What's up w/ allowing advanced players to have such a high player rating? There are numerous players w/ 970--980 ratings in adv....that's with in 60 points of the best PRO players in the world!!! Why have a ratings guide if it's not enforced. If u look under ratings classifications it still shows the pro/open catagory is from 950 and up(even 960) but for adv it says <any. Is the PDGA going to allow 960 ams to continue playing in that field just because they haven't cashed in pro?? To me, if you are 960+ u should be required to play Pro and all TD's should have to enforce this rule. 960+ rating shows you have the skills to compete with the better players in our sport. I think 915-960 is a broad enough catagory to hone our skills before going PRO. I would appreciate all postings on this issue---this is just my opinion and it's not necessarily right. Disc on!!!

I know weird huh. I guess they need the room in AM's for the baggers. Ha-ha.

There is not rule that forces Am to play pro. You are only 13 points off.

A whole 27 adult amateur players with ratings over 960...out of 3700+ rated amateur players. That's a whopping 0.7%, and from what I've read here, at least one of the top 10 cashed in pro and accepted a few weeks ago.

And let's not forget that Am Worlds begins next week. A number of those 960+ players may be holding out for Worlds before they move up.

Regardless, like it was pointed out before, there is no rule or mandate that ANY player must move up to pro at any point. There's a reason there is no cap on Advanced, and that is to not force someone to turn pro until THEY choose to. It's a process, and not a guaranteed one at that, to move back to amateur status once you've gone pro. So in my mind, that's a bit weightier decision to make than basing it exclusively on crossing some magical ratings threshold, especially if it's by just a point or two.

Why force anyone to cross the line when they don't want to, for whatever reason they may have?

--Josh

Boy this is tempting.

You cant force anyone to turn pro in ANYTHING. I really dont think those guys are dominating tournaments either because if they were people would have been complaining about it way before this.

Who really cares if these guys are playing ADVANCED. JJ and all those guys can stay advanced as long as they want for all i care. Its not very smart to do it if you can play and cash in OPEN but there are just some people that cant play at that level and some that just simply DONT WANT TO. I know for a fact that im not going to start playing OPEN untill i know thats the right thing to do and that ill be able to hold my own when i move up.

I have nothing against high rated AMS. I just like to complain and talk smack and call people SANDBAGGERS :D This is funny because i know at one point people will be calling me a SANDBAGGER. Let those guys stay in ADVANCED their whole lives. Because like i said in the first place.

You CANT force anyone to turn Pro in ANY sport :D

Boy this is tempting.

Give in to the darkside.

Boy this is tempting.

Give in to the darkside.



Luke.............................I am your fahhhhther :)

No - No - you can't make me believe it!

Yeah, I'm sure there are a lot of "pros" that are hoping they move up so they can pick up more dead money.

I hope we don't go down this road again - we've had these same arguments a million times.

It's all about economics and incentives. A advanced golfer with a 960 rating is guaranteed a high finish and, in today's bloated system, an outrageous amount of merchandise. A 960 rating in Open puts you at the bottom of the division, where it takes golf well above your rating to even win last place cash. Why move up and risk winning nothing when the sure thing of winning something of very high value (poleholes, bags, collared shirts, discs, etc.) is there for the easy taking?

Why not charge $5 or $10 for participation only in all the standard divisions - this would cover club fees, PDGA fees, ace pots, trophies, etc. Add a single, optional side bet for those who want to gamble for money. Nobody would complain about sandbagging in the standard divisions because very little (a trophy) would be won or lost. And the side bet money (the thing of highest value at the tournament) would then go to where it rightfully belongs, to the golfers who shot the BEST SCORES.

Please read this. It might be the most sense I've ever made. :) If you don't agree with it, or don't understand it, please post why!! :D

The deal is, with this sport being so small, there is no real difference between Ams and Pros. Therefore, most people see Pro as being the next logical step up in skill from Advanced Am. And rightly so, as we sit here today. That's why all this ProAm crap should be dumped for now, and we should just go to a straight ratings competition format. :)

In a few years, we'll be big enough to have true Pro and true Am classes. They REALLY WILL be 2 different things.

At that time, you may have Ams with 1010 or 1020 ratings. That will be their choice.

In such a world, the Am side will likely be divided into skill ranges, and possibly into age divisions as well. But the top ranges will have no upper limit. :) /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

On the pro side, there will likely be no skill ranges. At least there probably shouldn't be. You're either good enough to play pro or you're not. There may be age divisions, like at 50 or something. :D

If you read those last two paragraphs, you'll notice it is VERY VERY similar to what we have today. Problem is, we're not ready for that today. We just aren't big enough, and everybody views the move from Adv to Pro as just the next step in skill. :cool:

This even happens at the OPEN level. Dont get the wrong idea im not knocking Brad Hammock because he is a great golfer, but its just like him playing masters. Its more cost effective and profitable for him to play in the Open Masters division.

Look at it this way. If you could almost assure yourself a win or at very worst a top 5 finish in EVER SINGLE TOURNAMENT YOU PLAYED or you could play up a division and assure yourself AT BEST a bottom 5 finish if not a DFL every time which division would you choose to play in???

If your playing for the reason i think most people play for which is profit and to win, you would choose the lower division where you know you could clean up. Thats what almost EVERYONE would do. People who truely complain about sandbaggers are usually the ones that dont have the skill to WIN even if they play the best golf they can play. You dont hear good golfers truely complaining about other good golfers. At awards another good golfer may say *cough* sandbagger*cough*sandbagger*cough* to another good player just to give him some [*****] cuz he won but they are never truely complaining they are just working their fellow good golfers. The people who truely complain about sandbaggers are the one who ALWAYS finish out of the cash by either a few places or one play every tournament they play even if they play good. So they complain because if those few GOOD golfers werent in the division they would cash.

When i call JJ a sandbagger and all the other guys i play with sandbaggers its just messing with them. I actually welcome playing with very skilled players because i know my game can handle it and when you play with better players you usually play better yourself. I say bring on the 960 plus rated players and put me in a group with them at every event i play. :D

I say let them sandbag if thats what you want to call it because it will only make me a better golfer :D

See you SANDBAGGERS at Worlds in a week :D:D:D

Ok Darth - I give in.

It's just that sort of comment that just gets my goat Dan. You assume because I am a pro - that my motivations for wanting highly rated advanced players to move up - are based on a desire to line my own pocket. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let's look at this from both sides (of the inside of my head) - the rant side, and the practical side.

Before doing so - I will offer a brief background for why I feel the way I do.

When I started playing tournaments in 1987 - I showed up at the registration table at my first event and the TD said Am or Pro? I said Pro. He said are you a PDGA member? I said no. He said that'll be another $25 - (which I didn't have- just got out of college - had no money - borrowed the $15 entry fee in the first place) So I played Am (only one am division - not 4 or 5) and I won!! woohoo. Entered my next event a couple weeks later - and I won that too!! Upon that 2nd victory - I was informed by the local TD - that I was no longer eligible to play Am - I was not given a choice, I had won a total of 8 discs in 2 tournaments (didn't get to pick any of them either), I was not given a PDGA membership. BTW - I would not have cashed in Open in either event.

I took the whole situation as being one of
"these are the guys who run things - what they say goes". In retrospect I consider it sort of a dependency on the leadership of TD's to impart a certain competitive ethic on the folks who participate in events. TD's were given the responsibility of recognizing who should play where - and guiding them into the proper division. To this day - I believe that is how it should be.

Rant on: players with ratings of 950+ that won't play open
1) fear failure
2) justify their position not by whether or not they can compete - but by defending their "supposed" right to choose a division.
3) lack gonads
4) have an egotistical need to be rewarded for mediocre play with merchandise (or cash awards) of greater value than what they would otherwise earn competing against their true peers.
5) have an endless number of excuses
6) I wasn't given a choice - why should anyone else?

Practical side:
1) There are plenty of events on the schedule - in fact the majority of events (all B/C/D/X Tier) that allow players in this skill range to compete - and have the opportunity to cash. I can show you the proof - just look at almost any set of tournament results!!
2) If all the players above 940 played in a single division (he_ll 920 for that matter) - the disparity of rewards between Open/Masters/Advanced would disappear. The same # of players would get paid - they'd just be paid commensurate to their score - which is not what happens now.
3) Those players who are steadily improving - but have convinced themselves they are not capable of competing with the big dogs - would ACTUALLY GET TO PLAY WITHE BIG DOGS - more frequently - and would improve their games because of it.

It takes a long time to get to where I am now. I played tournaments for 13 years before winning my first Super Tour. Now I'm up to 6. It's called paying your dues. You guys who expect to be cashing as soon as you move up don't seem in tune with that concept.

I yell sandbagger mostly at my buddies who have escaped to the Masters division (I am now 40 and refuse to go that route - at least for a while). If there's one thing I try and teach people about competition - is to believe in themselves, and know that nothing anybody does can affect their game. If there is any part of your brain that tells you you "can't" do or achieve something - well then - you never will. Tell yourself you can - and then figure out how, watch, learn, change, achieve. 960+ = Amateur?? HA that's rich

Why force anyone to cross the line when they don't want to, for whatever reason they may have?



Maybe because there really is no "line"?

On that note, Advanced is the best division of choice in our current competitive system. If it was as big as it is now back in 1988 I might still be playing it. I'd probably have about 3 courses worth of Poleholes and be able to compete with INNOVA in disc sales. (That is if Craiger didn't stay (a)mature also... ;) )

Craig,
Look at my comment from an outsider's perspective. The biggest complaints about "sandbagging" seem to eminate from the upper tier "pros" that tend to win/cash in most events that they enter. Let's say, the 985-1010 rated golfers. Of course it is to their benefit to get as many fish in the pool as possible. The bigger the pool, the more they will make.

Can a 960 rated golfer compete and cash in Open? Sure. Some areas more so than others (in New England he could cash 90% of the time I'd guess, less so in the N.C. area). But the 960 rated golfer will not cash as consistently as the 990 golfer, so it's a win/win for the 990 golfer.

I am not saying that is your point of view, but you have to admit there is certainly the appearance of impropriety when a highly rated golfer complains about highly rated "Ams", and tries to shame them into turning "pro".

I have said in the past, and will say until I turn blue, the easiest, most foolproof way to get one of these guys to play "pro" is to stop paying them so darn much to play "am". There is no simpler way to get it done.

Of course, that makes life tougher for TDs, since the monetary incentive to run tourneys is based on "am" payouts. That's why I had previously suggested using the poker tournament format of an entry fee that includes a 'cut' to the TD to pay for their time/effort/etc. So Worlds would be something like a $100 + $15 entry, with $100 to the prize pool and $15 to the organizers. This way, the TD/Club gets paid for his/her hard work and time, and they can afford to offer low cost, trophy only divisions for the "ams".

Fair enough Dan - I can certainly see how some people might consider my opinion in the vein you have described. To me - it's just an evasive manuever. One that avoids/refuses to address the true issue of what makes for fair competitive divisions.

My attitude is actually pretty simple - competition in sport around the world is largely (not exclusively, but largely) based on skill. Our competitive system is based on choice - and I think that is wrong. Those of you who disagree, are entitled to your opinion. How does the saying go?

I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to tell such lies. :)

My attitude is actually pretty simple - competition in sport around the world is largely (not exclusively, but largely) based on skill. Our competitive system is based on choice - and I think that is wrong. Those of you who disagree, are entitled to your opinion. How does the saying go?



There is no sport that i am aware of in which you are forced to be a proffesional. No matter how good you are. Its always a choice to stay and am or move out to pro competition. Pro Golf Pro and Pro Tennis dont MAKE you play proffesional. Its a choice you make to go pro or to stay amature. Like i said before you cant FORCE anyone to play PRO.

If you can give me an example of a sport that REQUIRES a individual to go PRO i would be happy to listen to what you have to say but i dont think that you can find one individual or team sport in which someone MAKES you play PRO.

Why not charge $5 or $10 for participation only in all the standard divisions -

The Sturgeon, tomorrow. Limited divisions. Details: http://home.comcast.net/~illinoisopen/sturgeon.html

<font color="blue"> Stop the Sandbagger Madness! </font>
<font color="red"> SUPPORT THE CREATION OF A TRUE AMATEUR CLASS!!!</font>

Make turning pro really mean something.
Make winning the Amateur World Championships really mean something.
Make our classification/divisional system harmonious.
Bannish the ill-willed yelp of "Sandbagger!" from our events!

We can, must and will do this, the only question is when...

The difference Steve is in the competition and the competitive venue. Every other sport (or most) do not mix pro and amateur divisions in the same competitive venue - when they do (like in ball golf) it is more of a novelty than a true competition. Another main difference is that the number of available participants in those sports are significantly greater than DG - and are able to separate the "pros" and "ams" into their own separate venues - OR into legitimate skill based categories.

You ignore this reality. You also ignore the reality of significant overlaps in skill between the "divisions" we offer in our competitive venues. This is a key difference.

You call it "FORCING" someone to play pro. I call it offering skill level based divisions for competition. If you wish to compete - you enter where your skill qualifies you. Don't wish to compete - then don't enter. Your attitude is the epitome of "the right to a choice" - and I contend you shouldn't have one in the first place - not if the competitive structure is true and fair across the board. Your only choice when considering competition should be whether or not to enter. Your skill level should dictate the rest. The only other choice you "deserve" is the one that drives you to how good you want to be.

That is all well and good Craig, except that it does not account for (take your pick Pro or) Amateur Sport.

Our current competitive system, except where genius' like BB figure out a way around it, offers nothing but gambling as a primary motivation for participation. Yes, some folks, you and I, compete for competitions sake, for the thrill of playing well more that the payouts, BUT as of yet there is no "Amateur" option to play in a classification dedicated purely to those motivations we hold dearer than cashing or gambling.

AND THERE ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO BE ONE. Look at the success of it at the Jersey Jam for years and BB reports good results in his events.

If a true amateur class were made a part of our competitive system, THEN and only THEN, would I support a SINGLE-TRACK professional skill based divisional system. Until then I prefer an imperfect concept and embodiment of Amateur to no concept or embodiment at all.

That is all well and good Craig, except that it does not account for (take your pick Pro or) Amateur Sport.



Oh but it can NK!! Once you base competition on skill alone - the separation comes much more naturally.



Our current competitive system, except where genius' like BB figure out a way around it, offers nothing but gambling as a primary motivation for participation. Yes, some folks, you and I, compete for competitions sake, for the thrill of playing well more that the payouts, BUT as of yet there is no "Amateur" option to play in a classification dedicated purely to those motivations we hold dearer than cashing or gambling.




Exactly why I say it's the system that is flawed. I don't blame players for exercising the choices offered to them. I blame the system that offers them the choices!

Dan's idea of a TD fee is a good one.

I tend to agree with Craig in principle, but the fact of the matter is right now, we are simply gambling, and the bet aint too good for most players under 990 (1000 apparently for NT events).

Taking away the profit incentives for advanced (and all other non-open) players is probably a good idea, but ONLY IF you give them reasonable options. I think I remember a tornament up north (maybe run by Craig) that offered reduced entry fees for ams. That's a good idea. You may not have offered them a good bet, but you have least offered them a less painful bet.

Other options that I advocate ad nauseum are variable entry fees. Just like at the track, I can bet a $1 exacta if I'm not confident, just want a little action, or low on funds. My bet is affordable and my winnings are limited. If I feel more confident in my bet or desire to increase my winnings, I can bet a lot more. One racetrack operator said that 1$ exotic bets (they used to be a minimum of $5) was the most important development in the last twenty years. It allowed more people to play and increased the amount in their pools.

Since our competition is simply organized gambling, we could learn from the gambling industry. For people who think their chances of winning are slim, offer them more affordable bets. They might continue to play and enjoy the experience of competitive disc golf.

I'll go there with you James. In fact - that is an option I have suggested more than once. Sliding scale entry fees based on ratings. Not rated so high? You shouldn't have to pay as much to play. There is plenty of room in a revised competitive system for alternative entry fee structures - and they should be encouraged. Maybe I'll try that w/my next event - it may complicate the TD math a bit - but a lap top should cure that problem :)

I think I'll have to get a proposal together to host the 2005 Recreational/Intermediate Worlds. That way the 895 rated "Advanced" player has a Worlds to go to where he can be competitive. Then I'll take half of the entry fees and donate them to the regular Amateur Worlds.

oops sorry that says advanced players doh
wrong thread

So, in the end(for advanced) why bother even having player ratings if it doesn't count for anything other than bragging rights---it seems like a lot of work for not much. If it dictates that u can't go back(int) then it should also dictate when u go up. Still a lot of work to do.

This might be thread drift, but has this been considered as an option to nullify the all this ratings-based line-drawing? It might just nullify this contentious and eternal discussion. It would be a fun and exciting way to do payouts if nothing else.

Make the final round of the tournament a skins round. Cards would be set, as they are today, by the previous rounds� scores. You compete against your own card and your card only for skins. Payout could be done something like this. Numbers could be tweaked, obviously.

Entry fee and added cash adds to a payout of $36 per player. $18 X # of players is paid out to top third of field following curves we use today. The remainder ($18 per player) goes to the skins round.

A variation of the skins round to reward the higher rated players would be good where a skin for the top group is $1.70 and for the bottom group would be $0.30. A straight-line curve would be followed for all the in-between groups.

I think this a very appealing option since everyone has a chance to cash and it rewards top performers. Imagine playing the final round as a skins round while trying to shoot lowest score (for points and ratings reasons). Of course this could work for Ams� using merchandize dollars.

Using this method you could get rid of all divisions since each card in the final round is essentially a �division� that has been self-determined by the scoring of the previous rounds! Imagine only having a Pro division ($) and an Am division (plastic). You could even get rid of Female divisions since you will ultimately always be competing for your prize against similarly skilled players.

Do you find this appealing or compelling?

Would this be a legal way of doing payouts today in a C-Tier (I am considering doing something like this)?

Yours is a perfect example of what I think could be part of a truely fun and diverse set of events sanctionable by the players association, accommodating all skill levels without division. Great ideas Dave - go for it :)

The only thing I think I am not communicating to you Craig is that skill level should not have anything to do with a classification system with a real professional class and a real amateur class.

Those interested in gambling for eachothers money will naturally gravitate towards the professional class, leaving the amateur class to those seeking lower entry fees, immediate return in value for their entry fee, and still be involved in organized disc golf.

If such an option where available and we all were given a one time opportunity to switch from one to the other, I would have to give it serious consideration. I am not stretching the truth to say that I have always had ethical difficulty with the gambling side of our sport (for myself, not for others). When there has been a rare option to compete in such a division I have taken it.

Thing is, that I am a competitor. I love competition. I love testing myself against the best available players and in a system solely dedicated to gambling there has only been one option. If we move to a single track skill based competitive system, that will not change.

I've played in about 13 PDGAs this year already and for the most part have enjoyed myself. Only 2 things really bug me:

1) Lack of knowledge, following and calling of the rules of play (and sanctioning agreements).

2) The crazy high entry fees events are now required to charge to meet tier standards (rather than going out and actually getting sponsorship).

I'd like to see the PDGA and TDs running PDGA events make a concerted effort to promote KFC, and KFC replace irreverence for our rules.

I'd like to see entry fees be linked DIRECTLY to cash sponsorship raised in pro divisions so that TDs can not rely solely on entry fees for purses. For me this would greatly reduce the sense of "GAMBLING" in even the professional divisions because "entry fee" would be more like "entry fee" than a "bet placed".

I find the whole ratings thing kinda hokey anyway . I've even recently heard of a certain serise of tournaments where none of thier advertiseing stated that these events were ratings based but they were. Its one thing to have a seriously flawed system . It is something entirely differnt to mislead people and then force them to play in divisions against thier will . My current rating is 958 at the upper end of the advanced "window " and since i did not renew this year and probably won't for many years to come my rating will always stay the same . I'll have to pay the added $5 at the one sac\nctioned tournament i play every year then so be it .I'd rather abstain then renew with an organization that ignores its own bylaws and disregards its own rules anyway . /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif :mad::cool::) :( :o :D :eek: /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I applaud your decision. You are clearly a man of principle. Perhaps one day, God willing, the PDGA can be as perfect as you. Good luck.

I find the whole ratings thing kinda hokey anyway . I've even recently heard of a certain serise of tournaments where none of thier advertiseing stated that these events were ratings based but they were. Its one thing to have a seriously flawed system . It is something entirely differnt to mislead people and then force them to play in divisions against thier will . My current rating is 958 at the upper end of the advanced "window " and since i did not renew this year and probably won't for many years to come my rating will always stay the same . I'll have to pay the added $5 at the one sac\nctioned tournament i play every year then so be it .I'd rather abstain then renew with an organization that ignores its own bylaws and disregards its own rules anyway . /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif :mad::cool::) :( :o :D :eek: /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



If the series is comprised of PDGA tournaments then it is by default a ratings based event. All of the PDGA divisions have upper caps on them except Open and Advanced divisions (except for Advanced where Pro 2 is offered). If they are running these as PDGA events then I don't think they should have to put on the flyer that they are running them according to PDGA standards--you should expect them to.

In defense of the advanced am from North Carolina with a rating over 950. He is 18 yrs old and plays every tournament in the pro division. I have seen Justin Jernigan turn down thousands of dollars since the USDGC in order to protect his am status so that he may fulfill his dream of playing in the Am Worlds. I know that JJ is moving up to the pro division following the worlds. JJ has received many compliments about his professionalism and character. There are some skeptics that say they dont know how well he will do at worlds because of the grueling conditions of 8 rounds in 4 days, and all the hardcore competition. I believe he can handle it. I watched him hold himself together just fine at the USDGC last year. I think he's got it in him to win. GO JJ!!!!!

The only thing I think I am not communicating to you Craig is that skill level should not have anything to do with a classification system with a real professional class and a real amateur class.



Why is that Nick? Even with true am and pro classes established, are you suggesting there would be no further need for player classifications or divisions? I think that's a little further than I would go. I'm all for larger divisions/divisional breaks based on ratings - but I don't think eliminating all divisions save for a single "pro and am" class is very realistic.


Those interested in gambling for eachothers money will naturally gravitate towards the professional class, leaving the amateur class to those seeking lower entry fees, immediate return in value for their entry fee, and still be involved in organized disc golf.



I guess I still have a problem with your (and a few other people's) perception of organized DG being little more than an exercise in "gambling". Because I certainly don't consider it that way at all. Gambling (while involving some skill- in some games of chance) is much more about luck than the game of DG. While there may be some luck involved with our game (and all games) - there is a significantly greater element of skill involved - and entering competitions to test your skill (in my mind) reflects more on the desire and drive to compete than on "how lucky" you might be that day. So every time you refer to "carnies and gamblers" as the inherent base for competitive DG - it irks the s**t out of me - it belittles the skills that so many people have worked so hard to develop.
And belittling people while trying to convince them that their system needs fixing is for the most part futile.

Are there inequities in rewards in our competitive system? Yes. Do people take advantage of those inequities and of the "choices" provided them to reap undue rewards? Yes. Can divisions be structured more fairly based on skill to eliminate those inequities? Yes Will the PDGA recognize and act on this condition in a decisive and comprehensive fashion? That is to be determined.

