Currently the Open division has by far the widest range of ratings of any division.

Coincidently or not, this is also the division that we are talking about as not having enough players.

I don't really see how making the rating range for the division even huger than it is now will help. If you look at the am divisions where the range is supposed to 50 points, they are flourishing.

Draw your own conclusions.

To continue my earlier post: I realize this system becomes less enticing to advanced players as the number of open players increases; and therefore combined field should be used in smaller tournaments (mainly B&C Tier events) especially those where the field size is capped due to only using one course. Larger tournaments should still offer open and advanced separately, and preferably on separate weekends to encourage some amateurs to play up to open on a 2nd weekend.

How about this:

We can artificially inflate the Open purse even more by making everyone who is not playing Open pay a $5 "protection fee". Anyone who enters any division other than MPO or FPO sends $5 of their entry fee to the Open purse, with mens divisions sending their fivers to MPO and women's divisions sending their fivers to FPO.

Who wouldn't pay $5 to not have to play against McCoy? With a 939 rating I would do so in a heart beat because I have no chance of beating him, even if he is having an off-day. If I were rated around 970 I might skip paying the protection and take my chances at trying to break the added cash line.

I think this would also naturally pull the top pro Masters and Advanced guys to the Open pool as they chase the "added cash". It would provide the incentive to move up, instead of trying to use the stick that just forces them out.

For a tournament like EIEIO where there are a ton of ams and hardly any pros, it makes the Open divisions even better. We had 14 open players and 75 non-Open players, meaning that

75 x $5 = $375

more dollars would flow into the Open purse. That right there is incentive to move up. Any of the three 975 rated am-baggers in the country that chose to play Advanced would be a relief to the pros instead of a pain, as the Open player would get five more bucks without the risk of that guy playing Open and taking their money. Same thing with any 1000 rated pro masters, although I believe all the 1000 rated masters would jump over to Open. (prolly only if team bonuses were awarded only for Open division finishes, though.)

Wait a minute......this is all sounding very familiar.... :).....I remember pro masters like El Chile were jumping down my throat when I proposed this around 3 or 5 years ago.

I still think it would work. Anybody that is not playing MPO/FPO is hiding from the best players and should pay protection. $5 isn't much, but it sure could add up fast. It also doesn't change what's working on the am side.

Yea dat sounds familya - And anybody who doan wanna pay da "protection" racket .... errr fee dat is, .... dey should get wacked. Dat would be a real incentive to move up to da big leagues

Rhett, i like your idea except that FPO is a protected division. if you want to waive the $5 fee for FPO players fine, but they have the option to play Open so i don't think your protected divisions fee should raise money for a gender protected division (i thought it was cool that Des and Juliana teamed up and played Open at Pro Worlds and i bet the FPO players entrants were happy about that too) :D

is it true that Juliana has cashed at the USDGC?

First, I'm all for this idea. And, once we implement I'm running some VERY, VERY successful am-only events. :D

Any cockamamy concept you come up with has to pass the Southern Nationals test: Is there any reason why an amateur would rather play this than just play an unsanctioned tournament? Is there any reason why a TD who is an amateur would run this instead of just going unsanctioned?

Second, isn't this what TDs are already doing all over the country when they get their B-tier added cash out of their profits on the amateurs? It is not stated that way, but it is what they are doing more or less.

the two reasons i play am a member of the pdga and sanctioned events is for ratings and the message board. take away ratings and what do you have? anyone can run a message board - there's dozens of disc golf boards around.

funny how we're not allowed to put ratings on the message board, isnt it! :D

Hmmm.........."Who wouldn't pay $5 to not have to play against McCoy?"

I wouldn't mind playing in his group. I might learn a few things !!!! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Is there an echo in here...

Currently the Open division has by far the widest range of ratings of any division.

Coincidently or not, this is also the division that we are talking about as not having enough players.

I don't really see how making the rating range for the division even huger than it is now will help. If you look at the am divisions where the range is supposed to 50 points, they are flourishing.

Draw your own conclusions.

I do appreciate your feedback Gary. You do seem to have a major block on this topic though. Which is ok, it just makes your post remarks seem really hostile and argumentative. But I'm going to extend you the benefit of the doubt.

One question though. Can you imagine ANY division or classification within the PDGA Competitive System for which you would NOT qualify? Above or below?

Example, should you be able to go to an event one week and win $500 in Open Pro, the next week a basket and 6 foot stack of plastic, and then the following week take the World Amateur Championship Title at the Collegiate level?

Where everything is everything, everything is also nothing...

the two reasons i play am a member of the pdga and sanctioned events is for ratings and the message board. take away ratings and what do you have? anyone can run a message board - there's dozens of disc golf boards around.

funny how we're not allowed to put ratings on the message board, isnt it! :D



Thank goodness you're still allowed to make an idiot of yourself though, eh Pat?

Does a pro play rounds for fun, rounds to teach, rounds for exhibition, rounds for charity and rounds for profit?

the two reasons i play am a member of the pdga and sanctioned events is for ratings and the message board. take away ratings and what do you have? anyone can run a message board - there's dozens of disc golf boards around.

funny how we're not allowed to put ratings on the message board, isnt it! :D



Thank goodness you're still allowed to make an idiot of yourself though, eh Pat?



Rhett, Nick continues to violate the PDGA Message Board Rules (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/boardrules.php?Cat=). Please advise him that disagreements are fine; personal attacks are not. Messages containing profanity, inflammatory comments, or other offensive content may be removed at the discretion of the board monitors. Individuals who persist in this behavior may be barred from future posting.

Does a pro play rounds for fun<font color="green"> sometimes </font>, rounds to teach<font color="green"> rarely </font>, rounds for exhibition<font color="green"> next to never </font>, rounds for charity<font color="green"> next to never </font> and rounds for profit<font color="green"> everytime </font>?

(ball golf pros)

(ball golf pros)



Or prize players equally to cash players.

the two reasons i play am a member of the pdga and sanctioned events is for ratings and the message board. take away ratings and what do you have? anyone can run a message board - there's dozens of disc golf boards around.

funny how we're not allowed to put ratings on the message board, isnt it! :D



Thank goodness you're still allowed to make an idiot of yourself though, eh Pat?



Rhett, Nick continues to violate the PDGA Message Board Rules (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/boardrules.php?Cat=). Please advise him that disagreements are fine; personal attacks are not. Messages containing profanity, inflammatory comments, or other offensive content may be removed at the discretion of the board monitors. Individuals who persist in this behavior may be barred from future posting.



I have to agree with Jeff on this one.

I know that Jeff has a thing for you, Nick. But he is right in this regard. You continue to call people names and then act like they are the ones acting hostile. You are the one who does not debate in good faith.

Please take some time to reflect on this. There has been a long line of people who seem to be your nemeses. These people don't have long running altercations with anyone else, yet you have long running ill-tempered dailogs with lots of different ones of them. The common thread is Nick Kight. I think the problem is probably you, NK. Please try to take a more respectful tone and stop calling people idiots.

I do appreciate your feedback Gary. You do seem to have a major block on this topic though. Which is ok, it just makes your post remarks seem really hostile and argumentative. But I'm going to extend you the benefit of the doubt. <font color="blue"> Though I may come across as hostile or condescending, I am neither.</font>

One question though. Can you imagine ANY division or classification within the PDGA Competitive System for which you would NOT qualify? Above or below? <font color="blue">Pro</font>

Example, should you be able to go to an event one week and win $500 in Open Pro<font color="blue">Pros and Ams are already seperated</font>, the next week a basket and 6 foot stack of plastic<font color="blue">I've already said that no one should win a 6 foot stack of plastic</font>, and then the following week take the World Amateur Championship Title at the Collegiate level <font color="blue"> Only if I was on a college team, and in my system, it would be a team trophy</font>?

