Well here it is, 4 months away from my 2005 tournament, and I can't get the PDGA to send me a sanctioning agreement for my tournament. Is that too much to ask?

If any of the PDGA insiders have any clues about how the sanctioning agreements might change for next year, i'd sure like to hear from you. I wonder, what wonderful changes will they come up with? Will they increase fees AGAIN? Will they try to ban non-members from B-tiers AGAIN?

Why can't I get on the BOD? You'd think someone that got as many votes as I did last election might have been considered for the vacant position that came up a couple weeks ago. At least if I'd been handed the job, TD's would have 2005 sanctioning agreements in their hands already, and the 2005 schedule would already be finished. but, i guess i just haven't mastered the art of making excuses as well as our current leadership (apparently it's the #1 qualification for replacement board members).

BOD member is a political position as well as work. Comments like these don't give me a warm fuzzy that you are willing to work with others.

Nothing personal, but you aren't coming across as a team player to me right now. You gotta play the game if you want to get in. This is all, of course, IMO. Just letting you know that posts/comments like that one aren't earning my vote. You have a great point and are voicing a valid concern. But the presentation is lacking.

nice guys finish last. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

i can work just fine with others. i've never been given the opportunity to show my talents, after volunteering for many PDGA committees, and yet i'm criticized for pointing out that our current PDGA leaders are dragging their feet as usual to the detriment of PDGA TD's and players alike.

what did the PDGA have to lose by letting someone with enormous ambition, proven success, and an abundance of free time have a crack at the competition director's seat for the short weeks left by the incumbent's resignation? getting the tour ready for 2005 isn't exactly rocket science, it just takes time, dedication, and hard work, but all i have been handed are excuses.

go ahead rhett, let the current leaders go unchallenged and watch more and more TD's move their tournaments away from the PDGA and wonder why our membership hasn't grown in the past year. there must be a reason.

But Rhett does have a point. The tone of your posts lately has been anything but team play oriented. You are becoming your own worst enemy if you wish to attempt change from within.

shoot the messenger again, that'll solve all your problems, won't it?

come on duke, i know you've got all the answers. what changes are planned for the tour in 2005, and when can i expect to get a sanctioning agreement to fill out so that i may donate a few hundred bucks to the PDGA?

shoot the messenger again, that'll solve all your problems, won't it?

come on duke, i know you've got all the answers. what changes are planned for the tour in 2005, and when can i expect to get a sanctioning agreement to fill out so that i may donate a few hundred bucks to the PDGA?



Mike, take it from someone expert at rubbing folks the wrong way, you are an expert at rubbing folks the wrong way. The only difference is that I am aware of it and you apparently are not.

Back on topic though... When can we expect the 2005 Sanctioning Agreement? Does anyone know? Also, when can we expect the first of the year A-tier/Super Tour schedule to be worked out. I can not publicize my January and February events until then.

Gimp,

I would advise shooting Brian an email or better yet a call and you will get your answer (certainly faster than posting it on the bored mess).

Mikey,

You are totally missing my point. I am trying to be constructive here. Please try to get what I am saying.

Believe me when I say that I sound a lot jerkier than that post when I am trying to be a jerk about something. I am being serious. I would like to see you be serious too if you are genuinely interested in advancing the cause of PDGA disc golf.

oh i'm aware nicky. i'm aware every time i ask to help and get rejected because someone can't get over a few remarks i've made about wasting the membership's dues, raising dues, trying to ban non-members from b-tiers, or executive directors treating good TD's with a lack of respect. but i digress.

rhett, you do have a good point, but i would remind you that i haven't always been quite so nasty, and wouldn't bother running for the board if i didn't think i could handle the job, including being diplomatic with the membership. i promise you that if elected, i won't sink to the lows i've had to to be heard any longer, and further promise you'll never hear me say "i don't have time to do the competition director's job."

gimp, i'm certain you'll get an agreement long before my request is granted---please e-mail an agreement when you get it (i know you have my address :cool:)

And I guess Nick is a team player. If Nick is aware of it and undrparmickey isn't, then wouldn't you think a team player would help that person out who needs an answer?
Can anyone voice their opinon or views about the PDGA without a handfull of you guys getting so offended?
That's what I want, ( yea right ) someone who know's politics and can play the game will get the position.
This isn't the presidential election
Explain playing the game to me Rhett, is that kissing A, or being a yes man or what.
Who say's you can't have an attitude and get the job done.
I can very well see underparmickeys complaint being about poor service from the PDGA. But I'm sure you guys will see it differently.

I'll wait for your response Rhett, just don't let me down and start responding like Nick Knight.

The best way to get an answer from "the PDGA" (ie, the administration) is not via the message board. The "Contact" link at the top of the page is much more useful. Try it. It really works!!

I agree, but how do you or I know this did not happen.
Is it possible that the PDGA was contacted with no reply ?

