Oh, the tourney was the St. Patricks Classic that I posted the attendence figures. Also it appears the payout was done exactly the same and the total purse was about the same also(i dont know for sure since the total wasnt posted for this year and i didnt feel like doing the math)

It's so simple really. We know sponsor cash is up but certainly doesn't account for all of the pro purse growth from $458K in 1997 to $1390K in 2006. Explain where that money came from?



This total increase could primarily be from the average increase in entry fee amount. If average fees go from $30 to $90, the total purse triples with absolutely no increase in participation.


I don't see pros doing much for ams but a pile of cash flowing to the pros from the ams since 1997.

For the nine-millionth time, I'm not asking for ams to support pros, I'm just asking for a system that is equitable and encorages people that get good to keep playing.

It's so simple really. We know sponsor cash is up but certainly doesn't account for all of the pro purse growth from $458K in 1997 to $1390K in 2006. Explain where that money came from? If it came from pro entry fees, then obviously pro participation is way up. If it didn't come from pro entry fees then a good portion came from the wholesale/retail conversion of merch from Am participation. This also helped underwrite tournament expenses to provide for added cash for pros. I don't see pros doing much for ams but a pile of cash flowing to the pros from the ams since 1997.

[emphasis added]

My we have come a long way. When I said stuff like that in 2000 and 2001 on the message board it was heresy. Like a lot of heresy it was true, but truth was beside the point! :D Now it is just common knowledge and our pros are casual about it.

Where does the AMS support the pro anyhow?

I just ran an event 2 weeks ago and I didn't see any of the money from the AMS compute into the PRO payout table that the PDGA provides for each event.

I'm not asking for ams to support pros, I'm just asking for a system that is equitable and encorages people that get good to keep playing.




You say this and then claim that increases in Am participation isn't helping the pros. They are whether you want their contributions or not.

Where does the AMS support the pro anyhow?




Did you have any tournament expenses like sanctioning fees, scorecards, pencils, park fees, etc.? Did the pros get at least their money back? Did the expenses come out of your pocket (foolish) or did the differential from Am merch cover expenses?

Why the He77 would the pros support the ams? I see the same ole ADV jackhoffasaurs out in the parking lot and eBay selling they're winnings off. They are making more after a tourney selling their merch that they won playing against 40 people than I win playing against 5. If you don't think that is a problem you are either blind, have your hands in the $cookie jar$ or ignorant. I would say your blind and/or have your hand in the cookie jar

Well, the markup from the Am merch payouts goes to pay for the event fees etc. If you paid out 100% or better back to the Pros then the money made from the markup on the AMs merch payout went to pay those fees not only for the Ams but for the pros also. If you would have taken that money out of the Pro entry then in order to put it back you would have had to take that markup and put it with the pros to get their payout at/over 100%.

The ams do pay for the pros in some ways unless you got sponsors doing it.

heresy??? It's just a number that you think is some grand conspiracy of pros stealing loot from ams. It may not be that at all. More than likely, it is a function of purse requirements put on tier classifications by the PDGA, which resulted in increase in entry fees.

But, keep throwing it out there, it a mighty persuasive rebuttal to the thesis that those playing for profit should play pro.

Did you have any tournament expenses like sanctioning fees, scorecards, pencils, park fees, etc.? Did the pros get at least their money back? Did the expenses come out of your pocket (foolish) or did the differential from Am merch cover expenses?



Sanctioning Fees = everyone pays the $3 to the PDGA
Pencils = Donated by INNOVA, THANKS GUYS!
Scorecards= Donated by INNOVA, THANKS AGAIN GUYS!
Water & ICE Fees= OOPS the dumb TD (me) forgot that
Park Fees= I whored myself out cleaning the park for free fees
:D

ESPN or any other network that would be considering putting disc golf on TV doesn't want to see the AMS play. I'm sorry to all you guys that play on that level but if Disc Golf is to be on TV, I would think you would want the best players to represent DISC GOLF on the tele.

At the rate we are going the PRO division is going to be extinct in 5 years, but that seems to be what you are aiming for Chuck. :(

Sanctioning Fees = everyone pays the $3 to the PDGA




Those are player fees. Who paid the $75 B-tier PDGA sanctioning fee?

Oh those sanctioning fees?

I sold some viles of CRACK orrrrrrrr donated some plasma ;) :D

Why don't yall make Adv players move up when their player rating surpasses a certain level? :confused:

There are Adv players out their with ratings from 965-990 and that is a joke. These guys are open players and until somebody makes them play open they are going to stay in the Adv division.

This is the only sport in the world where the Am players can make more than the open players. Where is the incentive for these guys to move up to make less money and play against tougher competition? :( Their is none because yall just let them bag for life!!!!!!!! :mad:

You say this and then claim that increases in Am participation isn't helping the pros. They are whether you want their contributions or not.


This thread is not about phantom or real financial support, and the corresponding mistaken conclusion that this helps pros. This thread is about declining pro participation, and what the PDGA could do about it.

Once again, if ams are helping the pros out so much, and am fields are increasing at wild rates, then why aren't pro fields?

This answer is pretty obvious to those who actually believe it is a legitimate question. But you and others seem unwilling to even consider the question. Why is that? Oh yeah, I forgot, you don't give a #$*&$! about those that spend enough time to improve their skills, but you are all about protecting those desiring to profit in their protected arenas.

Sadly, you seem to represent the bulk of the PDGA, and sadly, that is why our competitive system is a farce. Meanwhile, continue to throw out misleading numbers and to stir up class envies.

I am actually kind of ok with the current rating system, maybe lower it slightly to >950 should play Open.

Although I do feel strongly about mixing the ADV guys in with us round by round so that they can play with the OPEN and Masters in tournament situations so they can learn QUICKER! Kind of "On the Job Training" they would still only be competing against the ADV players but would be mixed in with us depending on score. Once we start eliminating the REWARDS that ams win, these ADV players who have rec'd the "On the Job Training" will be better players and would be more likely to get their PRO card.

Chris, it has alot to do with the lack of the "Spirit of Amatuerism" that I keep pointing out. If "Amatuers" in disc are motivated by prize value to play in an event then of course they are gonna stay where it pays better. The lack of Amatuerism has many other side effects(some of which i have pointed out in this thread already) that are, imo, not healthy for the sports growth. That is the truth whether anyone wants to admit it or not.

I agree. I think most players that are in the rating range don't think there good enough and use that as there main reason not to move up. Heck I'm 922 rated and I know I play better than that. This year I will be playing a mixture of Open and Advanced this year. I want to play Open next year full time if my ankle/foot surgery I had this past October goes well after all my rehab is done.

Josh

James,

It seems that there is more importance on getting more new members even if losing the long lasting current members happens.

Its sad :(

At the rate we are going the PRO division is going to be extinct in 5 years, but that seems to be what you are aiming for Chuck. :(

Maybe a meteor or a really big volcano could get the job done faster, but the simple forces of economics and behaviorism almost dictate that our current cash paying format is doomed like the dinosaurs.

Adding cash to the pros does not benefit TDs in any obvious way. Adding cash to pros does not benefit the overwhelming majority of the players at most pro-am tournaments in any way. Adding cash to the pros does not benefit genuine third-party sponsors. To the contrary, our sponsor for IOS #2, Hot Rags, would prefer that the sponsorship be spent in a way that puts a Hot Rags disc in every player's hand. They are not putting up quite that much, but I understand their point.

Meanwhile, assuming that the ratings system is straight, we are seeing more and more ams wait another year or two before turning pro. Clearly it is in their best interests to do so, and no one should be faulted for pursuing their own best interests.

Our current cash paid competitive system is an economic house of cards. It does not really benefit 90% of our membership. It does not benefit 50% of our members who participate in it as cash donating players. It is no wonder the current cash division are dying. It is planted upside down with the roots in the air.

You say I'm not willing to help and yet I'm the only one who has provided a market based option to help the pros. Perhaps you don't want a solution that might work but a solution that you would like, which all seem to involve force of some sort no matter how you look at it.

The 965 to 990 players in Advanced are not the problem. There aren't that many of them and their faces change each year because most have moved on to pro. Some will eventually play less than before because they can't afford taking a beating in pro. Stepped entry fees might bring them back and others along.

I checked the entry fees from 1997 and we've had about a 50% increase to 2005. If we deinflate the $1390K we get a more probable growth rate of pro purses of $458K to $931K which is still more than double since 1997 in real terms.

Bruce,

I don't think we need to add anymore money in the Pro divisions. The money is NOT the problem in my eyes. The difference in the prices of entry fees and entry fees might be too high are the only things I see wrong when it comes to the financial side of things.

If Open and ADV was $50 instead of $125 for Open and $60 for AdV we would see players move up quicker. The more that move up the more get paid. Maybe the top end Open players don't make as much, but to me it would be worth it to have a decent field size to play against.

You say I'm not willing to help and yet I'm the only one who has provided a market based option to help the pros. Perhaps you don't want a solution that might work but a solution that you would like, which all seem to involve force of some sort no matter how you look at it.

The 965 to 990 players in Advanced are not the problem. There aren't that many of them and their faces change each year because most have moved on to pro. Some will eventually play less than before because they can't afford taking a beating in pro. Stepped entry fees might bring them back and others along.

I checked the entry fees from 1997 and we've had about a 50% increase to 2005. If we deinflate the $1390K we get a more probable growth rate of pro purses of $458K to $931K which is still more than double since 1997 in real terms.



Your still not taking in consideration its doubled because we have at least 3 times as many tournaments now compared to 1997. If you add that to your formula I KNOW the results would come out different.

maybe we should just do away with the Pro divisions and make everyone compete for prizes & plastic in terms of entry fees and let sponsors add cash bonuses to the top 3 scores :eek:
the TRADERS row thread would certainly see more action as would E Bay :D

when we get the tv contracts and big corporate sponsors the Pros will finally earn serious cash for their skills.

disclaimer: this post was meant mainly in jest

That may help a little. I peronally feel that as long as our "Amateurs" can get a better financial gain from playing in an "Amateur" division then they will stay "Ams". The fact that our "Ams" can even make a profit, much less a better profit then alot of pros, just proves that our system is promoting the wrong motivations when it comes to Ams. Change the motivations of players is what is needed imo.

WHERE WE FAIL (http://www.madisc.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=768#768)

WHERE WE FAIL Part II (http://www.madisc.org/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=779#779)

No part of these may be reproduced here or else where without written permission from the author.

Your still not taking in consideration its doubled because we have at least 3 times as many tournaments now compared to 1997.



Every time I showed the calculations, I took it into consideration. If 60 Open pros in an area can only afford the time to play 6 events in a year and there are 12 events, the average Open field will be 30 players per event. If the following year there are 15 events and these 60 pros each play 7 events, the average Open field will drop to 28. Is participation up or down? All 60 Open players played more events so participation is actually up. But with more events, the field size is down. That doesn't mean there's a problem but it certainly could be better.

That may help a little. I peronally feel that as long as our "Amateurs" can get a better financial gain from playing in an "Amateur" division then they will stay "Ams". The fact that our "Ams" can even make a profit, much less a better profit then alot of pros, just proves that our system is promoting the wrong motivations when it comes to Ams. Change the motivations of players is what is needed imo.



And then what about changing the motivations of the TDs? That as well has to be addressed. I asked early on about States offering Trophy Only options for all divisions and was told no because it could impact covering costs.

To follow Kevin's idea. I like the idea of lowering Open entry fees. Personally, as someone who does compete for the sake of competition (and would play for Trophies in MA1), that would make the jump more reasonable as an expense.

I think Chris' post (Kevin's to some extent) fail to recognize that some players want to be Am's in spirit, not because they want to be Lords of eBay.

Chuck, your solution is:

Continue with the same corrupt system with its misplaced financial incentives, and add a socialistic alternative designed to make sure improving your skills will not result in a higher return on investment.

So lets see, your system has higher return on investment (profit) at the upper level of protected brackets, and a certainty of even returns if you desire to really improve yourself. Gee, I wonder if this system will encourage people to improve?

I, on the other hand, basically am saying:

Remove the financial incentive for everyone but pros and give pros more options.

This alone does one very important thing: it insures that those desiring a profit look upwards, not sideways or downwards. It would be like removing a ten-ton wieght from the back of our failing system. It would actually start to resemble most competitive systems in both sports and life that say "improve youself if you want a greater reward."

To further increase the participation of those that want to profit, you also need to give them more options. These options are not set up to punish those that excel like your suggestion will do, but allow those that don't, or can't afford it, to place a bet they are more comfortable with.

In summary, I've always offered options, I simply realize that no incentive-based competitive structure will ever make sense as long as there are financial incentives to not improve.

I asked early on about States offering Trophy Only options for all divisions and was told no because it could impact covering costs.




That sound like BS. Have them contact me if that's a concern (Nez should know better if he's involved)

The 965 to 990 players in Advanced are not the problem.

The problem is the laws of economics and behaviorism. You can fight them as well as you can fight the laws of physics. Fishes swim upstream, fighting physics all the way, to spawn and die. At any big waterpark all of the patrons, every single one of them, ride the slides downhill and they have fun. So does the waterpark operator, thoughbeit for other reasons.

Our cash paying format is fighting the laws of economics and behaviorism. Fighters die young. Sliders have fun. This is why amateurs and their TDs always look like they are having more fun than pros and the TDs who run events mainly for pros.

The 965 to 990 players in Advanced are not the problem.

The problem is the laws of economics and behaviorism. You can fight them as well as you can fight the laws of physics. Fishes swim upstream, fighting physics all the way, to spawn and die. At any big waterpark all of the patrons, every single one of them, ride the slides downhill and they have fun. So does the waterpark operator, thoughbeit for other reasons.

Our cash paying format is fighting the laws of economics and behaviorism. Fighters die young. Sliders have fun. This is why amateurs and their TDs always look like they are having more fun than pros and the TDs who run events mainly for pros.



;) good one

Perhaps you don't want a solution that might work but a solution that you would like,



Chuck, I am less concerned with a solution that might work than I am with one that might work well and meet our greater needs as a sport rather than the ever-narrowing ones of our current competitive systems entitled players.

Trying to increasingly meet the needs of this demographic is not, and should not, be equated with meeting the needs or rising to the challenges that keep us from reaching our greater goals.

We need to step back and take a realistic and deeper view of what we have, whom we have been putting all our efforts into and see if there isn't some other option available to us.

Particularly if it does no harm to the existing entitlement.

How would a True Amateur Class with no possibility of financial profit whether cash or prize harm our current Cash/Prize players? Is the name "Amateur" really so precious and vital to either of their existence�s? Would commingling the Cash/Prize divisions really be so detrimental to the mission or goals of the other?

I know that you tend to think solely in terms of what supports your arguments, which is natural, but I really would like you to consider the potential benefits of creating a new class of player, even if it only involved the creation of written standards and posting them in our PDGA Guidelines and not actually spending a nickel on it�s worldwide promotion.

Folks throw out the EDGE program as an example of setting a place at the PDGA table for true amateur inclusion, and it is a fantastic option, but it is not an answer for players, associations, educational institutions coming out of that program wanting greater involvement with the PDGA and competitive disc golf but without the serious and real consequences of playing competitively with the only available motivation being �for-profit�.

The free market does a great job determining whether incentives are properly in place. If they are set properly, people participate. If they're not, then they don't. Free choice. Ams have demonstrated their willingness to participate wholeheartedly. Better Ams get better rewards.

Better pros are also getting better rewards among pros including additional support from Ams whether deserved or not, and sponsor money which is still more gift than business benefit for sponsors. If pros want more pro participation, it's apparent that the incentives are currently not there to get it. Free market remember?

The pro situation can be improved with better incentives within pro (stepped entry fees). And, as Kevin also supports, adjusting Open and Advanced entry fees in closer alignment.

You can stop yapping about how Advanced rewards are so good relative to Pros. Pros already get more than they deserve based on their market valuation as true professionals (no one cares to pay to watch them and yet they get money from Ams and sponsors anyway). Let's say I'm playing quarter skins in my group on a ball golf course and there are some fat cats in the next group playing $20 skins. They are obviously worse players than my group. Do I have right to complain that their skins winner made $100 bucks more than me? Even if both our groups have the same ante, say $10 for best round straight up, I can't complain if I shot better than the winner of the worse group but got skunked in my own better group. They are independent divisions, independent free market decisions.

I don't know why you think stepped entry fees is a good thing.

Think about the problems that will cause the TD. We're not here to make the job of the TD any more difficult than it already is.

Stepped Entry Fees is a Monkey Spanking bad no horrrrrrrrrible idea. :mad: I know how you get once you have made up your mind on things, so I'm sure we will be hearing about this for SOME time. Expect an arguement from me EVERYTIME ;)

You can stop yapping about how Advanced rewards are so good relative to Pros. Pros already get more than they deserve based on their market valuation as true professionals (no one cares to pay to watch them and yet they get money from Ams and sponsors anyway).



Let's be careful not to go overboard here Chuck. The real economics are this. Clubs market and sell merchandise throughout the year. Players of all skill levels and divisions buy those discs. At an event where there is virtually no organization and no sponsorship has been raised, then the difference between retain and wholesale of the prizes may well, and ususally is used to pay for event expenses but 100% value or greater is still returned to the amateurs (something not necessarily true for pros at such events where 100% payout is not a given).

Are you saying that the local clubs, or regional clubs that contribute, don't have some entitlement to decide where those money's "they raise" go?

Moreover, at larger PDGAs where a considerable amount of sponsorship has been raised by the local club, using some of that sponsorship cash to pay for event expenses is actually a reflection of pros footing the bill for the prize players.

Economics tell us that it is the local clubs raising the sponsorship that are providing the funding, not solely the retail/wholesale prize differential (and even there if can be logically argued that it is still the local club raising funds, no the prize players).

Still, this does all acknowledge and highlight the unhealthy and contrary relationship between the two "for-profit" divisions.

Free market? hahahaha

What we have here is like trade protections, and yes, those who are protected participate wildly and swear up and down why their protections are needed.

BTW, I find it kind of fascinating that you keep using "free markets" in your arguments, yet appear to have no real faith in the concept. Your passionate defense of protected classes and support for socialistic alternatives is proof that you truly don't have faith in free markets.


Pros already get more than they deserve based on their market valuation as true professionals (no one cares to pay to watch them and yet they get money from Ams and sponsors anyway).



This is just more of your class warfare bs. I don't want, nor expect, am money or subsidies and your continued assertion that "pros" are someone that people want to watch is misleading. If it will help you understand, I am quite happy to change the names to "Those playing for profit" and "Those not playing for profit."

Just a summary of what I see.
If players don't feel they are getting a good value, they will find one elsewhere. The Pros have been doing it for quite some time. If the pro numbers are down so much, find those old pros that don't play any more and ask them why.


For the nine-millionth time, I'm not asking for ams to support pros, I'm just asking for a system that is equitable and encorages people that get good to keep playing.




They are making more after a tourney selling their merch that they won playing against 40 people than I win playing against 5.



There is the question and the answer. The system is equitable if the parameters are equitable. The problem is participation. Why should the Adv winner that beat 39 players get less than the Open player that beat 4 when the purse came from the players entry fees ?

It kind of relates to Kevin's joke about forming a union and threatening to go on strike. I don't think anyone would try to stop them.

The Ams are happy and thriving playing for each others money. The Pros are eveidently unhappy playing for each others money. The problem is that there is no where for the additional money to pay more to the pros.

The Pro solutions I am hearing over and over.
Force more players to play pro or quit.
Remove the incentives that are working well in the Am divisions so the options are to quit or play Pro.
Make the entry fees the same so players will choose to play pro (and donate) instead of playing Am (and dominating).

None of those will increase the Pro fields, they will get more players to quit playing.

If they are truly motivated by the competition, being forced to play with those they are not competitive with will push them away.

If the motivations are purely economic, they will avoid the larger events and try to clean up in the smaller or non-sanctioned events. You can make more huslting the minis than you can donating at a large event.

The greedy player will always play where they stand to gain the largest financial advantage. The largest field of players with lowest average skills will always offer the best financial opportunity if the payouts are based on the players own entry fees (and the entry fees are kept within the divisions). Nothing will change that formula except large amounts of cash in the purse that does not come from the players.

Basically, there is nothing you can do the the Pro fields to make them more financially attractive to a <970 player without a large amount of additional money.

If the entry fees are not kept within the divisions, many TDs will start running Am only events that even the non-money motivated Amateurs will choose to attend. The principle of competition would be the same, the concept of feeling exploited will push them away.

If it will help you understand, I am quite happy to change the names to "Those playing for profit" and "Those not playing for profit."



I have trouble understanding the threat some folk�s perceive in such a natural separation of competitors.

It reminds me of the old saying about the entitled rich:
"The rich would rather risk total and complete annihilation the give up any part of their wealth."

AM Player (white guy) Entry fee is $50
Pro Player (black guy) Entry fee is $100

Slave-Master who came up with idea who thinks that the White guy should pay less than the Black guy becasue he is less a man.

White man = Black man. BOTH are MEN! Not seperate! If we are in the same division than we should be TREATED EQUALLY! :mad:

Are you saying that the local clubs, or regional clubs that contribute, don't have some entitlement to decide where those money's "they raise" go?



This isn't even in the ballpark for this discussion. Of course they do and the sponsors who are providing some cash for pros other than wholesale/retail result from club efforts.

Affirmitive Action has no part in Disc Golf

Does the PDGA have a Mission Statement? If so what is it? If not, they need to come up with one before they will ever figure out how to motivate ams or pros.

