Several weeks ago, USDGC Champ, Dave Feldberg said something on PDGA Radio about the possibility that flattening and/or paying deeper in the Pro field might encourage more local pros to enter higher tier events. Any pros feel this might help? We're in the process of updating payout tables and TD reports for the 2006 season which starts in 5 weeks. Your feedback will be helpful.

Here is a comparison of some options for a 40-person field. Of course, if flattening or deepening improve field sizes, the overall payout for touring players could end up higher than 2005 (give a little at the top to get more overall).

<table border="1"><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>Field</td><td>Entry Fee</td><td>Added Cash</td><td>Total Purse</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>40</td><td>$75 </td><td>$1,000 </td><td>$4,000 </td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>Current Pro</td><td>Current Pro Table</td><td>Pro Payout w/Big</td><td>Use 2004 Adv</td><td>Use Am Table
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>Table (37-40%)</td><td>changed to 45%</td><td>Added $$ (50%)</td><td>Table - Pay 45%</td><td>& Pay 45%
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>Place</td><td>16 paid</td><td>18 paid</td><td>20 paid</td><td>18 paid</td><td>18 paid
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>1</td><td>$912</td><td>$836</td><td>$768</td><td>$516</td><td>$340
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>2</td><td>$548</td><td>$512</td><td>$460</td><td>$420</td><td>$320
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>3</td><td>$384</td><td>$352</td><td>$348</td><td>$368</td><td>$300
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>4</td><td>$304</td><td>$288</td><td>$280</td><td>$328</td><td>$300
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>5</td><td>$260</td><td>$252</td><td>$236</td><td>$292</td><td>$280
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>6</td><td>$224</td><td>$220</td><td>$208</td><td>$256</td><td>$260
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>7</td><td>$200</td><td>$200</td><td>$184</td><td>$228</td><td>$260
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>8</td><td>$180</td><td>$180</td><td>$168</td><td>$204</td><td>$240
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>9</td><td>$164</td><td>$164</td><td>$152</td><td>$188</td><td>$220
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>10</td><td>$148</td><td>$148</td><td>$144</td><td>$168</td><td>$220
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>11</td><td>$136</td><td>$136</td><td>$132</td><td>$160</td><td>$200
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>12</td><td>$124</td><td>$124</td><td>$124</td><td>$152</td><td>$180
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>13</td><td>$116</td><td>$116</td><td>$116</td><td>$140</td><td>$180
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>14</td><td>$108</td><td>$108</td><td>$112</td><td>$132</td><td>$160
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>15</td><td>$100</td><td>$100</td><td>$108</td><td>$120</td><td>$160
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>16</td><td>$92</td><td>$92</td><td>$100</td><td>$116</td><td>$140
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>17</td><td>.</td><td>$88</td><td>$96</td><td>$108</td><td>$120
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>18</td><td>.</td><td>$84</td><td>$92</td><td>$104</td><td>$120
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>19</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$88</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>20</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$84</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

It would def. help - both the local or lower level pros (like myself) and the top touring pros.

HEres why....

Lower pros - better chance of cashing - I went to a supertour and shot 994 for the weekend and missed cash by 4 - thats a big deterent to not play bigger tournaments

Top pros - can have a bad weekend (meaning like 10th or so) and still make good money. Sometimes, a player kills and you shot awesome for a weekend and lose - this way, you are still rewarded finacailly for good play.

Being a lower rated pro, flattening the payout would definatly make a differance for me to play the A tiers and NT's. I played A tiers when i was an advanced player and did quite well, but now if i were to play one, the only way i could cash is if i played my best golf, period! This also helps with touring pros like Yup_I_am_MTL said. I would not want to see them use the AM payout scale or even the ADV scale becuase the winner is getting chump change. I would prefer to see something in the 45% range. :p

I have heard touring pros talk about the big difference between payouts at the top. For example the difference between 1st and say 3rd. Maybe 3 strokes, but 3rd wins half(or sometimes less) of what 1st does. This is not a big factor for the majority of DG'ers, but may be a big reason why some touring pros have had to stop touring full time.

The current payout structure does not reward consistent play, and thus can hurt those trying to survive on the road. Yes, most sports do have top -heavy payouts, but I think the PDGA should look at altering the payouts for NT and A tiers.

Why should a missed putt be worth $300 at the top, and $20 for those in the middle of the cash? Let's reward those who finish NEAR the top as well.

Historically, on the original Ruth-Voakes steep payout table I saw in the early 90s, 2nd place has been 60% (3/5) of 1st place and 3rd has been 60% of 2nd. From 4th and lower, the curve has been flatter. If pros prefer a flatter curve, especially at the top, that's what we're here to discuss. Thanks for the feedback so far. I'm sure the top pros would like to hear from the 950-980 pros that this would encourage more of you to play the bigger events.

i'm not a low rated pro, but am a 930 golfer who has been shooting 940ish for the last 7-8 events, and who has been thinknig about playing pro masters, so i will weigh in.

i wold only flatten the payout if the TOP pros want it that way. the best shold be rewarded the most.

any flattening should come from the middle and lower end ofthe existing payout, rather than the top. that would still allow more players to get paid, but keep a worthwhile pot for the winner.

ifyou flatten from the top, you're going to have to increase the number of entrants significantly to make up the decreased payout for the winner.

and remember, this will effect TDs is it moves AMs into the PRO fields.

i'm not a low rated pro, but am a 930 golfer who has been shooting 940ish for the last 7-8 events, and who has been thinknig about playing pro masters, so i will weigh in.

i wold only flatten the payout if the TOP pros want it that way. the best shold be rewarded the most.

any flattening should come from the middle and lower end ofthe existing payout, rather than the top. that would still allow more players to get paid, but keep a worthwhile pot for the winner.

ifyou flatten from the top, you're going to have to increase the number of entrants significantly to make up the decreased payout for the winner.

and remember, this will effect TDs is it moves AMs into the PRO fields.



Yeah I would hat to play 40 otherguys take 1st place and only win like $500. I say flatten towards the end of the players.

The current tables are meant to be used as a guide. I typically flatten the payout anyway. If everyone did this then the touring pros would starve to death. We're on to something here.

I think i will be around 950 in the next update, and my opinion is that the current jump from 1st to second to third is too steep. 75% seems more appropriate to me than 60% so that:
1st = 1000; 2nd = 600; 3rd = 360
becomes
1st = 1000; 2nd = 750; 3rd = 565

(i used 1000 as a nice round number for convenience sake)

i also think the deeper the payout and the flatter, the more you'll encourage lesser rated players to anti up for a crack at the cash (and to compete against the best). i plan to try my hand in Pro Masters next year, and might go to Bell South if i feel i have a chance at cashing.

in short: imo, the steepness of the payouts between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd should be flatter, and the payout should go to the top 40 to 50%...

I think i will be around 950 in the next update, and my opinion is that the current jump from 1st to second to third is too steep. 75% seems more appropriate to me than 60% so that:
1st = 1000; 2nd = 600; 3rd = 360
becomes
1st = 1000; 2nd = 750; 3rd = 565

(i used 1000 as a nice round number for convenience sake)

i also think the deeper the payout and the flatter, the more you'll encourage lesser rated players to anti up for a crack at the cash (and to compete against the best). i plan to try my hand in Pro Masters next year, and might go to Bell South if i feel i have a chance at cashing.

in short: imo, the steepness of the payouts between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd should be flatter, and the payout should go to the top 40 to 50%...




I'm with him. :D

Just remember that with those theories 1st can no longer be $1000. 1st place will decrease as will all of the spots with a deeper and flatter payout. See Chucks tables above. He used the same amount of money in all cases. AviarX added $355 which has to come from somewhere. That will result in less players paid.

I believe that Pro payouts are way too steep at the top! Make payouts deeper! Take a slice out of the payout for the top 2 (or3) and you add two more spots paid out in 30 or 40 man field. Just look at the numbers in the first two columns of Chuck's example.

I play Open. I've won, I've been middle of the cash, I've been last place cash, I've been first place out of last cash, and I've been on the mullet card.

I still think payouts should be flatter at the top and deeper.

right, i used 1000 as an easy to work with amount.

