A no-prize low-entry-fee option does not require that we invent a new class of players, or add divisions, or change the PDGA format. I've been doing that for three years and letting those players play in their rating indicated division.

Another no-prize option that Jon, Brett and I are discussing would be the Fat Pack option. A player taking the fat pack option would pay the same entry fee as anyone else in his division but would receive a player pack equal to or greater in value than his entry fee. I have no idea whether Jon and Brett like this idea yet, so I do not know whether it will happen, but if we offered it, for a hypothetical $35 entry fee we'd let a player take $40 in brass cash and his "chips" would not be "on the table" so to speak.

For the TD this makes it easier to do the financials and it ensures that he has the same gross profit per amateur to cover sanctioning, insurance, trophies, park fees and other expenses. For the player, it allows you to lock in with a guaranteed tournament value. It makes it easier to play up if you are a rec or intermediate who can't play on the rec/int day, and it makes it easier to NOT play up if you are one of those Super-Ams staying am for Worlds or USADGC.



Bruce, as with Chuck, YOU do not need a true Amateur Class because your goals are different than what I am trying to promote.

You and Chuck are trying to offer a money saving option to current PDGA Members and Event Participants.

I am trying to create a Classification based on, designed for and run exclusively for a new demographic of disc golfers, properly named "Amateurs".

There is a huge difference!

I contend that schools, civic groups, women and seniors will continue to confound efforts to be included in our "play for each others entry fee" style competitive system, and not because they want cheaper entry fees, return of entry fee value, or to avoid having better players win their entry fees

BUT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PARTICIPATE (as all other amateurs do) AMONG A CLASS AND WITHIN DIVISIONS SPECIFICALLY FOR AMATEURS.

I hope I am being clear on this. Sometimes I wonder what you guys are reading...

No matter what changes are made to the system, I can guarantee one thing, no Board decision will be able to force the TDs to offer true Am divisions. The PDGA operates with the goodwill of the TDs.



Chuck, this quote is eye-opening to me as it starts to explain the reasons behind my frustration with the PDGA. I've always assumed that the PDGA was the "official stewards" of the sport of disc golf. You know, the leaders, the ones who set the direction for TDs and organizers to follow. Not the other way around.

In my mind, the following ideas are being processed and I'm just thinking outloud (I hope to have comments):

1) There needs to be a central authority for the sport. One that provides direction and leadership. One that is representative of all factions in disc golf. One that gathers input and attempts to reach concensus. However, at the end of the day, this central authority must act in the best interest of the sport and people must follow. If you believe this. Read on. If not, advocate that no central authority is needed to best advance the sport.

2) The PDGA board feels is does not have the authority to act in the capacity described in the above paragraph, due to the realities, economics, etc. of the sport.

3) Is the board comfortable with their apparent role of "operating with the goodwill of the TDs?" If so, let's go back to #1 and start over. If you believe disc golf needs a central authority, then disc golf either needs a new organization or a board with a different view of their role.

4) Finally :), if the board is uncomfortable with their role and would like to have more authority over the direction of disc golf, have they concocted any strategies to increase their power so that they would not have to "operate with the goodwill of the TDs?" If so, what might these strategies look like?

Dictatorship or democracy? Haven't you heard the phrase on West Wing, "I serve at the pleasure of the President." The President serves the will of the people (see other threads for counter arguments). The PDGA Board must be responsive to the members. It doesn't mean it's not a central organizing body with more authority than any other disc golf organization. But it's authority comes from players willing to cede that authority to the organization. If enough players/TDs feel that authority is being used improperly and refuse to follow the dictates, what recourse does the Board have? Yeah, send in the marshals! I knew there was an ulterior motive to form that group...

I cede my power to the board. Use it wisely. :p

Seriously, between elections, most democracies are dictatorships. It's necessary, or else nothing would get done.

Nick, you're in a fantasy world. In my view, 'True' Ams would have to pledge not to pay into or accept Ace money or agree not to play for sidebets among their buddies either in rec play or sanctioned/nonsanctioned events. Would you make that pledge? Those are truly Ams and are far fewer than the untapped pool of players who are sort of true Ams and might be persuaded to play in the low entry fee trophy divisions. Those 'almost' true Ams are a potential untapped market but they don't need protection from our current Ams who might occasionally choose to play in the trophy only division. As you've pointed out many times, no protection is required in a division with low entry fees, trophies for prizes and love of competition as the primary motivator.

My proposal will take some of the prize awards out of the Junior divisions which are closer to your ideal of true Ams primarily because they have less or no money with which to wager on the side. Certainly, my proposed 'purification' of the junior divisions will be even that more attractive for those pursuing school based competition. It will be up to their governing bodies, not the PDGA, whether student disc golfers must also refrain from playing for larger prizes in the Pro or Prize divisions.

James, in an open and free society everyone operates with the consent and free will of those they govern. In an open and free society elected leaders first have to persuade the voters that they are leading them to a better place, and then they can lead. If the PDGA leads where there is little desire to follow, two years later the PDGA will have new board members or the TDs will form a new organization or the TDs will run unsanctioned events. They are citizens in a free society and can associate with the PDGA or not, as they choose.

This is true at all levels of our sport. Any TD/sponsor team could take their event and walk if the PDGA were not serving their needs. Even as to those few events where the PDGA owns the name of the event and has a multi-year contract with the TD, we could not stop the sponsor from hiring a different TD and renaming the event.

In a free and open society leaders must serve. They win the loyalty of those they have served well and that gives them the power to lead.

I do not think this is an "either or". Yes, the PDGA BOD needs greater power to get things done; and yes, they need to be responsive to those whose needs they serve.

The solution in my opinion is a PDGA Disc Golf Congress that will split the power and responsibilities of the executive branch (PDGA BOD). State Coordinators would assume the role and act as Representatives.

And Chuck, true amateur sport is not a fantasy for sports like Football, Basketball, Soccer, Baseball, Track or Golf. It is a reality based on solid principles and logic, unobstructed by preconception based solely on the history of disc golf alone.

Now if you accept that your plan is just a step in the direction of my plan, I could support it, but as a finished product it will only perpetuate the incestuous and limiting nature of a competitive system with no rhyme or reason, where �Professional� can not exist without a true complimentary �Amateur�. It�s like trying to breed with all males. It just doesn�t work.

Yes, I understand.

The following is fictional account from an idle mind: Lets just say that there was a board that thought the present system needed an overhaul (for the good of the sport of course), but thought that the necessary changes might not sit well with some/many players and some/many organizers. But they knew that ultimately, even if they angered their constituents, they needed to go in that direction. They were also scared that a new power promising something for nothing might swoop in and take over the "sport," forever relegating the "sport" to an activity where it is more profitable to be mediocre than decent. Wanting to prevent that, they thought, "what can we do?"

Anyways, I was just wondering if that fantasy ever happened, what would the characters involved do next? :D

ps: I've bugged y'all enough and shall rest.

Nick, Does participation in a recreational bowling league prevent a bowler from participating in a money game now and then?

True Amateurs do not need nor deserve protection from similarly skilled semi-pros. The true amateur class divisions need to be skill based in individual competition. Handicapped if in team or league competition. Any team is able ot go out and get a "ringer" for their team in any other sport, why not DG?

And even if the evil "semi-pros" swooped down and gobbled up all the trophies, aren't the true amateurs there for the competition and comraderie? What difference would it make?

I am emphatically opposed to any move to a structure that prevents amateur players from playing in amateur divisions. My definition of amateur matches the one that the PDGA uses at this time.

I am in favor of adding a true amateur level of competition that would allow current players the option of playing for trophies and/or flat payouts (player packs) or playing for prizes at their discretion.

I'm not saying true Ams don't exist. But, I suspect very few over the age of 18 would pledge not to accept Ace money or not do sidebets whenever they play casually or in events. In my view, if they are willing to accept Ace pots or do sidebets, they are only a little different from Am players who currently play for prizes. It's just they play for stakes out of public view.

Give me a break about true Ams in ball golf. That game is made for gambling in casual play. Winthrop Gold is one of the few courses finally long enough to have a really good game of ball golf's Bingo, Bango, Bongo. The USGA's Amateur events still involve prizes up to $500 in value.

Gary and Chuck,

I fully and completely understand your aversion to having a true amateur classification; I simply and emphatically disagree with it. And for the record: Un-Protected No Prize Divisions do not equal a true Amateur Class. They are substantially different in content more than just surface form.

Please answer the following questions for yourself:

A) Does the PDGA's definition of "Amateur Status" match in word or spirit the definition found in other major sports for which we aspire to join in mainstream acceptance and success?
B) Why do we offer "Protected" Divisions yet no "Protected" Classifications?
C) Who are we "Protecting" and why are we "Protecting" them?

For me there is no way to answer them without drawing many clear and meaningful conclusions.

I strongly agree with Nick on this point but that is because I am emotionally connected to the model he proposes. It represents the way I want to play.

However, it seems that there is a large pool of disaffected players out there that have removed themselves from competition. It isn't exactly clear why they have left the ranks but it is definitely plausible that they don't like the play up play up mentality nor the fact that if they aren't right up at the top, that they are paying significant amounts to play and watching the guys at the top take their money. I think there are probably other factors also, such as the rule structure and the way it is enforced or not enforced that influence this pool of non-participating players. We can argue till the cows come home but unless we get more information or actually implement Nick's plan we won't know.

