That's the usual smug, smart-assed response you give people that actually have a point.

No. That was an entirely new, never before typed, smart-[*****] response inspired by my response to Todd Branch on the putting-choking thread. Tony Kroes will find it hilarious. I hope he is reading today. He was my target audience for that smart-[*****] response.

I just thought of this a few minutes ago thinking about some upcoming tournies....

Beginning of March we have the AM Dogwood Crosstown. There have been some rumors that some lower rated pros would play the tourny as an advanced player. More than likely, they will finish in the plastic.

Fast Foward a month...

In April we have the Pro Dogwood Crosstown which is a NT event. These same Pros that moved down to AM to play the AM crosstown and finish in the plastic could theoretically finish in the cash in the Pro Crosstown. Since they are pros, they would of course accept the cash...

So it is possible that a pro player that moves down to play advanced could cash/finish in the plastic at both tournies.

That is a little unfair to the people that normally play advanced, are rated above 950 and have never accepted cash by playing pro in a PDGA.

Pro that moves down: Can accept both payouts without penalty
Advanced with rating above 950 that moves up and plays pro: Can accept the plastic without penalty, but if he accepts cash at the pro tourny, he is stuck playing pro until his rating drops below 950.

Does that make sense? Can someone explain it better?



By my calculations an accurately rated 950 or 955 Open player has statistically 0% chance of cashing at an NT or A Teir event in the top 33%. This may vary region to region, but essentially they have no shot at all. But I suppose not everyone can cash in the end.

Bruce,

What exactly are you saying? That the Pro/Am distinction is unimportant? That the PDGA should just (continue to) be lead around by its nose by local disc golf barrons?

The joke is that you won't listen to what gnduke, J McC, and I have to say. I'm glad we take the time to type our feelings about the competitive system, even though they are ignored by the BOD!

Here's a joke

Why did the BOD cross the road?

Because that's what the TDs and manufacturers told them to do.

Lowering entry fees and flattening payouts in ALL but the highest gender/age divisions would eliminate the need to protect against bagging. Will someone refute this?



I'm not sure I would agree on this. Some people really, really want to win that 1st place trophy. But I do know it would eliminate all the ams that want to play for prizes at my tournaments. People who want to play for prizes will go to unsanctioned tournaments if the PDGA mandates a change like that. A quick fix will not be tolerated by the players that currently play for merch.

Please read post #320236

Here's a joke
Why did the BOD cross the road?
Because that's what the TDs and manufacturers told them to do.



I don't think that's a joke. I think that is a reality. And, I don't think that's a bad thing as your sarcastic tenor may suggest.

The BOD serves the general membership of the PDGA. Those who invest more of themselves into the PDGA are naturually listened to more. Those who are in a position to be the eyes and ears into the grassroots level are an invaluable resource to ANY leader. If TD's and manufacturers are not the ones who fit both of those criteria best, then name the demographic that is.

Of course, if there is the motive of unbridled greed shading the motivations of all TD's and Manufacturers, you would have the right to be skeptical about the BOD listening to them. Sure, there are a few bad eggs out there, but not enough to invalidate the input of all TD's and Manufacturers.

Nick, right now I'm just saying two things mainly:

We need formats that TDs will offer. This is so axiomatic that I'm assuming 95% of the message board readers are laughing at the people who don't get this.

We need a professional division if you want to start seperating pros from ams. This is tautologous, but my point is that "pros" are not "people who play for each other's spending money." All of our divisions are people who play for each other's spending money. There is a greater need for a pro-class, in my opinion, than for an amateur-class.

Please read post #320236



I can't afford to run flat payout tournaments with no players showing up in the hope that one day they will "see the light", agree with you and start playing flat payout tournaments. What I can do is offer things like trophy only options and one trial tournament in the IOS series with a low entry fee ($10) and flat payout. But one of these ideas has to catch on with a significant amount of players before I can get off the merch express.

Nick, right now I'm just saying two things mainly:

We need formats that TDs will offer. This is so axiomatic that I'm assuming 95% of the message board readers are laughing at the people who don't get this.

We need a professional division if you want to start seperating pros from ams. This is tautologous, but my point is that "pros" are not "people who play for each other's spending money." All of our divisions are people who play for each other's spending money. There is a greater need for a pro-class, in my opinion, than for an amateur-class.



TDs need formats that players will show up for. We'll see how IOS #6 The Blast! is received this year. It is a PDGA sanctioned, $10 entry fee tournament with only trophies and CTPs as prizes. Before we have a trophy only division I'd like to see how well the trophy only option is received this year at our tournaments.

We need formats that TDs will offer. The PDGA lets TDs offer something more than a plastic payout--point, rating, etc... Without this, the TD would have no justification for gouging ams at unsanctioned tournaments. The TDs would have a choice run PDGA tournaments with flat payouts and continue to gouge or... not run tournaments at all.
We need a professional division if you want to start seperating pros from ams. Then hold the tournaments on different days/weekends or flatten the payouts in every division except the highest gender and age based divisions.

TDs need formats that players will show up for. We'll see how IOS #6 The Blast! is received this year. It is a PDGA sanctioned, $10 entry fee tournament with only trophies and CTPs as prizes. Before we have a trophy only division I'd like to see how well the trophy only option is received this year at our tournaments.


I think the plan is to add $10 in divisional brass cash CTPs for every player who plays. I think we are also offering quarter-toss baskets for first place in every division with a foursome. If you normally play in a micro division call your chick friends or junior friends or really old guy friends because these quarter toss baskets are cool! They are a functioning basket with chains that is the right size for pitching quarters into. And, when you make a putt they ring like a bell.

Nick, right now I'm just saying two things mainly:

We need formats that TDs will offer. This is so axiomatic that I'm assuming 95% of the message board readers are laughing at the people who don't get this.

We need a professional division if you want to start seperating pros from ams. This is tautologous, but my point is that "pros" are not "people who play for each other's spending money." All of our divisions are people who play for each other's spending money. There is a greater need for a pro-class, in my opinion, than for an amateur-class.



Do you see a true Amateur Class as a threat to either of these axioms?

Jon,

Any plans on running a $50 true am event providing 120% in event value (special one of a kind item players packages, lunch, trophies, raffles and a significant title on the line)?

Something to consider is this: For 66% of the Open Pro field at PDGAs, often the above scenario is the reality of events, but the entry fee is usually higher!!! So in a way, I suppose I regularly pay upwards of $80 to $125 for such true amateur events� minus the lunch and players package... ;)

"pros" are not "people who play for each other's spending money." All of our divisions are people who play for each other's spending money.



Bruce, [not Jon] what planet are you on?

First, you say that there are no real pros because you're comparing disc golf to other established sports. That's apples and oranges. To use your language, a "non sequitur".

If you want real pros playing for real money, but not other people's money, you need money from somewhere, right? Where? Sponsors? Ha.

Since you began dolling out merch at DISContinuum tourneys, that club has dropped its biggest sponsor, Disc Golf World, who was very generous with the club. Rothstein has a lot more backing than you do, as a businessman. So does SunKing, but you eeked him out of the tourney scene up here as well. YOU are the sponsor, but are doing nothing to promote the pro division here. They have real businesses and had the potential to elevate DISContinuum events to a higher level. Your clay trophies aren't exactly what attract pros.

Micro games and micro divisions? How does this help develop a real pro division?

You say one thing, then another, then you do something else. You are your own non sequitur.

The TDs would have a choice run PDGA tournaments with flat payouts and continue to gouge or... not run tournaments at all.




Whorley, you forgot the other choice - run unsanctioned tournaments. Take a guess which one they will choose.

Jon,

Any plans on running a $50 true am event providing 120% in event value (special one of a kind item players packages, lunch, trophies, raffles and a significant title on the line)?




I wouldn't be against running an event like that. I would like to see how the low cost true am event goes first. From what players have told me, if they are not going to play for prizes, they'd rather play a low cost tourney with just trophies and CTPs. We do CTPs here in Illinois instead of raffles because raffles are illegal in Illinois. But I need to get an idea of how well attended this kind of event would be before I could commit to running one.

Jeff, Thanks for that clarification. I don't know why I was thinking 950.

Bruce, When I was making that comment I was thinking more about some of the pro masters.

Did you read the sentence before that one?

Since you began dolling out merch at DISContinuum tourneys, that club has dropped its biggest sponsor, Disc Golf World, who was very generous with the club. Rothstein has a lot more backing than you do, as a businessman. So does SunKing, but you eeked him out of the tourney scene up here as well.
__________________________________________________ _

Within the past 2 yeas I don't think 1 club member ordered any merch from Disc Golf World & used the huge 10% discount.

Members have preferred ordering with SunKing and still do with the better discounts he gives.

However, if you consider that to be a huge sponsorship you are very wrong. The 2003 Bevier Blast almost put the club under. $400.00 debt from that event. I'm not sure if it was the deal or the TD but it took 6 months until that debt was erased. Our current treasurer has done a fantastic job and has records if anyone wants to see them.

If it were not for Bruce's deal & Gateway, there would have been no events for DISContinuum in 2004. Now there will be more this year.

Potential to take it to a higher level? We set records of membership, league play, tournaments, & website hits in 2004. #'s are leading that 2005 will be the same. I think that level is already rising as we speak.

If it were not for Bruce's deal & Gateway, there would have been no events for DISContinuum in 2004. Now there will be more this year.