I am quite happy to change the names to "Those playing for profit" and "Those not playing for profit."



I think everyone who competes plays for the value they potentially receive from paying entry fees, not profit, except for the handful who make their living at it. Some want that value in cash, others are fine with merch, and others are fine with trophies and just the tournament experience. Some who want to play for cash are dissatisfied with the current valuation in their structure but don't seem willing to adjust the parameters to boost the potential for more like minded people to play more.

Are you saying that the local clubs, or regional clubs that contribute, don't have some entitlement to decide where those money's "they raise" go?



This isn't even in the ballpark for this discussion. Of course they do and the sponsors who are providing some cash for pros other than wholesale/retail result from club efforts.



Then why did you bring it up?


You can stop yapping about how Advanced rewards are so good relative to Pros. Pros already get more than they deserve based on their market valuation as true professionals (no one cares to pay to watch them and yet they get money from Ams and sponsors anyway).



Also, I�d appreciate a response to my post above to you.



Perhaps you don't want a solution that might work but a solution that you would like,



Chuck, I am less concerned with a solution that might work than I am with one that might work well and meet our greater needs as a sport rather than the ever-narrowing ones of our current competitive systems entitled players.

Trying to increasingly meet the needs of this demographic is not, and should not, be equated with meeting the needs or rising to the challenges that keep us from reaching our greater goals.

We need to step back and take a realistic and deeper view of what we have, whom we have been putting all our efforts into and see if there isn't some other option available to us.

Particularly if it does no harm to the existing entitlement.

How would a True Amateur Class with no possibility of financial profit whether cash or prize harm our current Cash/Prize players? Is the name "Amateur" really so precious and vital to either of their existence�s? Would commingling the Cash/Prize divisions really be so detrimental to the mission or goals of the other?

I know that you tend to think solely in terms of what supports your arguments, which is natural, but I really would like you to consider the potential benefits of creating a new class of player, even if it only involved the creation of written standards and posting them in our PDGA Guidelines and not actually spending a nickel on it�s worldwide promotion.

Folks throw out the EDGE program as an example of setting a place at the PDGA table for true amateur inclusion, and it is a fantastic option, but it is not an answer for players, associations, educational institutions coming out of that program wanting greater involvement with the PDGA and competitive disc golf but without the serious and real consequences of playing competitively with the only available motivation being �for-profit�.

Are you saying that the local clubs, or regional clubs that contribute, don't have some entitlement to decide where those money's "they raise" go?

Moreover, at larger PDGAs where a considerable amount of sponsorship has been raised by the local club, using some of that sponsorship cash to pay for event expenses is actually a reflection of pros footing the bill for the prize players.



What planet to you live on ?

I guess that the Pro divisions already own all of the cash sponsorship prior to the accounting of the event, and any money used to cover expenses comes directly from the pro purse.

For an event:

I have 3 general sets of income (Am entries, Pro entries, and Sponsorship/non-prize sales).

I have 3 general sets of expenses (Am payout, Pro Payout, event overhead).

The expense of the Am payout should always be a net positive amount (income) because of the wholesale to retail price differential.

If Pros are paid at 100% of entry, it is a loss unless the player fees are considered event overhead. They are normally paid at above 100% if entry and are a guaranteed loss.

Event overhead is generally a loss unless there is sufficient sales during the event to cover expenses.

Once you add these together, you have four sources of positive cash flow (Am entries, Pro entries, Sponsorship/Sales, and Am Payouts) and 2 categories of expenses (Pro payouts and Event overhead).

Items that are net negative can not fund/support anything.

Player AM Less Qualified Individual
Player PRO More Qualified Individual

Player AM gets job and easier duites (paying $50)
Player Pro gets same job but heavier duties (paying $100)

Both Player Am and Player Pro are playing for the same paycheck = Descrimination and if Johnny Cochrin was alive today I would be BLOWING up his phone and telling him what this Wack Honkey Cracker Dude is trying to FORCE on me because I am the HIGHER QUALIFIED person! Of course Mr Cochrin may have a better argument for the less qualified individual.

Player AM Less Qualified Individual
Player PRO More Qualified Individual

Player AM gets job and easier duites (paying $50)
Player Pro gets same job but heavier duties (paying $100)

Both Player Am and Player Pro are playing for the same paycheck = Descrimination and if Johnny Cochrin was alive today I would be BLOWING up his phone and telling him what this Wack Honkey Cracker Dude is trying to FORCE on me because I am the HIGHER QUALIFIED person! Of course Mr Cochrin may have a better argument for the less qualified individual.



Cool, but backwards.

The Am player is paying $50 to the TD to compete against lesser talent.
The Pro player is paying $100 to the TD to compete against superior talent.

The TD is rewarding all players equally for their performance based on their respective purse values and how many players they beat. He rewards the Am players more because more Am players showed up and supported his event.

College professor = more educated individual
NBA Pro = less educated individual

Who makes more? Want to try again, Kev?

Separate divisions with separate structures at least as we have it today. I'm not against merging the prize and cash players in the 915-965 range into some Pro 2 style division. But their winner will still likely make more than last cash Open players who shoot better scores. And more importantly, unless something is done with incentives like stepped entry fees, they still won't enter Open any more often.

Maybe the blame for lower pro participation and money lies solely with specific areas or tournaments. You have to offer something more than a standard tournament to generate higher turnout the following year.

Example: We took over a local tournament that in 2001 had a total of 8 open players and paid out $400.
2002 - 22 open - payout $2199
2003 - 16 open - payout $3000
2004 - 37 open - payout $5256
2005 - 46 open - payout $5887
Entry fees have remained constant through the years and with the exception of 2003 (due to a venue change) participation has increased yearly. (we still paid more in 2003 than the previous year)

So I don't buy into pro turnouts are on a decline due anything going on in the am divisions. Our am attendance during this time has actually decreased. Around here ams know when it's time to move up and most have success after doing so.


With that being said maybe the blame lies solely with the players and not the TD's & PDGA.

It gets a little old hearing the "why don't the TD's or PDGA do something to increase attendence or added money"
Question is what have YOU the players done to help? I worte alot of large checks last year to pros, and gave away stacks of platic and baskets to the ams. So what do you think I heard during the awards ceremony.
"I'd like to thank my sponsor Disc Company X, I had a great time with the groups I played in, John Pro played well, Course looked great, see you next year"
Not once did any player thank any of the tournament sponsors (unless it was a disc company already sponsoring them anyway). After talking to Mom & Pop sandwich shop which forked over $500, no players stopped in to buy anything, or just to say thanks. Each sponsor had contact information on thier banners, yet no personal thanks, no written thanks, no thankful phone calls or emails offering thanks. I'm guessing the players probally didn't mention to freinds, family, coworkers etc.. how great Mom & Pop were. Thus no referral business.

We the TD's bust our humps for a year trying to build a quality event. Fundraising takes up a lot of that time. $500 is alot of money to Mom & Pop and they see no return on thier investment. Guess what? They won't sponsor next year so now we have to work harder to generate added money. Pretty soon the Mom & Pop well is going to run dry. No small sponsors means lower added money which means lower turnout.

Think about that next time you go up to give an acceptance speech.
We have to learn to take care of the samll businesses who support us before we can even think about International Conglomerate dumping big money into our sport.

I asked Sandalman to pull some stats on pro participation and here's what we have so far:

In 2001, 411 events with 6961 paid pro entry fees = 16.9 per event
In 2005, 743 events with 18778 paid pro entry fees = 25.3 per event

Which of those stats indicates lower pro participation?

In all fairness, these stats are for all pros both men and women of all ages. But it's still good for pros overall. Sandalman is trying to see if he can get similar data just for the Open division only.

Gary,

I didn't deny the difference between retail/wholesale value in prizes, I just said that we shouldn't go overboard as to how much cash divisions contribute vs prize divisions. I believe I discussed each side of it. You seem to be assuming that merch sponsorship which all discs purchased for the event by the club basically are is exclusive prize class sponsorship which is no more valid than saying all cash sponsorship is cash division sponsorship, right?

Back to the discussion:

What would be the downside in your opinion of combining the Prize and Cash divisions according to skill level/age/gender, with TDs able to control all aspects of ratio of prize to cash payout mix in those divisions other than Open (and later other tours for Women or Masters if they ever happen)?

What would be the downside of creating a classification where profit based on performance was significantly controled if not totally negated? Not Trophy Only necessarily, but with no possibility of profit?

What would be the upsides of these that are not currently available?

Would they necessarily damage the experience or options of current Prize or Cash players? Or would they likely enhance that experence and ability to profit?

Would the very real and tangible "conflicts of interest" be reduced if not solved completely by these two proposals?

Cool, but backwards.

The Am player is paying $50 to the TD to compete against lesser talent.
The Pro player is paying $100 to the TD to compete against superior talent.

The TD is rewarding all players equally for their performance based on their respective purse values and how many players they beat. He rewards the Am players more because more Am players showed up and supported his event.



Wow, I can't believe you actually try to defend this on any kind or equity/moral basis. The fact is that big brother PDGA is protecting you from people more skilled than you, so that you can profit. You may enjoy that protection, but you certainly don't deserve it, not if you expect to profit.

Chuck, that was a fantastic analogy. So the moral of the story is "it is more profitable to be an NBA player than a college professor." Great point!!!!!

Now, if you had demonstrated that the junior college professor with a bachelor's degree was profiting much more than the university professor with a Phd, all because the free markets dictated it, then it might have been on point. Then everyone would understand not to pursue that hard work to get a Phd, or to aspire to teach at the highest level.

That would be a fantastic way to run an educational system I might add. I wonder why you didn't use that analogy?

Gary,

I didn't deny the difference between retail/wholesale value in prizes, I just said that we shouldn't go overboard as to how much cash divisions contribute vs prize divisions.



I only showed the income and expenses. Both relate directly to the club/TD. Either an item generates money or costs money. The Pro's divisinos by definition are zero profit at best. They can not fund anything. Your statement was that by using sponsorship money to cover some expenses, the pros were supporting the ams. I was popinting out that the sponsorship money was club funds, not pro funds.


downside in your opinion of combining the Prize and Cash divisions


Severe decline in amateur motivated player attendance.
What would differentiate PDGA events from Minis ?
Why should I travel to play a PDGA event when I can do the same thing and never leave home ?


downside of creating a classification where profit based on performance was significantly controled if not totally negated?


No downside, I have no problem with a new classification, I have a problem with destroying an existing classification to create a new one.


What would be the upsides of these that are not currently available?


No upside that I can see to the first one, a new pool of players that may one day move from non-prize play to PDGA sanctioned play or play both.


Would they necessarily damage the experience or options of current Prize or Cash players? Or would they likely enhance that experence and ability to profit?


Under the elegibility rules you proposed last year, they would have very little effect on PDGA sanctioned competition since they would not be allowed to compete without losing elegibility inthe "true amateur" class.


Would the very real and tangible "conflicts of interest" be reduced if not solved completely by these two proposals?


I am not familiar with any conflicts of interest.
All persons involved with building and promoting disc golf are involved to increase participation in the sport and all of them are rewarded with the growth of the sport. Likewise all of them are hurt by any major decline in the sport (at on the Am side). Where is the conflict ?

Oh, the tourney was the St. Patricks Classic that I posted the attendence figures. Also it appears the payout was done exactly the same and the total purse was about the same also(i dont know for sure since the total wasnt posted for this year and i didnt feel like doing the math)



Here are the pertinient numbers for the St. Patty's Classic Pro weekend for the past few years:
<table border="1"><tr><td>Year</td><td>Pro</td><td>MPO
</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>92</td><td>58
</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>97</td><td>66
</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>93</td><td>55
</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>98</td><td>60
</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>89</td><td>46
</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>107</td><td>56
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

Attendance on pro weekend looks pretty stable at about the max possible for an 18 hole course, assuming one or two ghost holes each year.

Yes that's right. For this pro A-tier the pro attendance has been the same for the last six years.

The MPO division is also pretty stable, but with more variance. I really don't see any trend line at all. Except maybe in 2005 the MPOs lagged on getting their entries in and MPM/MPG/FPO/FPM beat them to the punch before the event sold out. Or more likely it was raining really hard that weekend and more MPOs didn't sign up at the last minute as total attendance was under 90 for the only time in the last six years.

This particular tourney shows that the pro division is alive and well in Orangevale. Or maybe it shows that the guys in Orangevale know how to run a good tourney so everybody shows up to it.

So sue me!
By doing that the PDGA has institutionalized the disadvantage of players that fall at the bottom of these set entitlements; the result is a system that does not promote improved skill or retention of players that miss the entitlement break points.

What Nick is saying here is that some players, like himself, find themselves stuck in the bottom of a division with no real hope of winning or even cashing.

I agree with the premise. Some players are just not going to get much better than they are.

There are obvious solutions, especially now that most members understand ratings at least a little. We could have different ratings brackets at different tier levels. We could give our TDs discretion to advertise and apply different ratings cut offs. We could cap Am 1 at 955 and create an Am 0 division above it where anyone could play for plastic. So that the Super Am 0 players could still go to Am Worlds on an invitation [because there won't be too many points in that division] we could just give them an automatic invite. We could make the trophy-only option a player's option rather than the TD's option. There are lots of things we could do.

Of all of those, I like Am 0 the best because it solves two problems at once. It creates a division where broke donor pros can compete, and it solves the Bagger-Until-Worlds problem that many players perceive when an 960+ rated amateur keeps winning everything in Advanced.

Of course, it is also the next step towards total economic extinction of the cash divisions.

I agree that the difference in entry fees is amazing. I also disagree that nobody is interested in watching the pros, or willing to pay to watch them. One of the coolest things about playing in Vegas for me was being able to follow around the leader card(we were done playing by 12:30, they started around 1) There was a large crowd following them. I like the idea of Advanced and Pro both being $50. I think the difference is a huge step. I would like to see Ams getting a players pack, say a shirt, and a disc, and a towel. Then as far as the prizes go, Trophies only. Lunch would be nice, too. In reality, most of the discs, etc, I have won as prizes are things I will never throw. I don't really understand why ams feel like they should get all the entry fees back as prizes anyhow. There needs to be a balance though, if the ams don't see the value in the event, they'll just go elsewhere.

{it appears Rhett removed his comments made towards me, I am also doing the same]

Wow, I can't believe you actually try to defend this on any kind or equity/moral basis. The fact is that big brother PDGA is protecting you from people more skilled than you, so that you can profit. You may enjoy that protection, but you certainly don't deserve it, not if you expect to profit.


I cal BS on you.

BS! BS! BS!

You are generalizing all amateur players as merch-grubbing low-lives who are only trying to get over.

I play to compete. I like competing at disc golf tournaments. It's a great competitive outlet for me. I used to play darts competitively, but when I quit drinking and smoking, bars because a lot less attractive as a place to hang out. (This is the definition of irony since I started disc golfing a lot more at this point.)

I hate the 50% payout table for am divisions not because I want to merch-grub all the stuff I can, but because it used to mean something when you finished in the merch because you were in the top third. Winning half a mini for last-place merch meant something. It's competition. The merch is the token of a successful competition.

So lay off the grandstanding. I could say that all pro players are money-grubbing low-lifes that only want to force the ams up the ladder so that it fattens the pro payout.

But I won't say that because I know that not all pro players are like that.

That's an interesting idea Bruce; having ratings breaks transition throughout the year so that entitled folks get a taste of non-entitlement and the other way around. Intermediate rating break would transition from say 890 to 910 throughout the year. You'd want it set so that it would encourage all levels to improve rather than try and drop back in skill though. This would eliminate or lessen the entitlement factor. This idea has potential.

Bruce, though I dread admitting it, you are particularly clever from time to time.

St. Patty's Classic Pro weekend for the past few years:
<table border="1"><tr><td>Year</td><td>Pro</td><td>MPO
</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>92</td><td>58
</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>97</td><td>66
</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>93</td><td>55
</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>98</td><td>60
</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>89</td><td>46
</td></tr><tr><td>2006</td><td>107</td><td>56
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>








Rhett, Quit bringing CALI into this. EVERYONE already knows Cali is much cooler thatn everywhere else. :D

WE ALL AGREEE! :D

I'd like to issue a user warning to Rhett for flaming at James.

There is no need for such stuff Rhett. You can disagree with James without calling his arguments "BS! BS! BS!".

We're just discussing stuff here. Com'on!

{it appears Rhett removed his comments made towards me, I am also doing the same]


You read and reply fast. I misread your post but still wanted to post my research. By the time I edited my post, which was right I after I posted it, you had replied. :)

Really, why not use figures from 1990, or the date ams started to get top heavy payouts and protection? What is the magic deal about 2001? That is the true test of the "am health equates to pro health" theory?

Kevin,

You are a nut. ;)


AM Player (white guy) Entry fee is $50
Pro Player (black guy) Entry fee is $100

Slave-Master who came up with idea who thinks that the White guy should pay less than the Black guy becasue he is less a man.

White man = Black man. BOTH are MEN! Not seperate! If we are in the same division than we should be TREATED EQUALLY! :mad:

Okay Chuck, I have put out all my points with ya and now its time to comprimise.

-You give me 1 set entry fee for Open,Masters,and ADVANCED.
-I'll give you the NO FORCE UP RULE.

-You give me the opportunity to have Open, Masters, and ADVANCED play as one group, divided only by score so that us pros can help TEACH our up and coming ADV players.
-I'll give your MERCH payout system

What do ya say Chuck?

Negotiations ;)

It just happened that way, i clicked the thread to see a new post from someone else and your post was the newest one, so i guess i entered the thread at the same time you posted your reply to me since yours hadnt even shown up on the front yet.

It's cool. :D

James, I used 2001 because that is the furthest back the tournament results go on here.

I really like your negotiating style. How did you avoid a career in politics ? :cool::D

Hey, I didn't say all ams are money-grubbing low lifes. In fact, I really know very few ams that I don't think highly of, and I know very few ams that actually advocate that they should be financially rewarded while being protected. However, I think anyone who thinks/proclaims/argues that they deserve a chance to profit while protected from greater skilled players of the same sex and age is acting in an intellectually and morally dishonest manner.

I really like your negotiating style. How did you avoid a career in politics ? :cool::D



Too many skeletons in these closets :D

Believe it or not James, I completely agree with you.

I may however disagree on the definition of profit. I have kept records for the last few years, and have generated a net loss of between $5000 to $1500 counting all of my winnings at posted payout value. Not much of a profit.

I'll admin that I'm a poor example since I seldom win, but do usually cash. Especially in that $1500 loss year.

I think there should probably be a cap on how much an Am player can win. Figuring out how to implement a cap would be interesting.

I guess I shoud have said I agree with your premise, but not your conclusion. I don't think there is anything dishonest about thinking that beating more players that have a realistic chance of beating you should be rewarded less just because the entire pool of competitors is less or more skilled than another unrelated pool of players.

While I agree that amateur players should not be able to compete with a good chance of generating a net profit, I don't think the amount the Amateur players are competing for should be compared in any way to the amounts the Pro divisions are playing for.

Just as the masters divisions (MPM or MM1) payouts have nothing to do with the open/adv payouts.

Believe it or not James, I completely agree with you.



Actually, despite my often caustic tone and the problems with message board communication, I always suspected you agreed with that basic sentiment. In fact, I think most ams that have played for along time are not motivated by profit, and will continue to play as long as the tourney caters to their competitive motivations and offers them an enjoyable time at an affordable price.

Believe it or not James, I completely agree with you.

I may however disagree on the definition of profit. I have kept records for the last few years, and have generated a net loss of between $5000 to $1500 counting all of my winnings at posted payout value. Not much of a profit.

I'll admin that I'm a poor example since I seldom win, but do usually cash. Especially in that $1500 loss year.

I think there should probably be a cap on how much an Am player can win. Figuring out how to implement a cap would be interesting.



That is why I keep referring to it as "profit motivated" and keep talking about " Spirit of Amatuerism". Not too many can make a real profit with any thing related to playing DG. But what helps make them want to attend an event can be/is profit. The structure is set that way on purpose to lure Ams in with stacks of plastic. As I have said before, i dont think that is some big secret and I question if that is a direction that we need to keep heading in.

Well damnit then. :D

Anyways, I'm sick of this arguing. It's fruitless. As long as the organization is dominated by ams, the rewards will be tilted in their favor, and no amount of arguing will sway the majority to give away their "entitlements," regardless of its effect on the sport as a whole. Ten years from now, it will be the same thing, boatloads of ams, people like Chuck crowing about how successful it is, while at the same time people that dedicate themselves to excel get the shaft. Tyranny of the mediocre.

The structure is set that way on purpose to lure Ams in with stacks of plastic. As I have said before, i dont think that is some big secret and I question if that is a direction that we need to keep heading in.


I have been trying to figure this out. I know that I am not motivated by profit. I buy more plastic than I win, and don't really need any of it. I also play at over 20 events a year.

The confusing part is that I don't think I would be interested in traveling to a trophy only event unless it was a very special title. Am Worlds/World Doubles maybe, not much for anything else. It doesn't matter if I win anything, it matters that I am competing for something, Not the monetary value (because I don't sell anything), but the coveted value. You are competing for something everyone wants.

So traveling to an event with a $60 entry fee to compete for 100% payout is more compelling than going to the same event for $35 with a players pack equal to the entry fee and trophies only. Given the reason that I think I play for, I don't really understand why I feel this way about trophy only. It may be that I've been brain washed by the big machine. It may be that I relate low priced events with above average minis, and I've never enjoyed minis.