It would be really informative if we could tap into the disaffected players pool and find out what motivates them? Why aren't they playing? Would a low cost amateur class entice them? To do this effectively might be expensive (it depends on how you go about it and how motivated players are to participate). Alternatively, setting up Nick's amateur class may or may not be costly. Again, it depends on the cost in participation and income to TDs and the PDGA. Nick argues that he can set it up at no loss of revenue to the PDGA. If so why not set up a series across the country with tournaments at major venues. This would allow us to see how it works and then we will know whether it is viable or not.

Lyle and Nick,

I don't oppose low cost trophy only divisions or tournaments, I am very much in favor of those divisions and events and have been encouragng TDs to move toward a flatter payout in the existing Rec divisions.

I do oppose protecting(alienating) those divisions from players that may at times wish to play in a prize division. I as an PDGA AM player should be able to compete in the "regular style" PDGA tournaments and in the trophy-only divisions as well.

Why would we want to add an additional level of tournament play and not allow the existing players to play with them and prevent them from playing with the existing tournament players without losing their eligibility to play their trophy-only divisions.

The overhead of keeping track of all the AM players that may wish to try a traditional tournament and then go back would be staggering in itself. I know we do that with Pro players that cash now, but the dividing line is much clearer, and watched closely by a lot of eyes.

I strongly agree with Nick on this point but that is because I am emotionally connected to the model he proposes. It represents the way I want to play.

However, it seems that there is a large pool of disaffected players out there that have removed themselves from competition. It isn't exactly clear why they have left the ranks but it is definitely plausible that they don't like the play up play up mentality nor the fact that if they aren't right up at the top, that they are paying significant amounts to play and watching the guys at the top take their money. I think there are probably other factors also, such as the rule structure and the way it is enforced or not enforced that influence this pool of non-participating players. We can argue till the cows come home but unless we get more information or actually implement Nick's plan we won't know.

It would be really informative if we could tap into the disaffected players pool and find out what motivates them? Why aren't they playing? Would a low cost amateur class entice them? To do this effectively might be expensive (it depends on how you go about it and how motivated players are to participate). Alternatively, setting up Nick's amateur class may or may not be costly. Again, it depends on the cost in participation and income to TDs and the PDGA. Nick argues that he can set it up at no loss of revenue to the PDGA. If so why not set up a series across the country with tournaments at major venues. This would allow us to see how it works and then we will know whether it is viable or not.



Those pro players who Lyle describes refuse to play Pro 2 when it is offered. I know. Jon and I have offered the division six times this season. They have not come out of the woods to play Pro 2.

Those amateurs who Lyle describes have not played trophy-only in the amateur division when we have offered it. It seems that for most players trophy-only was initially a novelty that they thought was worth trying since I had such a limited merch selection and no reputation for payouts, good or bad. Interest in reduced entry fees has waned now that I have Innova, Discraft, Cattongue, Lightning, and Brakel Kitchens merching me up with discs, cloth merch, baskets, and homemade yummy stuff, and have a good reputation for fat am payouts.

I think the players who have left have left for other reasons. Perhaps the realities of work, family and I'll-never-be-a-touring-pro set in and they are playing on the company softball team.

The other night I was flipping through ten-year-old box scores in DGWN for an unrelated reason and I noticed that a huge number of players have come and gone in every division. I think that is just the way it is. Some people find something else to do for competition, exercise or social interaction, and they play less tournaments.

If there is an argument for a low entry, no prize format, it is not that there are disaffected former players out there waiting for that option to resume playing.

Bruce hit the nail on the head, imo. People come and go all the time. A group of friends playing together all the time start developing skills, winning local leagues and then inevitablly want to compete with the "big dogs" at local tournaments. For most, they don't play up to what they dreamed about. But they try and try again until they completely give up the sport, play ocassionally again or accept their skills. The ones that accept their skills usually become the dedicated local organizers, promoters and mentors, while the rest move on.

The sport is still growing at a tremendous rate every year, 10-15% for the last few years. That would be a victory at any corporation.

Just curious, what is that statistic from?

Also, just curious, what rate is the professional ranks growing at, specifically the open division?

Are "dropouts" equally spread percentage wise throughout the classifications? My anecdotal evidence seems to relay a different message.

I sense an argument that the system is perfectly healthy. I mean corporations would kill for that!!! Maybe. What if the corporation could expand their market at 20% and still retain a higher percentage of customers than we presently do? Is that a possibility?

Honestly, I don't know these answers in any positive way, I just take umbrage when I hear claims about the "success" of organized disc golf over the years. One could argue that the measure of a sport is the number of competitors at the highest level. Under this measure, is the PDGA successful in its competitive system or have they mismanaged disc golf's tremendous potential?

PDGA HQ has done stats on retention, including I believe Am vs Pro, but I'm not sure broken out by ratings level/division. Once a player has been a member for two years, their retention rate is much higher than those who have been members for less than two years, which I suppose shouldn't be surprising.

Spring 2004 DGWN. To clarify, from 2002-2003 it's more like 10% new member growth, 8% current member growth, # tour events up 16%, 13% total player entry growth, # pro events up 15%, # players per event was down 2.5%, though. And it goes back to 1996.

Current members in 2003 = 8304 (http://www.pdga.com/documents/96-03TourGrowth.pdf)


Current members right now = 7907 (http://www.pdga.com/members.php)

Hey don't worry if 100 people join per month for the next 4 months we'll be back to 0% growth.

Spring 2004 DGWN. To clarify, from 2002-2003 it's more like 10% new member growth, 8% current member growth, # tour events up 16%, 13% total player entry growth, # pro events up 15%, # players per event was down 2.5%, though. And it goes back to 1996.



Although this measures the growth of the PDGA, it does not measure the growth of the game. For every PDGA member there are dozens of non-members. Just from looking around at the courses, it looks like growth on the non-member side has been far greater than on the member side.

Man, the more I think about this the more complicated it becomes in my own mind. There's no denying the PDGA and the sport are growing, so the current system must not be too messed up.

My suggestion, bash it if you feel the need to, is to leave open pro as pro and to tweak the current system so advanced becomes semi-pro, since we are compensated with prize payouts, and make intermediate trophy only. It's probably much more complicated than this, though.

I also believe there needs to be more pay to play courses for the sport to attract more people. Owners of courses have an incentive to advertise the course exists with amenities and eventually advertise professionally run tournaments, which will bring sponsors in to professionally advertise their products. Once this happens, which it probably will, the sport will be significantly different from the way it is today. This will cause some people of today to give up the sport, while bringing in others, as it is now.

I'd just like to have a course to play that didn't allow pot smoking. :( I like to disc golf, not be stuck in the middle of smoke-outs.

Smoke all you want at home. I don't care. I don't want to rule your life. I juts want to hang out and disc golf with cool people who respect the decisions I make for my own life. Which for me is to not smoke dope.

I've seen an opportunity missed at almost every tournament I've entered by not having a banner or something in public view to advertise a tournament is happening at this course at this moment. Not to bash, but at Worlds there should have been a banner at every course entrance letting every person that drove by know that the World Champioships were being held on that course. It seems like a huge opportunity missed to promote at every tournament.

Sorry for rambling, but finally, my point is that instead of focusing on changing payouts, divisions or structure, how about focusing on better promotion of events and the sport itself. I know there were some sort of standards introduced this year or last year, but I could only find here on the website the cover letter stating there is some information somewhere. I just feel that there are some missed opportunities.

Why not give meaning to choosing a division and classification other than how much you think you can make in different ones at any specific event?

Our pussyfooting around over-worrying about retention with no concern to making a system that makes sense and will work now and into the distant future is essentially cutting us off from exponential growth in areas we haven't even imagined yet.

Why not require players to "declare" which division they are going to play in each year, verify that they qualify (are not pros trying to play in am classification or have met other standards of required skill, age, gender, etc.), then there they MUST stay for that entire PDGA Season?

This would end Masters flip flopping back and forth and folks giving Advanced players greif for not going pro. (Special Open Event Majors would still be able to invite players from other divisions.) Everything would be set and the Annual Champions in all of these divisions would be actual champions who played all year in these divisions. It would also give significant meaning to the choice of turning Pro.

IMO, we have far too many whining babies who want their cake and eat it too and the cost is the stunting of our growth and development as a sport. Commitment is NOT a bad thing to expect or demand. (Ask and yee shall receive...)

I'd just like to have a course to play that didn't allow pot smoking. :( I like to disc golf, not be stuck in the middle of smoke-outs.

Smoke all you want at home. I don't care. I don't want to rule your life. I juts want to hang out and disc golf with cool people who respect the decisions I make for my own life. Which for me is to not smoke dope.



i'am with you rhett

I'd just like to have a course to play that didn't allow pot smoking. :( I like to disc golf, not be stuck in the middle of smoke-outs.

Smoke all you want at home. I don't care. I don't want to rule your life. I juts want to hang out and disc golf with cool people who respect the decisions I make for my own life. Which for me is to not smoke dope.



i'am with you rhett



WORD!

A time and place for everything. PDGA rounds are for golfin' not puffin'. I hate it when people put me in that horrible position.

In truth it hasn't happened this year and I've played in about 16 PDGA's. That's great!

I thought that would scare folks away. Well it scares me a little too, considering I will have an option of comparing entry fees/players/payouts between to possible divisions for the first time in 15 years next year when I turn the big 40.

In all seriousness, I have been to more than one event this year where the Masters field was significantly tougher than the Open one.... Only 10 more years til GM!

Attention BOD Members!!!