Because you dropped the other sponsors for Bruce.


Potential to take it to a higher level? We set records of membership, league play, tournaments, & website hits in 2004. #'s are leading that 2005 will be the same. I think that level is already rising as we speak.



So Bruce and his merch are the primary reason for this explosion?
All the previous sponsors and club members who donated and worked hard for growth didn't provide any foundation for this?

Back to the point:
Bruce's trophies and brasscash funny money and microkrap do NOTHING to develop a real pro class, which HE says is needed so badly.

I've tried to contact Sun King and DGW several times since you departed, Jim. Guess what - I have yet to receive a reply... Talk about businessmen.

The most recent conversation I tried to start with both was how to rekindle the relationship between our club and them. Guess they're not interested anymore?

The reality of Bruce is one of economics for the club. Please tell me that either Sun King or DGW would front the costs associated with individualized tournament hot stamps, then take back whatever didn't sell at no charge?

I don't know why you hate the Brakels so much, dude.

Whorley, I read it, but don't see the gouging going on that you think is happening. I don't see the problem with sandbagging that some people complain about either, for that matter.

Nick, I see any plan to pull non-members and Am Masters out of the merch paid divisions as a threat to the viability of the tournaments Jon, Brett and I run. Based on my actual experience in offering trophy-only options and R-tiers and other experimental formats, these two distinct groups of players both enjoy the carnival format as much or more than the average advanced player with a garage full of frisbees. Pulling these players out of the merch divisions will merely send them to unsanctioned tournaments. We have fixed expenses to cover at most of our tournaments, PDGA sanctioning, insurance and park use fees, and we need a certain number of players to cover those expenses or else the fixed expenses take too much out of the tangible value of the event.

Jon, Brett and I run good events for the WWCCAs and don't keep a lot for ourselves or our clubs. If the PDGA were to cut into our player base by alienating 25% of our Saturday players, we would have to reconsider the value of sanctioning our tournaments.

I really like your new avatar, Jim. It's kinda retro snazzy!

I hope you'll be playing some of the IOS tournaments this year. It is much more fun to debate these things with you in person.

If it were not for Bruce's deal & Gateway, there would have been no events for DISContinuum in 2004. Now there will be more this year.



Because you dropped the other sponsors for Bruce.

We never dropped them. We still use discounts from Sunking. We were forced to deal with Bruce with the debt that was produced from the 2003 Blast.


Potential to take it to a higher level? We set records of membership, league play, tournaments, & website hits in 2004. #'s are leading that 2005 will be the same. I think that level is already rising as we speak.



So Bruce and his merch are the primary reason for this explosion?
All the previous sponsors and club members who donated and worked hard for growth didn't provide any foundation for this?

Sponsors don't make the club. It's the people that make the club. As stated by Mirth, Bruce has bent over backwards to work with us. The club is not at risk of losing 1 cent on merch. Ask Bruce how much merchandise he has in his garage that he'd like to get rid of. The club does not have to deal with unused and unwanted plastic.

Back to the point:
Bruce's trophies and brasscash funny money and microkrap do NOTHING to develop a real pro class, which HE says is needed so badly.



Disc Distributors. We are looking for someone that will send us merchandise for wholesale prices. Some of those would be customed stamped. If we don't use the plastic we'd like to send it back. Any takers?

Sorry for the thread drift.

Jon,

Any plans on running a $50 true am event providing 120% in event value (special one of a kind item players packages, lunch, trophies, raffles and a significant title on the line)?




I wouldn't be against running an event like that. I would like to see how the low cost true am event goes first. From what players have told me, if they are not going to play for prizes, they'd rather play a low cost tourney with just trophies and CTPs. We do CTPs here in Illinois instead of raffles because raffles are illegal in Illinois. But I need to get an idea of how well attended this kind of event would be before I could commit to running one.



I hear you. Particularly in light of there being no official classification for players like this, where are they going to come from? The Pro divisions? The Prize divisions? Not likely, right? Those are the �players� you�ve talked to right?

Makes sense that WWCC ams, just like WWCC pros, would have little interest in a true amateur class style event. Why would they they're Pros and Prizers, right? A mere smattering of the demographic that would populate such events, if they were official and ongoing.

How can you expect good results, or base the success of these events on how they are perceived by Pros and Prizers within our current competitive system? On pros and prizers who don't feel up to the task of playing against the competition in their classifications, who just want a cheap event and easy competitors? Doesn't sound like a formula for major success, does it?

Now if you went to your local school and offered to organize an event, and get Discraft to sponsor a Challenger per kid for a one day event, with free admission, I think you might get somewhere. Or with a community group or the like? Something like a local marathon to benefit Cancer Research... etc.

No, I guess these are not typical PDGA player/member demographics, but I dare say if they were we would be alot better off as an Association and certainly as a Sport.

The demographic of Pros and Prizers is pretty well taken care of already, it's mostly just moving furnature around at this point.

Sorry for the major thread drift as well.
I will respond to Brett/Mirth/Jon through PMs.

Nick, I see any plan to pull non-members and Am Masters out of the merch paid divisions as a threat to the viability of the tournaments Jon, Brett and I run.


Yes, I know, because you are limited in your thinking.

First of all, as I said they would only be �pulled� from your money pool, for a single event as their $5 gives them a player rating and PDGA membership number. From then on you can squeeze them of every penny.

Secondly, your low entry fee no frills divisions ARE NOT THE SAME THING AS A TRUE AMATEUR CLASS. From your own descriptions they are just a �Poorman�s Pro/Prize Division�. �Can�t afford to gamble? Well, here then we�ll just take a little money from you�� E gads man!?! And you wonder why they fail? Your attempts are noble, I�ll give you that, but until the governing body of organized disc golf creates and sanctions a true classification of amateurs within our overall competitive system, these attempts are bound to fail largely due to the lack of appropriate participants for such a classification.


Based on my actual experience in offering trophy-only options and R-tiers and other experimental formats, these two distinct groups of players both enjoy the carnival format as much or more than the average advanced player with a garage full of frisbees. Pulling these players out of the merch divisions will merely send them to unsanctioned tournaments. We have fixed expenses to cover at most of our tournaments, PDGA sanctioning, insurance and park use fees, and we need a certain number of players to cover those expenses or else the fixed expenses take too much out of the tangible value of the event.



Again, Bruce, consider what you are saying: �That players who like to play for prizes should be able to play for prizes.� I am completely with you. They should be able to, and this is how they can�(join the PDGA, is that too much of a commitment to ask for those who �love� prize competitions? Why should all the members have to subsidize them just because they can�t afford $3.33 a month (or less with the $5 limited memberships I proposed)? SERIOUSLY!) Protecting the Prize divisions from players of significantly superior skill is the least we can do for them. If prize players want age and gender divisions, then power to them.

I mean how many people are we talking here Bruce? Folks that are old Prizers playing in only 1 event per year? Are you serious that it would make your events fail financially to require them either have a PDGA membership or wait out one event in the Ams or Pros? Seriously, would it?


Jon, Brett and I run good events for the WWCCAs and don't keep a lot for ourselves or our clubs. If the PDGA were to cut into our player base by alienating 25% of our Saturday players, we would have to reconsider the value of sanctioning our tournaments.



You threaten this all the time. In fact you do it so often it has little if any impact anymore. A there is NO WAY it would alienate any 25% of your Saturday players. Unless they only play in one event a year and if they play in more the value of a PDGA membership would be that much more attractive (and there is something to be said for creating a sense of belonging through membership, whether to a local or national club).

Lastly you act as if this plan, or plans, with a Prize Class and new Amateur Class, is the same as you have been tinkering with in you neck of the woods, it is not. An Amateur Class is no threat to your lucrative Prizers, if anything it will create an ENTIRELY NEW source of income (not to mention volunteers and local activists). You are really stretching things to see this as some kind of threat. If it were, I would not be promoting it as I do; I know a couple TDs you know?

I hear you also Nick. I think we need the players before we need the division. Run some of those ideas unsanctioned and when the field gets developed I think it would be time to sanction them. Perhaps the 2005 Blast! will show that some wwccams would like to play for trophies and no prizes. But until there are people who want to play in that format then I think you have to think about this more a developmental thing than as part of organized tourament play.

Getting a disc per kid in a free event from manufacturers, though is like squeezing blood from a stone. Brett and I ran an all day instructional event for about 50 grade school kids last year and couldn't get Innova or Discraft to bite on any give away plastic.

Getting a disc per kid in a free event from manufacturers, though is like squeezing blood from a stone. Brett and I ran an all day instructional event for about 50 grade school kids last year and couldn't get Innova or Discraft to bite on any give away plastic.



Thread drift: Have you thought about hitting up local players who have hundreds of discs to donate a few of their new/lightly used (yet undesirable to them) discs to assist in the cause?

Nick, I know what I'm talking about because I've been doing trophy-only options and trophy-only-only formats for a few years. Jon and I have to deal with what we have in the context of how things are, not with what we wish things were like in a better place. Anytime we want to lose our shirts on an event (because they are old worn out shirts?) we know how to lose money running trophy-only events!

We're running good tournaments for players who play in our carnival format divisions. In the hustler format divisions there are already plenty of good tournaments. We're not trying to change the disc golf world. We're just trying to run tournaments we want to play.