As regards the support of JJ by the NC player. I think it's great that you support JJ. I haven't actually met him, although I have seen and played in a couple events with him. I'm sure he is a fine young man. Bottom line is, he's a pro player - he cashed at USDGC last year. He cashed at an NT event after having his bag stolen. He has a rating higher than any other player playing in Am Worlds. At 986 - his rating is higher than 90% of currently registered pro players. He shares a rating with names like Vinnie Miller, Pete Sontag, Tom Monroe, and Mike Sayre.

Honestly - I hope he wins - so he can achieve his "goal" of reaping a World Title (if that is his goal) and move on to competing against his true peers. It's just that I've heard that excuse ("I want to play Am Worlds") so many times from guys that fail to earn that title, and end up back at Am Worlds over and over and over........ it approaches the pathetic. I'm sure he will enjoy great success playing in the Open division - where he belongs. And (nothing against him/them personally) I hope others who get to his skill level are not offered the choice he is exercising in the future.

I guess I still have a problem with your (and a few other people's) perception of organized DG being little more than an exercise in "gambling".



Call it whatever you want. Since it falls under the gambling statutes in several states, then I think gambling is a reasonable name for it. Since it is obviously illegal in several states (there are several states that have laws against the pooling of players' entry fees as a payout) then I think you can even refer to it as illegal gambling. Fortunately in some states it seems to be legal because it is a skill based sport. Some other states do not make this differentiation. It seems like the PDGA is going to have to make some changes in the way it handles the tour so that it is legal in all states.

I'm guessing that the PGA Tour has a similar problem every time it plays in Michigan. *note sarcasm* The U.S. Open charges an entry fee (paid to the USGA). If the Open is played at Oakland Hills, then are PGA Tour players subject to gambling laws? After all, they are pooling entry fees. Sure, the USGA is adding money to the overall purse, but those players are playing for each other entry fees (and a good deal more)

I still don't buy into this gambling argument. I'm not a lawyer, but if were true, why hasn't the Michigan Department of Revenue (or whatever the tax agency is called) gone after PGA Tour players that are clearly gambling. Perhaps because they aren't gambling. Perhaps they are playing a game of skill.

I'm not an attorney, nor an accountant. Just trying to use some common sense.

Chap

It seems like the PDGA is going to have to make some changes in the way it handles the tour so that it is legal in all states.



I welcome the clarification of legal/illegal status of the current tournament structure. It seems like it would be a fairly good priority issue for the organization and the BOD to investigate since it affects PDGA tournament play. People bring this point up occasionally, and we the PDGA seem to just stick our heads in the sand and hope it never becomes an issue.

Since I would like to see that done, I guess I will be volunteering to help. I would hate to see or be a TD that gets tossed in jail for illegal gambling while following the PDGA guidelines.

Jon,

Since you have seen this as a legal conflict in MI - could you provide a basic on where/how to dig up this info in other states. Makes me curious. But I figure maybe you could provide some "key words" to narrow a search through what I'm sure is endless verbage in state statutes.

I'm guessing that the PGA Tour has a similar problem every time it plays in Michigan. *note sarcasm* The U.S. Open charges an entry fee (paid to the USGA). If the Open is played at Oakland Hills, then are PGA Tour players subject to gambling laws? After all, they are pooling entry fees. Sure, the USGA is adding money to the overall purse, but those players are playing for each other entry fees (and a good deal more)


I think the difference is that they have a set payout that is not dependant on the number of entrants, which is what we have.

I sure would like to know for sure instead of guessing.

Well - it's actually not to hard to find this info. Deciphering it is another matter. It appears that in Maryland - gambling can be construed as either being very narrowly defined as involving a gaming device (card table, slot machine, etc.) - or very broadly defined as including any sort of "contest or game". Which leaves me entirely in the grey in terms of understanding how gambling law may apply to DG in my state. I have found no reference to "pooling entry fees", but have found a reference to establishinhg "pools" associated with games or contests.But the references are pretty oblique.

Just read the entire thread and had a few comments:

One of the problems with the current system is the differences between states/regions. Pro's that cash regularly in my area would almost never cash in a place like Michigan. An Advanced player may have won 2- 5 tournaments this season, but could finish 50th at worlds by playing at his normal level.

Another big difference in Am's with high ratings is whether they collect baskets or just play a few tournaments a year. Peter Middlecamp's 9 baskets last year is kind of ridiculous. I was at tournament with one of the top rated 10 Ams this past weekend. It was his 3rd tournament of the year. He will probably turn pro by the end of the season.

I just looked at the top 10 Am's by player ratings(besides JJ). Almost all of them had fewer than 5 tournaments.

I believe that everyone should be allowed their time at the top. When you have a good season, you move up. Finishing top 3 at a competitive tournament 2+ years in a row is abusing the system.

I'm guessing that the PGA Tour has a similar problem every time it plays in Michigan. *note sarcasm* The U.S. Open charges an entry fee (paid to the USGA). If the Open is played at Oakland Hills, then are PGA Tour players subject to gambling laws? After all, they are pooling entry fees. Sure, the USGA is adding money to the overall purse, but those players are playing for each other entry fees (and a good deal more)

I still don't buy into this gambling argument. I'm not a lawyer, but if were true, why hasn't the Michigan Department of Revenue (or whatever the tax agency is called) gone after PGA Tour players that are clearly gambling. Perhaps because they aren't gambling. Perhaps they are playing a game of skill.

I'm not an attorney, nor an accountant. Just trying to use some common sense.

Chap



The difference that I see (I am also not a lawyer) is that the PGA announces a purse before the tournament and that purse is not dependent on the entry fees. Purses at the PGA level are paid from sponsors not entry fees. It would seem that sporting events are exempt from some gambling regulations in MI, but not from the "pooling" laws.

I found most of my information by googling "michigan pooling gambling gaming law statutes" in various combinations. Michigan seems to have one of the toughest laws with no exceptions that I've found. When you read the gambling laws of MI it seems to let sporting events off the hook, but then when you read the pooling law it's a whole other story.

Illinois seems to be fairly loose as long as it is a skill sport.

Again, I am not a lawyer. You should not follow my advise about any laws anywhere. The above information is for intellectual discussion only.

The difference that I see (I am also not a lawyer) is that the PGA announces a purse before the tournament and that purse is not dependent on the entry fees. Purses at the PGA level are paid from sponsors not entry fees. It would seem that sporting events are exempt from some gambling regulations in MI, but not from the "pooling" laws.




The majority of PGA Tour prize $$$ do come from sponsorship and ads, however, entry fees for the U.S. Open do figure into the purse, and believe me, the USGA counts all of those $$$, before they announce a purse. Remember, the U.S. Open gets entry fees from all the qualifying tournaments as well.

The U.S. Open had over 8,700 entrants. The entry fee is $125 a player. That's about 11 million dollars. Figure about 40% of that goes back to the courses that host the local and sectional qualifying sites, although actually it's probably much less, since there isn't as much prep for those sites (like portable grandstands and such). That leaves roughly 6.75 million dollars. The U.S. Open purse is $6.25 million this year. Looks like the entry fees cover the purse quite nicely. The sponsorship and ads are just gravy.

Seems like any PDGA tourney could then get around the Michigan gambling law by announcing a purse, which I would list as a minimum. The fact that we may pay out more in the end is immaterial.

I seriously doubt that Michigan would treat either form of golf differently. I've been advised by accountants not to treat any disc golf winnings (like I have any) as gambling income, but rather as self-employment. This way you can deduct expenses. It is a side job for a pro, but a job nonetheless.

Chap

The difference that I see (I am also not a lawyer) is that the PGA announces a purse before the tournament and that purse is not dependent on the entry fees. Purses at the PGA level are paid from sponsors not entry fees. It would seem that sporting events are exempt from some gambling regulations in MI, but not from the "pooling" laws.




The majority of PGA Tour prize $$$ do come from sponsorship and ads, however, entry fees for the U.S. Open do figure into the purse, and believe me, the USGA counts all of those $$$, before they announce a purse. Remember, the U.S. Open gets entry fees from all the qualifying tournaments as well.

The U.S. Open had over 8,700 entrants. The entry fee is $125 a player. That's about 11 million dollars. Figure about 40% of that goes back to the courses that host the local and sectional qualifying sites, although actually it's probably much less, since there isn't as much prep for those sites (like portable grandstands and such). That leaves roughly 6.75 million dollars. The U.S. Open purse is $6.25 million this year. Looks like the entry fees cover the purse quite nicely. The sponsorship and ads are just gravy.

Seems like any PDGA tourney could then get around the Michigan gambling law by announcing a purse, which I would list as a minimum. The fact that we may pay out more in the end is immaterial.

I seriously doubt that Michigan would treat either form of golf differently. I've been advised by accountants not to treat any disc golf winnings (like I have any) as gambling income, but rather as self-employment. This way you can deduct expenses. It is a side job for a pro, but a job nonetheless.

Chap



Announcing the purse gets around the gambling law as long as you stick to that purse. As soon as you add more from entry fees it would be breaking the law as I understand it. However, announcing the purse does not get around the pooling of entry fees law.

... skill level should not have anything to do with a classification system with a real professional class and a real amateur class.



Amen. I don't understand the argument that a skilled amateur must become pro. Didn't Bobby Jones remain an amateur in regular golf? And yet he played also with pros -- just not for money. He stayed qualified for amateur contests and won the grand slam for that time: two open championships and two amateur championships. Why not, if that's what he wanted to do?

Actually, my math is bad when you're packing to got Des Moines and watching a Royals game. That's enough to drive you batty. 1.1 million was the total entry fees. Not 11 million.

All tournaments pool entry fees. How they spend them is the question. Most tournaments will change their purse as they get money from either entries or sponsors. Even the PGA.

The problem is real easy to define. Why move up to a harder division, with less chance of winning, when you can stay advanced for as long as you want and get good prizes?
Take the giant prizes out of all but the top division and you will see people move.
Make the adv. division a small entry fee with a trophy prize and maybe a tourney disc. If you really want people to jump into the top divisions then keep the adv. entry fee the same but only pay out trophies. Give all the extra money to the top division.
(Please allow my analogy) You are telling a kid to come to a table where he must clean his plate of liver and onions when he is sitting at a table where they eat dessert first.

Here's an idea...Why don't we make it a privledge to play Pro? You could put a cap of 960 on Advanced, when an Advanced players player rating gets higher than 960, they earn a 'Pro Card' and have to play Professionaly. The same hold true the other way, if a Pro player's rating drops below 960, then they loose their 'Pro Card' and have to play amateur. You could set lower caps for the age protected divisions, like 925 for Masters. This would stop sandbagging in Advanced and it would make both Pro and Advanced that much more competitive. Just a thought, what are your opinions?

You CANT FORCE anyone to play Pro in ANY sport so i that wouldnt work. I think things are fine the way they are. The high rated AMs dont win EVERY tournament in the country and there are only a select few who choose to stay am for whatever reason. Those are the people that the player who want to go pro will pass up. There will always be some people who play below their skill level. There is nothing you can do about it. I would actually rather see a class for the SUPER PROS as in 1000 rated and above. That would be like the PGA tour and then the Buy.Com tours and what not. That way it would encourage more players to go pro because then they wouldnt be just donating to Barry Kenny Steve Timmy Steve and all the other super pros that are out there. I think its a better idea to creat a tour or a division for the lower rated pros then it is to FORCE the high rated ams into going pro. That way the high rated am will feel more comfortable paying in that pro division because they will actually have a chance to compete for the money they pay to play.

I think that would just make people stop playing in PDGA events.I talked to lots of Ams about this at Worlds and those that could play and compete in open{ cash local,small tourneys maybe} and some even said they play open in unsanctioned and would step up at some tourneys.And why not? It worked for JJ.Only difference is hes a major talent and shouldve been playing open at Worlds.I hold no grudge against him or Dave Shaw for playing Worlds as Ams with a touring pro rating.Thats the PDGAs fault for allowing 980+ players to play in Am.Now that 275 other people saw how you can play lights out and then still play in a division you should dominate,why expect to see that change? I think a 960 cap may be to low...personally I say 980 and up should be mando pro.At 980,you got alot of game and what your probaly lacking is consistent competition.If your rated at 960 you should be a top level Am. At the same time ratings dont tell the whole story.We {the QC} placed 3 players in the top 72 and none of us were ranked over 907{?}.Our highest finisher was I think in the 20-24 place finish had a 902 rating.Until the first update I had a 898 rating.I think I am at 907 now.Ill play any pro in the World that would be willing to handicap me at a 907.My lowest finish this year was at Worlds and I played every course blind.

Sorry I was wrong.It was 917.

[JJ] Only difference is hes a major talent and shouldve been playing open at Worlds



Because he's talented he should not have the opportunity to compete for an Am World Champ Title? Whatever Dude.


...those [AMs] that could play and compete in open{ cash local,small tourneys maybe} and some even said they play open in unsanctioned and would step up at some tourneys.And why not? It worked for JJ.



Stepping up is not what worked for JJ. Practice and a solid mental game is what works for JJ (IMO). JJ stepped up to play PRO and turned down cash in the tournies preceeding the worlds this year AND so did this years Adv. Women's World Champ. What's the deal? They were both still AMs for the Worlds! I step up and play pro - I agree that I play well and gain insights and improvements to my game by doing so, but playing PRO did not make me a world champ (unless Mini Golf World Champ counts /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif) only my own dedication to the sport and my determination to advance my skills can move me forward.

Once again friends to the aid of JJ.As if its neccessary.I am not knocking him at all.Not one bit.Hes a talent does that sound like a insult?He should have won worlds and I am only using his rating as a platform.at the same time I am expressing the fact that since he did what he did more will follow.Dont come at me like Im bashing him.You dont know me and either I didnt get my point across the right way {my fault} or you are paranoid about why a cashing pro {sorry he declined} can be used as a platform.He doesnt care.Hes pro now and before long will be dominate in that division as well.Sorry to offend by saying hes a talent.I have already agreed that he deserves to be am champ,if thats what he wants.It was only my opion that having a 980 rating and playing adv was the PDGAs fault for not having a bumpline.Im not trying to bash him one bit.Sorry to express my opinion in a public forum.

no bashing, but no bump line either... How can you force someone to go pro? Oh wait! We PDGA'ers are all already PROs! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

NICK KIGHT WHERE ARE YOU? Will someone please explain the benefits of having a True AM Class? :D

I agree with everything your saying Chase. There needs to be a bump line where the PDGA steps in and says your to good to be an am, step it up. And like I said in my previous post, is should work the other way too. If a pro has a low rating, let them move back down to am. A lot more ams would at least try to play pro if they new that they wouldn't be stuck there forever. What JJ did was fine. He didn't break a single rule in doing what he did. He's the Am World champ, more power to him. From now on though, there has to be some point in which you are just too good to be playing ams. And it wasn't just JJ, David Shaw's rating was just 1 point lower than JJ's.We are in no way bashing JJ. He is a great player and a great person. He will do well on the pro level.

in time he will be running the Pro Gauntlet.Like I said no ill will towards anyone.Its a PDGA thing.Thanks TJ and thanks Girlie for allowing me to express my views to you in the chat room.Nice talking with you.

I guess if I had chosen to stay "Am" after those first two events back in 1987 - had found the rewards to be more to my liking, and decided I never wanted to play for money, that you'd have no problem if I had stayed Am for life then Lindsay?
Oh, but I was not offered that choice - I was told after 2 events, that I was no longer eligible to play Am. So everyone arguing for the "right to a choice" IMO has about as much support for their argument as a whiffle ball has for a cold beer. :p

Promoting fair and fun competition for our membership is not an unreasonable goal for our organization. To realize that goal, BY NECESSITY, there needs to be a certain amount of rules for who is eligible to play where. Now that we are moving towards having the means to quantify skill level based on ability - establishing reasonable guidelines for divisional eligibility should not only be a goal, it should be a priority.

Hey I have nothing against JJ - never even talked to the kid. But with his obvious skill level - him winning Am Worlds is sorta like me winning Am Worlds. Now that he's been playing as a pro for a year and a half (cashing and turning down $$ at the USDGC and at least one NT event), are we now going to consider him next year for PDGA Rookie of the Year because he may start to accept cash?

This is not an attack on JJ. This is a comment on the system that allows personal choice to govern over quantifiable skill in sanctioned competition. Obviously I do not favor personal choice. Suggesting that it is an inherent right, or that it's always been a part of our competitive structure is just plain incorrect.

I guess if I had chosen to stay "Am" after those first two events back in 1987 - had found the rewards to be more to my liking, and decided I never wanted to play for money, that you'd have no problem if I had stayed Am for life then Lindsay?




Rhonda is an AM for life and I have no problem with her. She continues to kick my butt all over MD, DE and VA.


Oh, but I was not offered that choice - I was told after 2 events, that I was no longer eligible to play Am. So everyone arguing for the "right to a choice" IMO has about as much support for their argument as a whiffle ball has for a cold beer.



I'm sorry your choices were limited back in the day. Semi-similarly - I am about to round out my second year of PDGA play (my first PDGA tourney was the 9th Annual WVO). I was never offered the ability to play as an Intermediate Woman - there were no other Int Ladies playing to form a division when I started. I was forced to play Advanced (in my over 50 rounds of PDGA play that currently comprise my rating - I have one win and that happened this year). I continue to have an Intermediate rating, but I can't drop back now - I'm Advanced until I can justify going Pro.


Hey I have nothing against JJ - never even talked to the kid. But with his obvious skill level - him winning Am Worlds is sorta like me winning Am Worlds.



I didn't think you could have anything against JJ and it's not him I'm defending - it's the AM/Pro Choice.

How about those amazing olympic athletes? Man, that Paul Hamm - he's too good of a gymnist... now that he's won a gold in the overall - he shouldn't be allowed to try for it again in 4 years, he needs to step aside so that someone else can enjoy the lime light! Does anyone else agree that statement is silly? Same difference - different sport.


Promoting fair and fun competition for our membership is not an unreasonable goal for our organization



Fair competition - everyone plays by the same rules.
Fun competition - if you're not having fun - re-evaluate.


BY NECESSITY, there needs to be a certain amount of rules for who is eligible to play where



Hmmm, I thought the divisions were labeled "Open". As in Open Pro (open to all pros) and Advanced Open Am (as in open to all ams).

And in that regard - same situation and switch of focus - Masters who play in competiton with Brad Hammock are all vying for Second Place. :eek:

Lindsay,

you seem to try and respond to alot of what I said - but I'm having trouble understanding if you've made a point in any of your responses.

My point is about a system that is based on choice. I find it inappropriate, and not conducive to providing a level playing field for all competitors. Level playing field does not mean everyone has the same chance to win - those chances are determined by personal skill development.

You did bring up another example of where our system fails -and that is using Brad as an example.

but I think about this stuff on a much grander scale. I started looking at comparing all the scores of all players who played at worlds (who played the same courses). Masters and Open all played the same courses. Out of 83 masters who completed 8 rounds of golf, 80 of them placed within the scoring range in the Open division (96.4%).

When I start to look at Advanced - I need to dig a little more (as they only played four rounds on the same courses). Barring any statistical variations of different weather conditions - I think it's reasonable to do a general comparison of overall scores (unless someone tells me they played different tees). What I've found so far is in comparing the top 20 Advanced players to the top 55 Open players - there is an average difference of 2.4 strokes per round over 4 rounds of play.

What good is all this you may ask. To me it begs the question - with so much obvious overlap in skill level - why are we separated into different divisions?

You can get stuck on semantics, and labels, and all that BS if you want. But I've been around long enough to see the names change, and get added to, and changed again - and that's all it is - semantics. There is no magic to the labels that have been applied. Open (for the majority of the PDGA's lifespan) meant just that - Open to anyone. Adding the words pro and Am to the mix only has served to muddy the water.

you seem to try and respond to alot of what I said - but I'm having trouble understanding if you've made a point in any of your responses.



Okay, well to quote myself:


I didn't think you could have anything against JJ and it's not him I'm defending - it's the AM/Pro Choice .




You believe that there should be no choice - skill level should decide where someone may compete. At this point in our sport I disagree.

Perhaps one day when there are college leagues and :eek: a True AM Class :eek: and many tiers of AM Qualifying events to get into the A and B Tiers and NT Events - the "no choice" choice will work. Heck - we (the PDGA) may even come up with a grueling qualifying camp like the PGA and you would have to graduate from that camp to enter into higher tour events! But until we are of greater numbers in participation - that just doesn't work. How many TD's are going to bust their humps to run Tournies that only 20 people can play in? (due to using ratings to say only 980+ players can play this tourney)


Level playing field does not mean everyone has the same chance to win - those chances are determined by personal skill development.


What does level playing field mean to you?


What good is all this you may ask. To me it begs the question - with so much obvious overlap in skill level - why are we separated into different divisions?




The short answer is... to support the wants of the membership. One division, one champion - I would never have a chance at that. Why do I want to pay to play? Why do I show up? Because with multiple divisions, protected or not, there IS a chance that I CAN WIN!

Isn't this what Pro2 is supposed to address ?

Ams over a certain rating are required to play Pro2 and Pros below a certain level have the option of playing Pro2.

How about a ceiling in ADV for competing for payout. Anyone above the ceiling that chooses to stay an AM is playing for trophies. Much the same as playing in Pro and declining cash, but cheaper.

What I don't understand is why people make such a big deal out of trying to win AM worlds, or even to win an Am A tier, or x amount of tournaments in Advanced. When I won advanced in a tournament I didn't feel like I could say I won the tournament. When non-DGer's ask me about it I could say I played well, but I wouldn't say I won. I didn't beat everyone that day.

A successful AM player is one who plays below their skill level for various reasons. Why should we reward them for playing against people who aren't as good as them. I think this especially applies to those who can play more than 10 tournaments and never finish off the top card. I have more of a problem with these people than those that play a few tournaments a year and worlds.

Isn't this what Pro2 is supposed to address ?



Yes. But in my opinion it fails miserably. Why?

Because instead of discouraging unfair play it in essence institutionalizes it.

Unmistakably and undeniably all of this tension and dysfunction stems from the lack of a truly protected Amateur Classification within our PDGA Competitive Structure.

And why don�t we protect true amateurs? Because we�d rather groom them for our �gambler� �professional� classification (which is actually the only one available at the moment).

NO ONE and I mean NO ONE would have a leg with which to stand on arguing that amateurs are sandbagging if all they were playing for was competition, sportsmanship and pride. If their was no prize payout there would be absolutely no basis for conflict or animosity.

What there would be is:

1) An Amateur Classification � for the first time in the history of the PDGA institutionalized within it�s competitive structure.
2) A healthy and natural relationship between the Pro and Am Classes.
3) A place at the organized disc golf table for amateur organizations such as educational and civic associations.
4) The welcoming of �true� amateurs to a sport historically dominated and governed by those with the �gambler� mentality. (Are we a sport, or a carnival activity!?!)

You believe that there should be no choice - skill level should decide where someone may compete. At this point in our sport I disagree.