2007 PDGA Divisional Proposal (http://home.comcast.net/~nkcom/07DivProp.htm)

Gary, that's the first step to admitting your addiction to plastic. :)

I think the value for the money reasoning is a big thing. It seems like everyone (not in this discussion) thinks that lowering entry fees equates to a lower quality event. People don't get that if the TD is the same, the courses are the same, and the extras are the same, then it will be a good event. Instead it's "The payout will #$*&$!, so I won't go."

Too many are always focused on the wrong number next to their name. They look at the end of line (the $ value), instead of at the beginning of the line (the place of finish) to determine how well they did.

Nick, is this your proposal or something the BOD is considering?

The structure is set that way on purpose to lure Ams in with stacks of plastic. As I have said before, i dont think that is some big secret and I question if that is a direction that we need to keep heading in.


I have been trying to figure this out. I know that I am not motivated by profit. I buy more plastic than I win, and don't really need any of it. I also play at over 20 events a year.

The confusing part is that I don't think I would be interested in traveling to a trophy only event unless it was a very special title. Am Worlds/World Doubles maybe, not much for anything else. It doesn't matter if I win anything, it matters that I am competing for something, Not the monetary value (because I don't sell anything), but the coveted value. You are competing for something everyone wants.

So traveling to an event with a $60 entry fee to compete for 100% payout is more compelling than going to the same event for $35 with a players pack equal to the entry fee and trophies only. Given the reason that I think I play for, I don't really understand why I feel this way about trophy only. It may be that I've been brain washed by the big machine. It may be that I relate low priced events with above average minis, and I've never enjoyed minis.



IMO, it is becasue that is what we are taught to play for in competitive DG. I am in the same boat as you. After the last event I played I calculated what my new rating will be, it just happens to boost me way up into the ADV feild. Now I was already playing ADV anyway but somehow the thought of not being able to play down anymore worried me :confused: I certainly dont care for the stacks of plastic ( i rarely even collect anything i win).

But this is why I question whther the direction we are on and have been on is the direction to keep heading.

Would you travel to and event for $60 where the course, TD, accommodations were all first rate and your players package and event amenities could be easily valued at 200% plus your entry fee?

Winning is a state of mind, a heat of the battle, a facing of ones apprehensions. It is having the most fun, not just saying it. It is playing the game you love with like minded folks. It is supporting the promotion and betterment of disc golf. Winning, for me never has been about getting my buddies entry fees either in the form of cash or prizes. Though there is nothing wrong with that motivation, it simply is not "Amateur".

Both I hope. But no, I just created it, or modified the proposal I sent them in 2004 for the 2005 season.

Instead they went with the less controversial plan to just do away with any boundaries between Cash and Prize divisions and slap a "Trophy Only (fund raiser for the Prize/Cash)" option onto it like that was some gesture of faith to creating a real amateur class. I understand their logic, I just didn't drink the cool-aid to not see it in the light they hoped I and you would...

2007 PDGA Divisional Proposal (http://home.comcast.net/~nkcom/07DivProp.htm)



I can't understand that spreadsheet at all?

Which direction is it supposed to be going?

Are you offering a CASHING division at every player rating breakdown?

GOLD, Silver, Bronze so on???

There are two classifications Amateur and Professional. The amateurs divisions are along the left side, all other are Professional divisions.

The top of the Professional Divisions (the ones found at the World Championships) are the CASH only divisions. The ratings based divisions below them are only Male/Female and within the ratings guidelines listed along the right side.

I used Bruce's idea of a sliding rating break point to remove a significant portion of "entitlement" for certain skill level ratings, so it wouldn't be the same guys cashing in protected divisions all year long, and to encourage folks to improve throught the year in order to stay competitive within the system.

The only thing that stands out as needing improvement is including a few age protected divisions in the ratings divisions. I know, for example, the current Am Masters, is a monster of an up and coming division and, is not going to likely give up their entitlement easily.

Nick, is this your proposal or something the BOD is considering?

I don't think our current board is really looking for any major revisions to the competitive structure. i could be wrong. My information may have grown stale.

The PDGA sells two main products to fund its operations: memberships and tournaments. Sales of both are increasing at healthy rates. From a sales perspective, if you don't have any pressure from competitors and sales are brisk, you don't tinker with the recipe that much.

What do you call what they did two years ago then?

Tiddly Winks...

I think I understand, but lemme clarify: The Green Unisex Only, Must have PDGA PR between 824 - 775 and they can get paid out by cash or prizes depending on what the TD wants to do?


If thats the case, your allowing EVERYONE to be able to play a cashing division? WOW! Your brain must be losing oxygen stuck in there



http://radio.weblogs.com/0115787/images/My%20Pictures/HeadUpAss.jpg


If I'm misunderstanding excuse me

Nick,

IMO, Take the ADV cash/prize division and remove the bottom number from the ratings range...then remove everything below them in the cash/prize bracket and it begins to look more like something I beleive could be used. That of course is assuming I am reading the chart right.

Would you travel to and event for $60 where the course, TD, accommodations were all first rate and your players package and event amenities could be easily valued at 200% plus your entry fee?



Yes, I would, at least once. And probably would prefer to go to events where the event and amenities were worth the entry fee. I'm not that big on the value of TD determined player packs. Often the values assigned items in the player pack have no basis in reality, and certainly no basis in their value to me. I am fine with player's packs, but not if I am going to be hit over the head repeatedly (you TDs that do this hopefully know who your are) that I got more than my entry back already.

If I was going to play an event on a groomed course, and be fed well during the event, and have good competition, I would play at $60.

What do you call what they did two years ago then?

Tiddly Winks...

No. I would call it, "All the major revisions they want to do for awhile." Two years ago they [we] took a big step [or three small steps] towards a system much like you are proposing down the middle there, or towards an R-tier system with open movement between divisions. It takes our player base about two years to digest these kinds of changes, so you really have to let them run for awhile to see how they play out.

So far these changes have played out fine. After the initial outrage we see that the primary consequence is that a few Grandmasters like Chuck, and some women, like Kelsey, Marie or "Peaches," have some options when the rest of their division does not show up. No big deal, as it turns out.

Financially, it does not seemed to have hurt the corporate bottom line. Membership is up and tournaments are up. We aren't getting a lot of complaints from the Rec Men getting beat by girls, but there are a few complaints from Advanced players getting beat by really old Pros and guys who never shuld have gone pro.

There is not a lot of corporate incentive to tinker further right now. What we have now works for everyone except the 965ish rated pros.

How would an Am 0 work for them, I wonder. Just quit equating Am with Amateur and try American instead! What we are doing is so American it does not even translate into Swedish.

As long as the organization is dominated by ams, the rewards will be tilted in their favor, and no amount of arguing will sway the majority to give away their "entitlements," regardless of its effect on the sport as a whole.


I don't believe anyone running for election has had an opponent run against them since Mikey ran for office. Let the pros step up to lead before you cast stones at those who have taken on the challenge!


...while at the same time people that dedicate themselves to excel get the shaft. Tyranny of the mediocre.


I really don't understand how pros are getting the shaft. Could you please explain that to me? Seriously. They get 110% payouts at B-tiers, and they play for cash. And also seriously, people have been dropping out of the system since it began when they topped out at 950 and couldn't compete with the Climo's of the World. I know people who quit playing tourneys over ten years ago because they were tired of giving their money to the same three guys every single touney, year after year.

The growth of the am fields represents these drop-out players who now keep playing, plus new players.

I think we are seeing that pro MPO ranks drop in size as the skill of the top few outpace the many. By trying to force feed an upper echeclon "touring pro class" and create it when it really isn't there, I think we have actually harmed the MPO division when we were trying to help it. By artificially pumping up the purses we have enabled more pros to go on tour, which seems like a good thing. But since it is kind of artificial it isn't really sustainable, and that means it has a great chance to collapse upon itself.

With more touring class players, that core group is improving faster than the masses. That is kind of a "duh" thing since these guys are playing professionally and all the time. But when they all come to town at once, they eat up all the paying spots. Now your 950-975 rated pro played base has about zero chance of cashing, and is facing a $100+ entry fee. It's no wonder they seem to be staying away. That right there is my causal analysis for why the MPO field isn't keeping pace. It's not a thriving am base that's doing it.

Add the splintering of the pro players into Masters and even Grandmasters, and you are eating into the MPO filed size even more.

Bruce, no corporate factors were involved 2 years ago either.

Really, besides your idea of season sliding ratings breaks all I am doing is tossing the "Trophy Only" option in favor of a full blown "Amateur Classification of Divisions" completely separate from the for profit divisions, and moreover completely optional for TDs to use or not use.

The only corporate cost to the PDGA is discussing it and including it in our divisional set up, as with all past initiatives it will then be left in the hands of PDGA Tournament Directors and local and regional clubs to take up the cause (or not).

Certainly you don't find harm in discussing these things do you?

Ten years from now, it will be the same thing, boatloads of ams, people like Chuck crowing about how successful it is, while at the same time people that dedicate themselves to excel get the shaft.



We can only hope our growth rate continues at the same pace as it has. If those who moderately excel in the 950-1000 range continue to "get the shaft," it's because the marketplace has still placed no value on their "almost really good" skills. They have no rights to anything more than attempting to win the entry fees of their competitors and yet we will still probably provide added cash from various places to boost their division purses. I've offered an option to help this group.

The players over 1000 up to Barry & Ken will continue to win more money in all finish positions at the bigger events which will increasingly be based on added cash. The Memorial just added cash ($12,000) equal to the Open entry fees. I suspect that $12,000 and much more will be there for just 20 guys to divvy up, if that's what you think will happen in 5 years, but I doubt it if you look below. Despite claims to the contrary, pro participation is increasing even in the Open division. Sandalman provides the Open part of the story posted before for all pros:

In 2001, 4366 MPO entries were paid by 1303 unique players which includes non-members resulting in 3.4 events per player per year.

In 2005, 11754 MPO entries were paid by 2297 unique players resulting in 5.1 events per player per year.

So, if event turnouts in OK & TX don't seem to match the 20% annual growth in Open participation overall, perhaps it's something about the area or how those events are run that's the problem. We've already had the discussion about what's up with the huge TX player base not seeming to produce a proportionate number of 1000+ players. It doesn't seem to be much of a problem elsewhere or at least not been analyzed like TX.

If I'm CEO of a company with these global growth stats, I'd be hoping the Board granted me a bonus. This is pretty good even without the Am growth being even better.

Chuck you might have missed it because you have been gone but I have come here to negotiate.


Okay Chuck, I have put out all my points with ya and now its time to comprimise.

-You give me 1 set entry fee for Open,Masters,and ADVANCED.
-I'll give you the NO FORCE UP RULE.

-You give me the opportunity to have Open, Masters, and ADVANCED play as one group, divided only by score so that us pros can help TEACH our up and coming ADV players.
-I'll give your MERCH payout system

What do ya say Chuck?

Negotiations ;)

Man! And I mean "right after" I just took you off of ignore too!

If you are proposing that only Open, or only the top line should be able to compete for profit, I bid you bon voyage and good luck with it. It has, in my opinion, zero chance of ever being adopted by the PDGA as a policy or divisional structure. (I'll let everyone else here fill you in on the million reasons that isn't going to happen, if they already haven't done so.)

The only class that doesn't play for profit, strange only to us disc golfers, is the Amateur class of divisions. All others, as now, are at the discretion of the TDs to decide (you know market forces...), only gold level divisions must be paid out in cash.

You can't be serious about 700 and 800 rated golfers playing for cash. Are you? Why would anyone try to get better at all? Unless you are paying out a FLIGHT system (like most ball golf company scrambles) I can't even listen to wanting to pay out 700-900 rated golfers.

If your really proposing this.....I TAKE BACK EVERYTHING! I'm fine with keeping it the way it is

This is a good post, thought intimating total innocence on the part of Prize divisions is a little too much to stomach. Suffice it to say the whole system is full of infighting and dysfunction. Even between Intermediate to Advanced divisions... It is only natural when they all are battling constantly over the same players, dollars, courses and volunteer efforts.




As long as the organization is dominated by ams, the rewards will be tilted in their favor, and no amount of arguing will sway the majority to give away their "entitlements," regardless of its effect on the sport as a whole.


I don't believe anyone running for election has had an opponent run against them since Mikey ran for office. Let the pros step up to lead before you cast stones at those who have taken on the challenge!


...while at the same time people that dedicate themselves to excel get the shaft. Tyranny of the mediocre.


I really don't understand how pros are getting the shaft. Could you please explain that to me? Seriously. They get 110% payouts at B-tiers, and they play for cash. And also seriously, people have been dropping out of the system since it began when they topped out at 950 and couldn't compete with the Climo's of the World. I know people who quit playing tourneys over ten years ago because they were tired of giving their money to the same three guys every single touney, year after year.

The growth of the am fields represents these drop-out players who now keep playing, plus new players.

I think we are seeing that pro MPO ranks drop in size as the skill of the top few outpace the many. By trying to force feed an upper echeclon "touring pro class" and create it when it really isn't there, I think we have actually harmed the MPO division when we were trying to help it. By artificially pumping up the purses we have enabled more pros to go on tour, which seems like a good thing. But since it is kind of artificial it isn't really sustainable, and that means it has a great chance to collapse upon itself.

With more touring class players, that core group is improving faster than the masses. That is kind of a "duh" thing since these guys are playing professionally and all the time. But when they all come to town at once, they eat up all the paying spots. Now your 950-975 rated pro played base has about zero chance of cashing, and is facing a $100+ entry fee. It's no wonder they seem to be staying away. That right there is my causal analysis for why the MPO field isn't keeping pace. It's not a thriving am base that's doing it.

Add the splintering of the pro players into Masters and even Grandmasters, and you are eating into the MPO filed size even more.

The negotiations are meaningless because I have no power to do any of these things, just propose them to the Competition Committee. I and the committe also prefer to see results from tests before changing things if it's that type of change. If the stepped entry fee idea is tested and fails then fine. But what if pros like it and it results in more players? Don't worry, it won't happen without testing.

Having pros, masters and advanced play together is already being done in the first round at many events. But after the first round, I believe it violates the idea of playing in the group with your competition. Now, if we had Bruce's Am 0 division or a Pro 2 division where current masters, open and advanced in the 935-980 range could mix it up, then that might work.

I already agree 100% with getting Open and Advanced entry fees closer in line. You don't even have to trade something for that. However, to prove that it's better, how about you get someone in your area to run a B-tier test with both aligning entry fees and stepping Open entry fees? I'll even help with getting the PDGA member list with your area pros in the proper rating/entry fee group.

I believe it violates the idea of playing in the group with your competition.




If they are shooting the same score then aren't they playing within their player rating and skill level.

At least people are talking about it and that is ALL I WANT! Because I have faith that we will get the best way to do things down one of these days.

;)

Can you tell me why they wouldn't deserve such an opportunity?[a post disappeared, this is talking about players with ratings lower than 965 having a right to play for profit in divisions other than Open.]

I don't want to be the bearer of bad news Kevin, but that boat has already sailed about 6 years ago or so... I've played in pure ratings based events where the Bronze class guy won more money than the Silver and all but the top 2 places in Gold (and that was giving them all of the sponsorship $$$).

When our entire history has been targetted to gamblers Kev, what makes you think that these guys would ever accept not playing for each others entry fees or that they would ever feel fine about sending 80% of their entry fees up to the Open class (or any part of it for that matter)?

According to Kevin's earlier postings, all that he was proposing was that the divisions play together, not that they compete against each other. The divisional payouts would still be there, or replaced by a group pot with bonuses paid to the winners within each division.

It might fly with 1/3-1/2 of the overall purse being paid out by the regular payout schedule, and 1/2-2/3 beig paid out by divisional finish.

You would just have to figure the finish order and payout by total players in MPO/MPM/MA1, and then again within each division. It sounds like a fun format.

Okay, I'll leave after correcting you one more time.


If those who moderately excel in the 950-1000 range continue to "get the shaft," it's because the marketplace has still placed no value on their "almost really good" skills.


Yeah, it's all about the marketplace, like the "marketplace" really puts a value on those with less 950 rated skills. Gimme a break. The "marketplace" did not do #$*&$!, the PDGA structure of protection did.


In 2001, 4366 MPO entries were paid by 1303 unique players which includes non-members resulting in 3.4 events per player per year.

In 2005, 11754 MPO entries were paid by 2297 unique players resulting in 5.1 events per player per year.



When it comes to statistics and rationalizations, you have no shame. First, you are using "average events per player per year" in a very misleading way. Your statistic tells me nothing about the median or the most common amount of events for an open player. For example, one player plays 11, four play one, the average is 3, the median is one. Additionally, any honest assessment would be related to the time period of the policy. However, I hardly expect an honest assessment from you.

If you wanted to know if you are truly right, you would:

1) use the time period of the policy;

2) take average MPO field size increase growth rate and compare it to the average am field size size increase.

Of course that data would probably show that your theory is bunk, but why do you even need a theory at all, you don't give a #$*&$! about those who improve to a high level anyway. If they just went away, you'd be real happy. Hey, at least I'll give you credit, you don't hide your disdain for those who have put in their time to improve. Wonderful stewardship of a sport.

Yeah, it's all about the marketplace, like the "marketplace" really puts a value on those with less 950 rated skills. Gimme a break.



Those playing for merch ask nothing of the marketplace. They pay their own way including fees.

Those who choose to play for cash not only expect to get 100% of their entry fees back (without paying fees), but hope that they get cash added from other places whether it's am merch conversion or benevolent sponsors. At this point, the marketplace doesn't care about paying for the privilege of watching better players. I honestly wish they did because those of us volunteering might get paid for some of these things we do.

You claim I lie with statistics. I'm just presenting them. I had no idea what the numbers were for pros, and I'm as surprised as I'm sure others are that it's that good. I don't see you making any effort to come up with facts to prove your case if you don't like these.

Why would you even remotely expect pro growth to match am growth? Anyone as good as Climo and Barry will probably be playing in our events. Almost 100% of new member growth will come in the Am divisions forever. Most pros will have to be grown and will previously have been Am members. Only a small percentage of them will ever get to what we consider the bottom pro level no matter how hard they try.

Two things. First, you are talking apples and oranges. James is talking about average field sizes, Chuck is talking about ttoal participation. James proposes that the number of events has increased faster than pro participation, so even though the statistics show that more pros are playing more events, the number of pros at any one event have gone down.

Second. James' statement that the market place does not put a value on the 950ish player is incorrect. At this time the "marketplace" consistes mainly of 950ish players and they have shown that they are very interested in seeing themsleves play. :cool:

Of course that data would probably show that your theory is bunk, but why do you even need a theory at all, you don't give a #$*&$! about those who improve to a high level anyway. If they just went away, you'd be real happy. Hey, at least I'll give you credit, you don't hide your disdain for those who have put in their time to improve. Wonderful stewardship of a sport.



Calling Nick. Shouldn't you be giving one of your little "user warnings" to James? I think it's way overdue.

James proposes that the number of events has increased faster than pro participation, so even though the statistics show that more pros are playing more events, the number of pros at any one event have gone down.




I though that might be the case but even that is not true.
2001 Average total pros=17 MPO=11 in 411 events
2005 Average total pros=25 MPO=16 in 743 events

There's not a single stat that's down for pros overall and MPO specifically which also includes older players like Dr. Rick who plays Open alot. If a stat is down regionally, then it needs to be addressed there.

Comparing the growth to Ams makes no sense. The pool of perhaps several hundred thousand disc golfers, other than 2500 pros, is available for amateur growth. Only the 7500 PDGA Ams are truly the available pool of players to provide Pro growth each year.

chuck, lets be fair. you are comparing 2001 to 2005. you saw the numbers for EVERY year from 2001 thru 2005 inclusive. in fact, 2005 barely showed a 15% increase over 2004 in MPO, and that was the first time since a near 30% gain in 2002 that we did better than 15%!

james, i agree its a good idea to compare these numbers to Ams. either friday or monday i might have some time to bust out those stats

I took the first and last numbers we had. If we had 1990 or 1997 as the oldest, I would have used those instead. However, we had the master age change in 2000, so if we had 2000 I would have used it instead of 2001 which is all we had.

No intent to mislead. Those are the numbers for the years we had. This isn't some math class to analyze every value. The simple discussion question was what's happening with pro participation. It's up overall by all measures by picking any year. it doesn't mean it can't be better and it also doesn't mean it might not be better in some areas.

i know you werent misleading. its just that there was a huge jump between 01 and 02, then relatively flat(12-20%) growth after that. not that a 15% average growth is bad.... but its a lot different than 25% over five years. ya know wot i mean?

Boy James,

You've got a lot of anger going there. Typically my impression is that people who get really mad about things like this realize somewhere deep inside that they just might be wrong. :D

Leave numbers aside James and think about human nature. While the guys at the top might not like it, the reality is that without some artificial mechanism, the lower ranked players aren't going to play head to head with them. Furthermore, the evidence is clear, forcing lesser skilled players to play against the top Pros doesn't make bigger purses or increase the number of Pros, it simply drives those players out of disc golf.

Fair has nothing to do with it; although you spurn the use of the term, the reality is that these kinds of things are driven by the marketplace. It is very similar to supply and demand. I actually prefer a gambling model. Risk vs. Reward. For a 930 rated player, the risk of loss against the top guys is very high especially at $100. However, good gamblers know that even a bad hand is worth playing if the monetary risk is low. A pair of twos is worth $30 but not $100 in a high stakes game. The only way you are going to get those low ranked players to play up is by decreasing their risk. This can be accomplished by getting sponsorships so that the over all reward is substantially high relative to their monetary risk ($100), or by decreasing what they pay (from $100 to $50 for example).