Nick, I don't think we are very far away in our thinking (except for that pros can never play am thought of yours!). I just am not willing to run a new format that no one wants. If the PDGA decides to develop a true am division that is fine with me. As a TD I'm not going to offer it until there are people that want to play it.

Is anyone paying attention to what Rhett, Bruce and Jon are saying? I'm a strong advocate of a true am class but these guys, who are doing it, observe over and over that it doesn't work the way the rest of us would like. Shouldn't we be listening?

If we want a true amateur class how can we accomplish it? What I think they are suggesting is start small and grow it (and even there they haven't had the best success if I remember what was said).

It is obvious that there is a subset of people who want to play this type of golf. It is equally obvious that there is a subset that wants to play for merch. Offering both is good but offering them in a way that enhances both and damages neither is better. My guess is that's impossible. It is sort of like letting pros play down. If I think I am going to win I will play merch class and if I think I am going to lose I will play am class (sans the subset of people who are only interested in playing am for the sake of playing am).

Desire arises from the need for material possesions. Take away the fat payout, and the baggers will naturally disappear.



Baggers will always be baggers. As long as there is some status or reward associated with winning, even if it's a trohpy with no monetary value, there will be people who sandbag to improve their chances.

Have you ever designed a temporary course? We do it here pretty often because we have no permanent ones, and clear patterns appear depending on who picks the holes. Some people devise holes that are as fair as possible to everyone; they'll even go out of their way to challenge themselves. Others, given the chance, will always create holes that best suit their individual games (i.e., the righty backhand player whose doglegs always go left).


Finally, some bright am would say "What are we getting out of this?" and "Why are we fattening this TDs pocket." They would cry "Why aren't we playing for money?"



Some of us play disc golf for fun. I like competing for prizes and I hate getting gouged, but the bottom line is, if the fun factor is there, I'll gladly show up.

It costs less to play a PDGA tournament than to ski for a day - and on the slopes, there's no chance I'll win anything. Not to mention, I know the ridiculous price of my lift ticket is helping to make some fat cat mountain execs even richer. And yet, I ski anyway, because the experience is worth what I paid for it.

Does this extend to other players? I think so. We just had two incredible, PDGA sponsored tournaments here last month. I don't think anyone who showed up, even the pros, could be accused of playing for the money. Steve Rico came, which basically took first place out of the picture for everyone else. He won, and walked away with a fat payout. But $548.83 is barely enough to cover airfare to Hawaii, let alone hotels, meals, and everything else. So assuming Steve picked up his own expenses, he's lucky to break even on the trip.

If there's a point to all this, it's that most people, even at the top level, play disc golf because they love the game. The growth and future of the sport depend more on remembering that, and figuring out why people love it so much, than on prizes, classifications, and ratings structures.

if Steve is sponsered, then I am sure he got a little bonus from his sponser for winning...

I think those bonuses only apply to A-tier, NT, and Major.

thanks for the clarification

i think its great that Am divisions are awarded trophys...I never got one when i played am; just plastic. However, when you got plastic you could reasonably figure out how much you won, and therefore what your take from the prize pool was. With trophys.....they look cool and symbolize more than monetary worth, but the truth is we all know that a trophy averages under 10$ cost to the TD....Where is the money going....At two events this past three months i saw huge am fields with $30 entry fees get shafted in first place with a trophy disc. Whoop didooo. Personally i would a launched it into the lake...$ rounds and all the money...where did it go...I playe open...and it certainly did not go there...In fact...the open payout was to the penny of what we put in...So who got ripped off? The ams because they got putters with a nice stamp on them, or the entire field because the money disapeared.
Now dont get me wrong....I love TD's and greatly appreciate all the work they do...Without these true discgolf enthusiasts there would be no tourneys or organized golf anywhere. If fact, if you now one;hug one!
But i believe...there has to be a print out of all money in and paid out posted where everyone can see it at the tournament. It is important...I have heard many a time from people "where did all the money go?" "I'm not coming to this tournament next year, or F that TD, he a crook...." A simple in and out of expense is all it would take...Ams don't care that the only get a trophy...or a couple discs....they just want to know where the money goes....
Ohhhh...and expenses and tounament costs should never include the TD's and his [*****]'t s meals and boarding....CMON...thats ridiculous....A PGA golf official yes....A PDGA discgolf official...no.... we are growing....Dont strangle us....Look to Texas or to Mass. if you want to see something special going on.

I have yet to hear of a TD who refused to provide the payout information when asked.

I just wish in the future that when disc golfers feel they "got robbed" they kindly ask the TD after the tournament is over to provide a detailed breakdown of the expenses. A face to face conversation with the TD goes a lot further than accusations on the internet after the fact, imo.

....where is the money?....
Has discgolf come far enough along that Td's can make a minor second income or any profit at all...NO NO No....It is a question of ethics. I am sure they can eventually, in maybe a decade or more...Not now . However, if you sell plastic then hell yeah...make money selling your stuff at your tourney...but don't take it from the Ams.
At one tourney this year the TD paid for room and board for two assistant td's that he brought with him...and by the way, both of the "asst TD's and the TD" played in the event...I did not hear anything about that at the players meeting. I don't know where the money came from but can we assume that the TD paid for them out of his own pocket....sure. Its a win/lose situation. Badger the TD and he might stop holding events; stay quiet and people will continue to take advantage of the purse.

Did you read Jeff's post?

Did you ask the TD, or are too scared to say this stuff to him/her face-to-face?

BTW, I don't know what kind of trophies they use out there in NC, but ours cost us a far sight more than "under $10 each".

$8 dollar aviar with a stamp on it.... :confused:
I shouldn't have to ask him....It should be stated...."DID YOU READ my POST"
I am asking to have it posted out during the tourney....My name is Sjur Soleng #19656 704-241-3991...scared?....what does that have to do with anything....If anything you also should be concerned that this is going on here and probably where you are. If it was a WV wood mini or a hand carved or glass-blown trophy then yes...I see the value and pride in having one....but cmon...An aviar is an Aviar....Stamp? cmon

I thought your original post said "a trophy and a disc". When I re-read it I see it says "trophy disc". Oops.

It's a free market, man. $30 is cheap. People will vote with their wallets, and if they think they are getting good entertainment value for their $30 they will keep playing. If people feel ripped off they should vote with their wallets and skip tournies run by that TD.

Have you brought it up with the TD? Slamming someone on here doesn't do any good. If you brought it up to him/her and they just grinned and told you a sucker was born every minute, then maybe you should go around educating people in your area.

But if you talk to the TD about, they might clue you in on some other expenses that you had no idea might be involved in running a tourney.

Ohhhh...and expenses and tounament costs should never include the TD's and his [*****]'t s meals and boarding....CMON...thats ridiculous....A PGA golf official yes....A PDGA discgolf official...no....


I totally disagree with that statement. At most events that I have helped out with, the TD usually pays for all the Asst TD's Meals during the tournament. This does not come out of the TD's pocket, but out of tournament expences. Unless someone donated my lunch, which has happen at several events I have run, It is a tournament expence.

When I ran a tournament in Athens last year, I wrote off Gas to get there and Motel expences, (of course I managed to get a free room as sponsorship, but was still an expence)

one last not on the Trophies, trophy discs are usually $20 each. I have managed to get some cheaper from Discraft by ordering more than 40 and using some of the D dollors towards them.

The glass trophies I use for 1st place at the Carrollton Open are donated, but I pay for the guys entry fee too. He spends over $100 making those 1st place trophies out of his pocket so it is a very fair trade.
__________________________________________________

Now the real question for you.

Was there a players package for you $30

Was this a charity or fundraizing even where part of the entry fee goes to the chairty.

Was there lunch provided for, or did you have to find your own.

Ace Pot???? was it included in the $30 or was it added to make entry fee even for.

FYI, in the Rec division, I charge $30, $5 goes to the Ace Pot, $3 to the PDGA, $2 to LAF. $20 to payout 60% of the field.

I am not bashing anyone....Just stating what i see...We (the friZZaks) are originally from the Northeast(nefa country). We became accustomed to certain things....All money put in gets paid out and usually with something added. Ams get funny money that they can spend with the vendor at the tourney...Pros get cash...Ams are not ripped off as an incentive to move up...They are instead encouraged to move up...It didn't seem to be a problem up there...
Now the real question for you.

Was there a players package for you $30

Was this a charity or fundraizing even where part of the entry fee goes to the chairty.

Was there lunch provided for, or did you have to find your own.

Ace Pot???? was it included in the $30 or was it added to make entry fee even for.

FYI, in the Rec division, I charge $30, $5 goes to the Ace Pot, $3 to the PDGA, $2 to LAF. $20 to payout 60% of the field.
lets see....
Yes a disc and tee-shirt
NO
NO
Ace was not hit and the ace pot dissapeared

You really should take this up with the TD. I would hope that he would be willing to talk to you about it.

I never thought this TD would or could be shiesty, but when I discussed these issues with the FRizzys, ***** started to fall into place way too well. It definitely happened at Charleston this year, and I, for one, would like an explanation of where the money went??? If it can be explained, that's great...because I would hate to feel as if I shouldn't play in this TD's events again.

Fr Fr Fr...

Talk...to....the....TD......

No....one....here....can...answer....those....ques tions.

but we can DISCUSS it on here...

but lord knows, you'll try.

Discuss what? Opinions on what the tourney expenses might have been?