I sent our regional coordinator a question about this a few days ago - I figure he will get some answers after he rests up from all the stat churning for the t-ten site. In the big scheme of things it is much more productive for him to check than every Texas TD (I have worked in small staff organizations, I know�).

There are TONS of people on this message board who may have known the answer (Nick not included) and I thought someone might jump in if they knew the status (plus I thought it would be nice to get the wolf pack off UPM's back :p)

And I guess Nick is a team player.



Nick is not a member of the PDGA BOD and he is not running for a board position that I am aware of. I don't know where you draw the conclucsion that I think Nick is team player from. At least that is what you are inferring by that statement directed at me. If Nick were running for the BOD, I would probably offer him the same advice I just offered Mikey.

I speak for me. I like where the PDGA is going. I think DiscTV is what screwed us, not SportLoop. After the "web broadcast" debacle I was on here complaining about the stupid agreement we (the BOD representing us) made with DiscTV and how those freaking lamers got to dictate the format of tournaments to the long-time TDs who run them. I actually like the fact that the PDGA BOD entered into the agreement with SportsLoop to try and build a brand for the NT. Hey, it didn't work out. But they were trying. I think that is better than doing nothing.

So no I don't think you have to kiss [*****] to be a BOD member. But for me personally I get a bad vibe from how Mikey conducts himself. I'm not ready to vote him. He is not changing my mind from how is "campaigning" right now. I just thought I would let him know.

rhett, you do have a good point, but i would remind you that i haven't always been quite so nasty, and wouldn't bother running for the board if i didn't think i could handle the job, including being diplomatic with the membership. i promise you that if elected, i won't sink to the lows i've had to to be heard any longer, and further promise you'll never hear me say "i don't have time to do the competition director's job."



If your aunt had two she'd be your uncle.

PROVE IT MIKE!

Grow up now. Why should we expect you to suddenly not act like an idiot once you are elected? Seriously...

I sent our regional coordinator a question about this a few days ago - I figure he will get some answers after he rests up from all the stat churning for the t-ten site. In the big scheme of things it is much more productive for him to check than every Texas TD (I have worked in small staff organizations, I know�).

There are TONS of people on this message board who may have known the answer (Nick not included) and I thought someone might jump in if they knew the status (plus I thought it would be nice to get the wolf pack off UPM's back :p)



Yeah Gimp, you got a point. Better to fart in the wind then to just contact the person you "know" has the answer and will give it to you if you ask.

Brilliant! Maybe you should be on the board with Mike... ;)

Uh-oh. It might be time to put Nick back on the "ignore" list.

I sent our regional coordinator a question about this a few days ago - I figure he will get some answers after he rests up from all the stat churning for the t-ten site. In the big scheme of things it is much more productive for him to check than every Texas TD (I have worked in small staff organizations, I know�).

There are TONS of people on this message board who may have known the answer (Nick not included) and I thought someone might jump in if they knew the status (plus I thought it would be nice to get the wolf pack off UPM's back :p)



"Gimp" - I am told that the schedule should be out VERY soon.

I am also waiting on this schedule so I can start our scheduling in Region 2 as well as planning for our large scale events (A tier and Above)

I know they were working on it, But with the majority of the "Players" at the Japan Open and "Nez" going away things seem to be a bit delayed.

I am quite sure that the BOD is doing what they can to get this info out ASAP. ;)

Why sanctioning agreements are not yet availiable for 2005, I do not know :p

You took me off?

I find it much more fun to scroll past his messages without reading them than to have him on the list� :D

"Whiners" and "Kissasses", what is this the RNC!?!

Mike and I are just different shades of Painintheass...

No conclusion on my part, I'm just defining team player as to underparmickey vs- NK. You can trash the PDGA and your not a team player, ( come on ) but you can trash and belittle everyone who doesn't agree with you .

Whats so wrong with having someone who is a little aggressive and not afraid to rock the boat. I like where the PDGA is going as well,
but just because I, or anyone else don't agree with the PDGA at times, does not constitute a non team player.
I'm a firm believer that the best person should do the job, not someone who is politicly correct or playing the game so to speak as you stated were requirements for the job.

I speak only for me and who I am going to vote for. Although I wouldn't mind being so pwerful that I dictate terms for the entire world to follow, that isn't quite the case (yet). :)

uh, for the record, i did request a sanctioning agreement two months ago, and two weeks ago. i guess i could try a third time.

nick, if i'm elected, i'll be present at all the BOD meetings, so i won't be totally clueless like the rest of the membership about what the BOD is up to, therefore, i won't have to post here to prod them into action. it is a shame that it always seems to come to this.

rhett, i think the PDGA is moving in the right direction, but just not fast enough. perhaps it is time to start paying the BOD members a salary (their huge fee increase has provided a nice budget surplus to do this)---then maybe we'd get better qualified people to step up and run for office. for the record i don't have a problem with every member of the current BOD, just a majority of them. ;) and it's getting better all the time, judging by the recent departures :D

Just curious Mike - but what would give you an expectation of a revised sanctioning agreement being available in July? I would think that any major revisions to such a document would be addressed at the BOD summit which traditionally has happened sometime in the fall hasn't it?

