. Golf is Gambling Sport and I am either a compulsive Gambler or a rabbided disc golf fan, still confused about that one.


Because you're one heck of a good disc golfer, Kevin! You're better than 99.9% of all the disc golfers in the world. Nobody with a player rating of 950 or below has any shot at competing with you, even on your worst day.

No offense, but why are we forced to play in a division against you and basically give you our money? Why can't we have our own ratings-based division where we can play against people of similar skill for just our own money? Why can't we have our own trophy-only entry option which will still support the tournament and the PDGA? We'll still be able to compete and develop our skills and get better and soon WANT to try and take you on. But without any divisional protection, many of us are staying home and not playing at all, and that's not helping anybody.

I wouldn't travel 35 feet let alone drive to another town to play for a trophy and not cash.


"Trophy only" is a silly name for the option in the MPO division, as anyone with any chance whatsoever to actually win one of the trophies would never choose that option.

But if it brought in more players to play in the declining-turnout division, wouldn't it be a good thing? I like the "last minute only" or "1 week to go" thing as it gives everybody who wants to pay full entry the chance to do so, and eliminates the risk of the discount players selling out the division before everyone else gets a chance.

I understand what your saying about being a constant donator. I would lose interest myself quickly if I was handing over $100 entry fees plus $200 expense for hotel, food, and entertainment every week. I'm just trying to say that paying half the field in pro divisions is a better solution than devloping a division for each and every soul that enters the event. Sure I understand it will be lighter and flatter payouts. A little something back in return for beating half the field, even if it's only $50. That will entice more players to play open. IMO

While I'm preaching to chior that isn't listening, I really wished all 1000+ rated golfers regardless of age would be obligated to play Open also, this would also cut into my wallet but its better for the game to have the top players in the top division.

I THINK the PDGA is going in the right direction with ratings, but I only say that if they start declaring divisions by player ratings. Especially in Am divisions, Every 4 months we'll have a new crop of pros :D NEW MEAT! :p

Hey this is off topic but is your action figure takeing a wizz on that house plant? :)

I have recommended that TDs use the alternate line on the PDGA payout table to pay 50% when the amount of added cash is decent relative to the paid entry fees. Unfortunately, there aren't alot of events where that's the case. But it's a start.

While I'm preaching to chior that isn't listening, I really wished all 1000+ rated golfers regardless of age would be obligated to play Open also, this would also cut into my wallet but its better for the game to have the top players in the top division.



I couldn't agree more. 1000+ rated players competing in Masters and Grandmasters divisions is downright silly.

The PDGA (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.php?offset=60&division=MPO&order=rating) is however currently showing less than 100 players scattered around the world with ratings over 1000, so that change may have little effect. Lowering that line to 985 would double the number, as well as place a definitive cap on the amateur division.

Everything is going great. Kev, give it a few years. The more players there are with 900-975 there are the healthier our Open division will be, we're just trying to find the correct balance.

I bet Kenny wishes his streak of 10 in a row was starting now, wouldn't you?

My point was for AM's playing Pro (Trophy only) not Pro's doing it. Just to make that move up a little less of a financial burden. I'm pretty surprised at the response this is getting, it almost seems like a good idea.

My point was for AM's playing Pro (Trophy only) not Pro's doing it. Just to make that move up a little less of a financial burden. I'm pretty surprised at the response this is getting, it almost seems like a good idea.



Tafe,

I hear what you are saying, and it does make sense on a certain level; make the transition smoother between Advanced and Open.

But consider this: Perhaps it should actually be much more difficult than it currently is. A major decision coinciding with some significant qualifying event.

I�m not going to detail the reasons I think it should be that way without giving you and others a proper opportunity to think about it yourselves. What would be gained? Lost? Short term price? Long term price?

That is a good ideas for ams, but it seemed liked a better idea under the old rules. Under the new rules, aren't ams rated < 955 indistinguishable from the pros rated < 955 ratings. Both can take cash one week and then play am next week. Right?

I still think the 1/3 fee is a good idea, it just should be available to all. I suspect over time, many would choose that option and it would be good for everyone. Lesser players would have an "affordable" price that allows them to compete, better players would get money in the pot that wasn't previously there, and the PDGA and TDs would have more numbers to attract sponsors.

Kevin, the 1/2 payout seems like a good idea to me and I'm glad to hear a top player suggest it since that is where most of the opposition will probably come from. Chuck, it is also an idea that the PDGA should think about mandating rather than merely encouraging when there is enough added money. IMO.

James,

I'd probably play a few more years in Open if it were an option. Basically it makes the full entry fee a side bet on top of the "actual" event fee. $25 covers players package, meals, pdga fees, etc, while the $50 on top is for the gamblers. I'm so addicted to disc golf I'd probably still pay the full $75 if there were no other choice, but over the years I can say emphatically that I would have played in far more PDGAs if the 1/3 trophy only option was a reality. Way more!

The key is event value, as always. If an event provides enough value, I for one don't care what it costs (within reason). If I could qualify for the USDGC I would gladly pay whatever entry fee, same with Paw Paw or Seneca, or Warwick or Nockamixon or Tinicum, or Brandywine, or if I lived close enough Renny. That is the key. But this diverges from the topic...

You all know I am for the creation of a true amateur classification. If most of the current ams became just protected pros within skill based divisions, no one would begrudge them their own moneys back in winnings however they like it best. But it is because they currently create a huge road block to greater participation within our competitive system that most folks at least "sense" something is just not right...

If we have flatter payouts and paid more people, there won't be as many Angry Clowns out there trying to make a living doing it. The tension will be less with every missed putt. No one would be losing they're meal money. It will be more FUN driven.

Top 3 should get paid about the same as they are now and then start getting flat after that becuase if you don't make the medal stand you are a LOSER! :p heres your $90 now get lost! j/k :D

The main problem with that is removing the spike for the top three finishers is where the majority of the funds come from to flatten the payout to more players. :cool:

The main problem with that is removing the spike for the top three finishers is where the majority of the funds come from to flatten the payout to more players. :cool:



Gary has his moments, I'll give him that.

The way to fight angry clowns is to not tolerate it and stand up to it officially.

Kev, the gambling attitude's penetration into the very furthest reaches of our competitive system IS, in my opinion, the poison in the well. There MUST be another organized option, one for folks competing purely for the love of the sport, unconcerned for personal gain. Until that comes, Rhett will argue on behalf of his best interests, JefLa his, you yours and me mine, and the betterment for all, top to bottom, will be left without a true champion.

Nick is correct.

My personaly best interest is that I cover expenses for the weekend. If I could travel, compete, hang out with friends, and get back home, with a net gain/loss of $0 every time, I'd do it 49 weekends of the year; hell I'd probably do it with a net loss of $100. Nick may be with me here, but I guarantee that Cam isn't. Kev is probably somewhere in beteween. Good luck making everyone happy.

Nick,

I don't give a [*****] about winning stuff myself. But I do know that if the ams don't win stuff, then the tournament lost almost all of it's income. So please leave me out of your posts.

Rhett

best things i have ever won are my waterloo trophies!! I could care less about the plastic!! If I win plastic , it is up for sale at a discounted rate in order to recover some of the high entries paid. Ams are saturated with plastic!!!!!

Nick, your true amateur class is great for those that want it, but the pro divisions are populated with sportsmen and women that choose to gamble. The deeper payout and reduced bet strategies mesh with the present gambling structure. True amateurism may be an effective strategy for those who wish it, but it is by definition a meaningless strategy for the pro divisions.

Nick,

I don't give a [*****] about winning stuff myself. But I do know that if the ams don't win stuff, then the tournament lost almost all of it's income. So please leave me out of your posts.

Rhett



Rhett,

Why? When you are so fun to include!?!

You have your own interests at heart, sure as everyone else has theirs. It's ok. You are no more selfish than the next guy here. Or wrong for advocating the protection of your existing entitlement.

The thing about it is that all of us, in organized disc golf, as it currently stands, are in one way or another a gambler. We consider what we get "of monetary value" when we decide to run or play in a tournament.

This in my opinion creates tremendous, and often negative, pressure from the separate interests that are vying to get if not the biggest slice then at least their fair share of the purse pie. They compete for participants, entry fee amounts, cut of the purse, cut of the sponsorship and push and shove to get the attention they naturally each believe they deserve.

