The following is a post from the TD on a local club's discussion page about a tourny later this month:

"To dispell any rumors going around, I have posted since day 1 that there would be no added money to the masters division this year. I feel it is not fair to sink money in a division that limits it's competitors. Open is a division that fits it's label. It is OPEN to any player of age or skill level. Since this is the case it is only fair to put money in the Open divisions of Men and Women.
I will not be however taking any money from the masters division to fund the open divisions. This is against PDGA rules, ALL pro divisions must pay out atleast 100% of entry fees minus the PDGA fee per person. This is what I will be doing."

Is this common (not adding money to the Masters Div)? I've thought about playing Masters this year, but I'm not too crazy if this is going to be the case.

Thanks.

Common, but not universal.

It is in line with the desires of many have the best play against the best in the Open div instead of splitting of a few of the best into Masters.

It is an attempt to get those 2 or 3 Masters players that have any shot of cashing in the Open division to play Open. Unfortunately it ends up screwing the other 15 to 30 other Masters who would have little if any chance of cashing in Open. And the truth is that when no cash is added to Masters they actually ARE subsidizing the other pro divisions because the local, regional and PDGA fees are coming out of only the Masters division.

I�m nowhere near convinced that a separate amateur organization could form, I am fairly confident that a separate masters organization could go up over-night. This would likely have a devastating effect on the Open division though, considering whom all does most of the organizing and fund raising.

And the truth is that when no cash is added to Masters they actually ARE subsidizing the other pro divisions because the local, regional and PDGA fees are coming out of only the Masters division.




Explain that when the TD pays back Masters 100% of their entry fees minus only their PDGA Fees? ($2 per person). Top third af masters still wins their purse, do they not.....I do not understand this comment you make? Are you saying that the masters money is moved to open and the added money is put in place of their entry fees? If that is so, it is still the same amout of money.

Why are you thinking of playing in the tournament? For Fun? For Competition? For Money? Why if you don't mind me asking.
Personally I play for Competition and fun.

Please tell me why a protected division should get extra money?

Basically, I agree with that TD that all/most added money should go into open. However, given the current state of affairs, I don't think it will significantly increase open participation (if that was even the intended goal).

While I agree with added cash, I am of the opinion that some of the sponsorship raised should be used in a manner that benefits all participants, not just those top few that win.

I am now a Masters player. I go to events where I like the TD and course. Entry fee only becomes a factor when one of those things is weak or lacking. (i.e. I will never go to an event where the TD is a confirmed detriment to the sport, even if the course is sweet, the added cash is off the hook and it is right around the corner. There are too many great TDs and Courses to support to have to slum it. )

I agree 100% with you Gary. It's not like the Open players are bringing huge corporate sponsors or throngs of people for the gallery in disc golf right now. Sponsorship should be use primarily to make the event great for all participants first, then to entice touring pros.

I wouldn�t say that adding money to the Masters division is completely wrong, but ANY division that is �protected� should have their added funds reduced significantly compare to the Open division

I agree with McCoy, the principle is basically that a protected division should receive significantly less added cash than Open.

I think it also depends on the size and the scope of the tournament. If you've got a small tournament with only $1000 or $2000 in added cash, that should all go to Open. But if you've got a big tourny with, for example, $10,000 or more of added cash, it seems wrong to give all of that to just the Open and Open Women divisions. Masters should get a small percentage of that too, and without PDGA guidelines, the TD will need to decide how much. I'd also like to see TDs post this breakdown information in advance. (on the flyer or on a message board, if possible)

The problem with posting amounts before the tournament is that most TDs don't know the final numbers until the day of.

Instead of a dollar amount, I would like to see a little about the added cash philosophy posted ahead of time. i.e. All added cash added to the Open division, or equally split, or aimed at event amenities, or whatever is planned.

You should always have a MAJORITY of your added money in the Open Pro division (= amount per player for Women Open)

The only time there should be added money to any other division is when you have lots of added money.

This is comming from a soon to be Masters player.

At the Carrollton Open, I have always done this, if a Masters player signs up early, they can get a players pack for free.

I think all added cash should go to the Open divisions. (Men and Women.)

But I want an answer to this: what exactly is "added cash"?

If I run a tourney and I have to pay $350 for a park permit, $100 for sanctioning/insurance, $400 for player pack stuff, and $450 for lunches, how does that figure in to it? I will add all that up ($1300 in this example) and divide it by the number of players playing, and pull that amount from every entry to cover expenses.

When I sell tee-signs and fund-raiser discs.....is that money "added cash"? Personally, I don't think it is "added cash" until I get over $1300. Until then, it is just "covering expenses". I will then divide my fund-raiser funds by the number of players and add that money into the payouts for each divisions.

But that's how I do it. If I bring in $1300 to cover the $1300 in expenses, I do not claim to have "$1300 in added cash".

But I am pretty **** sure that this is exactly what other TDs do.

So how do you define "added cash"? I think it should be defined, and that definition should be "money added to the purse after all expenses have been met."

Again I agree with Gary. So long as the payout philosophy is communicated ahead of time participants can make an informed decision.

My events philosophy would be:

<font color="blue">"Sponsorship raised will go to the divisions that people raising the funds are playing in."</font>

In my region that would be about 100% of the added cash in 75% of the events going into Masters... Dope! (Let's see here...Skylands, Windjammer, Patapsco, PFDO, Champions Cup, WV Open, 2 Days In May, etc.) I think there would be some pretty sweet Amateur Masters Payouts too.

While it looks to be the case in many places that the Masters aged players are the ones that are doing most of the work and keeping the system going, they would also be the first to tell you that they are not in it for themselves. I could certainly think of more personally beneficial things I could be doing with my time and money if personal gain was my goal.

While it looks to be the case in many places that the Masters aged players are the ones that are doing most of the work and keeping the system going, they would also be the first to tell you that they are not in it for themselves. I could certainly think of more personally beneficial things I could be doing with my time and money if personal gain was my goal.


I thought that went without saying. My point is simply that the sport might grow at a more natural pace if those who actually bring resources to the table controlled where those resources went, then perhaps we could fairly expect a little more from the travelling pros and open players since they receive the biggest slice of the pie, generally (and monetarily) speaking.

Short of that I am a huge fan of spending a large portion of added cash on event amenities such as players packages (nice ones), lunches, and course preparation, even event staffing. This will I believe, in the end, benefit the top pros more than anything else (besides a true amateur class).

When the day comes that Barry and Kenny generate publicity and sponsorship interest then they will be in the drivers seat. This is a day I work towards but do not want to see us try to fake it until we make it, for fear that we will lose those who get short changed who are the real building blocks of our sport.

In my region that would be about 100% of the added cash in 75% of the events going into Masters.



Nick, I don't think you can say with any degree of certainty that ALL the sponsorship culling efforts and money raised was done by people who play in the Pro Masters division. There could be a whole slew of behind-the-scenes activity that you don't have any clue about.

I definitely agree with Gary's point that some of the sponsorship raised should be used in a manner that benefits all participants, not just those top few that win. And Nick's comment that spending a portion of added cash on event amenities such as players packages (nice ones), lunches, and course preparation, even event staffing. There's no reason that TDs can't take out a large share of the added cash for those reasons. But I still think that after that when they allocate added cash for the payouts, rewarding protected divisions with a large share of the money should be avoided and the majority of added cash should go to the highest level of competition and reward the best golfers.

ditto....
Bigger purses in the open division make for more touring pros and not just card-holding players but people like myself and the rest of the friZZaks. We are willing to drive but only if there is a chance we might cash enough for gas....More purse more driving.....
Masters can play open: open can not play masters.