Where everything is everything, everything is also nothing...


<font color="blue"> Pro is Pro, Am is Am, and you have to be a member of a team to compete in team competitions that stretch for seasons, not weekends.</font>

yes, it needs to stop. Rhett has done a great job in getting things under control, but no one can stand above the scorched earth policy Rhett instituted and with which i wholeheartedly agree. therefore i have decided to become more active in my Admin role in support of Rhett and pursue his policy of providing one-day bans for users who make posts which do absolutely nothing except attack another board user.

You bleeping #$*&$! #$*&$!. What kind of a #$*&$! #$*&$! idea is that? [I just needed to get some work done today!] :D

Man, y'all are way too sensitive. Saying that one is "making an idiot of themselves" hardly warrants action, much less notice, or tattle-telling.

James you make an idiot of yourself all day.

I think telling someone that they are making an idiot of themselves is like the message board jump putt! :cool: In that context it could have been interpretted to mean, "When you post in no caps with garbled syntax and poor noun/verb agreement, an uninformed person could easily mistake you for an idiot." I think Nick's toe was on the ground but I'd need instant replay to know for sure.

He said it wasn't a big deal and I think that's idiotic.

Man, y'all are way too sensitive. Saying that one is "making an idiot of themselves" hardly warrants action, much less notice, or tattle-telling.



If it's a one-off occurrence, I would agree with you.

When it's a person with a pattern ingrained over the past several years that has caused long running altercations and long running ill-tempered dialogs with many message board users, it's a different story.

I do. Now, where is the principal?

So you're thinking it's more like a make-up call for that charge that was not called on the other end of the court?

Thing is, unlike disc golf, the official saw it happen, so however the official calls it, the message board player just has to live with the call and play on.

Am I amusing only to myself again?

i hope you are amusing more than yourself.

in this though, both officials saw it. the lead official actually explained the infraction pretty well, altho he was gonnna let it slide. but the backcourt official had to step in and make the call in the interests of consistancy.

I say "let em play." No harm, no foul.

yeah but playoff ball all year long can get pretty hard on the players.

What is this thread about?

I guess you missed the "switch to the kindler/gentler approach" posts. The initial insta-bans were good attention getters.

I believe I have been consistent. But of course I would believe that.

I also believe you might've jumped the gun, Pat. I probably let too much slide from Nick because I know he gets under my skin and I don't want to make things personal.

Wait. Was there a call? I went to the fridge and missed it. Did he get thrown out of the game?

I know one thing: the whole bad boy thing sells tickets and gets people to watch on their laptops, and that's what we really need if pro message boarders are ever going to get the money they deserve.

When the discussion starts to fail just start insulting others intelligence, tattle taling, followed by a continuous stream of bad analogies.

Starts to make me rethink the things I hear a few BOD guys say about this place.

Are you guys sure you weren't planted here to destroy discussion? What do you know about area 51? Is Bush an Alien who transforms into a reptile on occassion? What the dealio with that bermuda triangle anyway? Is Kennedy there?

Well it was fun and border line good while it lasted.......

I guess you missed the "switch to the kindler/gentler approach" posts. The initial insta-bans were good attention getters.

some people missed the message or werent paying attention, i guess.

yes there was a call. someone will be missing for a day.

please, proceed to have a good, positive discussion about an important PDGA topic now :cool:

I'm going to hit the post button the moment my ride shows up to take me to lunch, but so far this thread has been about, in no particular order,

Getting more players into the pro divisions
Getting more players' entry fees into the pro payout
Getting more good players competing against the pro players on the same card even thugh they are not in the pro divisions
Mandating the same entry fee for advanced and open
Reinstating Pro 2
Making the trophy-only option a player's option instead of the TD's option
Different ratings breaks at different tiers so different players can take turns being the no-hope DFL card contenders
Creating a seperate class of players who don't play for prizes or cash

and a few other things!

Oh. Not my ride.

Pick a topic and carry on.

I was mulling how well this analogy works as it pertains to the issues being discussed. See what you think. If we consider the PDGA operating like McDonalds headquarters, the customers would primarily be our amateur members. The franchisees would be our TDs. The Trophy Only customers go for the $1 value menu. Our pros are the top athletes supported at the Olympic training facilities by McDonalds profits. In addition, profits help support good works (charities) like our foundation and EDGE programs.

The TD franchisees are independent entrepreneurs who have decided it�s more profitable to be a McDonalds franchisee than to run an independent burger joint or join a smaller regional chain (Southern Nationals). That means HQ needs to continue providing value for both the franchisees and customers so the franchisees want to continue paying the franchise fees.

I�m guessing when the idea of the Value menu came along, they must have felt they were losing potential customers who didn�t want as much food for the cost. The salads and yogurt items were probably added to attract more women customers (women�s committee). In addition, the Super Sizing idea was perceived as a way to serve customers who really liked the product with even more product (bigger Advanced fees for bigger prizes?). An obsessed researcher (NK) continues to insist there�s a huge untapped consumer market for alternatives like liver strips or veggie burgers, but hasn�t made much headway.

So, to keep the franchisees happy, you want products and programs their customers like. Some consider advertising (DGWN/website) worthwhile, providing nutritional information (ratings), kids meals (Youth divisions) and special promotions (X-tiers) as benefits both customers and, as a result, TDs like. If super sizing and value meals leads to more customers then that makes the franchise license even more valuable.

Since the athletes at the Olympic training facility rely on corporate support, the more sales the franchisees make, the more profits can be contributed to support the top athletes.

Keep scarging down the super size meals and you end up fat, lazy, and very unhealthy, but it's cool cause McDonalds makes their money :eek: :D

An obsessed researcher (NK) continues to insist there’s a huge untapped consumer market for alternatives like liver strips or veggie burgers, but hasn’t made much headway.



Great analogy, Chuck.

The obsessed researcher's idea for veggie burgers has merit, but he makes no headway because his approach has long worn thin by steering every conversation towards it. Additionally, those who don't warm to his ideas are then belittled.

Thank goodness for today's moratorium on the obsessed researcher!

Yes, I suspected that as a McDonald's entrepreneur, you figure the optimum strategy is to target those enticed by super-sized meals. However, the problem is that those attracted by super sized meals, and love to feed at the trough, are usually fat and die early. Ultimately, they give gourging fast food a bad rap, to the point where no one interested in health and strength is attracted to McDonalds. Yes, the strong and healthy ones can order liver strips and veggie burgers there, but they would prefer to take their healthy habits to other restaurants that that don't base their business model on hooking people on crappy food.

Good argument, but there is one stunning example that proves you wrong.........cigarettes. If people were smart, your argument would be correct.
Cigarettes and fast food basically satisfy the same niche. Addictive stuff that's bad for you. So the fast food industry does the same thing the cigarette companies got busted for....targeting the young, impressionable, and weak-willed.

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.



How can you tell me that the OPEN division that is NOT protected by ratings or age shouldn't get paid the most at EVERY EVENT? I don't care if there are 30 Masters and 2 Open, If that OPEN player beats the masters scores he is the SUPERIOR golfer and he should get paid the most. People hiding in protected divisions shouldn't EVER win the most amount unless they shoot the lowest score.

Should they even get paid more for shooting better??? If they arent playing with/against the best then were they really the best...or just the best score without the pressure? Ill take the latter.

The Best Score = The Best Play for the weekend. If the Open Player has SCOREBOARD, how the hell can you justify paying someone else more?

It would be like giving the World Series Ring to the Mudville MudCats for winning the American Association.

It would be like giving the SuperBowl trophy to the Texas Longhorns

Maybe we can give the Daytona 500 trophy for the Top sprint car driver

Mainly because that's just not how it works. You don't get the Super Size meal by chewing with your mouth closed, although that is a skill we all appreciate and strive to equal. You get it by having your girlfriend pay for it.