Meanwhile, folks that are out to play for the pure fun of it and view �just playing in the event� as enough return of value are left without a tangible advocate or certainly without a division or classification in which to compete.

And I�m not talking about players of lower skill level either. It is inaccurate to say that whom I am talking about are recreational players or what we currently call amateurs. To some degree, I�d say to a greater degree, I am one of these players. Sounds like Jim might be one too. Even top golfers like Craig Gangloff seem to have these inner yearnings to play just for the love of it without regard for reward. They exist in our current player base, yes, but what I am interested in, and what I think disc golf manufacturers and organizers and yes even pros within the various protected skill levels should be interested in, are all of the folks who have not overcome their natural aversion to �gambling�, and who view organized disc golf as just a big organized gambling enterprise with no option for �real� amateur sportsmen to compete.

Basically, what I am saying is this: We need a �clear� and �true� alternative to �Carney/Gambler� competitive disc golf in order to relieve the pressures that clearly are a negative influence on our overall competitive system and has such a dampening effect on our player base retention and growth.

If I am wrong, tell me why? And how continuing down the same path will suddenly yeild different results?

But I do know that if the ams don't win stuff, then the tournament lost almost all of it's income.



Rhett not to be harsh but this is the same lame excuse you've used for some time now.

People need to realize that you can run tournaments that make money while paying out NOTHING. Don't believe me? Well, it happens every day in almost every sport other than disc golf.

How do you do it? You charge an (albeit smaller than now but not negligible) entry fee, and you provide a good tournament.

The real problem that must be overcome is the EXPECTATION of prize winning and all the other things that have been done wrong for the last 20 years.

Oh and by the way, noooooo, you won't get the same participants in these tournaments that you get today. But the concept still works, just with a different clientele. I'd argue a better clientele. The big problem is that the PDGA does not endorse this type of tournament, nor is there any provision for it in the competitive structure. Talk about peeing down your own leg.

You've got to step outside sometimes to see things for what they are. :o:) :cool: Oh, or maybe I'm wrong. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

You can still make money, but the disc manufacturers won't make any money with that plan.

how many AM ball golfers out there have hundreds of extra clubs? TROPHY OPTION

You can still make money, but the disc manufacturers won't make any money with that plan.



A) There will still be disc sales at tournaments. In fact the players can buy more discs, and ones they actually want!, with the money they are saving on entry fee.

2) You can even make the tournament more money by charging the disc vendor to set up at your tournament. I mean why wouldn't you?

C) Just a guess but I'd say only a small fraction of total manufacturer sales are due to prizes at tournaments. I think the poor little manufacturers will be okay.

iv) With the ingrained philosophy of vendors and manufacturers donating for free or at cost, I don't think either is getting rich on tournaments anyway. The argument made by Rhett is that the tournament can't make money, not the disc supply chain.

I said nothing about "making money". My tournaments always try to be net-zero affairs. Am merch markup pays for all kinds of stuff that will have to come out of the pro players entry fees if the ams are playing trophy-only with low entry fees. (Charge $60+ for only a trophy and the MPO field size will look huge compared to the am field size.)

I don't know how Brakel manages things in Michigan, but out here park permits alone cost anywhere from $300 to $676.

I know, I know. Do some fund raising you lazy TD. Personally, I am terrible at that.

I said nothing about "making money".



When I said "making money" I meant "income", not "profit". You said income. Sorry, I should have used the same word. So we're on the same page here.

By not responding to the meat of the post, namely, that it's very possible to run net-zero tournaments without the current prize structure, you must be admitting that your reasoning is lame, as originally posited. :)

Actually it's not that lame if you just throw in some disclaimers like: Given the current expectations of the current tournament players and my reluctance to do something different and the lack of support for something different from the PDGA, then "if the ams don't win stuff, then the tournament lost almost all of it's income".

:) :cool::p

I'm not a disc vendor. I don't know any disc vendors who can set up shop. I am lame.

We don't have very many tourneys in SoCal. I don't know how to get more. I hope somebody can figure out how ot make some money running tourneys out here so that there will be more of them. I myself will gladly pay for tourney experience since I enjoy it.

I just know from my experience as a middle cashing am in a small division that I would not have bought 1/4 of the discs that I have won.

I also know that the majority of the events I play in are pick your own payout so I generally win what I want.

I don't think all of the players at an event are going to pay a lower entry fee and then on top of that spend an amount equal to the higher entry fee on plastic.

It is rare that there are disc vendors other than the TD on site during a tournament.

It might work, but I see it undercutting the current artificial market for disc sales.

We don't have very many tourneys in SoCal. I don't know how to get more.



The answer is so simple that it burns.


I hope somebody can figure out how ot make some money running tourneys out here so that there will be more of them.



The answer is to change the expectation so that people are willing to pay what a tournament experience is actually worth, instead of what they are used to paying.
Sadly, we may be well too far past the breaking point for that now.


I myself will gladly pay for tourney experience since I enjoy it.



Really? Please see the "Easy Question for Ams" thread.

Anyway, if you would please, post the itemized expenses from any given recent tournament you have helped run, assuming you have access to this data. And also post the field size, pro and am. I'd like to try to make my point with it. Thanks.

Anyway, if you would please, post the itemized expenses from any given recent tournament you have helped run, assuming you have access to this data. And also post the field size, pro and am. I'd like to try to make my point with it. Thanks.



you don't pay attention to rhett's postings much do you???
look at msot any socal tournament thread or the socal website and you'll get all your answers....

why don't you do some research before making inane comments about stuff you know nothing about?

I hope somebody can figure out how ot make some money running tourneys out here so that there will be more of them.



The answer is to change the expectation so that people are willing to pay what a tournament experience is actually worth, instead of what they are used to paying.
Sadly, we may be well too far past the breaking point for that now.


"Worth" is a funny word. Not really relevent here as it implies a set and certain cost for a subjective thing called "personal enjoyment." In a free market people will pay what they think is fair and skip the event if the price is not "worth it" to them. I think that $10 entry tourneys out here can't compete with the informal monthlies we have almost every single weekend day. A $50 entry with no payout would have to bring some super intangibles to the table to have a chance of drawing anybody, IMNSHO. Me personally? I'm not going to run the experiment because I personally don't think it will fly. I'd love for somebody to prove me wrong.



I myself will gladly pay for tourney experience since I enjoy it.



Really? Please see the "Easy Question for Ams" thread.


I don't know why you would doubt my word. I've been to three Am Worlds' and didn't merch in the first two. The scrip I won in Iowa was negligible compared to my travel expenses. Yet all three trips were 1000% "worth" it to me. I also played in the U.S. Masters 2002, which was a pro event with a high entry fee that I had zero chance of cashing at. I consider that one worth it, too.

I call that paying for the tourney experience and enjoying it. What do you call it?





Anyway, if you would please, post the itemized expenses from any given recent tournament you have helped run, assuming you have access to this data. And also post the field size, pro and am. I'd like to try to make my point with it. Thanks.

Check the results of the EIEIO tournament. SoCal Championships doesn't really count because the whole SoCal Series subsidized that one. Made it fun to plan and run, though. What with all that extra cash to figure out how to spend. Much better than the usual penny-pinching that is required.

why don't you do some research before making inane comments about stuff you know nothing about?



Keith,

I looked up "the blind leading the blind" in the dictionary and it read "Keith Johnson giving advice about reading and writing posts on the PDGA Discussion Board." ;)

Rhett, I probably missed your post explaining this latest brouhaha, but explain. I understand that a $50 trophy only tournament would be a hard sell. How about a $15 dollar one?

As for finances, couldn't the club or the TD just tag on a fee for running the tournament? Is that legal under PDGA guidelines? or Are you saying that the disc sale profits for the club dwarf the amount that can be raised by per-person fees.

Just curious.

Rhett, I probably missed your post explaining this latest brouhaha, but explain. I understand that a $50 trophy only tournament would be a hard sell. How about a $15 dollar one?

As for finances, couldn't the club or the TD just tag on a fee for running the tournament?



Yeah, that's all I'm saying.

Rhett's assertion was that "I do know that if the ams don't win stuff, then the tournament lost almost all of it's income.".

