Nick has gotten me thinking and after brainstorming with Gary Duke, I have a question for Recreational players and TD's. What would you think of handing the Recreational players a voucher for the amount they pay to play as their players package? This would be less any PDGA fees, local fees, etc. The winners would then receive first, second and third place trophies. This would have to be clearly defined at the tournament sign in so that the players could opt to move to Intermediate if they wanted to participate in a typical PDGA payout. Any feedback would be appreciated. This is just a suggestion.

The only problem is that under that system only really low rated players have the option to be "Am". If your rating is 975 or more you don't have the choice.

The only problem is that under that system only really low rated players have the option to be "Am". If your rating is 975 or more you don't have the choice.



Dang - you got 970 rated players playing Rec in CA?! In NC we only let 970 players play Rec if they play lefty blindfolded. :D

Oops! :o :D :D

875, okay? :D

Maybe if you also included unrated players it might reach out to the demographic you seem to be targetting.

If you look at tournament results I think you will see many more PDGA non-members and members who have not yet earned a rating than you'll see <875 rated players.

Nick has gotten me thinking and after brainstorming with Gary Duke, I have a question for Recreational players and TD's. What would you think of handing the Recreational players a voucher for the amount they pay to play as their players package? This would be less any PDGA fees, local fees, etc. The winners would then receive first, second and third place trophies. This would have to be clearly defined at the tournament sign in so that the players could opt to move to Intermediate if they wanted to participate in a typical PDGA payout. Any feedback would be appreciated. This is just a suggestion.

I'm currently playing lefty at a recreational level and I'm the TD's brother. I may be playing Rec by October.

I have no problem with a TD doing that if he lets us know in advance. I'd rather not be surprised with it at sign in. I'd have a problem with the PDGA mandating that.

We are currently doing that with the Juniors at the IOS. Last tournament we had at least six juniors. They all played in adult divisions where there was a normal PDGA payout. I don't know if there was a connection there or not. We were not advertising our flat junior payouts but they might have figured it out from last year.

Having Intermediate as an option is not really an option at all. Rec is for under 875. Intermediate is for under 915. That is no more of an option than telling a 925 rated player that Open is an option if he wants a cash payout. It's an option if he wants to donate to a payout but not if he wants to participate in a payout.

Not having been a Rec player (didn't really exist when I started), but having spent a few years knowing that I would be donating, it would sound like a good option to me. The demographic I think it would be aimed at more would be a true novice class of player. Those that may not even choose to play in a sanctioned event but might like the idea of competing basically for free. You buy 2 discs and get a tournament thrown in for free.

The qiestion is would you come and play if it was offered, and most of the message boarders are well above that level of play already.

Nick has gotten me thinking and after brainstorming with Gary Duke, I have a question for Recreational players and TD's. What would you think of handing the Recreational players a voucher for the amount they pay to play as their players package? This would be less any PDGA fees, local fees, etc. The winners would then receive first, second and third place trophies. This would have to be clearly defined at the tournament sign in so that the players could opt to move to Intermediate if they wanted to participate in a typical PDGA payout. Any feedback would be appreciated. This is just a suggestion.



Since the entrance fee is already low for the rec division. Do you have to have a payout ? What happens if your players package (non-voucher, but what you hand them) is a higher value then what they paid to get in ? Does the PDGA require a payout in rec ? No matter what the percentages are for each position on the payout tables, if nothing is in the payout pool for that division, its zero...

Since the entrance fee is already low for the rec division. Do you have to have a payout ? What happens if your players package (non-voucher, but what you hand them) is a higher value then what they paid to get in ? Does the PDGA require a payout in rec ? No matter what the percentages are for each position on the payout tables, if nothing is in the payout pool for that division, its zero...


The PDGA doesn't require a performance-based payout in any amatuer (or for that matter, pro) division. If each division did as you describe and handed a player package or voucher to the player that matched or exceeded entry fee in value, then the PDGA payout requirements are met.

That is what we are doing with our B-tier event next month (see the link in the sig). All the ams are paying $30 and getting a player package exceeding $30 in value. Then they are playing for a trophy and free entry into a future event. This isn't some experimental event either, it is the biggest event in the state (and was last year in the same format) and it WILL fill this year. There was not one complaint last year regarding am payouts and I don't expect one this year either (especially since we advertise this format well in advance).