A few months ago the Executive Director wrote this in a post on this thread

The current Am merch heavy system has been a huge factor in the growth of the sport as a whole and PDGA membership numbers through the 1990s and into the 21st C.



As a BOD member, do you agree with this statement? Disagree? Reasons? Other comments on this topic?

I would write you all in person but people get blasted for posting email responses to the message board, and I think your answers will be interesting to a large number of readers.

If you're not on the BOD and want to respond that's cool too. I'm guessing there might be some interesting responses from MB cognoscenti such as McCaine, Howard, Duke, Chambers, Kennedy, et. al.

Thank you for your support. :)

Attention BOD Members!!!

A few months ago the Executive Director wrote this in a post on this thread

The current Am merch heavy system has been a huge factor in the growth of the sport as a whole and PDGA membership numbers through the 1990s and into the 21st C.



As a BOD member, do you agree with this statement? Disagree? Reasons? Other comments on this topic?

I would write you all in person but people get blasted for posting email responses to the message board, and I think your answers will be interesting to a large number of readers.

If you're not on the BOD and want to respond that's cool too. I'm guessing there might be some interesting responses from MB cognoscenti such as McCaine, Howard, Duke, Chambers, Kennedy, et. al.

Thank you for your support. :)



I agree that it has been the main factor in our growth to this point, but I also feel that our lack of any real "Amateur Class" has equally held us back as a growing sport. It has kept us out of educational institutions and community groups and limited our scope to a very narrow group of "sportsmen" more properly labelled "gamblers/carneys". We have attracted members/participants based on "profit" and "what are you going to do for me" "you are my employee", and the expectations and results are clear. In this way we truly ARE a professional organization.

Attention BOD Members!!!

A few months ago the Executive Director wrote this in a post on this thread

The current Am merch heavy system has been a huge factor in the growth of the sport as a whole and PDGA membership numbers through the 1990s and into the 21st C.



As a BOD member, do you agree with this statement? Disagree? Reasons? Other comments on this topic?

I would write you all in person but people get blasted for posting email responses to the message board, and I think your answers will be interesting to a large number of readers.

If you're not on the BOD and want to respond that's cool too. I'm guessing there might be some interesting responses from MB cognoscenti such as McCaine, Howard, Duke, Chambers, Kennedy, et. al.

Thank you for your support. :)



I disagree. First, where does the idea that there is an influence come from? Is there a correlation between the beginning of am payouts and an increase in membership? Would the membership have been even higher if there had been no payouts? We don't know because that didn't occur. Furthermore, to my knowledge/recollection we haven't asked or surveyed the PDGA body as a whole to find out if this is even a "perceived" influence. That is, does the majority of the body feel this way (maybe we have and I in my old age have forgotten). Keep in mind, even if we have asked, just because someone says the merchandise payouts are a motivator doesn't mean they really are.

Second, we haven't carried out a controlled experiment where we opposed the two situations, one with heavy payouts and one without heavy payouts, to see which does better, or even if there is no difference. This experiment might give an answer.

Third, anecdotally it doesn't seem to matter. In other amateur sports, a lack of payout doesn't seem to have limited growth. The one I am most familiar with is running. No one can argue that running is not a successful sport.

Fourth, there is a significant voice that posts on this very site, and that has also communicated with me at local tournaments that argues they hate the high fees and thus limit the number of events they play in (this is supported by the observation that in Texas, the majority of tournament players play 1 or 2 tournaments a year). The guys that tend to play multiples are those who cash on a regular basis. This may be consistent, or at least not inconsistent, with people joining the PDGA, but it isn't helping the growth of tournament play... at least in Texas.

Fifth, those whom I have talked to locally have argued that a true amateur class such as Nick proposes, would lead them to play more tournaments. Again this is anecdotal evidence, but interesting fodder nonetheless.

Given these questions, the lack of real information and some observations I would have to say that I don't agree that am payouts have driven the sport and suspect that just the opposite is true. I also suspect that many may join for one year and then drop out after that year because of the high cost of supporting those am payouts.

Fifth, those whom I have talked to locally have argued that a true amateur class such as Nick proposes, would lead them to play more tournaments. Again this is anecdotal evidence, but interesting fodder nonetheless.

Given these questions, the lack of real information and some observations I would have to say that I don't agree that am payouts have driven the sport and suspect that just the opposite is true. I also suspect that many may join for one year and then drop out after that year because of the high cost of supporting those am payouts.

This makes no sense to me. If there is a demand for low entry fee, low or no payout sanctioned tournaments, why don't those players step up and run them? If the 2005 Blast turns out to be surprisingly successful, I'm sure we'll run more. Until then, I see no evidence that this is what the players want.

I do agree that we have no way of knowing what the impact of the am-gambler system has been. It has created a unique system for marketing equipment through hit-and-miss amateur car trunk distributors which undoubtedly suppresses what big retailers might be doing. Good or bad? Hard to say.

I can tell you one thing though. Bruce said the tournaments that her runs in MI will be trophy only and i have been talking to the ams around the state and they seem to be sayin there is no way they will play in a tournament without a payout. There is some more info to take into consideration.

I strongly agree with Nick on this point but that is because I am emotionally connected to the model he proposes. It represents the way I want to play.

However, it seems that there is a large pool of disaffected players out there that have removed themselves from competition. It isn't exactly clear why they have left the ranks but it is definitely plausible that they don't like the play up play up mentality nor the fact that if they aren't right up at the top, that they are paying significant amounts to play and watching the guys at the top take their money. I think there are probably other factors also, such as the rule structure and the way it is enforced or not enforced that influence this pool of non-participating players. We can argue till the cows come home but unless we get more information or actually implement Nick's plan we won't know.

It would be really informative if we could tap into the disaffected players pool and find out what motivates them? Why aren't they playing? Would a low cost amateur class entice them? To do this effectively might be expensive (it depends on how you go about it and how motivated players are to participate). Alternatively, setting up Nick's amateur class may or may not be costly. Again, it depends on the cost in participation and income to TDs and the PDGA. Nick argues that he can set it up at no loss of revenue to the PDGA. If so why not set up a series across the country with tournaments at major venues. This would allow us to see how it works and then we will know whether it is viable or not.



Those pro players who Lyle describes refuse to play Pro 2 when it is offered. I know. Jon and I have offered the division six times this season. They have not come out of the woods to play Pro 2.

Those amateurs who Lyle describes have not played trophy-only in the amateur division when we have offered it. It seems that for most players trophy-only was initially a novelty that they thought was worth trying since I had such a limited merch selection and no reputation for payouts, good or bad. Interest in reduced entry fees has waned now that I have Innova, Discraft, Cattongue, Lightning, and Brakel Kitchens merching me up with discs, cloth merch, baskets, and homemade yummy stuff, and have a good reputation for fat am payouts.

I think the players who have left have left for other reasons. Perhaps the realities of work, family and I'll-never-be-a-touring-pro set in and they are playing on the company softball team.

The other night I was flipping through ten-year-old box scores in DGWN for an unrelated reason and I noticed that a huge number of players have come and gone in every division. I think that is just the way it is. Some people find something else to do for competition, exercise or social interaction, and they play less tournaments.

If there is an argument for a low entry, no prize format, it is not that there are disaffected former players out there waiting for that option to resume playing.



I love replying to posts 5 months late. :)

Interesting observations. However, the experiment is still not well controlled. Did someone tell the players who had dropped from the sport that the options provided in these tournaments were happening? Was the experiment followed long enough to come to full fruition? One summer's worth of tournies seems a little short.

Obviously, for the current pool, only a few players opted for Pro2 but we really haven't fleshed out the possibility very well nor allowed it to grow. I also observed that there was a huge internal backlash against Pro2. Those TDs that offered it were sometimes given grief and those players that took the option were often given grief. What happened to the players who chose the no payout Am option in your tournaments Bruce? Were they harrassed? Were they separated from the guys they normally played with? Also, no payout doesn't mean no payout, was there food, and were the no payout guys standing next to payout guys who all got a shirt and a disc? It may be that many decided that a shirt/disc was worth paying the higher fee. In running where there is no payout, everyone gets a shirt and other tidbits with food. My guess is that if the trophy only option is mixed in with the payout division that it won't work well due to a number of factors including pressure.

While I think the observations that you made are important, I'm not convinced that they adequetaly measure the possibilities... but I could be wrong. I think it is valid to say that we have come to a point were we are hooked on the payout teat. That doesn't mean that we can't be weaned for the betterment of the sport, if indeed weaning would be good for the sport.

I also think that Bruce is correct. Many players just move on and nothing will bring them back. The question we have to ask is: for future growth, which model brings in the most new players and keeps them hooked the longest?

I think the heavy am payouts have driven the pro payouts.

Let's face it, if the tournament can use the wholesale/retail markup of the am prizes to pay for park permits, PDGA fees, and any other amenities, then it leaves a lot more pro entry fee cash to be returned to the winning pros.

I don't know any Ams that really have any problem at all with that, except for the escalation of entry fees. If you take the am prizes away, you'll have a hard time getting anyone to pay more than $25 to play am. That, my friends, will seriously impact the pro payout.

Remember, that MA1 guy getting the $300 stack of stuff just added $150 to the tournament kitty. I personally do not believe that you will very many people lining up to play MA1 for $65 and no payout.

Is that good or bad? I don't know. I'd rather play within my rating for a $25 entry fee and trophies only. That way a 914 rated guy playing Intermediate doesn't get hassled for being a bagger.

I think that would be better.