All I'm saying is that you can easily pay for tournament expenses through entry fees alone. But I realize that probably a majority of current tournament players would not see the value in that tournament for that entry fee.

But,
1) I think many players (like me) DO indeed see that just the tournament experience itself, plus all the things like ratings and points, is worth a reasonable entry fee.

2) I think it would be nice, with help and support from the PDGA, to change the perception of the current tournament players so that they understand the value they are getting, without always expecting merchandise from some source.

3) I think there are certain numbers of non-tournament playing disc golfers that would start playing tournaments if the format and entry fees were different.

When I asked for itemized expenses, I wanted to try to put a number to it, because I personally don't know how much it costs to run a tournament. I do know, however, that I would gladly pay $20 for a well run one day PDGA sanctioned tournament that gave out nothing more than a small trophy to first place, and had NO OTHER amenities whatsoever (CTPs, player's pack, lunch). I think others would find it to also be "worth it". And I think that's where the perception SHOULD be as well.

I know that $20 times 50 participants is 1000 bucks. Can't you run a no-payout, no-players pack, no-ctp, no-lunch tournament for 1000 bucks?

And Keith, please tell me you're kidding when YOU are talking about inane comments.

Rhett, I probably missed your post explaining this latest brouhaha, but explain. I understand that a $50 trophy only tournament would be a hard sell. How about a $15 dollar one?

Around here, we have 2-round one-day informal monthlies. One at pretty much every course. That means there is one somewhere every single Saturday and some/most Sundays. Entry fee for those is $5-$20 depending on division, so they are the competition for a $15 dollar PDGA tourney. I don't really see the discriminator that would make the cheap trophy-only tourney preferred over the monthlies. Again, I'd love to see someone prove me wrong. PDGA tourneys around here have much more of an "event" feel, and I think that is a big part of the draw.


As for finances, couldn't the club or the TD just tag on a fee for running the tournament? Is that legal under PDGA guidelines? or Are you saying that the disc sale profits for the club dwarf the amount that can be raised by per-person fees.

I don't sell discs. Am payouts defintely raise funds for the tournament and those funds defray the costs of the park permits ($300-$676 depending on park) and player packs and trophies and all the other stuff so that more of the entry fees can go to the payouts. I have not met an am yet who had any problem getting paid in retail value. Without that markup, then the deductions to cover the permits/fees/player packs are a lot bigger and the payouts go down.

Fundraising also helps offset those other costs, but I've never been able to raise a thousand dollars for a tournament myself. It can certainly be done, and is done all the time by some people, but I've never been able to do it.

I know that $20 times 50 participants is 1000 bucks. Can't you run a no-payout, no-players pack, no-ctp, no-lunch tournament for 1000 bucks?



Mark Horn did something close to that last year at the Am Wintertime Open. It was $25. it included a player pack t-shirt and it included lunch on Saturday. Payout was basically a champion Orc to all "merchers", plus trophies to the top 3 is most divisions. (I think 1st though 5th got a little more than just one disc, but I don't think it was more than 3 or 4 discs for 1st.) I though it was great and loved the format. Hopefully I'm way off base on all of this and the event will sell out quickly this year.

why don't you do some research before making inane comments about stuff you know nothing about?



Keith,

I looked up "the blind leading the blind" in the dictionary and it read "Keith Johnson giving advice about reading and writing posts on the PDGA Discussion Board." ;)



aren't YOU the one who is always telling people to do research before coming on the board spouting off....
or am i confusing you with "brother and sister"...
your alter ego poster :eek:

When I asked for itemized expenses, I wanted to try to put a number to it, because I personally don't know how much it costs to run a tournament. I do know, however, that I would gladly pay $20 for a well run one day PDGA sanctioned tournament that gave out nothing more than a small trophy to first place, and had NO OTHER amenities whatsoever (CTPs, player's pack, lunch). I think others would find it to also be "worth it". And I think that's where the perception SHOULD be as well.

I know that $20 times 50 participants is 1000 bucks. Can't you run a no-payout, no-players pack, no-ctp, no-lunch tournament for 1000 bucks?

And Keith, please tell me you're kidding when YOU are talking about inane comments.



no i wasn't at the first post i replied to....
usually you make sense and have good and constructive (even when not mainstream)ideas and i was surprised to see you go off without knowing who you were talking to or about....
i'm guessing if his signature was still "rhett in socal", you might have known who it was...
and in the part i quoted in this post you back up what i was speaking about in the first sentance....
and EVERYONE'S tournament price threshold is different...always has been....

it just seems like at pdga sanctioned events people expect different things then when they are playing non-sanctioned events or leagues or monthlies or mini's...and personally I THINK that's the way it should be!

keith

Mark Horn did something close to that last year at the Am Wintertime Open. It was $25. it included a player pack t-shirt and it included lunch on Saturday. Payout was basically a champion Orc to all "merchers", plus trophies to the top 3 is most divisions. (I think 1st though 5th got a little more than just one disc, but I don't think it was more than 3 or 4 discs for 1st.) I though it was great and loved the format. Hopefully I'm way off base on all of this and the event will sell out quickly this year.



The idea of having a non-payout tournament is standard in most sports. The one with which I am familiar is running. In many-ways running clubs and the events they sponsor are like DG clubs and the events they sponsor.

All running clubs have "fun runs" they can be from free to a couple of dollars. If a small fee is charged you get it back in drinks, fruit or energy bars.

All major runs are $10 to $25 (they used to be $10 to $15 but clubs now use them to raise money for charities etc.). All participants get a t-shirt and that is about it. The top finishers get ribbons and 1-2-3 get trophies. Almost every run has food and drinks available and usually there are give always of some sort (the equivalent of CTPs and other games).

Why does this work so well for running? Most of it is because of expectation. That is where running started and it has always been that way. There is no gambling mentality, i.e. I could win big, because there was never an opportunity for it to develop.

The way that you differentiate an important run from a non-important run (a "fun run") is by the extras. Good big runs are managed by TDs who advertise, work sponsorships, and provide a great atmosphere (and one more thing but I will cover that below). We've all seen both kinds of events and we all know that the well thought out and run events are the well attended and appreciated ones.

Rhett's observation that this might not work for DG has some validity. We've built an expectation for payouts into our structure. However, I'm guessing he's wrong in his feelings about the scope. First, even though the expectation is there, many current players don't like it and don't benefit from it. Second, among those current players there is a hue and cry for alternate forms of play. Third, there are new players coming in every day and if they start out with a different expectation they will never know.

I do believe there would be a transition period and some cashing players would be upset. So what? They quit playing because they can't get their free dose of discs every couple of weeks? My heart bleeds.

Would such a format hurt the manufacturers? I doubt it. In fact it should not affect them. A player base has a need for X amount of plastic. When players get plastic at tournaments it moves by hook or crook into the playing population. Even if the winner keeps the plastic, eventually he/she will use it up (lost discs etc.) thus moving the plastic into the overall necessary pool of plastic X. While that is going on the holder of the plastic won't buy plastic and therefore the overall pool remains at X. You might see slight fluctuations around X because of plastic held by tournament winners but it won't be that large.

Will clubs and TDs be hurt? Not if they are savvy. Currently a TD charges Y/entry. He pays out Z in total benefits. His profit (P1) = Y x total entries + sponsorships - Z. With the change, the TDs formula should be (P2) = Q (an amount less than Y) x total entries + sponsorships - R (an amount less than Z that covers trophies etc.). In order for P1 = P2 you have to adjust Q such that it covers all of R and leaves P2 = P1. With no payout, Q should still be < Y.

The more benefits or R provided the bigger Q has to be for P2 = P1. But of course the more benefits provided the more an average player will be willing to play. Therefore, a tournament will be considered big when Q is large, but R will be correspondingly larger.

Back to Rhett's point, the way you separate a mini from a big event (or a fun run from a big run) is by Q, big Q - big event, but the benefits R are larger so the players says, "hey, it cost me a lot but I got a lot."

In my opinion, this format would pay huge dividends to the sport as a whole. I've talked to many non-cashing players who significantly limit their play because of the cost and the fact they know they won't win. They all express interest in this format and many casual players I've talked to are also interested. Of course this many is 10 to 20 people but nonetheless...