I don't know why some people believe a whole series of these type of events throughout the country would fail miserably. I believe this event can work and will work well. I've seen it work. I know of at least 3 events last year in which this format drew 70-90 players for a one-day, one-course event. Sometimes it's not about how much loot you can win, but how much fun and good experiences you can have that makes a tournament worthwhile.

--Josh

Well the PDGA does require a minimum $10 player's package for sanctioned events. This can be and is taken from the entrance fee's unless you are able to get some decent sponsoship. If all the entrance fee is paid back as a player's package, I believe you will still meet the requirements.




Nick has gotten me thinking and after brainstorming with Gary Duke, I have a question for Recreational players and TD's. What would you think of handing the Recreational players a voucher for the amount they pay to play as their players package? This would be less any PDGA fees, local fees, etc. The winners would then receive first, second and third place trophies. This would have to be clearly defined at the tournament sign in so that the players could opt to move to Intermediate if they wanted to participate in a typical PDGA payout. Any feedback would be appreciated. This is just a suggestion.



Since the entrance fee is already low for the rec division. Do you have to have a payout ? What happens if your players package (non-voucher, but what you hand them) is a higher value then what they paid to get in ? Does the PDGA require a payout in rec ? No matter what the percentages are for each position on the payout tables, if nothing is in the payout pool for that division, its zero...

Well the PDGA does require a minimum $10 player's package for sanctioned events. This can be and is taken from the entrance fee's unless you are able to get some decent sponsoship. If all the entrance fee is paid back as a player's package, I believe you will still meet the requirements.



That statement makes it seem like that is the requirement for all PDGA tournaments. A $10 player pack is the requirement at a B-tier PDGA tournament. C and D-tier tournaments do not have player pack requirements.

What would you think of handing the Recreational players a voucher for the amount they pay to play as their players package? This would be less any PDGA fees, local fees, etc. The winners would then receive first, second and third place trophies.



What is your goal in doing this?

The qiestion is would you come and play if it was offered, and most of the message boarders are well above that level of play already.



I'm so vain, I thought this thread was about me, I'm so vain!!! (since I thought I was the only Rec rated TD out there!) But I realized it didn't mean Rec Players who ARE TDs.

To answer the question though, I would play the format. I'd rather play a low cost trophy-only option but I think I'd play that as well. As a TD I can say it is not an option that I'm currently considering. Even the lower division guys seem to like playing competitively for stuff. I'm all about trying to please my players. I'd make Bruce where a dress if it meant my event would be more popular!

I think I fit the target audience. I'm a non-PDGA rec player that would like to occasionally play tournaments (i.e one or two a year). Since I might only play 1-2 tourneys, a membership doesn't seem to be worth it. I don't need anymore plastic. Though I really don't need trophies either. I'm just looking for a chance of playing disc golf with others, learning a thing or two, and maybe even get some of that competitive adreneline flowing. If I play Lombard in a few weeks, it will probably be trophy-only. Granted I have four of these silly coins from playing last October, so I might want to make them worth something.

Jon- Have you ever thought of allowing brass cash to be used for entry fees for a future tournament? Not sure how the business side of that plays out. For me that would be great. I don't bring anything home to clutter up the house and I will be more likely to make it to the next tourney. Granted if I putt like I usual, I won't be bringing anything home anyways.

And if you make Bruce wear a dress... I won't be coming :)

As a TD, I'm on the fence.
I've seen so many casual players get turned off because the PDGA fees mean NOTHING to them. In fact, many resent the fact that a TD is milking them to benefit the PDGA.

Do we:
-Cater to the casual player like krupicka and try to make competititive events cheaper and more fun (and thus lure them into playing more sanctioned events later)?

or

-Let Recs, Ams, and Juniors pay minimal entry fees and play for trophies, or limit those divisions to C- and D-Tiers?

Would this mean growing an organization like the RDGA? Would it mean offering an unsanctioned event (or unsanctioned divisions) in tandem with sanctioned events?

Part of my goal is to see if the recreational divsion could be used to create a 'true amateur' as Nick Kight calls it. I know that most starting players would enjoy playing compitively and sitll walking away with a t-shirt to remember the tournament by and a new disc or two. There are those in the recreational division that would not care to do that and I would like their opinion on it. There is not to be any mud slinging here, just an exchange of ideas. The majority of the rec players only play one or two trounaments a year and this gives them the chance to compete with their peers and still have something to remeber the tournament by.