Chuck's model is the only viable one that I've seen in the past 6 years. Every other proposal I've seen requires that the lower ranked players increase their risk so that the top Pros can make more money. This ignores basic human nature i.e. the marketplace. You have to offer something for that risk. The idea of Pros giving advice to those up and coming guys is silly. Not without some benefit, but not enough to cover the risk.

Any model that lowers the risk for the lower players will work but I've only seen one used so far. That of flattening the payout. Flattening the payout works some because it lowers the risk for the lower ranked players by increasing the likelihood they will finish in the money. It's not perfect but it works some. What Chuck's model does is to lower the risk for those guys a big chunk. If his model comes into play lower ranked players won't walk to the Pro ranks, they will run. They will perceive a huge advantage and they will be correct. That is, adjusting their entry fee in response to market forces will drive them into the Pro ranks.

Now, here is a thought for you. Is it likely that in a pool of 100 players where the top 20 guys are 1000 rated and the bottom 40 are 930 rated (who only played Pro because they got in at 1/3 the cost) that a lower ranked guy is going to take home any cash?

Last point, this all goes away if there is a substantial pool of 1000 ranked players. All of those guys share the same risk. However, their overall risk is higher since they will have more competition. That is, their lot isn't any better. You see, until there is more sponsorship, there is no real solution in any model other than one like Chuck's. Get used to it or get used to the slow growth of the Pro rank that will stagnate until more sponsorships come in.

Did you see this Lyle?

2007 PDGA Divisional Proposal (http://home.comcast.net/~nkcom/07DivProp.htm)

Typically my impression is that people who get really mad about things like this realize somewhere deep inside that they just might be wrong.



yeah, that might be your typical impression, it's also possible I'm angry because I've watched this sport for a long period of time and seen how it runs out a lot of people that work to improve themselves, and rewards those that don't. Yeah, that makes me mad. I also get mad when people state that these people are not worthy; or insult my common sense by saying that the system actually benefits these people, and then when challenged on that claim, produce misleading statistics, time after time after time after time after time.

I also get angry when arguments are continually mischaracterized. It thwarts honest debate and progress. For example, here is your statement:


Furthermore, the evidence is clear, forcing lesser skilled players to play against the top Pros doesn't make bigger purses or increase the number of Pros, it simply drives those players out of disc golf.



I have never said one word about forcing anyone to do anything. People can continue to play at their level, just not for profit. It's not that deep, nor that radical in the grand scheme, just in this sport where people have become spoiled with their protected profits.

It's funny, this statement is basically one of the things that I have long advocated:


I actually prefer a gambling model. Risk vs. Reward. For a 930 rated player, the risk of loss against the top guys is very high especially at $100. However, good gamblers know that even a bad hand is worth playing if the monetary risk is low. A pair of twos is worth $30 but not $100 in a high stakes game. The only way you are going to get those low ranked players to play up is by decreasing their risk. This can be accomplished by getting sponsorships so that the over all reward is substantially high relative to their monetary risk ($100), or by decreasing what they pay (from $100 to $50 for example).



and then you take this sensible approach and somehow claim it equates to Chuck's which is completely different and keeping with his philosophy of rewarding the weak and punishing the strong. Oh well, this is par for this sport and discussion.

BTW Chuck. Nice going, use a faulty time period, don't bother to compare it to ams, but keep on crowing about how well the system works.

If it will make you feel any better, here are Pat's full stats on Open participation:
<table border="1"><tr><td> .</td><td>Events</td><td>total</td><td>unique</td><td>E/P
</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>411</td><td>4366</td><td>1303</td><td>3.4
</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>452</td><td>8003</td><td>1693</td><td>4.7
</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>543</td><td>8834</td><td>1770</td><td>5.0
</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>642</td><td>10071</td><td>1990</td><td>5.1
</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>743</td><td>11754</td><td>2297</td><td>5.1
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Growth in some years is better than others but going from 2001 to 2005 is the best choice to see the overall trend which is what I showed before.

I've never once said the pro situtation is as good as it could be. It's just not as gloom and doom as you and Kevin have made it out to be. Notice I'm one of the few who has offered an option that could help based on incentives and not force, and can actually do something about it. If those who want to seek solutions aren't willing to test viable options for improvement then it looks like we'll just have more of the same.

I would say that unless amateur growth is about 20 times higher than pro growth, we have a problem and need to put much more effort into amateur growth than we have. The pool of players who aren't members is easily 20 times bigger than the pool of PDGA Ams that the pros have to draw from. We'll see what Pat's numbers indicate but I'm thinking the best place for the PDGA to put marketing efforts would be Ams. Hiring Duesler to find sponsors might be better served by more marketing efforts for Ams. Unless the am member pool gets bigger, the Pros will have a much harder time growing, so we need lots more ams. Hmmm, maybe bigger payouts would draw more Am members.

OK James, just read the following and think about it.


I have never said one word about forcing anyone to do anything. People can continue to play at their level, just not for profit. It's not that deep, nor that radical in the grand scheme, just in this sport where people have become spoiled with their protected profits.



The problem I think you have previously described is the old one of players getting better and moving to Pro and not being able to cash and moving out of the sport. Basically, when players stop getting a return on their investment in terms of prizes, they stop playing tournaments.

I'm not sure what you refer to as playing for profit, but in 5 years of tournament golf, I have never turned a profit. Do you propose trophy only for all am divisions, or trophy only for players above a certain rating ?

Now if you stop rewarding median level golfers, they are going to do the same thing. They can not cash in Pro, and they get no reward for playing in Am. If I found myself in that position, I would not bother with the hassle of going to any sanctioned event. 9:00 player's meetings are pretty early for me on a Saturday, and I'd like to spend some of the weekend getting stuff done around the house.

You have to entice all levels of players to get them to give up their weekends to come out to your events. They aren't going to do it just to be nice, and the only other sports that get away with charging admission and giving nothing beyond the tournament in return are team sports with season long competitions.

I also get angry when arguments are continually mischaracterized. It thwarts honest debate and progress.



Um, welcome to the mess bored.

OK James, just read the following and think about it.


I have never said one word about forcing anyone to do anything. People can continue to play at their level, just not for profit. It's not that deep, nor that radical in the grand scheme, just in this sport where people have become spoiled with their protected profits.



The problem I think you have previously described is the old one of players getting better and moving to Pro and not being able to cash and moving out of the sport. Basically, when players stop getting a return on their investment in terms of prizes, they stop playing tournaments.

I'm not sure what you refer to as playing for profit, but in 5 years of tournament golf, I have never turned a profit. Do you propose trophy only for all am divisions, or trophy only for players above a certain rating ?

Now if you stop rewarding median level golfers, they are going to do the same thing. They can not cash in Pro, and they get no reward for playing in Am. If I found myself in that position, I would not bother with the hassle of going to any sanctioned event. 9:00 player's meetings are pretty early for me on a Saturday, and I'd like to spend some of the weekend getting stuff done around the house.

You have to entice all levels of players to get them to give up their weekends to come out to your events. They aren't going to do it just to be nice, and the only other sports that get away with charging admission and giving nothing beyond the tournament in return are team sports with season long competitions.



um, Welcome to the wonderful world of dYsc golf

Actually, it would make me "feel better" if you took statistics from the date the PDGA instituted it's merch-heavy-payout philosophy. Then you could use those stats to declare: "see James, wild growth in Ams has resulted in wild corresponding growth in pros."




Notice I'm one of the few who has offered an option that could help based on incentives and not force, and can actually do something about it. If those who want to seek solutions aren't willing to test viable options for improvement then it looks like we'll just have more of the same.




Ah, this is so rich. It translates into "I cannot hear any other options but mine, therefore, mine is the only option put forward. Take it or leave it."




I would say that unless amateur growth is about 20 times higher than pro growth, we have a problem and need to put much more effort into amateur growth than we have.


Yes, I suspect that you would say this since it comes out of nowhere and has no backing other than your assertion. It's just your disdain for those who improve to the upper levels----on steroids.




Unless the am member pool gets bigger, the Pros will have a much harder time growing, so we need lots more ams. Hmmm, maybe bigger payouts would draw more Am members.

Yes Chuck, let us lure more people over here so that we will end up with more people over there. You are brilliant. Carl Rove is envious.

Ah, this is so rich. It translates into "I cannot hear any other options but mine, therefore, mine is the only option put forward. Take it or leave it."




I would have to agree with that statement.

Now if you stop rewarding median level golfers, they are going to do the same thing. They can not cash in Pro, and they get no reward for playing in Am. If I found myself in that position, I would not bother with the hassle of going to any sanctioned event. 9:00 player's meetings are pretty early for me on a Saturday, and I'd like to spend some of the weekend getting stuff done around the house.


You have to entice all levels of players to get them to give up their weekends to come out to your events. They aren't going to do it just to be nice, and the only other sports that get away with charging admission and giving nothing beyond the tournament in return are team sports with season long competitions.


I continue to get mixed signals from you. maybe I am not listening well enough.

I thought someone asked you, and you stated that if the tourney met your needs, then you would enter it, for competition. You know, like amateurs worldwide, people that play solely for the competition, not for economic reward. Man, this is a foreign concept around here. :D

Ah, this is so rich. It translates into "I cannot hear any other options but mine, therefore, mine is the only option put forward. Take it or leave it."




You conveniently forgot the part where I said any ideas need to be tested. The other ideas tossed out can be tested also and successful ones trigger changes. Not one person has indicated why stepped entry fees wouldn't work. Kev raises the smokescreen of making more work for TDs. But if it became a standard option, the TD report and member lists provided to them would make it no more complicated than the ratings breaks we have to check for Ams now.

Well, you conveniently left out the option of actually having two classes: people that play for profit and those that don't.

By the way, I must have mised Kevin's "smokescreen" about TD reports, I do remember him making an argument that it discriminates against the better players, and it decreases the motivation to improve. It was a pretty sound rebuttal IMO.

Chuck,

Let's say that we tested out the stepped entry format and it was successful. Where do we go from there? Is that the end goal, or is it a step in the process to a larger goal?

Chuck's step entry fee system would not cause TDs much headache at all. It would not be any more difficult than the step system currently in use that we call trophy-only. We track that kind of information on the corner of the leaderboard card so it is easy to find when we are calculating a payout. Jon and I both find it mildly annoying, but we've trained ourselves.

I can say this with certainty: if the concept was merely allowed and not a mandatory part of the format, like the trophy-only option, or the former Pro 2, or the former R-tier concept, it is going nowhere. When it comes to tournament format, our TDs are mostly neo-cons. For the same reasons that TDs did not jump on those ideas they are not going to be jumping on this one.

If the concept were mandatory for TDs as part of the standard format, like Pros Playing Am, all seven levels of darkness would break loose on this message board. That would be fun but i'd get behind at work.

It is a cool idea that someone should play around with in Minnesota or northern Wisconsin. Nothing in the current sanctioning agreement would prohibit this. On the TD report you would just put the actual average entry fee paid in as the entry fee and the TD report would run fine.

[Note to competition director: here's a good name for Pros Playing Am: The Ratings Based Option.]

Now if you stop rewarding median level golfers, they are going to do the same thing. They can not cash in Pro, and they get no reward for playing in Am. If I found myself in that position, I would not bother with the hassle of going to any sanctioned event. 9:00 player's meetings are pretty early for me on a Saturday, and I'd like to spend some of the weekend getting stuff done around the house.


You have to entice all levels of players to get them to give up their weekends to come out to your events. They aren't going to do it just to be nice, and the only other sports that get away with charging admission and giving nothing beyond the tournament in return are team sports with season long competitions.


I continue to get mixed signals from you. maybe I am not listening well enough.

I thought someone asked you, and you stated that if the tourney met your needs, then you would enter it, for competition. You know, like amateurs worldwide, people that play solely for the competition, not for economic reward. Man, this is a foreign concept around here. :D



You notice I said entice. That requires something of value in return for my money other than just a game of golf. It may be the environment, it may be how well I am taken care of, it may be just that I like the TD and want to support what he is doing. There are many levels of enticement.

I do not consider playing for modest amounts of plastic as playing for profit.
I do not believe that Ams should be getting tons of plastic as prizes.
I am in favor of a cap on Am prizes, but it needs to be above the price of a basket.
I am in favor of player packs, but the cost deducted from payout should not to exceed 1/2 of the entry fee.
I am in favor of flatter performance payouts, but not beyond 1/2 of the field.
I believe player packs should be used to reward participation, payout should reward performance.
The reward for any division should be commensurate with that division's participation level, except for the women.
I believe that the ultimate goal for professional golfers should be to get big corporate dollars to fund prizes.
I believe that the only way to accomplish that is to get a huge amateur base (both casual and tournament players), and the only way to do that is to get into the schools and city leagues.

I don't believe the current system can be tweaked in any fashion to give more than a handfull of the current pros a resonable chance of making a profit, much less a living at the sport.

Does that clear things up ?

I do remember his making an argument that it discriminates against the better players, and it decreases the motivation to improve.



I think Kev is worried it might actually work and is scrounging for reasons to shoot it down. I'm willing to let the marketplace decide. The better players want more lower rated players to play them. It's pretty simple really. I have friends who won't play me for cash or even a beer unless I give them odds of some sort like throws or ante differential. Why would we expect any other kind of behavior for potential tournament players?

The reason the ratings breaks are where they are for ams has to do with potential for cashing based on actual stats. If they were set farther apart, many of the bottom rated in a range wouldn't enter until they felt they got better. Rather than ratings breaks for Open, you would step the entry fees instead.

Why would players still want to improve with stepped fees? Because they still want to win something. They aren't entering free and if they don't earn some cash here and there, they won't play regardless of entry fee differential. They can't bag either to drop into a lower entry fee step because it will still be too expensive to enter events and not cash to drop your rating, versus winning some cash even if your rating is in a higher step.

The cool thing is we don't need a member vote on this. Players will vote with their dollars if it's tested. I see this as an option for TDs to use for events that aren't selling out and need a boost in Open attendance, but never a requirement, especially for events selling out as it is.

If it will make you feel any better, here are Pat's full stats on Open participation:
<table border="1"><tr><td> .</td><td>Events</td><td>total</td><td>unique</td><td>E/P
</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>411</td><td>4366</td><td>1303</td><td>3.4
</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>452</td><td>8003</td><td>1693</td><td>4.7
</td></tr><tr><td>2003</td><td>543</td><td>8834</td><td>1770</td><td>5.0
</td></tr><tr><td>2004</td><td>642</td><td>10071</td><td>1990</td><td>5.1
</td></tr><tr><td>2005</td><td>743</td><td>11754</td><td>2297</td><td>5.1
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>



So just taking years 2003 to 2005 since tournaments increased 100 events each year can't one conclude the following:

Increases from year to year:

<table border="1"><tr><td> .</td><td>Events</td><td>total</td><td>unique</td><td>E/P
</td></tr><tr><td>03-04</td><td>100</td><td>1237</td><td>220</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>04-05</td><td>100</td><td>1683</td><td>301</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td></table>

100 new events 2004 had an AVERAGE of the same 12 regional pro players play in those new events and an AVERAGE of 2 new pros playing each event maybe because the new events were now in their home town course.

Another 100 new tournaments in 2005 saw an AVERAGE of 17 of the local pros play in these new events and 3 new pros played in these new events maybe cause they were right in their backyard.

With 200 new events to play in over the last two years you would think there would be more of an increase in the jump of pros playing the events when in fact it is the same pros playing in a few more events. This leads to regional pro burn-out on B and C Tiers and a lack of funds or olives come time for the bigger A and NT events.
Oh yeah and did you hear Barry and McCoy are coming to town, let's wait and do that C-tier next week.

--Make C-Tiers like Bruce's models and grow the heck out of the AMateaur ranks. Big Am focus, No Pro focus, play for each others entry.
--Bump up the standards on the B-Tier so that the tournament has to get after it and bring the local pros all together. (Regressing from $500 to $250 has made many B-Tiers into the C-Tiers of days past)
--A-Tiers should get PDGA marketing help and work within the region to pull in regional talent and sizable purses.
--NT's need the entire state organized to assist tournament funding and build excitement within the region to be at this huge event.

With 200 new events to play in over the last two years you would think there would be more of an increase in the jump of pros playing the events when in fact it is the same pros playing in a few more events.



I don't think you can draw that conclusion because the E/P (events per pro) remained at 5 for those years meaning that the previous pros continued to play the same amount and the new ones that jumped in each year played 5 events also each year, at least on average.

With Fridays usually pretty dead, we're sure getting a lot of lurker traffic on this thread so people seem to be interested.

I'm willing to let the marketplace decide. The better players want more lower rated players to play them. It's pretty simple really. I have friends who won't play me for cash or even a beer unless I give them odds of some sort like throws or ante differential. Why would we expect any other kind of behavior for potential tournament players?



Do you ever consider the value that people who perform better deserve more?

Your little proposal amounts to: let's set up a betting system where everyone breaks even.

Just as with your beer and strokes/ante differential example, if one person keeps winning, the strokes/ante differential is altered until there is an equal likelihood that everyone wins. Eventually, this system is set up so everyone's return on investment equals zero, EVERYONE'S.

Just as Kevin pointed out, what incentive is there to improve if everyone ultimately gets the same return on investment. It's merely more of your socialism applied to a different level of the sport.

You know, like amateurs worldwide, people that play solely for the competition, not for economic reward.



As I said before I can't think of any competition that is not for some reward. Either it is a single title that all teams compete for each season, or it is beer, or it is cash. Everything else is just casual competition between 3 or 4 guys when they get together on the weekend.

Even our minis are for reward, the only pure competitive golf I ever get to play is casual golf. I have never been around a group of less than 8 golfers without talk of money coming into the competition. Skins, quarter a stroke, even 51 is always in effect.

I'm willing to let the marketplace decide. The better players want more lower rated players to play them. It's pretty simple really. I have friends who won't play me for cash or even a beer unless I give them odds of some sort like throws or ante differential. Why would we expect any other kind of behavior for potential tournament players?



Do you ever consider the value that people who perform better deserve more?

Your little proposal amounts to: let's set up a betting system where everyone breaks even.

Just as with your beer and strokes/ante differential example, if one person keeps winning, the strokes/ante differential is altered until there is an equal likelihood that everyone wins. Eventually, this system is set up so everyone's return on investment equals zero, EVERYONE'S.

Just as Kevin pointed out, what incentive is there to improve if everyone ultimately gets the same return on investment. It's merely more of your socialism applied to a different level of the sport.



I think you finally understand. If the net opportunity for profit/loss does not reamin near zero, people quit playing. This is true for all levels of competition. And as long as we are playing for each other's money, it must remain that way. The Ams generally understand and are OK with that. The ratings breaks are close enough that everyone gets a chance to cash if they are playing in the correct division and they play well.

If the Pros are unhappy with it, then the Pros need to find an alternate source of funding. It has been demonstrated repeatedly that getting more players into the pro ranks that are not ready to be in the pro ranks just leads to them quitting, and yes almost all new golfers have to start in the amateur ranks. It makes no sense to argue that we need to bring in new players to grow the pro ranks. We need to put all of our energy into growing an outreach movement that extends to the kids and municipal sports organizations. Then some of those new players will move into PDGA amateur competition, and some of those will move on to Professional play.

But still, until we stop playing for each other's money, the perpetual losers will stop supporting the perpetual winners. The lowest sustainable player is the one that sees a chance to come close to breaking even at least once and a while.

Eventually, this system is set up so everyone's return on investment equals zero, EVERYONE'S.



Not true. If that were the case, we'd be doing pure handicapped events. The lower rated players would almost have the same if not better odds of winning than the best scratch players depending on how it's done. We'd have everyone playing Open if we used handicaps. In fact, usually the top guys drop out of handicap events, because for them, their odds are much worse than normal.

No way an 850 player is going to pay $45 to Barry's $90 because you still have to finish in the top 40%-50% on actual scores to cash even with stepped entry fees. Barry's chance of winning is not diminished. Twenty 960-969 players paying $45 could play McCoy paying $90 for 100 events and none of the twenty will have winnings anywhere close to Kev's. And, he could live on that payout, especially if there was any added cash.

--Make C-Tiers like Bruce's models and grow the heck out of the AMateaur ranks. Big Am focus, No Pro focus, play for each others entry.
--Bump up the standards on the B-Tier so that the tournament has to get after it and bring the local pros all together. (Regressing from $500 to $250 has made many B-Tiers into the C-Tiers of days past)
--A-Tiers should get PDGA marketing help and work within the region to pull in regional talent and sizable purses.
--NT's need the entire state organized to assist tournament funding and build excitement within the region to be at this huge event.



Yeti is a bright guy, I LIKE IT! ;)

This is not difficult. Get a computer model going and use one premise: ONE will enter if a positive or break even return can be expected. This is really just like making a line in football or odds in horseracing. If one's likelihood of beating a better player is 1 in 10, then their bet will be 1/10 of the other player. They will lose 9 out of 10, but get paid 10 to 1 on the one time they actually win. They eventually break even.

If their odds are 1 in 10, and they bet like their odds are 1 in 3, they will lose and eventually demand a lower entry. Everyone goes through this same iteration and eventually, when everyone actually understands their true odds of winning, they demand the appropriate odds/entry fee and over multiple iterations, waaalaaaa, everyone gets the same return. Simple really.