1000 for 1st; 600 for 2nd; and 360 for 3rd
becomes something like:
870 for 1st, 630 for 2nd, and 470 for 3rd

or, instead of: 10,000 for 1st, 6000 for 2nd and 3600 for 3rd
it would be: 8700 for 1st, 6300 for 2nd, and 4700 for 3rd...

you could then steepen the step down to 4th and have a flat payout for the remaining players who cash.
the table could also take a little away from 4th thru 20th place to bump up 1st closer to the original amount (1000 or 10,000 as the case might be - 2nd and 3rd already come out ahead)

then again, maybe it makes more sense to flatten the whole chart and not just the jumps from 1st to 2nd and 2nd to 3rd if the goal is to attract AM.s and lower rated Pros to anti up and climb on board

Flatten the payout over all the spots with the exception of the added cash. That goes directly to the top 3 places paid in any of the scales listed above. Just a thought.

I like that idea. Or have the added cash only go to the top 10% so if it is a 100 player open field the added cash only goes to the top ten.

not to stir the pot [ :D] but i think TD's should be allowed to add the cash to Pro Women and Masters divsions as well as the Open division if they so choose (although i do think a higher proportion should go to the Open division)

How added cash is handled isn't included in the PDGA payout recommendations. One reason is that sometimes sponsors specify which division will receive their donation. This year, a few TDs put lots of added cash in the top positions to meet their advertised payout commitment such as $1000 for first. No problem with that, although letting players know that's the case ahead of time would have reduced any surprise for the players.

I divide added cash into the divisions proportionally. If 75% of the pro field is open and 20% is masters and 5% is pro women, that's how I divide the added cash up. From there on it is divided among the field. It's nice to get $50 for last cash when you paid $40 to play.

it will help for sure to get more players and more adv guys would probably test the water more if the know the payout is a little deeper.

Around here people look at how much 1st place in MPO takes home and then they judge the tourney based on that. It leads to ridiculous stuff like $1000 for 1st and then $200 for 2nd.

I just want to point out that a whole bunch of great tourneys will instantly be relegated to crappy when they payout the same number of dollars as before but use a flatter curve.

I just want to point out that a whole bunch of great tourneys will instantly be relegated to crappy when they payout the same number of dollars as before but use a flatter curve.



we have paid out deep (50% in all divisions if there is added $) and fairly flat for years and haven't heard that one.

I think that the tier system should not just be about how much funds a tournament should raise, nor just about the points that they add, they should define more than just these things. For instance, the various tiers should garner different levels of support from the PDGA, should have different levels of focus for goals, should have some sort of requirements for the torunament (other than simply raising funds and players packs), and finally, each type of tier should pay out in a rational and logical way that best matches the goals stated in the tier descriptions.

D Tier - Fun - Local - low price - deep flat payout 40-50% - least points - no added cash or requirements needed - minimal PDGA dues/involvement, no need for box scores in DGWN, no need for listing on PDGA calendar (but can be added).
C Tier - Player focused - State - Medium price - less deep payout 35-40%, some increase in top payout - some added cash, amenities, media exposure - some PDGA involvement, listing on PDGA site, a banner, CTP Package, Box scores, slightly higher PDGA fees.
B Tier - Tournament focused, attract regional top players - Regional/State - Moderate price - bit more curve to the payout, pay 30-36%, top payout should attract top players from the region - Added cash, volunteers, benefits (tangible/intangible), media exposure, photographer or video for finals. - PDGA involvement: promotion in weekly newsletter, banners, CTP package, Box scores, typical PDGA fee.
A Tier - A premiere tournament - Regional - Premium price - Pay 30-33% top heavy curve which attracts touring pros - Quality added cash, good atmosphere, hotel discounts, camping, etc, photography, daily updated scores on PDGA, Media exposure, brief summary in DGWN with photos, banners, CTP package, typical PDGA fee (some supplement from PDGA may be necessary for A Tiers to achieve goals)

I would go much more into detail, but this already hurt my head. Must go to sleep.

As long as this is the Pro payouts you are talking about.

There should never be a rec division with 30% payout.

yes, pro. I see it in the salesman's approach. You go to a B tier, you know what you are in for. You go to a C Tier, you know what you are in for.

In the current set up, you go to a B tier, it could be an A or a C. All depends on the promoter. It would be nice if we had a little better set of minimum requirements set for the different teirs.

Chuck, glad to hear the PDGA mulling the idea, and especially glad to hear it from one of the top players. It's a no-brainer, IMO.

The PDGA, and the top players, should abandon the idea that people will be living off disc golf. Take a step back, realize that now is probably at least twenty years too early, and simply institute policies that build participation in competitive dg. This should be only one tool in the arsenal.

very ture. anyone that has traveled a bit knows that there are B tiers that are really A tier level, C tiers that are run and have a payout like a decent B tier, and td's who sanction their tournament as a B tier when it is on a level with a low end C tier.

I think TD's should be held a bit more accountable for their level of sanctioning. An example would be some of the lower A tiers that are almost always under the minimum pro purse requirement, yet year after year the PDGA has them sanctioned as A tiers.

An example would be some of the lower A tiers that are almost always under the minimum pro purse requirement, yet year after year the PDGA has them sanctioned as A tiers.



Have examples? They look at this pretty closely at PDGA HQ and downgrade events that don't make it. Others are also encouraged to upgrade where applicable.

Yetter 04 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4033)

yetter 05 (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4712)

It's unclear whether they met the $2000 added cash requirement in 2004 which is more important than the total purse (the director can't control factors like weather that can drop turnout). I suspect that's why the Yetter was an A-tier for 2005, but you'd have to contact the PDGA office with your concerns.

As a Pro and TD, I have a question?

Why did we get away from paying the top 1/3 to now paying the top 40-45%????

Also, I think that if you cash, you should get more than your money back. It is dissapointing when I cash and get less or not even double my money back, I would rather not cash at all. (although I do hate going home empty handed)

stuck playing pro for the next month may be the main reason I don't play another tournament till Jan.

I too am tired of donating money to the young guns.

But come Jan 1st, I will be the young gun in my division :D

One thing that will be done with any recommended table is to work it so that the last position gets back their entry fee (which is the case in the examples I posted).

I like it when last cash gets their entry back, but I also like it when the payout is steep and there are very big jumps between places, rather than the flat "I-got-a-few-bucks-more-than-you-even-though-I-whooped-you" style payout.

Chuck,

In looking at the PGA payouts, they are very similar to the 50% payout you have listed above. In just about any tour event the winner gets about 18% of the purse and it steps down to about 10.5% for 2nd and continues down from there. While we don't have the sponsors or the purses they have, I do have to say that I don't here of any complaints from the players about paying about 50% of the field.

Personally as a player and TD, I also like having a cut midway through the tournament, top half and ties. You make the cut, you get paid. You don't make the cut, you go home and get ready to try again.

Just my opinion, and like other opinions, I am sure there are good and some not so good thoughts from others about it.

The problem with a cut is that a lot of lower rated pros(say,under 970) are not going to want to travel to go play half a tournament(and they will think of it this way). Touring costs a decent chunk of money if you don't cash. These players are a large portion of the purse as well.

Earlier I mentioned paying flatter at the top. What I was referring too was the large drop off in the top few spots. I think it would aid touring pros if the payout didn't have such big drop offs. Yes, the winner does get less, but when that player finishes 2nd or 4th he will get more. While it may hurt the winnings of the top 2 or 3 players, it would benifit many top pros.

I don't think paying deeper in the field helps much. For a lot of players their goal is to cash, and they want it to be meaningful.

I don't think paying deeper in the field helps much. For a lot of players their goal is to cash, and they want it to be meaningful.


Exactly! When I started playing tourneys as an Am2, "merching" meant that you finished in the top third. That meant you played well. And that meant something. When they spread the am payouts out to 40 and 50 percent of the field, it really ruined that feeling of accomplishment.

Of course back then when you brought up this point you were called a greedy am that didn't want to dilute the payout fo the top baggers.

I prefer the top-third payout for all divisions. For Ams it should be more of a straight line than the huge curve that it is now.

If the course can hold the entire field, there should never be a cut. Leaving at noon on sunday with a half empty course is a good reason not to return.

I'll agree that most bottom pros aspire to cash and that is precisely what this proposal addresses. It is pretty simple really. Use a motivation to keep more people interested.