Around here, we have 2-round one-day informal monthlies. One at pretty much every course. That means there is one somewhere every single Saturday and some/most Sundays.



To steal a line from you, Why aren't these tournaments sanctioned?

Around here, we have 2-round one-day informal monthlies. One at pretty much every course. That means there is one somewhere every single Saturday and some/most Sundays.



To steal a line from you, Why aren't these tournaments sanctioned?


Because they are, get this, informal little monthlies. With entries generally around $5 for the lowest am divisions up to about $20 max for the MPO division. Sometimes though, if the ace-pot gets big, they aren't that little.

When I've been in the DFW area, they have similar things called "minis", but it seems those are one-round affairs that occur weekly

I believe there is a place for sanctioned, unsanctioned, and informal tourneys..

Just to keep you straight on when I really do say that, though, since you aren't paying attention: I generally ask that question when a big organized tourney comes onto this PDGA funded discussion board to advertise itself and draw players yet they don't want to be PDGA sanctioned. Kind of inconsistent since they don't want to support the PDGA yet they want to use PDGA resources to advertise.

Because they are, get this, informal little monthlies.



How did I know that was going to be your answer?

By the way, I only stole your line, I'm quite aware it wasn't in the same context you use it.

The point is, that type of tournament works, or they wouldn't be held. Which brings us back to your original statement that if the Ams don't win prizes then the tournament loses its income. Which is half-true but wholly-irrelevant. Say it with me: Tournaments are not dependent on the currently accepted (and expected) prize structure. Lyle spelled it out quite well just a few posts ago.

The whole point is that the PDGA should be striving to have these things, and hundreds of tournament like them, sanctioned. Everybody wins. They should be ENCOURAGED and and in my opinion PREFERRED.

Because they are, get this, informal little monthlies.



So why not sanction them?

In other words, that's not a reason to not sanction them. What specific reasons would you give as reasons to not sanction them?

Because they are, get this, informal little monthlies.



So why not sanction them?

In other words, that's not a reason to not sanction them. What specific reasons would you give as reasons to not sanction them?



INFORMAL = NON SANCTIONED.....Sanctioned tournaments, are FORMAL, due to all the rules and such one must follow......

Because they are, get this, informal little monthlies.



So why not sanction them?

In other words, that's not a reason to not sanction them. What specific reasons would you give as reasons to not sanction them?



Because they're little. And informal. :)

And I don't run them. And that's how it is.

I'm sure you'll think that's a cop-out, but whatever. People play disc golf. They don't all support the PDGA. I do.

I also believe that there should be certain minimum standards for PDGA sanctioned events. Whatever they happen to be, they should be enforced. I do not believe that all disc golf competitions should be held to those standards, however, because different people have different priorities.

The PDGA fees (a flat fee, and the per-player cost) also make it unlikely that mini-tourneys will be sanctioned, as taking the entry fee from $5 to $7-$8 is significant.

� �True Amateur�: At the option of the event TD, Amateurs may play of trophies only in any
Amateur division offered by an event, that their player rating and age qualifies them for, by
paying 50% of the event entry fee, plus the PDGA, regional and/or local player fees. For
example, if an event offers an Advanced division entry of $30, of which $5 covers the
PDGA player and local club/series fees, then the True Am entry fee for this division will be
($25/2) + $5 = $17.50.

Now that this is in the 2005 PDGA Tour Standards, will any TD's be offering it?

The real question is what number are the payouts going to be figured from ? The total entries in the division, or the number that opted for the full entry fee.

Field of 45, if 15 opted for trophy only there are only 30 that opted for full entry fees. Does the TD base the payout on 45 players or 30 ?

One would assume 30, in that scenario.

I hope some of the TDs in Texas do consider this. They'll have at least one taker.

Gary, if TD's had to use 45 players to calculate payout but only take payment from 30, the PDGA would have trouble finding anyone to TD and donate that difference. :D

Since you're the state coordinator, do you think anyone in Texas will be offering this?

When I have offered the Trophy-Only Option [I won't say True Am out of deference to Nick! :D] I have based the payout on the number who paid for a payout. But under that scenario described above, I would have set the fee at $10 rather than $17.50.

I do not know whether we are offering a Trophy-Only option at any of the IOS events this year but I'd need to check with Jon and Brett. We went back and forth on that. Our am payouts and player packs are generous and the Trophy-Only thing makes the awards ceremony hard to handle. "Coming in 6th place, but getting the prizes for fourth place..." On the other hand, it does allow some people to play who otherwise might have been priced out of the event.

We were talking about doing one leg where the event would be trophy-only-only. In other words, there would be no payout for anyone. If it was well attended we would add some CTPs and if it was a bust we would eat the D-tier sanctioning fee.

The way I see it, it could run like this.

Not eating the expense, but paying more spots with less money.

There are 3 groups of golfers at most events.

The top 1/3 of a division that assume they are going to cash and are playing expecting a payout.

The middle 1/3 of a division that hope to cash, but know it is not a sure thing.

The bottom 1/3 of the division some of whom have never cashed, and never expect to.

The top 1/3 will mainly be paying the full entry fee.
The middle 1/3 will split most paying full, some going trophy only.
The bottom 1/3 will split, most going trophy only, but some still paying full entry fees. That probably won't last very long.

Now out of the 45 person field, you will be doing well to get 30 playing for the prizes.

In MA1 with entry fees of $40 + $5 for fees and acepot, the payouts based on 45 players before would be $40X45=$1800 paid to 20 players.

Options under the new system.

Total entry fees = 30 players @ $40 + 15 players @ $20 = $1500.
$1200 paid to 13 places (based on 30 players)
$1200 paid to 20 places (based on 45 players)
$1500 paid to 13 places (based on 30 players)
$1500 paid to 20 places (based on 45 players)
$1800 paid to 20 places (based on 45 players and the TD making no profit from the trophy only players)
$1800 paid to 13 places (based on 30 players and the TD making no profit from the trophy only players)

Which method of payout makes more sense ?

The 2005 TD report will have a way to handle payout calcs accounting for 'trophy only' players. The number of paid places will still be based on the total field with roughly 45% paid in Advanced and 50% in Int and Rec. What will be interesting is if we get a tournament where 60% of the entrants choose the trophy option. Even a DNF might cash?

One thing I'd like to see is to have nonmembers only be allowed to enter as 'trophy only' players. Then, they can't bag for prizes by not renewing and playing down. And legit new people without ratings would be able to try events without paying high entry fees in case they selected too high of a skill division the first time.

It is not as simple as Gary's analysis. There are good players who don't want anymore stuff who appreciate the reduced entry fee. There are good players who don't like to be called a bagger, and that does not happen when you aren't taking anyone's prizes away from them. There are really good players who don't need more stuff but discover that they don't play well unless they pay the full fee. There are objectively weak players who are convinced that today is the day that they are going to play as well as they always do when they play casually so they pay the full fee. There are good players who are broke until payday or just had a baby or whatever. Players have lots of reasons for making different choices.

And then there is game theory. You are registering late and the leaderboard shows that Scooter, Jefferies, Mills and Churches all got in on the cheap. So that's like prizes are dropping down four slots to where you usually finish. So you dig out the $20 more and go for full amenities.

I have offered the trophy-only option a half dozen times, and it is always a surprise who gets in and who does not.

The way the PDGA is pricing it, there is no downside to the TD who is buying plastic at normal wholesale prices. He is making pretty much the same profit on the am who plays for prizes versus the am who plays for points and trophies. For the TD who is getting his merch from an independant merch man for something between wholesale and retail, this is a good deal.

I really don't think the PDGA needed to specify a formula for the pricing. I'd be fine with letting TDs decide what price works for them and then letting the players decide whether that was worth it. The true value of the trophy-only option is going to vary from player to player and be somewhat related to how saturated the local market is with merch and tournaments.

I think this an absolutely great idea!!!! my personal opinion!!! I definately fit In at least one of gary's categories!!

do any td's in texas offer this???

I thought John Gimp Edwards was last year down in Houston. I'd check with him.

To TDs out there, if you are not filling your tournament, and players know you are foing this, this will pull in four or five players every time who will tell you that otherwise they would not have played. And a lot of times they make it up to you by buying something with the money they just saved.

We're offering it as an option at six of the IOS7 this year. At the other one it is a mando.