Fifth, those whom I have talked to locally have argued that a true amateur class such as Nick proposes, would lead them to play more tournaments. Again this is anecdotal evidence, but interesting fodder nonetheless.

Given these questions, the lack of real information and some observations I would have to say that I don't agree that am payouts have driven the sport and suspect that just the opposite is true. I also suspect that many may join for one year and then drop out after that year because of the high cost of supporting those am payouts.

This makes no sense to me. If there is a demand for low entry fee, low or no payout sanctioned tournaments, why don't those players step up and run them? If the 2005 Blast turns out to be surprisingly successful, I'm sure we'll run more. Until then, I see no evidence that this is what the players want.

I do agree that we have no way of knowing what the impact of the am-gambler system has been. It has created a unique system for marketing equipment through hit-and-miss amateur car trunk distributors which undoubtedly suppresses what big retailers might be doing. Good or bad? Hard to say.



There is no doubt that what you are saying has some validity Bruce. That is why I stated anecdotal evidence. But, I would guess that the average guy who is looking for a low key venue in which to play isn't the kind of guy to start a tournament. I know that here in Houston the local club has numerous guys that play league that never move to tournament play. Again the question is why? I don't have an answer, nor do I have an answer as to why the 1000 or so local players that hit the links but never play tournaments take that path. It is obvious that the current situation isn't inviting enough for them. Does that mean that an am only class would get them in? Quite probably not. It might even be that if we switched the payout scheme for the non-payout scheme we would lose or draw even. What I think we need to do is tap into that pool of several thousand players who play one tournament a year and find out how to get them to play two to four. If it is non-payout, great. If it is different rules structures or beer then we need to consider those things. The problem is that right now we don't know.

My only experience comes from the guy who got me into disc golf. He likes casual play. The more competitive it becomes the less he likes it. I suspect that this is where a lot of the players go, they simply aren't into the competitive nature of tournaments. Frankly, even a non-payout structure isn't going to attract them.

Rhett is exactly the kind of player I'm talking about. The tournies I play are pretty cheap anyway so I don't mind the price. But even they are getting up to $40 for one day events. I'd much rather pay $15 and I get a mini or a t-shirt or lunch with no am payout. On the other hand, Nick, Rhett, and the others who post on this issue may be the outspoken minority.

I'm not sure what kind of player you are assessing me as from the context of your message. :confused:

I play tournament disc golf for the competitive outlet it provides. I like to try and do my best against against others and see how it turns out. I don't particularly like huge entry fees and fat payouts, but I do realize that those are what makes tournaments go 'round.

Or at least they use to. People seem to be getting better at fundraising, so hopefully we can go to lower entry fee am entries.

I agree with Lyle in that the belief that that merch payouts fueled the growth of the PDGA is pure conjecture. A parallel chart comparing PDGA growth to Disc Golf growth might be interesting.

I think our culture has retarded growth, at all levels. When I say "our culture," I don't mean merch payouts per se, but payouts that emphasize big rewards to the top. This mentality created the payout scale and fueled the rise in entry fees. This, IMO, has hurt our growth more than anything else.

In sum, I agree with Lyle that we will never be able to measure if the merch system was a primary growth driver or not. However, even if that supposition were true in the past, does that imply that it will be true for the future? It seems to me that the real question someone who believes that should ask is: "Will the merch system fuel our growth for the future, not just the next 5 years, but the next 50-100 years?"

"Will the merch system fuel our growth for the future, not just the next 5 years, but the next 50-100 years?"

It seems to me that the huge growth in tournaments that we are seeing in the regions where i play will eventually expose the current merch system for the ponzi scheme that it resembles. If the market is saturated with cheap merch, there is no value in winning more cheap merch. That could create a market for low entry no payout am side tournaments.

I'm hoping anyway. I like running tournaments. I can't run or be involved in the illegal format tournaments in this state anymore.

I'm not sure what kind of player you are assessing me as from the context of your message. :confused:

I play tournament disc golf for the competitive outlet it provides. I like to try and do my best against against others and see how it turns out. I don't particularly like huge entry fees and fat payouts, but I do realize that those are what makes tournaments go 'round.

Or at least they use to. People seem to be getting better at fundraising, so hopefully we can go to lower entry fee am entries.



Possibly I missunderstood you. I meant a player who would just as soon play for lower entry fees and trophy only.

"Will the merch system fuel our growth for the future, not just the next 5 years, but the next 50-100 years?"

It seems to me that the huge growth in tournaments that we are seeing in the regions where i play will eventually expose the current merch system for the ponzi scheme that it resembles. If the market is saturated with cheap merch, there is no value in winning more cheap merch. That could create a market for low entry no payout am side tournaments.

I'm hoping anyway. I like running tournaments. I can't run or be involved in the illegal format tournaments in this state anymore.



Light goes on... keen insight... I suspect you are correct.

Possibly I missunderstood you. I meant a player who would just as soon play for lower entry fees and trophy only.


Good. :)

The Wintertime Open is coming up. Last year Mark made the am entry fees basically $25. Finishing in the top third of your division got you an Orc. Plus there was lunch and t-shirt for everyone. I think the top four in the big divisons might have gotten 2 or 3 discs. I loved the format! I really like the top-third getting the same thing payout, as the aspect of winning "stuff" that appeals to me is that is shows you finished well. I've never seen a need for a $300 stack of stuff, so the one-disc payout, I though, was great.

I think I like that format even better than "trophy only". :) The entry fee for the Wintertime Open Ams is $25 again. Hopefully everybody else likes that format and returns.

Implicit in your response is another question that I suspect everyone answers differently. Namely "What is growth of the sport?" Even though the growth of the sport is closely related to the growth of the game/activity (probably easier to measure), I think it is slightly different.

My answer is vague, but is loosely written as "whatever attracts sponsors." In other words, # of tournaments doesn't seem like a good measure in itself, nor does total competitors over a period of time. Basically, I suspect (but don't really don't know since I am not a TD or promoter) that sponsors want large numbers at the events they sponsor. Well, in order for a TD to attract large numbers to their events, they do whatever their creative mind tells them to, but, their success is largely related to the size of the pool of people willing to play tournaments.

I don't know where I'm going with this blather other than to question whether growth in number of tournaments is truly a good measure of growth of our sport, therefore I'll stop. ;)

I like that format. There is a nice inducement for the top guys without it being ridiculous... or is that rediculous? :)

I like that idea, too. But I already hear the whining from Texas players if that was tried here.

So, we should do that for States, since no one is going to show up anyway. :)

Mark is the only one to do that format here. This is the second year, so the proof should be in the pre-regs.

Implicit in your response is another question that I suspect everyone answers differently. Namely "What is growth of the sport?" Even though the growth of the sport is closely related to the growth of the game/activity (probably easier to measure), I think it is slightly different.

My answer is vague, but is loosely written as "whatever attracts sponsors." In other words, # of tournaments doesn't seem like a good measure in itself, nor does total competitors over a period of time. Basically, I suspect (but don't really don't know since I am not a TD or promoter) that sponsors want large numbers at the events they sponsor. Well, in order for a TD to attract large numbers to their events, they do whatever their creative mind tells them to, but, their success is largely related to the size of the pool of people willing to play tournaments.

I don't know where I'm going with this blather other than to question whether growth in number of tournaments is truly a good measure of growth of our sport, therefore I'll stop. ;)



I think this is a very important point. I used to think that the body of the organization, that is the number of players, should be used in our outreach to sponsors. Now I'm not so sure. Let's face it, even with a population of 8000 and the 20 or 30,000 active non-member players (yes I pulled that out of my buttocks) that isn't enough to rock anyone's boat. I think our marketing needs to build around our image much the way that skateboarding and other X game sports did. You want your image to be connected with a cool, environmentally conscious, etc. sport. Note that the Honda Element has bought into this notion and brags about hopping in to go out for a round of Frisbee golf (Yikes!). BTW - I'm pretty sure that Guru has someone looking into this.

Our image is probably worth three or four times what our population is (maybe more) and we need to figure out a way to use that. On the same note we need to grow that image by showing it's merit on college campuses. How many have a course etc.

Big questions, no quick answers.

Yes the heavy am payouts have driven both the number of tournaments available and disc sales up in the last few years. It does this through captive sales and the revenues collected from those captive sales. What I mean by that is a TD of a successul event knows that he will be "selling" several thousand dollars with of merchandise through the am payouts. He knows about how much profit he will make on those "sales". This allows the TD to plan the event with a somewhat solid budget. This also provides a captive income for the disc manufacturers and wholesalers.

The advantage for the TD of going to a trophy only system is that all funds collected go toward the event budget (minus PDGA and local fees) and they don't have to estimate turnout and pre-purchase enough stock to cover the payout. Their budget remains almost the same without the possibility of being left with unused stock after the event. This of course effects the income of the manufacturers and wholesalers.

From a players perspective, I have heard both opinions. Those that will definately boycott trophy only events and those that will welcome tropy only events with open arms. It is interesting that the TX10 events are so popular averaging over 150 players for each event with a formula of lower entry fees, one day events, and a percentage of entry rolling over to the payout in the finals.

On the surface, the payout should be lower because the entry fees are lower, however the high turnout often offsets that expectation. If you qualify for the bonus cash in the final events, the payout is tremendous.

It has also been noticed that popular events that increased entry fees had player turnout drop. Since nothing happens in a vacuum, it is hard to tell if this is due to the growing number of options available to the players or a backlash from the price increase.

<hr>
From what I have seen, payout and entry fees are closely tied to each other.