Perhaps one day when there are college leagues and :eek: a True AM Class :eek: and many tiers of AM Qualifying events to get into the A and B Tiers and NT Events - the "no choice" choice will work. Heck - we (the PDGA) may even come up with a grueling qualifying camp like the PGA and you would have to graduate from that camp to enter into higher tour events! But until we are of greater numbers in participation - that just doesn't work. How many TD's are going to bust their humps to run Tournies that only 20 people can play in? (due to using ratings to say only 980+ players can play this tourney)



It's kinda funny - everytime it comes up (and it has several times since I started playing) that is always the fallback argument - "we don't have enough people"!! We just had over 900 people compete at a "World Championships" - and in the three most populated divisions - there was a HUGE percentage of overlap in skill. At what point do you overcome that? When there are college leagues? That makes no sense.


What does level playing field mean to you?



A level playing field is when people of similar skill level play in the same division - I thought that was pretty obvious. I'll go a step further and say I believe the existing Open Division should serve as an adequate model for the range of skill that should be incorporated into a larger / single classification.


What good is all this you may ask. To me it begs the question - with so much obvious overlap in skill level - why are we separated into different divisions?






[/QUOTE] The short answer is... to support the wants of the membership. One division, one champion - I would never have a chance at that. Why do I want to pay to play? Why do I show up? Because with multiple divisions, protected or not, there IS a chance that I CAN WIN!

[/QUOTE]

This is not about one division one champion Lindsay - it's about a system - that needs to use quantifiable skill as a means for determining divisional eligibility in sanctioned competition. There's nothing wrong with providing competition for different levels - no one need be excluded. But the overlap in skill we have in our current structure provides so many inequities - it needs to be changed. Your attitude that "I need a place to WIN" - or competition isn't worth participating in - is the EXACT attitude of the people who should be playing up and are not. Why should they be challenged to play to their potential when they can just enter and win a bunch of booty for mediocre play? The short answer is - THEY WON'T until they are not given any other choice.

Your argument that we need to serve the wants of the players, is like saying you should do whatever the 2 year old screams for. Sometimes an organization and its leadership need to dictate what is best. We have made a few strides - but we are not really even close yet. Your mention of different tiers to qualify for others is a good example of what could/should be incorporated in whatever revision to the competitive structure we might try.

This is not an all or nothing type of deal. The PDGA can create a competitive system in which players of similar skill can play together while at the same time maintaining key gender and age protections.

The challenge I believe for Craig (and me) is having NTs and Majors where there are clearly players of the highest skill level playing in different divisions. At this level it does make a certain amount of sense to at least attempt to get them all in the same division. The challenge to this happenning is clearly an attachment on the part of many players to arbitrary protections.

That is why I came up with the hybrid competitive system (http://www.madisc.org/05DivProp.html) I did. To provide appropriate protection but in a logical manner: Protection at a Cost. Do you think Brad Hammock would play in Masters if ALL the added cash were in Open? Do you think JJ would play Advanced if there were no prize payout in Advanced? Maybe they would, but there is no way of finding out under our current competitive structure.

I will NEVER support the idea that amateurs should be forced to play professional just because of skill level. Unfortunately, as it stands, there really is next to no difference between the two classifications so Craig�s argument remains very appropriate to this conversation. I hope that someday it is baseless.

Now it is obvious that JJ was a giant bagger. Winning by 19 strokes??? He seemed cool from the few words we exchanged but a bagger none the less. He's turned pro and good luck with that. (986, are you freaking kidding me???!!)

It looks like everyone hates a winner. Nick, I know for sure JJ would play for free. He turned down nearly $900 in pro to keep his eligability for the worlds. Now he's pro and I believe working a sponsorship deal. And Thumber, first if you are gonna bash someone, do it under you own name or at least put your name in your profile, and second perhaps he was just on fire that tourney. Dont know if anyone noticed but Dave Shaw had a rating of 985 going into the worlds and lost by 30 strokes. Just because you have a high rating doesnt mean you will win.

I think someone has penis envy.

Anyway. JJ just wanted to play Am Worlds. We have beat this issue to death. He is now going to start accepting cash in PDGA tournies, so you don't have to worry about him playing ADV anymore.

I'm sorry your choices were limited back in the day. Semi-similarly - I am about to round out my second year of PDGA play (my first PDGA tourney was the 9th Annual WVO). I was never offered the ability to play as an Intermediate Woman - there were no other Int Ladies playing to form a division when I started. I was forced to play Advanced (in my over 50 rounds of PDGA play that currently comprise my rating - I have one win and that happened this year). I continue to have an Intermediate rating, but I can't drop back now - I'm Advanced until I can justify going Pro.

Only if that is your choice. At any PDGA event where Intermediate Women is offered, you can play in that division if you have that rating. Under the current format amateurs are free to move down to the division indicated by their rating.

Ratings are total bull.

There are so many good players whose ratings do not show their ability.

I played 4 rounds with Chase at worlds and I woulda sworn he was like a 950 player - he was one of the most solid adv. golfers I've seen - and coming from NC, I've seen quite a few. His rating is like 907 I think - and there are so many players that are like this on both ends of the spectrum.

So why are using the ratings system so say where a player should play or should not play.

the ratings are far more accurate than you give them credit for. yes, there are some players who grossly over- and under-achieve relative to their ratings. practice, training, and lots of other factors can have a 900-ish player perform 30-40 points higher than their rating at any given event. lack of those easily drops the player that many points.

if you are looking for something so precise that is will correctly predict the finish for every player in a 250 player division, then, no they are not accurate. but then again, we wouldnt reallyhave to go out and play if such a system did exist, would we. if you are looking for something that provides a reasonable assessment of a players skill relative to the other players he's plaed against, our rating system is there, and its getting better.

Ratings are total bull.




I have to disagree with that. Ratings are pretty accurate after you have a certain number of rated rounds. The more rated rounds you have, I believe the more accurate they are. In 16 of 22 divisions at Worlds, the top rated player won. Maybe that was just a HUGE coincidence. LOL

So why are using the ratings system so say where a player should play or should not play.



Can anyone translate that to english for me?

Maybe its a tongue twister. Read it out loud 10 times fast. :D

So why are using the ratings system so say where a player should play or should not play.



Can anyone translate that to english for me?



so = to

i type way to fast and don't proof read

big head alien fish can throw a disc along way.......

So why are using the ratings system so say where a player should play or should not play.



So why are (we) using the ratings system (to) say where a player should or should not play ?

Because leaving it up to each area's peer pressure system of move up when you win/cash was not allowing for an even playing field across the country.

Just because you can compete with the local pros (who may be adv level players elsewhere) doesn't mean you can compete with the pros from somewhere else. You might be cleaning up in the advanced division in your home town, but be way below the advanced levels in other places. Or on the other hand, you might be a mid level advanced player at home, but top level advanced player somewhere else.

The PDGA needs some objective measure of player capability, and the ratings system is it. We also need levels of competition that are based on skill, not how many events you have played in. At least around here, it was one/two events in Novice, then Int until you cashed a couple of times (or a year or two) then you played in advanced. Made for really large advanced fields, but a large number of players that were always donating or not playing.

Plus a few Advanced players being nudged into Pro because they won a few tournaments, not because they were good enough to compete consistently.

OK, how about this one. Instead of paying out the AM1 division so much, we flip the payouts? Give the largest payouts to the rec players...they are the ones who need it the most anyway to figure out what they like. Lets donate to the lower players in the spectrum for a change. Might even encourage a little more growth.

It's kinda funny - everytime it comes up (and it has several times since I started playing) that is always the fallback argument - "we don't have enough people"!! We just had over 900 people compete at a "World Championships" - and in the three most populated divisions - there was a HUGE percentage of overlap in skill. At what point do you overcome that? When there are college leagues? That makes no sense.




You're right, it's not that we don't have enough people, but the people we DO have simply adopt the current structure. Perhaps when this argument came up in the past you responded then as you do now - with a complaint and a wish to see a change. Wishing and hopeing won't get you too far.

Perhaps if more people do as Nick Kight did and come up with a competitive structure that DOES MAKE SENSE to include an AM and PRO side of things - or perhaps if more people would consider and support a structure like the one Nick has developed and proposed - we would start moving towards enacting change for the positive.

Until we do something about it as the PDGA, we cannot blame the individual participants for using the system to their advantage in whichever light we see it and for whatever their individual reasons are for playing where they may (as they are fully entitled to do so).


This is not about one division one champion Lindsay - it's about a system - that needs to use quantifiable skill as a means for determining divisional eligibility in sanctioned competition. There's nothing wrong with providing competition for different levels - no one need be excluded. But the overlap in skill we have in our current structure provides so many inequities - it needs to be changed.



Propopse a structure that WILL WORK. Or if you believe Nick's will work - support it and help to make it a reality.


Your attitude that "I need a place to WIN" - or competition isn't worth participating in - is the EXACT attitude of the people who should be playing up and are not. Why should they be challenged to play to their potential when they can just enter and win a bunch of booty for mediocre play? The short answer is - THEY WON'T until they are not given any other choice.




I think you misunderstand me with this comment. I do play up (donate) in the pro division. My skill level remains Int to Adv. If I play my heart out and win a tourney (done it once!) I don't believe my trophy and small prize pack were rewarding "mediocre play". I played well above my rating for the entire tourney (2 rounds /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif) to WIN - any of the girls in my division during that event could have done the same.

I believe you are referring to those who you consider "baggers" and to say that if someone with a high rating wins in the Advanced division - he didn't deserve the win - he should have tried to play against you and you would have whopped him and taken his $$ to teach him a thing or two about playing with the big dawgs - step up and see if you can hang. Otherwise - you are simply mediocre and don't deserve the win.

When I say I want a division where I CAN WIN - I mean a division where I can compete - my 787 rating doesn't hold up against Juliana, Des, Burl, Lesli and if I had to play against them every weekend I would truly have NO CHANCE of winning and my desire to continue to fork up $100 to $125 every weekend for the chance to get out on the course would dwindle.


Sometimes an organization and its leadership need to dictate what is best. We have made a few strides - but we are not really even close yet. Your mention of different tiers to qualify for others is a good example of what could/should be incorporated in whatever revision to the competitive structure we might try.



Develop a structure (or support one that has already been developed) and strive to make the change happen. :cool:

I guess I'm just tired of seeing the same old complaints and arguments with no actions backing them up.

Word of Advice: Agreeing with me is not likely to get you very far with "the Craiger" Linds. He's got a blind spot there (at least publically...). :D:(

OK, how about this one. Instead of paying out the AM1 division so much, we flip the payouts? Give the largest payouts to the rec players...they are the ones who need it the most anyway to figure out what they like. Lets donate to the lower players in the spectrum for a change. Might even encourage a little more growth.



Sorry, any system (even a well-intentioned one) that pays higher rewards to competitors of lesser skill isn't going to fly with most disc golfers. It also encourages sandbagging.

OK, how about this one. Instead of paying out the AM1 division so much, we flip the payouts? Give the largest payouts to the rec players...they are the ones who need it the most anyway to figure out what they like. Lets donate to the lower players in the spectrum for a change. Might even encourage a little more growth.



Sorry, any system (even a well-intentioned one) that pays higher rewards to competitors of lesser skill isn't going to fly with most disc golfers. It also encourages sandbagging.



Jeff, Ironically, that is exactly what our current system does...

Sorry, any system (even a well-intentioned one) that pays higher rewards to competitors of lesser skill isn't going to fly with most disc golfers. It also encourages sandbagging.



We need a sarcasm thingy ;)

I guess I'm just tired of seeing the same old complaints and arguments with no actions backing them up.



AMEN to that!! Girlie if you only knew!!! You think YOU'RE sick of hearing it - if you could only grasp having to LIVE with it year after year.


At some point Lindsay, after seeing the same complaints emanating from the membership for over a decade (and it's not like I've been the only one making them,) - you might think the competition director, or some other BOD member would take the idea and make an effort to initiate some change. Alas - that has not been the case.

Let me provide an example or two of why I have not bothered trying to force my ideas down the PDGA's throat.

In 1992, at the PDGA Open Forum/Board meeting - I brought up this very subject. After speaking my mind about it - I let the room carry on with their thoughts on it - and it took upwards of 45 minutes before the BOD moved on to another subject. It did not even get a mention in the meeting minutes.

In 1994 - same thing (The highlight of that meeting was Bucky Worboy's insistence that a dress code was the most pressing need the Pro Tour had. ) Coincidentally - 10 years later, we have the first inkling of a dress code - people can do nothing but b_itch about it - and the divisional structure has more divisions, instead of fewer.

In short - after multiple attempts at face to face, I was offered a very plain and simple truth - my ideas on the subject were dismissed outright, and were of no interest to the folks in charge. Hence my lack of motivation for creating a new all inclusive system.

Ask Nick how well his proposed divisional structure is being received. His proposal has some merit. Whether I agree with all the specifics in it, isn't really relevant. Whether it's getting any real consideration, is.

Oh one more example - the ratings system. I had a face to face w/Todd Branch a couple years ago, before he became competition director. We talked at length about how useful and appropriate the ratings system could be in determining divisions, and eliminating the overlap we have. At the end of the conversation he said something to the effect that others (insinuating the outgoing competition director Mark Ellis) had warned him that people may try to bend his ear on changing things - and to resist the temptation.

Just another typical status quo attitude. God forbid we should make a change and be WRONG!?!? That has never happened

And it's the same old excuse why we haven't adopted the ratings system for use in all divisions at all events. If we did - the few flaws in the system that do exist would be forced into being worked out expeditiously. Instead, CK is out there on his own little island, doing the best he can (with some help - but not a ton - and certainly not with much if any budget), with no real meaningful expectation for when the system may be fully implemented. Why??? Because we may upset that cadre of players who stand to benefit most from the inequities of the current system.

To all this I put on my best French Knights outfit - go to the top of the ramparts, and yell down at you saying - "I blow my nose at you!! - you silly English knigggggit!! Now go away - or I will taunt you a second time."

At some point Lindsay, after seeing the same complaints emanating from the membership for over a decade (and it's not like I've been the only one making them,) - you might think the competition director, or some other BOD member would take the idea and make an effort to initiate some change. Alas - that has not been the case.




No, I do not think that someone else would just take your (or anyone elses) idea and run with it.

I believe that if you feel passionately about the need for change - you can make it happen... BUT, you would need to work really hard at it. People would dispute the need for you and your changes, people don't deal well with change - don't get discouraged! Press on!

Only YOU can make the difference!

No one is going to take your ideas for change and just run with them to make them happen, obviously you still feel very strongly that change needs to happen in our competition structure - you are not alone - come together and make it happen! YOU ARE THE PDGA just like I AM THE PDGA.

In 1992 you brought up an issue in an open forum - there was enough interest in the issue to engender 45 min of conversation. In 1994 - where was your written proposal? Well, you brought it up again - hopeing that someone might take your ball and run with it? Sorry bud, but that's not how you get things done.

Since 1992 - you've wanted the competition structure to be different - what have you DONE between then and now to make that happen? Talked about it? Well, I guess that's why the structure remains the same.



Ask Nick how well his proposed divisional structure is being received. His proposal has some merit. Whether I agree with all the specifics in it, isn't really relevant. Whether it's getting any real consideration, is.



You believe Nick's proposal has some merit? What do you like about it? Which specifics do you not agree with? How would you change it to better reflect your ideas? The voice of one man (Nick's current proposal) is sometimes soft and hard to hear, but the chorus of many cannot be ignored (let's WORK together to make it happen)!

Craig, you point about frustration is well taken. Lindsay, you point about not giving up and taking the personal responsibility to make what you see as right happen is well taken. I live a dual existence between these two poles.

My frustration fuels my resolve to keep on trying though. I don�t blame Theo, Terry, Nez, Bruce and the other PDGA Board of Directors for their not taking action on my ideas. As a volunteer organizer myself I fully understand that it is on me, and me alone, to build the support I need to make the things I think are important a reality. It would be unfair to push that blame, or burden of success or failure on them. I am responsible for what I want. They for what they want. If we can help each other out then great! If not what they do is on them, and what I do is on me. That is a relationship I can live with. If I couldn�t, I STILL wouldn�t blame them, I would run for a PDGA Board of Directors Office.

As far as my 2005 PDGA Competitive Structure Proposal, I again take full responsibility for it�s contents and whether it (or any part of it) gets implemented. It is enough that I have presented it and I trust that they have given it due consideration. I trust them and our PDGA organizers around the country and world enough to consider it and find for themselves if there is something worthwhile therein or not.

Does this mean I don�t care if it gets implemented or not. Hell no! I care a great deal, and will continue to educate folks about it, improve it through their feedback and push for the reforms I feel are key.

You see, unlike the Presidential Election I have no evidence that these volunteers are not acting in good trust. To the contrary, I see all of the good they are involved in doing, and have communicated with them enough to know that they are just folks like the rest of us doing what they can (which is incredible when really considered).

I really have no idea if anything I have done or tried over the past 5 years or so has made any impact, that, and peoples opinion of me, are not within my control. The only thing I control is what I believe, what I say and what I do. I attribute my shortcomings or lack of success to no one but myself.

Through all of that I learned long ago that for each person you get to see it your way your effectiveness is increased exponentially. You get 3 to 5 people on ANY challenge to disc golf and there is likely very little they can�t do.

So what are we going to do? Throw up our hands and gnash our teeth? Or take responsibility for what we want and never give up?

It is a choice, as all things God has give us are.

I'm glad to hear that the argument was passionately made and unsurprised that it met deaf ears.

I honestly get confused when I hear "You are the PDGA" to mean "you have the power, just get off your ***** and make it happen." I see the PDGA Board exactly like I see our congressional representatives. I can vote, I can implore, I can campaign. However, I can't change policy in Iraq, I can't appoint supreme court justices, I can't control the budget.

It's the same with the PDGA board. They are in control because they have the power. That's fine and fair. However, once elected, the responsibility for policy changes and leadership lies with them, not each individual member.

Sorry for the aside. Carry on.

I see the PDGA Board exactly like I see our congressional representatives.



Our congressional representatives are compensated very well for their time and efforts spent working on our behalf - it is their one and only job - to represent us.

I'm glad to hear that the argument was passionately made and unsurprised that it met deaf ears.

I honestly get confused when I hear "You are the PDGA" to mean "you have the power, just get off your ***** and make it happen." I see the PDGA Board exactly like I see our congressional representatives. I can vote, I can implore, I can campaign. However, I can't change policy in Iraq, I can't appoint supreme court justices, I can't control the budget.

It's the same with the PDGA board. They are in control because they have the power. That's fine and fair. However, once elected, the responsibility for policy changes and leadership lies with them, not each individual member.

Sorry for the aside. Carry on.



Another consideration is that you could be on the PDGA BOD yet choose not to. (This is far more likely than becoming a State Rep.) Do you suppose the folks that step up and run deserve to primarily be their own main council concerning decisions? Would you be if elected, or would you just be blown hither and thither by what you think is popular demand?

Even though I didn't vote for Bush (and more Americans actually voted for Gore) I still can not avoid a sense of responsibility for his actions. I can not effect policy and bring our fighting men and women home to their families, I can not make our allies trust us again, I can not undo the damage he has done to our role as Defender Against Tyranny. What I can do is vote him the heck out of office next chance I get.

But in a small organization like the PDGA you actually can affect change as a member. You just have to be willing to work as hard or harder than a Board Member.

Congrats JJ... on a great solid #1 place in adv. men's worlds... awesome shooting.. you are ready for the pros my young friend... (hey forgot to get you to sign my worlds disc champ.. :( ) Your playing just proves you are ready for the pros.. wish you luck in the future w/ it.. don't let it get in the way of your schooling.. get the education and play disc golf for sure..

Also.. Doug Saulter..wow he is so ready for pros.. he played so well the entire week in adv. masters.. congrats Doug.. I wish you luck in the pros as well.. (I'm assuming you are going pro..if not, no big deal).. but I think you are ready too.. nice shooting ..

But in a small organization like the PDGA you actually can affect change as a member. You just have to be willing to work as hard or harder than a Board Member.



I guess that pretty much sums it up for me NK. After so many years - I am starting to go the way of so many before me. Ambivalence has crept in - and I have relegated myself to accepting that I get much more joy out of just being a player than trying to impart my opinions on the system. I guess that there's still that piece of me that has to spout off at the absurdity of it all - and sometimes that comes across as b_itchin to those that don't share the history or exposure to it all.

Lindsay, I value the efforts of the BOD more than any politicians. However, like politicians, they asked to be our leaders and by their leadership position, bear a greater responsibility. My admiration for those who volunteer their time and energy is equal to my knowledge that they are responsible and will justly bear both credit and blame. As another aside to this discussion, I find the candor and willingness of certain Board members to listen, rebut and attempt to convince to be quite admirable. However, that trait does not yet pervade them all.

Anyways, Nick you cannot just
"vote him the heck out of office next chance you get."
That's kind of the point.

Also you state "But in a small organization like the PDGA you actually can affect change as a member. You just have to be willing to work as hard or harder than a Board Member." You have merely concluded this without offering any evidence. In many ways, you are yourself a refutation of that argument. I suspect that you have mentally worked harder on a competitive structure than certain Board members, but their imprint on the weekend activities is felt. Yours is not.

I read through this thread pretty quickly and may have missed some points. I am in agreement with Nick (and others) about an amateur class and that the current competitive structure is flawed.

Questions:

How many non-active players quit because of the current competitive structure?

How many currently active players are going to quit because of the current competitive structure?

If there is really an issue here, this is the measure. I know that there is awareness that there are many unsatisfied players who are no longer active because they feel they are paying to play but what is the measure of the problem?

To affect change you have to measure this in a serious fashion or get the BOD to measure it in a serious fashion and show that there is harm being done.

What is the incentive for the BOD to maintain the current structure?

I'll lay odds that they see a benefit. Understanding, the nature of that perceived (actual) benefit would allow a concrete argument for change.

I'm betting the benefit is that if you reduce the cash going into pro hands, you will damage that top structure and the professional class they are trying to build as per the mandate that came out of the survey done several years ago.

I like the notion of two types of competitions. Those built around a structure that is ratings based or built on Nick's model, and the NT - Worlds events.

NTs and Worlds would be high profile events that are similar in nature to the USDGC. People play simply for the prestige of the event. The expectation isn't I'm going to win money; rather, I'm going to enjoy this cool event. Everyone gets a players package that is a memory of the event but there is only a couple of classes that support the upper tier players. NTs would be evenly spread throughout the country so that every player would have a local NT event where they could go flex their muscles once a year. Traveling pros would make the tour and thus be accessible to every region in the country to help in promoting the sport.

All other PDGA sanctioned events are geared towards local players. They aren't about cash winnings but about building the sport at the local level and creating drive for people to go to NT events. Yes, there would be some ground for pros to win money but not at near the level that the NT events build.

This would also allow the PDGA to better focus their efforts in achieving their mandate. They would be able to directly fund, help raise sponsorships and organize the NT events.

This compromise allows the BOD to maintain a high level competitive structure for a well-defined set of events thus achieving their mandate. It also allows for events that keep the players who have burned out on the constant upward push where they pay and get nothing and lose heart and opt out, to continue playing under a less stressful structure.

and sometimes that comes across as b_itchin to those that don't share the history or exposure to it all.