You say you asked for one - perhaps you would have gotten an answer if you simply asked when one would be available.

Your posts come off not as rocking the boat - or knowing more about what's going on than the PDGA membership - more as presumptive and impatient. Does having the revised document in your hands prevent you from planning your event date? I wouldn't think so. Unless you are approaching it from the standpoint of expecting to disagreeing with its content - and not wanting to sign it (which is how you come off).

Have you tried contacting any BOD members (the ones who aren't on your S list) to see what potential changes to the sanctioning agreement might be on the table?

These sorts of things are what I consider reasonable, and pretty common sense approaches to the issue you have raised. If you haven't considered them, or things similar to them - how are you going to make your case to the membership that you should be helping to lead the organization?

Rhett said you have to play the game. I only partially agree with that statement. I am notorious for having strong opinions - and recognize that they don't always mesh with the status quo. Doesn't mean I don't at least try to be diplomatic when vociferously voicing them. A lesson I think you would do well to learn.

respectfully CG4010

Mike, we went though this last year didn't we????

Nez leaving the board when he did is going to slow down the prosses a little. Last year I was able to get the tenitive schedule from him. I was able to work out most of Texas that way before October 1st. Of course this is no easy job, and from what I hear Mr. Duke say, there are more tournaments wanting to start up next year.

If I also remember correctly, you were also one of the biggest voices on the B-tier requirements for Pro's. (remember the requirement was for Pro's to be members, not ams at B-tiers)

And also that Carded Pro's could not play D (or was it C) tier events.

Both of these were shot down thanks to you and others.

But the PDGA has grown by leaps and bounds in the last few years. It is a far cry from what it was 10 years ago, or even when I first ran for Region Coordinator in the 90's.

BTW, remember when Region 11 was OK, KAN, AR, LA, TX, and Mexico?????. In the 3 years I was coordinator (of Region 11, before Texas Coordinator), I got about 5 calls from outside of Texas for tournament scheduling.

Now in Texas, the PDGA does not schedule any tournament without Dukes OK. (at least that is the theory, I told Gary to hold Guru to it)

Oh yea, did you call Guru about the 2005 agreement. For that matter, has anyone?????

He, if anyone, would know when it will be available.

It works like this.

The PDGA sets up the NT tour. They have to contact EVERY NT tournament director.

Then they schedule the A-tier events around those NT events. Then they have to contact all those A - tier Directors.

After that is done, then the State coordinators can fill in the blanks with the B, C, and D-tier events.

The PDGA did have a goal of getting the winter/spring schedule done sooner this year didn't it?????

Anbody else get an eery feeling of Sam Kinison, "one of the loudest and rudest comedians of the 20th century (http://www.kinison.com/about.php)" yelling every word mikey posts?

How about this...change the avitar to Tinky Winky (http://www.curvecomm.com/teletubbies/tinkywinky.html) and say: "What can I do to help the PDGA to complete the 2005 Sanctioning Agreement?"

Ok, that's a bit extreme, but as the saying goes: you can catch more bees with honey.

We just finished our fall summit, here in Augusta, GA. We reviewed the PDGA Tour schedule, which is 70-80% complete for Majors, NTs and A-tiers. We also reviewed changes to the sanctioning agreement and competition system (there are changes coming). We now have to prepare documents, review them, and then ship them out. With our Board meeting at the end of September, there's no way we can get the materials for the next year out any sooner. And we can't move our meeting back much earlier (we moved it back two weeks this year), as it gets too close to Worlds, which many of us are just recovering from. It takes a while to get caught up on your non-PDGA obligations when you've been gone for a week, and then you have to turn right around and prepare for a big meeting, with a full budget, new initiatives, etc.

Our goal is to eventually work on the schedule on a semi-annual cycle, and then eventually quarterly, but to date we haven't had nearly enough resources to do that. Now that we've approved hiring two more full-time staff people, we'll hopefully be able to attend to some of these important things in a way that helps out early-season TDs more.

-Theo Pozzy
PDGA Commissioner

So when's the schedule going to be published (even with a disclaimer that states dates may change). Us small-time TDs want to start scheduling our events around the big ones.

2 new staff members, that sounds great.

Getting the schedule published is one of the office's top priorities (once they get back to Canada). Last year, I upgraded the IT and web systems so they support a rolling calendar. Brian will be able to start adding the confirmed Major, NT and A-tier dates soon (and please don't ask what "soon" means - probably more than a week, and less than a month from now).

-Theo Pozzy
PDGA Commissioner

Can you give us any hint on how major the changes are going to be. We have gone through major changes two years in a row already...