By the way, last cash is only "meaningful" in that it helps defray the costs. Noone is making money near the bottom of the cash, they are simply paying less to enjoy their weekend. The more that pay less to enjoy their weekend, the more that continue to come out. The more that come out, the easier it is to get sponsors. The more sponsors, the greater chance that more people make meaningful money.

Just to stir things up, why wouldn't a cut at the end of Saturday be a good thing in terms of players saving money? It's one less night of lodging cost and one more day to do something else. In addition, if you cut to the top third but actually paid the top half, several of those who were cut would at least win their entry fee back AND save a night's lodging cost. Play on the course would move faster on Sunday, especially in events that were large enough to start with fivesomes. What am I missing in this analysis?

What am I missing in this analysis?


You are missing the fact that lodging, at least around here, costs a lot more at the last second than it does to get well in advance. With check-out time being around noon at best, a traveling player would have to reserve just one night if they get there the day before, then check-out in the morning before the tourney starts, and then if they play well enough go scrambling for another night's accomodations if there are any to be found. You can't typically reserve both nights and then cancel and check-out at 5-6-7 PM the second night.

Also, many players are "professional donators" who enjoy playing and haven't yet gotten sick of giving all their money to the same guys all the time. To them, the cost of the weekend is worth it as a leisure expense even though they know in their hearts that unless they have an unlikely three rounds-of-their-lives in a row, they won't be winning. And probably won't even be cashing. But it's fun and the price for a whole weekend of play is totally worth it. Cut the play days and rounds in half and you have just made a major change to the expense/benefit formula. My guess is that you lose players from this end of the spectrum, and that means even fewer paying spots for the rest.

There just isn't enough money to be won in our sport. PGA tourneys are 4 days long and if you make the cut/cash it is a lot of money. PDGA tourneys are typically 2 days long and if you finish 4th you might cover your actual expenses. If it's a big tourney. Where you have less chance of finishing that high.

Hmm ....

Miss the cut and get paid to go home early ....

There's a concept.

Don't all these different suggestions suggest something else entirely, that we don't need a one-size-fits-all solution for payout formulas? Wouldn't it make sense for the NT Committee to devise its own payout formula that the NT TDs collectively think works best for the NT, and then to have a couple more payout charts for other TDs to use, one that might be steeper, one that might be deeper? TDs could advertise whether they are using the steep, the deep, or the half asleep method and players could make choices.

Where is that Golden Triangle feller?

I'm not the golden triangle feller, but I'm all for central control when central control is wiser than the average TD. Otherwise, I'm all for the average TD.

I'd support your idea of TD choice if there was some mechanism to encourage/reward TDs for producing large fields. I think the pdga should set up a rewards program for all TDs/clubs who can generate Open fields greater than 100 and a 15K purse, all without zones of exclusion.

what is the radius of the golden triangle? can another triangle, like the silver or the bronze, come wthin its radius?

Also, many players are "professional donators" who enjoy playing and haven't yet gotten sick of giving all their money to the same guys all the time.



You rang?

Bruce is right, diff payouts for different levels.


As for lodging- I am going Pro/AM A tier 4 hours away. I' am a 940 rated pro(wow that sounds bad), and I'm traveling with a Adv. AM, a 980 rated pro, and a Adv. female. Even if I'm going to an Nt, I might be traveling with another Pro, and maybe a pro master. What if 2 of us don't make the cut, and the other one does?

How is me missing the cut saving money? Very few people can afford to travel alone to many tournaments a year.


In other words- I think having a cut at NT's would severly cripple the attendence. Please don't do it!

what is the radius of the golden triangle? can another triangle, like the silver or the bronze, come wthin its radius?




Roughly 15 miles. I am unaware of a silver or bronze triangle but if they do exist then i would have to say yes they may enter the Golden Triangle's radius, we are a friendly place :D

BTW, I met a guy who plays in only sandals(well he wears clothes too), guess you arent the only sandal freak out there :)

An example would be some of the lower A tiers that are almost always under the minimum pro purse requirement, yet year after year the PDGA has them sanctioned as A tiers.



Have examples? They look at this pretty closely at PDGA HQ and downgrade events that don't make it. Others are also encouraged to upgrade where applicable.




one word.....

TUCSON


3 years of bad c tier requirement fulfillment so let's give him an a tier....
REALLY bad fulfillment of atier requirements....
so lets give them a-tier again....

yeah chuck....the pdga really watches these things :eek:


give me a break! :p

Hoeniger has prepared a report every year that I can remember which shows the events that didn't meet or exceeded tier requirements and his recommendations for the following year. I'm not sure why some of these recommendations may not have been followed. I suspect there's been a tradition or grandfathering aspect to some of the decisions. Dave is now in charge of this area so maybe you'll see more oversight of these standards as we go forward.

Hoeniger has prepared a report every year that I can remember which shows the events that didn't meet or exceeded tier requirements and his recommendations for the following year. I'm not sure why some of these recommendations may not have been followed. I suspect there's been a tradition or grandfathering aspect to some of the decisions. Dave is now in charge of this area so maybe you'll see more oversight of these standards as we go forward.



Grandfathering and Tradition are about the worst excuses I have ever heard for letting a Tier requirement slide!! While I would agree on allowing some players to Grandfather in certain events, letting a tournament be an A Tier, an NT, or any other tier without the resources is a pretty good reason as to why we don't have any touring pros able to make a decent living.

JMHO

A-tier and NT events are scheduled roughly a year in advance based on best judgment that a TD or team will be able to deliver. Should the PDGA have event organizers post a bond for the added cash a year in advance? Or perhaps an event should be downgraded in tier level a week or two before it occurs when it looks like they are not going to meet the requirements? Or perhaps it should be downgraded after the event is over? You're the Tour Coordinator, what's the call?

A-tier and NT events are scheduled roughly a year in advance based on best judgment that a TD or team will be able to deliver. Should the PDGA have event organizers post a bond for the added cash a year in advance? Or perhaps an event should be downgraded in tier level a week or two before it occurs when it looks like they are not going to meet the requirements? Or perhaps it should be downgraded after the event is over? You're the Tour Coordinator, what's the call?



A posted bond would be the standard in the promotion industry, and with that 1 strike and your out. The difficulty as I see it (notice I said "as I see it" which translates to "just my opinion") we need to be planning in 2006 for the 2008 tour, which presents its own problems, but in order for every event to run as it should, each event shout be a corporate entity and run as a business, not a sideline for volunteers, who are already overworked and over comitted.

Take note Chuck, that I am not in any way trying to make any bad remarks about the people who are trying to do their best, just looking for improvments in the manner in which the tour, as a whole is conducted and moderated. I know that changes are being made as we speak and I think very highly of David Gentry and his efforts.

I'm not sure why some of these recommendations may not have been followed.



Probably because if the PDGA decides not to sanction at their desired tier status, there is always the possibility that the TD or club might then opt against PDGA sanctioning altogether.

An event that doesn't meet tier requirements still brings in money for the organization, whereas an event that doesn't sanction at all does not.

If an event does not reach the tier requirements then it must shift down a tier the next year. Isn't that what is supposed to happen? I could see where a tournement could petition to have their status kept at the level where they did not reach the requirements the previous year if they were to provide documents to the PDGA showing that they will, without a doubt, be able to acheive the tier requirements for that year. I am not talking about a TD calling up someone and saying "I know we can do it this time, trust me", that won't cut it.

Probably because if the PDGA decides not to sanction at their desired tier status, the TD or club could then opt against PDGA sanctioning.

An event that doesn't meet tier requirements still brings in money for the organization, whereas an event that doesn't sanction at all does not.





From my understanding, one of the main reasons for sanctioning is to show that the event will be held up to a certain standard, that you can go, and because it is sanctioned, you know at minimum what bang you are getting for your buck. If what you say is true then sanctioning just doesn't mean what it is said to mean.

:sorry double post:

What happens in some cases is that a different TD or team will be in charge of the event the following year with expectations and promises that they'll be able to do better than the team that just hosted. Those of us who have tried to raise funding know it's still a crapshoot for disc golf and sometimes more about luck than skill to get good sized sponsor contributions. Only some locations have relatively guaranteed cash sources such as in MN for our Majestic where we have a tax on our leagues every year which produces a minimum $1500 toward the event each year.

