i haven't noticed any discussion on this but i don't surf the board as much as i used to. I am fairly surprised at this, as on the one hand it's great to lower the fees, but on the other hand the table has several flaws. offhand i can see 2.
first it doesn't take into account 1 vs. 2 day events. secondly, it's pretty hard to give away a nice players pack for ams worth 15-20$ and still have any kind of payout. i would be all for just trophies for the ams after the players pack, but i can see the ams in my area who have grown used to the plastic payoff screaming bloody murder about the crappy payout. especially the advanced guys. not sure what to do, as i had a nice players disc all thought out. then again I am contemplating my future running events anyway, so maybe i can use the last couple to get the ams thinking about trophies instead of plastic....any ideas guys? or discussion about the entry fee tables? any thoughts from the ams?

recently discussed
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=496157&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

I've heard that they are starting to realize that the table is unrealistic and are going to change it. If they don't, e-mail me for some ideas.

i kind of like the smaller entry fees. won't help the pros or the ams as far as payout. but certainly the people who couldn't affor dto play can come out. and maybe this will force us to go trophy only on ams. of course that will obviously also impact the pro payouts since the plastic train will slow down. i wonder how the disc manufacturers feel about that?

At least one event has decided to drop PDGA sanctioning because of these new requirements: The Scott Killian Memorial in Huntington Beach.

I like low priced events too since I often pay four or five entry fees. But I know that plenty of TDs have course use fees and other expenses that make the current chart unrealistic.

I helped run eight or nine tournaments last year and did the tournament books and accounting on the day I did not play. We run good amateur events but go cheap on the trophies. To do that we need about $23 from every player. If we were to run the same event and do cool, expensive trophies we would need about $27. If we were to do a lunch with that we would need about $32 per player. I think all of those numbers are off the charts for a C-tier. That's insane.

The brand identity for the PDGA should not be cheap, crappy events. The C should stand for Cool. The current numbers force compliant TDs to run crappy events.

If I recall, the chart does not apply to PDGA, Club, Greens, or Park usage fees.

It applies to the portion of the entry fee above the mandatory fees (not including sanctioning and insurance) but not the optional things like food and ace pools.

also the chart fee doesn't include lunch. it only includes the part of the fee used for payout. use fees, pdga and club fees etc. can be added to the fee on the chart.

my only concern was that what i wanted to use as a player's pack item was a really cool dyed disc worth 15-20$. after that what is left for trophies or payout?(at least at a c tier)
maybe the answer is to go b tier?

Or gather sponsorship to cover the player's pack.

Couldn't you just charge a Club or series fee of whatever amount you want to make the entry fee as high as you want it, then donate the series/club fee back to the tourney?

Say you have a C-teir:

Entry Fee for Rec = $10 + $2 PDGA Fee+ $X Series/club fee

If you want your tournaments entry fee for Rec to be $25 then X= $13. You turn around and donate the series/club fee ($13) back into the tournament.

Does that work?

That is a solution. It is dishonest and playing games to get around the intent of the rule, but it is a solution.

If you currently offer a trophy-and-player-pack optional reduced entry fee, another solution would be to make that your standard entry fee and instead offer an optional payout sidegame. Sidegames are not even reported to the PDGA so all they would see is that you are doing a trophy-and-player-pack-only event.

If you happened to be one of the dozen C-tiers already advertising a $50 pro entry fee and the PDGA suddenly decides to enforce the $30 limit, you could reduce your pro entry fee to $2, and offer a $48 optional cash sidebet payout game.

The beauty of eliminating the payout and running an optional sidebet is that it also frees you from following the lame PDGA payout tables and instead doing something your players want you to do. It does make the accounting a little trickier and you will need to indicate on the leaderboard cards who is in and who is out.

also the chart fee doesn't include lunch. it only includes the part of the fee used for payout. use fees, pdga and club fees etc. can be added to the fee on the chart.

This just is not true. The language on the document does not mention subtracting lunches from the gross entry fee to arrive at your net entry fee. You can count the value of lunch as part of your event value this year. That was the change on lunches. That is a different thing from what we are talking about. You can subtract "PDGA player fees based on event tier, plus any local club or regional series players fees" when calculating your net.

New tour standards were announced today.

TDs are required not to exceed the values listed in this table in determining their 2006 PDGA net entry fees.
<table border="1"><tr><td>Division</td><td> Pro Open</td><td> All other</td><td> All</td><td> All</td><td> All</td><td> All
</td></tr><tr><td>Tier</td><td> Pro Women</td><td> Pros </td><td>Advanced</td><td> Intermediate </td><td>Recreational</td><td> Juniors
</td></tr><tr><td>A</td><td> $100</td><td> $75</td><td> $50</td><td> $40</td><td> $30</td><td> $30
</td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td> $75</td><td> $60</td><td> $40</td><td> $25</td><td> $20</td><td> $20
</td></tr><tr><td>C</td><td> $40</td><td> $30</td><td> $20</td><td> $15</td><td> $10</td><td> $10
</td></tr><tr><td>D</td><td> $20</td><td> $20</td><td> $15</td><td> $10</td><td> $5</td><td> $5</tr></td></table>

Pro Women are paying more than the men? That is different.

Open Pro and Pro Woman (the top 2 division) pay the most. Other Pro's(Master, Grand Master, Legends) pay less.

This does look better, but only marginally. Do you know if the PDGA has ruled on whether player's packs are seperate?


New tour standards were announced today.

TDs are required not to exceed the values listed in this table in determining their 2006 PDGA net entry fees.
<table border="1"><tr><td>Division</td><td> Pro Open</td><td> All other</td><td> All</td><td> All</td><td> All</td><td> All
</td></tr><tr><td>Tier</td><td> Pro Women</td><td> Pros </td><td>Advanced</td><td> Intermediate </td><td>Recreational</td><td> Juniors
</td></tr><tr><td>A</td><td> $100</td><td> $75</td><td> $50</td><td> $40</td><td> $30</td><td> $30
</td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td> $75</td><td> $60</td><td> $40</td><td> $25</td><td> $20</td><td> $20
</td></tr><tr><td>C</td><td> $40</td><td> $30</td><td> $20</td><td> $15</td><td> $10</td><td> $10
</td></tr><tr><td>D</td><td> $20</td><td> $20</td><td> $15</td><td> $10</td><td> $5</td><td> $5</tr></td></table>

After further review, I think the decision to make this table required was a little hasty. We're changing the language for this year only. The table is now strongly recommended rather than required. After talking with several TDs about this, it's clear we don't really have a clear handle on what people are charging for entry fees across the country, and what should be an acceptable entry fee by tier. We prefer a "required" table, because obviously "strongly recommended" means at least partially "I don't absolutely have to follow it." That being said, I feel we need more research , so I'm backing off the required table for 2006. We will have a required table in 2007.

Please get back to me with any feedback by private message here on this board, or by email at [email protected] I don't have the time to read this board as much as I would like, but at least with PMs I get an email notification, and I can answer usually fairly quickly. I want to know what you guys think.

John Chapman
PDGA Competition Director

THANK YOU!

I'm charging a $25 dollar entry fee for MA2 and MA3 at my C-tier and was afraid I was going to have drop sanctioning because $15 just doesn't work.

I think $25 is darn reasonable for a C-tier. $15 forces you down to the realm of the "Monthly" around here, which are fun and relaxed one-day two-round casual tourneys. It's hard to make it "an event" with entry fees that low, so you lose your disciminator.

From Bruce Crakel:

"Jon, Brett and Bruce of the IOSeries say thank you too, but Bruce is having technical problems posting."

New tour standards were announced today.

TDs are required not to exceed the values listed in this table in determining their 2006 PDGA net entry fees.
<table border="1"><tr><td>Division</td><td> Pro Open</td><td> All other</td><td> All</td><td> All</td><td> All</td><td> All
</td></tr><tr><td>Tier</td><td> Pro Women</td><td> Pros </td><td>Advanced</td><td> Intermediate </td><td>Recreational</td><td> Juniors
</td></tr><tr><td>A</td><td> $100</td><td> $75</td><td> $50</td><td> $40</td><td> $30</td><td> $30
</td></tr><tr><td>B</td><td> $75</td><td> $60</td><td> $40</td><td> $25</td><td> $20</td><td> $20
</td></tr><tr><td>C</td><td> $40</td><td> $30</td><td> $20</td><td> $15</td><td> $10</td><td> $10
</td></tr><tr><td>D</td><td> $20</td><td> $20</td><td> $15</td><td> $10</td><td> $5</td><td> $5</tr></td></table>

Thanks for the updated table.