I think we are seeing that pro MPO ranks drop in size as the skill of the top few outpace the many. By trying to force feed an upper echeclon "touring pro class" and create it when it really isn't there, I think we have actually harmed the MPO division when we were trying to help it. By artificially pumping up the purses we have enabled more pros to go on tour, which seems like a good thing. But since it is kind of artificial it isn't really sustainable, and that means it has a great chance to collapse upon itself.

With more touring class players, that core group is improving faster than the masses. That is kind of a "duh" thing since these guys are playing professionally and all the time. But when they all come to town at once, they eat up all the paying spots. Now your 950-975 rated pro played base has about zero chance of cashing, and is facing a $100+ entry fee. It's no wonder they seem to be staying away. That right there is my causal analysis for why the MPO field isn't keeping pace. It's not a thriving am base that's doing it.

Add the splintering of the pro players into Masters and even Grandmasters, and you are eating into the MPO filed size even more.




With that being said maybe the blame lies solely with the players and not the TD's & PDGA.

It gets a little old hearing the "why don't the TD's or PDGA do something to increase attendence or added money"
Question is what have YOU the players done to help? I worte alot of large checks last year to pros, and gave away stacks of platic and baskets to the ams. So what do you think I heard during the awards ceremony.
"I'd like to thank my sponsor Disc Company X, I had a great time with the groups I played in, John Pro played well, Course looked great, see you next year"
Not once did any player thank any of the tournament sponsors (unless it was a disc company already sponsoring them anyway). After talking to Mom & Pop sandwich shop which forked over $500, no players stopped in to buy anything, or just to say thanks. Each sponsor had contact information on thier banners, yet no personal thanks, no written thanks, no thankful phone calls or emails offering thanks. I'm guessing the players probally didn't mention to freinds, family, coworkers etc.. how great Mom & Pop were. Thus no referral business.

We the TD's bust our humps for a year trying to build a quality event. Fundraising takes up a lot of that time. $500 is alot of money to Mom & Pop and they see no return on thier investment. Guess what? They won't sponsor next year so now we have to work harder to generate added money. Pretty soon the Mom & Pop well is going to run dry. No small sponsors means lower added money which means lower turnout.

Think about that next time you go up to give an acceptance speech.
We have to learn to take care of the samll businesses who support us before we can even think about International Conglomerate dumping big money into our sport.



I don't think we need to add anymore money in the Pro divisions. The money is NOT the problem in my eyes. The difference in the prices of entry fees and entry fees might be too high are the only things I see wrong when it comes to the financial side of things.

If Open and ADV was $50 instead of $125 for Open and $60 for AdV we would see players move up quicker. The more that move up the more get paid. Maybe the top end Open players don't make as much, but to me it would be worth it to have a decent field size to play against.


Three of the better quotes on this thread. The fact of the matter is that a Professional class was created in the early throngs of this sport when there was only Am and Pro, Paper or Plastic. We started messing with all of these divisions so more people can be winners and feel good. I truely have always wanted the PDGA to do more for expanding and promoting the sport because that is the true way that all will benefit. The problem is what to do with the bed that was made when allowing a Pro class to compete and then watching that pro field go from beach frisbee hippies to true World Class athletes. Those that don't think that is good for the sport better get a grip. Should the pros do more to promote and share, absolutely! The problem is that Vince Young charges $90 a photograph and isn't even a pro yet. Ken Climo, Barry, Des and many others spend countless hours signing autographs, taking photos, helping players with advice, etc. Not to mention constantly thinking about how their actions may effect the sport, the tournament, etc.
You can't put a price on that, but to hear others say that Pro's don't do anything for the sport or deserve just reward for being as skillful as we are is complete crap.
The current competitve system is messed up. The players that don't want ot watch the pros are the ones that are consumed with the current advanced level of amateaur profteering. You know my stance on the disc golf economy. If the players can't win the latest Tee-Rex, guess what, they have to buy it. Better yet, look at Bowling Green. Huge players package, low entry. Everyone wins before they start and what a beautifully sized field to play in, wow!
The number one thing in my opinion is that courses can only hold so many players in a tournament configuration. That means we need more courses, more education and promotion of the sport and a heightening of the events that we are going to label higher than a local C-Tier.
In the meatime, let's find a way to grow more tournament players and create a smoother transition from one division to the next.

Try your idea out Chuck. It has some merit although making me pay more because I am better isn't too cool. That may a way to count added cash toward the tournament. Maybe players rated above 1000 get their extra $20 in entry sponsored by the tournament as added cash. more ideas needed.

What you're missing is the value of other aspects of competition. If I never cash, the value of the events had better equal the value of my entry fee to keep doing it. Even taking last cash like I do in Master maybe 1 out of 4 local events is enough to keep me entering. Less than that and I'll go to bigger events where I can play GM and have better odds. Everyone's values are different on this but we know from actual behaviors that players don't need to break even on merch or cash to continue participating in our events. The event itself provides a large amount of the perceived value for players beyond payouts. But providing more potential reward (or lower cost) not even close to helping a player breakeven can motivate more participation.

I don't see stepped entry fees as a long term solution because once pros aren't primarily playing for entry fees, but sponsor money, we'll roll up the carpet and players will have to qualify to play for big purses just like ball golf. I see the stepped option as an interim structure that allows the pros to fare better during the next 10-15 years until it's unnecessary. For now, we're mostly playing for each other's money and need a way to slightly shift the odds to get more people to enter. There's no harm in testing a potential bridge strategy that can help places where turnouts could be better.

Try your idea out Chuck. It has some merit although making me pay more because I am better isn't too cool. That may a way to count added cash toward the tournament. Maybe players rated above 1000 get their extra $20 in entry sponsored by the tournament as added cash. more ideas needed.



See Chuck I'm not the only one that thought that was ludicris.

If you do your stepped entry fee you are sort of forcing their hand anyway. If you set the limit at 1000 for the step up. What happens when the ratings come up and Tommy FivePutt just went from 999 to 1000. His entry fees just went from $50 to $100. Tommy FivePutt will be saying heck no I'm not paying $50 more....I'm done!...we just lost another pro so now we are down another Open player.

Then it is likely that Tommy Fiveputt would not have bene paying the $100 in the first place and he wouldn't have even been there to lose without the $50 option. :cool:

Sorry, just getting tired of going around in circles.

The Pros deserve more money, there isn't any more money to give them, we need to find a source for more money.

The steps wouldn't be that large, no more than $20 per level at an A or NT. No way you would do steps at events that sell out. If a 1000 rated player stays away for $100, the event may be overpriced to start with. If the top five payout places in an event go up from $20-$40 if stepped entry fees are offered and more players enter, are you saying it's not worth it for a top player to pay $20 more? The other cool thing for the 965 guy is if he takes last cash, he might earn back more than his discounted entry fee which is even more motiviation to participate than just getting your money back.

I really think the entry fees should be the same $50 Advanced, $50 Open, or something like that. I think you have a lot of players on the brink, that say, hey, I could played Advanced and do well at $50, or I MIGHT be able to cash in Open, but it's going to cost $100. Make the transition a little easier on the wallet, and more will make the move.

How come it's only the 950 rated ams that are the problem and not the 950-1000+ rated pro masters? Those guys are also "not playing Open" and they are also not making the Open field bigger.

I think they don't get mentioned because there are 980-1000+ rated masters that would take cashing spots away if they played Open. The ams top out at about 960-970 and are pure added cash for the SuperPros, so they are wanted to fatten up the purse. The masters would be competition for the money so they are not mentioned.

How come it's only the 950 rated ams that are the problem and not the 950-1000+ rated pro masters? Those guys are also "not playing Open" and they are also not making the Open field bigger.

I think they don't get mentioned because there are 980-1000+ rated masters that would take cashing spots away if they played Open. The ams top out at about 960-970 and are pure added cash for the SuperPros, so they are wanted to fatten up the purse. The masters would be competition for the money so they are not mentioned.



Rhett I agree with you, Masters who have 1000+ ratings have NO business playing a protected division.

As a matter of fact I think 40 years of age is still too young for age protection. I think it should be 50 but I would accept 45

The main problem is that advanced ams have no incentive to move up to pro when they are making plenty of cash via disc sales. Also, the borderline players are stuck in pro, even for NT events (i.e. dead money).

Why are we restricting ourselves to 1 pro mens division? If you want Ams to stop playing for $$$ (disc sales) then create a pro division where they can win some cash. As I see it, I'd have the following divisions:

- Pro Open (no restrictions, bigest payouts)
- Pro Restricted (plays for cash, rating restricted division, say 955/960ish)
- Amateur (increased competition over Beginner, greatly reduced entry fees, plays for t-shirt/disc/fun and random drawings). This division is not restricted by player rating!
- Beginner (rating restricted am division, say 900 and below, same prizes as Am)

With this system a person can stay an AM as long as they want (sandbagging doesn't matter since everyone gets the same prize). There are good players out there who do NOT want to play for a lot of $$$... they want to go out to the park and have a good time (in a tournament setting).

Also, any pro could drop down and play amateur tournaments (remember, everyone is getting the same prize so there is no sandbagging for plastic). This would be helpful for players whose skills have dropped off (due to practice, injury, age, etc.).

I think this system would allow the top 1/2 of current Advanced Ams to move up and start cashing in the restricted pro division. They could also play Open (at B/C tiers) to strengthen their skills while still having a chance at cashing.

How about 4 divisions, based on ratings...

Pro men-951+
Am men-950 or less
Pro women-886+
Am women-885 or less

There are way too many age protected divisions, and too many levels within the non-age protected divisions. I don't want to hear about the "tweeners" either. You're either Am or Pro, and either a man or a woman.

If you did it that way I would suggest

>900 is Open
<900 is AM

If everyone >900 played OPEN **** we would have some great fields and the 940 golfer would cash quite often.

The main problem is that advanced ams have no incentive to move up to pro when they are making plenty of cash via disc sales.


Is this like the TDs that are getting rich off the profits of runnning PDGA events? 'Cause I just don't see this happening everywhere like y'all are claiming.

Yea, I bet there are a couple of people who do this. Maybe even a couple per region. But it seems like there are a whole lotta people on this thread villifying the entire am population for the actions of a very small few.

Is this like the TDs that are getting rich off the profits of runnning PDGA events? 'Cause I just don't see this happening everywhere like y'all are claiming.

Yea, I bet there are a couple of people who do this. Maybe even a couple per region. But it seems like there are a whole lotta people on this thread villifying the entire am population for the actions of a very small few.




That's not what I am saying at all.

Its much more of a problem in my neck of the woods. I agree that Cali people are a little differnt

You know, like amateurs worldwide, people that play solely for the competition, not for economic reward.



As I said before I can't think of any competition that is not for some reward. Either it is a single title that all teams compete for each season, or it is beer, or it is cash. Everything else is just casual competition between 3 or 4 guys when they get together on the weekend.

Even our minis are for reward, the only pure competitive golf I ever get to play is casual golf. I have never been around a group of less than 8 golfers without talk of money coming into the competition. Skins, quarter a stroke, even 51 is always in effect.



Gary, I should thank you for so clearly expressing why you and so many other disc golfers, who obviously have never experienced amateur competition, refuse to understand the distinction between Amateur and Professional that the rest of the world has accepted.

Or more importantly the reasons such a distinction would serve our sport well, at any stage of our development.

Is this like the TDs that are getting rich off the profits of running PDGA events? 'Cause I just don't see this happening everywhere like y'all are claiming.

Most tournaments that I've played have HUGE payouts for 1st place in advanced am (new basket, $150+ of plastic, etc.). Now, these people aren't immediately selling it but where do you think it all goes?

BTW, my previous post (a few posts ago) was only meant to cover the basic mens divisions. I think age and gender protected divisions are still a good idea (and promotes the sport for all age groups). The key points are still this: 2 pro divisions (not counting gender and age protected divs) and 2 am divisions (trophies and players packs only). Anyone can play the top am or top pro division at any time (no ratings restrictions). This would also alleviate a lot of paper work and keeping track of player status!

Besides, the masters divisions control the planet. We'll revolt if you mess up our sweet deal. :D :cool::D

I just want to scream when I read you post things like this Nick. First you suggest a division for Non-Prize winning ams, which has merit, and then you turn around and make blanket statements about "What the rest of the world has accepted." This is blatently untrue. I have given many examples of other sports that consider prize winning players to be amateurs. I will give you a challenge. Let us see if you can beat me at this. For every one Nationally organized competitive sport that does not allow prizes that you can name, let me see if I can name one that does.

The parameters, it must be a competitive sport played by adults, it must have a recognized organization, it must compete on a national level and it must be a sport played beyond college.

Please don't come back and say, those sports don't follow the guidelines of 'true am'. You made the blanket statement that the rest of world does not payout am's in prizes, so back it up.



Gary, I should thank you for so clearly expressing why you and so many other disc golfers, who obviously have never experienced amateur competition, refuse to understand the distinction between Amateur and Professional that the rest of the world has accepted.

Or more importantly the reasons such a distinction would serve our sport well, at any stage of our development.

That was close!


As a matter of fact I think 40 years of age is still too young for age protection. I think it should be 50 but I would accept 45

That was close!


As a matter of fact I think 40 years of age is still too young for age protection. I think it should be 50 but I would accept 45






Funny stuff. I have been playing with the same Open guys for years.................we just got older. I remember when Masters age started once you reached 35.
If you were 16-35 , no matter how good or bad , you played Open till you were 35.

35-45 was Masters.
45-55 was Grand Masters.
55-65 was Senior Grand Masters.
65+ was Legends.

35-45 was Masters.
45-55 was Grand Masters.
55-65 was Senior Grand Masters.
65+ was Legends.



I think it still is for overall competitions.

Responding to Yeti's post that used my name in vain,

If the PDGA were to tell Jon, Brett and I that we simply cannot offer the pro divisions for stupid little C-tiers, that might have the effect of concentrating more pros at the B-tiers and A-tiers. [It might also put us out of business if that caused Brett to lose interest in the process and we could not find someone to pick up his end, but I think we could bring in a new volunteer.]

Speaking as the humorous sidekick to a TD who runs mostly local, self-sponsored events, we would only cry crocodile tears over the loss of the pros. It would be a step in the direction of creating a pro class of players who don't merely play for each other's entry fees. It is not anything I'm lobbying for because I know it is not anything Brett would want.

I think if the PDGA were to require this, once all seven levels of darkness settled back down, you'd see the same players at the same tournaments doing the same thing. The pros would just be playing the simultaneous unsanctioned event, and the PDGA would not collect its $2 a head.

Our pros are there to play for each other's entry fees and they don't give a rip about points and ratings. They are not the guys going to Worlds and USDGC. They are guys who work for a living and play disc golf for fun. Playing for each others cash is just part of the fun to them.

I'm starting to think we should stay near the same, because some of these ideas are so bad, it may screw up everything

Ever since I started this thread, I have found out that

-One wants to make me pay a higher entry fee due to I'm a good player.
-One wants to offer cash divisions to players of all abilities
-One wants to add a second PRO division that I can't play in cuz my rating is too high.

All I can say to that stuff is BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

How about taking some of the ideas one at a time:

1. Align entry fees between Open and Advanced. It will likely result in an increase for Advanced and a decrease for Open but it wouldn't have to be that way.

I'm all for it. Any downside? Talk amongst yourselves.

Rhett I agree with you, Masters who have 1000+ ratings have NO business playing a protected division.

As a matter of fact I think 40 years of age is still too young for age protection. I think it should be 50 but I would accept 45



You are not the only one. (http://www.nefa.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=449) And I would go for 50.

How about taking some of the ideas one at a time:

1. Align entry fees between Open and Advanced. It will likely result in an increase for Advanced and a decrease for Open but it wouldn't have to be that way.




The one thing I am 100% for is Adv and Open being EXACTLY the same. I don't care if Open entry fees go down or ADV go up. I would suggest that Open fees go down.

If you are playing ADV you are obviously somewhat serious about the game, so you might as well put your money up.

If we can elimiate the financial difference between ADV and PRO we may have more ADV players test the waters.

Depends. Do you let the market place decide the entry fee amount?

If so and the market decides its $100 then the only downside that comes to mind is the one you pointed out about the large step up in entry fee between INT and ADV.

If the market place decided the entry is $40 you may see less pros traveling anywhere to play.

If the PDGA sets the Amounts then it depends on what amount they set it at.

I personally am not sure either way on the subject but you asked for answers so I thought i would chime in with a couple that came to mind.

Definitely, whatever is settled on the fees should be the same. I am also for decreasing the prizes in Advanced. I shouldn't get anything for coming in 20th, even if it is out of 100. The prizes should mean something.

I know I have said this OVER and OVER, but in B and C tiers I sure wish we could mix the ADV with the OPEN and Masters.

Don't you think an up and coming ADV player would benifit by playing with Legends of the game (McDaniel, Hammock, Tannock, Climo) obviously they won't be too many ADV players playing with those guys in the 3rd and 4th rounds of the tournament but we could teach these up and comers some things DURING the tournament. I LOVE playing with people that are anxious to learn more about the game. I LOVE to be able to help the younger guys out with little tips during an event.

If these ADV players are still on the 2nd or 3rd card in the 4th round they will then start to see that they may be ready. They can tell where they're scores compare, but throw them into the fire and I KNOW that all these guys will get better, faster.

I know it's hard not to drift on these threads but I was hoping we could mostly stay on one item at a time because it will be easier to get the feedback back to the Competition Committee. At least Yeti has also piped in here and he's on it.

Sorry, but those are my main two wishes, and i won't be back until monday,

HAVE A GOOD WEEKEND! :D

Kev, on your idea for people from different divisions to continue together after the first round, it's currently discouraged in rules 804.06A&B (even for the first round to mix ams and pros). The rulebook was just updated and the RC is a tougher group than the Competition group. We can theoretically override them on 804 rules these days but we would want to do it with their blessing.

I'm willing to let the marketplace decide. The better players want more lower rated players to play them. It's pretty simple really. I have friends who won't play me for cash or even a beer unless I give them odds of some sort like throws or ante differential. Why would we expect any other kind of behavior for potential tournament players?



Do you ever consider the value that people who perform better deserve more?

Your little proposal amounts to: let's set up a betting system where everyone breaks even.

Just as with your beer and strokes/ante differential example, if one person keeps winning, the strokes/ante differential is altered until there is an equal likelihood that everyone wins. Eventually, this system is set up so everyone's return on investment equals zero, EVERYONE'S.

Just as Kevin pointed out, what incentive is there to improve if everyone ultimately gets the same return on investment. It's merely more of your socialism applied to a different level of the sport.



This is where you are stuck; you actually believe that the better players are owed something, that they deserve more because they've worked harder, that it be fair. :D Beyond the basic fact that life is not fair, you're still wrong. It turns out that I'm the world�s best tidily winks player. I can mop up on those 6 year olds like nothing you've seen. By your measure they all owe me at least 1/2 of their milk and 3/4 of that cookie they're eating. Oh, and if they don't want to play me, well let's figure out some inducement to get them to play me head to head. Of course I'm still going to win every time, but it will be fair.

The average disc golfer is probably smarter than the average 6 year old, and I can flat tell you that the 6 year olds I know would never go for this. James, this is America, no one owes you anything; I don't care how good you are. People act in their own best interests; that is human nature. This is entertainment with some risk and possibly some reward.

Last point. In actuality, I disagree with your definition of fair; although I told you this wasn't fair, giving the lower players an incentive to play up, in fact I do think in the larger scheme it is. My notion of fair is when you get 100 players rated between 1000 and 1010 and the guy who wins is the guy who takes the right approach to the tournament. He plans ahead, learns the course, prepares for the weather, develops a better plan and hence beats the other players. This is what happens in other sports like ball golf, but of course we don�t have the talent or money to support that level of competition. Your notion that it is fair to match a 1000 rated player against a 940 rated player is wrong. Over a 4 round tournament that is 24 strokes. To even have a shot of winning the 940 ranked player would have to play perfect (at his level of golf) and the 1000 rated player would have to have 4 awful rounds. Throw in 2 more 1000 ranked players and the 940 ranked player is never going to win and most likely will never take home cash. That's not fair, that's shootin' fish in a barrel.

heres the Pro and Am numbers and charts. (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/ProAmGrowth20022005.htm)

i'll leave it to y'all to argue about whether it means anything :D

Bring back the old Advanced pay tables. They were half way between Am and Open tables and were more in line with competitive play.


How about taking some of the ideas one at a time:

1. Align entry fees between Open and Advanced. It will likely result in an increase for Advanced and a decrease for Open but it wouldn't have to be that way.

I'm all for it. Any downside? Talk amongst yourselves.

I don't think all of the 2001 data is loaded in the online database that's creating the huge jump from 2001 to 2002. I was looking online for some 2001 results and you can't call up results from many events in 2001 such as the 2001 Pro Worlds. Can you check and see whether the data is there? We may need to use 2002 thru 2005 in terms of any analysis. That would explain why the numbers from 2001 to 2005 looked so good for your info I posted yesterday.

The one thing I have noticed is stamina into the 4th round on long courses. Before 40 I was one of those that would go play a round before and after two competitive rounds on Saturday and at least half of one before two more rounds on Sunday. Now I am feeling it before the end of the second round on Sunday without any extra rounds.