As far as PDGA fees go, if you explain what the PDGA is and what they do with the fees most rec players understand. Some even join the PDGA. Most of the complaints I have heard about PDGA fees are from Intermediate and Advanced players who play more than 1 or 2 tournaments a year and just don't join the PDGA or fail to up.



What would you think of handing the Recreational players a voucher for the amount they pay to play as their players package? This would be less any PDGA fees, local fees, etc. The winners would then receive first, second and third place trophies.



What is your goal in doing this?

You are correct, I poorly worded that statement. However that doesn't have to stop you from handing them out. They are just required for B and A Tier events.



Well the PDGA does require a minimum $10 player's package for sanctioned events. This can be and is taken from the entrance fee's unless you are able to get some decent sponsoship. If all the entrance fee is paid back as a player's package, I believe you will still meet the requirements.



That statement makes it seem like that is the requirement for all PDGA tournaments. A $10 player pack is the requirement at a B-tier PDGA tournament. C and D-tier tournaments do not have player pack requirements.

I get it now.

There is division in the PDGA called "Recreational". It used to be called "Novice", but for some reason it was changed. You must a rating below 875 to play in this division, and many places/tourneys simply do not offer teh division.

You seem to be talking about "rec players" as in non-PDGA members who just come out to the course to play non-tourney golf, right?

I thought you were talking about players who currently compete in the Recreational division at PDGA events when you said "rec players."

I think the Recreational Division players are the ones he was referring to.

I think the answer to your question Jim is YES. I think we need a variety of choices offered to players of all divisions. I don't think any one format is THE right format. We (the IOS crew) are not altruistic in deciding what kind of events to run. We run the events that we want to play in. But there's plenty of room for other kinds of events. But for the most part you know what you are getting when you attend a PDGA event and you know who to complain to if you don't get it. I think running unsanctioned events in order to keep entry fees low is a worthy idea. There are other reasons that some TDs have run unsanctioned tournaments in the past that were not such great ideas for the players.

Jon- Have you ever thought of allowing brass cash to be used for entry fees for a future tournament? Not sure how the business side of that plays out.



Yes we have thought about it. The business side doesn't work out if we do that, though. The difference in price between the retail and wholesale prices of prizes is what funds the process of the tournament (fee$, trophies and incidentals). We wouldn't have that differential if we took funny money unless we increased the entry fee for funny money entries. However, if we did that, we might have a reporting problem with the PDGA since the entry fee and prizes awarded might not add up correctly then.

This is why we always offer the trophy-only option (or non-prize winning) at all of our tournaments. I don't want to force people to feed the merch machine even though a lot of players enjoy that format.

As far as PDGA fees go, if you explain what the PDGA is and what they do with the fees most rec players understand. Some even join the PDGA. Most of the complaints I have heard about PDGA fees are from Intermediate and Advanced players who play more than 1 or 2 tournaments a year and just don't join the PDGA or fail to up.



Yep, you're right! I joined the PDGA because I realized the value of organized disc golf.
However, I think there are just as many (or more) casual players who want compete without the fees and tiers of a sanctioned event, even if trophy-only options exist.

I once thought that there was a right way to run tournaments [my way] and the rest of you were idiots. Now I think TDs should just run the kind of tournament they would want to play and their players will tell them whether they are idiots.

In Maine no-payout, fat-player pack tournaments seem to work. But, maybe what is working in Maine is that they have a great course and nice people running the event and no one cares about the payout. If you are filling the event, you don't need to change a thing.

What the PDGA cares about is event value, not whether it goes out in player packs or payout. I think what most players want is to look at the flyer [or website] and know what the deal is, because no one really wants to call up the TD and ask if he is planning on screwing their division.

Rhett,

I am talking about the Recreational Division. I am thinking about trying to run a tournament differently with the Recreational Group. Though, the idea of defining another division might be an alternative.


I get it now.

There is division in the PDGA called "Recreational". It used to be called "Novice", but for some reason it was changed. You must a rating below 875 to play in this division, and many places/tourneys simply do not offer teh division.

You seem to be talking about "rec players" as in non-PDGA members who just come out to the course to play non-tourney golf, right?

I thought you were talking about players who currently compete in the Recreational division at PDGA events when you said "rec players."

Jon,

From what I have seen in Tcxas, the few tournaments that offer a trophy only option, don't get a very big turnout in that catagory. The tournament may fill, but very few pople take advantage of that option. Are you seeing a big draw for that in your area?