Like i said before, a response like " We can do it this time" or "we have a new crew running the show" , dont cut it. Provide proof that you will , without a doubt, be able meet or exceed the tier requirements or the event gets dropped in tier level.

I have to agree with Scott here about the "Oh I Promise to do better" line. That is not a business like agreement. As I said before, to have a truly profitable event, it had better be run as a business or you are simply wasting your time.

The majority of TDs don't want to "fall on their sword" making commitments they don't truly feel they can meet. If anything, it's more of a problem encouraging TDs to step up in tier level rather than drop down. The PDGA also doesn't just let anyone sanction a higher tier event. Those without a track record usually aren't getting B-tier and higher sanctioning.

Perhaps the way it should work is to collect excess cash from events that exceed sanctioning requirements and place them into a fund which will then subsidize events that miss the added cash requirement. The events that exceed requirements would get credit for their actual purse raised but payouts to players at those events would be based only on entry fees plus the minimum added cash for that tier. Players at the events who missed the minimums would get payouts as if the minimum added was met because of the subsidy. The PDGA would maintain this fund for the players benefit. How about that for a socialistic option? :)

The majority of TDs don't want to "fall on their sword" making commitments they don't truly feel they can meet. If anything, it's more of a problem encouraging TDs to step up in tier level rather than drop down. The PDGA also doesn't just let anyone sanction a higher tier event. Those without a track record usually aren't getting B-tier and higher sanctioning.

Perhaps the way it should work is to collect excess cash from events that exceed sanctioning requirements and place them into a fund which will then subsidize events that miss the added cash requirement. The events that exceed requirements would get credit for their actual purse raised but payouts to players at those events would be based only on entry fees plus the minimum added cash for that tier. Players at the events who missed the minimums would get payouts as if the minimum added was met because of the subsidy. The PDGA would maintain this fund for the players benefit. How about that for a socialistic option? :)



That would be fine if you wanted to live in Socialist environment.

That is like telling me, as a business owner, you work as hard as you want and make as much as you can and anything over and above what it takes for you to survive, I am going to take and give it to your competitor to help him so he doesn't have to put forth the effort if he doesn't want to.

Really laughable Chuck.

Perhaps the way it should work is to collect excess cash from events that exceed sanctioning requirements and place them into a fund which will then subsidize events that miss the added cash requirement. The events that exceed requirements would get credit for their actual purse raised but payouts to players at those events would be based only on entry fees plus the minimum added cash for that tier. Players at the events who missed the minimums would get payouts as if the minimum added was met because of the subsidy. The PDGA would maintain this fund for the players benefit. How about that for a socialistic option? :)


That's a good one

At this time I don't ever see myself sanctioning an event above B I even considered going to C. My goal however is to have an event that should be an A or better while remaining a B or C. I like to make all the decisions for my events and some of the requirements for the higher tiered events don't work for me. http://mainediscgolf.com/ddgc/players/guarantee.php

I like to make all the decisions for my events and some of the requirements for the higher tiered events don't work for me.



Example of the capitalistic free market orientation of TDs and why the PDGA can only go so far toward standardization and controlling guidelines.

Why waste volunteer time on writing, changing and rearranging rules and guidelines if there is no intention of enforcing them? Is it to just give off the appearence of being professional? Nothing better to do with v-teer time? To give people something to argue about on the mess bored? To make yourself look like a joke? I just dont get it :confused:

I like to make all the decisions for my events and some of the requirements for the higher tiered events don't work for me.



Example of the capitalistic free market orientation of TDs and why the PDGA can only go so far toward standardization and controlling guidelines.



Chuck, This could be a prime example of the PDGA refusing sanctioning if they don't want to adhere to the guidelines set forth.

Nothing against the TD in Maine, but just using the situation as an example of the point I am trying to make here.

That is like telling me, as a business owner, you work as hard as you want and make as much as you can and anything over and above what it takes for you to survive, I am going to take and give it to your competitor to help him so he doesn't have to put forth the effort if he doesn't want to.
Really laughable Chuck.



as a business owner, your profits are made thanks to the work of your employees and the patronage of your customers. you also benefit from the roads, bridges, postal service, etc. An organization's willingness to not act like a shark about it is called evolution. there's a reason most industrialized nations mitigate their capitalism with socialistic tendencies (healthcare).

i'm not going to go so far as to say however that we should open this message board to those who can't afford to buy in. :eek: :p

I do follow all the guidelines I just don't see the need to sanction as a higher tiered event. Did I miss the part where you can't exceed the requirements? If I couldn't agree to follow the guidelines I wouldn't sanction.

do follow all the guidelines I just don't see the need to sanction as a higher tiered event. Did I miss the part where you can't exceed the requirements? If I couldn't agree to follow the guidelines I wouldn't sanction.




Yeah I got kinda lost when he said that too.

I like to make all the decisions for my events and some of the requirements for the higher tiered events don't work for me.



Example of the capitalistic free market orientation of TDs and why the PDGA can only go so far toward standardization and controlling guidelines.



Chuck, This could be a prime example of the PDGA refusing sanctioning if they don't want to adhere to the guidelines set forth.

Nothing against the TD in Maine, but just using the situation as an example of the point I am trying to make here.



I think you mistake the example as refusing to adhere to guidelines set forth...that's not the case. BE simply said he sanctions at a level that he can live with, rather than be forced (whether there's teeth in enforcement or not) to adhere to additional guidelines he might disagree with. He's meeting and exceeding the requirements set forth by the level of sanctioning he chooses. If more TDs looked at it that way, there'd probably not be the disdain amongst some un-sanctioned TDs about the "big bad" PDGA and its overbearing rules.

I'd rather see more TDs go the route of sanctioning below the level at which they plan to achieve and earn their way up the sanctioning ladder. The PDGA ought not sanction an event at A-tier level until that event reaches or exceeds A-tier level expectations as a B or C-tier. That would certainly give more actual value to being called an "A-tier" event...not to mention a proven track record for players to see.

--Josh

I'd rather see more TDs go the route of sanctioning below the level at which they plan to achieve and earn their way up the sanctioning ladder. The PDGA ought not sanction an event at A-tier level until that event reaches or exceeds A-tier level expectations as a B or C-tier. That would certainly give more actual value to being called an "A-tier" event.




Exactly. I would also like to see more involvment by the PDGA to make Td's want to move up the ladder.

Based on the annual tally by Hoeniger, I'd say 19 out of 20 events (and perhaps even more) have complied with the tier guidelines. It appears that almost equal numbers of events significantly exceed the guidelines as miss them. Events are both downgraded and upgraded for the next year.

No event is sanctioned without the initial expectation that it will meet the guidelines. What do you do if they don't, other than downgrade them the following year assuming it wasn't incompetence or mismanagement of some sort? A few TDs are banned from sanctioning at all the following year. Even events that meet the guidelines one year because of a $1000 sponsor may not get that sponsor the following year and fall short. What then?

Even events that meet the guidelines one year because of a $1000 sponsor may not get that sponsor the following year and fall short. What then?






I thought I answered that already. They get dropped a tier or two depending on what level their event was actual at.

The PDGA ought not sanction an event at A-tier level until that event reaches or exceeds A-tier level expectations as a B or C-tier.



That has been the case already.

The PDGA has sent a note of congratulations to TDs who exceed guidelines and invites them to sanction at a higher level the following year.

Events are both downgraded and upgraded for the next year



That is simply not completly true. I have seen many events not reach the tier requirements and then be sanctioned at the same level the follwing year. And no, I am not going to provide examples, you'll just have to take my word for it, which you knwo as well as I do is the truth.

I have seen events that have gotten promoted, but I have NEVER seen an event dropped in tier level because the PDGA wouldnt allow it do to them falling short the previous year. This may be because I just wasnt paying close attention, but I know for fact that some do keep the same level sanctioning without reaching the requirements the previous year(s).

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even events that meet the guidelines one year because of a $1000 sponsor may not get that sponsor the following year and fall short. What then?





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I thought I answered that already. They get dropped a tier or two depending on what level their event was actual at.