Of course that's probably more my current physical state than my age. :cool:

here is an updated sheet (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/ProAmGrowth20022005.htm) that has Pro combined as MPO/MPM and Am combined MA1/2/3/MM1.

both groups are behaving similarly overall. but look at MA1 - barely any growth at all in Registrants. both MA2 and MA3 are the only divs with higher growth rate in Registrants than in Unique Players.

could that mean MA1 players are not enthusiastic about flat payouts in MA1? lesser skilled Ams obviously like their situation, but something is wrong in MA1. if MA1 were moving to MPO (either cuz they thought they were ready or to get away from a flat payout no matter what cost), and MPO was retaining players at a high rate, one would expect higher growth rates in Pro than Am. that such is not the case may support the "up and out" theory.

Those 2001 numbers are incomplete so your 2002 growth values are wildly inflated. Gentry also indicated that there are virtual events in there that were created to do ratings for Am & Pro Worlds which is inflating the event numbers.

Rhett I agree with you, Masters who have 1000+ ratings have NO business playing a protected division.

As a matter of fact I think 40 years of age is still too young for age protection. I think it should be 50 but I would accept 45



You are not the only one. (http://www.nefa.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=449) And I would go for 50.



as someone who just turned 44, i would not have a problem with Masters age being raised to 45

... it would not go into effect until 2007, right? :eek: :D :D

Those 2001 numbers are incomplete so your 2002 growth values are wildly inflated. Gentry also indicated that there are virtual events in there that were created to do ratings for Am & Pro Worlds which is inflating the event numbers.

yeah, the 2001 stuff is too wierd to include. i didnt get a chance to change it though. i'll have to ask david how to identify a virtual event.

Any time there are divisions that are grouped or split into pools, we need to create virtual events to process ratings. Am & Pro Worlds plus BG Ams are the primary ones each year. We have as many as 120 virtual events at some worlds.

heres something interesting (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/player_retention.htm) rather than just looking at growth, look at retention rates. over 35% of our Ams and over 10% of our Pros do not renew. just about exactly 30% overall drop off the Membership roles. thats on an annual basis from 2002-2004. 2005 figures are skewed high because, (hopefully) there are still a lot of nonrenewals who will re-up later in the year. regardless of the gains shown on the other charts, this sheet is thought-provoking. at least the rates are steady instead of rising. but they still seem kinda high.

wold that wreck the event counts and E/P values also? if its every year, we still need to figure out why 2001-2002 is out of range

For some reason, perhaps because it hasn't been done yet, all of the 2001 events have not been loaded. Look at ratings details for someone in 2001 or look up results in PDGA Tour and you'll see lots of events with the title listed but no data loaded. Looks like from 2002 onward, most if not all results are there.

My two cents worth on three of the items under dicussion -

I absolutely LOVE the idea of organizing the cards by score (regardless of division or gender) ... like scores play with like scores. This pulls everyone up. It is good for advancing Advanced players who discover that they can hang with some Pros some of the time. It is especially terrific for those who play in smaller divisions because it expands the number of folks they get to play with (giving them an opportunity to observe and learn from others!). You guys who have always played in Intermediate, Advanced, or Open have probably never experienced this - but it's a very different game if you always play with the same 2 or 3 people every single tournament. You either fall into repeating the same pattern every time, or it's like match play for 4 rounds straight. Mixing divisions by scores would make the tournament experience MUCH more fun across the board for those smaller divisions!

Masters age is too low. Masters should probably start at 50, maybe 45. Disc golf skills don't seem to fade too much with age - once you learn to play at a high level, you can continue at that level. (My observation is that the biggest problems that come with age are stamina and pain/injury. Older disc golfers who are somewhat selective about the events they enter are easily able to maintain their high level of play, high ratings, etc. Just keep that bottle of Advil handy!)

There should be a ratings cutoff - above that rating, you play Open (1000+ for men, 900+ for women).

Masters age is too low. Masters should probably start at 50, maybe 45. Disc golf skills don't seem to fade too much with age - once you learn to play at a high level, you can continue at that level.



Whoa! Wait a second. It used to be 35. Now granted 35 was probably too young but I think 40 is appropriate. By 40 most of us who've been active have sustained a variety of injuries that limits the variety of shots we can now play. If you force players to continue playing open til 45 or 50 many will leave the sport or at least competitive formats. C'mon, force someone in their mid to late 40s to pay $50-100 to compete against a field of twentysomethings?


There should be a ratings cutoff - above that rating, you play Open (1000+ for men, 900+ for women).



Okay, I do agree with this for the most part. However the actual rating cutoff should change with the tier of the tournament. A 42 year old pro who has a rating of 1004 should have to play open at B,C and D tiers but should be given the option of playing masters at A tiers and NTs.

There are some Masters who still have game (rated above 1000), but they make up a small percentage of the overall masters field. For every 1000 rated master there's probably 10 in the 950-990 range. It makes no sense to me to change the age of masters just because a very small minority of players have retained their high level of skill. Besides if you change one age group you'd wind up having to adjust all the other age protected divisions as well.

Masters age is too low. Masters should probably start at 50, maybe 45. Disc golf skills don't seem to fade too much with age - once you learn to play at a high level, you can continue at that level.



Whoa! Wait a second. It used to be 35. Now granted 35 was probably too young but I think 40 is appropriate. By 40 most of us who've been active have sustained a variety of injuries that limits the variety of shots we can now play.



Great post, Steve. I totally agree with all your points.

With regards to the Masters age, based on conversations with those in that demographic and my own experiences as I approach that age, I think it's less about the variety of shots that one can play, and more about stamina, propensity for injury, and recovery time. Older golfers get tired quicker, get injured easier, and don't recover as fast. Personally, following a 2-round tournament, (which will often feature a few practice holes and warm-up putts beforehand) the next morning I'm feeling like my body went through a 10-round heavyweight fight. I can't do that for a 4-round tournament, let alone weekend after weekend as the local and regional disc golf schedule often provides for.

Jerry, let's try to be clear here. I DO accept the fact that many sports, including disc golf, support definitions of "Amateur" play that are different from mine. That I disagree with those definitions IS the crux of my position.

Because they have a different definition does not make it a "correct" definition. If you want to talk about the reasons why their definitions are so misguided then let us begin, if you want me to accept that they are equally valid then you have not been paying attention to what I have been saying.

So disagree with me, by all means! But don't expect me to say, "Well, we have a class of players in disc golf that are identical in every way, shape and form to our professional class players and compete for profit in the form of prizes, but they are validly and naturally called amateurs." You ain't never gonna hear it because it is a total joke! This does not mean the folks competing in that class are a joke, or are greedy, or are bad sportsmen; it just means that they are most definitely not amateurs.

I don't care if they go on entirely unchanged, though I don't see why they should get any form of protection at all from the current professional players other than based on age or skill level. None of that is important to me.

What is, is that we, organized disc golf, acknowledge a need for a true amateur classification, one protected as best as we can manage from all of the motivations involving profit/gambling. That we include a place at our table for boys and girls atheletic clubs, local mens and ladies leagues, middle and high school competitions, as well as at the collegiate level for amateur competitions that fit within all other amateur definitions and rules at those levels. As it is now, I can't imagine any of those groups ever becoming involved the offerings we now provide. Not even the EDGE program.

So if you want to debate, great, but let's do so over a topic that matters, not over whether a person winning a new car at a tournament is really an amateur or not; but about:

WHY OUR GOVERNING ORGANIZATIONAL DISC GOLF BODY DOES NOT THINK IT A PRIORITY TO TARGET THESE "NATURAL" PARTS OF ANY SUCCESSFUL SPORT "TRUE AMATEURS" FOR HEALTHY AND PRIMARY INCLUSION IN OUR GROWTH & PROMOTIONAL EFFORTS?

Is it the YMWTMTOTHs syndrome? Or that we have just become to self-absorbed to consider anything but the needs right infront of our noses? Or are you going to argue that what we have in place is "good enough"? That adding 15% new gamblers to all divisions per year is the attainment of our primary goals as stewards of worldwide disc golf?

I'll be glad to debate you on that. But saying that our current definition of amateur is just as valid as any is not a discussion worth wasting any time or effort over, it's just silliness. Sorry if that perturbs you. Maybe you can convince me with some undeniable logic that it is otherwise...


I just want to scream when I read you post things like this Nick. First you suggest a division for Non-Prize winning ams, which has merit, and then you turn around and make blanket statements about "What the rest of the world has accepted." This is blatently untrue. I have given many examples of other sports that consider prize winning players to be amateurs. I will give you a challenge. Let us see if you can beat me at this. For every one Nationally organized competitive sport that does not allow prizes that you can name, let me see if I can name one that does.

The parameters, it must be a competitive sport played by adults, it must have a recognized organization, it must compete on a national level and it must be a sport played beyond college.

Please don't come back and say, those sports don't follow the guidelines of 'true am'. You made the blanket statement that the rest of world does not payout am's in prizes, so back it up.



Gary, I should thank you for so clearly expressing why you and so many other disc golfers, who obviously have never experienced amateur competition, refuse to understand the distinction between Amateur and Professional that the rest of the world has accepted.

Or more importantly the reasons such a distinction would serve our sport well, at any stage of our development.

Once again, you have posted why your proposed system should be called amateur, but completely failed to provide any reasonable argument as to why the existing amateurs should not be called amateur (other than you disagree with the common accepted definition of amateur used by all of the other nationwide sports organizations).

You can try to protet them, but without seed players from the current system, it will take a long time to take off. The incentive programs alone should offer enough protection from the greedy ams in the PDGA system.

Here is a pet project for you. Go out and ask a few people that have no knowledge of disc golf what they would call the following divisions.

A division that plays for a share of a Cash purse based onperformance.

A division that plays for fun and a trophy.

A division that plays for non cash prizes based on performance.

Let me know what the general public thinks the classifications should be.

And let me know if anyone ever comes up with the name Prize Class without prompting.

I have provided it many times Gary, you are just seemingly incapable of understanding it.

Again, you want to point out organizations with what I would categorize as inappropriate, even wrong, definitions of "amateurism" to prove that our definitions is ok? Or that I should ask disc golfers, who wouldn't know an amateur competition, based on their disc golf experience, if it came up and bit them on the rear!

What makes you an amateur Gary? What is amateur sport? Are there any fundamental priciples involved? SHOULD THERE BE? And what would be the benefits of having them?

Like I said, debating whether or not some sporting organizations have inappropriate and unhealthy definitions of amateur and that that somehow substantiates them having a right to the use of the name Amateur is a waist of time.

Let's talk about what a true amateur classification could do for us, not the use of the word (or misuse).

I have already said meny times that I am all for what you are proposing as a necessary part of the future of disc golf and that we should be focusing a large portion of our resources in that direction.

I have only had 2 issues with your proposal from the start, and those remain. One is the exclusive use of the term amateur, and if you read my above post, I specifically asked for the opinions of people that were unaware of disc golf. Second is what I see as an unecessary protection of the "true amateur" class from PDGA Amateur players. The prize structure should provide ample protection from the greedy amateurs that are playing for potential profit, and the organization (schools or municipal leagues) will prevent most of the "steeling" of titles you seem to be worried about.

I also don't really see a great potential for singles competition in your classifications, I see much greater potential in team or league compeition.

We should not act as the holy defenders of the term amateur when the rest of the world abuses it, but we should be getting more discs in the hands of more and younger players everywhere.

Gary, do you have another reason that the Prize division, other than they play for prizes while the Cash players play for cash, should keep the name �Amateur�? Why don�t you believe the new class of player we are talking about is significantly different, at a motive and actual level, to deserve it�s own designation; Or that the Prize and Cash classifications are similar enough to be unified under another classification?

I am really trying to understand why it is so vitally important for you that Prize players remain within the Amateur Class.

I disagree that we shouldn�t do what is right because the rest of the world (though not all, i.e. primary and high school, collegiate and community) has desecrated the amateur name and worse amateur competition. We should do what is right as best we can. We are the stewards of disc golf after all. If we don�t, who will?

I have already said meny times that I am all for what you are proposing as a necessary part of the future of disc golf and that we should be focusing a large portion of our resources in that direction.

I have only had 2 issues with your proposal from the start, and those remain. One is the exclusive use of the term amateur, and if you read my above post, I specifically asked for the opinions of people that were unaware of disc golf. Second is what I see as an unecessary protection of the "true amateur" class from PDGA Amateur players. The prize structure should provide ample protection from the greedy amateurs that are playing for potential profit, and the organization (schools or municipal leagues) will prevent most of the "steeling" of titles you seem to be worried about.

I also don't really see a great potential for singles competition in your classifications, I see much greater potential in team or league compeition.

We should not act as the holy defenders of the term amateur when the rest of the world abuses it, but we should be getting more discs in the hands of more and younger players everywhere.

We should do what is right as best we can. We are the stewards of disc golf after all. If we don�t, who will?

in that case, lets play it where it lies. BRING BACK THE 2MR!!! :eek:

We should do what is right as best we can. We are the stewards of disc golf after all. If we don�t, who will?

in that case, lets play it where it lies. BRING BACK THE 2MR!!! :eek:



Pat, I'll be glad to bring back the rule when you "play it where it lies all the time" and "mail me a 2D OB line".

And you accuse me of beating a dead horse... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Steve Mills plays poker. Steve Mills plays poker for a cash payout. I think Steve Mills would admit that he is not a professional poker player. Some of his opponents have told me he is a rank amateur. But he does play for a cash payout.

Whether you play for cash is not what makes you a professional. Whether you decline to play for cash is not what makes you an amateur.

So what does? Whatever we make up off the top of our heads, whether it serves our goals or not?

I'd suggest you are just being purposefully contrary, but you'd never do that right?

That has got to be the worst comparison I have heard to date. ...lmao :D

Yeah, but it was funny. And there is a point there.

Here's some interesting data on whether the Master age should raise to 45. I looked at the yearend 2005 and 2001 ratings of every male player born in 1961 who joined the PDGA by the end of 1998. They were 40 years old in 2001 and 44 years at the end of 2005. I took players who were PDGA members for at least 3 years so they had the chance for their ratings to become relatively stable by the end of 2001. I only used players who were active in both 2001 and 2005. This narrowed the field down to 98 players.

Of the 98 players, 57 have ratings equal or higher in 2005 than their 2001 ratings. This meant 41 had lower ratings in 2005 than 2001. The average rating increase was 4 points with a standard deviation of 23 rating points. So 2/3 of these players who have aged 4 years have ratings that haven't changed more than 2 throws up or down.

They were 40 years old in 1961 and 44 years at the end of 2005.



Must have been the womens Masters division you were lookin at ;) :o:D

Thanks for the correction. Here is the data for women which includes only 7 under the same criteria. Just two had ratings increases and 5 were down but the average change was just 4 points lower.

i dont think i would strongly oppose raising masters age to 50. but i understand the argument that some players are losing their abilities in their 40s. i cant use my personal experiencem cuz i started playing when i was 40. would it be possible to have it at 50 for Pro players and 40 for ams?

It turns out that I'm the world�s best tidily winks player.


That's a funny thing you bring up. "Touring pros" pretty much killed competitve tiddle-wink competitions.

would it be possible to have it at 50 for Pro players and 40 for ams?



possible maybe but i don't think it would fly, and i think it would cause more controversy rather than less. is the reason Overall Disc Competitions have masters age set at 35 because some of the events are a bit more rigorous and demanding than disc golf, or is it just that the wfdf has evolved differently? i remember the UPA (Ultimate) used to have masters age set at 30 -- not sure where it is at today...

many who argue that the Masters age should be raised to 50 probably only have a few 1000+ players in mind who don't always play open even though they have good odds to cash in that division. Maybe some kind of ratings based trigger at which a player must play Open regardless of age or gender would be worth doing. i know that's not a new idea, but still...

Speaking of ratings and older players, if this isn't a typo, there's a Japanese player with an 858 rating born in 1902. That's two divisions beyond Legend. This guy graduated high school when Papa Jack Roddick, currently our second oldest current member, was born!

I think Chuck's data shows that 40 is a good age for Masters. I think he is saying that the average Masters age player has improved about 1 point per year since hitting Masters age. Chuck, can you give us an average improvement for 25 year olds over the same time period?

heres something interesting (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/player_retention.htm) rather than just looking at growth, look at retention rates. over 35% of our Ams and over 10% of our Pros do not renew. just about exactly 30% overall drop off the Membership roles. thats on an annual basis from 2002-2004. 2005 figures are skewed high because, (hopefully) there are still a lot of nonrenewals who will re-up later in the year. regardless of the gains shown on the other charts, this sheet is thought-provoking. at least the rates are steady instead of rising. but they still seem kinda high.

Board members who have taken some time to compare the PDGA to other hobby and recreation related organizations say that our numbers are about the same as anyone else's. That's just the kind of culture we live in. Hobbies and recreational activities are as disposable as anything else in our society.

I'll work on some more stats for four year periods so we have something to compare with. We really can't go for much longer since the ratings started in 1998 and the age change kicked in during 2000. I'll get the same 40-44 data for those born in 1960 from 2000 to 2004 plus some younger groups. Because we did some calculation changes in 2005, the 2000-2004 numbers may be more on the same basis.

Gary, do you have another reason that the Prize division, other than they play for prizes while the Cash players play for cash, should keep the name �Amateur�?<font color="blue">No, and since the rest of the world seems to go by the same designations, I don't see why I need one.</font> Why don�t you believe the new class of player we are talking about is significantly different, at a motive and actual level, to deserve it�s own designation;<font color="blue">They don't need a different designation because they will have a different competitive structure</font> Or that the Prize and Cash classifications are similar enough to be unified under another classification? <font color="blue">They are unified under PDGA sanctioned competition according to PDGA and WFDF rules. That is the end of their similarity. If some greedy Amateur players have figured out how to abuse the system, then the rules may need to be adjusted to prevent that, but the players will still be able to go to unsanctioned events and work around the rules.</font>

I am really trying to understand why it is so vitally important for you that Prize players remain within the Amateur Class. <font color="blue"> Because I am a professional software designer, not a professional disc golfer. Disc golf is a hobby I try to find time for on the weekends. What I can't figure out is why your proposal needs to be the only "Amateur" system.</font>

I disagree that we shouldn�t do what is right because the rest of the world (though not all, i.e. primary and high school, collegiate and community) has desecrated the amateur name and worse amateur competition. We should do what is right as best we can. We are the stewards of disc golf after all. If we don�t, who will? <font color="blue">Even with the rest of the world desecrating the amateur name, does that stop scholastic and community involvement in any other sport ? Why should it be a stumbling block for you and your proposals ? The world is not likely to bend itself to your will on this, you need to move on and realize that your players may want to experiment outside of your system from time to time and still retain eligibility as amateur players. And even if you succeed in bending the PDGA to your will, unsanctioned events will still be there that satisfy the demand and your precious true amateur players will still be out playing for each other's money when they get the chance.</font>

<font color="blue">I am as intransigent in my position as you are in yours. It is for me just as simple and as much a truth as your position seems to be for you. You can find nothing beyond your own belief that truly supports your position while I have found many other organizations that support mine. I would suggest that we agree to disagree and try to move the system forward based on a new competitive structure rather than sole possesion of a much misused title.</font>

Gary, do you have another reason that the Prize division, other than they play for prizes while the Cash players play for cash, should keep the name �Amateur�?<font color="blue">No, and since the rest of the world seems to go by the same designations, I don't see why I need one.</font> Why don�t you believe the new class of player we are talking about is significantly different, at a motive and actual level, to deserve it�s own designation;<font color="blue">They don't need a different designation because they will have a different competitive structure</font> <font color="green"> So if the rest of the word is mistaken, then we should be too? </font> Or that the Prize and Cash classifications are similar enough to be unified under another classification? <font color="blue">They are unified under PDGA sanctioned competition according to PDGA and WFDF rules. That is the end of their similarity. If some greedy Amateur players have figured out how to abuse the system, then the rules may need to be adjusted to prevent that, but the players will still be able to go to unsanctioned events and work around the rules.</font> <font color="green"> Why do you always bring up "Greedy Amateurs"? Within my definition that is an oximoron. And within your's it is an "And, so..." </font>

I am really trying to understand why it is so vitally important for you that Prize players remain within the Amateur Class. <font color="blue"> Because I am a professional software designer, not a professional disc golfer. Disc golf is a hobby I try to find time for on the weekends. What I can't figure out is why your proposal needs to be the only "Amateur" system.</font> <font color="green"> Then there are only 2 to 3 professionals in the world by that definition and the current prize players deserve and need no protection from them, nor a separate classification. Whereas a classification not competing for each others entry fees and sponsorship DO deserve their own classification. </font>

I disagree that we shouldn�t do what is right because the rest of the world (though not all, i.e. primary and high school, collegiate and community) has desecrated the amateur name and worse amateur competition. We should do what is right as best we can. We are the stewards of disc golf after all. If we don�t, who will? <font color="blue">Even with the rest of the world desecrating the amateur name, does that stop scholastic and community involvement in any other sport ? Why should it be a stumbling block for you and your proposals ? The world is not likely to bend itself to your will on this, you need to move on and realize that your players may want to experiment outside of your system from time to time and still retain eligibility as amateur players. And even if you succeed in bending the PDGA to your will, unsanctioned events will still be there that satisfy the demand and your precious true amateur players will still be out playing for each other's money when they get the chance.</font> <font color="green"> I'm not asking the world to bend to my will, just disc golf to bend to the priciples of "Amateurism". Why do you and others find it so impossible to imagine a classification where gambling is not only NOT center, but impossible? Haven't you played middle, high, college, community sports where there was no gambling? I'm guessing you haven't from your apparent blind spot on this. </font>

<font color="blue">I am as intransigent in my position as you are in yours. It is for me just as simple and as much a truth as your position seems to be for you. You can find nothing beyond your own belief that truly supports your position while I have found many other organizations that support mine. I would suggest that we agree to disagree and try to move the system forward based on a new competitive structure rather than sole possesion of a much misused title.</font>



<font color="green"> You can't be serious Gary! You don't think that there are sports that support the principle that Amateur Sport is founded on playing exclusively for the joy of it!?! Now I know you have never participated in a truly amateur sport. No Little League, no boys club basketball, no intermural sports, no high school or college baseball, soccer, basketball, wrestling, baseball, track. Now list your "amateur" sports and we should see clearly the difference in our positions on this.