The pro masters are not where you should be looking for a girlfriend. You need a girlfriend with a good job working for an automobile company, an insurance company or a food/beverage company.

You deserve more, but until we have sponsors who will give us more, there is no argument you can make that will convince me that you deserve more of what I paid for.

Actually, the analogy is closer to this scenario:
If the Busch series race draws more competition and bigger crowds on the saturday race before the Nextel Cup Series race, then the Nextel Cup driver that wins should make more money then the Busch series winner, just because its a higher profile race in terms of TV coverage and the "top" nascar racing event.

I think there is something to be said about not having the best players breathing down your neck. Easier competition, easier to shoot that best score, been there, and I would never seriously think that because i beat the pros at an event while i was playing ams made me the Superior player for that event.

I could be the best software designer in the world, but if I am unable to convince someone to pay me handsomely for my expertise, I am not going to be rewarded according to my skill. What you need is an employer willing to pay you for displaying your talent.

On the other side, though I am not a very good designer, I have convinced enough of my peers (all so-so designers like myself) that we should all kick in a little money, have a competition, and the best of us gets the largest share of the pot. We can't convince any real employers to watch us display our talent, so we will always be competing for the money we ourselve put in.

What the pros need is to stop using our mediocre formula for payout and find an employer willing to pony up some real money.

I mean, as long as you are playing for each other's money, you have only yoursleves to blame for how little money is in the pot.

As for me, I can't even raise enough money to cover the cost of my own website.

Bruce,
Try this out,

The Masters division is full of FOXES
The OPEN division is full of WOLVES

There are two fawns that get seperated from Mama Doe
(fawns symbolize the purse)

-If you are a FOX it is easier to manipulate the other FOXES to get your food. The Sly FOX always gets his grub
-If you are a WOLF it is much harder to get something to eat cuz all the other WOLVES are capable of biting your head off.

The Foxes stay far away from the WOLVES because they know if they go in the Wolves den to get some of the fawn, they are going to be just like the fawn, IN MY BELLY.

Your saying that the FOX and WOLVES should be treated equally, even though if a FOX tried to come get some of the WOLVES food they would be eaten alive.

The many FOX (Masters divison) are protected from the WOLVES. But if you survive with the WOLVES you are higher up on the food chain and you should be rewarded greater.

No one's paying them more -- they're paying themselves more. If the exhibition is just people playing for each others' entry fee (as usual), then it seems logical that you get to choose who you're playing against. If someone else were providing the money -- that would be different.

I have a general question, why did the PDGA lower the required added cash for tiered events? I am not sure I understand why that was done. It seems to me, that if a TD wants to run a higher teired event then they may have to work harder to get the added cash required. Just asking.


The Best Score = The Best Play for the weekend. If the Open Player has SCOREBOARD, how the hell can you justify paying someone else more?

It would be like giving the World Series Ring to the Mudville MudCats for winning the American Association.

It would be like giving the SuperBowl trophy to the Texas Longhorns

Maybe we can give the Daytona 500 trophy for the Top sprint car driver

Yes, the wolves get the fawns and sometimes a deer or two (open purse). The smart foxes don't even try to go after the fawns(open purse) because of the effort and skill required to get them.

But there is a small hole in the fence around the chicken coup, and the wolves are too large to get into the hole, so the chickens (master's purse) is protected from them.

But the foxes can fit through the hole and get all of the chickens they can catch. ANd even though the chickens themselves are usually smaller than the deer, they are kept in a smaller pen and are easier to catch.

The problem is that the food isn't walking around loose. The FOXES have the food and when it comes time to see who gets to eat -- they vote to hang out in the den where the big bad WOLVES just don't fit in.

Well I'm going to HUFF and I'm going to PUFF and I'm going to BLOW that **** chicken coop down so we can get the GRUB we deserve for being the BIG BAD WOLF :D

I'm rooting for you. I'm not against you at all, just trying to get you looking in a different direction. You need to find someone to stock the ranch with lots of fawns so no wolf has to go hungry. :cool:

Man???....Did you just call me a chicken???? ... :mad:;)

Why a TD would want to run any event is confusing enough. When the guys doing all the work gets good $$ -- then the system will be able to move forward. Until then -- it's just one exhibition after another.

Man???....Did you just call me a chicken???? ... :mad:;)



Nah, I think we're more like weasels in this analogy. :cool:

I see what your saying but I've been in this game for 15 years and there isn't a line of corporations out there willing to hand over cash for us to play with.

Sure its MUCH better than the 80's and 90's but we are still far from the promiseland.

I have never wanted to get rich playing disc golf, never even thought it would be a possibility that I could even get by on Disc Golf. Just trying to make sure I give a Open players perspective of what is REALLY going on. Other than this year (being the TD for AM Worlds) I have averaged 25 tournaments a year since 1999, I have played in over 300 tournaments total so i feel I have a pretty good idea of what is Great, Good, Fair and Poor about our game.

I have been playing for 26 years, does that count for anything?

Heck, I can still remember my first tournament, Norman Pro/Am, I am going to guess 4 or 5, but I am not sure and that would be over 21 years ago.

I don't feel like a weasel, or maybe I do, but I have resigned myself to just sucking eggs.....


I see what your saying but I've been in this game for 15 years and there isn't a line of corporations out there willing to hand over cash for us to play with.

Sure its MUCH better than the 80's and 90's but we are still far from the promiseland.

I have never wanted to get rich playing disc golf, never even thought it would be a possibility that I could even get by on Disc Golf. Just trying to make sure I give a Open players perspective of what is REALLY going on. Other than this year (being the TD for AM Worlds) I have averaged 25 tournaments a year since 1999, I have played in over 300 tournaments total so i feel I have a pretty good idea of what is Great, Good, Fair and Poor about our game.

On the other side, though I am not a very good designer, I have convinced enough of my peers (all so-so designers like myself) that we should all kick in a little money, have a competition, and the best of us gets the largest share of the pot. We can't convince any real employers to watch us display our talent, so we will always be competing for the money we ourselve put in.



Yeah, and if American industry would just pay the mediocre software designers more than the good ones, but not as good as the great ones, than many designers would not desire to make themselves more than mediocre. The american software industry would become third rate.

Anyways, it is obvious why many of the ams like the present system. It is not so obvious why the PDGA likes the present system. They should act more like the software company owners, and dream of creating a system where everyone aspires to be the best software designer, not a system where many lose interest in improving themselves because improving oneself is not likely to be rewarded. In fact, you stand a good chance of improving yourself out of a job.

I have a general question, why did the PDGA lower the required added cash for tiered events? I am not sure I understand why that was done. It seems to me, that if a TD wants to run a higher teired event then they may have to work harder to get the added cash required. Just asking.

I cannot say anything about the subjective motivations of any boards members but I can explain the behavioral and economic forces that would predict such a behavior.

The PDGA sells basically two products, memberships and tournaments. The price of a tournament is $50 to $100, plus $2 to $8 per player depending on the type of tournament. The PDGA maximizes its revenues and minimizes its processing and support costs by sanctioning B-tiers.

C-tiers bring in a dollar less per player and $25 less in the sanctioning fee, plus they attract fewer players. B-tiers generate $3 per member and $8 per non-member. A-tiers generate $4 per member, and they help sell memberships and renewals, but there are no non-member fees. NTs generate $5 per player BUT the PDGA pays the TD $1000 for running it, and they pay the marshal, so that often is a wash or a net loss to the PDGA.

The PDGA has made it easy, again, for TDs to run B-tiers without actual third party sponsorship. If a tournament has the pro attendance, the profit on amateurs is more than sufficient to generate the 10% added and $250 added. This means the PDGA sells more of the product that makes it a profit. Once again, because these were the numbers we had a few years ago, it is incumbent on the player to educate himself as to what events are good for his division and what events are not. The letter B does not mean that much.