So are you saying a C Tier should not be more than $20? for Advance entry fee?

$20 to payout (maybe -$10 for players pack)
+ $3 for PDGA fees
+ $? for club fees
+ $? for charitable donation (for charity event)
+ $? for greens fees/park usage fees
+ $? for food (I'm not sure about that one).

Then optional stuff like Ace Pot, CTP pool...

So it's more like $30-$40 of which only the $20 counts toward the payout before added cash.

This really shows me how out of touch the pdga can be at times. $10 net for a c-tier in rec. NICE.

$25 entry fee -$2 pdga, -1 foot bank, -3 LSS bonus payout leaves net $19 for 100% payout plus a players pack for anyone who signs up. TD's such as myself that run many pdga events send THOUSANDS of dollars to the PDGA and now we are expected to do that for an event with $10 and $15 TOTAL entry fees. We have weekly minis that cost that much. Get a clue PDGA or cut your nose of despite your face...

those new entry fees are a joke for C -tiers. Gimp their not out of touch its just all about them

Well the budget will take a hit if they do something like this that is for sure. Hell, it does not even appear they are trying to encourage you to move to B as those are way too low as well. The 60-100 people I have at each event seem not to mind the prices as they stand now at the C-tiers in the LSS. I can see bumping pro down if the pdga wants to move it that way, but not the rest. Currently lss one day c-tier events are $50 pro, $35 adv, $30 ma2 and $25 ma3 - - - sooooo expensive lmao.

Are there any areas in the world that charge these prices for C and B tiers??? Then you add on top of that the forced players pack for a B and I am NOT going to take that out of payout - - soooooo out of touch our pdga is...

Did they even look at what people are charging - - what are the average entry fees across the nation in larger areas like Texas. This is a HUGE % drop I am guessing - one that the TD's and players will likely not accept if forced on them next year.

So many threads... I did not see where someone said what the punishment would be for not following the requirements if the chart had remained mandatory.

No punishment was ever specified. No TD anywhere in the country was advertising compliant fees in any division at any C-tier anywhere. That's a lot of absolutes, but I spent some time searching and organizing the data. I could not find a compliant entry fee in any division at any C-tier and I looked at 15 of them.

John Chapman did the right thing. Maximum entry fees are fine, but they need to be derived from the tournament financials of tournaments that are successfully drawing large numbers of players to those tiered events. Look at successful A-tiers for A-tier fees and look at successful B and C-tiers for B and C-tier fees. You don't want to handcuff your successful TDs with unproven concepts, or with concepts that have been tried and proven unsuccessful.

I know a TD who is running successful B and C tiers that produce a lot of revenue for the PDGA. I've known him since the day my mother brought him home from the hospital 40 years ago. He knows a TD who has tried a lot of unsuccessful concepts involving $5 and $10 entry fees. That's why he's the TD now and I'm the entertaining sidekick.

True .............but I know a few who would put on a C or D tournament and generate as much cash as a A tournament , without paying hefty fines !!!!! :o

Most players I know would rather have the cash , versus points !!!!

Personally, I think a better approach for voicing our displeasure would be to say something like:

Here is SoTex, I charge blah blah blah and everybody like it. I have never heard of a C-tier with such low entry fees. We have weeklies that charge that amount. We have successful c-tiers and everybody thinks they are affordable and great! I think the posted amounts are way too low.

It sounds so much better than "What the heck are the morons at the PDGA thinking??? They don't care about players! They'll pay for this!!!!

It's easy to forget that "the PDGA" decision makers are a bunch of disc golfers who are trying to do the right thing. Just like TDs.

i am thinking the PDGA was trying to be responsive to the membership. The survey must have said lower entry fees are desired. The people who often don't cash are not likely to complain to TD's about high entry fees because they don't want to sound like they didn't appreciate the work the TD did, and they don't want anyone to think they're just sore because they didn't play well enough to cash. Also, it isn't easy to complain about high entry fees because some people will treat you like your second class if you admit you are too poor to pay higher entry fees.

The people who regularly cash however are likely to be the first to complain if they think the payout isn't big enough... They are also the ones most likely to have the most sway with TD's since they bring the most game. But the survey must have told the PDGA the majority of members prefer lower entry fees.

also, it seems like it would be helpful if the chart would differentiate one-day from two-day events.

I think the overall concern is that the higher fees charged in some areas will stagnate the growth of potential tournament players. If you assume that gradually increasing fees for a given tier event proportionally reduces the number who would enter, there's a "magic" fee that would get around 72 (or 90 if you go for fivesomes) in any given market. As long as a TD keeps barely filling the events, they are happy and the PDGA is also happy.

However, if the entry fee is lower, in theory, more and different people would want to and could afford to enter. This would cause people to be turned away or not get to enter because the event was filled in advance with preregistrations, and/or the TD adds extra holes/courses.

This sequence has been happening in the Twin Cities. Last year, several events filled with 105 to 110 preregistrations (3 or 4 extra holes). I pretty much stopped playing local events because play was slow and they sometimes took 3 hours longer than before. I don't fault the TD for doing it though because he serves more players which increases the metro player base. What eventually happens though is TDs become more creative about event scheduling and adding courses to handle the higher capacity. These changes will bring me back into playing with a lot of new faces that came onboard last year.

Now, not every market has the courses or promoter resources to handle increases in players. But given the choice to stagnate a market with the same players playing with high entry fees versus expanding the market with lower fees and bigger events, I guess the PDGA is biased in that direction. Call it PDGA selfishness but more players and members does help everyone in local markets and the TDs who serve them.

Before I go on and read further I will address this one. EVERY year.... EVERY SINGLE year.... they make major changes without talking to the TD's. No one has ever asked me an opinion and I am a major producer for the PDGA....

What was the point of this chart anyway? To move people up to pro - I just don't get how they can make sweeping changes without asking what people are doing and think or even looking at the numbers they make us submit - that is why MY responses were not toned diplomatically.

Each new person thinks lets try this or that and they change it - it is getting old.

Mandatory ANYTHING fee wise is ridiculous with how different disc golf areas across the country. And this thing came out FINAL after I have already run a 96 person C-tier with $50-pro, $35-adv, $30-ma2 and $25 rec entry fees. NICE!


Personally, I think a better approach for voicing our displeasure would be to say something like:

Here is SoTex, I charge blah blah blah and everybody like it. I have never heard of a C-tier with such low entry fees. We have weeklies that charge that amount. We have successful c-tiers and everybody thinks they are affordable and great! I think the posted amounts are way too low.

It sounds so much better than "What the heck are the morons at the PDGA thinking??? They don't care about players! They'll pay for this!!!!

It's easy to forget that "the PDGA" decision makers are a bunch of disc golfers who are trying to do the right thing. Just like TDs.

Let the players decide if they will pay the entry fees TD's set or not. I see a lot more unsanctioned events if they decided to FORCE lower entry fees next year.

Just thinking that the thing I'm driving to should cost at least as much as the gas it takes to get there. You know, to make it worth the trip.

There should also be a cost differential that seperates it from a mini. Mini's are organized competition. There should also be something that separates the event from a mini other than the cost. A PDGA sanctioned event should include certain basic amenities that a mini would not have.

TDs who need the PDGA to make all these decisions for them shouldn't be TDing in the first place.

What is the reasoning or goal behind this entry fee standards table? Why are Open charged more than Advanced or Recreational players?

Why charge different amounts for essentially the same tournament experience?

(The answers provide the basis for all needed reform in organized disc golf.)

Let the players decide if they will pay the entry fees TD's set or not. I see a lot more unsanctioned events if they decided to FORCE lower entry fees next year.



Interesting view !!!!

Around here, open players want to pay more. The open players are not clamoring for $20 events. They seem to want and expect to pay $40-$60 and are fine with that.

What is a problem for a lot of TDs is requiring that they charge a lot less on lower divisions. A rec player gets the same player pack, pays the same PDGA fee, costs the same for park use fees, CTPs, lunches, port-a-potty rental, etc. as the advanced player.

Jon and I learned last year that to run a good Am-B tournament we need to collect a minimum of $25 per amateur, unless there is no payout. For a C-tier the PDGA charges a buck less per player and $25 less for sanctioning, but the attendance falls off and then the fixed costs are more per player, so we still need about $25 per. Last year we charged a little less in the lower divisions and had to charge more for Advanced, but that is really not fair to the Advanced players if they are carrying the load for the recs and intermediates.