In my region that would be about 100% of the added cash in 75% of the events going into Masters.



Nick, I don't think you can say with any degree of certainty that ALL the sponsorship culling efforts and money raised was done by people who play in the Pro Masters division. There could be a whole slew of behind-the-scenes activity that you don't have any clue about.


Well then Jeff, it is fortunate that I didn�t say that then.

As far as added cash to protected divisions, you as a sponsor should be able to put your money where you want as a sponsor. So long as the TD communicates how they are going to to split it up there should never be any problems.

All of the money I am raising for the MADCi this year will go to Da Bear to cook us up some killer food and maybe to supply R-man and Craiger with enough materials to make a few masterpieces for the MADCi Picnic.

Ask this question in 24 years. Actually this doesn't seem to be a problem in TX because of the lack of younger Open players. Even in events with little added cash most Master aged players will opt for the Open division. FREEKIN OLDE GUYS. :D:D

Matt,

It might be time for you to make the Open division a little younger in TX! :cool:I heard you won another tournament a few weeks ago.

Let's have a show of hands here. Is there anyone who does not want cash or value added to their payout? Anyone? Women? Juniors? Amateur men? Pro Grandmasters?

O.k., that settles it then. :D

No 'cash' or 'value' added to my divisions, please. I am an Am and proud of it. Added cash ought to mostly go to the people organizing the running tournaments. After that to the top Pro divisions.

When I play in Advanced, my satisfaction comes from beating the young whippersnappers :) When I play Master or Grand Master it comes from having a good time with the geezers.

Let's have a show of hands here. Is there anyone who does not want cash or value added to their payout? Anyone? Women? Juniors? Amateur men? Pro Grandmasters?

O.k., that settles it then. :D



:D^ we have a winner ^ :D

Matt,

I play for the same reasons that you do. Heck, how else could I since 1988 if it wasn't? Imagine how many people that I've played with that have started the game, got better that me and quit for some reason? Plus, I also play because I love to introduce people to the game, watch them as they have fun, get better and then do the same for others.

With regards to adding money to a protected division (technically that would incude FPO and they get it. MPO is the only true non-protected division as women can play too), it is really more of a surpise that it isn't the case. When money is added, I just assumed that it went to all cash divisions. I never really paid too much attention as an AM (but trust me, I did notice when there wasnt a 100% payout for the AMs because some my entry went the cash divisions!). I agree with some of the other posts here. If a tourny isnt' going to add to the 'protected' divisions, they should say so up front. If they dont put it on flyer, then all cash divisions should have money added. This may not really answer your question, but like I said, it is really more of a surprise than anything.

Do most of the masters, etc, know that money may not be added?

For the tournament I ran last year, the Piney Woods Pro/Am, I took the total number of players in ALL the open divisions and by percent I spread the added money out, so that there was added money to all open divisions. You can argue that the Masters division is protected and should not get added money, however it is an open division. By the reasoning given below, the Women's Open division is also a protected division. No one is their right mind would suggest that added money should not be given to the Women's Open division.

Now that I have said that, I have seen it both ways.

Jerry



The following is a post from the TD on a local club's discussion page about a tourny later this month:

"To dispell any rumors going around, I have posted since day 1 that there would be no added money to the masters division this year. I feel it is not fair to sink money in a division that limits it's competitors. Open is a division that fits it's label. It is OPEN to any player of age or skill level. Since this is the case it is only fair to put money in the Open divisions of Men and Women.
I will not be however taking any money from the masters division to fund the open divisions. This is against PDGA rules, ALL pro divisions must pay out atleast 100% of entry fees minus the PDGA fee per person. This is what I will be doing."

Is this common (not adding money to the Masters Div)? I've thought about playing Masters this year, but I'm not too crazy if this is going to be the case.

Thanks.

All added cash should go to the best division and since the best division is the open men's that's were the money should go. Think about it if you play open and shoot 7 down for a tournament and take 4 place and win $81, and the winner of the masters shot 4 up and he gets $130, $49 more dollars than you (the open player), and you beat him by 11 strokes. This is why added money should only go to the open division.
The tournament to prove my point. (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4390)

The problem with that statement is that if you follow through with it, then no added cash should go to the Women's Open Division. It would also cause problems in the Ameteur ranks. Should Advanced payout higher than recreational, even if there are fewer Advanced players than Rec players? I am just trying to point out that most of the arguments fall apart when applied to any other divisions.

Jerry


All added cash should go to the best division and since the best division is the open men's that's were the money should go. Think about it if you play open and shoot 7 down for a tournament and take 4 place and win $81, and the winner of the masters shot 4 up and he gets $130, $49 more dollars than you (the open player), and you beat him by 11 strokes. This is why added money should only go to the open division.
The tournament to prove my point. (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4390)

Masters is not an open division. It's a pro division. Open means excatly that open to anyone.

Added cash should go to the two Open divisions- MPO and FPO

Added cash should go to whichever division(s) the donor designates. If a donor doesn't designate a division/divisions, the choice belongs to the TD.

If I choose to donate $1000 to Pro Senior Grand Masters as a way of saying "Thank you" to those who birthed the sport and helped make it what it is today, that's my right and neither the TD, players in other divisions, nor the PDGA has any say in the matter, except to decline the donation. Period. End of discussion.

Added cash should go to whichever division(s) the donor designates. If a donor doesn't designate a division/divisions, the choice belongs to the TD.

If I choose to donate $1000 to Pro Senior Grand Masters as a way of saying "Thank you" to those who birthed the sport and helped make it what it is today, that's my right and neither the TD, players in other divisions, nor the PDGA has any say in the matter, except to decline the donation. Period. End of discussion.



well said!

...If I choose to donate $1000 to Pro Senior Grand Masters as a way of saying "Thank you" to those who birthed the sport and helped make it what it is today, that's my right and neither the TD, players in other divisions, nor the PDGA has any say in the matter, except to decline the donation. Period. End of discussion.


Aw, man, the discussion is over before I got into it?!? :confused: :D

Can I at least say I agree? ;)

....is the part about the PDGA having no say in the matter a matter of fact?

Masters is not an open division. It's a pro division. Open means excatly that open to anyone.

Added cash should go to the two Open divisions- MPO and FPO



Stricktly speaking, FPO is limited by gender. I'm not saying that they shouldn't get any added money, but it is a limited division.

Masters is not an open division. It's a pro division. Open means excatly that open to anyone.

Added cash should go to the two Open divisions- MPO and FPO



Stricktly speaking, FPO is limited by gender. I'm not saying that they shouldn't get any added money, but it is a limited division.


Your right the FPO division is protected by gender but the only reason there isn't a male only division is that the feminist would raise HE!! About how hard it is to be a woman in a male dominate sport that shows gender bias toward them.

....is the part about the PDGA having no say in the matter a matter of fact?

Yes.

As a registered 501(c)(3) organization (non-profit), the PDGA is bound by IRS regulations regarding the use of donor-designated contributions which, stripped of all the bureaurcratic baffle-gab, boils down to the fact that if a 501(c)(3) organization accepts a donation, it is legally obligated to honor the terms on which the donation was made; should the organization be unable or unwilling to honor those terms, it is legally obligated to return the donation.

Donations to a tournament are not donations to the PDGA. Therefore, this does not apply.

Although it would be silly to accept a donation that was specifically made for a specific purpose and then ignore the wishes of the sponsor.

Yes, if a sponsor said he wanted his money in a spacific division, I would have no problem doing that.

I did just that a few years ago with the Grand Masters, a player who was pulling out said he did not want his entry fee back and if I could leave it in the GM division. So he sponsored that division.