One will clearly stand out as "Amateur" while the other a bastardization of the concept. </font>

OK, after (Kev's) weekend break, here's the first idea we started to discuss late Friday that not everyone chimed in on:

1. Align entry fees between Open and Advanced. It will likely result in an increase for Advanced and a decrease for Open but it wouldn't have to be that way.

And now here's the second one:

2. Amateurs whose rating goes above 964 would only be allowed to enter Advanced at the discounted Trophy Only entry fee. No more prizes. They would also be allowed to enter Open for Trophy Only fees during the time leading up to Am Worlds if they chose. TDs would be required to offer Trophy Only option to any Ams over 964. No player would ever be forced to turn pro. But whenever an Am has a rating above 964, they would be playing for trophies only.

I have been talking off the threads with a couple of people on this subject. It appears that some are closer to the same page then it appears on this board.

A compromise that I think could work:

Set a cap on amatuer prizes. Most adult amatuer sports do give out prizes but not so much that it takes away from the spirit of amateurism. The cap should also consider an amount that would help seperate the Pros from the Ams in order to limit the amateurs being motivated by "profit" and limit Ams being/feeling/appearing somewhat equal to the Pros of the sport.

In the future Pros will further seperate from the Ams when more outside money starts to come for the Pro payout. I feel some more seperation could be used now in order to make a better seperation though.

What should the cap be set at? For now, the price of a new portable basket seems to be a fair place to have it. That would be roughly $200 cap per event for Ams. Could also look to see the average number of events played by all Amateurs and set the yearly cap to X # events played times $200. Could also be an possible exception on prizes for World Championships and have that set at somehting a little larger.

With the cap I dont see it necessary to protect Adult Amatuers in our current system to Adult Amatuers of a True Amateur class.


Add in some scholastic and YMCA league type structures to the system. These could take the form of PDGA sanctioned leagues that are trophy only(with maybe PDGA memberships as prizes to top finishers) and follow the PDGA standards and rules of play. The players get rated but do not recieve points for Worlds with exception to if they have a Tiered finals. Anyway, something to that effect.

Is all this reasonable?

Yes, Scott. It is more than reasonable to set caps, but I would set it at 2X the entry fee.

I would also encourage Chuck to display the amount each am earned in the results, and list their year-to-date earnings next to their names, as we do with pros. It would be very interesting to see.

TDs do not supply the individual Am payout info in the report so it's only available at the events where it's posted. With retail valuation not uniform, payouts many times not even valued but merch just awarded, and no field in any of the PDGA databases going back thru even older software for tracking it, individual am payouts have just never been tracked by the PDGA.

2X entry ?

How many ams are playing in Buwling Green ?

If you beat 300+ players you're capped at 2X entry.

Just remember in all of your planning, if the players and TDs don't like the deal, the PDGA loses membership and events. I could see a cap of $400 (the price of a full sized protable basket) or maybe $200 + $1 for each person you beat in your division. Or even stepped with differend limits for A,B, and C tiers.

I was in compromise mode. I said $200 becasue from discussions with others it fell right in the middle, or close anyway.

I just think that some consideration of field size needs to be considered as well. If you beat 100+ other players otherwise the system becomes unusable since 1/3 of the field will get the same payout.

individual am payouts have just never been tracked by the PDGA.



Well, start to track it. It's information that anyone making decisions on the competitive format should know. Most TDs are already inputting this info when they post results at the tournament. It is not a burden to get and track that information.

$400 Gary. Well, I'll compromise. How about 2X the entry. (I'm in the Chuck mode of debate. :D)

Fact of the matter is that when you start saying $400 or $200, you are simply admitting that some "ams" are strictly in it for the monetary reward. If that is their motivation, there are other divisions available.

No cap. PDGA sanctioned events should always have the biggest, "baddest" and best Am events and payouts out there. PDGA events should be the top of the heap, which doesn't always have to be based on payouts, but at least event value. TDs should have every incentive to run PDGA events versus an unsanctioned or other sanctioned events. It's foolish not to provide the proper environment and support for our TDs to want to host PDGA events and events players want to attend. If a certain portion of your customer/member base wants big payouts, TDs should be allowed to offer it within PDGA sanctioning. The Trophy Only option within that system serves those who want the competitive environment but not the cost. Win-win structure serves both customers.

James, some things that I was taking into consdieration is the future seperation between Ams and Pros when the sport grows with more outside money and an amount that would not discourage TD's and players from playing PDGA events and start going non-sanctioned.

Gary, $400 seems like an aweful lot at this time. If there would be a yearly cap also I could maybe see a cap that high on a per event basis for A-tiers and World Championships but would not think it could be anywhere near $400 X's the average amount of Ams events played, imo.

It's foolish not to provide the proper environment and support for our TDs to want to host PDGA events and events players want to attend.


Yes, it is, and if you ever applied that mentality to those players that have spent their time to improve their game to 960ish +, then you might have a clue.


If a certain portion of your customer/member base wants big payouts, TDs should be allowed to offer it within PDGA sanctioning.


Maybe, the PDGA should view itself as a steward of the sport, not simply as a short-sighted organization interested solely in short-term numbers and beholden to support those desiring monetery rewards without putting forth the effort, or taking on the risks. Basically, you see the PDGA as an organization that should pander to the masses, and I see it as an organization that should demand integrity within its competitive formats.

I think any cap should exclude Worlds, USADGC, and other Majors.

Bowling Green (aka, "mini Worlds") is going to be a 900-lb gorilla when discussing event caps -- and probably will require special clearance for the cap. I like the yearly cap idea as well.

When results go online unofficial, you can see payout values (if the TD includes them). The ORG pulls them off when the results become official (to protect the guilty, I suppose :)).

Chuck, it appears you dont get it when it comes to why a professional motivation in an Amatuer class has harmful side effects to the sport. The USGA has it right by my interpretation of their reason why they do things the way they do. We may have a better rating system but we pale in comparison to competitive structure.

2X entry ?

How many ams are playing in Buwling Green ?

If you beat 300+ players you're capped at 2X entry.

Just remember in all of your planning, if the players and TDs don't like the deal, the PDGA loses membership and events. I could see a cap of $400 (the price of a full sized protable basket) or maybe $200 + $1 for each person you beat in your division. Or even stepped with differend limits for A,B, and C tiers.



I agree with the 2X entry idea, maybe even at the large events like BG. Considering the players' pack at BG, the players are getting more than their entry's worth just for signing up (well, at least the first 400 registrants). At most tournaments that don't have the sponsor support like BG, a pack like that would all but eliminate the payout, making it very simple to not exceed a 2X entry prize cap.

Shouldn't it be enough that you beat 300+ players over the course of 4 grueling rounds without needing to go home with a carload of prizes to prove your worth? Measuring quality of victory by payout should be left to the pros, IMO. No one has yet come up with a compelling enough (for me, anyway) argument for the necessity of a huge prize payout in amateur competition. I'm not asking for a defense of prize payouts in general, just the type that has the winners of tournaments going home with baskets and mile-high stacks of discs. I really think there is an intermediary step between that and pure trophy-only competition that could satisfy both sides.

Now I could support a stepped cap such as 2X entry at C & D tiers, 2.5X at B-tiers, 3X at A-tiers, 4X at Majors. And that 2X entry would be purely based on the performance "payout" and not include any player packs (though the total prize value of the tournament would still include the player packs).

With that system, I'd also love to see the PDGA set up a tour-wide credit system so that instead of physical prizes at the event, a player could accrue credit that could only be spent at the PDGA store or other participating retailers. That way, if you only win $10 of value at an event, you don't get stuck with a DX disc and a sticker of no value. You can set that credit aside and build up enough for a portable basket or a new bag. Of course, the system would be an option available to the TD, but not a requirement.

I think a prize cap could work well hand in hand with a credit system. JMHO.

--Josh

OK, after (Kev's) weekend break, here's the first idea we started to discuss late Friday that not everyone chimed in on:

1. Align entry fees between Open and Advanced. It will likely result in an increase for Advanced and a decrease for Open but it wouldn't have to be that way.

And now here's the second one:

2. Amateurs whose rating goes above 964 would only be allowed to enter Advanced at the discounted Trophy Only entry fee. No more prizes. They would also be allowed to enter Open for Trophy Only fees during the time leading up to Am Worlds if they chose. TDs would be required to offer Trophy Only option to any Ams over 964. No player would ever be forced to turn pro. But whenever an Am has a rating above 964, they would be playing for trophies only.



Don't see my response to #1, but I like it only if Open fees are reduced (or put into the stairstep format of MA3-2-1 -- $5 or $10 increments). Raising MA1 fees will drive out players who reach 915-925, just as high Open fees (as I think) have hurt the 950-960 Pros.

#2 - I actually like that idea, but move it down to the 955 break line, since that is where the cutoff has been legitimized.

When results go online unofficial, you can see payout values (if the TD includes them). The ORG pulls them off when the results become official (to protect the guilty, I suppose :)).



Yes, I've always wondered why the PDGA has rules that it must be calculated in a well-defined manner but does not care that it is reported. Why is that? Chuck, how do y'all verify that the TD followed the rules in payout distribution if you do not receive that information?

I think the TD report includes them so HQ can check, but they don't go online.

I heard Chuck say that the TDs did not supply that information in their report. I'm curious as to which it is.

If they do supply that info, why isn't it tabulated the same way pros earnings are tabulated. Can't someone write a program that easily automates and displays the tabulation?

Unless the TD removes the values before submitting the report, the values are there before the report is put into the system. I just checked, and the values are not there in the official results database.

I heard Chuck say that the TDs did not supply that information in their report. I'm curious as to which it is.



Some TDs do submit them and some don't. Many have just indicated payouts on a sheet that's posted at the event and used when they do the payouts and never transfer the numbers to the Excel report because it's never been required. As Gary mentioned, individual payouts are not captured in the database but estimated retail value of total am payout for the event including CTPs, player packs and prizes is captured.

You can't be serious Gary! <font color="blue"> You should know by now that I am very serious about this</font>You don't think that there are sports that support the principle that Amateur Sport is founded on playing exclusively for the joy of it!?!<font color="blue">There are many sports that are played for the fun of it, just not with nationwide competition aimed at adults</font> Now I know you have never participated in a truly amateur sport. No Little League, no boys club basketball, no intermural sports, no high school or college baseball, soccer, basketball, wrestling, baseball, track. Now list your "amateur" sports and we should see clearly the difference in our positions on this.<font color="blue">The only adult nationally organized sport I've participated in is Disc Golf. Everything else was scholastic or community.</font>



<font color="blue">And yes, from what I see there are only a handful of true professional disc golfers in the world.</font>

TDs do not supply the individual Am payout info in the report so it's only available at the events where it's posted.


That statement is not true. Many of us TDs include that information, and the PDGA strips it off before displaying official results.

I would like to see that information retained.

OK, after (Kev's) weekend break, here's the first idea we started to discuss late Friday that not everyone chimed in on:

1. Align entry fees between Open and Advanced. It will likely result in an increase for Advanced and a decrease for Open but it wouldn't have to be that way.

And now here's the second one:

2. Amateurs whose rating goes above 964 would only be allowed to enter Advanced at the discounted Trophy Only entry fee. No more prizes. They would also be allowed to enter Open for Trophy Only fees during the time leading up to Am Worlds if they chose. TDs would be required to offer Trophy Only option to any Ams over 964. No player would ever be forced to turn pro. But whenever an Am has a rating above 964, they would be playing for trophies only.

Whenever I look at one of these kind of proposals I consider two things: does it promote fair competition among similarly skilled players? Does it needlessly interfere with a TD's ability to promote his tournaments in light of the fact that someone else can avoid these restrictions by running an unsanctioned tournament?

Nobody wants to run a tournament that is too expensive or too cheap to fill the field, so I am leery of mandatory entry fees. I don't think a committee of the PDGA can do a consistantly better job of pricing entry fees than the individual TDs and clubs that are running those tournaments. Right now in many places in the country there is full employment and some TDs can probably charge more and run a fatter tournament than last year. Michigan is still on the skids and lower entry fees might work better here.

So I don't like #1. It is going to force some TDs to price some divisions at prices that don't make sense for their circumstances.

#2 is only going to affect one or two players at any tournament and it is fair to set some limit like that.

What I would like to see instead is a hard cap on Advanced and an Expert Amateur division above that. As the PDGA grows it is inevitable that the pro division will, more and more, become a division primarily for 1000+ rated players. Already we are seeing that at the M/NT/A-tiers you have to play 1000 rated golf to cash.

The top of the Open pro division is approaching 1040. What sense does it make to go pro if you are giving up 8 throws per round to the leader card?

Given the growth at the top end of advanced something like this might work:

Expert 940+
Advanced 900+
Intermediate 860+
Recreational below 860

This would also realign the advanced and intermediate divisions with what our players are actually doing.

The expert division would be small which would automatically limit the size of the payouts. But a player who topped out at 960 would never have to go pro or feel any pressure to go pro.

Nick,
I agree that a trophy only division is a good idea, however, I have never made blanket statements about 'the rest of world' as you have. This expression leads many to think that disc golf is abnormal because there is a division that pays out in prizes. If you do any study on organized competitive sports, you will see the facts are that most of them have amateur divisions that accept prizes, and in some cases, money. While your definition of amateur as a player that does not receive prizes, or cash, for competitive play, this is not 'what the rest of the world' holds to be the definition of a competitive player in an organized sport. So while you want to take the high ground, this does not mean that your definition of amateur is correct either. During my research on the term amateur, one article even mentions that, in their opinion, (ball) golf is the only TRUE amateur sport, because they put limits on the value of prizes an amateur can win.
To take this one step further, if you look up "True Amateur" on Google.com, you will find a reference to a bowling tournament and they start talking about prizes that are paid out within the first paragraph. The other references, that seem to fall more in line with your definition, all refer to sports that have not, and will not ever gain world status, as the PDGA is doing with Disc Golf.

Because they have a different definition does not make it a "correct" definition. If you want to talk about the reasons why their definitions are so misguided then let us begin, if you want me to accept that they are equally valid then you have not been paying attention to what I have been saying.



As far as disc golf having "a class of player being identical in every way, shape and form, to our professional class", that is not because amateurs are accepting prizes, but more because of the current level of sponsorship in disc golf. If you look at ball golf 'minor leagues', you will see open players that compare in every way to disc golf open players. These minor league ball golfers net about the same amounts, per tournament, as open disc golfers. And yet, these golfers are considered professional players by the USGA. The difference in amateurs and open players in ball golf is winning cash versus prizes and the set limit for the amateur divisions. I realize that I am not going to change your mind on the definition of what an amateur player is, but you have to realize, that you are in the minority, NOT the majority on this one.
Secondly, most players that agree with you, actually are arguing for the removal of a prize winning division altogether. You rarely correct them when they appear to jump on your bandwagon.

So disagree with me, by all means! But don't expect me to say, "Well, we have a class of players in disc golf that are identical in every way, shape and form to our professional class players and compete for profit in the form of prizes, but they are validly and naturally called amateurs." You ain't never gonna hear it because it is a total joke! This does not mean the folks competing in that class are a joke, or are greedy, or are bad sportsmen; it just means that they are most definitely not amateurs.



Now, I have offered to assist you in any way, in trying to develop a trophy only division for the amateur ranks, as have many others, but what so often happens, you believe that the term amateur is being misapplied by the PDGA and often side with those who want trophy only divisions. Instead, if I were you, I would give up the ongoing argument about what an amateur is and start pushing for growth of the trophy only division.

What is, is that we, organized disc golf, acknowledge a need for a true amateur classification, one protected as best as we can manage from all of the motivations involving profit/gambling. That we include a place at our table for boys and girls atheletic clubs, local mens and ladies leagues, middle and high school competitions, as well as at the collegiate level for amateur competitions that fit within all other amateur definitions and rules at those levels. As it is now, I can't imagine any of those groups ever becoming involved the offerings we now provide. Not even the EDGE program

So if you want to debate, great, but let's do so over a topic that matters, not over whether a person winning a new car at a tournament is really an amateur or not; but about: .


So if you want to quit debating and start doing, then develop a structure and set of guidelines for the inclusion of a trophy only division for amateurs only and include me as a volunteer. But please, do not make blanket statements about what an amateur should be.


Is it the YMWTMTOTHs syndrome? Or that we have just become to self-absorbed to consider anything but the needs right infront of our noses? Or are you going to argue that what we have in place is "good enough"? That adding 15% new gamblers to all divisions per year is the attainment of our primary goals as stewards of worldwide disc golf?

I'll be glad to debate you on that. But saying that our current definition of amateur is just as valid as any is not a discussion worth wasting any time or effort over, it's just silliness. Sorry if that perturbs you. Maybe you can convince me with some undeniable logic that it is otherwise...


You feel very strongly about pushing for a trophy only amateur division, and yet you are the leading proponent for arguing about what amateur status means. So don't invite debate, when the majority of the time, you are leading the charge to champion "true amateur" status as a definition. Is it not you who wants exclusive use of the word amateur? Is it not you who starts the majority of these arguments? Not debates mind you, arguments. In a debate, an issue is discussed and it's point and counter-points are discussed. You don't do that. You just restate your point in an altered context.
The last statement you made, above, is a perfect example. So in your own words�.. " But saying that our current definition of amateur is just as valid as any is not a discussion worth wasting any time or effort over, it's just silliness"

I support #1. I am going to play advanced divisions from now on. But, even as a 908 rated player, I would enter Open sometimes for a chance to watch accomplished players and hopefully learn some things.

I would support #2. For me, if I were ever rated that high....I would be playing in Pro divisions anyway. I will probably be Masters age by that time any way....haha. (If I ever rate that high)

Scott,

It is good to see that you are willing to compromise. I am guessing that you have looked at other sports and see that it is not uncommon for competitive amateurs to win prizes. Your main point now, is to cap the prizes and limit the yearly amount.

I think these ideas have merit, but I have several concerns with them:

How do you decide where to cap the amount? If you make it to small then there is no competitive desire to play and the "greedy" players will just not play. This will result in an overall lowering of profits by those money hungry TD's. I am joking here, but what may work in a small tournament would not necessarily work in a larger one. You also run the risk of making payout's so flat that many competitors will not return to another PDGA sanctioned event. Maybe this is due to the current thinking in disc golf or it is simply the mind set of the competitive adult player.

Either way, how do you set the upper limit? One suggestion has been to limit to 2 or 3 times the entry fee. I have done a lot of work on the Amateur and Open payout tables, and with no money added the amateur tables do limit payout to an average of 3 times the entry fee. So there is already a limit. The only times this varies is when there is "added merchandise". In this case I would NOT recommend limiting this because it will discourage sponsorship at the amateur level. Do you tell the Intermediate player that wants to donate his plastic, from the last few tournaments, that you don't want his help? In this situation you are encouraging people to be greedy, because we don't want their help.

My next concern, is that by setting an annual limit to the amount an amateur can win, will reduce tournament play by the "greedy" player. If a player hits their max early in the year and has enough points, why would they continue to play if their motivation was in comparing stacks? This will effect TD's and will reduce revenue. Regardless of what some would argue, TD's are not making a killing at running tournaments. There are some that can make a living at it, but none of them are making millions at it. There are also quite a few TD's that are lucky to break even or make a buck or two.

At this point, what are you trying to accomplish by limiting amateur winnings (beyond the current limits)? If the desire is to transition the player up the ranks, then let ratings do that. I don't know how you then transition the Advanced player into the open divisions. I would hesitate to use ratings, but maybe that is the best idea.


Chuck, it appears you dont get it when it comes to why a professional motivation in an Amatuer class has harmful side effects to the sport. The USGA has it right by my interpretation of their reason why they do things the way they do. We may have a better rating system but we pale in comparison to competitive structure.

TDs do not supply the individual Am payout info in the report so it's only available at the events where it's posted.


That statement is not true. Many of us TDs include that information, and the PDGA strips it off before displaying official results.

I would like to see that information retained.

Me too. If nothing else we would not see this annual (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=512143&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=5&vc=1) thread. Players could look at last year's payouts and make informed decisions.

I support #1. I am going to play advanced divisions from now on. But, even as a 908 rated player, I would enter Open sometimes for a chance to watch accomplished players and hopefully learn some things.





I would like you to be able to still play ADV and get to play with the Open and Masters. All would be in one flight and you would get to play with different players from Open, and Masters, seperated only by score of what you shot in the previous rounds. If everything goes right for you the first round you could end up on the leader card with some Super Pros, or maybe Ken Climo shoots 60 (unlikely) and so do you, next round your likely be playing with Climo. If Climo shot 60 the first round I GUARANTEE he will scorch the next round so the ADV player would get to see one hell of a show as well as get some valuable lessons. ;)

Jerry, it has been said a number of times, yet y'all always dismiss it out of hand: these other sports that have prize payouts, still have the payout structure set up so that people are financially enticed to move higher, not lower.