To comply with this year's fee chart we would have had to create a fictional series fee or something to make our tournament compliant.

As long as there is a balance and players don't feel like they are being gouged.

Referring to Chuck's post, is the goal of these mandatory maximum charges to encourage different people to attend PDGA events and cause the demand for PDGA tourneys to go up? If so, the natural reaction when demand goes up, and supply is limited (around here there is an event every weekend), then the price goes up. But the price can't go up (or else the PDGA will enforce the rule by doing nothing to you - as stated in the rules). Yes, I am pointing out that the rule itself is ridiculous, and that the lack of a defined punishment is ridiculous.

It is silly to tell TDs a maximum price to charge. It is silly to tell TDs a minimum price to charge. Let the TDs, who know their regional players decide what the right amount to charge is. Let the players decide if it is worthwhile.

It is time for the PDGA to trust the TDs to do the right thing. And to trust the players to support TDs who do well, and to not support TDs who suck.

Power to the TDs. Power to the players. Grow the sport.

While I'm not particularly an advocate of "price fixing." I would be upset if the 99 cent double cheeseburger I get here at McDonalds cost $5 in NEFAland. Of course, those McDonalds franchisees can't charge that much due to competition from other fast food outlets. However, for those players who want to enter a PDGA event for points, ratings, because they are members, or want to be members, they usually have no PDGA alternative that weekend. There needs to be some balancing here so that hotter markets do not price the events out of reach for new players and those who can't afford it.

I get upset when the RallyBurger inside Qualcom Stadium charges me $12.50 for the same combo that costs me $4.75 outside the gates.

So I guess that's the way it is in the real world.

It is time for the PDGA to trust the TDs to do the right thing. And to trust the players to support TDs who do well, and to not support TDs who suck.




The PDGA has been effectively employing this strategy since its inception. With a few exceptions, one can hardly claim that this strategy has produced huge tourneys that showcase the sport and are attractive to sponsors.

This is not so much a defense of the new strategy as a rebuttal that the status quo is something to be proud of.

...I know a TD who is running successful B and C tiers that produce a lot of revenue for the PDGA. I've known him since the day my mother brought him home from the hospital 40 years ago. He knows a TD who has tried a lot of unsuccessful concepts involving $5 and $10 entry fees. That's why he's the TD now and I'm the entertaining sidekick.



That's the funniest thing I've read in 2006! :D

May I offer you a little cheese?

Neonnoodle returns and is short and to the point. I like it.

Perhaps it's because he lost his "noodle" :)

:o

There needs to be some balancing here so that hotter markets do not price the events out of reach for new players and those who can't afford it.



Are there any real life examples you can give of this that justifies dropping our c-tier and to some extent b-tier events to the cost of a local mini? If there are areas where too much is being charged and this is happening, deal with these areas, don't change the entire system and mess it up for areas where it is not a problem.

"Too much" is certainly a relative term but enough members were complaining. It will never be low enough for some people but that doesn't mean it needs to be at mini standards. No matter what, lower fees aren't going to chase away local players but higher fees will. The more different players that can be drawn into the sport the better it will be for everyone in the long run.

I think once the fees and charges that can and can't be included in the fee schedule are worked out, it will be a little easier to see. Plus, the 2006 TD report is gathering numbers in a way that makes it more clear how TDs are managing the finances so there will be better data before 2007.

I can't help but feel like a vocal minority is effecting change that others do not agree with. A voluntary survey is nice, but a true sampling done by professional data collectors would be much more believable (or even our paid staff).

I have a hard time believing a large percentage of our membership would be in favor of such a drastic change. The lack of examples of where problems have occurred is troubling and the speed that this was put into place is also of concern.

For the PDGA to mandate a certain fee on events that I run that fill or almost fill is ridiculous.

enough members were complaining

which members?? open players?? touring?? do tell

I believe it was a member survey that Terry ran. Maybe he can repost results if he sees this.

that would be nice. thanks

It is time for the PDGA to trust the TDs to do the right thing. And to trust the players to support TDs who do well, and to not support TDs who suck.




The PDGA has been effectively employing this strategy since its inception. With a few exceptions, one can hardly claim that this strategy has produced huge tourneys that showcase the sport and are attractive to sponsors.

This is not so much a defense of the new strategy as a rebuttal that the status quo is something to be proud of.



That is an interesting point James. And makes me realize I was not clear enough. I think the PDGA puts too many restrictions (not just the entry fee ones) on TDs. Loosen the requirements, expand the assistance (guidelines on how to run a great event) and let the players go where the great events are.

The MSDGC filled up pretty quick. We are trying to steal a few pages from the USDGC model and make a big, value filled event. TDs can do it, and they can do it better if not hamstrung by requirements. In my Libertarian opinion.

And complaining that events charge too much and fill is a recipe for another event to blossom on that same weekend. It is not a recipe for lowering prices and creating even more demand for the current tournament. Start another event.

I would not claim to be a staus quo kind of guy, unless the status quo is growing the sport. In that case, sign me up.

And complaining that events charge too much and fill is a recipe for another event to blossom on that same weekend. It is not a recipe for lowering prices and creating even more demand for the current tournament. Start another event.




Exactly the point. I realize the distance restrictions are in conflict with this at the moment. But many cities will have half a dozen softball or volleyball tournaments on a weekend with no problem filling. We should be striving to get to that point. Setting prices so the events exactly fill can stagnate the market and create the good old boy syndrome at the local level that some of you love to bash when the same players who can afford it show up time and again.

Of course, big events have chased me from playing at the local level. Why should our handful of GM Pros waste time and money killing a whole day playing a much more expensive sanctioned event versus getting together and flying thru 18 or 36 holes with lower stakes and special games like doubles or handicapping to make it fair for our wide range of skill levels? We all get invited to Worlds anyway and I'm the only one who goes, and then, only half the time as a player.

So, the lower fees are counterproductive for me personally. Crank those fees up and scare away the players so we can have faster moving foursomes and events 2-3 hours shorter. But I don't see that as best for the sport and growing the base of players.

Chuck, frankly it sounds like you would rather not play sanctioned tourneys unless they are a class above the rest. You'd rather mingle with the great instead of hang with the locals, the enthusiastic, the amped who are in it because they are excited about the sport.

This sounds like snobbery to me. Maybe you just aren't explaining yourself well.

If this is your goal in setting fees, I do not feel this is what 's intrinsically good for the sport, but good for what your goals are to enjoy competition more. This does not sound like a view that is enjoyed by the majority of players, i.e. ams.

We need more options. We need less restrictions. I think that a maximum should be kept for B and C tiers, but certain markets have drastically different cost/value differentials, take, for example, a tournament at Warwick or in Connecticut and a tournament in North Dakota. While players will spend less on gas to travel to a tournament in CT, since there is a great population density, the price of the tounrament could be higher without players flinching on the price, simply because that is comensurate with the local economy. Whereas a tournament in say, North Dakota probably doesn't need to charge but half that to offer a similar experience.

Creating an accross the board price fix simply limits different tournaments in different ways. We should trust the local folks to offer a solution that is best suited for their area. It doesn't help a new TD to run a tournament with a fixed fee that is outside of the profit or affordability level for their particular area. I also think that there are valid reasons for fixing the fees across the board. Rec players do not need to e the charity group. A player who has a tough time deciding to pay a set fee to play will leave a vacancy that will be filled by a player who is willing to pay a fair amount to play in the tourney. If a rec player doesn't play a tourney because it costs the same as Advanced will probably think twice about not playing next time. Tournaments are fun, especially at the lower levels. Heck, Advanced players should pay the same as pros, they are having more fun most of the time anyways.

I'm rambling again. Less restrictions means more TDs running more tournaments offering more slots for players to play tournaments means more potential PDGA members. Simple as that. I think in areas like North Carolina, there should be looser restrictions for distance from another event. This is especially important when a tourney like Buckhorn fills to 90 players and only 6 players are from Charlotte. Is it because the Charlotte boys don;t want to play? Probably not, it's probably simply the fact that there are so many am and rec players that are willing to travel short distances for a tourney, but are not willing to travel more. If these tournaments fill, there are no PDGA options for the players looking for tournaments closer to home simply because there is a mileage lock. This is silly, especially for the East coast where there are plenty of players per 10 square miles. Maybe there should be different types of mileage radiuses for events, say density based settings,

Red - Most populous - minimum distance 100 miles
Yellow - moderate populace - minimum distance 160 miles
green - low density - minimum distance 240 miles

I see more than that ludicrous, especially at our current gas prices. A person should be able to choose between two tournaments if need be, based on more than a formula that the PDGA imposes across the country.