Donations to a tournament are not donations to the PDGA.

Um ... I suggest you check with your friendly local IRS examiner, Rhett.

Well, they aren't. Are you saying that they are?

Are you saying that if you donate $5000 to my EIEIO tourney you get the full benefit of a 501.C(3) donation even though the money never went anywhere near the C(3)?

That makes no sense to me whatsoever. But then again, it's tax law we are talking about. :)

Rhett, you are correct and Fore should share when he gets good dope like that.

Rhett, you are correct and Fore should share when he gets good dope like that.

The "good dope" comes from the IRS in the form of a private letter ruling I obtained in 2002 stating that a TD of a sanctioned tournament could, in certain circumstances (which are not detailed) be considered an agent acting on behalf of the PDGA.

The added money I say should be divided by numbers of pro players, I can see you open players wanting to play the woman and old guys. Masters have been around since dirt they are the ones who been with the sport from the begining and are the ones who spend the most money at tournaments yet you all want to not only slap us in the face but want to keep on kicking us while we are down , you are BAD PEOPLE!! Don't be haters just give credit where credit is DUE!! Thats like my son 24 years old fighting your mother or your grandfather, can you see what I mean you blind fools.

But just ignore the ams who spend more than anybody else at tournaments and almost unanimously want to have a good time, right Chile? Ignore the people who want to play badly enough to pre-register and make the TDs life easier by doing so.

I think prizers should be included in "Added Cash" considerations as well, but that would rarely result in taking actual cash away from the cashers, more like the difference between wholesale prize costs and retail prize values.

Without going into mind numbing numbers some thing like
1) Add up the cash beyond total entry fees with the prize cash value differential beyond total entry fees.
2) Determine percentage of divisions by total participants.
3) Determine percentage of total event purse based on entry fees.
4) Determine percentage of Added Cash to each division based on #2 and #3.
5) If amount of Added Cash to prize divisions is greater than cash value differential between retail/wholesale then add proportionate Added Cash so that it is properly divided between all divisions.

Chances are that at least some of the cash raise (during the rest of the year) and through prize sales will end up in the Pro Purse (at the TDs discretion) anyway.

I believe this is the way Craig Gangloff described how he does it, and it seems like a good and fair practice.

I don't think our sport is big enough, nor do our Open players provide enough value yet (as in drawing spectators and sponsors to events) to substantiate "subsidizing" them (yet). The difference in entry fee cost and payout percentage and slope should be the lone standard for creating payout differential at this stage, IMO.

Saying something like all added cash should go only to Open Men and Women divisions IS a subsidizing, since the other divisions will be left to cover a larger (if not all) of the event expenses. There is no justification (yet) for such inequitable treatment. If that is your plan, then why even invite the other divisions to your event at all? Seriously?

You went right back to my ignore list /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

You went right back to my ignore list /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

That's funny!!! Considering, etc. :D

I can't see what you're posting either

I can't see what you're posting either

That is because you have a patch over your eye. :cool:

Arrrgh. Now eye see.

Rett this is about money added to the PRO division we are not talking about AMS!! The pdga wants everyone to play one division

Jery,

This is about money added to tournaments.

Added Cash is cash and cash value over actual entry fee per division (Pro or Am).

If in Open the entry fee is $100 and there are 50 players ($5000 in Total Entry Fees) and the Payout is $10000, then $5000 was "Added Cash".

If in Advanced the entry fee is $50 and there are 50 players ($2500 in Total Entry Fees) and the Payout in Cash Value is $3000, then $500 was "Added Cash".

TDs use different methods of splitting up sponsorship (Merchandise, Services and Direct Cash) between divisions. The fairest method I have heard of is proportional representation.

Sample event:

<table border="1"><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Division</td><td>Total Players</td><td>% of Ttl Field</td><td>Entry Fee</td><td>Total Entry Fee</td><td>% of Ttl Entry Fees</td><td>Differential Wholesale/Retail Merchandise 30%</td><td>Added Cash Based on % of Ttl Entry Fees</td><td>Added Cash Minus Merch Differential</td><td>Adjusted Total Purse</td><td>Redistributed Added Merch Differential Cash</td><td>Total Purse
</td></tr><tr><td>Open</td><td>20</td><td>22.2%</td><td>$100.00</td><td>$2,000.00</td><td>36.4%</td><td>$0.00</td><td>$1,818.18</td><td>$1,818.18</td><td>$3,818.18</td><td>$218.18</td><td>$4,036.36
</td></tr><tr><td>Masters</td><td>15</td><td>16.7%</td><td>$75.00</td><td>$1,125.00</td><td>20.5%</td><td>$0.00</td><td>$1,022.73</td><td>$1,022.73</td><td>$2,147.73</td><td>$122.73</td><td>$2,270.45
</td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td>5</td><td>5.6%</td><td>$75.00</td><td>$375.00</td><td>6.8%</td><td>$0.00</td><td>$340.91</td><td>$340.91</td><td>$715.91</td><td>$40.91</td><td>$756.82
</td></tr><tr><td>Advanced</td><td>25</td><td>27.8%</td><td>$45.00</td><td>$1,125.00</td><td>20.5%</td><td>$337.50</td><td>$1,022.73</td><td>$685.23</td><td>$1,810.23</td><td>$122.73</td><td>$1,932.95
</td></tr><tr><td>Intermediate</td><td>20</td><td>22.2%</td><td>$35.00</td><td>$700.00</td><td>12.7%</td><td>$210.00</td><td>$636.36</td><td>$426.36</td><td>$1,126.36</td><td>$76.36</td><td>$1,202.73
</td></tr><tr><td>Recreational</td><td>5</td><td>5.6%</td><td>$35.00</td><td>$175.00</td><td>3.2%</td><td>$52.50</td><td>$159.09</td><td>$106.59</td><td>$281.59</td><td>$19.09</td><td>$300.68
</td></tr><tr><td>90</td><td>100.0%</td><td>$365.00</td><td>$5,500.00</td><td>100.0%</td><td>$600.00</td><td>$5,000.00</td><td>$4,400.00</td><td>$9,900.00</td><td>$600.00</td><td>$10,500.00
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Considering the potential for over 100% return of value in the Prize divisions, some TDs move more of the added cash to the Cash divisions. Starting from a 30% wholesale to retail ratio, there is a lot of room to both return greater than entry fee value to the Prizers while juicing up the Cashers purses.

Right now there are no standards that I know of coming out of the PDGA.

....is the part about the PDGA having no say in the matter a matter of fact?

Yes.

As a registered 501(c)(3) organization (non-profit), the PDGA is bound by IRS regulations regarding the use of donor-designated contributions which, stripped of all the bureaurcratic baffle-gab, boils down to the fact that if a 501(c)(3) organization accepts a donation, it is legally obligated to honor the terms on which the donation was made; should the organization be unable or unwilling to honor those terms, it is legally obligated to return the donation.



Actually, the PDGA is NOT a 501(c)3, which is the IRS designation for a charitable not for profit organization.

The PDGA is registered as a 501(c)6, which is the designation for a business league.

"A business league, in general, is an association of persons having some common business interest, the purpose of which is to promote that common interest and not to engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit...It must be primarily supported by membership dues and other income from activities subtantially related to its exempt purpose." (Quoted from IRS Publication 557, Tax Exempt Status for Your Organization)

If fore asked his question of the IRS based on his belief that the PDGA was a 501(c)3, the reply he got may, in fact, be true. Since he has experience with religious organizations, he probably asked his question from that understanding. But since he is mistaken in his claim that the PDGA is a charitable not for profit organization, he may wish to ask the question again. The answer may be totally different.