I have not seen anyone offer it here!! i think it is great that you offer this option!!

Around here people are too greedy and want huge payouts for Am tournaments. That means entry fees are higher. Personally, I would rather save the cash and have a trophy or a plaque on my wall. Plus the discs you win are usually stuff I cannot throw (lightweight understable discs). I would prefer to use that money to buy the discs I really want, like 175 champ teebirds, flat Z-Buzzzes and CT Challengers....yummy /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

i know exactly how you feel!! especially when it is a pre packaged payout!! it takes forever to sell or trade some of that stuff!! i would much rather have lower entries and buy the discs i want!! rather than be stuck with a bunch of useless plastic that someone needed to get rid of!!

I think i would actually play open in maybe half of the tournaments i play if the trophy only option was available!!

i wouldn't expect to cash and would be donating to the real pros.I see this as a win win situation. I wonder what the size of the open field would do if this was a realistic situation!!

If i a player is going to donate to the open division why not make it less of a financial burden.I think this is a great way for ams to test the waters up there and maybe make the transition to the next level!! come on td's!!

I think i would actually play open in maybe half of the tournaments i play if the trophy only option was available!!

i wouldn't expect to cash and would be donating to the real pros.I see this as a win win situation. I wonder what the size of the open field would do if this was a realistic situation!!

If i a player is going to donate to the open division why not make it less of a financial burden.I think this is a great way for ams to test the waters up there and maybe make the transition to the next level!! come on td's!!



Some events, Seneca Soiree this weekend, are allowing ams to enter pro divisions at a lower entry fee. The challenge is that this could possibly reduce the size of the entry fee dependent purse if lots of amateurs enter.

So the question would seem to be, other than the one Bruce raised above about "are your events filling anyway", how to make playing in the pro divisions more attractive and rewarding than playing in the prize divisions without screwing the prize divisions. This is a similar question, believe it or not, to the dynamic between Open and Masters, and probably Advanced and Intermediate.

Across the board, at all but A, NT and Major events, lower entry fees seem to be a solution to much of this. Next would have to be the makeup and form of payouts and their relation to other divisions payouts. Some significant separation would seem to be in order.

Although it might reduce the size of the pro purse if the event fills and a reduced rate am takes a pro's slot, it also reduces the risk to the pros of not cashing. Look at an extreme case scenario where 2/3rds of the field is 1/2 price amateurs. Clearly the pooled pot is smaller, but every pro is guaranteed to cash, even if he is DFL. If the event is adding cash to the pro purse, the loss of some pooled cash for a higher chance at winning some added cash might be a fair trade.

It should be borne in mind that allowing anyone to play pro at a reduced rate is not within the scope of the 2005 PDGA True Am format. The format and rules are silent on offering a trophy-only option in the pro divisions for ams or pros.

i definately agree bruce!! you will have your regular pro entries with more added money to their purse . this is definately a positve from both ends of the spectrum!!

Nick, I am glad to see TD's with enough foresight to offer this. Interesting point Bruce, although open fields rarely fill.

I feel that offering this type of option should be part of the basic sanctioning agreement. In other words, a requirement for all tournaments. The PDGA could have language that "for 1/3 the entry fee, players may enter the tournament, but are inelegible for the payout." I think this option would entice both ams and some low-level non-ams. As Efrain points out, everyone benefits.

thank you james!! I would like to play some tournies in the open division. I would not expect to cash and its just not feasible at regular entries.. i have no problem donating to the cashing pros however i would go broke without lower entries..

Although it might reduce the size of the pro purse if the event fills and a reduced rate am takes a pro's slot, it also reduces the risk to the pros of not cashing. Look at an extreme case scenario where 2/3rds of the field is 1/2 price amateurs. Clearly the pooled pot is smaller, but every pro is guaranteed to cash, even if he is DFL. If the event is adding cash to the pro purse, the loss of some pooled cash for a higher chance at winning some added cash might be a fair trade.

It should be borne in mind that allowing anyone to play pro at a reduced rate is not within the scope of the 2005 PDGA True Am format. The format and rules are silent on offering a trophy-only option in the pro divisions for ams or pros.


We had about six players play trophy-only each day this weekend at IOS #2. I quoted that post because that scenario actually happened in Women's Pro. Two women played trophy-only and the two pro women paid full fee. The trophy-only women might not have played pro if the trophy-only entry fee were not an option. The trophy-only women tied for second so last cash bumped down to last place! The concept worked for everyone.

So Bruce, how can you be on the governing board of an organization that sanctions apparently illegal activities in the state you reside? Seems like this needs to be legally resolved rather than your stated approach of just not participating.

I was looking for this trophy-only thread to reflect on this past weekend's Blast and the previous weekend's Fall Doubles Derby, and I came across this post that I had forgotten about.

The revised short answer is that when I previously answered this question I was unaware that what the PDGA does exposes the PDGA to corporate criminal felony liability in some states. When I learned that, I resigned.

I've played in three trophy-only events in the past month and have helped run a series that has a trophy-only option offered for every division. Two of those recent events were sanctioned and one was not.

What we learned from the trophy-only Blast is that our intermediate, recreational and am master players are fine with an event that is promising a $10 entry fee, lots of CTPs, and PDGA sanctioning. We had 65 trophy-only amateur players and 12 pros [four of whom played trophy-only also] which was the best attendance ever for a Bevier Blast of any format. [And we have done LOTS of different formats for this event!]

On the other hand, the advanced players basically boycotted the event. We had an advanced field of two! :eek:

What we learned from that is that if you advertise your format well, the players who want to play only if there is gambling involved will politely excuse themselves. So that worked just fine. We had 77 players at the one-day event and that was plenty. It really seemed to be the most relaxed tournament that Jon I have run recently, but that may have been because I really did not do much of the work for this one. Thank you Brett, Jon, Becky, Diana, and the course set up crew. :D

This event also reinforced one other thing that we have learned previously, and that is that an inexpensive pro trophy-only option increases the pro purse rather than decreasing it. I know that at least three of the four trophy-only pro players said they would not have played pro or would not have played at all for a full fee.

We just completed our third year of running the Illinois Open Series. We've been offering trophy-only every year but this year we also moved the Pros and Advanced to Saturday with the Intermediates and Recreationals playing on Sunday. This combination seemed to encourage a lot of lower division players to play trophy-only in Advanced, and then come back the next day to play Intermediate or Recreational.

Our $14 trophy-only Advanced entry fee with a player pack was far more popular than the $10 pro trophy-only entry fee. The lower division men pretty much only played advanced trophy-only. Among the women, the pro trophy-only was very popular. We often had one or two pro women and two or three amateur women playing in the pro women's division. I'm not sure why this would be so for the women but not for the men. I think it might have something to do with Barrett White just being fun to be around.

I played trophy-only once in Am Masters and once in Pro Masters. I'll probably play Pro Master trophy-only all season next year. I want to see if I get better by playing against better players.

I am too lazy to look this up, so I will ask it here: Is there an official PDGA policy to account for the trophy only entrant money to the pro divisions?

For example, let's say the td will pay 40%, there are 20 full paying players and 10 more trophy only players, leaving 30 total players. Does the TD add the trophy only money to the purse and pay out 8 (40% of 20) or pay out 12 (40% of 30)?

he pays out the later 12 out of 30.

I am too lazy to look this up, so I will ask it here: Is there an official PDGA policy to account for the trophy only entrant money to the pro divisions?

For example, let's say the td will pay 40%, there are 20 full paying players and 10 more trophy only players, leaving 30 total players. Does the TD add the trophy only money to the purse and pay out 8 (40% of 20) or pay out 12 (40% of 30)?

The PDGA has not quite figured out the trophy-only math yet on the spreadsheet.

For pros, the TD should count the trophy-only money as paid into the pot, add what he is going to add, deduct what he deducts [like PDGA fees or trophy costs] and pay out based on that. He should pay the number of pros from the chart based on the number who got in for full fee.

What we do at our tournaments is we run the pros at C-tier with 100% PDGA payouts when we don't have cash sponsorship. We don't deduct for the trophy unless there is a trophy-only player. So the first trophy-only player in a division pays for the custom dyed trophy disc and his own PDGA player fee, and he's a wash. The second and subsequent trpophy-only pros are added cash.