They will usually get tier dropped. However, sometimes the conversation with the PDGA office goes something like this in September:
TD: Yeah, Samson Ford had an off year but promised us they would be onboard this next year at the $1000 level like before.
PDGA: That's good news. How sure are you that they will come through?
TD: Well, the economy looks pretty good right now but they won't be able to finalize a commitment until April, a month before the event.
PDGA: You had 65 pros this year, we've heard they loved the course, your report was ontime and the article in the paper was great. But you were short on the added cash by $500. How sure are you that you can meet the $2000 added this year?
TD: As long as Samson comes thru we're on track for adding around $2500 this coming year.
PDGA: Sounds good. We'll list you as an A-tier again but if you miss it this coming year, we'll have to drop the event to a B-tier.

Or, what would you have the PDGA say instead?

Or, what would you have the PDGA say instead?



PDGA: Well, I am sorry to hear that a major sponsor could not provide enough for your event to reach A-tier status. We will sanction you at the B-tier level this year and if the sponsor pulls through and you meet or exceed A-tier requirements we will discuss bringing your event back to A-tier level the following year.

With that answer, we'd have few NTs or A-tiers because few can guarantee they will meet the added cash requirement unless they are rich like Andy McMillions used to do.

I like to make all the decisions for my events and some of the requirements for the higher tiered events don't work for me.



Example of the capitalistic free market orientation of TDs and why the PDGA can only go so far toward standardization and controlling guidelines.



Chuck, This could be a prime example of the PDGA refusing sanctioning if they don't want to adhere to the guidelines set forth.

Nothing against the TD in Maine, but just using the situation as an example of the point I am trying to make here.



Sorry for the confusion here. The point I was trying to make was in regard to those events that were A or NT. Also just that each TD acting on his own causes an unknown factor in every event. As to where the PDGA should be taking a more active roll in the "PDGA Tour" as far as standardizing and not waiting until it has already taken place to determine what to do about next year.

OK so the Maine TD wasn't a good example...my apologies.

With that answer, we'd have few NTs or A-tiers because few can guarantee they will meet the added cash requirement unless they are rich like Andy McMillions used to do.



Then they don't need to run A or NT events.

With that answer, we'd have few NTs or A-tiers because few can guarantee they will meet the added cash requirement unless they are rich like Andy McMillions used to do.




Did you even read what I wrote???

By showing they are able to bring their event back to the level of sanctioning they previously had, they get another shot at being that tier the following year. If they do not show that then they get sanctioned the next year at whatever level they were able to acheive. The exception would be if they were able to show documented proof that they will reach the standard of the higher tier.If only Andy McMillons is able to do that then only Andy would be able to sanction at the higher level after he did not reach the requirements the previous year.

I get the feeling that you are just trying to give me a hard time and aren't even reading what I am saying to you :p

I found the tour report from 2002 and here are the events that didn't meet B-tier requirements and were recommended to drop to C if they decided to sanction in 2003:

These B Tier events fell well-short of tier requirements, and will be sanctioned in 2003 at the C Tier level, subject to appeal by the host club / TD.

<table border="1"><tr><td> Florida Triple Crown - Am #3</td><td>FL
</td></tr><tr><td>Florida Triple Crown - Pro #2</td><td>FL
</td></tr><tr><td>Florida Triple Crown - Pro #3</td><td>FL
</td></tr><tr><td>St Louis Classic</td><td>MO
</td></tr><tr><td>3rd Angel Love Foundation Charity Classic - Ams</td><td>IL
</td></tr><tr><td>CanAm Cup IV (Team Event)</td><td>ON
</td></tr><tr><td>New England Disc Golf Championships</td><td>ME
</td></tr><tr><td>Maple City Open</td><td>IL
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

About the same number didn't even meet C-tier status and had to lobby for sanctioning the following year. The point is there aren't that many of the over 700 events not meeting sanctioning each year. And most times it's either a temporary condition or things like weather or scheduling against another event that causes the problem. Members should be glad there are people actually making these calls rather than some inflexible process.

I get the feeling that you are just trying to give me a hard time and aren't even reading what I am saying to you



Past success is no guarantee of future success in terms of added cash. So demonstrating you can meet A-tier added cash one year as a B-tier doesn't mean you can do it as an A-tier the following year. Added cash is rarely guaranteed a year in advance. Player turnouts are not guaranteed either due to scheduling and weather factors. Some Pro A-tiers rely heavily on funding generated from the Am A-tier a week before (not just entry fee differential but from sales, too). If that has low turnout, they can miss the added cash minimum.

There are several other things that relate to the quality of an event that need to be considered besides added cash. It is not black & white no matter how much you want it to be that way.

I found the tour report from 2002 and here are the events that didn't meet B-tier requirements and were recommended to drop to C if they decided to sanction in 2003:

These B Tier events fell well-short of tier requirements, and will be sanctioned in 2003 at the C Tier level, subject to appeal by the host club / TD.
New England Disc Golf Championships ME



We didn't actually fall way short the turnout was not as good as hoped but the total tournament value was good and if I had been a little smarter about where I placed my numbers on the report.... I contacted the PDGA we went over the numbers and we will be running as a B-tier for our 5th year in 2006. I now guarantee the added cash it gets added with or without Sponsors. Check out the History of our Event
http://www.mainediscgolf.com/ddgc/history.php

I am speaking of ALL the requirements, not just payout, but payout was being discussed on this thread so my responses have been more geared toward that.

Obviously there is no guarentee that because one year they did it that the next they can BUT I feel like it is proof enough that they will more then likely be able to meet those requirements the next year. That gives a real reason to have an event sanctioned at a higher level unlike making a some verbal promise to try there best.

In my eyes I see that the PDGA has an obligation to the players and organizers to uphold certain standards to ensure the player gets what they pay for. I fully understand that sometimes mother-nature etc can cause issues in that but the fact remains that there needs to be a definate line. You dont reach that line, then drop and show the PDGA you can get back to there and a higher tier can be discussed again.

I would really like to see real enforcement to the requirements/rules/guidleines that the PDGA v-teers spend so much time coming up with/changing. Then maybe people would actually have a reason to put forth that extra effort to achieve those levels since there is a real and enforced consiquence for not doing so.

With that being said I feel like there should be more incentives coming from the PDGA for the higher tier events.
So it would not be a "meet these levels or else" but would be a combination of "you must meet these levels or you get dropped down and do not recieve XXX from the PDGA next season".

Anyway, I could prob go back and forth all day but would rather not :P I think I have illustrated my points so I got my fix for the day :D

BE, no intention of picking on you. Those happened to be the events that year on the list to illustrate that the PDGA does actually look at whether events meet the published guidelines for a year.

Scott, I have seen events requested to drop a tier in sanctioning from one year to the next, and I have seen TDs request lower sanctioning because they knew they were going to have a problem getting the sponsorship required. I would much rather see an event exceed the requirements of lower sanctioning than fall short of the requirements of higher sanctioning.

I am sure that some of it is tradition, some of it is ease of scheduling (it's hard to put together a schedule if the events on it change every year), and some of it is for the player's benefit so that there will be an A-Tier in their traveling range each year. In the case of Texas, we have lost about one every year for the past few years. Those that remain are better spread in the calendar and across the state than they were in previous years. DFW really needs to step up or it may lose the couple that are still here.

I would much rather see an event exceed the requirements of lower sanctioning than fall short of the requirements of higher sanctioning



I agree. There should rarely, if ever, be a situation where a tournament fails to reach the minimum requirments expected of it. Much better for all involved if you have a bada$ $ B-tier that exceeds all expectations then to have a terrible A-tier that barely meets only a couple of requirements or none of them leaving lots of poeple disappointed which reflects on this Org. I think the guidelines should be strictly enforced to ensure happy golfers all around. For the last few years I just don't feel like the PDGA PTB has held up there end very well.

Hoeniger has prepared a report every year that I can remember which shows the events that didn't meet or exceeded tier requirements and his recommendations for the following year. I'm not sure why some of these recommendations may not have been followed. I suspect there's been a tradition or grandfathering aspect to some of the decisions. Dave is now in charge of this area so maybe you'll see more oversight of these standards as we go forward.



gentry is who approved 2006 a-tier status WITH NEW TD's
with NO EXPERIENCE!!!
doesn't instill much confidence

The PDGA ought not sanction an event at A-tier level until that event reaches or exceeds A-tier level expectations as a B or C-tier.