Better to get the real info, no?

here's an idea...maybe there is someone on this board that does run a tournament, and can explain how their money is spent...oh wait...that already happened...and it clarified some things for me...so if you have nothing to add to this DISCUSSION, please refrain from posting drivel.

I have the real info. and know that there was quite a bit of money missing.

So break it down and post the real info already.

skeet skeet skeet

SHENANIGANS! (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=shenanigans)

There's nothing like a good pro-am rip-off thread. I just wanted to say two things. But I'll probably say 14 things.

If those of you who played that tournament complain to the PDGA, what is supposed to happen is they make the TD do the financial section of the TD report and then they tell you that it was all hunky-dory. Also, you currently have a right under the Constitution to request a copy of the TD report. You will vote away that right at the next opportunity, I'm sure, but exercise it while you have it.

Chances are it was PDGA legal but who knows. C-tier standards are a license to rip off everyone. 80% at retail after deducting the $2 PDGA fee leaves a little discretionary cash for the TD to spend then or later.

There is a name for people who repeatedly play these kinds of events: "sponsors." Does the same TD run a fat added cash event later in the season? Maybe in that region there is no added cash fairy.

I don't know where this event happened or what the story is. Last time we ran with this thread topic, the TD put up his financials and it was all good.

For the IOS 7 we are running a C-tier and a D-tier. The C-tier is just because the DGLO said we could go on the same weekend if we C-tiered it, which we appreciate. The C-tier will have better am payouts than the B-tiers because the B-tiers have a player pack requirement.

I always thought it was simple.....If you take money from the ams, give it to the open players, or the club or to the non-members, or the charity, or maybe to the band that played on saturday, or the 30 spotters, or WHATEVER....just not yourself....

Yes a disc and tee-shirt
NO
NO
Ace was not hit and the ace pot dissapeared




Ok, well there is part of your answer, You got a T-shirt and a disc.

Most T-shirts are retailed anywhere from $10 to $15 or even more depending on how much was spent on them.

Disc, retails anywhere from $8 to $30 depending on the type of disc and the going rate for your area.

So you did not answer my question completly.

#1 You got a T-shirt, describe the type of shirt that is is and if it has printinig on one or two sides and if any of them are 1-2-3-4 color.

#2 What kind of disc did you get, make, model and stamp, regular or foil tournament or 4 color or one of the new Color Max type discs.

#3, Was this a PDGA event? D, C, B, or A tier?

#4 You said there was an Ace pot, how much, if any, of the entry fee went into the Ace Pot.

Why shouldn't a TD take some compensation for all of the time they put in? Why shouldn't a TD be able to take money out to take his wife out to dinner afterwards for all of the crap that they both probably put up with after things are all said and done? Everyone got a shirt, disc, a good time (I'm assuming it was a good time as I wasn't at the tournament) and a well run tournament. Where else can you go for $30 and get this? If you feel that you didn't get $30 worth of enjoyment, then take your wallet elsewhere.

This attitude that TDs should put in their time, efforts and often money just to take crap from a bunch of spoiled brats crying about a payout is IMO one of the big things holding this sport back. I'm sorry, but people who put efforts into endeavors expect some sort of payback. For some, the payback is in the thanks they receive from the people playing. For others, it may include lunch or a pizza party for all of the volunteers afterwards. Heaven forbid, the payback sure isn't coming from hearing about the spoiled idiots crying on a chat board afterwards that they didn't rake in enough loot.

Grow a set and contact the TD. Better yet, volunteer for a tournament and get an appreciation for what it takes.

Why shouldn't a TD take some compensation for all of the time they put in? Why shouldn't a TD be able to take money out to take his wife out to dinner afterwards for all of the crap that they both probably put up with after things are all said and done? Everyone got a shirt, disc, a good time (I'm assuming it was a good time as I wasn't at the tournament) and a well run tournament. Where else can you go for $30 and get this? If you feel that you didn't get $30 worth of enjoyment, then take your wallet elsewhere.

This attitude that TDs should put in their time, efforts and often money just to take crap from a bunch of spoiled brats crying about a payout is IMO one of the big things holding this sport back. I'm sorry, but people who put efforts into endeavors expect some sort of payback. For some, the payback is in the thanks they receive from the people playing. For others, it may include lunch or a pizza party for all of the volunteers afterwards. Heaven forbid, the payback sure isn't coming from hearing about the spoiled idiots crying on a chat board afterwards that they didn't rake in enough loot.

Grow a set and contact the TD. Better yet, volunteer for a tournament and get an appreciation for what it takes.



True.

Or else you could always cast doubt on the character of other TDs in some bizarre attempt to make your own TDing look better. Other TDs deserve that sort of treatment for sure. Builds strong bones.

At two events this past three months i saw huge am fields with $30 entry fees get shafted in first place with a trophy disc.



Hi Sjur,

This is all fresh in my mind since I have been working up the numbers for the Renny Mules Tournaments (http://www.charlottedgc.com/renny_mules_05.htm) recently. I assure you that payout at this event will be WAY above the minimum. :cool:

You may already know all this since it all public knowledge. Here is the minimum payout required when an Am is paying $30 to enter a C-Tier:

85% of net* is minimum payout

Payout percentage is defined as the sum of a) cash/prize awards, b) trophies, c) retail value
of player packages, d) cash/prize skin awards, and e) CTP prizes, divided by entry fees.
*In this context entry fees are defined as actual entry fees charged less PDGA, regional, and/or
local player fees.

For a 50 player Am field (and 50 Pro's) net* could be:
$30 (entry fee)
-$2 PDGA Player Fee
-$0.50 PDGA Sanctioning Fee ($50 for C-Tier)
-$0.50 PDGA Insurance Fee ($50 per event)
-$2 Club Fee
-$2 Park Fee
= $23

$23 X 0.85 = $19.55 minimum payout

How that $19.55 might stack up in the payouts:
$13 Players� Pak: Tee Shirt = retail $11, Custom mini = retail $2
$3.60 CTPs: 18 Total CTPs $10 value each (gift certificates, Custom stamped DX disc) $180/50
$3.67 Payout: 1 custom stamped DX Trophy disc to top 1/3 (17 players) = 17 X $11/50
$20.27 Total payout (and wallah � the TD is over the minimum payout!)

So, you can see how, as an example, a small players' pack, decent CTPs and trophy discs can easily exceed PDGA minimum requirements.

A �Management Fee� of 10% of net* is allowed to be kept by TD/Club up to $100

So, left over from the 85% of $23 is $3.45. x50 players = $172.50. So, now all the TD has to do is be a �sponsor� of the pro purse and kick $72.5 to their purse, and he is 100% legal.

Don't TDs compensate themselves by selling thier plastic and thier plastic only at an Event....
Thanks MP3....Again, as i stated earlier; As long as the money in and Out is posted a the event there are no week later issues....How can i appraoch a Td face to face when that event was 300 miles from where i live.
I am not TD bashing...I love tds and appreciate greatly what hey do....I hope to become a good Td as I grow older....Please do not take this as TD bashing....Just a solution to a problem....

I never once took your comments as TD bashing. That is because I know you and know that you and all the Frizzacks are a very positive bunch of guys. I do not recall a time when I have seen the group of you and you have not been grinning about life and upbeat. But, when the points you've made are made, it is OFTEN in a griping manner. Mad love to the Frizzacks. As a fellow CT-er, I'm glad you chose Charlotte!

I did not want to editorialize in the post where I showed the numbers. What I wanted to show was that it VERY easy to have what appears to be crappy payouts and be within PDGA guidelines. AND, to show that the vast majority of the TDs go WAY above minimum payout guidelines in C-Tiers.

At Mooky's Cup I came in 13th of 37 and I won 1 CTP. I got 4 discs (only 1 was DX)! All that for a $22 entry fee for a 1 day event! That is so good I actually feel bad that they extended themselves that far.

I do not play many tournaments, so I don't have a feel for percentages of TD's who do this, but I agree that posting the numbers (intake and how it translates to prize value) is a very wise thing to do.

But, it is also hard to do since you do not know the intake until the players meeting at most tournaments. In 2-day events, the TD can compute overnight (assuming he has no life and does not want to party with his boys), but in one-day events there is almost no time. Big props to Alan Beaver who runs the Points Bonanza which is 4 1-day events back to back to back. And, he does exactly what you are suggesting, so it CAN be done.

The TD is required to post payouts for every division at every PDGA tournament. It is in the contract he signed with the PDGA.

The TD has to do those computations [money in, cash and prizes out] to calculate a payout. It is not much more work to do the calculations neatly and then tape them to a picnic table.

When I have a volunteer to bag the brass cash, I like to calculate both the PDGA minimum payout and the actual payout and post them together.

The new PDGA policy allowing pros to play as amateurs creates a new class of player, the fair-weather pro, who feasts on the rest of us. Fair-weather pros will try to score some cash when it is to their advantage; otherwise they will try to take prizes and cash away from amateurs. You may not know how many of them there are in any given tournament until the last minute, because they will discover that they can maximize their advantage by registering late or making strategic shifts after they scan the most current registration information and consult the player rating list.

No matter how many there are, when fair-weather pros play as amateurs, bad things happen to both pros and amateurs. If you are a pro, their absence makes it less likely that your division will make. A division might even unmake at the last minute as they switch categories. Whatever division you do play in, it will have fewer players (and thus a lower proportion of added cash), and the remaining players will have a higher average player rating.