For ams, if you have a player pack and PDGA fees, that and trophy expenses usually eats up the trophy-only entry fee. We base our amateur payout on the number who paid full times their entry fee with a partial deduction for the player pack.

The spreadsheet, last time I looked, was basing payouts on the total number of players in the division and the total entry fees paid. Clearly this is foggy math. For example, at our last tournament we had a very large number of trophy-only players in Advanced. We had about 50 players in Advanced but about 20 were trophy-only. But suppose it had been 40 trophy-only players and ten full fee players. The spreadsheet would tell the TD that of the ten players who got in for prizes, he should pay 25 of them.

When I talked to Dave Gentry about it we came to the conclusion that we could spend a lot of time getting the spreadsheet right, but there were only three TDs doing a trophy-only option and they already were getting it right, so we both decided to do more important things.

I am too lazy to look this up, so I will ask it here: Is there an official PDGA policy to account for the trophy only entrant money to the pro divisions?

For example, let's say the td will pay 40%, there are 20 full paying players and 10 more trophy only players, leaving 30 total players. Does the TD add the trophy only money to the purse and pay out 8 (40% of 20) or pay out 12 (40% of 30)?



Himing only payed out based on the Full paying players at the Tx7 final. That is why the trophy only is added cash because the $$$ they payed goes to those who cashed.

IMO, the PDGA needs to relook at this. The trophy only is great for people looking to play cheaply, test the waters cheaply, etc. However, it could be more effective if it actually resulted in deeper payouts.

So ifyou had 20 full paying Pros and 30 trophy only guys then all the full paying guys would get paid? That doesn't make too much since to me but if the trophy only resulted in $1200 more to the 8 guys who cashed that is awesome. I mean if they cannot receive cash why should they be included in the payout table?

If your event fills, the trophy only players will be taking away full-paying spots and actually driving your payout totals down. If you have a lot of open spots in your tourneys, then getting butts in the seats at a discount will increase the payout.

That is true but we don't have a problem with that around these parts. :D

yeah, trophy only entrants would force us to get money for payouts from someone other than the participants themselves

Well, I've never been a TD, but I bet it is a very hard sell to get added money, so much so that the PDGA should really focus on a system that can be sustained without added money.

Anyways, here we have an idea that serves a certain set of people very well, and of course, the PDGA sets about redistributing that money to the top. In other words, and in my opinion only, our failing paradigm (tourneys designed to reward the top) rears its ugly head once again, neglecting the middle and bottom that get churned out. But, on the bright side, these guys getting moved out now have the trophy only option. ;)

I've co-TD'ed a few times, and i can see TD's have their hands full. Still, as PDGA event entrants, we are so accustomed to winning each other's money that it may be holding us back a little. Maybe the PDGA could try to raise money for the National Tour events so the TD's could focus on the course and the event logistics... PDGA stamped discs with Champion sigs (NT points winner, USDGC winner, World's winners, etc.) could be auctioned off on E-Bay to raise money. Maybe corporations or artists could donate things to be auctioned off on E-bay too... smaller tiers would still have to find their own sponsors, but maybe eventually it would grow and spread from the NT to the smaller events...

as long as we keep winning each other's money at events we'll continue to be as much a gambling organization as a Professional Sport ... :confused:

Well, I've heard some form of your argument for eighteen years or so, and well, I'm not sure we are any closer to widespread added money than we were in the eighties. Sure, there are tournies here and there that add more now, but the bread and butter tournies that occur across the land every weekend are virutally in the same boat they were in for the last generation.

It might be a lot wiser to face reality and realize that we are gambling for each other's cash, and try to devise more attractive ways to do it, which by the way 'trophy-only' is, whether it resulted from a philosophical change in the PDGA or not. We seem to have a tendency to chase desires (people make a living), rather than cope with our present reality.

The PDGA has not quite figured out the trophy-only math yet on the spreadsheet.



This is a crock and the TD spreadsheet properly calculates the money and payouts for all T.O. situations. One full paid player is added for every three T.O. players entering a division. At 40% payout, 15 T.O. players add 2 more paid positions. Similar to Bruce's example, if there were 10 full paid Open players and 45 T.O. players, the 10 full paid would generate 4 paid places at 40% payout and the 45 T.O.s would generate 6 paid places. So with 55 players, every one of the full paid players would cash. Try it for yourself Bruce and you'll see.

Actually, that math seems logical, or at least a sensible way to deal with it.

I already went thru this in-depth with Nez for Texas States because TDs weren't trusting that we had done it right in the spreadsheet. In Minnesota, we normally charge T.O. players only 1/3 of the full base entry fee. Other places charge up to 1/2. So, even with the "worst case" in MN, the TDs are covered. If they charge betwen 1/3 to 1/2, the players come out even better with the table. Of course, that's assuming the TD actually pays out the places the table says (s)he should. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

could you make the % an input for the TD?

could you make the % an input for the TD?



They already can change the payout percentages from 40%, 45% and 50%. I would rather make sure that they don't accidentally overpay which is what has happened when TDs aren't quite sure how to handle the T.O.s and what Nez and others were concerned about. If a TD is sharp enough to know the math on this, they are also sharp enough to do their own tweaks to the payouts which they do all the time.

Well, I've heard some form of your argument for eighteen years or so, and well, I'm not sure we are any closer to widespread added money than we were in the eighties. Sure, there are tournies here and there that add more now, but the bread and butter tournies that occur across the land every weekend are virutally in the same boat they were in for the last generation.

It might be a lot wiser to face reality and realize that we are gambling for each other's cash, and try to devise more attractive ways to do it, which by the way 'trophy-only' is, whether it resulted from a philosophical change in the PDGA or not. We seem to have a tendency to chase desires (people make a living), rather than cope with our present reality.



That a most excellent post and bears repeating.

I've co-TD'ed a few times, and i can see TD's have their hands full. Still, as PDGA event entrants, we are so accustomed to winning each other's money that it may be holding us back a little. Maybe the PDGA could try to raise money for the National Tour events so the TD's could focus on the course and the event logistics... PDGA stamped discs with Champion sigs (NT points winner, USDGC winner, World's winners, etc.) could be auctioned off on E-Bay to raise money. Maybe corporations or artists could donate things to be auctioned off on E-bay too... smaller tiers would still have to find their own sponsors, but maybe eventually it would grow and spread from the NT to the smaller events...

as long as we keep winning each other's money at events we'll continue to be as much a gambling organization as a Professional Sport ... :confused:


If raising sponsor dollars and added cash was easy, every tournament would have tons of it already.

It's not easy. A very few events with very special circumstances generate huge amounts of added cash. Quite a few other TDs across the nation are good at it and have either developed a good sponsor market or realized they were in one and made the most of it, and add goodly amounts of cash to other big events.

Most tournaments have hardly any added cash. It's not a big deal.

Here's the reality of the sport: have a lot of tournaments with practically no added cash, or don't have hardly any tournaments at all.

I like playing tournaments. Limited added cash is not a big deal to me. I appreciate the efforts/circumstances of the TDs that are able to boost their payout because it makes the whole event nicer, but the bottom line is I like to play and compete.

I agree we should look at ways to raise money, and we have been. "The PDGA" has tried to address this issue, usually resulting in a gigantic backlash from the people who post on this message board. At least "the PDGA" has been trying to do something different.

it's unfortunate if there is a giant backlash, but some backlash should be expected and worked with or through. also, some of the backlash it seems to me stems from the feeling on the part of many members that the leadership too often fails to be as responsive and transparent as it probably could and should be...

i have seen TD's add cash out of their own pocket and therefore lose money in order to make an event's payout very nice, yet still there are players who gripe and complain and don't even bother subtracting out things like PDGA fees when figuring what they think the payout should have been plus the advertised added cash.

On the NT level, the PDGA imo should itself add cash to all NT events each year (perhaps they already do). a natural outgrowth of that would be working to increase NT corporate sponsorship to free up PDGA money for peripheral needs. As a dues paying member, i would rather some of my dues go to help add to payouts for the touring Pros who showcase our organization &amp; sport than to almost anything else...

First, sorry for not reading the whole thread before asking this question.