***Thanks for the information Theo***

Commenting on specifics while the staff and competition director John Chapman are still going over notes and compiling minutes would be impossible for me. I'm an old guy and I forget things. I'm likely to get something wrong and create trouble and work. But I would say that TDs will appreciate most if not all changes and that the changes make things easier, not harder. The focus of our discussions in this area was on supporting the TDs.

One important annual cycle change that we will try to implement by small changes to the Constitution in the forthcoming election is the timing of when BoD elections and terms take place. A structural issue in the past has been that the TD agreements need to be out as early in, say, 2004 as possible for 2005. But in a year like this one, that would have meant that the departing competition director would be putting into place the agreements the new one would have to implement.

I believe we agreed to change the cycle so that director cycles end/begin, in the future, September 1 instead of February 1. Oversight Director Bruce Brakel will be putting together some modest Constitution changes to be voted on in this coming election. (He's working on more extensive ones for the next election cycle.)

We just finished our fall summit, here in Augusta, GA. We reviewed the PDGA Tour schedule, which is 70-80% complete for Majors, NTs and A-tiers. We also reviewed changes to the sanctioning agreement and competition system (there are changes coming). -Theo Pozzy
PDGA Commissioner



Hey Theo, any chance of getting a preview of some of the changes?

Thanks to the entire BOD for your hard work! :)

I was only present for about half of the Summit, by teleconference, and I kept losing my connection. It is a problem with my government issue phone.

If they agreed to keep the wraps on the changes until some later date, I was not present for that, and no one has updated me by e-mail on that. Here are some hints:

The two meters above the playing surface rule is going to work more like the out of bounds rule. It will be incumbent on the TD to declare two meters o.b. just like we do with ponds, roads, yellow rope lines and the rock gardens in Bill's front yard. Water currently is in bounds; you can play it where it lies, unless the TD says otherwise. The two meter rule will work like that.

PDGA active member pros with a rating below a certain number will be free to play in amateur divisions for prizes. The exact wording on this has yet to be decided too, but that is the general concept. I think Pro 2, to the extent that it was ever here, goes away with this plan. I think the entire R-tier format goes away too, but I will defer to the minutes when they are published. Some of this was put to a formal vote and some of it was just understood from the context of the presentation and discussion.

We might publish something somewhere making it clear that trophy-only formats or trophy-only entry fee options are allowed, so long as tier payout standards are met with the trophy and player pack values.

I'm being intentionally fuzzy here so don't start parsing my words looking for specific meaning. I was in and out of the meeting with a bad connection, did not take extensive notes, and was not able to be present for some of this.

For those few of you who previously were informed that I was lingering somewhere between denial and acceptance, but not on grief, posting this has been cathartic.

The two meters above the playing surface rule is going to work more like the out of bounds rule.



Interesting that the BOD is making rules deicisions. I thought that was what the Rules Committee was for :confused:

The two meters above the playing surface rule is going to work more like the out of bounds rule.



Interesting that the BOD is making rules deicisions. I thought that was what the Rules Committee was for :confused:



Actually, the Board was acting on a list of recommendations from the Rules Committee...

Well, that makes more sense. Thanks Jon.

PDGA active member pros with a rating below a certain number will be free to play in amateur divisions for prizes. The exact wording on this has yet to be decided too, but that is the general concept. I think Pro 2, to the extent that it was ever here, goes away with this plan. I think the entire R-tier format goes away too, but I will defer to the minutes when they are published. Some of this was put to a formal vote and some of it was just understood from the context of the presentation and discussion.

We might publish something somewhere making it clear that trophy-only formats or trophy-only entry fee options are allowed, so long as tier payout standards are met with the trophy and player pack values.



If this is in fact the direction the PDGA is taking to help the cause, my opinion is its the wrong direction. (Pending final verbiage of course) If I understand this correctly a Pro rated player below a certain rating is going to potentially be able to play with AM players and beat them routinely? Pending the points values for tier events....isnt it possible a pro player could sandbag tourneys? I thought this was already a general concern through out the disc golf community. We all know who they are.....their scores in AM events rival, if not in some cases, beat, Pro player's scores? It seems to me we really need to make sure the verbiage of this is scrutinized in such a way to rid this issue from happening.

Its no fun traveling miles, enter a tourney in your "actual" division only to find the winner of the last few events Pro and/or AM has entered themselves in your division and not moved themselves up to compete with players of their caliber.

Maybe Im all washed up on this issue, maybe Im not!

What has happened to the competitive nature and being the best you can be! How can you "better" yourself playing with "lesser" skilled players? The prizes? The shirts? The plastic? Sheesh.....

If I understand this correctly a Pro rated player below a certain rating is going to potentially be able to play with AM players and beat them routinely?

Potentially, but only if we were to set the number too high, or if everyone plays up at that tournament. For example, a 929 rated pro master is not going to routinely beat a bunch of 945 rated advanced players, but he might routinely beat a bunch of 895 rated Intermediates who play Advanced.