Just a thought.

Surveys are inherently flawed if created by folks who do not know much about making scientifically sound surveys and answered by a self-selected group of people�

I play all levels of events in up to four different divisions and states during a year, so no divison or event snobbery here. Check my stats for the past few years. However, my preference would be events with less than 72 players and a decent sized division for me to play in. To find that, I probably need to go to an expensive event, or for speed of play, go to a smaller market (Highbridge) where the overall turnout is low but then my division options will be low. Lowest amount of time on the course has become a top criteria not only for me but for several other older players.

What I'm saying is that for the growth of the sport, low enough entry fees that cause events to more than sell out is fine with me even if they aren't my favorite to play. I get enough opportunities to travel around and play.

I agree with the potential for variable exclusion zones based on disc golf player density. However, from a practical standpoint, they already exist by just asking permission. If I could wave a magic wand, I'd like to see the max amount of each fee for payouts in a division fixed in a relatively narrow range. Then the rest of the fee would vary based on market factors, cost in the area and amenities provided. So, maybe the Advanced fee might vary from $35 to $65 for a B-tier. But maybe $30 would be the maximum base value for payout with all of the other money going for player packs, event overhead, lunches, greens fees and series fees.

I see both sides. A responsible TD with a goal of creating a big or simply just unique event should be allowed much freedom. I'm of the believe that people who have demonstrated success should be rewarded with virtual free reign.

I was going to give the flip side on why price limits are needed, but I'm not a big believer in the concept. I simply think they are an logical effect of years of misplaced PDGA priorities. The PDGA reaction to limit fees is sensible on a certain level, but it seems like a reaction to the symptom rather than the real problem.

In my mind, the mindset of the PDGA regarding how they categorize tourneys needs to drastically change. The focus on purse alone seems to be misplaced, IMO. I would like to see a much greater emphasis on attendence also. I would let TDs do what they want, but at the end of the day, their tournament "rating" will be judged by some combination of attendance, money added, and desirability (how tough was it to get a spot in the tourney). Then, I would suggest that the PDGA reward these tourneys that rate high on this scale in some way. Maybe add money to these tourneys. Maybe greater points. Maybe a thousand other ideas my mind can't think of. Something. Anything.

Surveys are inherently flawed if created by folks who do not know much about making scientifically sound surveys and answered by a self-selected group of people�



So are blind statements made without any knowledge of the survey's creator or procedure. C'mon, you're better than that John.

And by the way, lowering fees wouldn't upset me at all. Of course, you could offer the trophy-only option to the AM divisions, which I see as a good compromise.

there has never been a survey on this message board that has any real validity. as someone who has conducted both primarty and secondary research in multiple industries, i can assure you of that. the best thing that surveys here can do is make people laugh. but those frequently get censored. the most common thing they do is try to advance someone's agenda. the worst thing they do is confuse people.

There is a good point in there. Successful organizations inevitably have leaders who give their people the freedom they need to succeed. Unsuccessful organizations often have leaders who think their subordinates cannot be trusted and have to be kept under their thumb.

We can trust our TDs to price their events at a price that makes sense for the players. The payout percentage requirements are there to ensure that there is fair value for the players, and any TD who does not give fair value to his players won't have players for long regardless.

Sandal, since you have some experience with surveys.... What did you think about the PDGA survey that they had online and I beleive sent in the mail awhile back? (I am pretty certain this is the survey being reffered to in these discussions)

We can trust our TDs to price their events at a price that makes sense for the players. The payout percentage requirements are there to ensure that there is fair value for the players, and any TD who does not give fair value to his players won't have players for long regardless.



This is where I keep having doubts that were expressed in my response to Steve. I don't think that we can can necessarily "trust" anyone to do anything right. I am also not comfortable with the suggested "fix" that the market will correct/address problems.

Let TDs do what they want, but at the end of the day, rate their success by some measure other than purse alone. If they can't deliver, their tournament rating drops for next year and they don't get a bite from a much-needed PDGA carrot. In other words, stop forcing TDs to charge larger entry fees to meet misplaced purse limits and start encouraging them (through tournament ratings and other incentives) to increase attendence and desirability.

scott, unfortunately i do not remember it well enough to voice an opinion. i do remember filling it out. i believe it was available either by filling out and returning the paper form or completing an online version that was hosted by an outside company. sound right?

Yup, that sounds like the one.

maybe someone has a copy somewhere they could post. maybe the results are even posted on the website somewhere.

No time to look into them at theis very moment but here are the threads with links to results i think...

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=139911&page=3&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=all&fpart=1

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=139971&page=3&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=all&fpart=1

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=140859&page=3&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=all&fpart=1

http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=146411&page=3&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=all&fpart=1

Here are the results from the question I believe the Competition Committee has reacted to with the current fee table. The survey form was in DGWN #73 Spring 2005.

<table border="1"><tr><td> 5. Amateur Payout</td><td></td><td># Resp</td><td>Pct.
</td></tr><tr><td>Keep as is. Leave it alone.</td><td></td><td>156</td><td>44.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Flatter at top, larger player packages.</td><td></td><td>121</td><td>34.6
</td></tr><tr><td>Trophy only, lower entry fees.</td><td></td><td>70</td><td>20.0
</td></tr><tr><td>Unknown</td><td></td><td>3</td><td>0.8
</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td></td><td>350</td><td>100.0
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

In looking at response breakouts by age or division, no group supported "Keep it as it is" with more than 50%. The interpretation was that the two change options "Flatter payout at the top, larger player packages" and "Trophy only, lower entry fees" added together were supported by more than 50% of respondents.

I'm pretty sure these results were instrumental in the directions that have been taken. Again, as long as the entry fees are sufficient to cover event expenses including player packs plus a decent amount toward payouts in the higher Am divisions, the lower these can be maintained, the more players will have access to events. It's apparent that the first table published either had numbers that were too low for C & D tiers or what those numbers included was not well explained.

I know absolutely nothing about survey results but...

Why would the PDGA BOD assume those two things to work better then : Keep as is. Leave it alone. 44.6% and Flatter at top, larger player packages. 34.6 % ??

Considering 75% or more Ams have probably cashed under current payout tables, the 45% value is relatively weak support for the current system versus those proposing either of two changes (they could only pick one) that favor reduced entry fees/spreading the wealth. If current members only support the status quo at that level, it's not too much of a stretch to believe we're more likely to get newer members with lower entry fees than higher fees.

keeping this within the realm of constructive input (and without seeing the actual wording), if these were the choices then this survey is very constrained.

first, there may be a difference in how MA1 players feel and how MA2/3 feel.

second, there is no "Steeper and less deep" choice. with these choices, the results are predisposed to skew towards flatter/no payout, ie the survey has a built in bias.

third, a well constructed survey would never present multiple options in a choose one format. far better to have the respondants rank each choice according to a desireability scale. 1-5 works fine. maybe this was done, i dont remember the specifics. but from the presentation of the numbers, i suspect it was not presented in that form.

fourth, tremendous insight could be gained by correlating results against player ratings and number of events played in the last year. this could be done using aggregates to protect the identity of individual respondants. doing so would yield useful information such as whether skill and/or participation levels effect a players expectations and desires.

finally, even these raw numbers do not make a very strong case for flattening the payout scale. one could convincingly argue that the flatter payout with larger payout approach conflicts with the trophy only lower entry fee approach on the grounds that lower entry fees are inconsistant with larger players packages. adding the two together is meaningless, unless you were trying to produce that result.

Not to mention the argument that regardless of what any properly conducted survey says, flattening the payout is a no brainer for a healthy divisional structure. Pandering to sandbaggers and those desiring large financial rewards for mediocre performance is a dead end path to stagnation and decay.

Considering 75% or more Ams have probably cashed under current payout tables, the 45% value is relatively weak support for the current system versus those proposing either of two changes (they could only pick one) that favor reduced entry fees/spreading the wealth. If current members only support the status quo at that level, it's not too much of a stretch to believe we're more likely to get newer members with lower entry fees than higher fees.

i'd like to see hard numbers on that first sentence. seems like a major assumption.

i agree its not too much of a stretch that lower entry fees produce more PLAYERS. to turn those players into members is a whole other discussion. but the underlying issue that is not being addressed is whether a difference exists between the expectations of a newbie in the MA2/3 range and a skilled MA1. most players do not enter the sport at even a lower mid MA1 level (920-930).

the new plan might be successful in attracting new members, but it seems to be causing some discontent in the MA1/MM1 ranks.