If you are an amateur, they occupy slots that could have gone to other amateurs. You might even get frozen out of the event if your division fills, as has already happened at this year’s Memorial. If you do get to play the experience may seem surreal. While they are telling you how privileged you are to be able to play against pros, and how it will build your character if they get your prizes and trophies, you will be thinking that you have seen some of these people somewhere before. Finally it will come to you – they are the same people who, only last year, were yelling “Move up, bagger!” at other amateurs.

Rather than respect, this policy inspires jokes. Here’s the latest:

The new PDGA member, confused by policy verbiage, asks his more experienced buddy, “Say, help me out here. How do I figure out whether to play as an amateur or a pro?”
The wily vet responds, "Don’t worry about it. It's easy. Be a pro."
"A Pro?” says the newbie. “OK. Awesome! And what about you."
"That's easy too", replies the vet. "If I can beat you, I'm a pro. But if you might beat me, I'm an amateur."

There is only one part of this policy that should be kept. That is to allow pros to play as amateurs if their division does not make. This is particularly helpful to women, who must face a huge ratings differential if they have to play in the equivalent men’s division. The rest of it must go. I propose the following revisions.

1) A pro rated below 955 (or whatever) may play as an amateur at any event at which his/her division is not offered.

2) In all such cases, the pro might receive points, but not merchandise or trophies. Pros must never deprive amateurs of the chance to cash.

3) If the PDGA wishes to resurrect the tournament careers of inactive pros, it should bring them back as amateurs. This is best done by allowing 2005 to be an amnesty year during which any pro may freely return to the amateur ranks. Thereafter the PDGA should clarify, publicize and enforce the differences between amateurs and pros.



Just bumping this back up because it may go hand-in-hand with the " 'Amnesty' is Worse Than 'Pros Playing as Amateurs' " thread recently created by Peter Shive.

Hypothetically, would someone who plays Pro Master at small events with lesser competition (B & C tiers), plays Pro Grandmaster at A tiers, and plays Senior Grandmasters at NTs be considered a Fair-Weather Pro?.....Hypothetically

That's classy, take a shot at someone who plays for love of the game.

What Peter does is exactly what I feel people with his talent at his age should do - play where the competition best fits him.

I was being hypothetical.....and this:

What Peter does is exactly what I feel people with his talent at his age should do - play where the competition best fits him.


is exactly what Mr. Shive was complaining about. Quoting Mr. Shive:

Fair-weather pros will try to score some cash when it is to their advantage


How is that different from switching among 3 divisions to where you can make the most money?

B/c as Peter has posted in the past, he likes competing against people of his own age.

If he goes to a B or C Tier, how many other golfers over 60 would you expect comapred to over 40?

As the tier goes up, the field gets larger, and the chances of him playing against people of his own age increases.

If he were the only one in senior grandmasters at an NT, I would be certain he would move down to a division where he could compete rather that just play 4 rounds, take the win and cash, and go home.

Well, since we're talking about Mr. Shive, several times at NTs, he chose to play in a division of 3 (2 others) in Senior GM vs. dropping to GM and playing in a division of 7-12.
Why don't you quit speaking for Mr. Shive and let him defend his point?

Why don't you quit speaking for Mr. Shive and let him defend his point?



I believe when I refered to this post (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=35144&page=&view=&sb= 5&o=&vc=1) earlier by Mr. Shive, that wasn't me speaking for him, rather rephrasing what he said...and this is exactly what he said in that post...

"I am a senior grand master, but I usually play �down�, either because the older divisions are not available or because I want to compete against better players. This year I played seven times as a master, three as a grandmaster, and only once (Worlds) as a senior grand master. "

Why don't you quit speaking for Mr. Shive and let him defend his point?



I believe when I refered to this post (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=35144&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&vc=1) earlier by Mr. Shive, that wasn't me speaking for him, rather rephrasing what he said...and this is exactly what he said in that post...

"I am a senior grand master, but I usually play �down�, either because the older divisions are not available or because I want to compete against better players. This year I played seven times as a master, three as a grandmaster, and only once (Worlds) as a senior grand master. "


He made that statement in 2003. Since then, he must have changed his mind because his record says the opposite. And since you are rephrasing what he said, where does he say that he enjoys playing with players of the same age? What you quoted claims the opposite.

Like it or not, Colin has a point here!

I have a lot of respect for Peter. He's a great tournament player, he puts in the practice to stay sharp, he's one of the nicest guys to chat with during a round or during downtime, and he respects the sport and people in it.

I do know that Peter Shive and several other Senior GMs have made it a point to travel to various NTs the past two years to fill a SGM division at NT events. There are more and more older disc golfers who are very competitive and skilled playing tournaments these days. The competition has come to Peter in the past two years so he does not have to move down to go find it. When he has not been able to compete with several of his age peers, he plays with the "kids" 10-25 years younger than him in Masters and GMs and competes very well.

It's not like he's jumping from Pro to Am. I believe the main point of his posts is the line between Pros and Ams is blurred and the current system allows players to win cash, merchandise and titles as both.

MADMAX

I believe the main point of his posts is the line between Pros and Ams is blurred and the current system allows players to win cash, merchandise and titles as both.


1. What titles can a cashing Am-Pro win as both? They can't compete in Am Worlds if they accepted cash.
2. The line is blurred. And one reason is because a 950 rated player that doesn't have the luxury of protected divisions can cash in his local mini and possibly cash in c-tiers, but could rarely/never cash in NT, A, or B tiers. So what options do they have other than quiting sanctioned play?
3. Let's say 2 male players are rated 960. One is say 60, the other 25. In our current division structure, the 60 year old has a choice of 8 divisions that he is allowed to play in at any event (Open, Pro M, Pro GM, Pro SGM, Adv, Adv M, Adv GM, Adv SGM) and the 25 year old has a choice of 2 (Open, Adv.). The 60 year old has a legitimate shot of cashing in all 8 divisions at C tiers and the 25 year old in 2 divisions. At A & B tiers, the 60 year old has a legit shot at cashing in 6-7 div. and the 25 year old has a shot at 1-2. At NTs, the 60 year old has a legit shot at cashing in 2-3 divisions, and the 25 year old has a shot at 0 divisions. This is the problem with the current divisional structure and I don't see how we can blame the "Fair-weather Pro" as they are referred to.
4. For the record, I don't know Mr. Shive and my intention was not to belittle or be disrespectful. I simply wanted to know what was the difference between a "Fair-weather Pro" and a person who hops from protected division to protected division to maximize his chance of cashing and maximize his winnings.

Peter can't play in any Am division since his rating is over 954 so that's 4 divisions not 8. Even if his rating was 954, it would only add Advanced to the list, not the older Advanced divisions. The highest rated Am at least 60 probably has a rating under 900 and would have little chance of cashing in more than Adv Sr GM and maybe Adv GM sometimes. Oh, and you forgot the Blue division at Mid-Nats or other ratings events as an additional division where both the 60 and 25 yr olds would be competitive at any tier level.

How many events feature the "blue" division each year?

Also, I just looked at the 2006 PDGA Tour Player Divisions, Ratings & Points Factors and the 25 year-old rated 960 who cashed would only be eligible for Open, he could not play advanced. Bad example on my part.

You are quite right in your examples regarding pros (as long as their rating is at least 960). A lot of local/regional pros don't do well at bigger events. I go compete in A-Tiers and NTs but have not yet cashed there. I cash at lower events (thus far) but I've been darn close a couple of time at the big ones. I am a decent example of a "Pro" caught in no-man's land. My rating has slowly advanced from 950ish to 972 over the past three years. Here in Colorado we have a lot of good players but not dozens above 1000 like some regions. When I play well, I cash. When I play average or below average, I don't cash. I realistically know that I am a "Professional" in name only and in the sense that I play for money. If we had a serious and significant professional division in disc golf, I could not (and should not) play with them because I'm just an above average player. When/If disc golf reaches the next levels of sponsorship and cash to be won, hundreds like me will be left out unless we get at least 5 strokes better a round. Until then, I will enjoy my time as a professional, play the tournaments I like and hope to cover entry fees with my "winnings". I will go to the Memorial for a chance to play with the big dogs and compare my game and hope I have three great days and maybe slip into decent cash. I will try every year to qualify for the USDGC just to have the chance to go and compete at that level on that course. When I do qualify, I will go.

When I feel I have no chance of cashing, I'll probably still play because there is more to tournament play than just having a chance to cash. I have fun before, after and during the rounds. It's like a mini vacation, I get to be competitive, I get exercise, I see friends I�ve made, and I get to travel a bit. I don't (and can't) count on cashing to help me with my mortgage or even to get me to the next tournament. If I don't have the funds, I don't go.

Disc golf in general will have to clearly define a �professional� player when it hits the mainstream and the big money. Unless I�m a lot better, I will not fit under the definition. But for now, I will compete, cash at some events and hope I string some great rounds together at the big events. Just playing well the first couple of rounds is almost satisfaction enough to play with the likes of Brinster, Sinclair, Gill, Sprague, Yeti, Trotter etc for the next round.