You need to quit thinking of the PDGA as a big social club and start thinking of it as a small business with 4.5 employees and a half dozen part timers. It has a payroll and it has office expenses. It sells basically two products, memberships to members and sanctioning to TDs. It has a recipe that works and a bunch of picky-picky customers. It is not very profitable work.

Every time they try a new recipe, even if they just put it on the menu and don't eliminate the old favorites, there is an uproar. Then no one orders it and they wasted time and money getting new menus. If they screw something up really badly, people will eat at home or get fast food.

Plus, the CEO and Board of Directors don't get a dime out of the operation other than a couple of paid business trips every year to a very boring conference. The office manager and his staff get paid peanuts and they get nice titles.

Where is the motivation in this system to be breaking new ground with cutting edge ideas?

They should act more like the software company owners, and dream of creating a system where everyone aspires to be the best software designer, not a system where many lose interest in improving themselves because improving oneself is not likely to be rewarded.



If in fact the PDGA followed this proposal, the logical conclusion would be to eliminate pros altogether and add two more prize divisions on top of Advanced. The entry fees would be bigger and the prizes bigger as you go up the ladder. In order to play for the biggest prizes, you have no alternative but get better. I think with all added cash going into the top prize division, I can easily see the first prize being something like a one year lease on a new car (seriously). There wouldn't be any reason why the top division prizes couldn't be a combination of cash and prizes with each event vying for the best overall prize mix to the top division.

There wouldn't be any reason why the top division prizes couldn't be a combination of cash and prizes with each event vying for the best overall prize mix to the top division.



As long as the prizes consits of mostly BUDWIESER and HOOKERS oooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrr Self Employed Models :D

As long as the prizes consits of mostly BUDWIESER and HOOKERS



I would expect prize certificates at the Gentleman's Club and the Halloween event could get very creative...

There will always be pro TDs who want to play for cash and who will run unsanctioned cash events if the PDGA did not have them, so the PDGA will always have cash paid divisions. Most TDs understand the economics of running everyone for cash, so they are also likely to resist adding more, lower skilled, cash paid divisions.

Right now we have an Open division that is 100 to 90 ratings points wide, and an advanced division that is 80 ratings point wide from the lowest advanced rated player to the highest.

A fair system of competition promoting flights of similarly skilled players would attempt to address that.

You need to quit thinking of the PDGA as a big social club and start thinking of it as a small business with 4.5 employees and a half dozen part timers.



Or, maybe the PDGA needs to start thinking of themselves as the stewards of the sport, rather then just a business maximizing revenue. It's not like it is a business with stockholders demanding the highest returns. It can dissolve tomorrow and no one loses any equity.

Basically, if the PDGA is truly more concerned about their financial stability than they are their job, then they should dissolve. If they still have a desire to accomplish their mission and are facing financial problems, then they should either raise taxes, or cut services. In either case, they need to remember that they will be remembered for what they do for the sport, not what they do for the majority of members.

The age based and women pro divisions could remain cash divisions in this format. However, I think a lot of players over 40 with ratings more than 40 points below the top competitor in their division would opt for playing in the appropriate prize division. The ripple effect would reduce the Master division so the top guys might also decide to enter their prize division. It's almost a painless way to get to all ratings divisions without forcing it.

A fair system of competition promoting flights of similarly skilled players would attempt to address that.

But we don't have enough players to support a Nationwide Tour and a PDGA Tour and a Champions Tour and a LPGA tour.

In either case, they need to remember that they will be remembered for what they do for the sport, not what they do for the majority of members.



What they do to be remembered is financed by what they do for members.

What's good for the sport is forgetting about all of us older players, and focusing on city summer leagues for children and getting into the elementary schools. 20 years later, we may have enough of a fan base to grow a real Professional division.

But if that happened, there would be no one to finance the efforts of getting discs in the hands of children, so they have to keep enough players happy so that they will remain members and fund the expansion efforts.

Y'all are the ones assuming (I gather) that changes in the competitive structure will result in financial ruin. I don't think that is necessarily so, and if it is a threat, then the PDGA should employ tactics to fight it.

They own a valuable product in the ratings. I suspect they can legally protect that asset. They can also create, or be associated with huge tournaments, that act to entice people to retain their membership.

If they are worried about the threat of unsanctioned tourneys, they can work with manufacturers to try to gather their support. One can argue that they really do have a long term stake in promoting a healthy competitive system. The PDGA can also support their own members in raiding these tournaments of their loot.

In summary, I think the threats to the PDGA are real, but the threats to the unsanctioned tournaments are even greater.

Does a pro play rounds for fun<font color="green"> sometimes </font>, rounds to teach<font color="green"> rarely </font>, rounds for exhibition<font color="green"> next to never </font>, rounds for charity<font color="green"> next to never </font> and rounds for profit<font color="green"> everytime </font>?





:mad::mad::mad:**** WHY DID I EVER TAKE THE IGNOR BUTTON OFF YOU? I wouldn't have to read this kind of CRAP out of your man pleaser! :mad::mad::mad:

QUIT Spewing junk you know nothing about!


Does a pro play rounds for fun<font color="red"> most of the time </font>, rounds to teach<font color="red"> I have worked with KIDS at the YMCA, Children at the BackPack ADventures Club, and I am about to teach at Broken Arrow High School about the game </font>, rounds for exhibition<font color="red"> Everytime I play for fun I'm there to put on a show </font>, rounds for charity<font color="red"> 04 USDGC gave 10% of my winnings to Lukemia Sciety, 05 Haikey Creek Classic gave ALL my winnings to local whose house burnt down. Even run an annual fundraiser at Copperhead Canyon to raise money for the under privledge kids in West Tulsa so they can goto summer camp, we've raised nearly $1500 the last 2 years for the YMCA</font> and rounds for profit<font color="red"> HEY When its a JOB, its a JOB! SURE! </font>?




:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Just because there are a few YAAHOOS out there quit generalizing ALL of us you MONKEY SPANK! :mad:

ARGH YOUR BACK ON MY IGNOR LIST! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

So you're thinking it's more like a make-up call for that charge that was not called on the other end of the court?

Thing is, unlike disc golf, the official saw it happen, so however the official calls it, the message board player just has to live with the call and play on.

Am I amusing only to myself again?



It could be worse, you could be musing only to yourself...

Y'all are the ones assuming (I gather) that changes in the competitive structure will result in financial ruin. I don't think that is necessarily so, and if it is a threat, then the PDGA should employ tactics to fight it.

<font color="blue">I thought you were the one saying they should forget about their financial stability and do what was good for the sport. You made it sound like a one or the other choice in your last post.</font>

They own a valuable product in the ratings. I suspect they can legally protect that asset. They can also create, or be associated with huge tournaments, that act to entice people to retain their membership.

<font color="blue"> I'm not sure what you are getting at with that. Ratings/handicaps/rankings are easy, and most anyone could do them with an adequate dataset. The PDGA isn't the first to do something like that, so I don't think that have any patent on the process, they just have ownership of the dataset.</font>

If they are worried about the threat of unsanctioned tourneys, they can work with manufacturers to try to gather their support. One can argue that they really do have a long term stake in promoting a healthy competitive system. The PDGA can also support their own members in raiding these tournaments of their loot.

<font color="blue">Maybe the can get the top three or four to go along with them, but what of the start ups or smaller companies that would stand to gain a big advantage by supplying the grey market ?</font>

In summary, I think the threats to the PDGA are real, but the threats to the unsanctioned tournaments are even greater.