That has been the case already.

The PDGA has sent a note of congratulations to TDs who exceed guidelines and invites them to sanction at a higher level the following year.




WRONG!!!!!!!

I know in my case, David has requested input from the State Coordinator in the case of new TDs taking over existing events or starting new ones.

Events are both downgraded and upgraded for the next year



That is simply not completly true. I have seen many events not reach the tier requirements and then be sanctioned at the same level the follwing year. And no, I am not going to provide examples, you'll just have to take my word for it, which you knwo as well as I do is the truth.

<font color="blue"> i agree with scott(i'm scared to say anything)linthicum...
but unlike him i have no problems with it as when you are truthful about it NO ONE can say anything about it</font>


I have seen events that have gotten promoted, but I have NEVER seen an event dropped in tier level because the PDGA wouldnt allow it do to them falling short the previous year. This may be because I just wasnt paying close attention, but I know for fact that some do keep the same level sanctioning without reaching the requirements the previous year(s).

<font color="blue"> since my beginnings in the sport in 96 i have seen it happen twice personally...
first with the great bob(i'll keep getting b-tier with NOWHERE close to even c-tier payouts) lewis for YEARS!

and of course here in tucson with 3 years of garnett not fulfilling c-tier requirements before being given an a-tier which didn't even meet HALF of the requirements and then being given a-tier status AGAIN FOR 2006 with brand new td's</font>





<font color="blue"> i'm sure this happens all over the country also and is VERY easy to see if people just look at the forms on the pdga site that list the pending sanctionings :p</font>

I get the feeling that you are just trying to give me a hard time and aren't even reading what I am saying to you



Past success is no guarantee of future success in terms of added cash. So demonstrating you can meet A-tier added cash one year as a B-tier doesn't mean you can do it as an A-tier the following year. Added cash is rarely guaranteed a year in advance. Player turnouts are not guaranteed either due to scheduling and weather factors. Some Pro A-tiers rely heavily on funding generated from the Am A-tier a week before (not just entry fee differential but from sales, too). If that has low turnout, they can miss the added cash minimum.

There are several other things that relate to the quality of an event that need to be considered besides added cash. It is not black & white no matter how much you want it to be that way.




<font color="red"> THEN DON'T ADVERTISE OR RUN AN A-TIER OR AN NATIONAL TOUR EVENT IF YOU CAN'T / DON'T WANT TO RAISE THE MONEY TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS!!!!!!!!! </font>

it IS black and white...are you guaranteeing the requirements?

if yes ok you can run an event.....

if no/not sure....than you can sanction at a lower tier

pretty godddamm simple if you ask me!

I know in my case, David has requested input from the State Coordinator in the case of new TDs taking over existing events or starting new ones.



and who is az state co-ordinator....
do you think the pdga is going to tell HIM no??

c'mon gary...usually you have something pretty valid to back up your points!

Not scared, just didnt think it was necessary for me to drag a few names/events into the discussion. Doesnt matter who is doing it, what matters is who is allowing and why it is being allowed to continue to happen.

It has been said, and I beleive I have seen Chuck himself say it, that there is not enough v-teers to enforce these things . If that is the case then why waste v-teers time rewriting and changing things when they could spend that time enforcing the requirements/guidelines/rules that are already in place?

Keith, you are so full of it. No one is going to sanction an event at a tier above C level with draconian financial rules that require guarantees or a bond in advance. Events that are A-tier capable will just follow the Marshall Street approach (no sanctioning) to avoid the paperwork.

You want to give TDs an incentive to shoot for excellence if they think they can hit the tier guidelines and they have some sort of track record, whether with this event or in other endeavors (like Garnett). If a C-tier is all you'll let them do, many will just provide a solid C-tier instead of a B-tier that may not hit the cash requirement but is still better than if they just had to deliver a C-tier. My guess is that the few A-tiers that missed the financial mark, on balance, were still better events for the players than the average B-tier that just met the goals.

Based on this thinking, we'd have few Ams ever turning pro if we said they had to shoot a few events at a 1000 rating before they were allowed to switch. Most pros think just the opposite and are more than willing to cajole ams to turn pro before they're competitive. "Play with the pros. You'll get better. Be a donator for a while."

My guess is that the few A-tiers that missed the financial mark, on balance, were still better events for the players than the average B-tier that just met the goals.




If a tournament was an A-tier and failed to reach the expectations/requirements then I am certain that people would be more disappointed in that then if they went to a B-tier which DID meet, even if barely, the expectations/requirments that the player is supposed to be insured of becasue of PDGA sanctioning.

Sorry, Scott. More players don't cash than cash. So, an A-tier that misses the requirements on cash will be perceived as much better than the average B-tier by more of the people who attended (i.e better courses, player packs, amenities, etc.). I remember going to the Las Vegas Halloween A-tier around 1999 and they paid out 93% (less than entry fees back). They had great player packs and an interesting temp course at a State Park. I think players had a great time (better than Sunset for sure). Part of an event is also who you get to see the higher the tier. The people who attend can also make a great event independent of the cash.

I would still rather play a great B-tier than a so-so A-tier. :confused:

I would still rather play a great B-tier than a so-so A-tier.



So would I but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about an average B-tier with nothing special versus an A-tier with all the trimmings except they came up short on added cash.

We're talking about an average B-tier with nothing special versus an A-tier with all the trimmings except they came up short on added cash.



Yeah I would agree to an extent. In my mind when I was replying to you, I wasnt just thinking of the added cash, I just had a lackluster A-tier all around in my head, thats my bad.

Keith, you are so full of it. No one is going to sanction an event at a tier above C level with draconian financial rules that require guarantees or a bond in advance. Events that are A-tier capable will just follow the Marshall Street approach (no sanctioning) to avoid the paperwork.
<font color="blue"> chuck.....you are not reading what i am writing...i never said anything about about bonds or wanting to have td's avoid sanctioning...just to be willing to drop the level if it ISN'T done </font>
You want to give TDs an incentive to shoot for excellence if they think they can hit the tier guidelines and they have some sort of track record, whether with this event or in other endeavors (like Garnett). If a C-tier is all you'll let them do, <font color="blue"> again NOT reading...i never said only let them do...this discussion ORIGINALLY was about the pdga NOT dropping sanctioning of td's that failed to live up to requirements...my examples were concrete proof that they will NOT do it and will even REWARD td's they like with higher sanctioning even though they proved they couldn't follow lower sanctioning agreements...what are you not seeing here?? </font> many will just provide a solid C-tier instead of a B-tier that may not hit the cash requirement but is still better than if they just had to deliver a C-tier. My guess is that the few A-tiers that missed the financial mark, on balance, were still better events for the players than the average B-tier that just met the goals.
<font color="blue"> there are several tournaments that do this already such as the just concluded socal championships </font>
Based on this thinking, we'd have few Ams ever turning pro if we said they had to shoot a few events at a 1000 rating before they were allowed to switch. Most pros think just the opposite and are more than willing to cajole ams to turn pro before they're competitive. "Play with the pros. You'll get better. Be a donator for a while."
<font color="red"> now that's just crazy talk! :D</font>





ps. i'm not mad at you chuck...just wanting you to see it from BOTH sides...i am/will be a pdga supporter....but that doesn't mean i will stop wanting things to be all one sided and just take what comes down the pipe if it doesn't make sense...
alot of the things i(and others) have griped about over the years have been changed or instituted and i think the only thing done wrong at times is doing the things first and then back-pedalling when there is outcry from people....
it would be easier to float these things first or have members vote on them and try them before doing it and going back on it later....

also sorry for all the posting as i just started catching up on this thread since i have been working 12/14 hour days since monday....when i went away last tuesday until today there were 309 posts to read and mostly you and scott were posting stuff i disagreed/semi-disagreed with :D

keith

Keith, you are so full of it. No one is going to sanction an event at a tier above C level with draconian financial rules that require guarantees or a bond in advance. Events that are A-tier capable will just follow the Marshall Street approach (no sanctioning) to avoid the paperwork.

You want to give TDs an incentive to shoot for excellence if they think they can hit the tier guidelines and they have some sort of track record, whether with this event or in other endeavors (like Garnett). If a C-tier is all you'll let them do, many will just provide a solid C-tier instead of a B-tier that may not hit the cash requirement but is still better than if they just had to deliver a C-tier. My guess is that the few A-tiers that missed the financial mark, on balance, were still better events for the players than the average B-tier that just met the goals.