Here (http://members.aol.com/irsform1023/misc/comp501s.html) is a chart that shows the differences between several categories of not for profit organizations that are recognized by the IRS.

Clubs that contemplate attempting to gain IRS non-profit status would be well advised to seek experienced legal advice from an attorney versed well in this field. It is complicated and most times not worth the expense or effort for the small gains a club might have. The reality is that a club should organize as a business and operate that way. Sponsors will still contribute toward events, but as "advertising" rather than charity. The club can still support a charity with revenue from a tournament.

This is not to be taken as legal advice, but as information from one who has been in the non-profit world (charities, educational foundations, and business not for profits) for over 20 years. The navigation of these rules is tricky. Don't drown.

how about this:

added cash is divided between PRE-REGISTERED players of all divisons according to finish. no pre-registration, no added cash bonus!

All ya'll Masters that feel like you're being dissed if you don't get added cash, please listen up:

There is a PDGA Major that is for old farts only! It is U.S. Masters and will be held in SoCal in September. ALL ADDED CASH GOES TO THE OLD PEOPLE!!! :)

That's because young people don't get to play. We let them help, but they can't play. This is a PDGA Major and it has PDGA Major types of added cash. Check last year's payout.

So if you are old, you need to start making plans now to come on out. :) And once again Ams are invited to play....if they are old.

Continued from:

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=573339&Main=517578#Post573339

In response to Jay Reading and Steve Mearz:

4 Things:

1) Jay, I am not saying that touring pros don't do anything for the sport, nor that top events don't, just that thier value needs to be viewed in context with other efforts, particulary as concerns the use of hard won sponsorship dollars.

2) The added cash percentages you provided for A Tiers and above would be better than what I have seen at the 3 A Tiers or above I have participated in this year. And precisely why any sponsorship I would provide to "any" event would be specifically targetted towards Masters and Amateurs is because those divisions players are the ones that I see help to make my local scene what it is. When even one Open pro shows up to help weed whack, mow the lawn, move a basket, pick up trash build our local player base up, I will consider providing a percentage to them as well.

My experiense right now of Open pros is not that great locally. They watch us doing the work as they enjoy their own, separate day of doubles on a course they do diddly to maintain. Then play in events they diddly to promote or support. Then they want 60% of the raised cash!?! Tell me what I'm missing?

I know you guys do a terrific job at some events, I just haven't witnessed anything first hand other than Stevie and Lesli at Warwick. I'm sure it happens as you report, but the proof is in the pudding you actually taste.

3) I am fine with events that specifically target certain divisions. They're great! However I don't see any way around dealing with the glaring fact that giving disporportionate added cash at a "SINGLE" event to different divisions within a single class is not discrimination.

It is better just to simply NOT OFFER that division and as Dan said treat them equally at another event you run. The game of weighing whether to play masters or not based on how well or poorly an event treats the masters division is bad for our sport and bad for those events and the players in those events that it effects.

4) Steve, saying that every player has the opportunity to play Open is correct, sayng that every player should play Open is not. If it were then everyone would play Open including women.

Furthermore, market forces do not substantiate the divisional added cash percentages as Jay or most of our events promote. Truth is, if we really looked at what is going on, and what has been going on for the last 16 or so years, with the development of our prize divisions, the vast majority of added cash should be going to the them. (Or better towards developing a True Amateur Class.)

I'm not saying the cash should be paid out in microwave ovens and dg targets to a few top ams; rather that if those sponsorship dollars went into developing events, courses and programs and the staff to run and maintain them for massive numbers of prize and amateurs, that it would serve our sport better, not to mention serve the touring pros better. (I believe the Texas Ten is a good example of this sort of effort.)

This all said, I agree with Dan, Jay and you that disc golf also needs to be developed and nurtured at the highest level as well; my question has to do with what percentage of our dollars and efforts need to be directed exclusively in that direction. And though I very much like reading about the efforts of top pros helping to develop the sport at every level and aplaud those efforts, I still feel that it does not, at this juncture, substantiate the disproportionate divisional added cash payouts at most of the events I attend. Fair is fair and there is no way you can convince me that that payout structure approaches fair (nor that it serves some greater purpose of growing our sport). I welcome you to try, but there are a few fairly significant points you'd have to overcome.

I'm really not attacking you or certainly this event, just asking that we keep our thinking a little more broad and realistic. Touring pros and events specifically for them are part of the solution; but only a fraction of it in my opinion, and certainly not deserving of the huge level of money and effort we have been throwing at it for decades now.

I love it that a few disc golfers are able to "Live the Dream" and I don't begrudge them a dime of the prize money they fairly win. I'd be happy to house them and even by them dinner when they come to town as so many disc golfers do now. I want to support disc golf's development on that level. I just want to be dam sure that it is not holding us back in other areas that are vital to our future.

I hope that I have made myself clear, though am fully aware of my limitations as an online communicator.

Nick, You are living in a dreamworld man. I know from my experience that in and around TX OPEN players play a huge part in our sport's growth. 4 courses have been installed recently in the Austin area mainly because of a few pros who approached the parks department.

I think you need to step outside of your own little world where you are the best volunteer ever and see what is really happening.

As Long as I don't have to have white hair again !!! :eek: :D

The crux of the issue:

Nick plays Open for 15 years. Never complains one bit about the percentage of added cash to Masters at A-tier and higher events. In fact, he defends the concept that protected divisions should pay for protection.

Then Nick turns 40, starts playing Masters, and whines about the "gross inequities" of the system. And instead of addressing these concerns directly with the tournament directors at the event, he posts after the fact on a public message board using faulty financial data, calls out the TDs of these two events (one in April and one in July) and effectively tarnishes the images of these events.

Move along, nothing to see here.

I am about 10th in any list of volunteers in my region, and that Open division players make up next to none of the organizers in our region is not a dream. And that none of the 10 or so that play at our course regularly lift a finger to help with the course or our events is pure fact.

And this is NOT the main point of my argument anyway; rather that as concerns added cash and payout percentages there really is no way of substantiating it being so disproportionate.

It goes back to how totally contrived and backwards our competitive system has been all these years as it tries to populate and prop up an essentially unpopular dead end division. Sure we need to focus on them and getting our best players out in front of the public, but not at the cost of other divisions and certainly not at the cost of the folks that are doing more than their share of the work.

It goes back to how totally contrived and backwards our competitive system has been all these years as it tries to populate and prop up an essentially unpopular dead end division.



"An essentially unpopular dead end division?" I'm sure there are PDGA statistics to support that the Open division is as popular as ever.


Sure we need to focus on them and getting our best players out in front of the public, but not at the cost of other divisions and certainly not at the cost of the folks that are doing more than their share of the work.



We've already been through this. There are what, 13 National Tour events per year, and how many hundreds of other sanctioned tournaments where the distribution of added cash is more equitable?


I am about 10th in any list of volunteers in my region

The ridiculousness of you trying to rank yourself and other volunteers in your region is overwhelming! :D

When you first read Nick's post he seems to make sense. Think about it, how much time could a touring Pro (or any Pro) spend helping out on local courses?

Well, how much? As Matt pointed out, here locally Pros make a huge impact. Starting with Matt; Matt would be the only local player under 20 who makes a significant impact on local courses. Go to Jim "Phenom" who runs the Houston Discraft ace race and has run many other events in the past. Oh lets not forget Nez, local Masters Pro who is one of the major Driving forces in the local sceen. Then there is Andi Lehmann, and Don Wilcheck (probably the major diriving factor in the Development of the Tom Bass complex. These are only some of the local Pros who contribute.