This rule will primarily benefit the lone pro woman or the lone pro grand master who usually does not have a division. This player will have the option to play advanced, intermediate or recreational for prizes if that suits him or her, where ever their rating puts them.

This rule could result in there being more competition at the top end of advanced, which might result in more intermediates playing in the intermediate division. Essentially this adds an element from the R-tier format, and makes Advanced more like Silver, but does not allow that pro to take cash instead of prizes.

Given the reception that Pro 2 received the five times Jon and I offered it this summer [we never had more than a foursome of players, who mostly had schedule conflicts with playing on Sunday] I doubt that many pros would want to move down and play for prizes.

If they do decide to move down and play for prizes, most of the adversely effected amateurs can do the same thing. Most of the adversely effected amateurs will be those who choose to play up.

I don't understand your argument. You seem to contradict yourself. If a player is playing in a division where his reating allows him to play, he should also be playing with players of equal caliber. If you are playing in a division where you cannot compete, then you are the one playing in the wrong division. Unless you are playing up to gain experience and should expect to be whupped.

If it is like the Pro2 standards, the rating levels for pros that are playing down will lower than the Am levels. Pro2 was required for AM players at 960 and above, and an option for Pro players at 950 and below. I would expect the same approach with this proposal.

How long does it take the PDGA to be notified of the winners of events? 10 days, 20, 30, 40, 60? It seems to me were already allowing an 'honor system' to govern what division players play in. What TD is going to be aware that a player has recently gotten points from his/her last few events and force them into the correct division for their tourney? Maybe this is closer to the head of the nail.

Case in point, I played in an Illinois Tourney a few weeks back, ran by Gary Lewis. Gary is a good guy and has been around for a long time. Problem is, a player was allowed in the AM division and left there after their 1st round score tied the OPEN division's best. All I know is, as an AM I was totally discouraged after discovering this between rounds. The second best in the AM division was already behind 1st place by 5 strokes going into the second round. Can anyone tell me the advantage of letting that continue to happen? Call me slighted....and Ill agree with you. Its not right for that to happen. Is the problem with the TD's, the PDGA or me?

Case in point, I played in an Illinois Tourney a few weeks back, ran by Gary Lewis. Gary is a good guy and has been around for a long time. Problem is, a player was allowed in the AM division and left there after their 1st round score tied the OPEN division's best. All I know is, as an AM I was totally discouraged after discovering this between rounds. The second best in the AM division was already behind 1st place by 5 strokes going into the second round. Can anyone tell me the advantage of letting that continue to happen? Call me slighted....and Ill agree with you. Its not right for that to happen. Is the problem with the TD's, the PDGA or me?



Scott- I think you are using a terrible example here. I was not at this event, but I know the individuals that were there. If you checked the thread devoted to that tournament you would see that this was the FIRST win the advanced player has EVER had, and he clearly shot a great first round. Up until a few short weeks ago, the Open player that he was tied with after the first round was also playing Advanced. Did you happen to check the advanced winner's player rating? Not even close to what would be considered a pro player. I would recommend worrying less about other people's game and focusing more on your own.
Good luck and hope to see you this weekend at France Park. The good news for you is - I'm TDing the event and will not be playing on my home course.

John Cavaletto

Scott,
To answer some of what you are asking:

1) How long does it take the PDGA to be notified of the winners of events?

Some event results are reported the same day of the event. Others are sent in the mail afterwards. The 2005 tour agreement states the following regarding submitting event results:

Please note that all TDs are expected to email their event results to office@pdga.com by attaching a completed copy
of the electronic TD Report in M/S Excel. In order for the PDGA database and the player rating and points systems to
function properly, it is crucial that the PDGA receive timely complete and verifiable electronic results. This includes details
on all memberships collected and on each course layout played. In terms of event results, the listing of complete and
correct player names, PDGA#s, place of finish, round-by-round and total scores, and individual Pro cash or Amateur/
Junior prize value won is essential. If a TD is unable to submit results electronically, he/she should ensure that this
key task is assigned to an Assistant TD or local club member who has the necessary computer skills. While the PDGA
still accepts handwritten results, TDs who do not submit electronically are charged an additional $25 fee, to cover the
costs of having the PDGA convert the event results to the required format.



2) It seems to me were already allowing an 'honor system' to govern what division players play in.

The Player Division and Points Table (http://www.pdga.com/documents/04PlayerDivisions&PointsTable.pdf) is a good resource and shows what division you should be playing in based on your player rating.

3)What TD is going to be aware that a player has recently gotten points from his/her last few events and force them into the correct division for their tourney?

Points don't force players to move between divisions. There is no cap or minimum for ratings in the PRO divisions, but there are caps in the AM divisions forcing someone with a very high player rating to play in the higest AM division offered.



Problem is, a player was allowed in the AM division and left there after their 1st round score tied the OPEN division's best. All I know is, as an AM I was totally discouraged after discovering this between rounds. The second best in the AM division was already behind 1st place by 5 strokes going into the second round. Can anyone tell me the advantage of letting that continue to happen? Call me slighted....and Ill agree with you. Its not right for that to happen. Is the problem with the TD's, the PDGA or me?