I am also curious what the effect is to the tournament gain (wholesale to retail) to the clubs and TD's that organize an event like that. I am not talking about trying to make a killing at running a tournament, but anyone who has run one knows that there are costs that must be paid for.


This is why we always offer the trophy-only option (or non-prize winning) at all of our tournaments. I don't want to force people to feed the merch machine even though a lot of players enjoy that format.

I am talking about the Recreational Division. I am thinking about trying to run a tournament differently with the Recreational Group.

The other thing I would say is, the presence or absence of rec players will not make or break most events. So I would encourage you to experiment with your concept, but be sure that it is advertised on your flyer and website. In other words, try doing exactly what you are proposing, big player packs and no payout for the recs after telling them that is what the plan is, and see if they show up for that. And if they show up for it, ask if they want you to do it again.

Jon,

From what I have seen in Tcxas, the few tournaments that offer a trophy only option, don't get a very big turnout in that catagory. The tournament may fill, but very few pople take advantage of that option. Are you seeing a big draw for that in your area?

I am also curious what the effect is to the tournament gain (wholesale to retail) to the clubs and TD's that organize an event like that. I am not talking about trying to make a killing at running a tournament, but anyone who has run one knows that there are costs that must be paid for.


This is why we always offer the trophy-only option (or non-prize winning) at all of our tournaments. I don't want to force people to feed the merch machine even though a lot of players enjoy that format.





Not very many people opt to play trophy-only. I think we had about 5 or 6 opt for trophy-only out of 102 people that played IOS #1. But I'm happy to offer it to those 5 or 6 people. The current PDGA guidelines for trophy-only or "true-am" allow for enough of a fee to cover expenses. We charge half of the normal entry fee, plus fees. So it would be half plus the course fee (if there is one) and PDGA fees. I would be able to offer the same kind of tournament including 2nd round CTPs even if all the ams played trophy-only. So as a TD I don't care how many players opt to play trophy-only. Personally I think trophy-only is a good deal for the player who has enough plastic or the player that is at the bottom of their division or who is playing injured or is short on cash or...well you've got the idea.

I am talking about the Recreational Division. I am thinking about trying to run a tournament differently with the Recreational Group. Though, the idea of defining another division might be an alternative.


I guess I don't get it, then. If the hypothesis is that there are players who want to compete under a "true am" system where they compete for competitions sake, then why would you only offer to players who play the worst golf? Theoretically, shouldn't the "true ams" be spread out amongst the "greedy ams"? Since the Rec division is usally the smallest division (I'm going on local observations here, YMMV), limiting this philosphy to the Rec Division also theoretically should find the fewest number of these "true ams".

That is what my first comment on the thread was about. Why only the worst golfers? If the true am class is waiting to be freed, they should be coming from all the divisions. Under your proposal, a player who would love to compete for competitions sake but has an 880 rating would not be allowed to play your format.

Rhett,

I believe that if you are going to try this as an option, the recreational division would be a good division to start it with. I also think that you would end up attracting more recreational players if you advertise that with your entry you will receive a t-shirt and two discs (or something of similar value) and would have the chance to compete.



I guess I don't get it, then. If the hypothesis is that there are players who want to compete under a "true am" system where they compete for competitions sake, then why would you only offer to players who play the worst golf? Theoretically, shouldn't the "true ams" be spread out amongst the "greedy ams"? Since the Rec division is usally the smallest division (I'm going on local observations here, YMMV), limiting this philosphy to the Rec Division also theoretically should find the fewest number of these "true ams".

That is what my first comment on the thread was about. Why only the worst golfers? If the true am class is waiting to be freed, they should be coming from all the divisions. Under your proposal, a player who would love to compete for competitions sake but has an 880 rating would not be allowed to play your format.

I think the idea is to draw in new recreational players with the promise of goo dvalue for their entry fees plus a tournament on top of that.

I guess I'm just thinking about Nick. He would love to play that format :)

I guess I'm just thinking about Nick. He would love to play that format :)



I approve of the option but it is not the dragon I am trying to slay. Several TDs in my region have utilized a similar option, they fondly call it the "Nick Kight Division". But it is not what I am talking about. Permit me to clarify in a PM (Public Message) sent to Jerry:

Jerry,

Gary often has good ideas I've found. I am fine with this option, but am looking for something a little more encompassing and organized, not just an add-on division to current events. Though I have nothing against that option.