<font color="blue">There are no threats to the unsanctioned tournaments. There will always be manufacturers, or wholesalers, or sanctioned TDs that overcalculated the plastic required for their event to get stock from. You can just get a few top am players together and go with pre-packaged discs and they can use the event to convert their winnings to cash.</font>

I think the crux of the issue for the pro players like Kevin is that the great majority of our events are pro/am and in spite of playing in separate divisions, everyone sees the whole shindig as one big event. So when Kevin shoots a 104 for the day and wins $50 coming in 4th, and the Advanced winner shoots a 115 and goes home with $300 worth of loot, it seems like we're rewarding the player who's hiding in Advanced. There are two simple solutions to this issue.

1) Stop holding pro and am divisions on the same day and the same course at the same time. If there is no Advanced division playing at the same time on the same course as Pro Open players, no pro can look at a lower division getting "paid" more for a lesser score and feel slighted. If Advanced is supposed to be a separate tournament altogether from Pro Open, MAKE IT ONE and avoid opportunities for confusion. Completely separate tournaments also allows for those Advanced players to step up and play Open once in a while (there's no other division to play in if they want to play at all that day). Of course, as many places have a hard enough time filling a course with 72 or 90 players offering 12 different divisions, to hold a separate event for each division would be ridiculous. Which brings me to option #2...

2) Stop handing out mile-high stacks of plastic based on performance. Lower entry fees, offer a players pack, and hand out nominal prizes or trophies based on performance. I have said this before, I'll say it again, I have yet to hear a convincing argument why we absolutely NEED to have exorbitant payouts in amateur divisions. The only reason I see that the prize payout culture perpetuates is because "that's the way it's always been".

If someone can make a convincing argument why there absolutely needs to be any individual amateur performance prizes in excess of $100 at a given event, I'd love to hear it. The "it'll turn off too many players" argument wears old on me, and it seems to come from folks who are just afraid to try something new rather than based on empirical evidence. Wild payouts have come to be expected because players are conditioned to expect it, not because it's "the right way to do it". Well, with a firm change, the new and old tournament players can be conditioned to not expect over-the-top payouts in amateur divisions. Perhaps we have to bite the bullet and take a step backward to take 3 steps forward. In the long run, it should prove healthier for the whole sport.

I've posted numerous times about the growing success of a purely trophy-only amateur format here in Maine. I'll gladly provide it again if needed. And the more success we have with it, the more convinced I am that it IS possible and it CAN and WILL succeed anywhere. It just takes the intestinal fortitude (at least in our current climate) to buck the trends and do it all over.

--Josh

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.



How can you tell me that the OPEN division that is NOT protected by ratings or age shouldn't get paid the most at EVERY EVENT? I don't care if there are 30 Masters and 2 Open, If that OPEN player beats the masters scores he is the SUPERIOR golfer and he should get paid the most. People hiding in protected divisions shouldn't EVER win the most amount unless they shoot the lowest score.





You need to go back and read Chuck and Bruce's posts. You aren't owed anything. The plain and simple fact is that the top Pros are their own worst enemy in terms of the market place. It reminds me of Apple.

In the 1980s Apple made the best computer on the Market (the Macintosh). They knew it, and so did everyone else, so they charged twice what people were charging for a PC. Their argument, "It's the best computer on the market, it is much more reliable, it will increase your productivity over that of a PC 100 times over the extra cost." Why wouldn't everyone want one. The plain and simple fact is that if companies had gone down the Mac road they would have saved millions if not billions in maintenance and down time. Today Apple has what, 4% of the market.

Right, best thing to do, smart thing to do, fair - these things have no meaning if people don't buy. It doesn't matter if you're right Kevin, no one's buying. Even your notion that the superior golfer somehow deserves to win the most is misplaced.

Until you realize that no one is going to give you anything unless they want to, nothing is going to change. More Pros will disappear and more guys will stay Am where there is a better distribution of winnings and where they can actually get a return on their investment.

If you change the rules to force those guys to play up, you won't win, they will simply play SN or other unsanctioned tournies or quit.

Well, I'm not talking about what anyone is worried about. That's cognitive or Rogerian psychology. I'm talking about the economic and behavioral factors at work here. Even mice and pigeons respond to these principles and I don't know how much they think or worry about things. Organizations seem to respond to these factors to even thogh they lack a collective hive mind.

People, mice and organizations do what pays off for them. It pays off for the PDGA, under its current pricing policies, to make it easier for TDs to run B-tiers. It pays off for the Board members and staff members to maintain consistent pricing policies. So they loosen the B-tier standards back to where they were in 2003, because that pays better than the other obvious options.

I agree with Gary that the long term payoff would be better for the sport and the pros if we did away with pro divisions altogether and applied the money saved and made to grade school programs. That has actually been tried successfully in the United States, and now some soccer players can make a decent living here. Most of our pros don't think long term like that. Like anyone else they think about next weekend. Soccer was able to institute that long term strategy because for the short term they were bankrupt. The issue of needing to pay the pros next week or next month was no longer on the table.

I don't think that is a realistic solution for the PDGA so long as our pros don't get it. And I don't blame the pros for not getting it either. $500 added cash next weekend is a lot more tangible than a 15-year growth strategy that is only going to benefit my grandchildren, if at all.

Gary, I'm not saying that at all. I'm always being told that I'm not pragmatic. That I don't factor in the financial aspects of changing policies. I said "IMO, I don't care about finances, mainly because THE PDGA IS NOT A BUSINESS. The PDGA's mission is predominant. If they can't work towards that, they should quit."

I don't know if handicapping is that easy or not. I do know that the PDGA should be prepared to take legal action against anyone who uses their product without permission.

I have no idea if working with the manufacturers has any merit, but it should be pursued. The grey market of unsanctioned tournaments would be no threat to them, and it would decrease the appeal of those unsanctioned events since noone really wants an unknown acme disc.

In short, any organized threat to the PDGA is going to have to go through the same painful process the PDGA is going through. The PDGA has a thirty year headstart on them. Any non-organized threat is not much of a threat, IMO.

No matter what happens, it has to be something that the players will do willingly with their own best interests in mind. Nothing that forces anyone to do something that is against their best interest is going to succeed. This applies to things that are going to be good for them in the long run, but will be uncomfortable for a while as well.

Nothing makes people send their money to the PDGA each year except their desire to support the sport, or their best interest. For the majority of the players I know, they save money by being members. For the ones that are Ace and Birdie club members, they are doing it for the good of the sport and because it fits in with what they want to do. I have little doubt that it the price wnet up to $150 per year, that those same Ace club members would stop sending their money into the PDGA.

You need to quit thinking of the PDGA as a big social club and start thinking of it as a small business with 4.5 employees and a half dozen part timers.



Or, maybe the PDGA needs to start thinking of themselves as the stewards of the sport, rather then just a business maximizing revenue. It's not like it is a business with stockholders demanding the highest returns. It can dissolve tomorrow and no one loses any equity.

Basically, if the PDGA is truly more concerned about their financial stability than they are their job, then they should dissolve. If they still have a desire to accomplish their mission and are facing financial problems, then they should either raise taxes, or cut services. In either case, they need to remember that they will be remembered for what they do for the sport, not what they do for the majority of members.



I'm not sure that generating a system that pushes cash up to the Pros would qualify the PDGA as stewards of the sport.

No matter what happens, it has to be something that the players will do willingly with their own best interests in mind. Nothing that forces anyone to do something that is against their best interest is going to succeed. This applies to things that are going to be good for them in the long run, but will be uncomfortable for a while as well.

Nothing makes people send their money to the PDGA each year except their desire to support the sport, or their best interest. For the majority of the players I know, they save money by being members. For the ones that are Ace and Birdie club members, they are doing it for the good of the sport and because it fits in with what they want to do. I have little doubt that it the price wnet up to $150 per year, that those same Ace club members would stop sending their money into the PDGA.



Exactly!

Gary, you and Lyle assume these schemes amount to "forcing people to play up." I have never advocated that. I have simply said "we should not encourage them to play down." There is a big difference.