One thing you have to consider is that decisions and guidelines are not always about "majority rule" but "minority inclusion." Of course, in this survey there was no majority just a plurality, to get technical. An example of a minority inclusion policy is all of the small divisions we continue to support even though a majority might prefer fewer divisions such as just having a senior division for those over 49 like ball golf and eliminate Sr GM and Legends. In the case of entry fees, you won't exclude the plurality with lower fees but you will exclude the pool of players (who might be either minority or the majority, who knows?) who can't afford or won't pay higher fees.

I'm happy with the payout structure, but I'm not so sure about the maximum entry fees at the lower levels.

It may be no problem where the Rec Men and Women fields are only a handfull of players, but in areas where the rec fields are a major portion of the event, their entry fee is important.

i'd like to see hard numbers on that first sentence. seems like a major assumption.



I'd be interested also but my experience leads me to believe it might be as high as 90% in the pool of all ams who have played at least five events? It's almost hard not to have "merched" statistically with 50% payouts in the lower am divisions.

now dang it chuck, you know i cant resist the construction of a cool database query! this one could waste an entire afternoon! :D

The problem with that survey is that they did not break out the results by skill level. When you break out the results by skill level you always find that lower skill divisions want more in the player pack and and a payout that goes deeper, which forces it to be flatter. Higher skill divisions want more in the payout, steeper payouts, and more losers.

Pros who are clueless always want lame payout formats for amateurs as if this will move the amateurs and their money into the pro division. They don't realize how many TDs are already moving amateur money into their division.

How many pros want to pay $50 to play and then get half of it back in a $25 cash player pack? Hands? Anyone? See, only Nick. :D

If the goal is to increase participation, especially among new players, I already know what works. This works:

www.brasscash.com (http://www.brasscash.com)

If you copy every aspect of what we are doing, including the stuff that you can't get just by reading our tournament page, you will bring in a lot of new, lower division players. If you are a TD who wants to bring in more lower division new players, I'll be happy to explain what we are doing.

[email protected]

quick results, unvalidated but with fairly high trust factor, using 2005-01-01 and later results for MA1,MA2,MA3,MM1 players:

num events >= 15: 4 of 30 did not prize at any event (13.3%)
num events >= 10: 30 of 204 did not prize at any event (14.7%)
num events >= 5: 236 of 892 did not prize at any event (26.5%)

Pros who are clueless always want lame payout formats for amateurs as if this will move the amateurs and their money into the pro division. They don't realize how many TDs are already moving amateur money into their division.



Why does everyone always see people's views on this issue as motivated by their divisional status. Just step back and judge the merit of the argument, not your perceived idea of why someone argues for or against something. However, if you wish to avoid real debate by dismissing arguments because of your perception of other's motivation, have at it.

So, the initial 75% figure is pretty close considering you only have one year of info. I assume there would be an even lower percentage of Ams with only 5 events if you did the same thing cumulatively since maybe 2003-1-1. Either way, it looks like at least 75% of Ams with 5 events or more will have merched at some point.

Pros who are clueless always want lame payout formats for amateurs as if this will move the amateurs and their money into the pro division. They don't realize how many TDs are already moving amateur money into their division.



Why does everyone always see people's views on this issue as motivated by their divisional status. Just step back and judge the merit of the argument, not your perceived idea of why someone argues for or against something. However, if you wish to avoid real debate by dismissing arguments because of your perception of other's motivation, have at it.

I can't speak for everyone. Every time I see some fool advocating $5 and $10 entry fees or trophy-only events, it turns out to be a pro who believes in the added cash fairy or some guy with an 850 rating. Or some guy who does not run tournaments or some guy who has never tried to run tournaments with those kinds of entry fees.

The guy in Maine who runs trophy-only tournaments with a normal entry fee does not argue that everyone should, but only that his players like them. I'm glad they do. Mine don't.

The PDGA has less power to compel prices than the government. They don't think they can compel the price of a disc. Why the price of a tournament? All the PDGA can do is spur creative ways for TDs to cheat on the requirements. I've got plenty if we ever get pushed there.

Not having faith in economic forces is like not having faith in gravity or electricity. Its there, whether you have faith in it or not. Fool around with forces you don't understand or have no faith in at your own peril.

analysis of percentage of ams cashing by number of events played (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/ams_who_merch.xls.htm)

not quite sure how to interpret the results yet. but some of the numbers are interesting.

the player data set includes MA1, MA2, MA3, and MM1 and includes members only regardless of membership status (ie, players with a pdganum)

I think it says "if at first you don't cash, try, try again. If after 23-25 tries and you still haven't cashed, you should try three of four more times and cash will come to you."

Plastic comes to those who wait.


Pat, I'd still be interested to see what total percentage of ams have won prizes regardless of number of tournaments.

in other words "keep playing and you'll get better"? hmmm... dont think so... thats true in anything.

i think it might be better to compare pure year to year stats rather than combining years backwards. also, looking at what divisions individual players competed in would shed some light into whether flatter payouts actually encourage MA2 players to stay put and not take a stab at the next level. i'd be interested in seeing if the flatter payouts really do create a higher percentage of cashers, and i am not sure if this data reveals that or not.

Pat, I'd still be interested to see what total percentage of ams have won prizes regardless of number of tournaments.

that would be the Events Played = 1 line.

Gotcha.
Those are minimums, not actual number of events played. :)

right toe

More interesting than the payout percentages is that there were fewer amateur tournament players, playing a fewer number of multiple tournaments, even though there were more sanctioned events than ever before last year.

i'd be interested in seeing if the flatter payouts really do create a higher percentage of cashers


Yes, commission a study.

If by "percentage of cashers," you simply mean those who have cashed once in some set time period, then I'll bet flatter payouts do. But, why again are you asking this question?

If the goal of flatter payouts was simply "to insure that everyone cashes at least once in the year," then that might be a meaningful study. But, I doubt that is the goal.

ps. Interpretation of statistics, and language is a funny thing. I would never interpret the data, nor my previous post as saying "keep playing and you will get better." It simply says, "keep playing and your likelihood of cashing improves." Who'd a thunk?

More interesting than the payout percentages is that there were fewer amateur tournament players, playing a fewer number of multiple tournaments, even though there were more sanctioned events than ever before last year.

no, you cant say that from these numbers, because the 2003 column includes all players who have played in any tournament since 01-01-2003. to answer your question we'd need to break out each year seperately.

wow. this is 2004 and 2005 seperately (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/pct_ams_mech_by_year.htm)

it looks like flatter payout in 2005 somehow resulted in fewer players getting paid????????

i am a bit surprised by this!

if true it could mean flatter payout is encouraging people to stay in their division rather than make a jump.

There hasn't been any flattening of the Am pay tables during that period and they still haven't been flattened for 2006. Intermediate and Rec have been the same 50% and the Advanced has been 45%. In 2005, the advanced table percentages became flatter because they used to have their own percentage table. In 2005, the Advanced table became the same as the Int and Rec table. However, the Advanced were still paid out at 45% instead of 50% from that table. So, no more percentage of players would have been paid out in 2003 versus 2004 versus 2005 as a result of any table changes.

The only flattening for 2006 is the pro table.

Once again. Statistical interpretation. Gotta love it.

First off, one could look at this data and immediately conclude that more people played under the flatter payout scheme than the previous scheme. Some others might conclude that that is a good thing.

However, until you can control many more facors than you are controlling, all conclusions are basically bunk. Except, "as you play more tournaments, your lilelihood of cashing at least one time increases." This fascinating conclusion continues to jump out at me. :p

james i totally agree that more factors would need to be controlled to get something meaningful. i would add however to your theory "as you play more tournaments AND IMPROVE"

The one factor you are likely to overlook is the underlying growth of the sport. If changing this or that from one year to the next means an 8% increase in tournament players, what does that mean if the sport grew 15% in numbers of total players? Does that mean the the change cost us 7%?

If the total number of players goes up by x%, how much should tournament attendance go up by? The answer to that question is essential to establish any baseline comparison.