For entry fees of less than $30 (adv), payout is expected, but the level of payout isn't as important. Most players in these events are expecting good competition more than good payout.

For entry fees between $30 and $50, payout becomes a more important factor, and players playing in these events are expecting good rewards for playing well.

For entry fees above $50, payout becomes the main topic of conversation after the event.

For me personally, attendance of any event exceeding $50 entry fees is hard to justify.

<hr>
It would be interesting to see how a true am series of events would be received. I see a team competition like Texas Teams having a better chance of success. I think a series of events culminating in regional and state championships having the best chance of gaining enough support to maintain enterest and grow participation from year to year. It could also easily be used as a format for competition between schools. I think there is room for true am competition, just not a great demand for organized singles competition.

This Wintertime Open deal where the top 1/3 got the same prize is ridiculous. I guess you would like it if you are an anti-competitive type of person, but I would rather get bigger prizes for winning than for getting 10th. I like to see top heavy payouts cuz we are all playing to win. This doesn't take away from the fun of it either. If I don't play well and I don't get a prize, then I still have fun and I'll try again next time. If I win, then give me something that shows my entry fee didn't just totally go to something else, or else I'll find other tournaments to play.

Ahhh...more amatuer entitlement. What ever happened to bragging rights and pride?

If this Wintertime Open idea was used ($25 entry, some form of a Players Pack, and the same prize to each "casher") with the proceeds going to charity, would you still go find other tournaments to play?

In response to Hank's original (2005) question, I believe heavy merch payout to Ams as indeed helped grow the sport in general. Tons. And it will continue.

But heavy merch payouts will not grow PDGA membership.

I'd play in events like Wintertime, even if the $ goes toward peripheral goals like course improvement. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I LOVE tournaments with an am "trophy-only" option. I can pay less &, if I see a tournament disc I really want, I'll just buy it. If not, if (when?) I cash, I don't have to take home some plastic (which I "paid" for w/ a higher entry fee) that I don't even want & will just give away anyway.

ok, this may sound crazy but why would a trophy only tournament need to cost more than about 15$? Due to PDGA payout requirements for tier standards a trophy only tournament that cost much more wouldn't even qualify for C tier status. Lets see...B tier...3$ to PDGA fees and a 10$ player pack puts you at a little over 90%payout.

I was looking at the gateway GTS tour info yesterday. They have a level where entry fee is 25$ and every player gets 3 discs as player pack and the winner gets a trophy. That seems like a GREAT system to me...I would play the heck out of events like that if they were offered here.

The current Am merch heavy system has been a huge factor in the growth of the sport as a whole and PDGA membership numbers through the 1990s and into the 21st C.



On Hank's post regarding the above statement, he asked for my thoughts, so here goes:

Duane Utech, a TD in the Can-Am series in the early 90s is credited with ramping up the Am prizes by awarding funny money called �cabbage.� I think the case could be made that we�ve grown because of that system but it�s unclear whether an alternative model would have grown faster or slower. It�s been a feedback loop such that the big merch prize system attracts and retains the type players who like the big merch prize system and continue to perpetuate it. It �works� for all of the stakeholders involved such as TDs, players, PDGA, manufacturers and even park depts. who have gotten off easy from the standpoint that few have to run events like they do for many other community sports activities.

As Rhett pointed out, a case can be made that the development of pro purses, which eventually lead to a handful of pros starting to travel, might not have started when it did without the retail/wholesale differential built into the big merch system. Even now, the bulk of added cash comes from the backs of players at many big events like our Supertour when you include the differential, local league �taxes� and �sponsors� who are employers, relatives or close friends of players.

An alternative model would have been to grow the competitive side of the sport following a more conventional route which might have included the following: 1) developing curriculum to teach disc golf in colleges so recreation supervisors would be knowledgeable on the sport and how to run leagues, and PE teachers would know how to teach it in schools, 2) teaching course design to landscape architecture students so they knew how to do it and be able to present it as an option once they�re in the working world doing park master planning projects, 3) developing E.D.G.E. 15 years ago, 4) persuading Wham-O or Ford back in 1990 to do something like the Punt-Pass-Kick competition but with disc golf for kids coming thru the E.D.G.E. program.

In this alternative universe, there might not be as many pros today except teaching pros. There would likely be many more traditional amateurs and juniors in our competitions. There would be fewer volunteers that turned into TDs or course designers. I believe the growth would have been slower and there would likely be fewer competitive players and championship courses at this point but maybe more total courses with lots of 9-hole school pitch and putts. But it�s possible this more amateur model might have propelled the sport to be larger in 15 more years than it will get to with our current model because the foundation would have been broader and building steam.

The reality is that the alternative model would have required money to implement and knowledge that wasn�t available at the time. Some corporation with deeper pockets than Wham-O would likely have been necessary to pull this process off. As it is, I believe we�ve done pretty well building what we�ve gotten so far with an event funding process that appears to be unique among any sports that have emerged in the last 30 years. Had the number of players grown much faster, many markets would have exceeded their course capacity. This would have created more problems that couldn�t have been solved quickly since many communities barely have the park space available for the course they have today. Pay-for-play would have emerged in this model as it is with our current system but it's unclear in which version it would have happened faster.

ok, this may sound crazy but why would a trophy only tournament need to cost more than about 15$? Due to PDGA payout requirements for tier standards a trophy only tournament that cost much more wouldn't even qualify for C tier status. Lets see...B tier...3$ to PDGA fees and a 10$ player pack puts you at a little over 90%payout.


This isn't crazy at all. We run events here in Maine where all the amateur divisions are trophy-only. For example, we have a D-tier in May where the amateur entry is $15, which breaks down like this:
$2 - PDGA
$1 - NEFA (regional series)
$1 - Maine Points Race
$11 - players pack (last year was a custom stamped Z disc and a MaineDiscGolf.com mini)
Trophies to first place in each division (last year they were custom CryZtal Challengers), maybe a disc to second place depending on the size of the field.
The tournament last year was had 30 amateurs and 10 pros. May not sound big, but for our area, 40 total players is a good sized event.

Our big B-tier event in June is going to be trophy-only also.
$30 entry:
$3 - PDGA
$2 - NEFA (regional series)
$1 - Maine Points Race
$25 - players pack (last year's pack: custom-stamped Z disc of choice, small Lightning bag, two magazines, stickers, rulebook, two minis)

Last year we did the same thing as above, and we had a prize table with assorted donated things for the top 4-5 in each am division. Rather than first place getting a stack of stuff, they got their trophy and three choices off the table. Second place got two choices, third and beyond got one choice. There were gift certs to restaurants, Wal-mart, etc. There were funky things like lamps and figurines, and some discs and minis.

But one thing was for sure, NO ONE complained...it went over quite well. The tournament was the largest ever held in Maine...around 50 amateurs, 73 players total. This year's is looking to be even bigger. And a lot more local players are already talking about entering on the basis of the popularity of last year's event.

Trophy only can work, and at low costs too.

--Josh

Fifth, those whom I have talked to locally have argued that a true amateur class such as Nick proposes, would lead them to play more tournaments. Again this is anecdotal evidence, but interesting fodder nonetheless.

Given these questions, the lack of real information and some observations I would have to say that I don't agree that am payouts have driven the sport and suspect that just the opposite is true. I also suspect that many may join for one year and then drop out after that year because of the high cost of supporting those am payouts.

This makes no sense to me. If there is a demand for low entry fee, low or no payout sanctioned tournaments, why don't those players step up and run them? If the 2005 Blast turns out to be surprisingly successful, I'm sure we'll run more. Until then, I see no evidence that this is what the players want.

I do agree that we have no way of knowing what the impact of the am-gambler system has been. It has created a unique system for marketing equipment through hit-and-miss amateur car trunk distributors which undoubtedly suppresses what big retailers might be doing. Good or bad? Hard to say.


They do! Friends of Sedgley Woods runs basically free tags 2 times a week and they have grown to one of the largest, best organized and active clubs in a very active region. And this is just with disc golf type folk! There is a whole world out there!

I understand as well as most the difficulty in committing to such a goal. But it does seem to be growing in momentum among directors and organizers wanting to really make a significant impact on the sport. "How do I get more folks involved? And more diverse variety of folks involved at that?"

As a 956 rated advanced player (about to be 960+) I think that ADV players no matter what rating should be able to play and take as much merch as they can. If you have a problem as a lower rated player just PLAY BETTER. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

This Wintertime Open deal where the top 1/3 got the same prize is ridiculous. I guess you would like it if you are an anti-competitive type of person, but I would rather get bigger prizes for winning than for getting 10th...


How is it anti-competitive? I said that the top 3 or 4 got like 3 or 4 discs instead of one. If you win anything, it means you beat two-thirds of the field. If you come in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, you get a trophy plus a couple of discs.

As for the $25 entry fee: it covers the cost of the tournament. I don't know where a lot of you play, but out here we have substantial park permit fees. Like $350 and up for a weekend. Throw in a pizza lunch, sweet tourney logo'd etched glass mugs for trophies, player-packs, and a disc to the top-third of each division, plus PDGA and SoCal fees, and you have spent the $25 without any money going anywhere else.

Although for $25 and all of that, I wouldn't care if some money were made by someone. Even though it isn't.

As a 956 rated advanced player (about to be 960+) I think that ADV players no matter what rating should be able to play and take as much merch as they can. If you have a problem as a lower rated player just PLAY BETTER. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



You're excused for that one, Matt.

Keep it up and I'll start calling you Mills....