One full paid player is added for every three T.O. players entering a division. At 40% payout, 15 T.O. players add 2 more paid positions. Similar to Bruce's example, if there were 10 full paid Open players and 45 T.O. players, the 10 full paid would generate 4 paid places at 40% payout and the 45 T.O.s would generate 6 paid places. So with 55 players, every one of the full paid players would cash.



OK, I get this part above. Let's ask a couple questions:
A. You chose that a TO player is 1/3 of a paying player. Is this fixed, based on the entry fee being 1/3 of the FP player, or should this be adjusted based on the entry fee charged for TO?

B. What happens when a TO player places in the cash? Should this award money roll down, or should it go to the TD? Is this the TD's discretion, as it is now with an Am playing Pro, or is it req'd to roll down?

I have to admit, I am intrigued about this possibility, mostly for Pro and Advanced divisions that do not fill at full price. What do people do about potentially limiting TO spots in a situation where their event might otherwise fill?

I played around with the TD report I used in July, presumably the one the PDGA sent me, to see if all the trophy-only glitches have been corrected. We did not have many trophy-only players in Peoria, so my memory of the bolixed up TD report must be from 2005.

The payout section no longer takes its player numbers from the total number in the division. You can fill in that number manually. So that has been fixed, sort of. You have to know NOT to input the number in the field where it asks for "Field Size." Instead, you have to input the number who paid the full entry fee.

Also, there is a line for deducting player packs, etc., from the payout, so you can manually deduct your trophy-only entry fees from the payout. The spreadsheet assumes that the trophy-only entry fee goes to prizes until you manually back it out. So you have to know to back out the trophy-only players' entry fees there, too.

So, if you already know not to report your trophy-only players as part of the amateur field for payout purposes and you know to manually back off their entry fees, the spreadsheet works fine. If you don't know these things, it's GIGO.

It looks like the only remaining automatic glitch in the spreadsheet is that it is not collecting PDGA $3 fees from the trophy-only players. It automatically fills in the $3 fee multiplier with the number who paid full. That cell is locked too.

So I'm sticking with what I said originally, "The PDGA has not quite figured out the trophy-only math yet on the spreadsheet." Unless you know how to do it, the spreadsheet is not helpful, and it is making one automatic error still with the $3 fees.

A. You chose that a TO player is 1/3 of a paying player. Is this fixed, based on the entry fee being 1/3 of the FP player, or should this be adjusted based on the entry fee charged for TO?

I don't think it's needed. If you want to pay more players than the payout table gives you in the event the T.O. fee is say 42% instead of 33% of base full paid, you can always boost the calculator percentage from say 40% to 45% or 45% to 50% and you may get 1 or 2 get more paid places depending on field size.

B. What happens when a TO player places in the cash? Should this award money roll down, or should it go to the TD? Is this the TD's discretion, as it is now with an Am playing Pro, or is it req'd to roll down?

At one point it was written that this rolldown should happen. It somehow got lost in some of the tour and rules updates. It will return next year as a requirement that the paid places move down in both Am & Pro divisions.

Bruce, rather than reporting these incorrect statements on the Discussion Board, send them to the PDGA if you have questions. The spreadsheet works perfectly well as it is. The $3 fees are accounted for in B tiers, the Field size numbers are correct on the payout tables in terms of making the calcs because it has determined the correct full paid equivalent players. No field size adjustments are necessary. All of the entry fees from T.O. players SHOULD be given back as added payout unless the TD wishes to strip some of that out. So, it's correct to leave that in there unless TDs like yourself wish to take more out of the payout. But we don't want to encourage it. TDs who do, know where to make that adjustment if they use the PDGA tables.

If you think it's not working send it to me. The current TD file has been version 6.0.4 for a while so I'm assuming you have that one.

First, sorry for not reading the whole thread before asking this question.


One full paid player is added for every three T.O. players entering a division. At 40% payout, 15 T.O. players add 2 more paid positions. Similar to Bruce's example, if there were 10 full paid Open players and 45 T.O. players, the 10 full paid would generate 4 paid places at 40% payout and the 45 T.O.s would generate 6 paid places. So with 55 players, every one of the full paid players would cash.



OK, I get this part above. Let's ask a couple questions:
A. You chose that a TO player is 1/3 of a paying player. Is this fixed, based on the entry fee being 1/3 of the FP player, or should this be adjusted based on the entry fee charged for TO?

B. What happens when a TO player places in the cash? Should this award money roll down, or should it go to the TD? Is this the TD's discretion, as it is now with an Am playing Pro, or is it req'd to roll down?

[C.] I have to admit, I am intrigued about this possibility, mostly for Pro and Advanced divisions that do not fill at full price. What do people do about potentially limiting TO spots in a situation where their event might otherwise fill?


A. On the spreadsheet you just fill in your trophy-only entry fee and your full fee. We made our pro trophy-only 1/5th the net entry fee. Chuck is going with 1/3rd. What you go with just depends on what you are trying to accomplish by offering trophy-only. For the amateurs, be sure you price it high enough that if everyone were to take that option you could still cover your expenses. One time I had like 30 of 35 take the TO option and I had priced it too low. :o

B. Trophy-only players don't place in the cash. For payout purposes their money exists, but the players do not. Don't count them as in the field for any purpose relating to payouts. I used to nudge them over an inch to help me remember to skip over them during awards, but now I write TO in the square where I fill in the places of finish. The money skips down if you think of them as in the cash, but they are not in the cash because they did not pay to be in the cash.

[C.] What we do about the possibility that the tournament might fill is just say, "So what?" If some full fee paying player does not get in, he should have pre-registered. One of the reasons why I like to offer trophy-only is so that no amateur feels like I'm forcing them to buy plastic and no player feels like I'm forcing them to gamble a medium sum of money to play a tournament. If every player chooses to play trophy-only, I'm totally fine with that. Most TDs need full fee paying amateurs because those are the "sponsors" of the pro added cash a/k/a amateur subtracted cash. We don't do that money shifting from ams to pros so we have the freedom to offer trophy-only options.

We price our trophy-only entry fee for amateurs so that they are paying for their player pack, PDGA player fees and their pro rata share of trophies, CTPs, sanctioning, insurance and miscellaneous costs. When we don't count their $14 towards the payout, that's the same $14 that any other amateur is paying that does not go to the payout. We are not stripping anything out of the payout.

Meanwhile, the spreadsheet does NOT work perfectly well if you don't back off the trophy-only players from the field size. If I have 25 intermediates and 20 play TO and I don't back them out of the field size, then the spreadsheet will tell me that of the five players who got in for prizes, I should pay 12! :D Those 5 players each contributed about half their entry fee or maybe $15 towards the payout for a total payout of $75. If I don't back off the trophy-only entry fees, of that $75 that went to payouts, the spreadsheet is going to tell me to payout $425!!! :)

The players will be happy, but I'll go broke.

Any TD who is relying on the spreadsheet to do payouts for him who does not already understand this stuff is going to get burned. In this sense I think it is fair to say that the current TD report spreadsheet is not just fine as is. It really only works automatically for C-tiers with no player packs. Otherwise, you have to know stuff that is not explained anywhere in the document to get numbers that work.

If I have 25 intermediates and 20 play TO and I don't back them out of the field size, then the spreadsheet will tell me that of the five players who got in for prizes, I should pay 12!



Wrong. It says pay 6. Use the proper spreadsheet if you're going to make claims about accuracy. The field size calc is fine. Of course, you still can't pay 6 so you would spread the 6th place prize value among the other five places.

This brings up a bigger issue. If there are more T.O. players than full paid, is it really a _____ (Adv, Int) division w/T.O. players, or a division with a low entry fee and a few players paying double/triple as a side bet for bigger prizes? Seems to me, divisions with this type of mix should be handled as Trophy Only with the option to win prizes on side bets.

Seems to me, divisions with this type of mix should be handled as Trophy Only with the option to win prizes on side bets.


Sounds to me like they already are.

But, on the bright side, these guys getting moved out now have the trophy only option.


and this is a BRIGHT side??? :confused:

Looking at the spreadsheet there a good number of divisions
that can't be trophy-only as they have been blacked (or should I say tealed) out. Why not?

Either determined to be unnecessary or divisions not big enough. Entry fees can be adjusted lower for the whole group of 2 or 3 where this might occur. In the case of Rec, entry fees can or should be low enough to essentially be at the T.O. level already.