Yes local Ams do contribute, a lot, but at least here, the Pro contribution is significant, and possibly higher than that of the Ams.

Nick, where are your numbers?

On the other hand, where monies should go to help grow the sport is a completely separate issue. Does the Pro class give the sport panache? Yes. Is the best use of our money supporting the Pro class? Not sure. But to deny that Pros make a significant contribution is wrong.

Lyle, Nick isn't saying that there aren't any pros helping. He's saying that there aren't any OPEN players helping in his area. He is saying that every single person that does anything in his region is a pro master or pro GM or pro SGM, and because of that added cash should go to age protected pro divisions and not to the OPEN division.

So you can't list masters aged pros if you are trying to counter his argument. :)

Nick's numbers are based entirely on the following:

In the Mid-Atlantic Disc Club, our regional organization, the offices are as follows:

President - a Pro Grandmaster
Vice President - Pro Open
Secretary - a Pro Master
Treasurer - a Pro Master

Therefore, according to this limited set of data, this must be what is also occuring throughout our nation and is symptomatic of our entire sport. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D

O.K., so I should have read the whole thread. :D

However, I'd still argue that we have no idea where the money should be spent. No one has really even considered where money should be spent to give the greatest growth.

And the idea that more Pro Masters payout to reward those players for volunteering misses the point of why they volunteer. At 46 I don't volunteer for more payout, I volunteer because I want the sport to grow.

And doing Fundraisers for tournaments !!!

O.K., so I should have read the whole thread. :D

However, I'd still argue that we have no idea where the money should be spent. No one has really even considered where money should be spent to give the greatest growth.

I think the IOSeries has proven that if you want to grow the tournament scene, spend your money on the amateurs. We went from zero to 200+ per tournament in four years with this formula. I think we are the biggest series in the PDGA in terms of average attendance.

We have not spent a dime on the pros, except when a sponsor has asked us to, but we do 150+% payouts for the amateurs.

If you care about attendance at your tournaments, quit sponsoring the pros off the ams, and start sponsoring the ams off the ams. Your attendance will explode. You don't need added cash to do this. Just take the portion of the am entry fee you would have spent on pro added cash, and double it back to the ams as added prizes.

I suspect that what we have been doing has been good for PDGA membership growth in Illinois too.

O.K., so I should have read the whole thread. :D

However, I'd still argue that we have no idea where the money should be spent. No one has really even considered where money should be spent to give the greatest growth.

I think the IOSeries has proven that if you want to grow the tournament scene, spend your money on the amateurs. We went from zero to 200+ per tournament in four years with this formula. I think we are the biggest series in the PDGA in terms of average attendance.

We have not spent a dime on the pros, except when a sponsor has asked us to, but we do 150+% payouts for the amateurs.

If you care about attendance at your tournaments, quit sponsoring the pros off the ams, and start sponsoring the ams off the ams. Your attendance will explode. You don't need added cash to do this. Just take the portion of the am entry fee you would have spent on pro added cash, and double it back to the ams as added prizes.

I suspect that what we have been doing has been good for PDGA membership growth in Illinois too.



Yeah screw the pros!!!!! :confused: :confused:

I know if I lived up there and was an AM I would never move up because I could make more money off the plastic I made.

Yeah screw the pros!!!!! :confused: :confused:


Yeah man. What are you doing by not taking the hard earned cash of the ams away from them for no good reason??? Don't screw the pros by not stealing from the ams, you #$*&$!!

Pros will get sponsorship when they have something worth sponsoring. That's the way it works in every other sport.

The Chicago White Sox aren't making it based on skimming profits off the city softball leagues. You don't pay an inflated entry fee at a Gus Macker so the NBA can pay its pros millions. And Tiger Woods isn't making a dime on the ams who played the Buick Pro-Am with him. That all goes to charity.

You are never going to have much if all you want to play for is profits skimmed off the ams. That's what the guy running the Skeeball game at the carnival is living off of. That's not really the best model for your future.

The way you suggest is counterproductiveto the growth of our Pro base. If you keep all the $$$ in the AM divisions there will be no reason to move up. I would rather shoot 970 golf and win $250 in plastic then have to shoot 995 in Open just to cash. Also if there is no added $$$ in open then the winner would get about the same amount as the ADV winner.

I have seen a tournament before , where there was no cash offered , but the AM prizes were , 1st place was a small SUV , second place was a Jet Ski , third place was a tricked out mountain bike and fourth place was a playstation with extra games and fifth place was a pair of roller blades !!!!

I was going to lie about my Pro status , just to try and play for those cool AM prizes !!!!!!!! :eek:

It all really depends on how much sponsorship dollars are added and not just playing for each others money !!!!

Makes a Huge difference and tournament satisfaction for ALL players !!!!! So does Bar-B-Q's and get togethers !!!! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

The way you suggest is counterproductiveto the growth of our Pro base. If you keep all the $$$ in the AM divisions there will be no reason to move up. I would rather shoot 970 golf and win $250 in plastic then have to shoot 995 in Open just to cash. Also if there is no added $$$ in open then the winner would get about the same amount as the ADV winner.


Matt, I don't think you read Bruce's last post.

The way you suggest is counterproductiveto the growth of our Pro base. If you keep all the $$$ in the AM divisions there will be no reason to move up. I would rather shoot 970 golf and win $250 in plastic then have to shoot 995 in Open just to cash. Also if there is no added $$$ in open then the winner would get about the same amount as the ADV winner.


Matt, I don't think you read Bruce's last post.



Actually I did but I think keeping most of the cash in the AM ranks will never allow the Pro division to grow into anything bigger. If the point is to grow the AM ranks so that sponsors come into play that could work but only if there is still a decent sized group of Open players. I just think that the AM ranks will grow but the open field will stagnate.

The way you suggest is counterproductiveto the growth of our Pro base. If you keep all the $$$ in the AM divisions there will be no reason to move up.



The difference between how Bruce and I feel about this and how you feel about this is that you still think there ARE pros and ams. There are players that play for prizes and players that play for money. The guys who play for money are not professionals. Even the top pros are just getting by when you realize how much it costs to travel from tourney to tourney.

Once you let go of the Pro/Am fallacy then you might realize that we will never have pros by skimming the ams. We will only have pros once we have enough players to attract an audience on TV. We are building more players by running fun events.

I just can't wait for the day when Ams play for trophies and players packs. Yes I felt this way when I was an Am as well.

Also, what will happen to all the current "cash players" if your style of tournament takes over?

I just can't wait for the day when Ams play for trophies and players packs. Yes I felt this way when I was an Am as well.

Also, what will happen to all the current "cash players" if your style of tournament takes over?



Cash players play for cash at our tournaments. We even added cash at our last tournament for the "pro" divisions. It was real added cash. We didn't get the cash by skimming the ams, it came from an outside sponsor.

Also, what will happen to all the current "cash players" if your style of tournament takes over?

If everywhere that has lame disc golf courses had tournaments for 200 players, and a lot of those players were new players, the manufacturers would have twice as much money to sponsor the pros with.

If players quit moving up to play for cash because plastic is working better, why would we not want to give them what works better?

It seems to me that playing for cash at 100% PDGA payout is far better than playing for plastic at 150% and I've proven that over and over. I'll prove it again:

IF ANY PRO AT STREAMWOOD THIS WEEKEND WOULD PREFER A 166% PAYOUT IN PLASTIC, TALK TO ME AND I'LL MAKE IT HAPPEN. If you cash for $100 and would rather have 166 Brass, no problem.

Ask me Monday next week how many pros opted for 166% in merch over whatever they took in cash.