On point of your post though. I think if a player has decided to accept cash, they should play PRO. It�s not a decision to make lightly. If they find it was a mistake, they should petition to be allowed back to ADV and should not be allowed to accept more than trophies for a period of time (A year maybe). Jumping back and forth should be discouraged in the strongest possible ways. It is unfair to players who are up-and-coming in the ADV division. Even when I play poorly, I usually would be top 5 in ADV for the same tournament. There would be no personal satisfaction in getting plastic if I �cashed� while playing well below my level.

With the age-protected divisions in the PRO ranks, it�s very easy to jump back and forth depending on age and who is at a tournament. It has been mentioned several times ratings could determine whom plays whom rather than age. I think anyone who ponies up the cash should be allowed to play MPO (until some distinction is made about what a professional is). IMHO a higher percentage to added cash should go to MPO since anyone can play it. Having fewer age-protected divisions is a possibility. Maybe all players above a certain rating must play MPO and then there are age-protected divisions for the rest who like to play for each other�s entry fees.

I think all these discussions are good because so many see that change is on the way as disc golf grows and matures. Change is scary and it takes bold leaders to step forward and actually drive it, not just whine (no specific persons referenced here so don�t anyone take offense unless you really need something to write about) loudly on message boards. I don�t know many of the PDGA BOD but I hope they are up to the challenge. I appreciate the hard work they do and even if disc golf never gets much bigger, I in general like how it works for me now. It�s not perfect, but I sure enjoy the heck out of my time on the course and at tournaments.

-MADMAX

Reply to Colin and Jake:

Colin quoted only the first part of the key sentence. The whole sentence is, �Fair-weather pros will try to score some cash when it is to their advantage; otherwise they will try to take prizes and cash away from amateurs.�

It�s obviously fine for pros to score some cash. That�s what pros do. It is a large part of the definition of a pro. I�m objecting only to the second part. The pros should leave the ams alone.

Now about my current playing style: My situation is certainly different now then it was four years ago. The MPS division has grown enormously, so there is more opportunity to play there. I�m sponsored by Innova, and need to be more visible. Touring is the best way to do that, which is perfect for me because I�ve discovered that I love to tour. However, it requires that I be much more careful about trying to meet my expenses. Finally, the MPS division is organized now (we have a �Senior Tour�), and I make commitments months in advance about where I�ll be and what division I�ll be playing. If I drop down at the last minute I leave other MPS players in the lurch.

So yes, I�m a pro and I play for money. But the bottom line is that, since I turned pro, I have never played for an amateur title, trophy or prize. And I never will.

Mr. Shive,
If you were rated 954 and did not have protected divisions, which of the following would you do?
1. Play Open at C and possibly B tiers and Advanced at B and A tiers.
2. Play only Advanced.
3. Play only Open in C and possibly B tiers and not play any other sanctioned events.
4. Play Open at all tiers and accept that you are donating at NT and A tiers.
5. Quit playing sanctioned events.

If you have another option please indulge us. Please let me know why you chose what you did in the above scenario.

Reply to Colin:

No age protection? That's an easy call.

I started playing in my 50's. If there had been no age protection I would never have joined the PDGA -- I'd have remained a recreational player.

If the PDGA dropped age protection now I'd drop out just as quickly as the women would if the PDGA dropped gender protection. I'd join the new association (SDGA) that would undoubtedly form to accomodate competitive desires of older players, and the women would join the LDGA.

What would you do if you were 25 and rated 954? Which above scenario would you pick?

I'm 48 and 942. I have no intention of going pro at 952 or 962. There's no money in this game. Pros don't have as much fun as ams. I'll think about it at 982. ;)

Colin,

This thread is turning into a dialog between you and me that the rest of them probably don't care about. I'll take a shot at your last question here, and after that I'd be happy to continue on e-mail since we know each other's addresses.

That last hypothetical is quite a reach for me. When I was 25 I was in graduate school on my way to becoming a science nerd, and disc golf didn't exist. Frisbees barely existed.

But if I was 25 now at 954? Depends on a lot of things, like for example:
1) How important is my career outside of disc golf? How much time does it leave me to develop my game?
2) What is my disc golf history? Have I got to 954 by steady and rapid improvement, or have I maybe peaked?
3) What moves me on the course? Am I happy just to be out playing casually, or do I have competition in my bones and a burning desire to "sit at the big table"?
4) Do I believe that the PDGA will continue to be able to increase the money in the pro payouts?

If it's actually ME, suddenly made 25 again, I'd take a shot at Open Pro, because I believe that if I'd started in my 20's I would have easily been able to go over 1000. I have competition in my bones and a burning desire to sit at the big table. But I'd certainly stay in school until I was sure I could make it in disc golf. If I didn't take a shot at it, I'd always wonder afterward just how well I would have done. Just like I'll always wonder now about how good I could have been if I'd started in my twenties rather than my 50's.

actually, the exchange between you two has been great to follow. i had the same reaction as 28003 when i saw your record Pete. from where many people sit, your record reads like the very definition of the Fair Weather Pro you decry. no offense meant... just saying how it appears.

"pros dont have as much fun as ams"???? wow...if i wasnt having fun, I wouldnt play.

Reply to Pat: Fair-weather pros, by my definition, are pros who play against amateurs for gain. I don't do that.

My record shows that I played in my division (MPS) whenever it was offered, and played against Grandmaster Pros and Master Pros when it was not. It also shows that, after I turned pro, I never played against amateurs. It must be age-protection that bothers you.

Age protection is certainly a valid issue, but it is a different issue. The PDGA may want to consider eliminating all age protection (and gender protection too, while they are at it). The arguement in favor of doing that (and the one you imply in your post) is that age-protected divisions are not professional. I think it would be a mistake, and I would of course be sad to see it go, but I would prefer it to the present hypocrisy that makes a joke of professional standards.

Interestingly, I have an article coming out in the next (and perhaps last) issue of Disc Golf World which discusses the policy of age-protection. Its title is "Someday You'll be Old Too, And Then What? Part 3: Age Protection and Senior Mythology".

Peter, i am pretty certain that we should not eliminate age protected divisions. or gender divisions. or any combination of the two. age protection doesnt bother me a bit. i dont imbibe at local minis, but i sure do at sanctioned events. i have consistantly said TDs should be free to offer whatever divisions they want to offer. any implication to the contrary in my previous post is inadvertant.

its not that i dont think age-protected divisions are unprofessional. its that they are anti-competitive. and thats ok except for the very top tier events. people complain about not being on espn and wanting to grow and go the olympics and all that, but then do everything possible to mimimize the competitive appeal of the sport. DG is tough enough for the camera. it needs all the competition it can get and that doesnt come from micro-divisions. again, i'm all for whatever divisions you want for all but the very top events. reward masters with a top tier event of their own, thats cool too. just dont confuse today's diluted structure with unadulterated competition.

btw, i started when i was 40 and am 50 this year. gotten better every year that i played regularly. so i can relate to the "wow, what if i had started at 20"

btw, i started when i was 40 and am 50 this year. gotten better every year that i played regularly. so i can relate to the "wow, what if i had started at 20"



You're referencing your sex life here Pat; correct?

hey, its better to be a old-playa than a no-playa :cool:

Reply to Pat: Fair-weather pros, by my definition, are pros who play against amateurs for gain. I don't do that.

My record shows that I played in my division (MPS) whenever it was offered, and played against Grandmaster Pros and Master Pros when it was not. It also shows that, after I turned pro, I never played against amateurs. It must be age-protection that bothers you.

Age protection is certainly a valid issue, but it is a different issue. The PDGA may want to consider eliminating all age protection (and gender protection too, while they are at it). The arguement in favor of doing that (and the one you imply in your post) is that age-protected divisions are not professional. I think it would be a mistake, and I would of course be sad to see it go, but I would prefer it to the present hypocrisy that makes a joke of professional standards.

Interestingly, I have an article coming out in the next (and perhaps last) issue of Disc Golf World which discusses the policy of age-protection. Its title is "Someday You'll be Old Too, And Then What? Part 3: Age Protection and Senior Mythology".



So would you say a competitive structure based on players' ratings will be the future? at least for larger tourneys where you have to be a pdga member? natural progression towards a common denominator that is fair for everyone as far as structuring divisions points in that direction.....not to say it will work for lower-tiered events where a lot of non-pdga players with no player ratings are involved......i personally would hate to see age protected divisions go away but since the inception of players ratings it makes common sense to standardize divisions based on that criteria, then no one can complain about sandbagging :eek: or all the other issues people seem to think age-protected divisions create.
hi Peter, hope to see you this year in colorado. take care.

they'll still complain about where the ratings-based division lines are. :D

actually, there is nothing inherently wrong with letting every event decide where to place the breaks for ratings events. that would be kinda cool. different areas/regions have different needs

actually, there is nothing inherently wrong with letting every event decide where to place the breaks for ratings events.



Points.

points do not matter enough to take so much flexibility out of the TDs hands. do points truly matter much at all? with all due respect, someone is gonna have to do some convincing there.

Making up ratings breaks is rather unprofessional from a competition structure standpoint. However, several have proposed using a different set of breaks for different tiers. I think that makes more sense and doesn't put the TD in the hot seat for making poor choices for ratings breaks or getting accused of favoritism when the break on your home course is set one point above Brenner's rating...

Points have the same worth as being a member of the Association...nothing.