A few observations:

1) Don't allow yourself to be discouraged because there is someone else on the course playing well. Play your best against the course every time you have the opportunity.

2) It is possible that the player in question does not yet have a player rating to help determine division. This may even be their first tournament and typically when a "newbie" shows up to play an event and doesn't know where to play, a TD will try to help them determine their skill level and choose a comfortable/competitive place to play.

3) It seems the TD and the player were both surprised at the skill level of the player (based on the first round score) and recognized that a mistake may have been made when initially determining a division for this player.

4) This player, if he chooses to remain an AM, was playing in the proper division - the highest AM division available. No one can be forced to turn PRO by accepting cash, and once you turn PRO there is no going back (yet).

I hope this helps. :D

How long does it take the PDGA to be notified of the winners of events? 10 days, 20, 30, 40, 60? It seems to me were already allowing an 'honor system' to govern what division players play in. What TD is going to be aware that a player has recently gotten points from his/her last few events and force them into the correct division for their tourney? Maybe this is closer to the head of the nail.

Case in point, I played in an Illinois Tourney a few weeks back, ran by Gary Lewis. Gary is a good guy and has been around for a long time. Problem is, a player was allowed in the AM division and left there after their 1st round score tied the OPEN division's best. All I know is, as an AM I was totally discouraged after discovering this between rounds. The second best in the AM division was already behind 1st place by 5 strokes going into the second round. Can anyone tell me the advantage of letting that continue to happen? Call me slighted....and Ill agree with you. Its not right for that to happen. Is the problem with the TD's, the PDGA or me?

I'll try also to hit the nail rather than respond to the pounding. There are threads explaining how the rating system works. To get it working for you, you need to join the PDGA, play some sanctioned tournaments and get a rating. TheHomie (http://www.pdga.org/schedule/event.php?TournID=4411) is coming up. They sanction all their divisions. Great tournament. Great courses.

I could help you understand the system if I understood what division you were playing and whether it was sanctioned. Gary often does not sanction his lower amateur divisions. At his tournaments Intermediate is often called "Ams" and Recreational is often called "Novice."

If you were playing Advanced, there is no cap on Advanced. If your really good amateurs, like Pat, Sean, Justin and Brett, are kicking your buttons, the players who cannot keep up and cannot deal with getting beat need to play where their rating puts them. The solution is not for advanced players to play pro, but for Intermediates to join the PDGA, get a rating, and then realize that they belong in a lower division. If you had been a member, your Pillage rounds would have rated you as an intermediate.

If you were playing intermediate, it is up to the players and the TD to apply social pressure to unrated non-members to get them to play in the proper division. The co-TDs of the Illinois Open Series would not allow an unrated member or a non-member to bag in Intermediate or Rec, but it is really, really rare. The one instance that occured in our four tournaments, we dealt with.

If you are playing unsanctioned Intermediate at unsanctioned tournaments, or at partly sanctioned tournaments, you are on your own. That is one of the reasons I don't play many unsanctioned tournaments. You don't know what you will get and you don't have any recourse. It is like buying a TV off the back of a truck. Caveat emptor.

LoL, Thanks John.....your right, I didnt do my homework! I guess I need to do more of that because alot has changed since I left the game many years ago, and have only recently gotten back into it. I will continue working on my game, cause it needs all the help it can get.....LoL. It just seems wrong is all. Ill get over it as others have had to as well.

Sorry I wont be there for your event but I know others that will coming down. Maybe Ill see you at Homies or the Princess City Open?

Thanks to all for the insight on this subject.

Scott, it's all cool!! Player ratings are a fairly recent addition to what the PDGA offers its members and provides a measure of how you have played and how you stack up against other players.

Sorry you won't be able to make it this weekend, but I will see you at Homies and the Princess City.

If lower rated pros can play in appropriately rated brackets with AMS, I think it will really help the tournament scene in the Houston area. We have several "smaller division" pro players and several lower rated pros that may want to play with like competition on occasion. I can't wait to read the final wording in the 2005 agreement.

One thing we need to stress in the sanctioning agreement is the requirement for TDs to actually check the ratings of the ams and make sure they are in the right division. I had to bump a guy to MA1 recently who had played about 4 tournaments in Int with an Advanced rating.

Not being on the PDGA BOD (as some people have assumed, much to my enjoyment, chuckle), I am as excited about these changes as anyone else. So far it all sounds good.

The competitive structure sounds familiar to me. Doing away with Pro 2, creating a single skill track for both Pros and What We Currently Call Ams, but maintaining the top Age Protected Divisions. I don't know if this is supposed to be a secret or something, but to me this doesn't sound like the "Deletion" of the R Tier, it sounds like the "Institutionalizing" of the R Tier, or at least the "Marraige" of the R Tier into the Standard Competitive System.