The answer is not necessarily "x". If golf declined by 3% last year, which is the number I've been reading, chances are that the hard core tournament players, pro, am and otherwise, were not equally represented. Those guys quit when they die. In a period of rapid growth the disc golf could pick up a lot of new players who are nowhere close to being ready to play tournaments, especially sanctioned tournaments in regions that don't sanction lower divisions.

So it is hard to tell anything from year to year numbers. We don't know what our baseline is.

wow. this is 2004 and 2005 seperately (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/pct_ams_mech_by_year.htm)

it looks like flatter payout in 2005 somehow resulted in fewer players getting paid????????

i am a bit surprised by this!

if true it could mean flatter payout is encouraging people to stay in their division rather than make a jump.



It does happen.

Surveys are inherently flawed if created by folks who do not know much about making scientifically sound surveys and answered by a self-selected group of people�



So are blind statements made without any knowledge of the survey's creator or procedure. C'mon, you're better than that John.

And by the way, lowering fees wouldn't upset me at all. Of course, you could offer the trophy-only option to the AM divisions, which I see as a good compromise.



People have asked about the survey, the creator and the results. Making surveys that are the basis for important decisions is very important and much more scientific than most people understand. Perhaps the creator of this survey is well versed in the creation of sound surveys. I would not know since no one has offered any evidence that the survey was sound.

keeping this within the realm of constructive input (and without seeing the actual wording), if these were the choices then this survey is very constrained.

first, there may be a difference in how MA1 players feel and how MA2/3 feel.

second, there is no "Steeper and less deep" choice. with these choices, the results are predisposed to skew towards flatter/no payout, ie the survey has a built in bias.

third, a well constructed survey would never present multiple options in a choose one format. far better to have the respondants rank each choice according to a desireability scale. 1-5 works fine. maybe this was done, i dont remember the specifics. but from the presentation of the numbers, i suspect it was not presented in that form.

fourth, tremendous insight could be gained by correlating results against player ratings and number of events played in the last year. this could be done using aggregates to protect the identity of individual respondants. doing so would yield useful information such as whether skill and/or participation levels effect a players expectations and desires.

finally, even these raw numbers do not make a very strong case for flattening the payout scale. one could convincingly argue that the flatter payout with larger payout approach conflicts with the trophy only lower entry fee approach on the grounds that lower entry fees are inconsistant with larger players packages. adding the two together is meaningless, unless you were trying to produce that result.



I can only check this at night and replied to Tony before reading the rest. This is EXACTLY what I am talking about with surveys. Then you have one or two volunteer board members (maybe more maybe less), pushing "this year's" agenda of change and BOOM you have sweeping changes based on a faulty survey applied to areas that are nothing alike. It starts to seem like change for the sake of change. And lets not even start on the HUGE 350 person sample�.

35% of the people want flatter at the top payouts (all divisions/all ages who knows WHO answered this survey), so lets lower entry fees lmao�

The error was calculated as +/- 5%. Even if the numbers were off by half, it still wouldn't change the perception that a significant number of people might be attracted to playing with flatter payouts and lower entry fees. It's hard to argue against that observation, with or without data. As long as the amount isn't so low that the event finances don'y work, which we've already agreed upon for C & D tiers, lower fees might attract more players.

Flatter payouts does not = lower entry fees. I actually like the idea of flatter payouts.

...35% of the people want flatter at the top payouts (all divisions/all ages who knows WHO answered this survey), so lets lower entry fees lmao�



Throw in the 20% that wanted trophy only tournaments and you have 55% of the respondents that wanted to get away from the big payout system.

...
However, until you can control many more facors than you are controlling, all conclusions are basically bunk. Except, "as you play more tournaments, your lilelihood of cashing at least one time increases." This fascinating conclusion continues to jump out at me. :p



You could also come to the conclusion that better players play more events and cash more often.

my brain hurts

what website did you read that on? :D

bruce, agreed. but how does one establish a baseline? our organization has good hard numbers about event attendance, but nothing much more than anecdotal evidence about local minis, nonsanctioned events, and casual park traffic.

i think any dataset can yield some sort of insight. chuck has explained that the payout did not flatten in 2005 relative to 2004. i seem to remember some events paying flatter though, so perhaps it was still more up to the TD (like the 2MR is this year :D). if he is correct, then holy cow, we are messing with success because the number of am players went up in 2005 even though a smaller percentage succeeded in cashing! why did we change a winning formula?

obviously, seperating data by divisions makes sense. certainly bruce is enjoying success with trophy only events in his AM events.

my worry is that we are trending towards one-size-fits-all solutions and changes rather than digging as deeply as possible into the data and formulating solutions that meet players needs and and desires at a more granular level.

You can't establish a baseline. I think you have to go about it inductively rather than statistically.

Look at what is actually working to fill up tournaments in areas where some tournaments are filling and others are not. This might involve actually communicating with those TDs rather than just working in secret and pulling numbers out of the air. Then devise tier requirements that work for the tournaments that are working for the PDGA.

If I take all of the sanctioned tournaments Jon and I've been involved in with entry fees of $10 or less, and for that kind of money you are talking about trophy-only or very light payouts, and then compare them to all the tournaments we've run with amateur entry fees over $20, and now we are talking about 30 tournaments or so in three states, all of the least attended tournaments were the cheapest ones and the trophy-only ones.

With one exception, all of the tournaments which were a net loss or a near loss were the cheapest ones too.

There are some things you don't sell more of by making them cheaper. Yugos were a lot cheaper than Toyotas. PDGA tournaments are the same way. Players know that from reliable TDs they will get what they pay for. And the shifty ones rapidly run out of players.

I would suggest that the payout tables had little to do with the number of players in tournaments. Instead I would hazard a geuss that the largest difference was the price of gas. It simply costs more to play in a tournament, even if the tournament entry fee stayed the same.

As for the survey, if I asked you if you were more likely to buy a speical run golf disc for $100 or for $80, any reasonable person would say they would more likely buy it for $80. Howver, this does not mean they would buy one at all.


wow. this is 2004 and 2005 seperately (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/pct_ams_mech_by_year.htm)

it looks like flatter payout in 2005 somehow resulted in fewer players getting paid????????

i am a bit surprised by this!

if true it could mean flatter payout is encouraging people to stay in their division rather than make a jump.

my brain hurts



Yeah, though mildly interesting, this sort of discussion is just about meaningless on a national or worldwide scale. Things that are meaningful for Bruce are meaningless for other regions. Things that are meaningful for me are meaningless in other regions. Even local to local is a tough correlation.

What the PDGA does, and should do, is set general standards that give their Members a clearer idea of what to expect at a PDGA event. This is not some oddity or attempt at glory/power/control. IT IS WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.

By constitution and mandate.

Filling events is a tricky business and no single factor, certainly not PDGA standardized entry fees and payouts, can take all the credit of blame. If only it were that simple we'd all have events that fill.

I don't know all of the factors, but here is a list of a few of them that I have found through the years:
1) The Tournament Director: Do you trust and like them? Do they have a track record of running successful professional events?
2) The Course: Is the course a special treat? Do you look forward to playing it all year long?
3) The Event: Is the event a PDGA event or at least the standards known enough that you know what to expect?
4) Friends in attendance: Will a lot of your home slices be going too? How about long time friends from other regions?
5) Distance: Can you get there within 4 or 6 hours tops?
6) Accommodations: Do you have some friends to stay with? How much is the tournament hotel and do you have traveling buddies to split the cost with?

Those are the big ones. Entry fee and payouts are only a fraction of one of them.

Consistently excellent would have to rank up there as the top consideration. Nothing is more disappointing than an event that has a tremendous rep falling noticeably below standard. Another reason "known" standards are useful (in case for any reason an event needs to take a step back, folks attending will be able to adjust their expectations).

Did someone hit Nick in the head with something?!? He disappears for a few days....comes back and is short, sweet (not condesending) and to the point. Someone call the underworld and make a temp check please, they might be cold down there?!?

Thanks Nick, this is about the best thing I have ever seen you type!

I'm not saying there should not be standards. I think the standards should be higher. I don't see why C-tiers should have lower standards than D-tiers, the way it currently is. I'm just saying lets not start imposing experimental standards nationwide that don't reflect what is being done successfully.

Last year Jon, Brett and I ran a C-tier last year on a lame 20-hole course that drew about 150 players within the relaxed zone of exclusion zone of an NT that drew about 180 players. They were pretty much full. We were pretty much full on the lower day. A couple of months later we ran a D-tier on a lame 20-hole course that drew 72 players, and it was scheduled against pretty much nothing. The difference between the two was the difference between what we can do on a $25 entry fee versus a $10 entry fee.