Actually Craig it comes off the same way to those that share the history and exposure to it all also.

I know your intentions are good. You just need to learn to accept your role and be willing to work with others. Nobody, not me, not the PDGA BOD, nobody likes being "told" what to do by someone not willing to at least share some of the burden and responsibility.

Also you state "But in a small organization like the PDGA you actually can affect change as a member. You just have to be willing to work as hard or harder than a Board Member." You have merely concluded this without offering any evidence. In many ways, you are yourself a refutation of that argument. I suspect that you have mentally worked harder on a competitive structure than certain Board members, but their imprint on the weekend activities is felt. Yours is not.



You couldn't be more mistaken James. I AM the evidence. My imprint, actually the combined imprint of those I work with, is all over the PDGA. But more importantly I know that my imprint is in the future plans of the PDGA (and get this, even for those who don't agree with my positions on stuff, I'm even in their thinking because I have helped them to clarify their thinking as they have help me clarify mine).

This is in response to Lyle's question, "How many players have quit because of the current competitive structure?"

I have seen a lot of players over the last 12 years hit that point where they are "too good" for advanced, so they go pro and then just fade from the scene. Some of them drop out entirely. Some are playing one or three tournaments a year.

Would an amateur division above advanced help with this? Not every 955 or 965 rated player is ever going to get any better than that. Would these guys keep playing if there was an option other than moving up to pro and donating to the 990+ rated players at every event?

Meanwhile, don't discount how influential Nick is. Anyone who has a rational argument and presents it well in this forum is going to have an influence. Nick has a rational argument almost half the time! ;)

Would an amateur division above advanced help with this? Not every 955 or 965 rated player is ever going to get any better than that. Would these guys keep playing if there was an option other than moving up to pro and donating to the 990+ rated players at every event?




Here is one problem with having an Amateur division of 950-970 rated golfers. This kind of golf cashes in open in many parts of the country. At the tournamnets I have attended 970 cashes at half of the B tiers, and all of the C tiers. Even 950 can cash at the smaller C and D tiers. I know in Michigan last cash in Open is often over 990, but it isn't that way everywhere(in fact in most states). The next two 2 B tiers I play won't have a 990+ player there.

That is the problem with implementing a higher division- it isn't needed in most states. Besides, isn't Pro2 supposed to handle the top Ams and lower Pros?

Hey Bruce,

I'm assuming that you are posting as a PDGA member as opposed to a board member. I was pretty confident that the board understood the lost member issue; in fact I have had a discussion with Dave Nesbitt on the topic. The question is, which is the more pressing, the need to grow a top end structure with all that conveys (money, prestige, national recognition etc.) or the loss of active players due to dissatisfaction of our competitive structure? My impression is that the board focuses primarily on growth and secondarily on player loss. Given the overwhelming task of running a volunteer basis organization, my guess would be that player loss doesn't get a lot of attention (sans the Pro 2 experiment). Whether or not player loss merits a change in our competitive structure, and more attention on the part of the BOD, could be determined by measuring its true impact.

If indeed my impression that the board places more emphasis on growth and maintenance of the pro aspect of the sport is correct, that may be because the BOD already has a good feel for this issue and knows that their time currently is better spent where it is.

On the other hand, is your assurance that Nick is influential again a comment from a member or from the position of board member? My guess is it is just a comment on Nick's power of persuasion. Just curious�

and sometimes that comes across as b_itchin to those that don't share the history or exposure to it all.



Actually Craig it comes off the same way to those that share the history and exposure to it all also.

I know your intentions are good. You just need to learn to accept your role and be willing to work with others. Nobody, not me, not the PDGA BOD, nobody likes being "told" what to do by someone not willing to at least share some of the burden and responsibility.



I think I'll leave my role as it is - I'll just be a player. All the rest is just a headache. If folks in power are not receptive to ideas in the first place (verbal or otherwise) - why should I believe me being "willing to work together" would change their opinions? Case in point - there's Bruce Brakel saying we need ANOTHER AM DIVISION between Advanced and Open. If there are influential organizers out there that believe in that concept - I have no interest in trying to convince them of something 180 degrees from their line of thinking.

Craig's Disc Golf World will remain in Craig's head :) He might occasionally share some of it's concepts with the rest of you - try not to be to offended :p

I think I'll leave my role as it is - I'll just be a player. All the rest is just a headache. If folks in power are not receptive to ideas in the first place (verbal or otherwise) - why should I believe me being "willing to work together" would change their opinions? Case in point - there's Bruce Brakel saying we need ANOTHER AM DIVISION between Advanced and Open. If there are influential organizers out there that believe in that concept - I have no interest in trying to convince them of something 180 degrees from their line of thinking.



I don�t think that it is fair to label the PDGA BOD as �not receptive to ideas in the first place�. That may or may not have been the case 6 or more years ago, but Theo, Terry and Nez (and Pat before) have opened the lines of communication, discussion and action more than anytime in my memory of the PDGA. I suspect that you are not speaking from direct knowledge when you characterize their thinking.

Perhaps you don�t want to get involved, that�s fine, but before you start speaking on their behalf, about what they believe or don�t believe in, you might want to do them the courtesy of shooting them and email or phone call and actually finding out first. They are not petty folk in my experience, so even though you have mischaracterized them often here and on the course, they�ll likely be happy to fill you in on where they are concerning the issues.

By all means be a player and leave the headaches to those willing and able to take action to deal with them. Not everyone needs to be part of the organizational part of disc golf. If and when you are ready to take on more, I am sure you will, and if you put the same effort you put into your play on the course into building consensus and organizing you will be a big asset to any disc golf community. But you WILL have to be willing to �convince someone� about something, if you want to get more than a one man�s effort into a task. It goes with the territory of organizer and there just is no way around it.


Craig's Disc Golf World will remain in Craig's head He might occasionally share some of it's concepts with the rest of you - try not to be to offended



Fair enough � so long as you try not to be offensive.

I still see two problems that need to be addressed.

1. Player/member retention. Not just as PDGA members, but as tournament playing PDGA members. The past history is that many players feel pressured to move up to Pro, find that for the most part they are no longer competitive, and then drop from the tournament scene and eventually the PDGA. There needs to be a place where those players can compete realistically or they won't show up. I don't think it has to be for big money, but it has to be where they have a chance to compete.

2. New player growth. This means starting tours or leagues where lower rated or new players will feel welcome, and are given a chance to learn the skills of the game. We need local clubs to offer clinics, developthe skills of new golfers, and introduce them to competitive disc golf when they are ready to compete.

I don�t think that it is fair to label the PDGA BOD as �not receptive to ideas in the first place�. That may or may not have been the case 6 or more years ago, but Theo, Terry and Nez (and Pat before) have opened the lines of communication, discussion and action more than anytime in my memory of the PDGA. I suspect that you are not speaking from direct knowledge when you characterize their thinking.



All of my comments about the "folks in power", are about people I have dealt with directly over the years, and may or may not include current BOD members. I don't mean to misrepresent anyone's current opinions - but the proof is in the pudding. No wholesale effort has been made to alter the competitive divisional structure that has been in place for many years (other than adding more divisions, or tweaking the existing structure). I don't think any incumbent or even any new BOD member is unaware of this fact - and the FACT that it is not amongst their top priorities provides me no encouragement to want to be involved.

As regards trying not to be offensive - well....... sometimes any opinion counter to the status quo is found to be offensive, nothing I can do about that. I try not to be like the as_sclown, when I have something to say, I do my best to provide a reasonable reason and explanation.

Did you see this Gary?

2005 PDGA Competitive Structure Proposal (http://www.madisc.org/05DivProp.html)

Please explain why these are not light and shadow of the same issue:


the need to grow a top end structure with all that conveys (money, prestige, national recognition etc.) or the loss of active players due to dissatisfaction of our competitive structure?



I hope that the BOD has a more comprehensive view than that. I could be dead wrong, but I suspect the number of competitors in the "top end structure" in disc golf has not grown at all in 15 years. If the numbers have grown, I bet they severely lag growth in total PDGA numbers.

Nick, why should anyone have to


do them the courtesy of shooting them and email or phone call and actually finding out first. They are not petty folk in my experience, so even though you have mischaracterized them often here and on the course, they�ll likely be happy to fill you in on where they are concerning the issues.


The policy/strategy/goals for the PDGA cometitive structure should be laid bare for all to see and understand. We shouldn't have to shoot an e-mail to learn the method behind the apparent madness. I've been playing a long time and I have never seen this in writing in any form amenable to debate. At most, we get allusions to "the survey said this" and "membership mandate" and everyone tries to assume goals from that sliver of info. Just spell it out. Please. In the open for all to see and understand.

but the proof is in the pudding. No wholesale effort has been made to alter the competitive divisional structure that has been in place for many years (other than adding more divisions, or tweaking the existing structure). I don't think any incumbent or even any new BOD member is unaware of this fact - and the FACT that it is not amongst their top priorities provides me no encouragement to want to be involved.



This is a "Craig's World Fact" Craig.

Here are a few "Rest of Us World Facts" to consider:

1) The creation, development and continued upgrading of PDGA Player Ratings.
2) The creation, development and continued upgrading of the PDGA Amateur Class Divisional Structure.
3) The creation, development and continued upgrading of the PDGA National Tour.

Now you may feel that these were not done in accordance with Craig's Word, but there is no denying the FACT that they have come into existance from nothing within the last 5 years. Developed through the hard work of folks WILLING to donate their time, WILLING to be frustrated with deadends but keep on working, WILLING to work with others within the confines of our mandate. These are not wishful thinking, THEY ARE FLESHED OUT REALITY PROVIDING DIRECT BENEFIT TO PDGA MEMBERS.

So when you are trying not to be offensive, keep that in mind please.

It's kind of like on par with someone who plays Seneca all the time, never helps with clean up, yet complains to you that it is in such bad condition all the time, and this even though he has been complaining about it for years now. That is EXACTLY what it is like Craiger, that is why I am constantly surprized at your tenor on such topics. You should KNOW better.

Yes I did. I gave it quite a bit of thought.

The thing I don't quite understand is the use of the term Amateur. If all of the age protected and even the Open level at the top of tne Amateur bracket are not allowed to accept any type of performance related payout, I think it goes too far, too fast. I would prefer to see a much deeper and flatter payout for these divisions (or a 60/40 split between player packs and performance payout).

I assume the multi-colored bracket is for the traditional "AMs" and lower rated Pros of our sport with PRO2 style payouts. Since every one in these divisions are considered "Pros" it makes no difference what the payout is (cash or merch).

In the Pro divisions I don't understand the age divisions that do not allow a high rated player to opt for the Open division. As read, required for players with ratings above x would not allow players to play in Open once they reach the age cutoff for a protected division.

Based on that understanding of the system, I sat down and tried to mentally populate an event with players to see where they would be playing. I guess I will have to add entry fee scales to the divisions to help decide where people would play. It seems to be a combination of the curent divisional system and ratings based systems in one event.

I think that I handle abstract concepts fairly well, but I am at a loss for deciding where I would be playing in this matrix.

Nick, why should anyone have to


do them the courtesy of shooting them and email or phone call and actually finding out first. They are not petty folk in my experience, so even though you have mischaracterized them often here and on the course, they�ll likely be happy to fill you in on where they are concerning the issues.






No one has to, but I�m sure that you, James, would expect the same courtesy if I were to publicly write something portending to express your views. This is specifically true concerning our small community, and it is small.

Would you like for me to say: James McCaine doesn�t know squat about conserving natural resources, look at the environmental mess Texas is! It is plain as day that he doesn�t know what he is doing. That he doesn�t listen to peoples concerns. That he is only doing what benefits him. I have received nothing from him detailing exactly what he is doing! Why should I have to contact him? He should know that I am interested and need info! HE IS UTTERLY INEPT!

Would you advise me that perhaps I ought to check in with you and find out what your positions and plans really are before spouting off about you? How much would you value my opinion after I said things like that? Would you be likely to seek out my advice?

It really is quite simple. Treat people the way you would have them treat you. The rest is static.

Here are a few "Rest of Us World Facts" to consider:

1) The creation, development and continued upgrading of PDGA Player Ratings.
2) The creation, development and continued upgrading of the PDGA Amateur Class Divisional Structure.
3) The creation, development and continued upgrading of the PDGA National Tour.



#1 was initiated by volunteers outside the BOD and practically had to be rammed down the throat of the organization - and to this day has been limited in favor of the existing divisional structure. Credit goes to Chuck/Roger and the other volunteers who have been striving to make this a reality - kudos to them.
#2 - Is all you Nick. Haven't heard any response pro or con from the BOD - can't really comment on what they may or may not think. From what I have seen - any revision to divisional structure needs to incorporate all levels of play - not just Ams. Failing to do so merely mimicks what has been done with the rating system.
#3 - Well - To me the NT highlights what is worst about the competitive divisional structure - the inequities in rewards, and dividing up of the talent pool. So for all the positives sailing us into the potential sponsorship sunset - there is that bothersome anchor being trailed behind.

I have never stated that our organization has a bunch of do nothing volunteers. I support many of the principles and goals of the organization. I appreciate the energy and time spent by people on the BOD, and those outside the BOD that give their time selflessly. The FACT in Craig's Disc Golf World that remains, is that for all that IS being done - there remains one VERY IMPORTANT item that would rather be ignored than dealt with head on. It's been on the table for 12 years now. What do they teach you in history class? Those that fail to learn about and recognize the history of what has come before them, are doomed to repeat it.

The bitter reality is that as long as we continue to play for each others entry fees, there will be no real separation in incentives between the open and protected divisions. Without the protected divisions, many talented golfers that provide a great deal of support to the PDGA system would not still be here. The answer is not the removal of the protected divisions, but the removal of the incentive to play in the protected divisions when the player is competitive in the Open division.

Divisional structure, Competitive venue structure, fee structure and incentives, who can play in what division, at which type of event - are all part of the same package. Can't address one without addressing the others. This is exactly what I'm talking about Gary. I'm not disagreeing with you - only pointing out that people seem to want to address these things as if they are separate and distinct - when I see them as inherently bound together.

Yes I did. I gave it quite a bit of thought.

The thing I don't quite understand is the use of the term Amateur. If all of the age protected and even the Open level at the top of tne Amateur bracket are not allowed to accept any type of performance related payout, I think it goes too far, too fast. I would prefer to see a much deeper and flatter payout for these divisions (or a 60/40 split between player packs and performance payout).



The Amateur Classification is an class dedicated to �amateurs�; such as Civic Groups, Educational Levels, and those competing purely for the joy of playing and competing, with no thought to compensation for performance. I accept that you feel that this goes too far too fast, yet I remain committed to this basic foundational precept of �Amateur Competition�. Amateur competition is either a whole other kettle of fish, dedicated to protecting something completely different and deserving of protection from professional competition or it is not (it is just another protected professional group of divisions).


I assume the multi-colored bracket is for the traditional "AMs" and lower rated Pros of our sport with PRO2 style payouts. Since every one in these divisions are considered "Pros" it makes no difference what the payout is (cash or merch).



Correct.


In the Pro divisions I don't understand the age divisions that do not allow a high rated player to opt for the Open division. As read, required for players with ratings above x would not allow players to play in Open once they reach the age cutoff for a protected division.



Actually they may opt to play up, players are not permitted to play below their rating in Age or Gender protected divisions.


Based on that understanding of the system, I sat down and tried to mentally populate an event with players to see where they would be playing. I guess I will have to add entry fee scales to the divisions to help decide where people would play. It seems to be a combination of the curent divisional system and ratings based systems in one event.



Entry fees are at the discretion of the TD and (or) PDGA standards.


I think that I handle abstract concepts fairly well, but I am at a loss for deciding where I would be playing in this matrix.



Gary Duke #9426
Current Rating: 911
Age: Over 40
Current Class Status: Amateur

Under the proposal you would be eligible to play in the following divisions:
Amateur Class:
Open
Masters

Professional Class:
Open
Masters
Silver
Bronze

I am toying with the idea of players having to earn the right to move up, I believe that would be a good thing in the long run but for now it is just a thought.

Nick all those criticisms would be spot on if I were the governor of Texas. If I were governor, I would not be proud of the fact that people had to shoot me an e-mail to understand my position. Also, if I had never spent the time or effort to articulate my vision and sell it to the populace, I would certainly expect criticism and I would not be surprised if many people weren't in tune with my vision.

Hey, it may be that the Board's position on competition is sound and wise and should be embraced, but since it is never articulated, nor advocated, I don't even know what it is. Kinda hard to embrace nothing.

I've got more on this later but the primary position of the BOD must be economic. The current competitive structure provides a known and very predictable income stream. So, from a practical standpoint, any changes must first survive economic scrutiny. Any misssteps could be disasterous for the organization.

The Board's position on anything, to carry your gubanatorial analogy to its logical conclusion, is like the legislature's intent in any legislation it passes. The Board's position can be inferred from it's decisions. You can read more about the Board's position on issues which have come before it recently by going here: Minutes (http://www.pdga.com/org/boardminutes.php)

I don't want to argue this point with you too much, because I am not comfortable defending less communication over greater communication. What I will say James is that if you have been in any role related to organizing people so that a specific task is completed then you know that explaining in detail why it needs to be done is not always practical or necessary. It simply needs to be done.

I'd like to have a clearer idea of our competitive structures direction myself. I would consider myself pretty plugged in, however not willing to commit on the level of our PDGA BOD members I feel very uncomfortable criticizing them for what I am unwilling to do.

So what is left to do. If I were them, someone who has made a huge life commitment to not only discussing these issues but taking direct action on them at the highest level, how would I want folks interested in helping (whether idea or action wise) to approach me about it?

Would I want them to publicly ream me out about things they only know partial truths about? Or would I like them to offer ideas for my consideration while they take direct action on what is within their power to do? (Really try to put yourself in their place.)

If you all are trying to convince me that our competitive structure needs to be improved, in some major ways, then you should rest easy, cause I need no convincing. The thing is, I tried it Craig's, WWWs, and A Clown's way for a couple years and the truth is, that way does less than any good for anyone (even the complainers tend to get backed into inescapable corners, that they had no intention of getting themselves into � considering they probably on a more primary level DO IN FACT CARE A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE FUTURE OF DISC GOLF); I�ve found that you have to give respect to get it, that you shouldn�t expect bad or you will get it and that folks really are decent particularly when you treat them decently.

Lastly, even though I have what folks probably think are extreme ideas about what needs to be done, overly idealistic, big picture stuff that skips over the stumbling blocks, I present them not so that they will be adopted whole, but to ferment discussion and thought and to plant a couple seeds within the minds of those who actually step up and put something on the line. And I do this with the understanding of my commitment level and it�s place relative to the elevated levels of those I interact with.

Sorry if this comes off as sanctimony, I�m just doing my best to communicate with the tools I�ve got.

The bitter reality is that as long as we continue to play for each others entry fees, there will be no real separation in incentives between the open and protected divisions. Without the protected divisions, many talented golfers that provide a great deal of support to the PDGA system would not still be here. The answer is not the removal of the protected divisions, but the removal of the incentive to play in the protected divisions when the player is competitive in the Open division.



This is exactly correct.

I've got more on this later but the primary position of the BOD must be economic. The current competitive structure provides a known and very predictable income stream. So, from a practical standpoint, any changes must first survive economic scrutiny. Any misssteps could be disasterous for the organization.



This is exactly correct.

Hey Bruce,

I'm assuming that you are posting as a PDGA member as opposed to a board member.



I thought Bruce is a PDGA member and a member of the PDGA Board of Directors all the time simultaneously. I didn't realize it was like two different personalities that he could turn on and off at will.

Hey Bruce,

I'm assuming that you are posting as a PDGA member as opposed to a board member.



I thought Bruce is a PDGA member and a member of the PDGA Board of Directors all the time simultaneously. I didn't realize it was like two different personalities that he could turn on and off at will.



One is pure evil, the other a saint! :D ;) :(

Chuck, thanks for a glimpse into a factor that I had never considered. Now, provide many more glimpses and tie them together and a positive discussion would occur. It might help everyone if all board members articulated their views in a public record. I would then see see this issue from the board's point of view. Who knows, I might even agree. :eek:

Bruce, I was hoping for more. Much more actually. In the political realm, I can see policy statements, papers, OPEN DEBATES, hearings, advertising, etc.. All of these vehicles are used to get out the message, sell the vision, identify problems and show the populace that listening to them or convincing them is a priority. It's good for all involved. Are there any minutes related to the issues we are discussing? Are there any records of official positions on these issues?

Nick, everyone in every aspect of life is involved in these activities. It's about the steps the mind goes thru to achieve a goal. On an organizational level, it is more complex because you must also sell the goal and remain accountable to others who may not share your vision. It's not deep or complicated.

Case in point - there's Bruce Brakel saying we need ANOTHER AM DIVISION between Advanced and Open. If there are influential organizers out there that believe in that concept - I have no interest in trying to convince them of something 180 degrees from their line of thinking.



You'll have to show me where Bruce said that. I see a few posts back where Bruce asked the question "Would an amateur division above advanced help with this?" He didn't say we need one. I think he was asking the question in order to open some discussion on the matter. If you want the BoD to listen to you, you might start with listening to them.

I've got more on this later but the primary position of the BOD must be economic. The current competitive structure provides a known and very predictable income stream. So, from a practical standpoint, any changes must first survive economic scrutiny. Any missteps could be disastrous for the organization.



Its funny how easy it is to miss the obvious. :D This then is consistent with a slow approach to modifications, i.e. introduction of Pro 2 to address the loss of members issue, as opposed to radical reform.

Although it is not incumbent on the board to do so, and given that their time is limited, nonetheless, it would be great to see a document outlining their intent on the issues of competitive structure and changes thereof.

Also, I have always assumed that a change in the competitive structure to encompass Nick�s ideas would result in higher numbers of participants and hence a higher revenue stream. What are the counter arguments to that idea? Is it simply that we don't know what the outcome would be?

I assummed he had two hats, a baseball cap for when he is a player, and a pope hat for when he is speaking on behalf of the board. :D

You'll have to show me where Bruce said that. I see a few posts back where Bruce asked the question "Would an amateur division above advanced help with this?" He didn't say we need one. I think he was asking the question in order to open some discussion on the matter. If you want the BoD to listen to you, you might start with listening to them.



I guess I surmised from his question that he considered it a plausible alternative. Which is in fact 180 degrees in the opposite direction of where I think we should be headed (which is what I said). My part in this discussion has been about how the divisional structure is flawed - and I have been a proponent of reducing the overall number of divisions. So when Bruce suggested that adding another division might help - I took it to mean that reducing divisions is not within (or maybe not yet) the realm of his consideration.

Was I hasty in drawing this conclusion? Perhaps - but I don't think so. Your comment about listening is a two way street.

Didn't the PDGA try to move a new Divisional Structure this past winter? It broke the ams into more divisions based on ratings. I remember an Expert division being added. Whatever happened to this and why was it canned?

You'll have to show me where Bruce said that. I see a few posts back where Bruce asked the question "Would an amateur division above advanced help with this?" He didn't say we need one. I think he was asking the question in order to open some discussion on the matter. If you want the BoD to listen to you, you might start with listening to them.