I'll be particularly interested to see where we came out on at least providing an option for True Amateurs (Code Named "Trophies Only") Competitors.

I am very pleased to see the status of the "2 Meter Rule" changing to more of a course design element option. Now we can see once and for all whether it will drastically affect our game to remove it or not.

So far, so good.

I'd like to thank Theo for putting to rest any doubts that my detractors may have had about me contacting the PDGA before posting. In the future, you may assume that I have indeed contacted the appropriate channels before ranting. Contacting the appropriate people rarely gets anyone any answers, so I understand how people would make the mistake of thinking I hadn't asked anyone. :cool:

And don't assume I haven't volunteered to help. I get the feeling that I haven't been contacted to help with next year's schedule because I might make someone else look lazy :)

I guess I'll just guess what kind of changes are going to be made, although, if Terry says I'll like them, how could I possibly think I won't? Although he did admit he's old and his memory's not so hot. That's really helping me as a TD though! Thanks. I'm so eager to run a PDGA tournament now even though I've got other options. I'm always excited by new and creative excuses the PDGA comes up with. What will they think of next?

If John Fowler didn't live down there I would be willing to bet that there is something in the disc golf water in LA.

If John Fowler didn't live down there I would be willing to bet that there is something in the disc golf water in LA.



Nice.

Those of us without family members in the BOD can afford to be so nice...

Here's what's next:

> Contacting the appropriate people rarely gets anyone
> any answers, so I understand how people would make
> the mistake of thinking I hadn't asked anyone.

"Rarely gets anyone any answers." That's just too much, Mike. In the last three years I have personally answered hundreds of emails from people asking for information. They get answers or are forwarded to people who have the answers. It's going to be pretty difficult to convince those people that answers are rare. And many of them are on this DISCussion list, no doubt among those who do not find you persuasive.

> And don't assume I haven't volunteered to help.

And from a previous posting on this thread:

> i've never been given the opportunity to show my talents

I refrained from responding to that earlier post, but you're keeping up the "I'd like to help but no one wants me" refrain. I don't know if you have volunteered for anything or not, but you certainly haven't with me. After the last BoD election two years ago I contacted you with what I thought was a pretty important volunteer job to do. My intent was to get the jobs done and to give you a chance to see the PDGA leadership from the inside, and us to see what you can do. You turned that opportunity down. That's the only first-hand experience I have regarding you and volunteering for PDGA leadership roles.

And don't assume I haven't volunteered to help.



(Terry posted before I got to this) It's my understanding that, after you lost the election, a Board member asked if you�d still like to volunteer to help on several projects, but declined?

Also, we haven�t had a lot of posting activity in our PDGA Course Committee but I�m wondering if you joined the committee to pursue any initiatives in this area? For example, we�re soon going to need volunteers to help State Coordinators get courses evaluated when the new evaluation process starts to roll out in the next month or so. Or at least hop into the discussion on how to set par :D

The competitive structure sounds familiar to me. Doing away with Pro 2, creating a single skill track for both Pros and What We Currently Call Ams, but maintaining the top Age Protected Divisions. I don't know if this is supposed to be a secret or something, but to me this doesn't sound like the "Deletion" of the R Tier, it sounds like the "Institutionalizing" of the R Tier, or at least the "Marraige" of the R Tier into the Standard Competitive System.


I think this will allow TDs to do something very similar to an R-tier, if they advertise in advance that they are not offering adult age restricted divisions. It does not yet give an option to Green and Purple rated men other than to play up. Hopefully maybe some of the moved up and moved out lower rated pros will realize that they can come back to the game and play where they are competitive.

I have an idea for a single competitive system that is is convertible from fully traditional looking to fully R-tier looking, but this year was not the year to suggest it. I'll show it to Chuck first and see if he likes the idea.

Unless we require TDs to comply with the laws of their respective states, and undertake a 60-some state and provincial comparative law review, and update it frequently, I don't see trophy-only tournaments gaining much traction. Next year, 2005, I am going to bite the bullet, get clearly on the legal side of this state's gaming law, and see how it is received by the players. Getting my own act clearly legal will give me more freedom to advocate change where change is needed. I'd rather change our state laws than change your game, but in some states, something has to give.