Lyle, what is this Apple analogy and your idea of the "market" that is not supporting the pros? There is no independently existing "market" here. The "market" you speak of is essentially the PDGA rules for organizing competition. Once the rules change, the "market" changes. Might other rules and other "markets" emerge. Maybe so. However, discussion of how the rules "ought to be" is not defeated by your phantom market forces.

In short, any organized threat to the PDGA is going to have to go through the same painful process the PDGA is going through. The PDGA has a thirty year headstart on them. Any non-organized threat is not much of a threat, IMO.


Well, SNDG is already there, :Dbut the real threat is the unsanctioned, unorganized, uncontrolable TDs if the PDGA tries to implement any major change to force an unpopular agenda on the amateur players. There are many TDs that are ready and willing to step in and give the players whatever they want as long as they show up and spend money.

These same unsanctioned TDs have very little interest in whether Pros show up at their events or not since the Pros are non-profit divisions. I would think the Pro players would especially concerned that the PDGA keep the amateur players very happy or they would lose the only support base they curently have.

The amateur golfers fund pretty much everything currently. Without their continued and voluntary support, the PDGA would not exist.

I'm not sure that generating a system that pushes cash up to the Pros would qualify the PDGA as stewards of the sport.


Yeah, but generating a system that rewards mediocrity does qualify the PDGA as stewards of the sport. :confused:

BTW, I haven't advocated pushing any cash towards the pros. I've said it a number of times. This sport is way too small to support many individuals. That does not imply that it should not strive to reward performance.

Who has said that the AMS should support the PROS? I haven't seen it on here.

Ok James, What would you propose that rewards the average player enough to get them to give up their weekends and spend hundreds of dollars traveling around to play, yet does not reward mediocrity ?

Especially if the majority of players that are supporting the events now are mediocre players and most are satisfied with the current system ?

Keep in mind that there are low priced minis to choose from in most towns, and in some places there are minis every day/night of the week. Also consider that many times there are unsanctioned events being held not far away by TDs that have only the players satisfaction and their own profits in mind.

Well, SNDG is already there



yeah, call me up when the SNDG surpasses the PDGA.

As to your continued refrain about unsanctioned tourneys, you just dismiss everything I have said and still act as if they are some doomsday threat to the PDGA.

Gary, you and Lyle assume these schemes amount to "forcing people to play up." I have never advocated that. I have simply said "we should not encourage them to play down." There is a big difference.

Lyle, what is this Apple analogy and your idea of the "market" that is not supporting the pros? There is no independently existing "market" here. The "market" you speak of is essentially the PDGA rules for organizing competition. Once the rules change, the "market" changes. Might other rules and other "markets" emerge. Maybe so. However, discussion of how the rules "ought to be" is not defeated by your phantom market forces.



The underlying theme of what you and Kevin are trying to accomplish is to move more lower ranked players into the Pro pool out of the Am pool. Those guys don't want to be there as the current system is set up. There is no value to them, otherwise they'd move up on their own. If you set up a competitive structure that places them there, they will go away. You can't force people where they don't want to be (O.K. if you're the govmin't you can send them to prison without a trial, but only if there's a war on). That James is market economics; in fact it's marketing 101. Supply and demand, people pay more for what they want and what they don't want becomes worth less. Ams don't want the Pro market and shazam, it's worth less than the Am market.

You're fooling yourself if you think that simply setting up a competitive structure that moves them there will work, it won't. Again, in a free society, you can't hold someone where they don't want to be. To get them there you have to give them something they want. Nothing you or Kevin has proposed does this. It doesn't matter that giving them something isn't "fair." It's reality. It isn't fair that MacDonalds has to sell it's cheap burgers under cost. It's reality, they have to do it to attract people to eat their horrible food.

I have simply said "we should not encourage them to play down."



I agree with this premise and also agree with rewarding and incentivizing superior play, if at all possible. I'm not sure any of the amateurs in the current system disagree with this goal either. If added cash from somewhere could fund a steady stream of $100,000 weekend pro purses, no lower rated players are going to gripe if all they win is a basket. If they get better, they can go for the big cash like other bigtime sports.

We already have a way to reward and incentivize players to improve up to the 950 neighborhood. We are fortunate that the sweet spot for current membership numbers is in the 890-950 zone. Those players lucked out because we didn't even know that back when the prizes started ramping up in the 90s. The sweet spot could easily have been 800 or 1000 (maybe not easily but certainly possible).

OK, so this part of our improvement ladder appears self sustaining without forcing anything and I don't believe needs much tweaking to successfully continue. Now, what do we do to keep the incentives moving upward and also not force behavior any more than we do below 950? That's what this thread is all about.

These things are true at this point:
1. There are fewer and fewer players as you progress from 950 to 1035 ratings.
2. Not enough money comes in from the outside and from amateur generated sources to offset the smaller fields providing entry fees plus add sufficient additional cash to increase the rewards high enough above Advanced.
3. The ratings gap from 950 to 1035 is too wide to expect the bottom half of players in the range to want to participate on a regular basis, and dividing the range into two divisions increases problems 1 & 2.

The solution to these issues is not going to be easy, which most of us posting know. But on the assumption that outside cash will continue to grow slower than pros would like, any solution that deals with these issues will likely be unconventional. Both Stepped Entry Fees or Second Chance formats address these issues. If you don't like those options, the floor is open for other ideas. But whatever they are, they need to address these three items and not force behavior against players' best interests.

Ok James, What would you propose that rewards the average player enough to get them to give up their weekends and spend hundreds of dollars traveling around to play, yet does not reward mediocrity ?



The desire to compete, to have fun with their friends, to challenge themselves, etc. The fact that people will play without a financial incentive is evidenced (in my experience) by:

I see am players all the time that travel, with little to no expected finaincial reward.

I see many pros do the same thing.

I see flatter payouts which have decreased the financial expectations, yet I have seen no dropoff in ams.

I hear many ams on this thread, not to mention ams off the board, comment on how they would still play competitive events if it was "worth it to them."

I have read Josh talk upthread that it is working in his area.

I have seen millions of people in other walks of life do it.

Do I need more?

Who has said that the AMS should support the PROS? I haven't seen it on here.



Actually, both you and James have said it. You keep talking about a competitive structure that moves Ams up to Pro so that there are basically more players to support the Pro purse. Since the reality is that those new "Pros" have virtually no chance of covering their costs they would be supporting the "top" Pros. Yes, we would no longer call them Ams but that is just semantics.

Actually, both you and James have said it. You keep talking about a competitive structure that moves Ams up to Pro so that there are basically more players to support the Pro purse.


For the umpteenth time, in my ideal competitive structure, a present day "am" can continue to play against players of similar skill. He just won't profit by it. No one is "moving him up." However, if he is motivated by profit, the system will "encourage him to move up," but certainly not force him.

By the way, I have always advocated cheap entry fees for people that don't like their chances. I am not at all comfortable with requiring $80-100 bets for everyone. I would let anyone enter at reduced prices, but of course their payout if they earned it, would also be reduced.

In short, I have a few principles that guide my system:

1) If you want to play for profit, play pro;

2) If you want to play pro, there should be options available. These options are not based on handicapping the accomplished players, but merely reducing the possible maximum losses of the less accomplished.

Ok James, What would you propose that rewards the average player enough to get them to give up their weekends and spend hundreds of dollars traveling around to play, yet does not reward mediocrity ?