I guess I surmised from his question that he considered it a plausible alternative. Which is in fact 180 degrees in the opposite direction of where I think we should be headed (which is what I said). My part in this discussion has been about how the divisional structure is flawed - and I have been a proponent of reducing the overall number of divisions. So when Bruce suggested that adding another division might help - I took it to mean that reducing divisions is not within (or maybe not yet) the realm of his consideration.

Was I hasty in drawing this conclusion? Perhaps - but I don't think so. Your comment about listening is a two way street.



It is a two way street, but you just did it again. Bruce just asked a question. It was not a suggestion. It seemed to be a spring board for conversation. If you are going to repeat what some says, maybe you should just actually quote them rather than make up what you think they might have meant.

I have a question for Craig.

How would you address the question of player retention by reducing the number of divisions available for play ?

Could the same results you are trying to attain be reached by changing the incentinve structure of the current system such that players that are seeking financial returns are left with only one viable option ?

This would allow those less interested in financial gain the opportunity to compete in divisions where they feel competitive, and still increase the size of the fields where players are competing for prizes.

It is a two way street, but you just did it again. Bruce just asked a question. It was not a suggestion. It seemed to be a spring board for conversation. If you are going to repeat what some says, maybe you should just actually quote them rather than make up what you think they might have meant.



Just to appease you Jon - I went back and read very carefully what Bruce said. He very definitely asked a question - and in doing so was offering a potential solution to a piece of the perceived problem with the divisional structure.

His comment was offered as a suggestion, in question form. Why you're jumping to your brothers defense on this is beyond me. My comment was not an attack on Bruce. It was merely an illustration of differing attitudes held towards the divisional structure, and why I don't wish to be involved on the organizational level. My opinions are too far apart from (at least some of ) those currently on the BOD. Bruce's comment (question/suggestion - whatever you wish to call it) illustrates the line of thinking that so many people revert to as an easy solution - that is adding a division (another example is Pro2 - adds a division without deleting another parallel one).

I stand by the premise that the divisional structure in place now has too many divisions, and they have an undesirable amount of overlap in actual, measurable skill level - and that changing that condition should be a priority of the organization. Currently it is not (or at least does not appear to be.)

Making this sort of comment is not bashing anyone who is a part of the BOD - merely a statement of what I believe to be a fact (it is not a current priority). The divisional issue has been batted about now for over a decade - and it is my opinion that the folks who volunteer for the current or any future assemblage that will make up the BOD should be reminded again and again of this lingering issue, until some attempt to resolve it is made. Are you listening?

I had trouble with your assertion that you weren't being listened to when it seemed that you weren't listening either. I accept your post above as proof that you have now actually read the post. I have a tendency to jump out and post about any post that doesn't make logical sense to me or is just plain incorrect. Your original post was incorrectly quoting someone (who happens to be my brother). But I didn't think you were attacking anyone, I just thought you were being a bit deceptive. If my brother is attacked on this board I would probably defend him. If not me, then who would? Ok, MAYBE Terry, but even that might be iffy. :D

The evolution of the PDGA Competition system is not based on some master plan to get from A to B, but a process that solves problems to meet member needs along the way. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. If a problem is either observed by the Board or can be identified by input and analysis from the membership, then action might be taken. Examples are:

(1) The revised points system where HQ now has an easier task tracking points when they are all added together rather than maintain separate totals for each division a player enters in a year.
(2) Using ratings to identify break lines between divisions which had been lacking since the original am division was broken into levels with no means to identify where a player should play or when to move up.
(3) PDGA needs more revenue so player fees were raised in higher tiers with the expectation participation would not drop off.
(4) The new amateur plan for 2003 reduced divisions with only an over 39 division for non-Majors but GMs revolted by not playing or TDs ignored rules. So PDGA reneged and now Adv GM is back in 2004 even though few states have more than a handful.
(5) The Pro 2 option for 2005 was a last minute change with the intent to deal with the perceived problem of attrition from pros of all ages who either shouldn't have gone pro or whose skills are not at the top competitive level but still wish to play but either won't apply for am reinstatement or wouldn't get approved. This intiative was half baked in my view (including the name) and could have been done better, such as disallowing Master and Adv divisions when Pro 2 was offered. But it was at least an attempt toward resolving this multiple division skill overlap problem.

My point is that if you can identify a competition problem with a solution that is pretty certain to either improve PDGA revenues or not reduce revenues, then there's a chance that new patch to the system might be tried. At minimum for next year, I feel the Pro 2 initiative needs to be tweaked to define the rules for use a little better. As a GM pro, I have few local people in my division and not many more in Master Pro but 5-10 times as many players at my rating level in Advanced playing for larger prize values than the cash I can win from my buddies with higher entry fees. Who are the 'pros' here? I dropped from playing 21 events and hosting 6 last year to playing in 4 this year (plus Worlds) and hosting 1. I plan to continue low participation until I can either play with or in Advanced or Pro 2 in non-Majors and still retain eligibility for GM Pro at A-tier or higher when there are enough for a division. Maybe players like me aren't important enough to retain for the revenues we provide. But I plan to make my case with some possible solutions that might be acceptable to the Board.

I'm responding to Gangloff and Jon here.

I once was skeptical of Nick's characterization of our process as "move up, move up, move out." When the PDGA half adopted the Pro 2 concept I looked at the membership data and saw that Nick was right on. I could easily identify a dozen players in my region who went pro around 950 when they were at the top of advanced, and then quit competing on a regular basis. So now I take this premise from Nick as fact.

I have no problem with a system that has fewer divisions. I'm helping out with an R-tier in September. Seven divisions are pretty tidy and they cover the spectrum from Open Pro to Double Sub-Recreational, except that Super-Advanced has to donate or turn pro.

I do have a problem with a system that does not have a place for a whole group of avid players, whether those players are Men Sub-Recreational or Men Super-Advanced.

It is an undeniable fact that 950-960 rated advanced players get a lot of pressure put on them to turn pro. [So do 930+ rated Am Masters, which is why so many of us play Advanced in Michigan!] I think the data show that many of these players are as good as they will ever get, and will not continue to play if they are forced to donate to the pro ranks.

Meanwhile, my question was a question. Do we need a division above advanced to keep these players in the game? Are they going to go pro and then give up no matter what we do? If we had a 955+ Expert Amateur division, for example, could we retain more of these players? Is there a better solution?

I don't see how it hurts the top pros. Those guys are quitting after a year or two under the current system and you never get their money after that. Keep them in the game and at half to 9/10ths of all the tournaments, half of their entry fee will come back to you as "added cash" via the magic of the added cash fairy.

I think what I'm saying, and I have had trouble getting here because it kills me to agree with Nick on anything, :), I don't think we should have a format that tells someone, "You are too good to be an amateur. Go pro, get lost, or do both in that order." Nor should we have a format that creates a culture that pushes to the same effect.

Pro2 needs a chance to work. Keeping it optional won't accomplish that. We haven't had a single event in NorCal where Pro2 has been offered. I'd make a bet that most TD's glossed over that section in the TD information package.

I would love to see a name change as well. I never understood Pro2. Is that like..."Pro - The Sequel"? What's wrong with Semi-Pro?

Pro2 needs a chance to work. Keeping it optional won't accomplish that. We haven't had a single event in NorCal where Pro2 has been offered. I'd make a bet that most TD's glossed over that section in the TD information package.

I would love to see a name change as well. I never understood Pro2. Is that like..."Pro - The Sequel"? What's wrong with Semi-Pro?



I can't speak for what most TDs read or thought about. I can speak for the few I know who did read it and did think about it. Pro 2 in lieu of Advanced does not work for TDs, nor for the Open Pros who regularly get cash from the added cash fairy. TDs make most of their profit on the Advanced division. The added cash fairy gets most of her spare cash from the advanced amateur division, and when that division takes cash instead of prizes under a different name, the added cash dries up.

Pro 2 works fine for Jon, Brett and I because we have made a philosophical decision not to add cash to the pros until we have genuine sponsor added cash. We pay out the ams 140-150% and give the pros their money back.

I agree that Pro 2 won't get implemented if it remains optional. If it becomes a division in lieu of Advanced, the open pros will hunt it down and kill it.

the open pros will hunt it down and kill it.



Because so many of them are on the BOD and volunteers???

Hi Bruce


I once was skeptical of Nick's characterization of our process as "move up, move up, move out." When the PDGA half adopted the Pro 2 concept I looked at the membership data and saw that Nick was right on. I could easily identify a dozen players in my region who went pro around 950 when they were at the top of advanced, and then quit competing on a regular basis. So now I take this premise from Nick as fact.



Before you accept that premise as fact, :)

Might it be possible that an equal or greater number of lower rated players had the same experience? I would suggest that if you have good access to membership numbers, you might look at overall membership turnover (within ratings groups if you like), and I would guess that there is significant turnover every year in all divisions. And that on average, the people who renew most often, are also those that have been in over 5 years. My point is..............that people who discover this game don't quit because they can't win, they quit because there are other things in peoples lives that are more important than disc golf. It really is that simple.

I have no problem with a system that has fewer divisions. I'm helping out with an R-tier in September. Seven divisions are pretty tidy and they cover the spectrum from Open Pro to Double Sub-Recreational, except that Super-Advanced has to donate or turn pro.


Just curious - but how many players do you expect? Are we talking full course at 90 players? Or is it a local deal drawing 50-60 people? The reason I ask is when you take 60 people and divide by seven - you're averaging less than 9 players per. Is there really that much need for so many "winners"? Is there not some measurable overlap in skill level that would allow for more players to play as a group? I'd be curious to know how many divisions out of seven you actually get players in.

I do have a problem with a system that does not have a place for a whole group of avid players, whether those players are Men Sub-Recreational or Men Super-Advanced.



Could you elaborate on that a bit? Can you imagine a system that would EXCLUDE anybody (entirely)? Or do you really mean an event that would not cater to all? Or are you talking about taking away a higher percentage chance to win?
Your statement could be interpreted in a wide variety of ways.

It is an undeniable fact that 950-960 rated advanced players get a lot of pressure put on them to turn pro. [So do 930+ rated Am Masters, which is why so many of us play Advanced in Michigan!] I think the data show that many of these players are as good as they will ever get, and will not continue to play if they are forced to donate to the pro ranks.



I did a little statistical investigation earlier this year. Took a look at the average range of ratings in the open division, lowest ratings earning cash in open, # of 1000+ rated players at tournaments - stuff like that. What I found out was - that at a majority of B and C tier events (which I believe outnumber all other tiers on the schedule) there are seldom more than 1 1000+ rated players. There is almost always at least one open player rated under 920. The average lowest rated player to take cash is in the 930-940 range.

Meanwhile, my question was a question. Do we need a division above advanced to keep these players in the game? Are they going to go pro and then give up no matter what we do? If we had a 955+ Expert Amateur division, for example, could we retain more of these players? Is there a better solution?


Maybe we need a different way to offer competition. Because all events on the schedule (or 99% of them) are all straight up singles - there is this pervasive attitude about needing categories - because it's not fair if Barry beats me by 10 strokes every round. Fine - OK - nobody likes to lose - but when you get to the point of dividing 60-80-100 people up into groups of 10 - it's just a little........extreme?!
If the top 3 competitive divisions all played together, the players that occupy that last open cash spot - would all of a sudden be playing middle pack or a little higher, just as many masters would cash as do now - but the 1st place master performance wouldn't be awarded $300 more than 2nd place open who beat him by 6 strokes - top advanced would be middle pack in the cash - and those guys you think will never get any better than 950? - They'll be playing with better players on average - and learn and develop their games further than you give them credit for. The point is not about exactly who would be where -but about a straight up equitable reward for comparative score. This is the essence of competition. It's not hard to see this for yourself. Take any local tournament results you want and combine all the scores without division - and see how much overlap there is between what would otherwise be separate divisions.

I don't see how it hurts the top pros. Those guys are quitting after a year or two under the current system and you never get their money after that. Keep them in the game and at half to 9/10ths of all the tournaments, half of their entry fee will come back to you as "added cash" via the magic of the added cash fairy.



whoa buddy :) lost me on that one

I think what I'm saying, and I have had trouble getting here because it kills me to agree with Nick on anything, :), I don't think we should have a format that tells someone, "You are too good to be an amateur. Go pro, get lost, or do both in that order." Nor should we have a format that creates a culture that pushes to the same effect.


We should have a system that offers venues where all the categories you hope to offer can compete. But ALL events don't have to fit that description. Events/tiers/sanctioning can offer much more variety in "who is being catered to" than what we have currently. And they can be structured in a way that eliminates the inequitable award system we have currently. It's rally a matter of convincing individual TD's to become an active element of a multi-faceted mechanism - instead of an identical cog on a single gear. Therein lies the problem - people like to do their own thing - and don't like to be told what to do.

Just curious - but how many players do you expect? Are we talking full course at 90 players? Or is it a local deal drawing 50-60 people? The reason I ask is when you take 60 people and divide by seven - you're averaging less than 9 players per.

It does not go by averages but by the bell curve distribution of player skill levels.

I hope we will draw the same numbers as our series has been getting, about 80-100 players. Given what we have been drawing, I'd expect 10-15 Gold, 15-20 Silver, and 20-25 Bronze. We might get more because there is less going on in Wisconsin and Northern Indiana that weekend than on our other weekends this summer. We might get less because it is a new concept. At the other R-tier I went to this year, the concept seemed to bring out a lot of well informed Bronze players who felt like they could play Bronze but not feel like they were bagging in a no-skill Saturday division.

I have no idea what we'll get in the White, Red, Purple and Brown divisions. [Are those the right colors? I'm color blind. I might be thinking of Shoto-kan belts here!] The metallic rated players seem to have a better sense of what is going on, but that might work either way. We could have a lot of rec and intermediate players showing up completely clueless that it is an R-tier, but who have finally caught on that we are running these tournaments for them. Cluelessness reigned at that other R-tier.

As to the added cash fairy, I've never been able to explain that to you. I've tried before. I remember. Jon remembers.

It is like when my little sister wanted me to tell her the real truth about Santa Claus because she had heard a rumor at school that there was no Santa Claus. When I got done she said, "O.k., he is not real. I get that. But he IS bringing presents on Christmas, right?"

White, Red, Purple and Brown



White, Red, Green and Purple

I hope we will draw the same numbers as our series has been getting, about 80-100 players. Given what we have been drawing, I'd expect 10-15 Gold, 15-20 Silver, and 20-25 Bronze. We might get more because there is less going on in Wisconsin and Northern Indiana that weekend than on our other weekends this summer. We might get less because it is a new concept. At the other R-tier I went to this year, the concept seemed to bring out a lot of well informed Bronze players who felt like they could play Bronze but not feel like they were bagging in a no-skill Saturday division.


So in essence - you expect to populate three competitive divisions, and semi-populate a couple rec/novice type divisions? Where are you setting your ratings breaks? I'd be interested to hear/see the results from your event. From some of the RTier events I've seen in the MADC region - ratings breaks for gold have been set anywhere from 940-960 - all of which have been fairly well received by the players. I have noted that when TD's set gold at a higher level - there are similar inequities in rewards (at least in relation to score) to what we see now between Open/Masters.

Didn't the PDGA try to move a new Divisional Structure this past winter? It broke the ams into more divisions based on ratings. I remember an Expert division being added. Whatever happened to this and why was it canned?



You are thinking of the beta version of the PDGA Am Plan. It was changed to it's current form after the PDGA Ratings Committee ran it by a group of top PDGA Tournament Directors and got their more practical input.

Gary, pardon my interruption:


How would you address the question of player retention by reducing the number of divisions available for play?



This question is a bit of a trap under our historical idea of �move up, move up, move out� competitive structure, because it is fundamentally assumed that folks will only participate if they have a good chance of getting other players cash or their cash in the form of prizes. So to answer your question under that understanding is to be trapped into the only possible answer available: There will be fewer players because there will be fewer divisions in which a greater variety of skill can win cash or junk.

Craig has offered the following logic concerning this and under our current system and understanding of competition: If there are fewer divisions, there will still be the same amount of winners, they will simply be the better players in larger divisions and not what are currently below mediocre in mediocre divisions. (I�ll let him elaborate if he wants.)


Could the same results you are trying to attain be reached by changing the incentive structure of the current system such that players that are seeking financial returns are left with only one viable option? This would allow those less interested in financial gain the opportunity to compete in divisions where they feel competitive, and still increase the size of the fields where players are competing for prizes.



If I get your meaning, that only the Open division can win cash, I do not think it would work under our current structure and understanding of competition because too many Masters and Grand Masters enjoy having their protected gambling pools. They are willing to face an occasional sandbagger or two so long as they don�t have to throw their money at 17 to 28 year olds.

Now what I propose for your consideration is the following:

A QUANTUM SHIFT IN THE VERY MOTIVATION TO COMPETE.

What does that mean? Well, similar to Terry C�s idea concerning the �right� kind of members to attract, we need a competitive structure that attracts the �right� kind of competitor. The PDGA needs members who have a greater motivation to give than to take (this is true of all volunteer organizations). Folks not looking at their DGWN mags, Rule Book, Membership Card, Fees saved at PDGA events and calculating whether or not they are getting their individual moneys worth; but folks who look at those �things and stuff� as pure gravy on top of the services rendered to the sport on their behalf. That membership is a form of minimal action volunteerism (can�t do the work, support those who can�).

So what is the �right� kind of competitor for PDGA events? Folks that show up and immediately note that the event is understaffed at sign in, standing by tournament central watching who signs up for Open and Masters before deciding which division they want to play, that note that first round started 3 minutes late, that there was no free lunch, that base their enjoyment of the event and their play purely on whether they cash or not, and who just cannot help themselves but whine and biatch the whole time about everything? Or do we want folks that show up looking to see how they can help out, play for fun and camaraderie, and view any added value as just that � a bonus and who have and express an appreciation for the organizers, event, place and participants in everything they do?

Now just imagine if there were an entire Competitive Classification for these sorts of �right� members/competitors, with there own divisions and events! Where entry fees were considered �entry fees� rather than �bets�; where the expectation was that the participation fee was a good deal, not because the winner won $2000 or 5 DG Baskets, but because they just 100% knew that they were a part of a terrific event, on a terrific course, run by terrific organizers, with other terrific players and governed by a terrific worldwide organization!

Sure, these folks exist here and there among current members and participants, but the straight up truth is that we simply DO NOT HAVE A DIVISION YET ALONE A CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR THESE TYPES OF PLAYERS AND COMPETITIONS. They are round players smooshed into square divisions. I call these players �Amateurs�.

So what am I saying with all of this? I am saying that our current competitive structure has brought us as far as it possibly can. That there is no way to further break up our pools of players to effect a (kind of fake) sense of accomplishment for participants in ever increasing numbers of protected divisions. It is a dead end and the only way to breakdown and through that dead end wall is to create an entirely new competitive option.

I know that it is a natural tendency of folks raise in our current competitive system to view such a classification and the divisions therein as a threat to their payouts and stuff they go to events to profit from. But the truth is that though in the EXTREMELY short run a few folks from their non-amateur division might run for the cover and comfort of a classification dedicated to their needs as competitors, that this pool of players has historically been where all players generally enter a sport (particularly if our goal is organized educational institutional competitions, which I believe it rightly is) and that there will be that mush larger of a pool of players that �may choose to turn pro� down the road, thereby strengthening the pro classification and increasing the stuff and cash pros will play for in the long run.

There simply is NO WAY that our current competitive structure can be tweaked, or band-aided, to effectively address this primarily �motivation-based� dilemma we face as a sport.

A NEW OPTION IS NEEDED , that option is the creation, introduction and nurturing of an Amateur Class.

Again, pardon the interruption.

Nick, great comments.

I totally agree with you about the midset from alot of golfers concerning competition. They don't come to compete, they come to make money.

Here is a simple litmus test for this type of player. What would your response be if you played well at a tournament but didn't cash.
Are you angry that you didn't cash or are you satisfied that you competed well, it just wasn't enough this weekend?

This isn't proof positive but it might help to uncover some motives for playing that are hidden deep inside.

Once again, well said Nick.

There simply is NO WAY that our current competitive structure can be tweaked, or band-aided, to effectively address this primarily �motivation-based� dilemma we face as a sport.



This "motivation-based dilemna" is an effect of the system created by the PDGA, not the cause. The current system is tailored to bring out these motivations. Change the system, the motivations will change.

I agree that true amateurism is needed, but to describe it as some radical undertaking is making way too much of the actions needed to fix it. This problem could be fixed in one board meeting. It merely takes a willingness to do so.

The harder problem is the professional structure. A more complex problem, but recognition by the board and actual attention applied to the issue would be a useful start.

[QUOTE]
There simply is NO WAY that our current competitive structure can be tweaked, or band-aided, to effectively address this primarily �motivation-based� dilemma we face as a sport.




This "motivation-based dilemna" is an effect of the system created by the PDGA, not the cause. The current system is tailored to bring out these motivations. Change the system, the motivations will change.



I�m not sure that this can be blamed on the PDGA, it has been developed and become entrench slowly and over time. But yes, changing the system will certainly have, what I think will be, a positive effect on participants motivations at PDGA events.


I agree that true amateurism is needed, but to describe it as some radical undertaking is making way too much of the actions needed to fix it. This problem could be fixed in one board meeting. It merely takes a willingness to do so.



That is kind of like looking at a Picasso painting and saying, �Chyah! I could do that!�

A. Being compelled and having the know-how to paint it are a radical undertaking. They are pure magic. Taking nothingness and converting it to something ness.
B. You didn�t.


The harder problem is the professional structure. A more complex problem, but recognition by the board and actual attention applied to the issue would be a useful start.



I don�t agree. With far greater numbers of players will come sponsorship and instead of having to force a �contrived� entry fee (bet)/ payout (winning ticket) structure one will arise naturally. This is straight from the ramblings of good ol� Randy Wimm. Tinkering with the pro class divisional structure will remain ineffective as long as no alternative competitive option is available and our sport remains outside mainstream understanding and acceptance.

Chuck: The color vision people have the colors correct on the flyer. I'm likely to run off tan leaderboard cards for the green division, but they expect that!

Craig asked:
So in essence - you expect to populate three competitive divisions, and semi-populate a couple rec/novice type divisions? Where are you setting your ratings breaks? I'd be interested to hear/see the results from your event.


It is PDGA sanctioned. We are going with the PDGA R-tier breaks. I would expect decent numbers for the top five divisions. We have not had a lot of Purple and Green rated players at our summer series but we have had some.

For those purple and green rated players out there, we will have a volunteer [me] at the event with results from other northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin events helping the unrated players to find their proper division. First time adult male tournament players will be directed towards the white and red divisions unless they can make a compelling case that they belong in a lower division. For example, we'll ask a guy what he normally shoots and if he says "+6 at Fairfield," we'll look at the ratings and see that +6 is an 838 round and that guy will be directed toward Red rather than Green or Purple.

What is this Picasso talk? :D

You keep making it out to be a mojor intellectual or creative undertaking. It is not. All it takes is willingness to do so, sell the reasons for decision and take the heat for the decisions. Leadership.