:eek:

This Wintertime Open deal where the top 1/3 got the same prize is ridiculous. I guess you would like it if you are an anti-competitive type of person, but I would rather get bigger prizes for winning than for getting 10th...


How is it anti-competitive? I said that the top 3 or 4 got like 3 or 4 discs instead of one. If you win anything, it means you beat two-thirds of the field. If you come in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, you get a trophy plus a couple of discs.

As for the $25 entry fee: it covers the cost of the tournament. I don't know where a lot of you play, but out here we have substantial park permit fees. Like $350 and up for a weekend. Throw in a pizza lunch, sweet tourney logo'd etched glass mugs for trophies, player-packs, and a disc to the top-third of each division, plus PDGA and SoCal fees, and you have spent the $25 without any money going anywhere else.

Although for $25 and all of that, I wouldn't care if some money were made by someone. Even though it isn't.



When "Competition" equals "Cashing" "Amateur Sport" is "Meaningless".

I said sanctioned. I said tournaments. My $5 entry fee tag sanctioned tournament had about 24 players and I was fine with that but it just is not what you hope for running a tournament.

I know that the Tag Finals tournament had 24 players but you also have to remember they already had 10 dollars invested in the tags so they really had no choice in the matter.

All I know is that I never complained about getting beat by better players and it was actually the driving force that made me want to improve. Maybe I am just weird who knows? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

When "Competition" equals "Cashing" "Amateur Sport" is "Meaningless".



Nick, how did you extrapolate that from Rhett's comments?
I understood his post to mean that there is some differentiation in prizes among the top 1/3rd.
That's all.

All I know is that I never complained about getting beat by better players and it was actually the driving force that made me want to improve. Maybe I am just weird who knows? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Matt, you've missed the point then. This isn't a competition argument.

Look at Rhett's post about the Wintertime Open's entry fee and payout structure and tell us if you'd rather see that or the current structure of high entry fees and silly payouts?

If you were spending your own money (not Mom and Dad's), I think you'd choose differently than you say.

All I know is that I never complained about getting beat by better players and it was actually the driving force that made me want to improve. Maybe I am just weird who knows? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



This is definitely not true, two weeks ago I heard you complaining about your dad tearing you up at the North Side Open... :D

I know that the Tag Finals tournament had 24 players but you also have to remember they already had 10 dollars invested in the tags so they really had no choice in the matter.

I guess half of the tag holders had a choice since I sold 40 some, but I know what you mean: if there had not been the unsanctioned tag pot to divide in the shoot out after the tournament was over, 16 of those 24 players would not have been there.

You guys want your big entry fee big payout events. I'm not denying that.

We will probably look into doing the Sturgeon am-only this year at a course in Pontiac. It falls on a Friday this year in the middle of August. The entry fee will be $10 and for every PDGA member who shows up there will be a $10 CTP added for the division of their choice.

We will do it like the Tag Finals where all the ams play advanced but there are recognition trophies for players who would have played lower divisions. The added CTPs will work that way too.

Chuck and Josh, good posts. I haven't read the whole thread, but get the premise. We all know playing tournaments is great fun. Its the competition mixed with organized fun and being around friends. If your an AM playing for any other reason, your reasoning isn't within the definition of True Amateur as Nick points out often. When that basic feeling of just competing for competition becomes boring, you practice hard for the next level. Playing Pro should be a reward for being talented or having worked very hard to get that level. Cash is your reward. No rewards for Amateurs besides pride and experience. Even those of you that are for big payouts have to be able to acknowledge that reasoning. Tournaments for AMs should be very experienced based.

AM entry $30
$5 to PDGA and local club or charity
$10 to AM player pack (Nice disc, more with sponsorship)
$5 Trophies
$10 Park fees, food, amenities

Lots of CTP's, free lunch, extra putting games at the end

It is alright for TD's to make money. We need to get over that. Your right, not off the backs of the AMs. Without a heavy payout, that accusation is eliminated. Now, we create a disc golf economy where AMs that want discs, purchase them and get to choose what they want. Tournament makes money for the TD, the club, or even to sponsor the Pro Purse.
More vendors could be brought in for fly-marts etc, without everyone waiting to see if they cashed out before buying any discs. A true economy that supports the sport and our vendors. The manufacter's are selling discs no matter what, they aren't necessarily behind the big payout scemes. Sure its nice to sell a larger than normal order because Tournament X has a huge amount of AM Merch to prize out. There selling those discs either way.

This Wintertime Open deal where the top 1/3 got the same prize is ridiculous. I guess you would like it if you are an anti-competitive type of person, but I would rather get bigger prizes for winning than for getting 10th...


How is it anti-competitive? I said that the top 3 or 4 got like 3 or 4 discs instead of one. If you win anything, it means you beat two-thirds of the field. If you come in 1st, 2nd, or 3rd, you get a trophy plus a couple of discs.

As for the $25 entry fee: it covers the cost of the tournament. I don't know where a lot of you play, but out here we have substantial park permit fees. Like $350 and up for a weekend. Throw in a pizza lunch, sweet tourney logo'd etched glass mugs for trophies, player-packs, and a disc to the top-third of each division, plus PDGA and SoCal fees, and you have spent the $25 without any money going anywhere else.

Although for $25 and all of that, I wouldn't care if some money were made by someone. Even though it isn't.



Alright, maybe "anti-competitive" was the wrong word. I'm not saying I think there should be huge payouts either. I think the trophy only option may be the direction the sport should head for amateurs. I am saying that I expect that my entry fee be used for tournament costs and payout of the division I am playing in. I am not saying that its wrong for TD's to make alot of money running tournaments, but if that is their purpose then I would like to know upfront because I would like to avoid those tournaments. I don't have enough money to be giving it away to TD's beyond a reasonable amount for themselves and for whatever club or organization the tournament may support). I do appreciate the job they do.

For whatever the payout is though, I feel very strongly that it should be distributed more heavily towards the top finishers. This isn't "amateur entitlement". I'm not saying I am necessarily entitled to a huge payout, but what payout there is shoudn't be nearly equally distributed amont the competitors. Thats just dumb. It is in the competitive spirit that the winner takes the prize and the loser tries again next time, at least thats how I grew up. If there is gonna be a prize, lets PLAY for it! Not just give it to everybody so we all get a warm feeling inside whether we did good or not.

AM entry $30
$5 to PDGA and local club or charity
$10 to AM player pack (Nice disc, more with sponsorship)
$5 Trophies
$10 Park fees, food, amenities

Lots of CTP's, free lunch, extra putting games at the end

It is alright for TD's to make money. We need to get over that. Your right, not off the backs of the AMs. Without a heavy payout, that accusation is eliminated. Now, we create a disc golf economy where AMs that want discs, purchase them and get to choose what they want. Tournament makes money for the TD, the club, or even to sponsor the Pro Purse.
More vendors could be brought in for fly-marts etc, without everyone waiting to see if they cashed out before buying any discs. A true economy that supports the sport and our vendors. The manufacter's are selling discs no matter what, they aren't necessarily behind the big payout scemes. Sure its nice to sell a larger than normal order because Tournament X has a huge amount of AM Merch to prize out. There selling those discs either way.





I think it is even less important than you've stated. There is a certain volume of plastic that is in play. Say each player needs 20 discs on average. On a big payday (tournament payout) 300 discs come into play. Over time, those discs will be sold or pulled out of the garage to be used. When that happens, players don't purchase discs from other sources. Consequently, the manufacturers don't sell as much plastic to those other sources.

In this case, there might be some small fluctuation in sales but over time the volume sold by the manufacturers is the same, with or without payouts. The only difference is the path the plastic takes.


I am thinking about it but I also suspect that it is in the best interest of the TD to sell plastic than to give it to a winner who undersells the TD on ebay. I might be wrong though.

It is in the competitive spirit that the winner takes the prize and the loser tries again next time, at least thats how I grew up. If there is gonna be a prize, lets PLAY for it! Not just give it to everybody so we all get a warm feeling inside whether we did good or not.


Ummm....top three get trophies. The winner gets the biggest trophy. The top third get one disc, because they beat 2/3s of the field.

If you beat 2/3s of the field you get that warm fuzzy.

For whatever the payout is though, I feel very strongly that it should be distributed more heavily towards the top finishers. This isn't "amateur entitlement". I'm not saying I am necessarily entitled to a huge payout, but what payout there is shoudn't be nearly equally distributed amont the competitors. Thats just dumb. It is in the competitive spirit that the winner takes the prize and the loser tries again next time, at least thats how I grew up. If there is gonna be a prize, lets PLAY for it! Not just give it to everybody so we all get a warm feeling inside whether we did good or not.


Dan, what would you say about the scenarios I brought up earlier? A $15 entry fee with a minimal players package and trophies to the winners. In a trophy-only scenario, the trophy is the "prize" and those of course go to the winners. Everything else should be considered irrelavent.

I think we should get rid of this perception that a players' pack is "payout". It should be considered a "value" received by players individually. Maybe if the PDGA re-worded their requirements to say "value" rather than "payout" when it comes to percentage of entry fees being returned to players. The "payout" in a trophy-only, low-entry event IS the trophies. They are what's being competed for, they should be the only reward for play.

JMHO

--Josh

There selling those discs either way



I know that I would not have purchased 1/4th of the discs stacked in my garage if I was buying them myself. And those are not from dominating a big division. I cash just over half the time in a division that is usually less than 10 players.

Where to the consistent top 10 MA1 & MA2 players store their plastic ?