I am looking at a time when I approach 4 or 5 local junior high schools and offer to run a PDGA Amateur event for them with 10 to 15 players per school. I think you can see that giving out stacks of plastic based on entry fee would be inappropriate. At the same time I would go all out in raising sponsorship and getting merchandise from manufacturers to include in event activities and amenities, and would not be adverse to charging a decent sized entry fee per school or student in return for organizing, securing sponsorship and running the event. Perhaps even getting paid something for all the time, work and effort, not to mention know-how.

I could run similar events for different community groups, or neighborhoods.

I think you get the picture. Our traditional entry fee/payout structure would be completely inappropriate in such events. This is why I am committed to getting this new option it's own "Classification" and not just being an option to fill current events fields (a worthy cause, but not mine, and not the one that will REALLY make a difference long term).

It comes down to competition as we currently understand and promote it not having any possibility of developing mainstream recognition due to it's narrow appeal to folks interested in high powered or "second place is the first loser" experiences. My model is sports like marathon running and soccer and baseball leagues where there is a place at the competitive table for both top athletes interested in cut-throat competition at the highest level and top athletes interested in participation and positive experience at a reasonable price and return of value. The second group is the one that I feel we only pay lip service to. Without that second group our sport's growth and development is severely impeded, in my opinion.

So I am not necessarily looking for after-thought divisions to catch players who are motivated by winning others entry fees but lack the finances or confidence to enter the appropriate divisions for such competition; I am looking for a consciously designed and promoted NEW option for TDs to approach a yet uninvited demographic of disc golfers and potential disc golfers, I call them amateurs. But the name is not important; having a different option is.

The idea is that the number of events for these new types of players would eventually dwarf the number of prize/cash events; but more importantly they would become the engine that �drives� those prize/cash events to ever increasing degrees of mainstream recognition, acceptance, interest and sponsorship; all while increasing PDGA Membership, Event, Revenue, and Organizational Power. This in direct contradiction to our current overall competitive system, which is properly represented as Zeus eating his children.

Regards,
Nick Kight

klemrock: Would this mean growing an organization like the RDGA?

At this point, I don' think there is a large enough pool of people to split off a RDGA. Just like there's not a large enough pool of money to created a full Professional (ie I can live off my earnings) DGA. The sport just isn't big enough. Of course this makes it more complicated for now dealing with people with very different desires.

At this point, the PDGA needs to continue to help grow the sport (even at the low ranks) so that there is more interest and sponsor $ to grow the Professional ranks.

Based on Jon's experience with Trophy-only, I don't think there are enough players to support a complete seperation for Trophy-only tournaments. Having them mixed in with the various other prize seeking players will take advantage of the critical mass already gathered and bring a few more players to participate in an organized tournament.

I am talking about the Recreational Division. I am thinking about trying to run a tournament differently with the Recreational Group. Though, the idea of defining another division might be an alternative.


I guess I don't get it, then. If the hypothesis is that there are players who want to compete under a "true am" system where they compete for competitions sake, then why would you only offer to players who play the worst golf? Theoretically, shouldn't the "true ams" be spread out amongst the "greedy ams"? Since the Rec division is usally the smallest division (I'm going on local observations here, YMMV), limiting this philosphy to the Rec Division also theoretically should find the fewest number of these "true ams".

I don't know why the poster would propose experimenting on the rec division but I have some reasons: (1) They have played the fewest tournaments so they have the weakest pre-set expectations. (2) They are the worst male players so they are the ones least likely to be there for the payout and most likely to be there for competition and the tournament experience. (3) If the experiment goes horribly wrong, they are the most expendable! :D

Nick,

In my opinion, most of us have been missing what you are proposing. Maybe I am wrong. Regardless, I think you have some good ideas. Do you think the PDGA needs to create a new division to handle this idea, before a need has been created? I am just bouncing ideas, but maybe the first step would be to get a group of individuals together across different states and cities and see if we can develop a league in Middle and High Schools. I do know that a few private schools already have some limited disc golfing clubs/teams. If we can organize a few schools to start league play, then we have developed the need and should follow that up with a proposition to the PDGA.

I would suggest that we gather like minded individuals and do the following:
1. Ask the PDGA for a list of schools that have accepted the basket matching program.
2. Ask the basket manufacturers for lists of schools that have installed courses. I know that there are some of these 'school' courses that are not listed in the course directory.
3. Get out our course directories and find schools located next door to courses.
4. With these lists, the area representative should approach the schools and offer to instruct the coaches in the basics. The concept of league play should also be introduced to the coaches. We may even want to consider offering some training sessions to the students as well.
5. Approach the disc manufacturers and see if we can either broker free discs for the students, or discs at significantly reduced prices. I would suggest that for school play we specify that only 150 class discs be used.
6. Once a league has been setup, we could even go to new schools and 'sell' them courses.