First, I have to get out of the glass house.

i'm surprised you waited so long to bring that up terry. just for the record, you are among the minority of BOD members that i respect and appreciate. i wish you were in charge of making next year's schedule and sanctioning agreements a reality, as i am confident that if you were, i wouldn't have had to start this thread.

terry, as you will recall, i declined your offer in january, stating that i intended to spend my free time practicing and playing more tournaments. it seemed a better choice of my free time, as i am 36 and knew that injuries could end my disc golf career at any time (and in fact, seem to have done just that), and to be honest, i felt that the assignment wasn't really worth the effort. that does not mean that i have not asked other board members more than once to contribute to the NT committee or the competition committee. as a matter of fact, i've told both the old and new competition directors that i would help them. as of now, i'm still waiting for them to tell me to get to work. i realize that most of the BOD thinks i enjoy causing trouble, but i honestly don't. it's obvious i have a lot of free time on my hands though. :D i know that i could have had the schedule done by now starting from scratch.

chuck, i haven't seen any e-mails on the course design committee's thread since worlds. perhaps i'm no longer on the list? the last e-mail i got was me asking what sort of things might be included in the new course evaluation plan, but i never saw any response to that. i wanted to get a head start on that, but didn't follow up on it since hurricane ivan kinda changed a few plans around this part of the states. please provide me with some guidance before this weekend so i can evaluate the 3 courses in lafayette that are part of the Louisiana State Championship. i won't mention who is sanctioning that tournament ;)

And don't assume I haven't volunteered to help.



(Terry posted before I got to this) It's my understanding that, after you lost the election, a Board member asked if you�d still like to volunteer to help on several projects, but declined?



and just for the record, it was one project, not several.

you want your schedule to be 100% complete rather than 80%, let me take it over. you want a sanctioning agreement typed up? send me the details. you want your rules clarified and re-written? i'll have it on the BOD's desk by new year's. what have we got to lose?

I have an idea for a single competitive system that is is convertible from fully traditional looking to fully R-tier looking, but this year was not the year to suggest it. I'll show it to Chuck first and see if he likes the idea.



Me too, I�ve already posted it several times on this discussion board. If what you have reported is accurate, short of the creation of an Amateur Classification, the new structure accomplishes much the same things as my proposal (which I understand is similar to Chuck�s and others too).


Unless we require TDs to comply with the laws of their respective states, and undertake a 60-some state and provincial comparative law review, and update it frequently, I don't see trophy-only tournaments gaining much traction. Next year, 2005, I am going to bite the bullet, get clearly on the legal side of this state's gaming law, and see how it is received by the players. Getting my own act clearly legal will give me more freedom to advocate change where change is needed. I'd rather change our state laws than change your game, but in some states, something has to give.



Yes, the legal issues are part of it, but for me a True Amateur Class is an imperative for far greater and more important reasons than just compliance with laws governing gambling; it has to do with the fundamental concept of introducing �Institutionalized Amateur Sportsmanship and Competition� into organized competitive disc golf. And yes, it will involve a substantial amount of leadership and fortitude to go from where we are today to where we need to be, but the payoffs would be nearly immeasurable. (See other posts concerning �True Amateur Class) .

My Perfect NT Agreement

The PDGA and the Tournament Directors will agree to leave the details of the tournament to the TDs. The PDGA requires only:

Sufficient bathrooms
Adherence to PDGA rules of the game for all tournament rounds
A payout of x (PDGA decides)
That the TDs take full responsibility for every aspect of the event, including player safety and player happiness
That the TDs pledge to run a superior event

A whole pile of issues would not be addressed, nor, in my opinion, need to be addressed. With the TD responsible, and the PDGA taking a laid back approach, we could have great NTs. It would be up to the PDGA to pick the best tournaments, then leave it to the tournament hosts to deliver. Why not?

As far as money, let�s call it a wash. We�ll sign up anyone who wants to become a PDGA member, and let the non-PDGA players compete, too, without an added fee. Their punishment will be that their scores will appear online without round rating scores, which a lot of us covet. On the whole, the PDGA will save money when the TDs do it all, including raising enough cash to keep the touring pros poor but not destitute, and providing sufficient course staff to handle all contingencies.

Within this model, PDGA responsibility is reduced; TD responsibility becomes absolute until you have to call the police. But regarding bad behavior, I can honestly attest that at the 200-some-odd disc golf tournaments (20 x ten years) I�ve attended, I think with maybe three exceptions did anyone�s behavior cross the line, and twice that was me. In short, we�re not worried about the people who come. We're overjoyed when they show up! And we�re confident we can handle them, all of them, and their friends and family. We�re having our event to have fun and become famous, and that�s all.

Time to loosen up the roools.

Jason,

I hear you, but we've been there and done that, it didn't work.

Time to give standards and organization a chance.

Nick

From 2005 Sanctioning Agreement:


Majors (Dates by 15 Oct)
- Host by PDGA invitation only
- Exclusive radius of 500 mi from all lower Tier events, where divisions would conflict



Can this be right?!? :confused:

Sees pretty low...

From 2005 Sanctioning Agreement:


Majors (Dates by 15 Oct)
- Host by PDGA invitation only
- Exclusive radius of 500 mi from all lower Tier events, where divisions would conflict



Can this be right?!? :confused:

Sees pretty low...



You did not include that the previous line gives exclusive weekend from all NT and A-Tier events.

I think that the belief is that a B, C or D Tier event >500 miles away is not going to draw players away from a Major event. That is, players who would attend these lower tier events were not going to the Major anyway.