The desire to compete, to have fun with their friends, to challenge themselves, etc. The fact that people will play without a financial incentive is evidenced (in my experience) by: <font color="blue"> The fact that people go to Six Flags and Disney World is evidence that people will pay for what they perceive to be of value to them.</font>

I see am players all the time that travel, with little to no expected finaincial reward. <font color="blue">I never travel or play with the expectation of a financial reward. Even if I win my division at every event I go to, I will still be losing money. I do expect to be competitive, and in this sport being competitive helps offset some of the cost of replacing plastic lost or worn out in competition</font>

I see many pros do the same thing. <font color="blue"> Then there should be no complaints. If a great number of Pros were willing to donate week in and week out, there would be lots of iincentive for players to continue to improve</font>

I see flatter payouts which have decreased the financial expectations, yet I have seen no dropoff in ams. <font color="blue"> That goes to show that all Ams are not the greedy players just in it for profit that some others paint them to be. However, they still want to feel competitive. The current 50 point division ranges allows them that opportunity.</font>

I hear many ams on this thread, not to mention ams off the board, comment on how they would still play competitive events if it was "worth it to them." <font color="blue">That is true, KC Wide Open has done very well with Ams for years, and they have never paid out huge prizes. It's all about perceived value. If you reduce the perceived value down to the point that staying home and playing the mini across town is of equal value to traveling, where do you think the players will be ?</font>

I have read Josh talk upthread that it is working in his area. <font color="blue"> That's a wonderful thing in a land of pay-to-play courses and few tournaments. Would it work in Texas with well over 100 courses and multiple events every weekend ?</font>

I have seen millions of people in other walks of life do it.
<font color="blue"> Do what ?</font>
Do I need more?



<font color="blue">All I asked for was a proposal that meets your stated desires. I do not flippantly discount anything you say. I have given much of what you say serious consideration prior to you saying it. You are saying that we must have a system that refuses to reward mediocrity. By that I assume you mean we need a system that rewards excellence over mediocrity. In order to do that, you need a means of providing those rewards, or you need a way to remove the rewards from the mediocre players.

If you remove the rewards from the mediocre players (that are currently funding the whole house of cards) by dropping entry fees (and thus payout) to levels that can't total as much as the pro purses, you remove the incentive they have for traveling and attending events. They will just stay home with their families and play casual rounds with their friends on the weekends.

If you remove the rewards by making removing the performance based payouts, then you are truly rewarding mediocre and bad performance in exactly the same way. You may draw in just as many players by paying out 140% of entries in player packs, but you are not rewarding better performance.

This is not a new discussion that cropped up this year, I have been going over this for several years already, and don't see an answer in the current pay-your-own way for the Pros to be rewarded more than the ams when there are (and always will be) more amateur players than pro players.

The answer is not to discourage the Amateur players by recuding the things they have shown that they desire, but to find ways to increase the rewards offered to the Pros. </font>

2) Stop handing out mile-high stacks of plastic based on performance. Lower entry fees, offer a players pack, and hand out nominal prizes or trophies based on performance. I have said this before, I'll say it again, I have yet to hear a convincing argument why we absolutely NEED to have exorbitant payouts in amateur divisions. The only reason I see that the prize payout culture perpetuates is because "that's the way it's always been".

I've said this before and I'll say it again: You can do this in Maine but when I've tried it in Michigan and Illinois, the top amateurs are not interested. It is a sure fire way to attract a small field around here.

Something tells me this thread will get interesting tomorrow morning...

Something tells me this thread will get interesting tomorrow morning...

I was trying to figure this post out and then I remembered who is reading and not posting for a day.

2) Stop handing out mile-high stacks of plastic based on performance. Lower entry fees, offer a players pack, and hand out nominal prizes or trophies based on performance. I have said this before, I'll say it again, I have yet to hear a convincing argument why we absolutely NEED to have exorbitant payouts in amateur divisions. The only reason I see that the prize payout culture perpetuates is because "that's the way it's always been".

I've said this before and I'll say it again: You can do this in Maine but when I've tried it in Michigan and Illinois, the top amateurs are not interested. It is a sure fire way to attract a small field around here.



Because that's the culture players in Michigan and Illinois and everywhere else across the land grew up with.

In Maine, they started offering tournaments with low entry fees while providing a sweet player's pack, CTP prizes, trophies, scorecards, exclusive use of the course for the day, and free coffee/hot chocolate.

No mountains of loot are awarded to the winners, but EVERYONE gets excellent value for their money whether they place first or last. The disc golfers there compete for the thrill of competition, not to get awarded oodles of plastic and merchandise at the expense of others.

While you may attract a small field to begin with, maybe people will eventually realize what a great bargain these tournaments are. And maybe you'll effect a culture change as they did in Maine.

2) Stop handing out mile-high stacks of plastic based on performance. Lower entry fees, offer a players pack, and hand out nominal prizes or trophies based on performance. I have said this before, I'll say it again, I have yet to hear a convincing argument why we absolutely NEED to have exorbitant payouts in amateur divisions. The only reason I see that the prize payout culture perpetuates is because "that's the way it's always been".

I've said this before and I'll say it again: You can do this in Maine but when I've tried it in Michigan and Illinois, the top amateurs are not interested. It is a sure fire way to attract a small field around here.



Bruce, when you say you've tried this in Michigan and Illinois and it failed, was the event a pure trophy-only tournament or were you just offering the trophy-only option and it was largely ignored by the prize-conditioned players? Offering it as an option, IMO, is not putting trophy-only/low payout to a true test.

I'm on record as acknowledging that the low-entry, low/no-payout amateur tournament is not going to attract the same old prize-***** ams. My contention is, why are we pandering to them so much and how do we know for certain that they would stay away in huge numbers forever? I say take away their binky and see what happens. The top amateurs aren't the ones we should be building our amateur competitive structure around anyway.

Yes, the trophy-only format works in Maine partly due to the fact that there isn't a ton of competition. It also succeeds because we started more or less from scratch building a player-base that was conditioned to expect trophy, no-prize-payout tournaments. My contention is that the same type of player base building can be done anywhere, even in areas that have strong prize-conditioned amateur player bases. In fact, I think those areas have a head-start in that they do have tournament players to draw from in the first place. All it really is going to take is for someone, anyone, to start offering the alternative, whether it is a PDGA mandate or not.

Again, all I really want to know is why the exorbitant prize payouts are necessary? I spent the first 7 years of my disc golf career playing amateur competitions and never once did I measure my success or the quality of an event by the amount of loot I got to take home. It has always baffled me that anyone does that with "amateur" competition. I've never understood the need for the big stacks of discs. To me, the competition and peer recognition should be enough.

Honestly, I'm not seeking to eliminate prize payouts entirely (although I firmly believe we can survive without them), I would definitely prefer to see them curbed dramatically. Just doing that would certainly help alleviate the notion that pros like Kevin keep bringing up...that mediocre amateurs are being rewarded far better than the best players. That the issue can largely be resolved with such a simple solution and it isn't just confuses me.

--Josh

Is that the only format ever offered?

The highest rated pro in ME is 990 rated, by the way, he's originally from MN, and the next highest rated is 970, but whatever.

I believe Adv & Int payouts should be lower, though, but not trophy only.

Is that the only format ever offered?

The highest rated pro in ME is 990 rated, by the way, he's originally from MN, and the next highest rated is 970, but whatever.

I believe Adv & Int payouts should be lower, though, but not trophy only.



The conversation was strictly about the amateur divisions.

Pro divisions are offered too with the normal cash payout schemes according to PDGA guidelines. The entry fees are in line with that recommended in the PDGA Tour Standards.

Out of curiosity, what does the highest player ratings of Open golfers in Maine have to do with anything?

the same thing that how the Swedes approach the 2MR has to do with the Official Rules of Disc Golf. the highest rated golfers in ME should set the rules for everyone :D

seriously though, the higher up the Am ladder you climb, the steeper the payout should become. after all, Open players are faced with a steep payout, so we need to train our best Ams how to deal with that aspect of the mental game.

flat payouts reward mediocrity in MA1. thats bad. steep payouts reward coming through when it counts. thats good. flat payouts get beginners interested. thats good also. all imo, of course.