They could legitimize the Worlds and other invitationals by saying that a player would have to play x number of events (say 10) during the previous calendar or "fiscal" year and have a rating of x to qualify. This would remove players from having ratings based on a round or two or three years old, and increase the chances of having higher quality fields. As it is now you can hack your way to a worlds invite simply by finishing in the middle of the pack 16 times in a year and accumulate points for mediocrity. I know, I speak from experience. An added benefit would be one less thing for our overworked volunteer leadership to have to deal with.

like you even need an invite for worlds! has anyone ever not gotten in off the waitlist? usually they have more spots than players from what i understand. i could be wrong here.
points currently could be done away with and we could use other criteria for invites. this would allow more flexibility for sanctioning events with ratings based divisions.

Points are even more important than keeping the Masters division. Perhaps it's hard to justify why they are worth keeping from a rational standpoint. But players like them and the PDGA would be foolish to take them away. If anything, it's one incentive that has likely caused players to play up and boost attendance at B and A tiers.

One need only look at the unbelievable number of Ams attending Bowling Green (already over 700!) to see that. Points is a significant reason why BG has become so big. Play BG and you pretty much get a Worlds invite and only those attendees are truly in the running for end of year points awards. And believe me, players have done lots of jockeying to play events near the end of the year to beat out their buddies, even if it's for 20th place in points in their state.

As far as Worlds goes, the numbers wanting to go to Am Worlds will soon exceed the capacity, if not already this year. Am Worlds capacity is "only" 576 this year. Points still might not be the best for invites in the future. It wouldn't surprise me if invites become a combination of points and regional qualifiers within 5 years.

publish the breaks used for large ratings based events well in advance and let tds decide whether to use those or not.

how is changing stuff around unprofessional? just saying it is does not make it so. flexibility in ratings lines is way more professional than having TDs with line item veto power on the rules.

flexibility in ratings lines is way more professional than having TDs with line item veto power on the rules.



They only have them if players don't hold them accountable any more than calling foot faults.

like you even need an invite for worlds! has anyone ever not gotten in off the waitlist? usually they have more spots than players from what i understand. i could be wrong here.
points currently could be done away with and we could use other criteria for invites. this would allow more flexibility for sanctioning events with ratings based divisions.

Pro worlds filled last year. Am Worlds may fill this year.

Points also matter for the obelisks and pins. My girls like winning their pin every year. There are always a few players who try to win the obelisk and a few who say, "What? Huh? I get a trophy for playing a tournament every weekend?"

you make it sounjd like points is the only way possible to creat invite lists for worlds.

its not.

I didn't say points was the only way for Worlds. In fact, there probably should be more than one way. But take away points for Worlds and/or tour awards and watch BG attendance drop and it will likely affect many other events even though you won't see the direct evidence proving points removal as the reason.

like you even need an invite for worlds! has anyone ever not gotten in off the waitlist? usually they have more spots than players from what i understand. i could be wrong here.
points currently could be done away with and we could use other criteria for invites. this would allow more flexibility for sanctioning events with ratings based divisions.

Pro worlds filled last year. Am Worlds may fill this year.

Points also matter for the obelisks and pins. My girls like winning their pin every year. There are always a few players who try to win the obelisk and a few who say, "What? Huh? I get a trophy for playing a tournament every weekend?"



I guess points matter to some. They have not really mattered to me, except to maybe get a first wave invite to Worlds. Of course, I could have gotten in from the waiting list anyway. You're still going to be able for a few years. As more and more amateurs start playing this sport, and join the association, points will mean more, at least as far as getting into Am Worlds is conceerned. At some point, you're not going to be able to get into Worlds without an invite, unless the tournament gets expanded.

Chap

Points also matter for the obelisks and pins. My girls like winning their pin every year. There are always a few players who try to win the obelisk and a few who say, "What? Huh? I get a trophy for playing a tournament every weekend?"



I know the top Am point earner gets an obelisk, but what pins? How do you get these things?

I didn't say points was the only way for Worlds. In fact, there probably should be more than one way. But take away points for Worlds and/or tour awards and watch BG attendance drop and it will likely affect many other events even though you won't see the direct evidence proving points removal as the reason.

bad reason chuck. a single event should not be the sole driver of comeptitive policy. besides, those who load up on BG points are those who can a) get there, b) get there on that one weekend. i love the idea that an event is so insanely popular. but if it is being propped up by a flawed and mostly meaningless points system, then it is in the way of widespread progress.

unless BG means Ball Golf... in that case i dont care if its attendance goes down :D

It's not just BG. It's just the most obvious event. The Memorial is another one but it has other factors such as the weather for that time of year driving attendence. Like I said, you'll see unexplained declining attendance at potentially every PDGA event if points are removed. Simple as that. Those who are typically donators in any division are the ones who will play fewer tournaments. There's some intangible benefit to at least earning points for many members whether you personally care about them or not. If I'm near the bottom of the division, one motivation to try and slip ahead of another player before the end has been points whether rational or not.

State divisional point winners get a nice pin. I have one I wear on my hat, when I wear that hat.

"...you'll see unexplained declining attendance at potentially every PDGA event if points are removed. Simple as that."

back that claim up with some evidence. i'll keep an open mind regarding empirical support that you can provide for youi position.

they'll still complain about where the ratings-based division lines are. :D

actually, there is nothing inherently wrong with letting every event decide where to place the breaks for ratings events. that would be kinda cool. different areas/regions have different needs

You could build some flexibility into the system without going hog wild. You could have a system where the TD had to maintain the current 40 point wide breaks between Pros Playing Advanced, the Intermediate Cap and the Rec Cap, but they can raise or lower the caps by X many points.

nice idea... that just might help get us there.

why we want to codify ratings so rigidly at this point is beyond me... how many ratings based events have ever occured? its too early to lock things in.

back that claim up with some evidence. i'll keep an open mind regarding empirical support that you can provide for youi position.



I'll simply go on the evidence that BG has become huge with earning points having a significant influence. It's not too hard to extend that to points having some influence on every event since BG is just a regular event like all others, i.e., if points influence even one event in a set of similarly structured events, it influences all events where points are offered even though the amount of influence could vary.

wheres the "evidence" that "BG has become huge with earning points having a significant influence". you're not confusing correlation with causation are you?

All of this points stuff is old news. If you care to kill them, do the research and find out. I only have snippets. Time and again players have posted or commented that "you need to play BG to get an invite to Worlds or win the points awards." Terry might have access to polls over the years regarding the importance of points, but it's come up there. We have a Legends division for 12 members. We certainly have more than 12 members who are interested in tracking points. Most of my emails I receive asking whether they will get ratings for an event also ask about points in their request. Some even come in only asking about points and multipliers for which division they will earn the most.

back that claim up with some evidence. i'll keep an open mind regarding empirical support that you can provide for youi position.



I'll simply go on the evidence that BG has become huge with earning points having a significant influence. It's not too hard to extend that to points having some influence on every event since BG is just a regular event like all others, i.e., if points influence even one event in a set of similarly structured events, it influences all events where points are offered even though the amount of influence could vary.



I don't know that points are a "big" influence on why BG got so big. I think it's more the spectacle that BG is. Bowling Green is the first large tournament in the Mid-West/Mid-South region. It's extremly accessible from Alabama, Tennessee, Illinois, Ohio. Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, etc....In otherwords, it's the first big event on the schedule for many people in a decent climate (although I've seen it rain a lot at BG over the years at this time of year), and that's the reason for the spectacle....it's simply the first chance for a lot of us snowbirds to play golf at a big event. The people there are friendly, the courses are friendly (not terribly difficult), and it's first on the schedule. If The Memorial was not first on the schedule, say it moved to April, it wouldn't be as big a deal as it is now. If you'll remember, the Bob West Memorial (as it was called back then) used to be in May, and didn't draw nearly as well as it does now.

Chap

It's big because 'it's big' may have become the primary reason these days. Time of the year and location is certainly relevant. It's not the courses considering that players don't even know which ones they'll play. And payouts have been known to be average but not great.

All of this points stuff is old news. If you care to kill them, do the research and find out. I only have snippets. Time and again players have posted or commented that "you need to play BG to get an invite to Worlds or win the points awards." Terry might have access to polls over the years regarding the importance of points, but it's come up there. We have a Legends division for 12 members. We certainly have more than 12 members who are interested in tracking points. Most of my emails I receive asking whether they will get ratings for an event also ask about points in their request. Some even come in only asking about points and multipliers for which division they will earn the most.



I've harrassed Pat (some say unfairly) for doing exactly what you're doing Chuck. He is correct though, you may well be right, but snippets and gossip aren't good enough. I personally agree with you based on my gut instinct, that is, what motivates me; that doesn't mean it's correct. At the very least you need to do a poll. :D

I'll say it again. It's old news. It's been brought up formally at least twice that I can recall in the past 10 years but I'm not interested to track it down. Pat can inquire about the results of polls that have been done regarding where it fits in and review old Board actions. I've never heard one person say they should be eliminated. However, how they are used and calculated is always available for consideration to do them or use them better. It's one of the few member benefits that has been automated such that there's little cost to do them versus what appears to be the perceived value.

State divisional point winners get a nice pin. I have one I wear on my hat, when I wear that hat.



Oh cool. I had no idea. Thanks for the info, Bruce. When/where do you get this pin? If they're still doing it, I should be getting one.

theres a huge cost if they prevent innovation from occuring.

i cared about pointrs my first year, then i figured out i could get into worlds anytime i wanted with or without points. the points leader chase means nothing unless you happen to be available for BG weekend.

points should be eliminated.

there, now you'd heard (seen?) one person say it.