Based on this thinking, we'd have few Ams ever turning pro if we said they had to shoot a few events at a 1000 rating before they were allowed to switch. Most pros think just the opposite and are more than willing to cajole ams to turn pro before they're competitive. "Play with the pros. You'll get better. Be a donator for a while."



If that's the approach, maybe we need a gradation for each tier level, such as:

A- new and hopes to fulfill sanctioning agreement -or-
A- didn't quite live up to added cash agreement last time but hopes to this time
A made it last year
A+ exceeded sanctioning agreement last year and the year before that

that way we don't de-incentivize TD's from trying to attain A tier (or higher) status, but we don't mislead players into buying into an event that may not be as much of a sure thing as they are led to imagine...

then again, maybe i am just crazy :p

I like that idea. Very nice.

If that's the approach, maybe we need a gradation for each tier level, such as:



It's a good idea that already has some data that many players use in the annual event rankings that are published in the DGWN. Again, it's no guarantee that these events will be as good the following year. A touring player was planning to develop an event rating system several years ago and it never got done. Maybe once the Course Evaluation system gets up to speed in a few yaers, evaluating events could get underway. That is, unless someone would like to take this on as a volunteer project?

Back to the thread topic, after listening to the feedback from here and the Competition Committee, the proposal shown below is now circulating on the Committee for approval. The percentages at the top of the current Pro table were flattened but the remaining percentages kept the same. The current 2005 table shows payouts for both 40% and 50% and that would remain for 2006. However, we'll add wording to encourage TDs to pay deeper when they have a decent percentage of added cash.

The Excel TD report will be modified to allow TDs to select 40%, 45% or 50% payouts for pros so they can get more automated assistance for paying deeper if desired.

The example is for a 40 person Open field with a $75 base entry fee and $1000 cash added:

<table border="1"><tr><td> .</td><td>Current Pro</td><td>Proposed Pro 40%</td><td>Current Pro with</td><td>Proposed Pro 50%
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>Table (37-40%)</td><td>2006 draft</td><td>Added $$ (50%)</td><td>2006 draft
</td></tr><tr><td>Place</td><td>16 paid</td><td>16 paid</td><td>20 paid</td><td>20 paid
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>$912</td><td>$840</td><td>$768</td><td>$660
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>$548</td><td>$560</td><td>$460</td><td>$472
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>$384</td><td>$400</td><td>$348</td><td>$356
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>$304</td><td>$332</td><td>$280</td><td>$304
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>$260</td><td>$272</td><td>$236</td><td>$256
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>$224</td><td>$228</td><td>$208</td><td>$216
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>$200</td><td>$200</td><td>$184</td><td>$196
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>$180</td><td>$180</td><td>$168</td><td>$180
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>$164</td><td>$164</td><td>$152</td><td>$164
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>$148</td><td>$148</td><td>$144</td><td>$148
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>$136</td><td>$136</td><td>$132</td><td>$136
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>$124</td><td>$124</td><td>$124</td><td>$124
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>$116</td><td>$116</td><td>$116</td><td>$116
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>$108</td><td>$108</td><td>$112</td><td>$108
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>$100</td><td>$100</td><td>$108</td><td>$104
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>$92</td><td>$92</td><td>$100</td><td>$100
</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$96</td><td>$96
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$92</td><td>$92
</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$88</td><td>$88
</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$84</td><td>$84
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

The current 2005 table shows payouts for both 40% and 50% and that would remain for 2006. However, we'll add wording to encourage TDs to pay deeper when they have a decent percentage of added cash.




I'm confused. If this payout table is adopted, what happens in 2006? Am I to assume that you are offering two OPTIONS for TDs to choose from, with the % paid not changing from the present options, but you will be "encouraging" TDs to choose the 50% option?

Bold move. :mad: (I need the rolling eyes emoticon)

Why delay? The longer the PDGA delays on this matter and related matters, the more atrophied the pro class becomes.

The pro payout table has had the 40% and 50% options on them for years. However, the Excel TD report only had the 40% option activated so my guess is that many TDs just used payouts close to those numbers provided for them automatically. In 2006, the 40%, 45% & 50% options would be available right in the spreadsheet. In addition, I think we will write something encouraging the deeper payouts for the reasons we are discussing this. We can't really force deeper payouts on TDs who may not believe in the concept that it might improve field sizes. However, we can help other TDs who embrace it by making it easier for them to do it.

We can't really force deeper payouts on TDs who may not believe in the concept that it might improve field sizes. However, we can help other TDs who embrace it by making it easier for them to do it.



I'm glad y'all see the wisdom of it, but I'm baffled by your claim that you cannot enforce it. You enforce a minimum 33% payout. Why would a minimum 50% payout be any different?

You enforce a minimum 33% payout.



No payouts are enforced. They might be questioned by the Tour Director and following the guidelines is strongly encouraged. The fact you haven't seen less than 33% get paid is that no one seems to have done it except maybe for team play (sometimes just 2 out of 8 get paid).

I think it will help TDs attract more Open players next year if they promote that they pay deeper or even just say 50%. If it works, other TDs will follow because it works, not because we forced it.

Additionally, while I'm in a ranting mood, I'm getting tired of hearing the idea that you must always defer to the wishes of the TD. It's a disingenuous argument. If a TD wants their event to be sanctioned, they must follow quite a few PDGA guidelines. They do not have discretion on a number of matters.

The payout % should be an organizational policy, designed for the good of the sport, not left up to the TD. IMO, giving TDs discretion in some areas is wise, giving them discretion in payout makes little sense. It simply creates confusion, both in the players attending the event, and for outsiders trying to discern a coherent framework for the competitive sport.

The deeper payouts only work when there's some added cash so that last place still gets their enrty fee back. We have to publish payout tables for events from D-tiers with 5 players in a division to NTs with 100 players. It makes more sense to provide a reasonable set of options on one payout table rather than make it even more confusing with multiple charts.

The deeper payouts only work when there's some added cash so that last place still gets their enrty fee back.



This is merely an assumption that serves to constrain a sensible strategy, IMO. Nothing prevents X% payout with last place receiving X% of entry fee. The sole purpose of the whole payout structure is to balance the needs of rewarding performance with enticing people to play more. All options are open.

I didn't understand the last part about confusing tables. A 50% payout for every tier is less confusing than an A% payout for As, a B% payout for Bs, etc., or a A/B% choice for any tier tourney.

The problem at this point is there's no evidence that 50% payouts will actually increase Open fields. It needs to be considered experimental for 2006 to get evidence of some sort that it works. The top pros will be sacrificing a little on the top with this approach in order to support efforts to increase fields. If it doesn't work, I'm not sure there's strong jusitification to make 50% more common.

Trying a flatter payout at/around 50% is worth a shot.

I think 50% is paying a little to deep, unless you have a good amount of added money. I would say 45% is pushing the limit in my opinion in general for most tournaments who don't raise that much money. The people up near the top do need rewarded to some extent, and if you pay deep and have not added that much money than they are not going to get rewarded.
I did this column and it seems more optimum in my opinion, it rewards the top(not as much), but then it doesn't break down as quickly as the current system. I think this would be more optimum than the current system.
Proposed Opinion
40% 40%
21.00% 16.85%
14.00% 14.00%
10.00% 11.25%
8.30% 9.25%
6.80% 8.00%
5.70% 7.00%
5.00% 6.00%
4.50% 5.00%
4.10% 4.25%
3.70% 3.75%
3.40% 3.25%
3.10% 2.75%
2.90% 2.50%
2.70% 2.25%
2.50% 2.00%
2.30% 1.90%

It needs to be considered experimental for 2006 to get evidence of some sort that it works. The top pros will be sacrificing a little on the top with this approach in order to support efforts to increase fields. If it doesn't work, I'm not sure there's strong jusitification to make 50% more common.



I hope the analysis is a lot more nuanced than this. IMO, the disappearance of an open player is a slow process. If doesn't happen over one event. Likewise, the reemergence/retention of the open player is also a slow process. It is not something you measure by comparing the attendance of a specific tourney from one year to another.