That is what is unique about our setup.




My next concern, is that by setting an annual limit to the amount an amateur can win, will reduce tournament play by the "greedy" player.


A couple of points, the first one y'all never address:

1) There is already a division for these people;

2) I think it is highly questionable that the "greed motivation" that lures these people into ams has done one iota to further the health of the am ranks. That is just an assumption y'all hold. In fact, the payouts have been flattened in the last year or two, and I have noticed no dropoff in am turnouts. In other words, I question whether y'alls pandering to these folks is even beneficial to the ams themselves.

So I don't like #1. It is going to force some TDs to price some divisions at prices that don't make sense for their circumstances.



Bruce, aligning prices doesn't say anything about what the entry fees should be, just that the Open fee be at or close to the Advanced fee. So, TDs would be relatively free to move up or down based on market issues and other aspects of an event pertaining to amenities or charitable issues. I could see a revised policy that allows TDs to charge more than the PDGA suggested fees without asking permission as long as the discounted Trophy Only option was offered.

Scott,

It is good to see that you are willing to compromise. I am guessing that you have looked at other sports and see that it is not uncommon for competitive amateurs to win prizes. Your main point now, is to cap the prizes and limit the yearly amount. <font color="blue">I know and have known all along that prizes are given in other amatuer sports. I do not beleive I ever said that they didnt. </font>

I think these ideas have merit, but I have several concerns with them:

How do you decide where to cap the amount? If you make it to small then there is no competitive desire to play and the "greedy" players will just not play. This will result in an overall lowering of profits by those money hungry TD's. I am joking here, but what may work in a small tournament would not necessarily work in a larger one. You also run the risk of making payout's so flat that many competitors will not return to another PDGA sanctioned event. Maybe this is due to the current thinking in disc golf or it is simply the mind set of the competitive adult player. <font color="blue">this pargraph by you clearly gives you the answer to the question you asked me below </font>

Either way, how do you set the upper limit? One suggestion has been to limit to 2 or 3 times the entry fee. I have done a lot of work on the Amateur and Open payout tables, and with no money added the amateur tables do limit payout to an average of 3 times the entry fee. So there is already a limit. The only times this varies is when there is "added merchandise". In this case I would NOT recommend limiting this because it will discourage sponsorship at the amateur level. Do you tell the Intermediate player that wants to donate his plastic, from the last few tournaments, that you don't want his help? In this situation you are encouraging people to be greedy, because we don't want their help. <font color="blue">So, merch donations only get used as payout? Not at any tourney I have ever played, atleast not to my knowledge. Can easily be creative and have many things to do with donated merch, not unlike every event I have ever attended </font>

My next concern, is that by setting an annual limit to the amount an amateur can win, will reduce tournament play by the "greedy" player. <font color="blue">that would be the second time in this post you refered to catering to "greedy" players </font> If a player hits their max early in the year and has enough points, why would they continue to play if their motivation was in comparing stacks? <font color="blue"> third time </font> This will effect TD's and will reduce revenue. <font color="blue">the idea is to limit "profit" motivated attitudes in the amatuer ranks in order to provide a healthier atmospehere and seperation </font> Regardless of what some would argue, TD's are not making a killing at running tournaments. There are some that can make a living at it, but none of them are making millions at it.<font color="blue">have never heard that said in my life, certainly not form me. And I am not of the belief that what a TD can make would change. The only thing that willl change that is the entry fee amount </font> There are also quite a few TD's that are lucky to break even or make a buck or two.

At this point, what are you trying to accomplish by limiting amateur winnings (beyond the current limits)? <font color="blue">I have said it many many times now. To limit or even eliminate "profit" making motives, to limit or eliminate the professional mindset and all that comes with it in the amatuer ranks, and to better seperate Pros from Ams when it comes to PDGA events </font> If the desire is to transition the player up the ranks, then let ratings do that. I don't know how you then transition the Advanced player into the open divisions. I would hesitate to use ratings, but maybe that is the best idea.<font color="blue"> that would hopefully be one of the side effects but I am pretty sure more would have to be done then just this </font>



I realize that as more money comes into the sport the seperation between Pros and Ams will grow. At the moment there is not much to seperate the two and I dont think that is healthy for growth.

Where do we set the cap...I dont know really. Something reasonable for most. Something low enough that it will eliminate the things i spoke of above yet not take away from the organizers. Something that is a smoother line between a possible PDGA sanctioned trophy only/True Am league/YMCA type structure.

Hopefully I was able to answer all of your questions and if not please let me know what else I can clearify.

I have yet to see anyone mention the PDGA sanctioned league thing I brought up. Any thoughts on that?

Jerry,

I hear what you are saying and appreciate your insights on this. Let me see if I can break this down as simply as I can and get further feedback from you Scott and Gary.

As it stands now, as I see it, we only have one significant classification of player and competition. Call it what you like, Professional, Amateur, Cash, Prize, Blended, it is of little consequence. All players play for each other�s entry fees and sponsorship in the form of either cash or prizes. All players except cash players with ratings above 955 or 965 (I'd have to check) are permitted to play in either cash or prize divisions and all prize players are permitted to play in cash divisions. There is no meaningful (or purposeful in my opinion) difference between what we currently call Pros or call Ams; none of any real significance.

My question is why even call them something different? At this point what can we hope to gain by linguistically separating what is in reality unified. And perhaps they should be unified, I'm not here to debate that.

What I am here to debate, discuss and yes even argue is that we, organized disc golf, the PDGA, the steward of disc golf, absolutely and without reservation needs to support and promote the creation of a classification that IS DIFFERENT. That is SEPARATE. That remains clear and untangled with the politics and forces that are at play between Prize and Cash players. And thus remain "something inherently different", where a prize or cash player wouldn't ever "want to" play, nor for the good of that classification ever "be allowed" to play.

There are some things worth protecting. The sanctity of Cash and Prize divisions is not one of them. Their motivation is identical in every facet. To be perfectly clear, there is nothing wrong with their motivations; THEY ARE JUST DIFFERENT. And they really should be different from this other classification.

I've read all the discussion between here and our earlier posts and they all are trying to get round pegs into square holes. I don't want our current competition system to "CHANGE"; I want it to "GROW". To add something new, different, never before seen; and not as an after thought, but as something we all can understand as important and worth building together. It is not something that one person can do in isolation.

I don't want limits on Prize or Cash awards it only complicates and confuses our players and TDs. I don't want Trophy Only options within Prize or Cash divisions, it likewise confuses and does not actually serve the Trophy Only players, but only the Cash and Prize players and make them "Added Cash" rather than a "Valued and Respected" member of our greater disc golf community. It denigrates them as something strange. (I know, I've played in them.)

Again, I don't want to disrupt what we have. I just want to add a new and important option within our competitive system. Something that will only help Cash and Prize divisions and the PDGA, but not at the obvious and clear cost of that classifications separate and crucial role and identity within the greater disc golf community.

I believe that it is something worth creating; and that it is something worth protecting; and lastly that it is something that for once should not be mixed or blended to suit the needs of our gambler/Carney divisions, but allowed to grow and develop free of entanglement with those divisions/motivations of play.

All of the talk of making it an easier transition from Advanced to Open is nearly pointless. Jerry, as you correctly point out, the only thing that is going to make that system work properly is if we get major sponsorship on board. In this, I agree with Rhett and Bruce that we should in any way stifle our Prize divisions in some (near useless) attempt to force folks to move up (and what the heck does move up mean now anyway under the current without boundries divisions and classifications?) and force feed added cash into the same 12 to 20 players pockets, meanwhile annually lose players our systems ultimate product (players with ratings between 955 to 980).

I've gone on too long here, but I wanted to note that I appreciate all who discuss this and feel strongly about it; whether they agree with me or not, I respect their passion and commitment.

I wish Bruce would revisit and Chuck consider the idea of having ratings breaks fluctuate throughout the year so that we can break the propagation of even greater "entitlement". I include a visual idea of how it would work in HERE. (http://home.comcast.net/~nkcom/07DivProp.htm)

It's not my goal to be evasive, but I do want to get my message as clearly across as I can.

Lastly, I don't care what we call this new classification, "Amateur" makes sense to me, but you are right Jerry, it is far more important to make it happen than to just get stuck on a catch phrase.

If Climo shot 60 the first round I GUARANTEE he will scorch the next round so the ADV player would get to see one hell of a show as well as get some valuable lessons. ;)



I'm down with that!!!

Jerry, it has been said a number of times, yet y'all always dismiss it out of hand: these other sports that have prize payouts, still have the payout structure set up so that people are financially enticed to move higher, not lower.

That is what is unique about our setup.
<font color="brown">We don't have enough sponsorship cash to create the monetary enticements the other better known sports have created to encourage upwards movement.</font>


My next concern, is that by setting an annual limit to the amount an amateur can win, will reduce tournament play by the "greedy" player.


A couple of points, the first one y'all never address:

1) There is already a division for these people;

2) I think it is highly questionable that the "greed motivation" that lures these people into ams has done one iota to further the health of the am ranks. That is just an assumption y'all hold. In fact, the payouts have been flattened in the last year or two, and I have noticed no dropoff in am turnouts. <font color="brown">I agree that most of the players that were winning the steep slope payouts for the first 3 spots didn't think they were a great idea. I like the flatter payouts much better, but there is a big difference between flatter payouts and no payouts.</font> In other words, I question whether y'alls pandering to these folks is even beneficial to the ams themselves.

Well a lot of stuff went in over the weekend, but nothing that really acted to convince James and Kevin. Here is something for you to think about.

A good numbers guy could rip out a statistical analysis in a few minutes but for me it is just too much effort. However, this is how the numbers play out:

Z Boaz - no one below 970 in the money, no one below 1000 in top 5

Gentleman�s Challenge � no one below 955 in the money, no one below 1000 in the top 5 no one below 995 in the top 12

The Memorial � no one below 960 in the money, no one below 1000 in the top 10

St. Patrick�s Classic � no one below 957 in the money, no one below 996 in the top10, no one below 980 in the top13

Melbourne Open � no one below 959 in the money, no one below 1000 in the top 6, only one below 980 in the top 14

Basically, in anything A tier or above, if your below 955, you�re not even in the money (granted this is for the few events that have occurred in 2006). And for the most part if you�re below 980, you�re barely breaking even, even if you are in the money.

What possible reason can you give a guy ranked below 980 to play up? Miracles? Luck? The joy of playing with guys that are glad you're padding their pockets? Wait, Wait, I know, love of the sport! Yeah, that's it.

I'm still voting for Chuck's original model; anything you do to get those players ranked below 960 to contribute, you�re adding money to the pot with very little risk to the top players. Those guys are only going to bump up if you offer them a sweet deal, for anything less, they'd have to be very dumb to buy it.

$400 Gary. Well, I'll compromise. How about 2X the entry. (I'm in the Chuck mode of debate. )



Oh yeah, credit where credit is due... This is one of the funniest things posted in this or any thread.

Why aren't we talking about multiple "pro" divisions (not considering age or gender)?

Have 2 pro divisions: one "open" and one capped by player rating. Depending on the tourny tier that cap would adjust (960 cap for B/C tier, 985 cap for NT/A tier). This would encourage the advanced player to move up with a chance of cashing.


Align entry fees between Open and Advanced

IMO this would INCREASE Advanced payout and decrease Open payout (O.K., Open may stay level after a few advanced players move up). Also, this will affect the intermediate division (no one will move up to advanced due to the much higher entry fees). Players are NOT going to move up unless they think they will be competitive in the next division. Creating a capped pro division (where you can win more than the advanced division payout) will encourage advanced players to move up.

So I don't like #1. It is going to force some TDs to price some divisions at prices that don't make sense for their circumstances.



Bruce, aligning prices doesn't say anything about what the entry fees should be, just that the Open fee be at or close to the Advanced fee. So, TDs would be relatively free to move up or down based on market issues and other aspects of an event pertaining to amenities or charitable issues. I could see a revised policy that allows TDs to charge more than the PDGA suggested fees without asking permission as long as the discounted Trophy Only option was offered.

Brett is convinced that our pros want to pay about $10-$15 more than our advanced players want to pay. I know if we charge advanced more than what we are, fewer of them come out. I don't know what happens if we charge pros a little less, but Brett has his ear to the ground on this stuff and is convinced that they absolutely do not want to play for less than $45 to $50 each. Our advanced players don't want to play for that much. I want to get in for prizes, but I don't want to pay that much every time unless there is a Great Lakes Open quality player pack and amenities.

We do a lot of experimental stuff with our tournaments and have learned that there is a lot of sensitivity to price in all the divisions. Higher divisions seem to understand the value in higher entry fees, to a point, and lower divisions don't seem to as well.

I did a similar thing 2 years ago for the MADC Series and it showed that no one with a rating below 975 cashed at any of the 5 events in Open for that year. Of course later that week I broke that rule cashing at Paw Paw averaging about 980 golf for 4 rounds, 2 strokes better than my average.

Again though, rather than some "stats guy" solution I'd much rather just see entry fees go down around the board. I'm a true blue Masters player now, so I play it whenever available (not the sandbagging cake walk I envisioned) but if an event didn't offer Masters and entry fee was less than $40 I'd play against whoever...

Though I appreciate the attempts of TDs trying to formulate a system to meet everyone's needs, when those plans get too complicated I find myself not wanting to go to the event out of pure confusion.

I just want to play disc golf...

There are more people in that range (960 cap for B/C tier, 985 cap for NT/A tier) than there are 1000+ rated golfers. If there is a PRO2 they better be playing for a LOT less than we are playing for. If there are 2 Pro divisions it can NEVER be where the Pro 2 makes even as close to what Pro 1 makes. You can't justify it to me where a ratings or age protection division should EVER win as much or more than the OPEN division.

The MADC has traditionally always jumped on the PDGA Competitive New Innitiative opportunities. I played in several events that offered Pro2 divisions and though they were well liked by the players with ratings below (I think it was) 955, the pros who already next to never cash between 956 and 980 nearly hurled when they saw guys they had beat by 3 or 4 strokes across a 2 day event walk with $350 or so payouts while they were not even close to cashing in Open.

That option was never used again.

Again, Bruces idea of changing the ratings breaks to end entitlement is an interesting one. More so than just lowering the entry fee/added cash lower rated pros shell out.

Jerry,
<font color="brown">I do grow tired of restating this so if you don't take notes it may be the last feedback you get from me (stated to applause from both sides of the hall).</font>

I hear what you are saying and appreciate your insights on this. Let me see if I can break this down as simply as I can and get further feedback from you Scott and Gary.

As it stands now, as I see it, we only have one significant classification of player and competition. Call it what you like, Professional, Amateur, Cash, Prize, Blended, it is of little consequence. All players play for each other�s entry fees and sponsorship in the form of either cash or prizes. All players except cash players with ratings above 955 or 965 (I'd have to check) are permitted to play in either cash or prize divisions and all prize players are permitted to play in cash divisions. There is no meaningful (or purposeful in my opinion) difference between what we currently call Pros or call Ams; none of any real significance. <font color="brown"> There is the problem. There is a real and meaningful difference between a player playing for cash (hopefully more and more cash), and one playing for a median level of prizes based on performance. The only thing that keeps the two divisions anywhere the same is the fact that the Pros can not find anyone to fund their operation, so they are forced to use the amateur model of financing.</font>

My question is why even call them something different? At this point what can we hope to gain by linguistically separating what is in reality unified. And perhaps they should be unified, I'm not here to debate that. <font color="brown"> You call them something different because they are fundamentally different. The current Am divisions are the way they should be and do not need to change. The current Pro divisions are in a world of hurt and need some major assisitance, but if they were where they need to be, the two classifications would have very little in common.</font>

What I am here to debate, discuss and yes even argue is that we, organized disc golf, the PDGA, the steward of disc golf, absolutely and without reservation needs to support and promote the creation of a classification that IS DIFFERENT. That is SEPARATE. That remains clear and untangled with the politics and forces that are at play between Prize and Cash players. And thus remain "something inherently different", where a prize or cash player wouldn't ever "want to" play, nor for the good of that classification ever "be allowed" to play. <font color="brown">And it should be something different just as scholastic sports are different from other organized competitions of the same sports. Not because they are named differently, but because they are structured differently.</font>

There are some things worth protecting. The sanctity of Cash and Prize divisions is not one of them. Their motivation is identical in every facet.<font color="brown">we could argue this for a long time. I don't know which ams rape your system up there for profit, but it does not enter into the thoughts of the majority of the ams that play. It is nice to win something, but the concept of profit rarely enters 75% of the players minds.</font> To be perfectly clear, there is nothing wrong with their motivations; THEY ARE JUST DIFFERENT. And they really should be different from this other classification. <font color="brown">I would argue the the lower third of any division are all amateurs with some hope of cashing and very little hope of winning something of equal value to their entry fee (not to mention gas, lodging, meals, and time) from the event. These players that are supporting the system should be the perfect sed players for your new classification.</font>

I've read all the discussion between here and our earlier posts and they all are trying to get round pegs into square holes. I don't want our current competition system to "CHANGE"; I want it to "GROW". To add something new, different, never before seen; and not as an after thought, but as something we all can understand as important and worth building together. It is not something that one person can do in isolation. <font color="brown"> Things seem to be going well as they are, no need to change. You, however cleverly you try to hide the fact, have no interest in adding anything to the party, you want a classification separated by a one way door. No one that has ever competed in a standard PDGA event can ever taste the joys of competition for competitions sake, and no one that plays in your system can even taste the waters in a PDGA Amateur event without losing eligibility in your system. It sound like everything you wish to accomplish you wish to do in isolation.</font>

I don't want limits on Prize or Cash awards it only complicates and confuses our players and TDs. I don't want Trophy Only options within Prize or Cash divisions, it likewise confuses and does not actually serve the Trophy Only players, but only the Cash and Prize players and make them "Added Cash" rather than a "Valued and Respected" member of our greater disc golf community. It denigrates them as something strange. (I know, I've played in them.)<font color="brown"> You must have low self-esteem to be so easily denigrated. You would never guess that was the case based on your writing style.</font>

Again, I don't want to disrupt what we have. I just want to add a new and important option within our competitive system.<font color="brown">Not really an option, a parrallel but separate system.</font> Something that will only help Cash and Prize divisions and the PDGA, but not at the obvious and clear cost of that classifications separate and crucial role and identity within the greater disc golf community. <font color="brown">I can understand the help to the Pro divisions later on, but don't see how it will benefit the prize divisions if they are prevented for particiapting.</font>

I believe that it is something worth creating; and that it is something worth protecting; and lastly that it is something that for once should not be mixed or blended to suit the needs of our gambler/Carney divisions, but allowed to grow and develop free of entanglement with those divisions/motivations of play.<font color="brown">As I have said before I agree with everything you said except the protection part. I think you need some of the current amateur base to jump start this system in the community levels, and believe that you need to leave the door open for players in this classification to start playing in PDGA events as they improve without having to leave this classification completely.</font>

All of the talk of making it an easier transition from Advanced to Open is nearly pointless. Jerry, as you correctly point out, the only thing that is going to make that system work properly is if we get major sponsorship on board. In this, I agree with Rhett and Bruce that we should in any way stifle our Prize divisions in some (near useless) attempt to force folks to move up (and what the heck does move up mean now anyway under the current without boundries divisions and classifications?) and force feed added cash into the same 12 to 20 players pockets, meanwhile annually lose players our systems ultimate product (players with ratings between 955 to 980).<font color="brown">I kind of lost you in there, but think that until you have to apply for and earn a Pro card, it is basically meaningless.</font>

...

Lastly, I don't care what we call this new classification, "Amateur" makes sense to me, but you are right Jerry, it is far more important to make it happen than to just get stuck on a catch phrase. <font color="brown">I've been trying to get you to that point for years, why do you just roll over for Jerry ?:cool:</font>

There are more people in that range (960 cap for B/C tier, 985 cap for NT/A tier) than there are 1000+ rated golfers. If there is a PRO2 they better be playing for a LOT less than we are playing for. If there are 2 Pro divisions it can NEVER be where the Pro 2 makes even as close to what Pro 1 makes. You can't justify it to me where a ratings or age protection division should EVER win as much or more than the OPEN division.



The problen isn't the payout, it's the purse. If all divisions are playing for entry fees, the division with the most players is likely to have the biggest payouts. It's simple math, there's nothing you can really do about it. It's not because they deserve more, it's because they pay in more as a group.

Until the Pros start playing for an amount 8-10 times the combined am entry fees, there will always be lesser skilled players winning more than some of the higher skilled players.

I heard something this weekend that sounded awesome. Instead of creating yet another amateur division(the "elite amateur"), remove an amateur division. Keep similar flat payout structures for beginning players who are currently in the rec and am divisions. Now combine the advanced players with the open creating a large field with a fairly wide range in players ratings. This new combined field pays the top 50%. The top 30% win cash while the remaining 20% win plastic. This gives both advanced and open players a bigger field to play in, while providing a chance for top advanced players to both test the water of open and potentially cash. Also those open players like myself in ratings limbo (956-970) and upper advanced players have a chance to cash in a bigger field or perhaps win a disc. Obviously, this system implies that because open and advance have been combined the entry fees are the same for everyone. Has a system like this been discussed?

Has a system like this been discussed?



By the players over 975 who would gain from it.