Where do the consistent top 10 MA1 & MA2 players store their plastic ?

They spell "store" S-E-L-L. I run tournaments. I don't care who I buy my plastic from if it is new, unmarked and priced right. The last tournament I played I went there with a couple hundred bucks and went home with four hundred worth in merch and I think I finished tenth. So go figure.

The notion that they are amateurs is quite the farce.

If you lived nearby we'd be going through your garage tonight!

I like the idea of lower entry fees no doubt because all the discs I win I never throw since there is no Gateway in TX. My response was just to all the people that like to tell the higher rated ADV. players to move up. In most parts of the country a 960-970 player cannot move up and expect to cash consistantly (excluding TX pros) so I think unless you have a 1000+ rating you should be able to play amatuer without catching any crap from fellow competitors. 1 more thing the TD's in TX need to have lower entry fees for AMs wanting to play pro and the PDGA to award AM points for players when they play pro and decline instead of giving them useless pro points. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Anytime my dad beats me in a tournament round I am actually happy (against what you may think) and even going into the 2nd round I was hoping he would play good enough to beat me for the day. Unfortunantly this didn't happen, and by the way its not getting BEATEN that I dislike its giving a round away "LOSING" /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Bruce wrote:

This makes no sense to me. If there is a demand for low entry fee, low or no payout sanctioned tournaments, why don't those players step up and run them?



1. Due to the payback percentage requirements placed on sanctioned tournaments, TDs have been effectively handcuffed. Not just the Am payback %, but the Pro as well. This limitation could stop possible "pro TDs" from running as many profitable events as their schedule will allow. Many other factors in play, but take the Himing example from Texas 10 where he had to stop the Tour due to lack of ability to make money on it. No, he wasn't under sanctioning requirements, but he was under #2 below.

2. Due to having been merch heavy for many many years, there is a culture of merch heaviness, and it is a very strong culture. Due to potential backlash, a TD is essentially crazy to cross it, even if he can stay within the sanctioning requirements. BTW, as long as merch heavy is supported by the organization, I don't believe non-merch will be given a fair shake due to the influence of this culture.


If the 2005 Blast turns out to be surprisingly successful, I'm sure we'll run more. Until then, I see no evidence that this is what the players want.



Important note, you see no evidence that this is what the CURRENT TOURNAMENT players want.

Remember, the merch heavy culture and current tournament scene is years in the making, and it can't be unmade overnight.

Thanks for the response. There's obviously no right answer, as it's all opinion, so you might as well imagine the possibilities of what might have been and then weigh the probabilities of those alternate realities. I think Chuck's response did this quite well. Why dwell on what might have been? Well, because maybe it's still not too late to make things better for the future. If they need to better, that is.

Bruce wrote:

This makes no sense to me. If there is a demand for low entry fee, low or no payout sanctioned tournaments, why don't those players step up and run them?



1. Due to the payback percentage requirements placed on sanctioned tournaments, TDs have been effectively handcuffed. Not just the Am payback %, but the Pro as well. This limitation could stop possible "pro TDs" from running as many profitable events as their schedule will allow. Many other factors in play, but take the Himing example from Texas 10 where he had to stop the Tour due to lack of ability to make money on it. No, he wasn't under sanctioning requirements, but he was under #2 below.

2. Due to having been merch heavy for many many years, there is a culture of merch heaviness, and it is a very strong culture. Due to potential backlash, a TD is essentially crazy to cross it, even if he can stay within the sanctioning requirements. BTW, as long as merch heavy is supported by the organization, I don't believe non-merch will be given a fair shake due to the influence of this culture.
quote]



First, thank you for a civil rebuttal to a civil reply. Civility is always nice.

If #1 is the only objection stopping a potential TD out there, e-mail me and I'll tell you how to get around it. At my last Trophy-only I had a mathmatically infinite payout, it all went to second place in Open because an am won Open. And I broke even on the process.

As to number 2, I earned my reputation as a totally uncultured lunatic long before I was ever a TD! :D

All disc golfers are lunatics in one way or another.

I am all for the Trophy Only concept. I think that is where the amateur divisions should head for the future. The only thing that I'm saying I'm against in these posts is the flat payout where there is very little difference between prizes for 1st and for 8th. If the entry fee is reduced and there is no payout other than trophies, then thats fine.

If the amatuer division heads to a trophy only format, how much do the disc manufacturers stand to lose in gross sales per year?

It would seem to me that a "merch heavy" system definitely favors the manufacturers. The amount of discs that TD's order for tournaments I would imagine is alot more than what would be bought from the factories if it was only retail based.
If only 50% (lowball estimate) of all am entry fees go to prize purchases, and muliply that by ALL the tournaments in a year (from A-tiers down to a monthly), that comes out to a whole lot of $$.

Based on the observed behavior of the manufacturers, you wouldn't think they were concerned about changing to a lower entry fee, more player pack structure. Apparently, Harold Duvall from Innova runs lower entry fee events with nice player packs and relatively low top weighted prize value. Gateway promotes their amateur event program with nice player packs. And, it sounds like the Am Nationals sponsored by Discraft has very nice player packs relative to the size of the prizes. I haven't played in any of these so this is based on comments by the players on this Board.

If the amatuer division heads to a trophy only format, how much do the disc manufacturers stand to lose in gross sales per year?

It would seem to me that a "merch heavy" system definitely favors the manufacturers. The amount of discs that TD's order for tournaments I would imagine is alot more than what would be bought from the factories if it was only retail based.
If only 50% (lowball estimate) of all am entry fees go to prize purchases, and muliply that by ALL the tournaments in a year (from A-tiers down to a monthly), that comes out to a whole lot of $$.



There is a good chance that the manufacturers stand to lose nothing. In fact, they might even gain.

There is only a certain amount of plastic that is necessary/needed within the disc golf community (need is determined by cost and availability, we all really only need 3 discs but often have much more). Lets say, on average, 20 discs per player is "needed." When they dump a load of discs into the market at a tournament manufacturers get an immediate boost. However, over time that plastic works its way into the pool. Some goes immediately into play, some goes quickly into play by sales through ebay, and some goes into the garage and comes out later. Even if later is years later the plastic will likely come into play. Every time a peice of plastic comes into play, someone who would have bought a peice the manufacturer would have sold at that time isn't because they are getting a peice out of that tournament winners garage. The end result is that the boost drives down sales of plastic going down the road.

There are two problems with this model. The first is that it gives a cyclic selling cycle for the manufacturers. Without those big boosts it is easier to plan your production and meet demand without having to pay for overtime etc. My guess is this is a minimal cost for disc manufacturers (although it is a high cost in many other areas, building for example). The second problem is that all those tournament winners become retailers. If the winner of a tournament paid $50 to play and came home with $300 in merch. Then anything he gets over $50 is, in theory, profit. As a consequence that winner doesn't have an incentive to keep his prices high. That is, he most likely undersells the TD and the retailer thus driving down the overall value of plastic and the price that can be charged (keep in mind this neglects the idea of supply and demand control of prices).

If this is all true, it is in the best interest of the manufacturer to end plastic payouts and keep everyone and their brother out of the selling business.

The counter to this is that by pushing plastic at tournaments, manufacturers incentivise players to keep larger pools of plastic than they would otherwise. Instead of keeping 20 discs, they keep 25. While this might be true for the winners, it isn't true for the non-winners. There is no artificial incentive for them to keep more discs since they see the direct cost of doing so.

However, bringing back supply side economics, the lower selling costs generated by having winners act as retailers, thus driving down costs, probably drives the average number of discs per player up but remember, the manufacturers are making less per disc so while they are selling more plastic, they are making less money on that plastic. Unfortunately, in order to determine whether they make more money one way or the other you would have to do a detailed analysis.

My guess is that it is pretty much break even. That is all these factors pretty much level out and whether they have plastic payouts or not won't change their volume by much.

I require 13 discs for all my shots but I have a trunk full and the garage is almost full....

I like Lyle's analysis and agree with it.

I think he is leaving out one very important point, though. If we were all buying all our discs news at Big5 or PIAS, then there would be real retailers making real money off of disc golf. Those businesses would then have an absolute incentive to want to be associated with disc golf tournaments in order to further drive those sales. Thus we would have form of tournament sponsorship where the sponsor could get some real value for their sponsorship dollars.

Lyle, I think your assumption leaves out a LOT of important items.

1) Discs get lost/break/wear out and need to be replaced.
2) New players are added to the sport at all times (they need discs)
3) Players quit the sport at all times (discs are out of circulation)

Don't you think the big manufacturers would LOVE to be able to mold 1000000 discs at a time and ship them to Walmart instead of a few hundred here and a few hundred there to the Joe Vendors of the world? They will, but not until Walmart thinks that they can sell 1000000 discs in a reasonable length of time. More chicken/egg theory.

The merch system is (forgive this analogy, but it's the first one I thought of) a disc manufacturer's version of the crack dealer theory. By giving out a sample here or there, you hope to create the addiction that keeps the customer coming back for more. A single disc in a player's pack is ok, but the more discs they can get into players' hands, the more demand they can create. I don't think the end of the merch system would spell the end of the manufacturers, but it certainly would not help.

Lyle, I think your assumption leaves out a LOT of important items.

1) Discs get lost/break/wear out and need to be replaced.
2) New players are added to the sport at all times (they need discs)
3) Players quit the sport at all times (discs are out of circulation)

Don't you think the big manufacturers would LOVE to be able to mold 1000000 discs at a time and ship them to Walmart instead of a few hundred here and a few hundred there to the Joe Vendors of the world? They will, but not until Walmart thinks that they can sell 1000000 discs in a reasonable length of time. More chicken/egg theory.