But why make it more difficult for the TD just because it might be a small number of players that fall in that category?

And as far as the Recreational division goes, this is precisely the division where you should be offering a non-wagering trophy only option. By not having TO at the lowest levels, we are starting players down the "hunt for prize" track rather than encouraging lower level players to play for the love of the game and get their plastic addiction later. (Cue Nick's True Am Track)

Is it really that difficult to be able to have the spreadsheet work the same way for all divisions?

All of those things take time and effort to code when there wasn't clear demand it was needed. If these T.O options are requested, then they can get added. It's not a philosophical resistance to doing more T.O. options, just practicality.

Who's responsible for maintaining the spreadsheet? It didn't take me very long to go update the cover sheet to fix the Trophy only columns, but as I was doing it, I noticed that some of the formulas are incorrect (Namely F17, G17, F29 on the cover sheet)

Something else strange (based off the spreadsheet).
Ams and Pros can play TO in an Am division, but
only Ams can play TO in a Pro division? huh?

I update it. F17 is missing the Legend Pro women which we don't have yet in the U.S. but it's on our International version of the spredsheet. The other cell formulas mentioned are fine.

But why make it more difficult for the TD just because it might be a small number of players that fall in that category?

And as far as the Recreational division goes, this is precisely the division where you should be offering a non-wagering trophy only option. By not having TO at the lowest levels, we are starting players down the "hunt for prize" track rather than encouraging lower level players to play for the love of the game and get their plastic addiction later. (Cue Nick's True Am Track)

Is it really that difficult to be able to have the spreadsheet work the same way for all divisions?



Mike, when I asked David Gentry about this at the beginning of the year he told me that I'm the only TD running trophy only for the rec division. I don't need the spreadsheet changed just for me so I just told him I'd be entering an average entry fee for rec so that the other numbers would come out correct. Every year the TD report gets better and better. As a TD I am pleased with the progress on the TD report and realize that sometimes resources are better utilized on other projects than on tweeking the TD report just for TO players in Rec.

I agree with Jon. When I had this discussion with Dave Gentry regarding the 2005 TD report, we came to the same conclusion. The PDGA does not need to spend a lot of time and effort getting the TD report right for one or three TDs who offer the trophy-only option.

But here is another trophy-only though for 2006:

As news of our format has kind of filtered down to the rec and sub-rec players, we've seen more and more sub-rec players come to our tournaments and play trophy-only. We currently have so many MA4s playing our tournaments that sometimes Rec is the largest field with over 40 players.

Not offering one or more of the lower divisions seems to create a self-reinforcing and self-defeating cycle. Recs don't play because you don't offer their division. You don't offer their division because no one plays in it. And you are not drawing 200 players to three or four tournaments a year either.

Offering the lower divisions also creates a self-reinforcing cycle that works to fill up tournaments. I'm always surprised by people who accept self-defeating reinforcing cycles rather than simply change things for the better.

Maybe if we officially add MA4, then more TDS would finally offer MA3!

Offering the lower divisions also creates a self-reinforcing cycle that works to fill up tournaments. I'm always surprised by people who accept self-defeating reinforcing cycles rather than simply change things for the better.


It would seem that some TDs think it is better to not fill by excluding rec level players than to overfill by being rec player friendly.

They (am/rec players) tend to pre-register and not leave room for the Pros that may have signed up Saturday morning.

They also have the odd habit of treating their entry as money spent on entertainment rather than a wager they hope to generate a return on. :cool:

They also have the odd habit of treating their entry as money spent on entertainment rather than a wager they hope to generate a return on. :cool:



Was that an Instant Graemlin misfire Gary?

They also have the odd habit of treating their entry as money spent on entertainment rather than a wager they hope to generate a return on. :p

You don't recall all the ams when threatened with trophy only events wrote that it didn't "pay" to travel to such events. That they listed expenses like gas, hotels, food, etc. as reasons for continuing big prize payouts.

Now how amateur is such an approach?

Again, to be clear, I don't want those who we currently call ams to stop getting "paid", I just want us to stop calling them ams, when they are nothing of the sort. There are many important reason for the creation of a true amateur classification, seems like more and more disc golfers are seeing why it is important, I leave this discussion in their worthy hands.

No, if you recall there were a few that merely insisted that there be enough value provided by the tournament to justify the expense.

Trophy only is a tool that allows those that are only interested in the competition to join in and treat the entry fee as an entertainment expense. Not really much different than a rec entry fee of $25 - $3 pdga - $2 charity - $15 players pack = $5 to payout.

Not really much different than a rec entry fee of
$25 - $3 pdga - $2 charity - $15 players pack = $5 to payout.

If that is typical of the value of a rec entry fee in Texas, that would explain why not so many players are playing rec. At our tournaments it is
$23 - $3 pdga - $2 park use fee - $15 player pack - $1.50 per player for CTPs = $13 to payout. We do the same for Intermediates.

The numbers add up. We don't buy our prizes at retail. Those numbers leave about 10% for the host clubs and producers involved in the tournament, too. Your numbers leave about $10 per player floating around somewhere.

I'llhave to check to see what the real numbers are, but there is normally very little left for the payout in the rec divisions and they don't seem to mind becaue they are a pretty large field most of the time.

At our tournaments it is
$23 - $3 pdga - $2 park use fee - $15 player pack - $1.50 per player for CTPs = $13 to payout.

Hard dollars are $3 + $2 + $1.50 so $23 - $6.50 = $16.50 - 10% = ~$15 to fund $28 in payout.
That's mighty generous of you. I would have thought the expenses of starting up and running the tour would eat into that a little bit more.

I'llhave to check to see what the real numbers are, but there is normally very little left for the payout in the rec divisions and they don't seem to mind becaue they are a pretty large field most of the time.

At our tournaments it is
$23 - $3 pdga - $2 park use fee - $15 player pack - $1.50 per player for CTPs = $13 to payout.

Hard dollars are $3 + $2 + $1.50 so $23 - $6.50 = $16.50 - 10% = ~$15 to fund $28 in payout.
That's mighty generous of you. I would have thought the expenses of starting up and running the tour would eat into that a little bit more.



Our numbers are pretty close to break even. When Bruce, Brett and I started this we chose Bruce as our merch guy because he was willing to run the merch prizes at no profit as a way to fund the expenses. We just do this for the love of the game. I'm fine with TDs who are trying to make a living at this, its just not what we're about--we're just trying to run good events that we want to (and do) play. At the courses where we have the $2 course fee, I think the clubs were making about $.25 per player. That's cutting it a little close to not breaking even, so for 2007 we will probably be bumping up the Rec/Int entry fees to $25.

Actually, the blackboard numbers say we lost 25 to 50 cents per rec and intermediate trophy-only player when we had a $2 course use fee. That's why I was so pissy at Aurora. Every trophy-only player who signed up was like driving 30 more miles down the toll road. :D But when we had no course use fee we made a whopping buck fifty per!

The PDGA does not think it is too much to ask for $3 a player for ratings, stats and points. I don't think it is too much to pay the TDs or the host clubs a dollar or two for scorecards, leaderboards and a well run, am-generous tournament.

I think it comes closer to gifting.

I'm sure you have tables, tents, trophies, a PA system (for 200 players it helps), disc storage, transportation, office supplies, scorecards, webspace, and myriad other things that cost money to keep the tour running smoothly.

I hope you find a way to keep it going for a long time.

We had eight women in the pro women's division at IOS #1 and one got in for full. So, after deducting for the PDGA $2 fees and a modest trophy, she got double her entry fee back. Our pro trophy-only entry fee is only ten bucks. It is the cheapest way to get in the tournament if you just want to play for competition and rated rounds.

In the other divisions, trophy-only players account for about 10% of out total players, except in Rec where we are doing something else. In Rec anyone can play trophy-only for $15 [and get a $20 value player pack thanks to sponsorship from Discraft!], but the Rec players rated less than 835 can also get in on a sidegame with a payout and a trophy. We call it Am IV. Eight players took advantage of that at IOS #1. I expect about a dozen at IOS #2.

If you are running tournaments that are not filling up, these are two ideas that bring in more players.

Disclaimer: The prices I'm quoting reflect the pre-registration discount and the PDGA member discount.