I'll say it again. It's old news. It's been brought up formally at least twice that I can recall in the past 10 years but I'm not interested to track it down. Pat can inquire about the results of polls that have been done regarding where it fits in and review old Board actions. I've never heard one person say they should be eliminated. However, how they are used and calculated is always available for consideration to do them or use them better. It's one of the few member benefits that has been automated such that there's little cost to do them versus what appears to be the perceived value.



I'm not commenting on the points one way or the other. I agree with the concept that they affect what players play. One year I played intermediate with the notion that I would collect points towards getting an invite to Am Worlds. I know it happens. But how important is it?

I don't remember how this topic started but I don't think it was Pat who suggested they had value or could be used to rate players or that players are motivated by them, you are. If you're going to make the arguement that they're important enough not to allow floating rating breaks, then you should be able to show they are by more than anecdotal evidence.

If you're going to make the arguement that they're important enough not to allow floating rating breaks, then you should be able to show they are by more than anecdotal evidence.




Points don't prevent floating rating breaks, but how points are handled needs to be considered with that option. Pat is welcome to ask the Competition Committee chair to consider killing points if he feels it's a not a good cost/benefit PDGA program. Dr. Rick started them within a few years of 1990 and I believe did the calcs and awards himself for awhile. Not sure when points got involved with Worlds invites.

back that claim up with some evidence. i'll keep an open mind regarding empirical support that you can provide for youi position.



I'll simply go on the evidence that BG has become huge with earning points having a significant influence. It's not too hard to extend that to points having some influence on every event since BG is just a regular event like all others, i.e., if points influence even one event in a set of similarly structured events, it influences all events where points are offered even though the amount of influence could vary.



I don't know that points are a "big" influence on why BG got so big. I think it's more the spectacle that BG is. Bowling Green is the first large tournament in the Mid-West/Mid-South region. It's extremly accessible from Alabama, Tennessee, Illinois, Ohio. Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, etc....In otherwords, it's the first big event on the schedule for many people in a decent climate (although I've seen it rain a lot at BG over the years at this time of year), and that's the reason for the spectacle....it's simply the first chance for a lot of us snowbirds to play golf at a big event. The people there are friendly, the courses are friendly (not terribly difficult), and it's first on the schedule. If The Memorial was not first on the schedule, say it moved to April, it wouldn't be as big a deal as it is now. If you'll remember, the Bob West Memorial (as it was called back then) used to be in May, and didn't draw nearly as well as it does now.

Chap



i would add that the players package is one huge draw at BG am.s . i tell every am i know who considers going that the players pack alone is worth the price of admission and then add to that the incredible job the BG pros do running things. They treat the am.s top-notch, have excellent courses, the competition is great, and so is the exposure to disc golf enthusiasts from across the nation. Points has to be least on the list behind: players pack, competition/prestige of placing well there, excellent reputation for how things are run (aka: the BG disc golf community), and also the location and climate at that time of year there. Sure, some go because it is one of the only ways to easily get enough points to qualify for Am. Worlds -- but that (beaucoup points) is more a function of the huge draw the tourney historicly brings than the cause of it.

pat: actually, there is nothing inherently wrong with letting every event decide where to place the breaks for ratings events.

chuck: Points.

several people (using Lyle's text): If you're going to make the arguement that they're important enough not to allow floating rating breaks, then you should be able to show they are by more than anecdotal evidence.

chuck: Points don't prevent floating rating breaks

If you're going to make the arguement that they're important enough not to allow floating rating breaks, then you should be able to show they are by more than anecdotal evidence.




Points don't prevent floating rating breaks, but how points are handled needs to be considered with that option. Pat is welcome to ask the Competition Committee chair to consider killing points if he feels it's a not a good cost/benefit PDGA program. Dr. Rick started them within a few years of 1990 and I believe did the calcs and awards himself for awhile. Not sure when points got involved with Worlds invites.



Chuck, that's incorrect, if you're saying Dr. Rick created points. He may have initiated the awards idea....he and Sylvia bought the first awards based on points, at least according to the disc golf historian a few feet from me (Mr. Rothstein). Points have been around since the inception of the PDGA back in 1983. R.B. Clark used to keep the points, then George and Andrea Coffin, then to Johnny and Adele Sias, then to Darrell Lynn. (Not necessarily in that order....the Siases may have been points keepers before the Coffins)

Chap

If you're going to make the arguement that they're important enough not to allow floating rating breaks, then you should be able to show they are by more than anecdotal evidence.




Points don't prevent floating rating breaks, but how points are handled needs to be considered with that option. Pat is welcome to ask the Competition Committee chair to consider killing points if he feels it's a not a good cost/benefit PDGA program. Dr. Rick started them within a few years of 1990 and I believe did the calcs and awards himself for awhile. Not sure when points got involved with Worlds invites.



I don't remember who it was, but someone did suggest making points global, that is based on all tournament participants instead of those in your division. I've always thought that was a better model. The idea that you can manipulate your point total by playing in different divisions seems wrong. Although I guess you could argue that manipulating your points based on your ability to get to BG is wrong...

pat: actually, there is nothing inherently wrong with letting every event decide where to place the breaks for ratings events.

chuck: Points.

several people (using Lyle's text): If you're going to make the arguement that they're important enough not to allow floating rating breaks, then you should be able to show they are by more than anecdotal evidence.

chuck: Points don't prevent floating rating breaks



BTW - if I remember correctly, xterra posted a floating break model based on who is at your tournament (that's probably where this started and y'all realize that) but it's a very interesting concept IMO.

I can't recall anyone around here ever talking about playing an event for points. I think this is an issue in the mind of The Apologist and the Association hierarchy. As getting into worlds has been a breeze up to this point anyone seriously interested in going and being competitive, rather than going for the "atmosphere" would be good enough and play enough events to get an invite from their state finish. BG is probably big as it's at the beginning of the season, has multiple courses, and has taken on a Daytona 500 atmosphere for the Am's. Points are simply a silly extra that the Association wastes it's time and horribly limited resources on. Pins? We don't need no stinkin' pins.

I can't recall anyone around here ever talking about playing an event for points. I think this is an issue in the mind of The Apologist and the Association hierarchy. As getting into worlds has been a breeze up to this point anyone seriously interested in going and being competitive, rather than going for the "atmosphere" would be good enough and play enough events to get an invite from their state finish. BG is probably big as it's at the beginning of the season, has multiple courses, and has taken on a Daytona 500 atmosphere for the Am's. Points are simply a silly extra that the Association wastes it's time and horribly limited resources on. Pins? We don't need no stinkin' pins.



I don't think it's quite that cut and dried. I've discussed the issue with at least 5 Masters who've all moved divisions to gain extra points with the hope of an invite. I'm just not convinced it is enough to ignore the concept of floating divisions.

I like the notion of floating divisions but I have one question, where you gonna play baby? Entrants like to know where they're playing and the concept of we'll tell you when you get here is not going to float well IMO. However, I don't think that's what Pat is proposing. I think he's saying a TD can decide their breaks, in advance, and that should be their choice. Pat?

In general, the PDGA has tried to formalize the structure of top events (and yes I know Pat isn't talking top events) to bring legitimacy. I'm not convinced that is the best way to accomplish legitimacy. I hate to admit it (not really), but when I look at Jason Southwick and Steve Dodge, I can't argue that going their own way to have more freedom is a bad thing. I like the notion of the PDGA as providing guidance and support much more than I like the notion of the PDGA as providing a set of rules by which to run your events...

I understand the idea that lower tiered events have more flexibility, I want to point out that any TD with any chutzpa is aiming to be as big as he can be. No one is going to run a C tier instead of an A tier because it gives her more flexibility.

Lyle, not true on the flexibility. I know of a couple of events who have looked at A-tier status, but remained B-tier because of flexibility. (As well as a series that went C/B to C/C for more flexibility -- LSS.)

My problem with saying the TDs can decide in advance is that some TDs define advance as during the players' meeting.

yeah, getting it announced would have to be one of the most important aspects of sanctioning. hey, maybe the association could provide announcement formatting as a service to sanctioned events. the TD would save time and money, and the consistency would build the brand. add in a media database and all of a sudden you could automate press releases across all media channels. nice professional press releases that build disc golf, the brand, and the event. all as part of the sanctioning process. but thats going off topic, sorry.

The announcing in advance is easy if the width of the ranges are going to be held constant. It goes into the sanctioning request. Instead of the event being a B-tier it is a B-965 or B-950 or whatever number is the Pros Playing Am number. When you go to the Tour page you'd see the B-960 in the tier column.

that makes sense and it seems like it would serve everyone. if you want to mirror some other event, just set the pram break the same. if kevin wants a one division event, set it at 700. if you want to pay out 998 players in brass, set it at 1000. something has to be wrong, cuz its sounding so simple.

that makes sense and it seems like it would serve everyone. if you want to mirror some other event, just set the pram break the same. if kevin wants a one division event, set it at 700. if you want to pay out 998 players in brass, set it at 1000. something has to be wrong, cuz its sounding so simple.

Exactly, and if the Board thinks, as a matter of policy, that that number should not be higher than X or lower than Y, then you just make that how flexible you're going to be. I think it would be a better system. I'd just set the number where the top of advanced truly is where ever I was running the tournament.