The merch system is (forgive this analogy, but it's the first one I thought of) a disc manufacturer's version of the crack dealer theory. By giving out a sample here or there, you hope to create the addiction that keeps the customer coming back for more. A single disc in a player's pack is ok, but the more discs they can get into players' hands, the more demand they can create. I don't think the end of the merch system would spell the end of the manufacturers, but it certainly would not help.




Hey Dan,

I'm not sure I agree unless having big payouts at tournaments increases the number of broken or lost disks, the number of new players, or the number of players that quit and leave discs in their garage.

In my initial post I was not clear enough. I am assuming that there is a constant influx of plastic to replace old/lost discs and supply new players.

Where do new players, or those with broken discs buy their plastic? They can buy from a vender, a TD or winners of tournaments. But they still need a certain amount of plastic that should remain relatively constant (again I am assuming that over time they will have to replace some). That plastic will always be produced by the manufacturers. If you are trying to say that the overall pool of plastic grows I agree but whether the increase comes from venders or TDs as vs. winnings the increase should be the same.

The third point is the tough one but I think we can compensate for it also. The amount of plastic that goes into garages and stays there is also a fixed amount (fixed in the sense that it is going to happen and should increase over time). Again, where does that plastic come from? Some will come from venders, some from TDs, and some from tournament winners. If you take out the tournament winners the amount going into garages and staying there shouldn't change.

The only way that big payouts would affect this is if big payouts cause one of the following. More lost or broken plastic, more new players, more permanent storage of plastic in garages for any reason at all. It is possible that winners, at a high frequency, put their plastic in their garages and then leave it there never bothering to use it. This might be true for some but probably not for all. Even if it sits there for years eventually it should come into play in one form or another.

As for the final point that manufacturers use big payouts to get people hooked, I agree that is exactly what they are doing. On the other hand, if I do a big payout to 4 or 5 players out of 100 I am influencing that small pool. If each player gets two or three of my discs I've reached a much larger pool. Stated another way, if I give 40 discs to a winner vs. one disc to 40 players I have still moved the same amount of plastic and I've influenced a lot more people. This argues even more for doing an equal distribution to all players, and not in support of big payouts.

I like Lyle's analysis and agree with it.

I think he is leaving out one very important point, though. If we were all buying all our discs news at Big5 or PIAS, then there would be real retailers making real money off of disc golf. Those businesses would then have an absolute incentive to want to be associated with disc golf tournaments in order to further drive those sales. Thus we would have form of tournament sponsorship where the sponsor could get some real value for their sponsorship dollars.



Excellent point! I had thought of it from the opposite point of view, this incentivises (my new made up word for the week) TDs to open retail outlets and use tournaments as a way to access potential buyers. Your way works much better, the TD doesn't have to maintain a shop and can form a tight relationship with the vender who now has direct access and marketing to the TDs players.

OK, me comprende now, Lyle.

With regard to the last point, I don't remember seeing any complaint about the flatter payout tables from any of the big 3 manufacturers, did you? :D

The interesting thing is why haven't the manufacturers thought of this. On the other hand, maybe they have:

"With regard to the last point, I don't remember seeing any complaint about the flatter payout tables from any of the big 3 manufacturers, did you?"

Not to mention the Gateway series where everyone gets 2 or 3 discs.

OK, me comprende now, Lyle.

With regard to the last point, I don't remember seeing any complaint about the flatter payout tables from any of the big 3 manufacturers, did you? :D

The major manufacturers understand that if this experiment turns out to be an unpopular idea with the players, unsanctioned tournaments will provide steeper payouts. Moreover, the steepness of the payout has no bearing on the size of the payout. A 100% D-tier payout puts the same number of discs in circulation whether it is steep to the top third or flat to the top 1/2.

I agree, they know the same requirement for discs holds no matter what the payout scheme. Their only fear is that the public loses interest in the sport or that another manufacturer comes along.

I got tired of catching up on all of the posts here. So here goes my take on it as a dg'er who has only played for about 2 years. And I may get blasted for some of my thoughts...but they are just my opinions...take them or leave them.

I don't think that the "heavy am payouts" are what create the growth of the sport. I think having good payouts at a tournament keep the players coming back to tournaments. Now...what I would attribute the growth of the sport to is your leagues, clinics and sport awareness. Yes tournaments help with the sport awareness...but not as much as advertising it around the area where you live.

When I first started playing a few years back, I showed up for my first league and then after that I was hooked. I started playing more and I have noticed that a lot of the "first timers" that are showing up at leagues, start bringing their friends and the next thing you know, you have turnouts for league night that once were around 50, are now totaling around 80 or 90. Then from there, they learn about tourneys and they start showing up for those. So the driving source would have been a league in this case.

To me, a low entry to a tourney coupled with minimal merch payout and a trophy drives me away from playing tournies. And I know it does a lot of Am players. I play tournies for the competition and for the possibility of scoring some merch to help refuel my bag so that if I lose something while practicing or in a tourney, I can have something to replace it with. I also like that fact that if I finish in a decent position, it warrants a certain level of compensation to show how good I played that day. And I know the sinics will say...isn't a trophy enough? And I would have to say no, it isn't on the fact that a lot of players use the merch payout to restock their bags.

Now, if you were to make the Am's go to a Trophy and low payout, I would expect that to ripple into all divisions and I think that would hurt the sport. You can't tell me that your touring pro's would travel all over the united states and such for a trophy and less cash??? I don't think so. And if you don't enforce it on all levels of play, then you are pretty much alienating your Am players. What kind of incentive would I have as an Am player if say, I was playing in an A-tier and I finish second and I get a trophy and maybe a disc...but second place in pro is sitting there receiving say $800 and getting just as nice a trophy me. To me that's not incentive enough to come out and play the next tourney. You may say...then get better and step up to pro...well there are some of us who will never play on the pro level.

Well...I think that I have gotten a few things out in the open about the low entry fee and low payout/trophy payout. If I have anymore ramblings, I will post them later. ;)

I have to say that I agree with the comments on developing new players on league nights. That is certainly where I developed most of my game coming up in the sport. It is important for the newer players to get in a habit of playing with upper level players, if they really want to develop their game. It is also typically more of a casual scenario so the new guys(or gals) don't feel as intimidated. It is also nice to have multiple leagues to chose from throughout the week. In the summer we have 2 bestshot leagues, a divisional singles league, and a womens league, all on different days. That way everyone has a chance to attend depending on their schedules or preference. On the AM payout issue, I think at least offering lower entry, lower payout is a good idea. Some people don't want to pony up the bigger entry fees only to play in their division which is being sandbagged by multiple players. I see it all the time, players who sould be playing up, but thier hanging around in ADV. sucking up the plastic. Leaving the TRUE AM's in the dust. AM players should not be rewarded with PRO level merch. payouts. And the comparison between having the pros play for less money and a trophy is completely absurd! The whole idea of offering the low entry/ trophy payout is to give people the choice to avoid the baggers! In pro there are no baggers!!! I know that EVERY AM won't go pro in their career, and that is fine. Just don't expect to get bigger merch. payouts if you decide to make a career out of the AM divisions. All I know is that in 2000 at the Bowling Green AM tourney, I got 5th out of 136 players in the ADV. division. My payout was 6 discs(not of my choice and none of which I ever put in my bag), a pretty cool trophy, and a small lightning bag. That's $40 a player, 136 entrants, you do the math. So if anyone wants to complain about AM payouts, make sure you have got that one beat first! :D:p ;)

On the note with the manufacturers, lower merch payouts won't hurt them for one simple reason, our sport is growing really, really, fast. The influx of new players and their demand for product will FAR outweigh any detrement of any sort layed upon the disc makers by lower payouts in general. :D

I think that no matter which side of the fence you are on, it is a lose/lose situation. You know? Because you have one side that screams for merch payouts at decent levels and then you have the other side which screams for the lowers on everything.

I think that no matter which side of the fence you are on, it is a lose/lose situation. You know? Because you have one side that screams for merch payouts at decent levels and then you have the other side which screams for the lowers on everything.



I think you hit the nail on the head there. People won't be happy until they are getting tons of plastic for low entry fees.

That's too bad that the Am's won't be satisfied until they get a whole factorty full of plastic for 18th place. I gotta say that is pretty pathetic. All of you should be so lucky to have such great tourneys to go play in and have fun. Still you sit there and complain. It doesn't say much for the integrity of our sport. Everyone should just be glad that the hard working volunteers running these tourneys are doing just that. Providing a quality tourney for everyone to enjoy the golf and each others company. If you started playing disc golf to have fun, then you are in the right frame of mind. If you started playing to restock your bag and complain about payouts, then you better re-evaluate yourself and your position on the game.

Myself...I very rarely cash...as I am a so-so advanced player. So I usually play for the fun of it and the company of fellow disc golfers. I have made quite a few friends from disc golf. As for the payouts...I think that paying out merch. to am's should be equivalent to their placing. I don't think that you should get just tons of plastic...but other things as well. I don't think that you need to receive 20 discs and this and that and the whole kitchen sink when you cash. Last year at the BG Open, I thought the payouts were on par for placing. I placed 28th in Intermediate last year and I got a dx aviar. I was surprised that they even payed out to 28th myself. But first place was a trophy, a skillshot and a few discs and a couple of other things. To me...that is a decent payout for first place. But your opinion may differ.