I don't think this could be a money making venture unless you backed into selling a set of baskets, but I think it would at least jump start the 'need' for a new division. I do know that some colleges have offered Disc Golf as a PE credit and local schools may be interested in accepting our volunteers for such a job.

I agree that the traditional structured payout would not work in the scenario that you have mentioned, it is going to take some volunteers and a bit of time. However, I also believe that this type of play would take years to build up anything more than an intercity competition, but anything worth doing is worth doing well.

Just some ideas.

I don't know why the poster would propose experimenting on the rec division but I have some reasons: (1) They have played the fewest tournaments so they have the weakest pre-set expectations. (2) They are the worst male players so they are the ones least likely to be there for the payout and most likely to be there for competition and the tournament experience. (3) If the experiment goes horribly wrong, they are the most expendable! :D



We're like "Red Shirts" on the original Star Trek!

That is not true! (but captain, don't you think those moving vines are to dangerous for us to walk through?..... no ensign, lead the way!) /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif




We're like "Red Shirts" on the original Star Trek!

Jerry,

Those are great ideas. I am sure there are more of them out there and folks willing to work on this. I just think that the leadership of such a program is a natural fit for the PDGA, and it need be little more than saying,"Let their be an Amateur Class!" And there was an amateur class and they saw that it was good... Then our organized efforts would be a bit more coordinated and official.

But absolutely we should look into doing what you are describing.

nk

No..... not another true amateur class thread....

This is a prize class thread. It's about purely flat payouts + trophies, but payouts nonetheless. It differs from trophy only as defined by the pdga in that trophy only pays a percentage of the entry fee and gets no payout. This proposal pays full entry fee and receives equal value of their entry fee back regardless of their performance plus trophies for the top 3.

That's fine with me Gary, how about a "Real Amateur Class" thread then? :D

How about K12/Collegiate/A1? Though amateur seems like a natural fit I care more about making it happen than I do what we call it. I think Rhett's daughter deserves a field of players her own age and gender and I don't see any class or division in our current system providing for that eventuality, do you?

Having adult players enjoying non-renumeritive organized disc golf would be icing on the cake!

F1J is present for my daughter to compete in. The fact that there are practically no juniors playing disc golf probably has more to do with the excessive pot smoking and illegal drinking at vrtually any course that a parent might take their child than anything else.

IMHO.

No..... not another true amateur class thread....

This is a prize class thread. It's about purely flat payouts + trophies, but payouts nonetheless. It differs from trophy only as defined by the pdga in that trophy only pays a percentage of the entry fee and gets no payout. This proposal pays full entry fee and receives equal value of their entry fee back regardless of their performance plus trophies for the top 3.



Our trophy only players get a player pack at our B-tiers.

I disagree, Rhett. It may be a factor but not the leading one. I think there are a lot of juniors that prefer playing more athletic sports.

If I had been introduced to disc golf when I was in high school, I probably wouldn't have given it the time of day. Even in my 20's I was still playing basketball, football, and softball too often to have considered dg.

I disagree, Rhett.


We can disagree. :) No problems there.

Our trophy only players get a player pack at our B-tiers.

Our original Star Trek red shirt trophy-only players pay $10 plus the course use fee [$0 - $3 depending] plus the PDGA fee [$2 or $3 depending] and get $15 in counterfeit coins which we accept as real in payment for whatever we have on the merch table. What a deal but for the fact that they have to wear those silly red shirts with the Star Fleet emblem.

I know that I don't like my son to play the rec division because they drink beer and smoke pot. He nows the rules better than most rec players. I think one problem with the junior division is it is hit and miss as to whether a TD will allow it or not.


F1J is present for my daughter to compete in. The fact that there are practically no juniors playing disc golf probably has more to do with the excessive pot smoking and illegal drinking at vrtually any course that a parent might take their child than anything else.

IMHO.

F1J is present for my daughter to compete in. The fact that there are practically no juniors playing disc golf probably has more to do with the excessive pot smoking and illegal drinking at vrtually any course that a parent might take their child than anything else.

IMHO.