Board member #1 "We ought to create true amateur divisions"

Board member #2 "Oh, why don't we just have flat payouts."

Board members #3, #4, #5 etc. "Yeah, we agree. That would create a true amateur division."

This is admittedly a simplified description, and I am aware that there could be ripple effects that concern the PDGA (ie money stream, other ones). However, if it was decided that it was necessary for the sport. It is not difficult to do.

No freakin Picassos needed. It's almost painting by numbers.

However, if it was decided that it was necessary for the sport. It is not difficult to do.



As our current condition so clearly indicates this simply is not true. It is obviously a very excruciating decision to make.

But I do agree with you that once made things will be "add water" simple.

I don�t agree. With far greater numbers of players will come sponsorship and instead of having to force a �contrived� entry fee (bet)/ payout (winning ticket) structure one will arise naturally. This is straight from the ramblings of good ol� Randy Wimm. Tinkering with the pro class divisional structure will remain ineffective as long as no alternative competitive option is available and our sport remains outside mainstream understanding and acceptance.



Tinkering w/ the pro class won't do a thing. Revamping the Am class won't either. ONLY IF you approach the ENTIRE competitive system and divisional structure - will you have a chance to make these issues go away. You can't do one without the other. So while I appreciate your energy and drive for providing a "true" Am class Nick - approaching the systemic problems we have for one half will only highlight the severity of the problems we have in the other. Sort of like only applying ratings to Am divisions - sort of leaves a whole lotta people out of the equation - and makes implementing the system more daunting and problematic.

I don�t agree. With far greater numbers of players will come sponsorship and instead of having to force a �contrived� entry fee (bet)/ payout (winning ticket) structure one will arise naturally. This is straight from the ramblings of good ol� Randy Wimm. Tinkering with the pro class divisional structure will remain ineffective as long as no alternative competitive option is available and our sport remains outside mainstream understanding and acceptance.



Tinkering w/ the pro class won't do a thing. Revamping the Am class won't either. ONLY IF you approach the ENTIRE competitive system and divisional structure - will you have a chance to make these issues go away. You can't do one without the other. So while I appreciate your energy and drive for providing a "true" Am class Nick - approaching the systemic problems we have for one half will only highlight the severity of the problems we have in the other. Sort of like only applying ratings to Am divisions - sort of leaves a whole lotta people out of the equation - and makes implementing the system more daunting and problematic.



What you say would be correct if an amateur class existed. But it does not. Instead we have just a mish mash of various professional divisions all fighting for the same pool of players, sponsorship and attention. We are only �One Half� an organization.

Note: I am not talking about �revamping� the amateur class at all. Life for most of those players would remain unaltered. I am talking about �creating� an amateur class.

I think its pretty unanimous that everyone on here believes that a change is needed. So why don't we work together and come up with a structure that we could present the BOD? It has to start with us (PDGA members). If enough of us say we want change...change will happen. I believe that if we could get a structure made up, and say we take it around to different tournaments and have players sign a petition, we can get something accomplished.

I went ahead and took a stab at a structure. I basically combined Nicks (http://www.madisc.org/05DivProp.html) with the PDGA R-Tier (http://www.pdga.com/competition/ratings/TD2004ratingseventguide.pdf) structure. Tell me what you think. Click here. (http://www.oskydiscgolf.com/TourStructure.htm)

Before the usual suspects show up and start throwing tomatos (because that is all they know to do), I want to say, TJ, that this looks very promising. I'll take a longer look at it, but it has some very interesting elements.

Why are the top groups taking $$ from the groups below them? Do you think Grandmasters are going to be happy that a % of their fees are going directly to the Masters pool? Why, because they were born later?

Do you need a <850 pool for 'Pro'? To me that is one of the most glaring flaws, too many 'Pro' divisions. At best there should be maybe 2 - 'Pro' (<950) and 'SuperPro' (>950). Different breaks for women (or none at all due to the lack thereof).

Most important of all, what's in it for the TD? How does he or she make their $$?

Why are the top groups taking $$ from the groups below them? Do you think Grandmasters are going to be happy that a % of their fees are going directly to the Masters pool? Why, because they were born later?

Do you need a <850 pool for 'Pro'? To me that is one of the most glaring flaws, too many 'Pro' divisions. At best there should be maybe 2 - 'Pro' (<950) and 'SuperPro' (>950). Different breaks for women (or none at all due to the lack thereof).

Most important of all, what's in it for the TD? How does he or she make their $$?



You should present a plan of your own before commenting. It might give you some insight into what is involved.

Most important of all, what's in it for the TD? How does he or she make their $$?



A lot of TDs don't make any money running tournaments. But I suppose that's part of the problem, too.

Bugger off Nick. TJ presented a plan and Dan is commenting. That's the way it works. :D

TJ, I LOVE IT. But I think Dan is right about the Pro divisions. Just have 2. Then for many tournaments, you could run the Pro and Senior tours at the same time. Just put a max rating on the Senior divisions so you don't get the same overlap in skill that we have now. :cool::) For Senior only events, the cap wouldn't be in play. That's not so hard.

Dan, I think the point of the low rated Pro divisions is to mimic what we have today. Because that's pretty much what we have today. :cool:/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I think stealing money from SemiPro is fine, and I don't mind taking from old people too, but you could maybe give that up if it's an issue.

And I think TD's should make money too. But the current sanctioning agreement barely allows it. :confused: Get rid of the 100% payback and lower it some, but maybe that would be Stage 2. :) :o

Now this is what i'm talking about. Keep the comments coming. I'll take all of them into account and work on version 1.2.

The reason behind taking money and giving it to the Gold, Violet and Master is to make more incentive to play there. Say your rating is 920. Would you rather play Bronze for 2/3 of your money back or Silver for 3/4? Perhaps I have the percentages a little high. That is the type of feedback I want.

This structure is pretty much what we have now, but focused more on ratings. You can think of Gold, Silver and Bronze as today's Pro and Advanced. The difference is that instead of playing for plastic, the advanced players are playing for cash, just not as much as the top players.

Does there really need to be more divisions for the women? In the future, if a lot more women start playing, than yes, more divisions need to be added. Outside of Majors and Supertours, how many tournaments have more than 10 women play? I personally think the unisex amateur divison would be pretty fun. (To the ladies, not the men they beat.) They are just out there for the fun of being out there, and it's broken down by skill level so it's an equal playing field. I'd only charge maybe $10 to play in Amateur, no prizes, just trophy and players pack.

There is still the White and Red divisons to prize out to. Then there would still be 'cut' for the TD. Like 10-15%.

Thanks for the comments so far. Keep 'em commin.

I also agree with Dan that there may be too many "Pro" divisions in the proposal. Two may be sufficient...Open and < 940.

I do think the percentage of the protected division going to the open division is a good idea. If you want to be protected from the "SuperPros", then you should pay for the privilege. That's not unlike what many TDs do now with the Advanced division...adding the "profit" from the prizes to the Pro purse. At least in TJ's model, it's plain as day where the money goes.

As for TDs making money, I don't see why building in a $2-3 per player fee for use at the TD's discretion would be out of line. If he/she chooses to pocket it, fine. If he/she defrays costs with it, fine. If he/she chooses to not charge it or roll it into payouts, fine. It would likely amount to a nominal payday for the TD, but at least it is something, and it is NOT a losing venture to run a tournament. And they still have the option of selling plastic on the side to interested parties (rather than selling to the captive audience that is our current Am structure).

I imagine a whole new crop of prospective TDs will emerge, eager to get a bit of that money. Not to mention some disenfranchised TDs may return with the notion that their tournaments won't be an automatic loss of money. More TDs mean more events, which in turn will force the committed TDs to bust their butts to run first-class events that will attract players (ie. boost their return). Best way to improve quality is to increase competition. It's capitalism at its finest.

--Josh

Only looked briefly, but I do have a comment or two.

The issue of taking from lower rated divisions to support upper rated ones will have difficulty getting support. I have seen mentioned the idea of a sliding entry fee scale based on ratings. Incorporating that idea might help.

Next thing - and this is a whole other problem, is that just dealing with divisions doesn't solve the whole problem. We need to also approach the tiered system and how it's structured - to offer what we currently call "protected" divisions - a place to play that doesn't always pit them against the top dogs. Something akin to Am only events, Masters only events, etc - except base it on ratings. In doing this though - some thought has to be given to current distribution of lower tier events now - with a recommendation for how to manage/promote quotas or equitable distribution of events in each region (i.e. you don't want a certain type of event to be either unavailable or dominant in any one place). The idea behind this is to be able to offer multiple competitive options for the various skill levels out there. If a local top dog isn't such a top dog when he travels 3 hrs from home - do we force him to stay home on the porch? Or do we provide a different kind of venue where he'll still play?

Thanks TJ - I like your attitude :)

Why are the top groups taking $$ from the groups below them? Do you think Grandmasters are going to be happy that a % of their fees are going directly to the Masters pool? Why, because they were born later?

Do you need a <850 pool for 'Pro'? To me that is one of the most glaring flaws, too many 'Pro' divisions. At best there should be maybe 2 - 'Pro' (<950) and 'SuperPro' (>950). Different breaks for women (or none at all due to the lack thereof).

Most important of all, what's in it for the TD? How does he or she make their $$?



You should present a plan of your own before commenting. It might give you some insight into what is involved.



That's funny. About what I expected, though. Should the same be said to you on the Presidential Election thread?

Since Nick likes to spew the 'True Am Class' speech at every opportunity, I'll spew my 'we should make it like poker tournaments' speech again.

Allow TDs to charge a nominal fee per entrant. Disclose the fee upfront. Don't use the 'claim retail but pay wholesale' for plastic scheme to compensate the TD. TDs could then be able to support a 'trophies only' AM division without working for free.

Sample Tourney:

Pro - $50 + $5 (50 to prize pool, 5 to TD)
Am - $10 + $5 (10 to prize pool, 5 to TD)
Juniors - $5 (no fee)

Even an average B tier could have 25 'Pros', 40 AMs, and 5 Juniors. You'd have $1250 in the prize pool for the Pros (plus sponsor cash, etc.), and $425 for AM and Junior trophies/ribbons/whatever, minus misc. expenses. I don't think the AMs would mind the expenses being taken out of their fund since it's going to be so cheap for them to participate.

In the above scenario, the TD would put a minimum of $350 in their pocket for their time and effort. If they are a vendor then disc sales would be gravy (as it always is).

Hey Dan - Don't bother arguing with Nick. Your idea only addresses a piece of what is necessary to address. An entry fee structure is one piece of the puzzle - what thoughts do you have about the others?

The PDGA already provides for a "TD Fee", I couldn't find the exact wording but it was about 15% of the total purse. I agree that TDs need to start not donating this to the event unless it is a minimum type of event with no added cash, and even then the amount of work done just day of probably deserves the 15%.

So which would be better? More pro divisions where players can win prizes? Or more am divisions where players pay a flat rate ($10?) and only play for trophies? Now that I'm thinking about it, I think 3 Pro divisions would be sufficient. Say an <900 for the more competitive Intervanced players, and a fourth division for amateur.

I think we need 2 Pro divisions, but with a break lower than the current Pro2 960 number. 950 or 940 maybe. I know quite a few guys that are in that range (Pro with ratings below 950) that don't play much anymore because they can't compete and can't move back to AM (or don't want to move back to AM). A couple have the skills to move their rating up with more playing time, but it's a catch-22 - their rating won't go up if they don't play any tourneys.

All AM divisions should be ratings limited. Those numbers will need to fluctuate by region, tho, and I don't know if everyone will understand that.

The AM divisions will also need to lose the huge prize payouts we have now, and my fee structure/TD incentive could solve the possible TD revolt if we did that.

The only ones that should be getting any kind of prize payout would be juniors. That's the best way to keep them hooked.

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Hey Dan - Don't bother arguing with Nick.



What arguing? I made a suggestion. He made an insult. There is no arguing about it.

(Note: He did offer an alternative, as per my suggestion or not, he did.)

I do not in general think any of these ideas about tweaking the entry fee payout set ups are bad, I just think that they are superficial, and never address the fundamental challenge our �entire� (as you like to put it Craig) competitive structure suffers.

Also, in general, I see any attempt to perpetuate or accentuate the �move up, move up, move out� golden standard of our system as a step in the wrong direction. It cannot, and has not, been able to stand on it�s own. It would be far better to have divisions that have a naturally healthy relationship with those around it, not to just be staging areas for fresh �added cash�.

Without a true amateur class, we are just moving the furniture around.

What arguing? I made a suggestion. He made an insult. There is no arguing about it.





Where's the insult? I pride myself on my ability to do that and it would be a shame if I threw one out and didn't realize it.

More am divisions, less pro divisions.

Two pro divisions is more than enough, in my opinion. There should be no need for any divisions that pay out (cash or prizes) for skill levels under a 900 rating. The am side should be where the under 900s can play and have a competitive chance to win. If they want to pay more and play for money/prizes before reaching the 900 skill-level, then they also must take the risk against the "big boys".

I'd also expand the am side to include all skill levels, and all divisions would be the same low entry fee and be trophy-only.

Pro divisions:
Open (100% cash back + 40% of <940 entries + 30% over 40 entries + 75% added/sponsor cash)
<940 (entry fee is 2/3 of Open entry fee, division pays 60% cash back with no added cash)
Over 40 (entry fee is 2/3 of <940 entry fee, division pays 70% cash back with no added cash)
Women (100% cash back + 25% added/sponsor cash)

Amateur divisions (flat entry/trophy only):
Open
<900
<850
<800
<750
Over 40

Am Women's divisions (flat entry/trophy only):
Open
<850
<800
<750
<700
Over 40

Juniors (flat entry/trophy only):
<19
<15
<12
<10

And I would suggest not offering am divisions and pro divisions at the same venue at the same time. BUT, if one were to have a pro-am tournament, Am Open would not be offered. Instead, Am Open players would play the Pro Open or Pro <940 divisions at Am entry fee prices, accepting no prizes except trophies. Paying the Pro entry fee would constitute going pro with no turning back (unless rating goes under 900, then one can apply for re-instatement of am status).

Maybe if I have the time, I'll flesh this out so it's in a fancy table like Nick's. ;)

--Josh

Here is Version 1.2 (http://www.oskydiscgolf.com/TourStructureV1.2.htm).

TJ and Josh these are both FABULOUS proposals. :D :) :D I think they are both pretty close to each other with just a couple exceptions like number of Pro divisions and unisex v female divisions in Am. Those issues aren't big enough to get hung up on. Make a guess and try it one way and if it doesn't work well then try it another way the next year. :) :)

Like James said this ain't Picasso it just takes somebody writing down what makes sense. :cool: The problem is that these aren't new ideas...they've been suggested in the past...but they were just too radical for the old school and the tournament players to handle. :confused: I think you guys see that this is what is needed for the future regardless of some very minor very short term pain. :) :D :cool:

Now for some spescifics...
...Josh would you have a ratings cap on the over 40 division? I think that's the only way to stop the stupid overlap we have now and it's an easy fix. I know you have lower entry fees and money being stolen from the over 40 division but I'm not sure that's enough to stop the inequities of true world class players from playing there. :D :cool::)
...Craig mentioned different regions of the country and how it would have to be adjusted. I think this can be handled by changing the ratings lines for different tiers. I don't think it needs to be region by region rather just tier by tier. Draw your ratings lines in one place for NT, a little lower for A, lower for B, and lower yet for C. Problem solved. :) :D

Again great job guys. I still think it's a fantasy dream to think this large a shift would ever take place but we can dream can't we? :confused: :) :cool::D :p

Oh and I like Dan's poker style entry fees. I think it would work well with either TJ's or Josh's structure. It looks like TJ is building in some money for the TD but that could be removed in favor of poker style. Either way works for me. Keep up the great work gguys. :D :D :D

There are basically two approaches to generating a pro purse:

Skimming it off the amateurs or genuine outside cash sponsorship.

There are no big-time sports out there making it for their pros by skimming it off the ams. Coach Comincioli's Carmel High School teams are not paying 1/3rd of their gate receipts to the NBA and MLB, nor do the pro leagues need that money to pay their stars multi-million dollar contracts.

I think for every discnut out there who wants to see disc golf run as a ponzi scheme for the benefit of the pros, there is another person out there who would like to see it run more like a legitimate sport.

There are basically two approaches to generating a pro purse:

Skimming it off the amateurs or genuine outside cash sponsorship.




Those are actually ways of ADDING to a pro purse, not GENERATING a pro purse. :D

Disc Golf pro purses are primarily generated by the participants and that's all that is required. Anything added no matter where from is gravy. :) :)



I think for every discnut out there who wants to see disc golf run as a ponzi scheme for the benefit of the pros, there is another person out there who would like to see it run more like a legitimate sport.



Perhaps but don't get hung up on it. Thanks for your input but I hope you see that the prize payout is only a small and relatively unimportant part of these proposals. The more imporant thing is the restructuring. It's easy to get rid of the Ponzi from these and fix the problems in other ways such as ratings caps and properly structured entry fees. :eek: :) :p :D

Don't worry about kicking money upwards; actually it's a very good model despite Bruce's assertion that it doesn't happen. There is at least one model where it happens and it works very well. Running. The problem is that the running model is very different from the disc golf model. The running model fits what Nick supports; it�s a sport built around the amateur. Since most of the participants are amateurs, they don't expect a payout, simply the fun of the event. Events have a much more party like feel to them and everyone gets a "players pack." Because they don't go in with the expectation of winning something "big" the satisfaction level is much higher through the entire body of participants.

The number of pros that participate is small, and the money kicks up to supporting them and the "TD."

I do agree with the dissenters that implementing this change will be hard. People have bought into the current structure and in general, people don't like change, especially if they feel it hurts them. If you implemented your plan, say tomorrow, the number of participants would plummet. The PDGA would take it on the chin. As Chuck pointed out earlier, they aren't likely to implement a plan that will do that.

An alternate might be to replace Chuck's R tier plan. That is, build local events throughout the country based on the new format culminating in a national event. If you can get participation and good income, then the risk for the PDGA to fully encompass that change will be mitigated.

Thanks for the feedback, Hanksplace.

No, I don't propose any caps on either the Pro over-40s or the Am over-40s. Mainly because I have no problem whatsoever with any over-40 player choosing to play his age division even if he is competitive with the open players. I think to remove any financial incentive for playing over-40 would be enough to at least ensure that the over-40 player is playing in that division for the "camaraderie and fun" rather than for the easier payday. I think part of the venom that is aimed at players like Brad Hammock is not so much because he's "hiding" from his younger peers than it is the fact that he is cashing in big time while doing it.

The other thing I failed to include in my outline is the National Tour (or some facisimile there-of) for the elite of the elite. That "tour" would require qualification based on player rating (at least as a start...Q school/regiional qualifier style qualifying could come later). Every tour event would be one division-one champion (with a corresponding women's side as well) and for tour players only, except for some extremely limited exemptions for local players. Once you have your pool of players (let's say 985 rated and above), you market those players and focus on going after sponsors with the idea that every event is going to feature the best of the best (and not a handful of elite players playing alongside any local-yokel who ponies up the dough to participate).

If you have a set pool of 200 tour players and you can say to every tour event "we guarantee 100 out of the 200 will be at your event", it'll make it a lot easier for them to go out to local sponsors and sell them on the event. And bringing the elite of the elite to each local area, and NOT letting most of the locals play may bring most of those local players out to WATCH. After all, we already seem to have a lot of players who know they can't beat the touring players paying the $75-125 for the opportunity to share the course with them. Why not ask those same folks to pay $15-20 to watch them up close for a couple days instead.

Paying spectators will bring out more paying sponsors. The idea is to raise enough money to be able to pay nearly all of the field, if not every player. THAT is the only way to sustain a tour...make it worth trying to do for most elite players so they don't necessarily need a day job to go home to.

Anyhoo...with a tour that will take and sustain most elite (990+) players, the rest of my proposed structure is more workable on the local level. C + D tier level events would not offer the <940 division at all (because you assume that the elite players aren't going to be at 95% of C+D tiers, so the best players available are in the 960-980 range anyway), but all the am divisions remain the same. And the division of pro entry fees would remain the same throughout all tiers, only the amount of the entry fees would change.

I'm still fleshing this out in my own head, so if I managed to contradict myself, let me know.

--Josh

I have no real comment on any of the plans, I'm just glad people are putting their minds to it. I prefer the method of outlining objectives and goals first (no easy undertaking) and using them as a benchmark to evaluate the plans.

This brings me to Lyles assertion that participation would plummet. Maybe. Maybe not. At any rate, in my little world of what a competitive system should be, generating revenues for the supporting organization is a secondary objective, taking a backseat to the more important primary objectives. I realize that some will read my lack of concern over PDGA revenues to be irresponsible, but the flipside is also true: measuring the worth of a competitive system SOLELY by how much revenue it produces is irresponsible. If some setup is devised that achieves the primary goals (whatever they are decided to be), it should be embraced, regardless of its effects on PDGA revenues.

I prefer the method of outlining objectives and goals first (no easy undertaking) and using them as a benchmark to evaluate the plans.



This is a good thought. What exactly are our primary goals? If we know them, we can make a structure built around those goals.

I think for every discnut out there who wants to see disc golf run as a ponzi scheme for the benefit of the pros, there is another person out there who would like to see it run more like a legitimate sport.



If you only knew. I for one hate it when am entry fees are given to the pros. I don't do it in any of the events that I run. Never have, never will. That is why the Am Tour in my structure don't pay the pros. The lesser pros pay the bigger pros. If everybody got their 100% payback, what would be the incentive to play up? Until we get big time sponsors where the winners get a check for thousands and thousands of dollars, where will the big paydays come from? At Worlds this year, Barry took home $5300 for a week worth of work. After you take out all of the expenses for the trip, it's not much to make a good living off of it. But that is where the sport is now. Hopefully in the future it will change.

If you have such a beef with my 'Ponzi' scheme, why don't you come up with your own rather than criticizing me, not critiquing my sceme.

I've created a comparison sheet of the 3 plans submitted thus far. I'll try to add Dan's at some point.

I did not include the various Amateur Class Divisions of my original plan because they don't fit within the construct of the current PDGA Competitive Structure.

Josh and TJ, let me know if I have to adjust anything with a Private Message. Enjoy!

2005 PDGA Competitive Structure Plan Comparison (pdf file) (http://www.madisc.org/05PDGACompStructComparison1.pdf)

This will print on a legal sized page. (Don't forget you can use "zoom" in Adobe Acrobat!)

If you have a set pool of 200 tour players and you can say to every tour event "we guarantee 100 out of the 200 will be at your event", it'll make it a lot easier for them to go out to local sponsors and sell them on the event. And bringing the elite of the elite to each local area, and NOT letting most of the locals play may bring most of those local players out to WATCH. After all, we already seem to have a lot of players who know they can't beat the touring players paying the $75-125 for the opportunity to share the course with them. Why not ask those same folks to pay $15-20 to watch them up close for a couple days instead.



Not necessarily a bad thought Josh - but I see a potential pitfall with approaching the elite events this way.