Most of our players don't want Yugo tournaments.

This year we aren't doing any entry fees under $20 except for juniors and optional trophy-only entry fees. If we had to comply with $5 and $10 entry fees, we would just find different ways of talking about and reporting our tournments. Or we wouldn't sanction them.

I hear you Bruce and think you have every right to the opinion you have. Expressing that opinion to the PDGA and having them adjust their standards to more suit your (and possibly others) needs is what it is all about. They have done that, right?

Still, the need for standards for PDGAs is more or less a given as far as their mandate to set and maintain event standards for their membership. This similar to you and Jon setting standards for your own events; you want folks coming to your events to know basically what they are going to get, don't you?

The relation or correlation between entry fee standards and filling events around the country and world is tenuous at best. Focus in that department would be better spent on more crucial areas, a few of which I touched on above.

If a td or group of organizers, that really would like to run PDGAs for the benefits it brings, feels, even after communicating their concerns to the PDGA, that the standards are just too detrimental to their events, then they should not run PDGAs that year, all the while continuing to lobby for acceptable standards. I don't offer this in hopes that TDs will opt not to run PDGAs, but more as a simple declaration of the way it already pretty much works.

The PDGA sets standards based on the best practices of its best and most communicative members. If the members don't communicate those standards in a useful and deliberate manner then there is no way short of ESP to encorporate them in future reforms. Right?

The PDGA sets standards based on the best practices of its best and most communicative members.

I don't know that this is true. I have no idea where those entry fee numbers came from. I don't know of any C-tier TDs they talked to before adopting that table. No C-tier TDs seemed to be aware of the changes. None were following the table.

I never argue with the people who accuse the BoD of running the organization in an elitist, out-of-touch sort of way, because I have no evidence to the contrary. My experiences on the board would not provide a counter-argument either. In areas where our Constitution obligates the Board to at least consider whether an issue should be put to the membership, the Board does not even take that minimal step after being reminded of it by their Oversight Director. Anybody who is paying attention can cite example after example where the Board has basically surprised the the membership and its most important volunteers with rules changes, format changes, etc., that are then quickly withdrawn or modified once the membership knows what's going on.

So no, I cannot agree that the PDGA sets its standards on the best practices of its best and most communicative members. I cannot even defend that with an evidence based argument.

As to the comment about hitting Nick in the head with a board, I would expect Nick to recover any minute now...

:D

Is there any chance that the PDGA is trying to encourage your C tiers to become B tiers with the lowering of the entry fees? Could they be trying to create a bigger differentiation between the tournament levels?

So no, I cannot agree that the PDGA sets its standards on the best practices of its best and most communicative members.

well bruce, since certainly no one doubts you are one of the most communicative members, the answer becomes somewhat obvious. :D

Is there any chance that the PDGA is trying to encourage your C tiers to become B tiers with the lowering of the entry fees? Could they be trying to create a bigger differentiation between the tournament levels?


Now that's a line reasoning that could help explain things.

For me and my C-tier, I haven't yet drawn enough pros to meet the minimum purse standards for a B-tier. I would have to go am-only to be a B-tier.

Well, in 2004 and 2005 I would've had to. I might actually make the new payout percentage requirements for pros this year, but not likely to hit the purse total.

Hey Rhett , what are the payout percentage requirements for your tournament ?

Is there any chance that the PDGA is trying to encourage your C tiers to become B tiers with the lowering of the entry fees? Could they be trying to create a bigger differentiation between the tournament levels?



I don't think that's the case. This year we were set to run all seven of our legs as am B tiers but the PDGA is making us run one of them as a C tier because of the ZOE issue. The only difference is that we'll be sending the PDGA about $150-200 less in fees.

thats the only difference? so can you explain exactly what the purpose of the LOE is? maybe its simply to deny your players those valuable points?

It is not a ZOE anymore. The PDGA is not promising to exclude anybody any time. It is an AREA: Area of Relatively Excessive Ambiguity.

I have no idea what the AREA is for. The other tournament basically fills on the am side, unless they wanted to run fivesomes at an NT, and we are almost 300 miles away, and the other tournament adds about $10,000 more to the pro purse than we do, since they are adding $10,000 and we're adding zilch, and anybody who has tried to drive home to Chicago on a summer Sunday night from Michigan resolves not to do that again! So it is not like we are in their area anyway.

Basically if you can afford to take a long weekend to play a great event on one or two great courses for three days you go to Ann Arbor, but if you can only take one day, and Crystal Lake is not that far away, and its not raining or something and you get up on time, maybe you come on out to Crystal Lake if you have the $25-$45 to spend.

ok, thanks. that makes complete and udder sense on so many levels :eek: :D

Is there any chance that the PDGA is trying to encourage your C tiers to become B tiers with the lowering of the entry fees? Could they be trying to create a bigger differentiation between the tournament levels?



The c-tiers I run are above the b-tier standards they put in that chart - that chart is WAY off...

Is there any chance that the PDGA is trying to encourage your C tiers to become B tiers with the lowering of the entry fees? Could they be trying to create a bigger differentiation between the tournament levels?



The c-tiers I run are above the b-tier standards they put in that chart - that chart is WAY off...



By Way off ................how much .............approx ?

I think the C-tiers we run would fall at the max level...

This is from the new PDGA report sheet. I could see dropping pro to $40, lower than that would be dumb imo. First column is total entry fee, 2nd pdga fee, third is misc. (in this case $3 to LSS finale bonus payout and $1 to the Food Bank), 4th column is NET entry fee. One day, well run, fun c-tiers - - some fill and some are in the 50-60 range. $10 players pack to any player who registers early (before the day of the event). I think the C-tiers we run would fall at the max level...

This is from the new PDGA report sheet. I could see dropping pro to $40, lower than that would be dumb imo. First column is total entry fee, 2nd pdga fee, third is misc. (in this case $3 to LSS finale bonus payout and $1 to the Food Bank), 4th column is NET entry fee. One day well run, fun c-tiers some fill some are in the 50-60 range. $10 players pack to any player who registers early (before the day of the event). Pick your plastic for AMS


$50 $2 $4 $44 Open
$50 $2 $4 $44 Master
$35 $2 $4 $29 Advanced
$30 $2 $4 $24 Intermediate
$25 $2 $4 $19 Recreational
$35 $2 $4 $29 Adv Master
$35 $2 $4 $29 Adv Women
$25 $2 $4 $19 Rec Women
$25 $2 $4 $19 Jr Boys <13

If those seem high to some people fine, but don�t RESTRICT people who are already running successful events.

I expect that the BG Am event, the Memorial and several others could double their entry fees and still be successful. That doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

if you still fill and are successful, then how could it be viewed as anything other than the right thing to do???

That is why they don't Chuck and the same reason fees have been the same at Texas States in the AM divisions for the past four years.

If there are problem tournaments, deal with those tournaments; don't set maximums that change things that don't need to be changed in certain areas.

Discussions like this bring up why there should be any standards for PDGA events. What is it about them that delivers value to the players and of course, the TDs who want to sanction versus not sanction? If there are some standards at all, there may be some you agree with and others you don't.

If you could start from scratch where there were no standards, which ones would you introduce and why would they be needed, appropriate or successful? For example, imagine that these did not exist:

1. No divisions
2. Distinction between am and pro
3. Competition rules (scoring, pairing, drinking)
4. Tiers
5. Points
6. Ratings
7. Financial minimums by tier
8. Participation minimums by tier
9. Membership requirement
10. Minimum distance between events
11. Course quality guidelines (basket type, length, etc.)
12. Maximum entry fees
13. Reporting requirements

Are there any of these that shouldn't be considered worthwhile for PDGA members? Those involved in setting the standards don't always get it right but it's not for lack of trying. Each year when tweaks occur, it's more of an experiment to try and get it right, and we're fortunate if we do get it exactly right (if there is such a thing).

I think the biggest challenge is that different parts of the country are at different places on the disc golf development curve as Stork has pointed out in his radio address in November. The trick is to have any standards at all or at least ones that are sufficiently inclusive.

At each raise in entry fees, in consequence and effect you exclude some who are financially less well-off relative to others. That is fine to a strict free-market mentality. Probably there exist ball golf clubs that control the demographics of their membership that way. The problem i see with it is that if your goal is to bring the best disc golfers out to compete at your event, but you raise entry fees -- you end up tilting the field to people who have the most pocket change verses people who have the best ratings or disc golf skills. You also turn off some persons who are new and considering whether to participate in PDGA competition if the cost seems prohibitive. i am not arguing for PDGA fee only events -- but i wouldn't be opposed to them either...