Also, what will happen to all the current "cash players" if your style of tournament takes over?

If everywhere that has lame disc golf courses had tournaments for 200 players, and a lot of those players were new players, the manufacturers would have twice as much money to sponsor the pros with.

If players quit moving up to play for cash because plastic is working better, why would we not want to give them what works better?

It seems to me that playing for cash at 100% PDGA payout is far better than playing for plastic at 150% and I've proven that over and over. I'll prove it again:

IF ANY PRO AT STREAMWOOD THIS WEEKEND WOULD PREFER A 166% PAYOUT IN PLASTIC, TALK TO ME AND I'LL MAKE IT HAPPEN. If you cash for $100 and would rather have 166 Brass, no problem.

Ask me Monday next week how many pros opted for 166% in merch over whatever they took in cash.



Bruce I would like to play for that percentage in plastic if i am ever at one of your events. That is not quite the same as a guy staying in Am because he can win every event and get $200 in merch. The same guy has no reason to move up if he has to shoot 6 or 7 strokes better to win $200 cash. :confused:

You are still missing the main point Matt.

If every TD was running events by this formula, the AM base would double or triple in size in a couple of years.

In a couple more, we would have to start adding events to handle the demand from players that could not get into full events.

In a couple more years, there would be Disc golf on TV just because everyone would have heard about it and have a friend or relative that plays.

Then the Pros could make a living playing disc golf.

I think all Pros should be pushing this type of event everywhere. Get the TDs to pay out at real retail and 140% + to the ams. Pay deeper in the divisions so a handful of players aren't winning tons of the plastic and undercutting the retailers by dumping it. Reward more players with something instead of a few with too much.

You gotta get more butts in the seats if you want to attract real attention.

I see what they are doing but I don't like taking a step back so that we can go forward. I want to see McCoy's payout structure implimented(sp?) where everyone is competing with one another but separated out after a few rounds.

I like the payout at Maces final better. Every card and basically every player has the opportunity to win something.

Either do this by division, or by event.
Get the total payout amount.
Get the total number of cards.
Calculate payout based on paying the total number of cards.
This gives you the baseline for the payout.

Scores are tracked normally until the last round.
The last round is paid in skins.
Total scores going into the last round determine which card you are playing on.
The card you play on determines how much each skin is worth.


For example, say that there are 4 cards of MPO.
Total payout = 16*$60=$960
Say $960 splits up as 390,290,190,90
Each skin on the lead card is worth $390/18 = $20 with a $15 bonus for holes 9 and 18.
Each skin on the second card is worth $290/18 = $15 with a $10 bonus for holes 9 and 18.
Each skin on the thrid card is worth $190/18 = $10 with a $5 bonus on holes 9 and 18.
Each skin on the forth card is worth $90/18 = $5 with no bonus on holes 9 and 18.

There are no magic gaps that don't pay anything that you can be just above.

I've done something very similar in Charlotte with the Renny Mules/Muleskins weekend for the last 2 years. I run a 1 day C-Tier on Saturday with 100% payout. $10 or so of that payout for the Ams is a voucher to get into the skins event on Sunday. I seed the Sunday skins cards like you describe Maceman to be doing based on Saturdays's scores (or player rating/guestimated rating if they missed the Saturday event). Am's get paid merch $$'s on Sunday skins and Pro's get paid cash. I raise sponsorship cash (around $600) and add that to the skins.

It is a cool format, since you do not have to play both days, but you are incentivised to play Sunday since you can play for cheap if you played Saturday (and there is added cash). The money gets paid out with [/b]everyone[/b] getting a realistic chance to make some money. It has gone over pretty well, I think.

It is a cool format, since you do not have to play both days, but you are incentivised to play Sunday since you can play for cheap if you played Saturday (and there is added cash).



Is that a real word, Dave? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D

I see what they are doing but I don't like taking a step back so that we can go forward. I want to see McCoy's payout structure implimented(sp?) where everyone is competing with one another but separated out after a few rounds.


Kevin's format is still everyone just playing for each other's entry fees. We used to have that a long time ago. We don't any more, and we have lots and lots and lots more players than we did back then. Who knows if the two are related.

But as long as we are only playing for each other's entry fees, then the pros will not be making much money. Somebody has to want to pay the pros for how well they play. If the amateur base of hi-tec shirt buying and light-hiker shoe wearing players were to triple, and triple again, and triple yet again, then somebody might want to pay the top pros some real cash to wear their shirts and/or shoes because it's a good business decision that results in a spike in sales of said shirts/shoes.

Without that critical mass, it's not worth it for Nike to pay Matt Hall $50k a year to wear ACGs, so they don't.

All pros should be running IOS style events, excep maybe they should pay out 130% and keep 10% since they are pros. Eventually that strategy will pay off, if in no other way than netting the pros 10% of each IOS-style event.

I see what they are doing but I don't like taking a step back so that we can go forward. I want to see McCoy's payout structure implimented(sp?) where everyone is competing with one another but separated out after a few rounds.


Kevin's format is still everyone just playing for each other's entry fees. We used to have that a long time ago. We don't any more, and we have lots and lots and lots more players than we did back then. Who knows if the two are related.

But as long as we are only playing for each other's entry fees, then the pros will not be making much money. Somebody has to want to pay the pros for how well they play. If the amateur base of hi-tec shirt buying and light-hiker shoe wearing players were to triple, and triple again, and triple yet again, then somebody might want to pay the top pros some real cash to wear their shirts and/or shoes because it's a good business decision that results in a spike in sales of said shirts/shoes.

Without that critical mass, it's not worth it for Nike to pay Matt Hall $50k a year to wear ACGs, so they don't.

All pros should be running IOS style events, excep maybe they should pay out 130% and keep 10% since they are pros. Eventually that strategy will pay off, if in no other way than netting the pros 10% of each IOS-style event.



I wouldn't have a problem with the way they do things if they took out 10% and put it towards a pro finale. That way pros could play for thier own $$$ during the series but have a lot of bonus money at the final event.

I guess what irks me is the low amount of pros in that area. I mean I don't know of anyone. :confused:

I wouldn't have a problem with the way they do things if they took out 10% and put it towards a pro finale. That way pros could play for thier own $$$ during the series but have a lot of bonus money at the final event.

I guess what irks me is the low amount of pros in that area. I mean I don't know of anyone. :confused:


Did you read my post?

Evidently, ams don't want to pay you 10% simply because you are a good player. If you want the ams to pay you 10%, you need to do something that they want to pay you for.

Like running a 200 person tournament.

Do enough of that and create enough ams that might buy green and orange plastic "Matt Hall" ACGs just because you are a good player and wear them, and Nike might pay you even more. Even if Nike never comes through you can make 10% of 200+ entries from disc golf, kind of like being a Professional Disc Golfer. You know, like how the vast majority of pro ball golfers make their money by doing something that people are willing to pay them for, like lessons and stuff.

All I know is that if the happens and becomes the norm I am going to start tanking so I can play Am again since it would be a better way to make $$$ then having to play good golf to get entry fees back.

I guess you are just trolling here.

No i just see what kevin was talking about. I won just as much $$$ as an AM as I do in Pro.

And that is what everyone has been saying all along.

As long as the only money in the pot is entry fees, no one is going to make any money.

Step one is to dramatically increase the player base, that means lots more novice and recreational players attending tournaments where they can be counted and displayed to potential sponsors.

How can we attract players that normally avoid organized events to start showing up ? Make it fun, inexpensive, and rewarding for them. If that means no one really takes home a ton of stuff and everyone takes home something, then that's what it will take.

And that is what everyone has been saying all along.