So running an event specifically for Girls 12 through 15 year of age, where only 20 from each of 4 schools are allowed would not solve the challenge of which you speak then Rhett?

Or say 60 girls of, or around, her age from one school? Or an adult supervised league for girls between 12 through 15?

Do you suppose the parents would want them paying $45 for a chance to compete for other girls entry fees? Or would they prefer an entry fee that covers the course, event amenities and a fee to pay the salaries of the league, department, or events?

Field of 1 versus 60 or 80? I'm guessing your daughter would prefer the larger field. Winning discs and stuff would come second to that I'm guessing...

I'm just impressed some people in this thread see the Rec division OFFERED at their pdga events. Don't see much of that up here in New England... though I cant tell you why. :confused: The events still typically fill but I wonder if it's because more real "rec" level players just accept the AM2 entry fees, or if the events really do get by just fine without advertising themselves to the <875 players, be they pdga members or not........

I am just curious, when you say the tournament fills, how many players are you talking about? 18 * 4 (players per card) = 72 players, 18 * 5 = 90 players or double that for two courses. Just curious.


I'm just impressed some people in this thread see the Rec division OFFERED at their pdga events. Don't see much of that up here in New England... though I cant tell you why. :confused: The events still typically fill but I wonder if it's because more real "rec" level players just accept the AM2 entry fees, or if the events really do get by just fine without advertising themselves to the <875 players, be they pdga members or not........

both. 90-player tourneys fill as do 72-player events.

This sounds like an excellent opportunity for a TD to exploit the under represented Recreational players in the area with a tournament that caters specifically to them with a format similar to this one.

can and did. we had 90 preregistered players and an 8-person waiting list for the "Amateur Challenge" I ran this past weekend that had Juniors, Women Am, Women Advanced, AM3, AM2, and AM1 divisions: due to weather we lost 8 signed up people but 3 people on the waiting list who showed got in, for a total of 85 people coming out to play in mid-40's, rainy, and WINDY conditions. I'd say that's a success.

Gallery -> Click here (http://life.trollserver.com/discgolf/act_i_2005/)

Still, the point remains that the Rec division seems a bit under-represented as an option at most tournaments and I'm not exactly sure why. :confused:

They are offered at every Texas tournament that has amateur divisions. I thing I see missing is the Jr division.


can and did. we had 90 preregistered players and an 8-person waiting list for the "Amateur Challenge" I ran this past weekend that had Juniors, Women Am, Women Advanced, AM3, AM2, and AM1 divisions: due to weather we lost 8 signed up people but 3 people on the waiting list who showed got in, for a total of 85 people coming out to play in mid-40's, rainy, and WINDY conditions. I'd say that's a success.

Gallery -> Click here (http://life.trollserver.com/discgolf/act_i_2005/)

Still, the point remains that the Rec division seems a bit under-represented as an option at most tournaments and I'm not exactly sure why. :confused:

Locals sticking to the traditional definitions of AM and Novice ?
Peer pressure to play up instead of where ratings would put you ?
Both were here at the begining, but most TDs helped push the ratings system and players started playing where their ratings said they belong. The Rec divs were the biggest fields for a while.

sorry, i should have clarified again - i dont see them very often at tournaments in new england, which was my original point. i cant say whether it's a wide-spread trend or not.

We rarely have players entering Rec in Minnesota which is a well developed area, and it's not because we don't have lots of players with ratings below 875 or no rating. But across the state line, we see good turnouts in Rec in Wisconsin events. It's hard to believe there's some localized culture difference but maybe there's something to it.

I know that there was a local avoidance of Rec here before some of the TDs (with a little encouragement) started telling players it was OK to play within their ratings. Formerly Novice/Rec was a place that you only played in for a couple of events before moving up to Am. That mindset is hard to break without encouragement from the TDs and the local Am & Adv players.

My pushing point was that the PDGA rating system could never really be tested unless players actually used it.

Cromwell speaks the truth, there were 24 competitors just in the Am3 division. The reason this tournament succeeded so well was:

1) A world class and beautiful disc golf course

2) The stated goals of the tournament: To have fun!

3) Low entry fee ($10) and value: the player's package consisted of three Innova discs, and there were CTP prizes galore.