I think that unless there is a way to produce identical products for identical prices, that only the minimum requirements should be specified.

These relate directly to the fairness of competition.
1) Rules. Everyone needs to be playing the same game.
2) Consistent Divisions. Everyone needs to know that they will be competing with similarly skilled opponents. This has improved greatly with ratings. Before ratings were introduced, the strength (golfing ability) of a division varied greatly from one part of the country to another.
3) Expected Return on Investment. A traveling player needs to have some assurance that he will be investing in an event that will be worth his time and money to get to. Tier requirement minimums should be set high enough (and enforced) that a player can be confident that the experience he is paying for will be worthwhile.
4) Expected Environment. The environment is made up of the courses, cities, TDs, and other players connected with the event. The tier requirements should be key in allowing a player to know the type of environment to expect.

At C-Tiers there should be a push by the hosts to bring in new players and introduce them to competitive disc golf. There should be an expectation that things may not be quite as smooth because the focus of the event is to bring more players into competitive disc golf and teach them what is expected of a touring player. It is a place for experienced disc golfers to teach newer players how to enjoy the sport.

At B-Tiers, the focus should be in providing local competitive disc golfers a chance to compete against some touring players and experience an event that leans a little more toward the competitive side. There should still some attention paid to making the event fun for newer golfers, but mainly around the competition (Raffles, ring-of-fire, putting contest, CTPs). The competitive rounds should be more businesslike. The experienced golfer should be ready to compete on the course and spend the time between rounds participating in fun disc golf related activities.

At A-Tiers the full attention of the staff and players should be on making the experience #$*&$! proof for the serious competitive golfer. Meetings on time, courses well marked, controversial parts of the course anticipated and made as simple as possible, news and scores posted before they are looked for. A place for experienced golfers to come and play golf against quality competition on quality courses.

NT-events should be like the A-Tiers to the next level. These are for serious golfers with frills added mainly for the spectators and less serious golfers in attendance.

Majors seem to be specific types of gatherings where disc golf tournaments break out. It looks like each major has a flavor and feeling of it's own along with a tournament. I think that's a good thing and participants can attend and get from them whichever part of the experience that is most important to them.

5) Bragging Rights. Reporting, points, box scores are all just methods of keeping track of where we've been and what we've acheived. An important part of formalizing the sport, but not an aspect of the competition.

I would add the following basics first.
1) Rules
2) Decorum (grouping, drinking, courtesy)
3) Divisions (includes Am and Pro)
4) Tiers (for event type)
5) Tiers (course requirements)
6) Tiers (participation requirements)
7) Tiers (financial payout minimums)
8) Tiers (membership requirements for top events)
9) Ratings
10) Reporting, Points, published box scores.
11) Entry fee guidelines

But that's just my opinion.

and a mighty short one it was to :)

I would suggest that "course quality" include more than tees, baskets, and length. IMO, A tiers and above should not be allowed to exist if they are played on second and third rate courses. It happens way too often.

At a minimum, A and NT tier TDs should be required to quantify their scoring distributions by hole and let the PDGA analyze the data and make suggestions. In order to get sanctioning next year, the TD must offer ways to improve design of those holes. If they can't fix it, the PDGA should withhold their paycheck. :p

We're already making progress with majors in the area of course layouts, at least with Worlds, USDGC, Mid-Nats and Am Nats (sort of). I gave some advice online with the temp Vista course for the Memorial and got shot down.

Well, I have noticed the PDGA's input at Worlds, and I think it is great. In fact, knowing that I probably won't have to play any lousy courses or many lousy holes at worlds is a big factor in my decision to attend.

I'm not really joking about this, IMO, it's kind of like the entry fee argument: I would let the TD do what they want, but at the end of the tourney, the stats better indicate a decent spread, or their NT sanctioning should be in jeopardy. I mean, the PDGA will fight over beer or minimum entry fee limits at NTs; this is certainly more important than those things.

I agree with James on this, but am more likely to grant a little leeway on the design. Most TDs are not able to alter the course layouts as they see fit for a tournament, but they should be able to influence them over the course of several years.

I am much less likely to grant leeway on the condition of the course. The courses used for an A-Tier or above should be clearly marked, groomed of trash and debris, and trimmed where necessary. This is a minimum expectation, even for temp courses.

It would be great if we could do this. Best we can do is try and move in this direction. For example, the AZ team can't even shut down public traffic on the Vista sidewalks for our biggest NT. Do you say the Memorial can only be B-tier?

For example, the AZ team can't even shut down public traffic on the Vista sidewalks for our biggest NT. Do you say the Memorial can only be B-tier?



yup... if it bothers the players

Depends on whether they should be rollerblading in bikinis...

women discers take offense to that remark. heck, as a father with a daughter I also take offense at that. whats the point in asking people to not use the B,P, and C words when you objectify women like that?

yes, i am serious with that question.

Of course I didn't say whether women or men were wearing them. And, it's an actual fact that rollerbladers do slow down play on the course and the length of time can be related to how they are dressed. Thanks, for your PC response but the facts are there.

nice attempt for a revisionist response, but you are busted and you know it. here is what you posted:
Depends on whether they should be rollerblading in bikinis...

i am certain (but i could always start a poll) that 100% of our readers will take that to mean bikini clad females are more welcome to interrupt an NT event than other sotrs of pedestrians.

I took it to mean the bikini clad roller bladers cause a bigger disruption to the event.

Sorry, but "speedo" demons of the less fairer sex also zip by. If you're calling me on the carpet, it should be for fashion humor rather than sexist humor because it was intended to be about folks of either sex who might not look flattering in bikinis.

so now you've gone from purely sexist humor to perpetuating the negative consequences our children face when confronted with undue pressure to acheive a certain body shape!

You may be serious about this, but I find both yours and Chuck's comments pretty humorous. and I also have a daugher.....


women discers take offense to that remark. heck, as a father with a daughter I also take offense at that. whats the point in asking people to not use the B,P, and C words when you objectify women like that?

yes, i am serious with that question.

He's just trying to pick a fight since Nick hasn't been online about the 2m rule in a while :)

maybe there is some partial truth to that. but i am about fed up with reading so much angst about "bad words" while some of the most respected leaders in our sport make sexist remarks under the cover of humor. disguising something with clever turns of phrase make it no less an issue.

The best practices and opinions of the best TDs do eventually set policy for the PDGA, though perhaps not as fast as you or I would like. If they put out policies and then never adjusted them according to the communicated opinions of their best organizers then I'd tend to agree with you that they exist in some vacuum unaware and disinterested in the opinions of others. Looking over the tour agreements and tour standards it is pretty clear that that is not the case.

Which does not mean that they can listen to and include every organizers opinion, just that they likely do listen to them, and only chose to follow other organizers opinions. Likely ones that do not frequent this DISCussion board or have for obvious reasons sworn it off and purposefully avoid it.

I'd like to review the things that matter to me in considering going to an event again, but in light of what the PDGA actually has a mandate to set standards for.
1) The Tournament Director: Not under PDGA control, other than beng a member, are asked to adhere to event standards.
2) The Course: Not under the PDGA control other than they are asked to follow course design standards.
3) The Event: Considering the 5,000,001 things to consider in running an event, the PDGA's role in this is actually pretty minor. They primarily provide a basic framework that all of your other 4 million plus details must fit around and not conflict with.
4) Friends in attendance: PDGA asks that players be members at PDGA sanctioned events. Not sure how this could be interpreted in any way other than "normal".
5) Distance: The PDGA provides a very general framework, it is really up to the TDs involved to figure the rest out and work together.
6) Accommodations: PDGA has no role in this aspect of an event.

If all of the above are in primo shape, as others have mentioned here and more importantly out on the course, entry fee and payout scales are nearly irrelevant.

On another note there are instances that arise in organizational administration that require immediate action by those elected to take that action. Hesitation or decision by membership vote is not always the best course of action, nor is it mandated by our constitution; regardless of what we personally or individually think. In those cases it is good governance to bow to the will of those you serve with in order to strengthen the organization as a whole. Besides, if the decision, as you fear, turns out to be in error, then certainly it will become obvious during implementation. This is as true on a local organizational level (most that is, ones that are not one or two man shows) as it is on a Worldwide level.