As long as the only money in the pot is entry fees, no one is going to make any money.

Step one is to dramatically increase the player base, that means lots more novice and recreational players attending tournaments where they can be counted and displayed to potential sponsors.

How can we attract players that normally avoid organized events to start showing up ? Make it fun, inexpensive, and rewarding for them. If that means no one really takes home a ton of stuff and everyone takes home something, then that's what it will take.



I couldn't agree more.

There is no step backward what so ever with this. It is the unmistakable future. The only question involved is how long are we capable of blinding ourselves to its inevitability.

Focusing exclusively on gambler competition has taken us as far as it can, it is time to try something completely new.

Being involved with the Texas 10 tour has taught me many things. The most surprising was that there is room and a need for several different styles of tournaments and payouts.

Having been closely involved in keeping track of the players that attended the TX10 events, I have noticed that the style of event Chris put on attracted a large number of first time tournament players. Many of those came to enough events the first year to qualify for the finals that year. Then their names started showing up at other events with a PDGA number beside it.

I have noticed that there are basically two groups of golfers out there. Tournament players and casual players.

Of the tournament players, there are 4 general groups:
1. Golfers that play because it's there. Minis, sanctioned, not sanctioned, It doesn't matter, they will be there.
2. Golfers that play a few courses. They spend all of their time on a few courses and will play any events that happen there, but rarely travel.
3. Golfers that play mainly organized events based on reputation not sanctioning. They play for the fun of competition and will travel to whatever events they think they will enjoy.
4. Golfers that only play sanctioned events, and will travel to do so.

Of the casual only players there are normally 3 types of players.
1. Players that have never been exposed to tournament play and avoid the threat of competition.
2. Players that have been to only one or two tournaments and did not enjoy the experience because of the format or TD.
3. Players that have been burned out on the tournament scene and don't want to go back.

Someone needs to be focused on providing tournaments that continue to provide the formats and rewards that exist today to keep those players happy and playing.
Someone needs to work on getting more series style events going that are focused on fun and beginners more than challenging competition and payout.
Someone needs to work on organizing league and team style competitions to get those interested in playing without "gambling" to join the organized side.

But all three types of events need to be happening. There is no one size fits all answer for our diverse player base.

There is no step backward what so ever with this. It is the unmistakable future. The only question involved is how long are we capable of blinding ourselves to its inevitability.

without the rhetoric this sentence would read:

"This is a potentially postive step. It is part of the future of the sport. The only question involved is how long can we encourage other TDs to try this format"

the non-rhetorical version is easier to agree with, for me anyway.

Pro~Am doubles style event formats...(even if it's just a league)...are a great way to initiate the uninitiated. A newb can learn a lot by just observing/participating in tourney style play...as they're generally nervous about looking foolish when it comes to rules, etiquette & seeing how a tourney situation flows. The confidence gained through understanding will (and does) show quite quickly when they can get their questions answered and "see" how it's all done.

.02

I'm looking into running a league next year at my home course.

Well .................looking at the overall scores this year at the worlds , the Masters division is keeping up with the Open division scores.

Well .................looking at the overall scores this year at the worlds , the Masters division is keeping up with the Open division scores.



That's because this is the Pitch-n-Putt Pro Worlds! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :D

One thing I have noticed while playing all these years is there are division clicks.
Some folks have issues with other divisions if they are not part of that specific division.

For example ....................

Some Pro's think there should not be any Am divisions ........Period.

Some Am's hate Pro's. They feel they should never be pushed up to the next level. Even if they are playing at Pro level.

Some Novice players , don't want to advance to the Intermediate division because those Intermediate guys don't want to advance to the next level.........etc...

:eek:

The biggest divisional cliques are age-based. Twenty years ago Masters and other age-based divisions were created in order to break out ability. Because at that time, there was no quantitive way to measure ability. Today, we now have such a thing in the form of player ratings, which could break out divisions for ALL golfers, no matter the age. Yet now that we're used to it, the age-based divisions can never go away - they would raise holy heck if the PDGA tried to do away with them.

...the age-based divisions can never go away - they would raise holy heck if the PDGA tried to do away with them.


You raise good points - & having become a Master twice (once in '97 at 35 and AGAIN in '02 at 40)...let's not go through something even more frustrating than having it just plain taken away...(again).
.02

If the PDGA trys to change the way I'm supposed to play , what division I'm supposed to play in and with the people I'm supposed to play with ..................Maybe I'll choose not to support the PDGA.

I support the PDGA.
PDGA needs to support me and what I offer to them.

It gets really old , throwing your money in a hat , just to get a small percentage of it back.

What am I playing for again ? Oh , thats right ..............just for Fun ? I can do that on my own without anyones help.

Please tell me again why the USDGC is more worth my time , then the PDGA Worlds ?

Please tell me again why the USDGC is more worth my time , then the PDGA Worlds ?


"ONE DIVISION, ONE CHAMPION"

Let's just call them majors...

I thought it was a money thing ?

What are the entry fees for both? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Or do I wanna even know...? :p :D:o:eek:

That's kinda why , when someone ask's me if I'm sponsored.

To me , being sponsored is having your Airline ticket , rental car , entry and hotel room paid for you.

Other wise , either one of those trips , with buying plastic for 10 days at $150.00 a day is a $1,500.00 trip.

'Think' Global, Play LOCAL! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

For a cool local tourney , I can pony up $ 30.00 for a fun weekend.

at that time, there was no quantitive way to measure ability.



How about your score? And I think you mean "quantitative".

In my opinion money should be added to ALL pro divisions. The reason for this is because we are trying to promote a professional divsion, regardless of whether it is a protected division or not. Who in their right mind would not add money to the Women's Division? It is also protected, but necessary.

Several have commented that it should not be as large an amount as is added to the Open division and I can see the reasoning for that. I generally do it based on total money added and on percent of players within each division. To date I have not heard any complaints on my tournament, the Piney Woods Pro/Am.

at that time, there was no quantitive way to measure ability.



How about your score? And I think you mean "quantitative".



Thanks for the correction.

And yes, previously the only ways to track ability was by looking at total score at each event and a golfer's tournament record / history. Now we have player ratings which give you a reasonably accurate indication of your ability over a several month to several year span and over many tournaments.

Just exactly why did we get rid of ratings-based events? Why not have everyone of similar rating compete against each other no matter the age? (or gender, for that matter?)

Ratings based events did not work for two reasons:

A) They were different. Our TDs mostly are not different. They are mostly all the same. They could not figure out how it worked, or how it worked for them.

B) Our standard format relies on high entry fee paying advanced amateurs to play for plastic we buy at wholesale and value at retail to create the profit needed to pay for overhead and "sponsor added cash" at tournaments where TDs do that. Most of the time, Innova and Discraft don't give TDs cash sponsorship. They give them stuff that they convert to cash by using it as prizes. The R-tier format allowed too many of those players to play for cash. Remember gold, silver and bronze? TDs who could see down the road had no incentive to go down that road. Too many players playing for cash and not enough playing for prizes would mean not enough profit on amateurs to cover expenses and "sponsor added cash."

Ratings based events did not work for two reasons:

A) They were different. Our TDs mostly are not different. They are mostly all the same. They could not figure out how it worked, or how it worked for them.

B) Our standard format relies on high entry fee paying advanced amateurs to play for plastic we buy at wholesale and value at retail to create the profit needed to pay for overhead and "sponsor added cash" at tournaments where TDs do that. Most of the time, Innova and Discraft don't give TDs cash sponsorship. They give them stuff that they convert to cash by using it as prizes. The R-tier format allowed too many of those players to play for cash. Remember gold, silver and bronze? TDs who could see down the road had no incentive to go down that road. Too many players playing for cash and not enough playing for prizes would mean not enough profit on amateurs to cover expenses and "sponsor added cash."