I big part of a local club's motivation for putting on an ATier or NT event is catering to their surrounding DG community IN ADDITION TO drawing in the traveling guns. Taking that away from them outright might result in fewer people wanting to put up the effort it takes to run such events. This is why I think qualifying for such a tier is a good idea, and tieing lower tier events to upper tier events in the tier structure is essential.
Making all tier stops one division one champion type events (while fine in principle) mimicks what we already have in one very important way. And that is that all tour stops are basically the same - w/the same divisions offered. I think there should be room to offer lower/alternative tier events that offer a variety of divisional opportunities to play.

I agree with you Craig, that there should be alternative/low tier options. Only the national tour events would follow the one-division/one champion model. The rest would be able to follow the other part of my proposed structure with more division options.

My National Tour proposal isn't intended to replace regional A and B tier level events that offer those alternative formats. And nothing in my proposal would prevent the "tour" players from attending events like that, either. I'd just like to see a standardized tour for the elite players to have a chance to make their living, and to give something tangible to potential sponsors/media coverage, both local and national. Then it is down to a choice for the players to give up a paycheck every once in a while to enjoy a local flavor type event rather than rely on those events to make their money (barring locals raising appearance fees for those tour players).

I picture a local area/region securing a "National Tour" date then building a local structure around it and leading into it. A local qualifying event where the top 5 or 10 spots get to participate in the National Tour event. A couple other "typical" local events where the onus is to draw and "train" potential "tour" players for the future.

Above all, I'd like to see part of the motivation/desire to host and run a National Tour event be to generate publicity and revenue locally. I don't see why the TD/staff of the elite events can't benefit financially from the event as a reward for doing the work. What motivates Pebble Beach to host a PGA event every year? It isn't just the glow of having golf's luminaries play there for a week. There must be some tangible rewards for their efforts as well.

--Josh

I prefer the method of outlining objectives and goals first (no easy undertaking) and using them as a benchmark to evaluate the plans.



So do I James.
Goal #1: Create a new classification of competitor: Amateur - where the motivation and competition are unburdened by concerns of "cashing". This will help keep more people involved.
Goal #2: Reduce overlap of skill level between protected and unprotected divisions. Reducing sandbagging will also help keep more people involved.
Goal #3: Create a gateway for civic and educational institutions to join in and discover the joys of disc golf.

Those would be the main ones for me.

Goal #3: Create a gateway for civic and educational institutions to join in and discover the joys of disc golf.



I agree with your first 2 goals completely. Could you explain what you mean by this one? How would this be accomplishe?

Goal #3: Create a gateway for civic and educational institutions to join in and discover the joys of disc golf.



I agree with your first 2 goals completely. Could you explain what you mean by this one? How would this be accomplishe?



It is actually very closely related to the first two; By "gateway" I mean a set of divisions that cater directly to civic and educational groups needs. Our current amateur divisions, with their pooled entry fees paid out to top performers, would be completely alien, and quite possibly objectionable, to these kinds of groups. Even the new DGU program of leagues would be strange. No, we need sets of divisions taylor made for these groups. From elementary schools or meets to townhall civic group events, a door needs to be opened for these folks to discover what disc golf and the PDGA have to offer. Our current events and competitive structure offer them next to nothing. This must change and it won't be able to change until we have a real amateur class.

Yeah, IMO, #3 is a great goal for the PDGA, but not necessarily a goal of the competitive structure.

There are probably alot of goals. I can think of a few:

1) The system should direct financial rewards to the best performers;

2) Player retention;

3) At this point in the SPORT, we should measure success by how many competitors we can attract at the highest levels. Competitors, not purses. (I believe the PDGA currently measures the health of the top tier mainly by focusing on the purse amounts. IMO, changing this focus alone would bring some sanity back into the system.)

There are probably countless other goals, all of which need to be either refined, advocated, or destroyed. But, IMO, the effort to agree upon goals would be 3/4s of the work. There are so many creative people in this organization, formulating plans to achieve the goals would be much easier.

Yeah, IMO, #3 is a great goal for the PDGA, but not necessarily a goal of the competitive structure.

There are probably alot of goals. I can think of a few:

1) The system should direct financial rewards to the best performers;

2) Player retention;

3) At this point in the SPORT, we should measure success by how many competitors we can attract at the highest levels. Competitors, not purses. (I believe the PDGA currently measures the health of the top tier mainly by focusing on the purse amounts. IMO, changing this focus alone would bring some sanity back into the system.)

There are probably countless other goals, all of which need to be either refined, advocated, or destroyed. But, IMO, the effort to agree upon goals would be 3/4s of the work. There are so many creative people in this organization, formulating plans to achieve the goals would be much easier.



James, I benerally agree with these, though I would offer a few comments.

1) Is a matter for the economic supply and demand. Now if you are saying that we set it up in such a way that this naturally results, I am with you. But if you are saying that we should charge less and less entry fee and payout wider and wider payouts as we go down the age/gender/skill level, then I have to disagree based on my direct observation of how demand overrules any contrived subjective wish. (i.e. Masters and TDs who are Masters simply will not put all of the added cash into Open, nor will they shrink their entry fees to half of Open). The PDGA knows this, and this is the main stumbling block in any structural reform. Most people think it is the Advanced Class, and it is to a degree, but the power and interests of the Masters division is far greater. So long as these two things are taken into consideration some progress is possible.
2) Player retention is more a result of other goals than a goal in and of itself. It is a part of all three of my main goals.
3) I think you are on the money; though I would add that there is a section of our competitive structure that should properly be far more ambitious than the rest, two actually; The PDGA National Tour should set and require substantial minimum sponsorship numbers for its events, and the PDGA Amateur Classification Divisions should have standards for minimum players packages and event amenities. These should be priorities, the rest is a pretty much self-perpetuating machine founded on �Gambling for your buddies buck� and �Move up, move up, move out�. Though certainly some reform is needed there to.

It is actually very closely related to the first two; By "gateway" I mean a set of divisions that cater directly to civic and educational groups needs. Our current amateur divisions, with their pooled entry fees paid out to top performers, would be completely alien, and quite possibly objectionable, to these kinds of groups. Even the new DGU program of leagues would be strange. No, we need sets of divisions taylor made for these groups. From elementary schools or meets to townhall civic group events, a door needs to be opened for these folks to discover what disc golf and the PDGA have to offer. Our current events and competitive structure offer them next to nothing. This must change and it won't be able to change until we have a real amateur class.



Heres a thought. Rather than creating divisions, ie, College, High School, Middle School, Elementary Scool, why not change the Junior Tour to these divisions. They are basically the same. It would be pretty much a name change that would attract more players, much like Novice to Recreational was intended. You could then add the College division and who knows, maybe some form of College and High School competitions could arise from this. Iowa vs. Iowa State, Ohio State vs. Michigan, USC vs. UCLA, Florida State vs. Miami, just immagine the rivalries.

My $.02 on added stuff.

All added cash should go to the MPO and FPO divisions.

All added merch should be equally shared by all ams (as much as possible). Payouts should be more linear (not so large a spike in amount for 1st, 2nd...) in the am divisions and flatter for lower rated divisions.

Please Review:

2005 PDGA Competitive Structure Props (http://www.madisc.org/05PDGACompStructComparison1.pdf)

OK, here�s a relatively simple draft proposal I�m developing that might have a chance to get approved because it�s built off our current division structure and yet still addresses the concerns expressed by several posters. The proposal defines three classes of divisions: Pro, Am and new Merch class. The divisions shown in light blue are all existing divisions that were just present at Worlds.

http://hometown.aol.com/ck34/images/2005%20comp%20chart.jpg

One change for those Advanced divisions would be renaming them as Open Am (MA1), Am Grandmaster (MG1) and Am Master Women (FM1), for example. In addition, those divisions would now have entry fees as low as $3-$10 with no merch payouts, just trophies, CTPs and player packs. Small divisions like the Am GMs could easily play for higher rewards, if they desired, by doing side bets amongst themselves (which many do already). The MB1 division is a new one just called Beginner.

Every player, Pro or Am, who wished to play for traditional merchandise prizes common in the current Advanced divisions could enter the appropriate Merch division at or above their PDGA Player Rating. Pros have the option of taking their merch prizes in cash at 70% of retail value. You must be a PDGA member to play in these merch divisions. So, there�s no chance a nonmember without a rating can take advantage of the system. Nonmembers are free to enter any pro or am division which they qualify for by age and/or gender by paying the usual $5 nonmember fee. The ratings range of each division is always 50 points but the whole set shifts downward by 10 points for each tier drop, i.e. EM1 is 920-969 at A-tier, 910-959 at B-tier and 900-949 at C/D-tiers.

My expectation initially is that most Ams will prefer to enter the appropriate Merch division. However, if Nick is correct about all of the Ams we could recruit with lower entry fees, we would now have that option to encourage them to participate. Even those who normally play in a Merch division might play in the �budget� division occasionally if they�re short on funds.

With this structure, TDs would be allowed to offer any combination of classes they want at an event. Ratings events, R-tier, would no longer be needed because a TD could limit divisions to just the Merch Class plus MPO at an event. There are other details to be determined like the names of the Merch divisions (Blue, White, Red, Green?) and proposed entry fee/payout ranges. But I think something like this would be quickly understood by players, TDs and the Board and easy to implement next year.

Looks pretty good Chuck. I'm going to arrange my plan similarly and see how they stack up against each other.

The key to any of these is if there will be TDs willing to run them. If they are the only option for PDGAs we will learn quickly what works and what doesn't.

Chuck, in your opinion, is the Merch division there for the benefit of the players, TDs or PDGA? Do you think the Am players that currently hope to 'cash' would not play if the Merch division wasn't offered?

Chuck,

I'd want to look at it a bit closer, but this seems to be a pretty good proposal. The only thing I'd change is that I personally think that if someone wants to call themselves a Pro, then they should be a full member of the PDGA. The only category that I'd allow the temporary membership would be in the amateur divisions.

Also, there's gotta be a better name than Merch for that middle category. I understand what you're getting at, but it's less than elegant. The other thing is allowing the "pros" to take 70% cash. This assumes that the TD is going to have cash on hand. If I'd invested in $500 of plastic, I'd pay in plastic at usual retail and let them sell it for what they can get. If they want to play for money, then let them play pro. That way you have three distinct categories: Pro/Cash, Merch/Merch, Ams/Trophies (Nick's True Amateur Class, though I'm sure he'll have plenty to pick apart on this one)

Just a few comments Chuck...

First...I like it. If it has a chance to get approved then lets go for it.

Second...Am I correct in assuming that once a players rating goes higher than 969 (for 'A' tiers), they have to play 'Pro'? However, if their rating drops below 969, they can move back down to the 'Merch' and play for cash or prizes? If the answer is yes, yes, I'm all for it again.

Third...For the Merch division names, I like Gold, Silver, Bronze, Copper(?).

After reading Jon's post, I have to agree with him also. From a TD's perspective...it could become a royal pain in the butt if half the people wanted cash and the other wanted plastic. I think it would be better if 'Merch' was truly that...merchandise. Forget about the 70% cash. If you want money, play with the big boys.

Instead of 'Merch', how about 'Semi-Pro'?

It's a nice thought to say that a TD could offer any combination of divisions he/she wants - but the reality is.... that if it's a sanctioned event - and the division is recognized by the organization - players in those categories will beseech TD's to offer said division. How does keeping all the existing divisions in place address the inequities we have already?

Sorry CK - but this proposal appears to me to merely mimick the ratings scheme of addressing Ams and not pros that you've been pushing all along. And most disappointing - is that you choose to forego the use of ratings for all pro divisions. This proposal adds divisions - and for the most part - I thought what was being considered here, is a way to condense them.

If it didnt cost so much more to play open than advanced I think more people would be willing to try.At least anyone that felt the best way to sharpen thier play was to constantly have to be consistent.But unfortunatly i dont have alot of money and want to play as many tournaments as possible so experimenting right now isnt worth the extra 30-50$.I honestly would like to move to open soon because I give away to many strokes in adv,just from careless play or being on a not so great card.Dont get me wrong Im no tour player but I do expect to "cash" at every tourney I play,blind or not,and until my consistency gets better I will keep playing am and your new sliced payouts and player package/ predetermined prizes as a payout proposal will only make me look at some tourneys and want to play.I will not pay 30+ in extra money to play in open.I just wont play.I cannot afford it and would rather have the plastic.Im poor and plastic sells so until one or the other changes{I am back in school,so It would have to be consistency} I wont play at sanctioned tourneys where the payout sucks.Like Peoria.I dont think the PDGA or TDs give ADV enough credit.The PDGA wants more pros,The pros want more money.Thats my opinion.Make it easy.Make a bumpline for each division,or make TDs more aware of pro2.I seen it twice this year...maybe.

Here's a rough stab at organizing my proposed division structure. Junior divisions not included because I wouldn't change them from their current incarnation.
http://www.mainediscgolf.com/images/divisions-v1.gif

In the cases where the professional divisions are offered at the same venue at the same time as the amateur ones, the "open" amateur division players (required for 900+ ratings) would compete directly in the professional divisions (either the open or the <940 protected division). They would pay the standard amateur entry fee and take only trophies, but they'd be competing against pros and ams alike. Same goes for the amatuer over-40 players.

Also, the <940 protected pro division would be at the discretion of the TD at C and D tier level events, but would be standard at A and B tier level events. If the TD finds there isn't a need for the protected division at the lower levels, it wouldn't be an option. And hopefully the financials of the divisions would dissuade *most* players demanding it when there is no need (ie. no players to need protection from).

I think those two guidelines would solve any overlap issues that we find in our current structure between Advanced, Advanced Masters, Pro Masters, and Pro Open.

As for the argument of where does the TD make his profit (no prize structure at all), you go with Dan Howard's poker-style "convenience" fee from each player.

Now I'm off to Mass for the big MSDGC shin-dig. Maybe I'll get a chance to clarify/solve questionable stuff from there.

--Josh

If you have such a beef with my 'Ponzi' scheme, why don't you come up with your own rather than criticizing me, not critiquing my sceme.

I'm only criticizing your proposal because the idea of shifting entry fees from lower skilled divisions to higher skilled divisions has always been espescially repugnant to me. Whenever this concept is explained to non-disc golfers, they laugh and say, "Why do the ams put up with that?!" And I say, "Because they don't know?" But it does not matter to me whether the shifting is from Ams to Pros or from Pro 2s to Pro 1s. It is a lazy excuse for not getting real sponsorship. It is a carnival game that gets our sport no respect.

I'm waiting to see what Nesbitt proposes for 2005. I'm supposed to be focussing my drafting efforts on another project that requires me to develop some understanding of Colorado non-profit corporate law. So I've been spending some time quietly reading the Colorado statutes and the documents I'm supposed to be redrafting.

I'm also waiting to see how our upcoming R-tier works for both the players and the host clubs.

I'd rather work with what we have currently than propose major changes. I don't like that our current format facilitates generating pro sponsorship off amateur entry fees, but I think education needs to go before change. Jon, Brett and I are doing a lot of work on the education front in the regions where we run tournaments.

I'm off to do some educating this weekend. My failure to respond to your next post is neither capitulation nor calculated indifference. I'll be away from the computer for the next four or five days.

Craig, a TD is allowed to offer an event only for the Merch divisions which includes MPO. All pros would be playing in a division based on ratings (or playing up) as you request. For most events, I suspect many men and women pros of all ages will choose to play the Merch division based on their rating so again some pros will be sorted by rating.

This proposal doesn't address what should be done at the NT level regarding pro division skill overlap. My opinion is that there should be MPO and FPO plus the top Merch division under this proposal (to boost total tournament attendance) with no MPM.

I think it would be fine to have a slightly higher entry fee for the trophy divisions with a player's pack for all entrants.

Those proposed fees for the trophy divisions are minimums that essentially cover PDGA fees, trophy costs and allocated tournament admin expense (copies, sanctioning fees, site rental fees). If non-contributed player pack items are planned and/or meals, for example, then the fees should be higher to cover that. However, the idea is to keep those fees low enough to remain very affordable.

The Merch divisions are critical for several reasons. First, these divisons are the most familiar to current players and understandable for TDs from a financial standpoint. Second, they bring similarly rated players together on the same playing field regardless of their pro/am status. Third, it's unclear how ams will react to the 'no merch' divisions so it's essential to offer a choice until behavior patterns emerge. Fourth, these merch divisions provide players from traditionally small am and pro divisions a much larger division to enter with players at similar skill levels.

In discussions with a Board member, we decided Prize Class might be a better name than Merch Class. Semi-pro or Ratings Class were other less preferred options. The proposed Blue, White, Red division names parallel the new PDGA tee color hole design guidelines. Blue tees 950, White tees 900, Red tees 850>. Seems like we'd get an added benefit by tying the division and tee colors together.

Reducing the pro conversion from merch to cash to 60% seems reasonable. The TD should have no problem covering the cash needs of the few pros who might convert since a lot of cash should have been obtained in entry fees. At 60%, this will make the differential between MPO and EM1 even farther apart than the 100% conversion used for Pro 2 this year making sure there's still incentive for players to play up.

Players with ratings above the EM1 ratings cap at an event would either play MPO or MA1. So, once you're an amateur with a rating above 969, either you retain your am status and play for trophies, or you can turn pro. If the number of players in the trophy divisions explodes like Nick hopes/expects, I can see adding lower trophy divisions (other than the Beginner division) based on ratings breaks sometime down the road.

The Merch divisions are critical for several reasons. First, these divisons are the most familiar to current players and understandable for TDs from a financial standpoint. Second, they bring similarly rated players together on the same playing field regardless of their pro/am status. Third, it's unclear how ams will react to the 'no merch' divisions so it's essential to offer a choice until behavior patterns emerge. Fourth, these merch divisions provide players from traditionally small am and pro divisions a much larger division to enter with players at similar skill levels.




Please allow me to play devil's advocate.

Reason 1 can be solved by the fee structure I talked about. I'm sure TDs can figure that part out. Multiplying X # of players x X # of $ is easier than marking up plastic.

Reason 2 I'm not sure about. Why do we want to mix AMs and 'Pros'? Why not just use ratings breaks in the AM class and accomplish the same thing.

Reason 3 seems odd to me. Why don't we know how people will react? Shouldn't we find out beforehand? Why make this drastic a change to the system without having a better idea of how it will be accepted?

Reason 4 is just a rehash of reason 2, in different wording.

If I watched the X-Files more I'd say that we are trying to appease the disc manufacturers (since they stand to lose the most if the PDGA moves to a trophies-only AM class).

Good thing I don't watch the X-Files. :D

R1 - This proposal doesn't disallow posting entry fees with an additional TD fee being spelled out. But don't you think players prefer just seeing a total fee? It's more common to see entry fees with PDGA fees included rather than something like $30+$2 PDGA fee.

R2 - The idea is to get as many players of the same skill playing together and move toward fewer divisions. Players seem to care about the Pro and Am distinction so this proposal supports that, although the reality is we're all mostly Ams with some who like to play for cash and others for merch.

R3 - Actually we do know how they'll likely react. I expect most Ams to play in the Prize class based on tests that have been run. However, I agree with Nick that there is an untapped market of players who might be encouraged to play competitively as true Ams for low fees and trophies. Those are the experimental divisions, not the Prize divisions.

And yes, we should continue to support the financial structure that involves the manufacturers. The Genie is out of the bottle. If the PDGA doesn't support big prize payouts, someone else will with non-sanctioned events because PLAYERS LIKE IT. With my proposal, no one is forcing players to enter the Prize divisions. I think most would wager that the majority of current players will. I also think that many of the new players who are recruited thru the low entry fee divisions, will eventually come over to 'the dark side.'

R4 - Not rewording R2. Male Pros over 39 and all Women Pros usually have divisions with few people, especially compared with Am divisions. The Prize divisions give them a place to play against larger fields with fair competition retaining them in the sport. Their only current alternative is to play up in a higher pro division, just not play or 'buy a trophy' by winning their entry fee back.

Chuck, I just reread my post, and I'm sorry if it came off kinda snotty, it wasn't meant to read that way at all. (I just got a full house beat by a bigger one before I posted it, maybe that's why!) :(

Your clarification makes sense, but I'm not sure about how well the current 960-920 range 'Pros' will like having to settle for merch (or the smaller % in cash). I guess there's always the side bet option for them as well, and it does make playing up more attractive.

The poker tournament entries are posted separately mainly for competitive reasons. For instance, the $5 sit-n-go tourneys on one poker site only charge a .50 house cut, while they are $1 at another. That .50 will effect my profitability, so all things being equal, I usually play at the cheaper one. It doesn't have to be posted that way, but it always has been.

More information is good. So for TDs to post their fees would be fine. I doubt the PDGA would want to make it a requirement. It's more common for TDs to post added cash or minimum payout percentages for players to make decisions on participation rather than how little they will keep from the purse.

As far as 920-960 pros not liking the 60% cash conversion, the point is they don't even have that choice now. Craig feels that most pros in that range can and should play in Open, especially at C-tiers. Well, they would have the choice to play up for larger cash potential against tougher competition. Or, they could play with more comparable skill players for smaller rewards. Seems like reasonably balanced options.

Interesting proposal Chuck.

Who is going to run a tournament with the trophy class? :confused: Anybody running the cash and merch classes won't want the extra hassle and won't believe anybody will play in trophy anyway. Anybody thinking about running a trophy only tournament won't believe anyone will show up. It's not really different than now. Even today a TD could run trophy divisions instead of merch, just none of them do. :(

Unless the trophy division is mandated and the only option available, nobody is going to run it. :p :(

That brings us to the problem you bring up later, namely, if the PDGA events don't offer merch divisions, the current legions of spoiled merchers will go play in non-sanctioned events that give out merch. :confused: :(

Fancy mess we've gotten ourselves into.

My solution....Go whole hog trophy, no merch, and go STRONG. :) :D Crush any opposing merch events or just let the spoiled merch lovers go somewhere else. We don't need them anyway. :cool: In other words, if you can't find a home in Open Pro or a trophy division, then you are a spoiled fool and we don't want you anyway. Heck I'd even throw in a cash only Pro2 or Semi-pro division just to make it all work out. :p :D :cool::)

Who is going to run a tournament with the trophy class? Anybody running the cash and merch classes won't want the extra hassle and won't believe anybody will play in trophy anyway. Anybody thinking about running a trophy only tournament won't believe anyone will show up.



I will. I think that these trophy only divisions probably won't be real popular at larger tournaments or to traveling players, but I believe that a lot of local rec players would play it. And it kind of acts like a teeze to keep playing and go for merchandise. I still think a players pack should be required along with the trophies.


That brings us to the problem you bring up later, namely, if the PDGA events don't offer merch divisions, the current legions of spoiled merchers will go play in non-sanctioned events that give out merch.



From my observations, here in Iowa I don't think that would be the case at all. I think that a lot of the players would keep playing in PDGA events to get their points and ratings. Now if there was no payout at all, then I would agree. But a smaller PDGA payout would still be better then a big non-PDGA payout.

As far as 920-960 pros not liking the 60% cash conversion, the point is they don't even have that choice now. Craig feels that most pros in that range can and should play in Open, especially at C-tiers. Well, they would have the choice to play up for larger cash potential against tougher competition. Or, they could play with more comparable skill players for smaller rewards. Seems like reasonably balanced options.