Additionally, I really don't think the marginally cashing to rarely cashing open player thinks the way you are implying. I seriously doubt most will think "Hey, they are paying deeper, I will go to this tourney" or "Hey, they are paying deeper, I will continue to play." Most likely, their lack of enthusiasm to play or continue is a result of many punches, taken over a long period of time. Deeper payouts will reduce the number of punches they take, leaving them standing up for the next round.

In other words, increasing open retention will take a long time. It will be the result of MANY common sense measures, dictated by the PDGA. It will not come from offering ONE optional measure for one year and then trying to make sense of the irrelevant data.

The request to flatten payouts came from the top pros and others to help their division grow. We're listening and giving it a shot. As long as the concept is supported by other pros it can continue. It's no different from what has been available to TDs before. The only difference now is that maybe more pros will encourage TDs to try it and we'll do what we can to encourage it. It won't be a scientific experiment because the variables aren't controllable. It will continue based on the appearance of member satisfaction that it's working along with other feedback mechanisms like polls.

Sheesh. I've had enough of this attitude on a variety of important topics. "Member satisfaction": whatever the hell this means. "Polls": wow, that is a recipe for progress.

What about "leadership" and "foresight" or possibly "common sense" or "for the good of the sport."

How about "proof"?

Sheesh. I've had enough of this attitude on a variety of important topics. "Member satisfaction": whatever the hell this means. "Polls": wow, that is a recipe for progress.

What about "leadership" and "foresight" or possibly "common sense" or "for the good of the sport."



Because every time the PDGA leadership excercises foresight and common sense for the good of the sport, we take it in the rear for not addressing member satisfaction by taking a poll.

No smileys attached to this post.

Sheesh. I've had enough of this attitude on a variety of important topics. "Member satisfaction": whatever the hell this means. "Polls": wow, that is a recipe for progress.

What about "leadership" and "foresight" or possibly "common sense" or "for the good of the sport."



Because every time the PDGA leadership excercises foresight and common sense for the good of the sport, we take it in the rear for not addressing member satisfaction by taking a poll.

No smileys attached to this post.



but, what percentage of the paying members are we talking about? unless the polls reflect the reaction of more than 50% of the paying membership -- you're probably only hearing from a vocal minority who disagree with a particular decision... if you decided 180 degrees in the opposite direction another group of wing nuts would probably disagree just as much. that is where foresight needs to be weighted heavier than the grumblings of a vocal minority.

testing out a decision's popularity before implementing it is probably a good idea though, just to guage what people think and to solicit feedback about unforeseen and undesirable contingencies said decision may entail.

testing out a decision's popularity before implementing it is probably a good idea though, just to guage what people think and to solicit feedback about unforeseen and undesirable contingencies said decision may entail.




didn't I say that several posts ago? :p

Now that I have played the sport for a few years, I am ready to get more into the tournament organizing/directing capacity. A little indulgence here......

I am a little unclear on a few things. For example...for a C-Tier event....it states that 85% minimum has to be paid out. Is that 85% of the total entry fee or the net entry fee (less PDGA fee, non-member fee, ace pot, etc) or something else?

Also, what is considered a 'signifigant amount of added cash' that would 'hopefully' constitute paying out 50% of the players in every Pro division?

Are players packs not considered in the Pro Purse?

Any clarification would be great :D

If no one gives you the straight dope first, I'll post tomorrow. I'll pm you some good advice if you want advice.

Payout is always calculated based on the entry fee after PDGA, Greens and any local fees are subtracted. Players packs are not part of the Pro payout calculation but are included in the Am payout calc.

Added cash needs to be at least 20% of the net entry fee total in order to use the 50% payout calc (at least the way we have it set up). For example, if net pro entry fees total $1000, added cash should be at least $200 to pay 50%.

Any advice would be great....thanks :-)

Because every time the PDGA leadership excercises foresight and common sense for the good of the sport, we take it in the rear for not addressing member satisfaction by taking a poll.


No smileys attached to this post.



No smileys needed.

I really don't understand this. If it is good for the sport and yet a survey doesn't agree, why do the decisionmakers care? Just move on to the next good decision. History is full of bold moves that were unpopular at the time. History is by far a better judge than present poll numbers.

As an aside, getting the word out on why decisions are made goes a long way to changing poll numbers.

MTL wrote:

It would def. help - both the local or lower level pros (like myself) and the top touring pros.

HEres why....

Lower pros - better chance of cashing - I went to a supertour and shot 994 for the weekend and missed cash by 4 - thats a big deterent to not play bigger tournaments

Top pros - can have a bad weekend (meaning like 10th or so) and still make good money. Sometimes, a player kills and you shot awesome for a weekend and lose - this way, you are still rewarded finacailly for good play.



Luke Butch wrote:

I have heard touring pros talk about the big difference between payouts at the top. For example the difference between 1st and say 3rd. Maybe 3 strokes, but 3rd wins half(or sometimes less) of what 1st does. This is not a big factor for the majority of DG'ers, but may be a big reason why some touring pros have had to stop touring full time.

The current payout structure does not reward consistent play, and thus can hurt those trying to survive on the road. Yes, most sports do have top -heavy payouts, but I think the PDGA should look at altering the payouts for NT and A tiers.

Why should a missed putt be worth $300 at the top, and $20 for those in the middle of the cash? Let's reward those who finish NEAR the top as well.



Chuck Kennedy wrote:

How added cash is handled isn't included in the PDGA payout recommendations. One reason is that sometimes sponsors specify which division will receive their donation. This year, a few TDs put lots of added cash in the top positions to meet their advertised payout commitment such as $1000 for first. No problem with that, although letting players know that's the case ahead of time would have reduced any surprise for the players.



Rhett wrote:

Around here people look at how much 1st place in MPO takes home and then they judge the tourney based on that. It leads to ridiculous stuff like $1000 for 1st and then $200 for 2nd.

I just want to point out that a whole bunch of great tourneys will instantly be relegated to crappy when they payout the same number of dollars as before but use a flatter curve.



I just wanted to bump up some relevants points from this discussion from a few years ago. The topic actually came up in the Fantasy Disc Golf League after an NT event where it appears that SIGNIFICANT added cash went to the highest finishers in the event. The difference between the top 3 finishers and a golfer that a majority of the fantasy league participants chose but didn't place in the top 5 turned out to be several thousand dollars.

Note that the issue here isn't paying deeper to the field. There is an already an option in the 2007 PDGA Pay Tables which allows for paying out to 50% which is strongly encouraged for events with significant added cash. At the NT event, there were 40 Open competitors and 20 places paid, in accordance with the guidelines.

The issue here is that the Pro pay tables already award a significant amount of the purse to the top finishers. As has often been heard, touring playes gripe about the great disparity in payout between those who finish one or two strokes back of the top finishers - should one or two strokes mean the difference between winning several thousand dollars and only a few hundred? Should it mean the difference between going out for dinner or eating popcorn for dinner the next week? And by artificially boosting payouts from added cash for the top players at a tournament, it only exaggerates this phenomenon.

Clearly, as Chuck pointed out, there are no PDGA guidelines for how added cash should be distributed, and problems arise especially when a sponsor dictates that the money should only go to winners or high finishers in a particular division. And as Rhett pointed out, when you pay flatter people tend not to look at the whole purse but only at what the first place in MPO took home.

The precedent has been established by ball golf, which disc golf is surely following. If you look at PGA, LPGA, Nationwide Tour, etc. payouts, the first place winner usually takes home 18% of the total purse, 2nd place takes 10.8%, third place takes 6.8%, fourth takes 4.8%, and then on down. But the big difference is that the last cash paid still takes home around $10,000. So the lack of flat payouts isn't a big deal when you are guaranteed 10K just for making the cut. You might not have a tour card for the following year, but you can mak a comfortable living just making the cut at 6 or 7 events in a calendar year.

Clearly a balance has to be established. You want to reward the guys that win tournaments and provide greater incentives for high finishers. But I still think it isn't fair that the guy who played perfectly the whole weekend but got the unlucky doink-n-roll into OB should finish a stroke or two behind and win perhaps thousands of dollars less. Until we have major sponsors and are at the level ball golf is at, added cash should go proportionately to the entire field and the payouts should be flattened.