I'm confused. Wouldn't this just mean that you have to adjust the ratings brackets?

B) Our standard format relies on high entry fee paying advanced amateurs to play for plastic we buy at wholesale and value at retail to create the profit needed to pay for overhead and "sponsor added cash" at tournaments where TDs do that. Most of the time, Innova and Discraft don't give TDs cash sponsorship. They give them stuff that they convert to cash by using it as prizes. The R-tier format allowed too many of those players to play for cash. Remember gold, silver and bronze? TDs who could see down the road had no incentive to go down that road. Too many players playing for cash and not enough playing for prizes would mean not enough profit on amateurs to cover expenses and "sponsor added cash."

This might be classified asa slight drift but oh well...

Doesn't this blow a hole in the "one division" theory? TD's are in the business (yes, a business) for several reasons, one of which is to maybe make enough money off a tournament to restock their inventory. They wouldn't make nearly enough money if their weren't AM's playing for plastic. If you have one division, the players would expect a 100% payout....the only way then to make a profit would be to get outside sponsors and have them cover the skimming that would be required off the entry fees in order to make any money...

The only way the R-tier format could work for most TDs would be if there was only one cash-paid division. Then there would be no money added to pro masters because they would cease to exist.

I once ran an R-tier [unsanctioned] where every division had a cash payout option. I calculated a straight 100% payout and gave them their choice of 80% in cash or 160% in u-pick prizes at ordinary retail prices like 16 for Champion and 12 for Z. I was running it for a food kitchen as an Ice Bowl and everyone seemed happy with the payouts.

Pros tended to take the cash. Ams were mixed. That may have been the one where Todd Branch won the last CTP and the kid before him was torn between the disc and one of Diana's pies and Todd was saying, "Take the disc! Take the disc!" :D

I did not read the whole thread but I thought I'd throw in my two cents anyway. Sorry if these points have already been brought up.

First, a great reason to add cash to Masters is out of respect for what these players have done for the sport of disc golf. Often, these are the players who built the courses, promoted the sport within communities and dealty with low payouts their entire career. I've heard it argued that not adding cash to Masters to a slap in the face to those who have help disc golf along in it's infancy. Same argument for older divisions.

Second, I don't think you need to add as much cash as you would to an Open division. I agree that since anyone can compete in Open it should have the highest reward.

When I throw the Montrose Open in June of every year, I always make sure to add cash to all Open divisions. Percentage-wise I add more to Open but it's still a pretty good payout. I get some decent sponsorships from the local community through some hard work prior to the tourney so I have at least $1000 to add to Pro divisions as I see fit. If there is not much added cash, determining the division to put it into can be more of a factor.

Third, women often get overlooked in added cash. I only had two Open women (Burl and Valerie J.) but they got well paid out because I get sponsors just for the women's purse. TDs can talk to women business owners especially and ask for sponsorship just for the women participants. Carrie and Valerie were able to take advantage that I had over $300 added cash from sponsorships for the women. Hopefully, some of the women in am divisions took note (as well as other pros) and the Open women's field will grow in future years.

Anyway...IMHO...Don't diss the masters. Maybe add less cash but remember who laid the foundation for disc golf as it is and where it is going.

Laters,

MAD MAX

If people want to earn some real $$, go to college and keep disc golf a hobby.

Disc golf is a niche/hobby sport. All of the whining and moaning about payout is ridiculous. If you want more money, market your product, and create a sense of value to that market.

When I watched Cold Pizza and Timmy Gill, I saw a guy promoting the sport and expanding its horizons. He wasn't on his keyboard "bemoaning" the five dollars he didn't get at a tourney.

Respectfully
Jason


PS - The Am payout structure limits the expansion of our sport! Reduced fees and trophy only would boost the Pro divsion, but some disc companies would notice an extreme drop in sales. :confused:

PS - The Am payout structure limits the expansion of our sport! Reduced fees and trophy only would boost the Pro divsion, but some disc companies would notice an extreme drop in sales. :confused:



Too much industry influence... trying to keep everyone happy isn't always the best

The AMs are the life blood of the sport and the only chance that the Pros have of ever making a living at this sport.

Every Pro that wants to see big purses should be doing everything they can to increase the number and tournament participation of amateur players.

Give them whatever makes them happy as long as they show up and bring a friend.

Give them whatever makes them happy as long as they show up and bring a friend.



Whos to say lower entry fees and trophy only couldnt increase fields allowing more new players the ability to afford playing tournaments every weekend instead of a dozen times a year or less?

It might increase the size of the fields, but the key thing is to increase the total number of unique players, not necessarily how often they play. Personally it wouldn't matter if the tournaments were cheaper, family priorities only give me the chance for one tournament per month. On the other hand, if they were more expensive, I'd probably be pickier and play less.

(Nothing against trophy only, I use it when possible.)

[QUOTE]

Whos to say lower entry fees and trophy only couldnt increase fields allowing more new players the ability to afford playing tournaments every weekend instead of a dozen times a year or less?



And what's to stop somebody from holding unsanctioned tourneys with a payout. I would bet that more people would attend a payout tourney over a trophy only.

And what's to stop different TD's offering both formats within the same month ?

You will start to draw different groups of players for each type of tournament with a few that play both types.

We need more types of events, not less, and not all the same.

But the ground rules need to be explained in the flyers.

And what's to stop different TD's offering both formats within the same month ?

You will start to draw different groups of players for each type of tournament with a few that play both types.

We need more types of events, not less, and not all the same.

But the ground rules need to be explained in the flyers.



I agree 100%. It's what I should have replied back with. I just don't believe trophy only is the way to go for organized adult competition.

The AMs are the life blood of the sport and the only chance that the Pros have of ever making a living at this sport.



Absolutely, 100%, without any doubt, the truth.

Now we just need some "A"mateurs.

Here we go again,and again and again, hate on the Masters :( One day you all will be OLD :(

Here we go again,and again and again, hate on the Masters :( One day you all will be OLD :(



Heh now, I add money to the Masters divisions!

Not every TD is as kind as you Jerry. All this hate towards the Masters has been going on like for ever. Another thing you are not complaining about adding money to the Masters, unlike all these haters on the board. ;)

I'm not going to use any sponsorship I raise for the Open division. I probably won't use it for the Masters division either; rather I'll spend it on event amenities for all participants. Course renovations, breakfast and lunch, players party, players packages. The only added cash will be to cover expenses and return 100% entry value in prizes and cash (and I don't mean the cheater way of subtracting those fees from entry fees first either, like some TD do).

If I ever do raise sponsorship for a pro payout though, it will be for the Masters Division ONLY. Women will simply play for free.

Tourney Update: pre-registration for the upcoming Sunrise Showdown in SoCal has one Open player rated over 1000 and three Masters players rated over 1000.

Highest rated am is 959.

The AMs are the life blood of the sport and the only chance that the Pros have of ever making a living at this sport.



Absolutely, 100%, without any doubt, the truth.

Now we just need some "A"mateurs.



Am's do help the bottom line for tournaments , but corporate sponsors could help make the difference on a National level.

The Only way Pro's could make a honest living at Disc Golf is to have Multi Corporate Sponsors , paying for Airline travel , Rental Cars and/Or Motor Coaches , Hotel and Food , as well as Covering All entry fees and expenses.

The Question is how do we as a Organization , get corporate sponsors on board with the Sport we Love ?

It's really tough for us to work with each of their advertising departments and their annual budgets.