Just wait till you see what Ive got planned for ACT II jeff... entries might have to go up to cover basic inflation & overall cost, but it will still be probably a $15/$10 split and the "value" should skyrocket :)

The absense of Am3 from many tourneys in our region makes me debate the pros/cons of the rating-based divisions, but I still think that we're a long way off from having the means of successfully implementing anything like that. I'd elaborate on that, but I dont know if this is necessarily the right thread for the discussion plus it's early and I'm tired. ;)

Dave,

I don't think the absence of a Rec/Am3 division at New England is reflective of any pros/cons of ratings-based divisions. I fully believe it's like Gary is saying above: old divisional definitions still exist and have been slow to change. It is up to TDs to offer the division and encourage the appropriate players to play in it.

Bear in mind that Recreational is a NEFA Points division, required to be offered at all NEFA Points Events (which is the standard by which most New England events are based). I don't know if it is ignorance of that requirement or some conscious adherence to the old ways, but I've noticed many tournaments don't even list Rec on event flyers. So I think the follow scenario is the most common when it comes to Rec in New England...<ul type="square"> New player sees flyer, wants to play tournament
Doesn't see Rec listed as a division
Either...
a. Player asks what the lowest division is and TD replies with the same info that's on the flyer...Am2. Or...
b. Being knowledgable about divisions, player requests to play in Rec division, TD panics because he hasn't figured it into his price structure (and doesn't want a lower entry fee than his $10-15 Am2 fee) and ends up talking the player into Am2 to make things easier for himself (no changing prices, flyers, etc)[/list]As Gary said above, it is going to take a conscious effort by TDs and organizers to make Rec a consistent option at tournaments AND a comfortable division for players of that caliber to stay in while they improve to Am2/Intermediate level. We strongly encourage players to play Rec at our events in Maine, and had 6 Recs qualify for our Series Finals last year (vs just 1 qualifier for 2004 NEFA Finals). Events like ACT are another great thing for the concept of the Rec division. A flat amateur entry fee across all divisions helps too. If more TDs did this in New England, it would be no trouble at all to add a Rec division in the scenario above.

It's a slow process, but I think we'll get there in time in New England. Just 2 years ago, Am2 was in the same place, and I, among others, fought hard to get Am2 included as an official NEFA Points division. Back then, if you had 30 amateur players (not including Masters) at an event, 25 of them were in Advanced/Am1 and 5 would be in Am2. Now, it would probably be an 15-15 or even 10-20 split. In time, the players who struggle at the bottom of the much larger Am2 ranks will make the move to Rec just as those that used to toil at the bottom of an overly large Am1 moved to Am2.

--Josh

Spring Fling - no rec listed
Enman Field Champs - rec offered
CT States - no rec listed
Animalfest - no flyer yet
Amesbury Pines - no flyer yet
GHDGO - no rec listed
Martha's Vineyard Open - no rec listed
VT states - no flyer yet
Eastern MA Champ. - rec offered
Dam Open - no flyer yet
Quaker Hill Champ. - rec offered
Quarry Run - no flyer yet
Beaver Brook - no flyer yet
NH States - all am's are listed as "amateurs", so this is kind of a 50/50 in my book.

so, of the events that have flyers up at the moment for the nefa series, 4 tournaments explicitly list divisions and do NOT list rec as an available option, and 3 DO list rec... and surprise, two of the three that do are also "Maine Points" events. I know you agree with me Josh, I'm just stressing the point and if these are requirements for nefa sanctioning shouldnt they be enforced? I'm sure we can discuss more this weekend in the leader group at borderland though :) There's more I could say on the subject but i feel the less dirty laundry aired in public the better :eek: :cool:

F1J is present for my daughter to compete in. The fact that there are practically no juniors playing disc golf probably has more to do with the excessive pot smoking and illegal drinking at vrtually any course that a parent might take their child than anything else.

IMHO.



So running an event specifically for Girls 12 through 15 year of age, where only 20 from each of 4 schools are allowed would not solve the challenge of which you speak then Rhett?

Or say 60 girls of, or around, her age from one school? Or an adult supervised league for girls between 12 through 15?

Do you suppose the parents would want them paying $45 for a chance to compete for other girls entry fees? Or would they prefer an entry fee that covers the course, event amenities and a fee to pay the salaries of the league, department, or events?

Field of 1 versus 60 or 80? I'm guessing your daughter would prefer the larger field. Winning discs and stuff would come second to that I'm guessing...



Rhett,

Don't think I didn't notice you not answering any of these questions...

Hey Crom,

What is the date of the Martha's Vinyard event?

MV is being held july 16th.... flyer and more details are on nefa.com if you hit the "2005 schedule" link in the sidebar :)