I really like your proposal Chuck and I think the cash/merch idea is great. At some unsanctioned events that Bruce and I have run we have offered some divisions a payout that was either 80% cash or 150% merch, player's choice. The X% cash or merch option still allows a TD to recoup their expenses, but gives the player more options. I like that in your model "lesser" pros can choose to play in a less competitive division, but still get a cash payout---even if it is at 70%. I know that pros will play up if they go to a C tier and see that their competition is around their skill level or the course plays to their advantage--pro masters already do this. I don't think there are very many pro masters that come to my tournaments that don't look around and eye the cars in the parking lot to figure out who is there and where the money is.

As a TD I don't have a problem with running my 2005 tournaments within the current system. However, I'd also be willing to try a good alternative, like Chuck's proposal. I know it will be challenging for many TDs and player's out there -- change always is -- but the benefits could be worth it.

One quick question Chuck...Would Pros playing in the merch have to accept cash or could they accept merchandise???

Here is my revised proposal. I found that Chuck and my proposals were very similar. I have changed the Ratings Based Colors to reflect the tee pad nomenclature.

2005 PDGA Competitive Structure Proposal 2 (http://www.madisc.org/05PDGACompStruProp2.pdf)

Here is my revised proposal. I found that Chuck and my proposals were very similar. I have changed the Ratings Based Colors to reflect the tee pad nomenclature.

2005 PDGA Competitive Structure Proposal 2 (http://www.madisc.org/05PDGACompStruProp2.pdf)



Nick, your proposal seems to make a player maintain their amateur elegibility in order to continue to play in the true am class. Is that correct? If that is correct then I think you should think about modifying that. If this system is to work, it needs to be flexible to the player. Perhaps a player can occasionally afford to play in the merch class but sometimes just wants to go out and play for just the pure joy of playing. A player, even if they often play merch, should have the option of playing in the amateur class. At sometime in the future maybe there will be college disc golf athletes who need to keep their amateur elegibility, but for most disc golfers it won't matter.

The default awards in the Prize divisions would be merch. Pros would have to exercise their option to convert to cash. I expect what would happen in most cases is the TD would ask the pros likely to cash what their choice would be sometime before awards. Frankly, as a pro, it would be fine getting merch every once in a while. We need discs, towels and hats, too.

So if an am cashed in the merch division, and converted it to the 60% cash, would they still be eligible to play in the trophy class?

Im just trying to get a better understanding of your structure. So far I really like it and would love to try it out next year.

Jon, you aren't the first person to point this out. Thing is we are not talking about your typical current amateur; we're talking about a proposed true Amateur. Most current amateurs will be Semi-Pro players and see no significant change other than they can choose to get cash rather than merch (if the TD permits it).

Amateur Status will be something worth protecting in the future, not only for the player but for the sport itself. If a player from the new Amateur Class wants to try there skill at a Professional Event, or in a Professional Division, they are not likely to do it more than 2 or 3 times before just making the switch. I know that there will no longer be any monetary reason to protect the Amateur Class, since no cash or merch can be won in it; but what we are talking about protecting is the "Integrity of Amateur Sport" for those who have made a commitment to playing for no other motivation than competition for the joy of competition. Otherwise, Barry Schultz could show up at the Amateur Nationals and just smoke everyone, just so he could add that title to his resume.

And here is a topic we have been conveniently avoiding; Amateur Nationals, Amateur World Championships, Amateur Only Events. Will Semi-Pros be eligible to play in these? Will we say, hey, these semi-pros have only accepted merch so they can play in the Amateur Only Worlds, Nationals, and Events; or will these events be specifically for Amateur Class Players? I�m not sure we can do this cold turkey, but the longer we avoid it, the longer it will take to develop the Amateur Class.

The one consolation to the new Semi-Pros is Chuck Kennedy�s Skills Nationals, which will in essence be what they currently consider their World Championships and National Championships. Another would be that top players in the Semi-Pros could try their hand at top Professional Class Divisions at will, with no consequences to their status. Heck! They could even play in the Skill�s National Championships then go to the Pro World Championships 2 weeks later!

I want to clear something up about the new Amateur Class being a money-losing prospect for TDs and Merch Manufacturers and Dealers. That is a bunch of bull. TDs can charge (real) entry fees (not bets) and must deliver on event value. A TD could charge a $50 entry fee across the board, for all divisions, if they are providing equal or greater value in event services and merch (awarded according to participation, not performance). Merch Manufacturers and Dealers will see their stuff go to greater numbers of players (gaining more exposure), while making the same if not greater amounts of profit. A certain, very successful, TD and Series Organizer has told me that the amount earned in event services (players packages and even prizes awarded) absolutely pales in comparison to merch moved directly through sales at a big well run events. I have no reason to doubt him either. In short the new Amateur Class Only Events can be terrific fund raisers for clubs or earners for professional TDs. (Now throw in the profits of Semi-Pro events where TDs can create their own mix of cash and prizes.)

Nick

With my proposal, Ams can only accept merch in the Prize divisions to retain their Am status for Am Worlds, which is the same as it is today. If an Am does convert a merch prize to cash via the TD, the player would be flagged to PDGA HQ in the TD report as choosing to turn pro at that event.

I would suggest that the TD set the maximum amount of cash to be paid out prior to the last round of the event, once that is gone, merch is what you get. This would allow for them to plan payouts a little better. Best practices would quickly be developed concerning this.

Note: I am not in favor of limiting TDs as far as how they payout in this transitional period, so long as they meet PDGA Standards. This will increase the speed with which best practices are developed and spread. Some smaller % of cash or % merch I would leave completely in the hands of the TDs, they will know what is best, and if they don't everyone will be hyper aware of it right away.

With my proposal, Ams can only accept merch in the Prize divisions to retain their Am status for Am Worlds, which is the same as it is today. If an Am does convert a merch prize to cash via the TD, the player would be flagged to PDGA HQ in the TD report as choosing to turn pro at that event.



So Chuck, in your proposal are you saying that these Semi-Pro players choosing merch over cash remain Amateur Class players? Or that an Amateur Class player playing in the Pro or Semi-Pro Classes would be easily flagged if they accepted a payout according to performance in the event results and lose their Am Status?

There should still be a default/max conversion value so only TDs who wish to lower it have to post their alternative in their event flyer.

That's not a bad idea. I would hope that some Semi-Pro Only events would get substantial sponsorship and be able to offer more than 100% payouts to the top M/F divisions; but a rock bottom minimum standard is a good idea.

Remember though, under my proposal, PDGA event standards would be in effect and tier requirements would have to be met anyway.

Nick, with my proposal, players are either Ams or Pros. There are no players whose PDGA status would be 'Semi-Pro.' Both Ams and Pros can choose to play in the Prize divisions and Ams retain their status as long as they only accept merch awards and don't convert them to cash. Perhaps in the long run there will be reason for additional amateur 'purity.' But I think most feel there are enough Am perks in other sports (college scholarships and up to $500 prizes in golf) that our merch prizes aren't totally out of line. I think the key change is my proposal structurally includes the more traditional amateurs, and at a lower cost, without forcing the higher entry fee merch system we currently have on anyone.

Chuck, I see your proposal as a transitional one to mine. As I mentioned earlier, I can live with it, though I see it only as a stalling of the process of developing what will surely be a classification hundreds, if not thousands, of times larger than our current Pro/Semi-Pro classification.

It is amazing how sticky that one mistake has been all those years ago to get rid of; the mistake of thinking only through monetary coercion would we be able to attract and keep participants at organized disc golf events.

It's hard to say whether the merch system was a mistake. That assumes some other process would have grown the sport "better." I think a case can be made that the system helped the disc manufacturers and spurred course development. Having a healthy manufacturing environment with more than one supplier led to getting discs in more retail outlets which spurred the growth. The alternative universe would have been different but not necessarily better.

The alternative universe would have been different but not necessarily better.



The "alternative universe" in this case is called "all other major mainstream sports". I think it can and should be said that they are doing "better" than we are because they have taken meaningful steps then and now to protect the "heart and soul" of their sports: their Amateurs.

All other mainstream sports were grown by the chance for major profit. Figure out how to get big dollars from running/supplying this sport, and it too will grow.

All other mainstream sports were grown by the chance for major profit.



I'm not sure I agree with that Gary by itself. I know when I got into the sport (heck still is) I wasn't interested in any profit, neither were/are the folks running the events. Passion, competition, and fun, there is our foundation. When those things are front and center profit will follow. Arranging our efforts to profit certain people or company's now is like putting the cart infront of the horse. Actually we've been behind that cart for some time now...

I didn't mean for a player to profit. I meant for a manufacturer to profit, or an organizing body to profit(NFL,NBA), or a course owner to profit (like BG), or a network to profit (popular show). If the road to profit is clear, someone will invest the time and money required to reach that money. Not for the love of the sport, but for the love of money.

And if someone in love with money found a way to turn a sizable profit from Disc Golf being mainstream, it would be introduced as the next big thing in the mainstream media:

Infomercials if necessary.
Primetime adds on the hip networks.
Product placements on a popular series.
A regular on a popular sitcom picks up the game.

If there was serious money to be made, someone would be pushing the right buttons.

A few thoughts from PDGAHQ:

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.

However as Am entry fees and payouts have continued to increase it has resulted in fewer players turning pro, as many Ams with games that 10 years ago wouldve seen them playing Pro, have grown to love the stacks of merch they receive.

One thing we will looking at as we plan the 05 Tour during the fall summit (end September in Augusta) is reductions in entry fees first and foremost for Ams, but also for Pros at events below the NT or A tier level.

If the system theorists wish to have their ideas considered by the Board I would urge that you submit formal proposals to the Board and office ASAP.

Regards

BDH



Brian, thanks for your input on the matter. As a TD I'm pretty much willing to try anything once as long as I think I will still be delivering a good value to my players. Nick's plan with the ams having to retain an amateur status is a little scary. It could also be the doom of that class of player. As players find out that they can win stuff, and then they play in a merch class and do win stuff, they can never return. That doesn't mean that I think it is not the right approach. Sometimes scary things are also the right thing. I'm just not sure.

I'm not sure how the PDGA decides these things, but I would think that a committee comprised of Chuck, Nick and a couple of other TDs or interested parties could supply the PDGA BoD with some pretty good alternatives to our current system.

Most recent proposal submitted. I believe Chuck has submitted his as well.

Jon, I tried getting on the PDGA Competition Committee a couple times this year to no avail. It is mainly for big time TDs, which is understandable to a degree, still you have to wonder if there is a conflict of interest concerning events at the other end of the spectrum or players at the other end (or not even in consideration [true ams]).

The best thing about this is that I will, and do, have the option of not playing in events that I know do not conform to my standards. That sad thing is that my message about a true amateur class seemingly crashes on the rocks of precedent and ignorance. Under my proposal the money making machine is left completely in tact. The difference is that an entirely NEW money making machine is made available.

OK, I know I don't know all the details, but I both like and dislike the idea of a true AM class. Last year at the TX State championships I places 4th in the MA3 class (my first ever pdga tourney). I won like 116 $ in merch but I was most disappointed by the fact that I didn't win a trophy because I didn't finish top 3. The trophy would have meant more to me than the bag o discs and towel and sticker.

Here is the biggest problem I see with the true am system. In all the other sports that have the true am there is the POTENTIAL to turn pro and be able to make major $$ Our top touring money winner won less than 30,000$ (if I remember right) last year. Managers at McDonalds make more than that. Untill we can pull in the major sponsorships it will take to pay tournament winners 50k$ for a victory then we won't have an am class that is willing to compete for a trophy I don't think. I could easily be mistaken.

In order for the true am class to become a big hit the sport has to become more mainstream. We have to start getting coverage on the nightly sports news, we have to have the scores from NT events reported on SportsCenter every tournament, etc. I think we all understand that this would drastically grow the sport and THEN Nick's true AM class would easily work. I know I would gladly pay a much lower entry fee and only play for a trophy, but then again, I can't remember the last time I cashed since I'm playing way above my rating in order to try to get better.

just because there player rating is 960 and uo doesnt mean they are a pro player they may hit a lot of touny's

I also think that creating an AM division where entry fees are about $20 or less and therefore there is less to be gained by remaining an AM would encourage the growth of the number of professional disc golfers.

Isn't it the case that most AM players can add 20 points to their rating to convert to where it would be if they were playing alongside pro divsion propogators? (unless the rounds in their ratings were played with pros as propogators).

Glad to see Chuck's proposal included a true amateur class. Glad to see the PDGAOffice recognize the need for smaller entry fees. Those are certainly useful steps.

However, I cringe when I see the same old structure surviving. I also cringe when I hear the reasons to retain the merch class: losing people who are attracted to the "easy life;" supporting disc manufacturers; or fear that others would create a parallel crack-addict culture and steal members.

I understand those concerns. They are real possibilities. However, I'm somehat saddened that there is not a stronger belief that a more equitable and healthy system will eventually prevail over the crack-addict system (sort of like comparing a free enterprise economy to a welfare economy).

IMO, disc manufacturers would also do themselves well to support a performance driven system because in the long run, a performance driven system will result in a much healthier sport and thus more sales.

As for the PDGA lookalikes with their crack-driven system. Let them. They will eventually reach the same fork in the road and untimately have to address the same problems. Also, I doubt they could legally use PDGA ratings (could be wrong there though) and I don't know how they could restrict PDGA pros from their tourneys which would ironically undercut their system as PDGA bullies pillage all their loot.

One thing we will looking at as we plan the 05 Tour during the fall summit (end September in Augusta) is reductions in entry fees first and foremost for Ams, but also for Pros at events below the NT or A tier level.



Best news I've heard all year. This is the single greatest factor when it comes to retaining player involvement, especially as players advance into the professional ranks. As an advanced amateur, I was reluctant to pay high entry fees (I consider high as anything greater than $50) even when I was practically guaranteed that return in merchandise by high finishes. In the professional divisions, it's rare that I can find ANY sanctioned tournament with an entry fee of $40 or less.

If you want to see player participation increase, keep entry fees at $40 or less for events below the NT or A tier level. If this means that tournament purses are lower because they will rely more on increasingly-harder-to-procure sponsor donations, so be it.

Glad to see Chuck's proposal included a true amateur class.



I wouldn't go that far. It still is not protected from the semi-pro players. In his plan it is more like a "No Prize Class". This plays towards all of the common misconceptions folks have about a true Amateur Class:

1) That it is for low entry fee players.
2) That it is a no frills event.
3) That clubs can't move merch.
4) That manufacturers will take a hit.
5) That it will take away from the Pro player base.

There is nothing "True" about any of that. However if Prize players are permitted to move back and forth between the Pro, Prize and No Prize classes (essentially keeping their amateur status with no consequences) then all of the above will be �true� about this new class of players and no TD in their right mind will want to run events for them and no sponsor or manufacturer will be interested in providing sponsorship or supporting the development of this crucial class of players.

His plan will reduce it to just another option for the �good ol� boys� to escape the sandbagging of the prize class or the proper arse whoopin� of the pro class. Who, in my opinion, are the EXACT REASON WE NEED THIS CLASS IN THE FIRST PLACE. This class is not just another �PROTECTED PROFESSIONAL DIVISION�, it is for the actual, real and meaningful development of an entirely new and alien form of competition and player within the PDGA:

AMATEURS!!!

Players cannot move from Pro to Am in my proposed structure, just between Pro and Prize if their rating is low enough.

One subtle benefit on behalf of moving toward trophy am divisions is that current am players' "native" PDGA membership class under this proposal will be as amateurs in the trophy divisions. They will have to choose to play in a Prize division. Granted, it's just a little psychological twist, but I think Ams today consider themselves in the Prize divisions by default and would have to choose to play in a trophy only division if a TD decided to offer it. My proposal at least reverses this assumption and eliminates the words Advanced, Intermediate and Recreational so those more familiar connections are also not there.

Players cannot move from Pro to Am in my proposed structure, just between Pro and Prize if their rating is low enough.

One subtle benefit on behalf of moving toward trophy am divisions is that current am players' "native" PDGA membership class under this proposal will be as amateurs in the trophy divisions. They will have to choose to play in a Prize division. Granted, it's just a little psychological twist, but I think Ams today consider themselves in the Prize divisions by default and would have to choose to play in a trophy only division if a TD decided to offer it. My proposal at least reverses this assumption and eliminates the words Advanced, Intermediate and Recreational so those more familiar connections are also not there.



Hold on Chuck! So you are saying that Prize Division players will "NOT" be eligible for the Amateur Division? If that is the case, then I will loosing my copyright on "True Amateur" name. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif ;) :D

While I would prefer to play many tournaments in the trophy only division (especially since all three of us will be getting trophies), there are a few events I would like to have to option of playing in the prize division, or maybe even a Pro division.

If playing in the prize class means that I will lose my ability to play in the Am calss, what good it? What about those tournaments where the Am class isn't offered?

There is no such thing as a Prize Class player in terms of PDGA membership. Members will either be Ams or Pros just like they are now. However, Ams and Pros in the right ratings range can choose to enter the appropriate Prize division when offered (which I assume will be much of the time). The Prize divisions only exist for competition purposes. No one is actually a PDGA member in them.

So, 'yes' a player can be an Am and play in their appropriate trophy only division sometimes and also choose to play in the appropriate prize division sometimes. They retain their amateur standing as long as they don't accept cash for prizes, just like today.

So the prize division is like an expanded version of PRO2 with reduced payouts for the Pros that choose to compete there?

What about those tournaments where the Am class isn't offered?



The default event would be like today where all valid PDGA divisions are available unless specifically excluded by the TD in the event flyer or fewer than four(?) players show up to enter the division and TD disallows that few entering. So, a TD would have to specifically exclude the proposed new Am trophy divisions. I'm sure some will for perhaps A-tiers due to field capacity and nature of the event just like they do with Intermediate and Rec today. On the other hand, an A-tier that only had the Prize and Am trophy divisions without Pros might be very well attended and more profitable for TDs to offer. I think TDs will offer what appears to work for them and their player base.

So the prize division is like an expanded version of PRO2 with reduced payouts for the Pros that choose to compete there?




Yes, but with a more organized approach and even lower payouts than Pro 2 with the 60% conversion to cash. For example, today Pro 2 allows another parallel prize division, Advanced, to be offered simultaneously, which makes no sense.

There is no such thing as a Prize Class player in terms of PDGA membership. Members will either be Ams or Pros just like they are now. However, Ams and Pros in the right ratings range can choose to enter the appropriate Prize division when offered (which I assume will be much of the time). The Prize divisions only exist for competition purposes. No one is actually a PDGA member in them.

So, 'yes' a player can be an Am and play in their appropriate trophy only division sometimes and also choose to play in the appropriate prize division sometimes. They retain their amateur standing as long as they don't accept cash for prizes, just like today.



Then it is a sham. Slightly better sham, but a sham just the same, and little better than the system we currently have. The "No Prize" amateur divisions are just that, a "No Prize", cheap, unattractive to TDs and Sponsors, option for Prize Class Semi-Pros wanting to avoid stiffer competitions on any given day.

What exactly would be so harmful in having a division just for True Amateurs? One protected from pro and semi-pro players? Heck! Leave them completely in place with no changes at all! Just provide a new option! One worth all the protection we can, as an association, offer it.

I'd likely support it, but it will, as I said, delay any meaningful development of a True Amateur Class within our PDGA Competitive System.

I think TDs will offer what appears to work for them and their player base.



Exactly, and so long as the Am Trophy division is a "No Prize" Prize Class division, why would any TD offer it, sponsor sponsor it, or association develope it?

I'd be willing to say that there are very few true Ams out there even among those vast numbers of Rec players. What I mean by that, is players who never would play for money even among friends, wouldn't accept cash during informal non-sanctioned events or leagues and turn down money won in Ace pots. Accepting cash in any one of those violates the true spririt of amateurism, doesn't it?

It's only because the PDGA can't and doesn't want to be Big Brother watching over these activities that most players aren't pros, or at they certainly aren't amateurs in the truest sense. So, why shouldn't the PDGA sanction the activities that non-pros like to do? The true ams that are 'pure' in all respects will at least have a suitable place to play in this proposed system and the structure is more in line with other sports for garnering more support and connection with school based athletics where some of our promoters would like to progress.

Exactly, and so long as the Am Trophy division is a "No Prize" Prize Class division, why would any TD offer it, sponsor sponsor it, or association develope it?



Because it's harder to exclude something than it is to offer it as an additional option.

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. If the system makes sense, I believe they will go along with it to see what happens, especially if their events haven't been filling.

Exactly, and so long as the Am Trophy division is a "No Prize" Prize Class division, why would any TD offer it, sponsor sponsor it, or association develope it?



Because it's harder to exclude something than it is to offer it as an additional option.

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. If the system makes sense, I believe they will go along with it to see what happens, especially if their events haven't been filling.



Understandably, we are approaching this from opposite ends Chuck. You're assumption, which could be true (we just don't know) is that few current PDGA Members or Tournament Players are Amateurs in the more mainstream sense, and would not opt for such a classification of play. I am assuming that we can never know, for sure, if there are or are not Amateurs in the PDGA unless we create a classification just for them.

But more importantly, we will never know if there are non-PDGA Members and non-Tournament Players who would opt for such a classification unless we create it AND PROTECT IT from our current type players (whether you call them Pros, Ams, Gamblers, Carneys or Protected Pros/Ams). Players that have been brought up in a system dedicated and based on the concept of �playing for other participants entry fees�, whether pro or am, would taint such a pure amateur competitive venue.

Consider the motivation involved for such players choosing to play in this classification:
1) To avoid playing against superior skilled players.
2) To save money on entry fees.
3) To assure return of value on entry fees.
4) To win titles that were otherwise much more difficult to win.
And why? Particularly in light of the 5 skill levels within which they can compete in the Semi-Pros (Pros and Semi-Pros would be in the same classification of players. Amateurs in another.)
Now compare to the motivation of true Amateurs:
1) To compete for the pure joy of competition without any concern for financial reward.
2) To compete to be a part of a larger association of like-minded players.
3) To support the hard work of the PDGA, Regional and Local organizers.
Amateurs with these purely competitive motivations should not have to worry about a Pro or Semi-Pro player deciding to go for easy victories against folks 100% committed to Amateur Play. Once created Amateur Play IS worth protecting.

As far as forcing TDs or anyone to run events or include divisions for true Amateurs, we need look no further than the crossroads every TD worth their weight eventually comes to where he/she feels compelled to help disc golf take another leap forward in her development. When they wonder how can they help get more women, children, seniors, civic groups and schools involved in organized disc golf. When they wonder if they will ever see a steady flow of new faces in the pro and protected semi-pro divisions, or will they just continue to watch the ups and downs of field size with (good but) less than exponential growth. They wonder how to go about putting their toe into this unknown, AND THEY LOOK FOR LEADERSHIP in showing them methods to take these concerns from wishful thinking to reality.

Innova�s EDGE and new DGU are certainly new tools, terrific things, but they do not represent a conscious decision and effort on the part of the PDGA to include an entirely NEW and UNIQUE class of player in organized disc golf. Only a true Amateur Class will accomplish this.

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.