Nice to discuss these things but nothing is going to change, even compromise seems foreign around here.

Bottomline: TD's need the Ams money and the PDGA needs the TD's money. The best way to extract it is to have high entries in order to give huge stacks of plastic. Ams are happy with the huge stack ...TD is happy with the profit...PDGA makes its money and is happy. Competition is just a side event. Promotion of healthy Amatuer competition is a monkey wrench in the money wheel. Nothing will change unless for some weird reason everyone at the same time snaps to the fact that we are on the wrong path. Safe to say that wont happen.

Think locally.

I believe playing for some type of payout breeds a certain type of competitiveness, good & bad, but deeper.

I can't see going too far out of my way for trophy only, i.e.

{my buddy} Wow, you took fourth place out of 40 guys, what did you get?
{me} a players pack.

The fact that your buddies first question was "What did you get" and your answer was " a player pack" just shows how the system has created the wrong mindset in the amatuer ranks.

Player ratings in ME could mean anything, I just thought I'd point it out because I thought it was interesting to note. That's what my 'whatever' was for. I would assume it's because they're just getting started and that makes me wonder if a payout is ever offered any events.

Somebody with no knowledge of disc golf will ask that question. I get asked that all the time.

Is that the only format ever offered?

The highest rated pro in ME is 990 rated, by the way, he's originally from MN, and the next highest rated is 970, but whatever.

I believe Adv & Int payouts should be lower, though, but not trophy only.



What does who the top players have to do with any of this? Is it not clear that Maine is far from the hottest bed of disc golfers around? Of course we don't have a bunch of 1000 rated players, we're still developing. Our pro divisions are rarely more than 8-10 players, depending on who comes in from out of state. But, almost all of our pros start the day with the feeling that they can win, which from the statements on this thread, is the reason a lot of top ams keep playing am...little to no chance of succeeding (cashing) in Pro.

Did you also happen to look at the top am players in the state? 959, 954, 946, all of whom don't hang around in Am for the payout (actually, the 959 is me and I recently accepted pro cash), which some argue is the reason many 940-970 rated amateurs elsewhere don't make the move to pro. There is no incentive to stay in Am other than to continue competing against like competition without continually throwing big chunks of money into other players' pockets. There isn't much talk of "sandbagging" problems either.

As for your other question...there have been other formats offered. It is now, and has been for over 2 years, the only format we offer at our PDGA events. Prior to our decision to go player pack/trophy-only in our amateur divisions, we tried to go all out with payout. Just for example.
<ul type="square"> 2002 B-tier...upfront promise of sweet player pack (CFR discs back when they were truly special) and, at minimum, portable Discatchers to the top of three am divisions. Total turnout: 8 Advanced players, 4 Adv Masters, 0 Intermediate...not nearly enough money in the entry fees to cover the costs of the prizes paid out.
2003 B-tier...more promises of good payout on top of another sweet player pack. Total turnout: 11 Advanced, 5 Adv Masters, 11 Intermediate
2004 B-tier...upfront advertisement of a player pack exceeding entry fee in value (custom Colormax disc, towel, and golf bag) and trophy only payout. Total turnout: 22 in Advanced, 13 Adv Masters, 11 Intermediate.
2005 B-tier...upfront advertisement of player pack similar to 2004 and a trophy-only payout. Total turnout: 25 Advanced, 10 Adv Masters, 21 Intermediate.[/list]

For 2006, we fully expect to match or exceed those totals, again by promising a entry fee valued player pack and trophies (pre-reg is already well ahead of last year's pace...nearly 1/3 full with two months to go). We've already seen a significant increase in our PDGA events so far (biggest turnout yet at a D-tier two weeks ago and better than ever pre-registration for the next one on 4/8).

It works because there is a market for it and we've catered to it. There's a market for it anywhere out there. It just takes a TD willing to cater to it.

--Josh

I was more concerned with your answer to the question but I think you may have missed the point.

I'd like to see you compete in Pro at any B tier or higher here in MN. Unless you're getting better, you have a very slim chance of cashing in pro.

And like you said, you're just getting started. Let's see what the masses say when they start playing in other places. I believe it breeds a deeper competitiveness that prepares players to play in pro.

Like I said, I still think the payouts need to be lowered just a little bit.

I'd start holding my own tournaments with a payout and see who consistently brings in the bigger fields, like you said, you're just getting started.

I'd like to see you compete in Pro at any B tier or higher here in MN. Unless you're getting better, you have a very slim chance of cashing in pro.

And like you said, you're just getting started. Let's see what the masses say when they start playing in other places. I believe it breeds a deeper competitiveness that prepares players to play in pro.

Like I said, I still think the payouts need to be lowered just a little bit.


Again, you bring conjecture that is beside the point into the discussion. When did I claim to be a great pro? I merely pointed out that I cashed recently because I was simultaneously pointing you to the listing of top Am players in Maine, and I'm still listed at the top despite having turned pro. If I were living in Minnesota and assuming I had the same skill-level that I do now, you're right, I probably couldn't compete in Pro. I'd probably still be playing Advanced, but I'd be doing so even if the whole freaking state ran their amateur tournaments the way we do here in Maine. I'm not in it to win stuff, but I certainly am not going to throw money away in pro either.

Also, the top Ams around here HAVE played elsewhere...it's not as though they've all been brainwashed and shielded from the rest of the disc golf world. They read these discussion pages...they go out of state to Massachusetts and Connecticut where the tourneys follow a more "traditional" format. That doesn't prompt them to complain about the tournaments here. Personally, I cut my tournament teeth in Ohio where I went to college. I've played the BG Am Open twice (top 20 both times), I've been to Am Nationals three times (cashing twice), I've played all over the northeast where tall stacks of plastic are still the norm in am divisions. I've gotten the "taste" of winning big hauls, but I didn't care for it.

I disagree that the lack of prizes as motivation is a detriment to my or anyone else's competitiveness. I improved my rating and my game by close to 40 points in the last year or so, playing primarily trophy-only am tournaments locally. Without all that "experience" of playing for stacks of discs, I managed to hold my own in Pro Open and cash the first time out this year. I'm sorry, but just because you feel motivated by the stacks of discs, doesn't mean folks can't get just as motivated just for the pure competition. Not everyone needs a fat carrot dangled in front of them to go, go, go.

Let's not make this personal, or about the region I'm coming from. Let's talk about the merits of the amateur competitive structure as it is. To dismiss it so flippantly by saying it's a regional thing or a fluke is demeaning to us all.

--Josh

I'm not trying to demean you and I'm not attacking you. I am genuinly interested in hearing you out. I have said I think the Advanced payout should be lowered (flattened?, but that I'm not sure about, but lowered somehow) so there is more of a perceived incentive to move up.

I'm 32yrs old and I'm serious about this whether you like it or not:

{my buddy who knows nothing about dg} 4th out of 40 guys, what did you get?
{me} a players pack
{my buddy} oh

I'm 32 yrs old and I've been playing hard for 12yrs. I'm not going to get any better and I'm personally not going to go out of my way for trophy only; I'd hold my own tournaments thank you. I still think Adv payouts should be lowered though, to stick with the title.

How are you going to keep somebody like me coming back when I can't cash in pro and all I'll get is a trophy in Adv?

I just don't think trophy only will work for 30-40 something men, which is our biggest demographic, rated 900-950 and not getting better when I can hold a tournament somewhere else the same day with a payout.

Pat and Rhett,

I am very disappointed and somewhat surprised by your actions inactions here.

Pat, you have broken your public trust here and lied to everyone when you posted some time ago here emphatically that you were not a moderator nor that you were charged with such duties by Terry and then took it upon yourself to ban me (under Rhett�s name). If you look at the post, that you took personal offense to, it is as much a jab at myself as it is towards anyone here. Certainly it was less offensive or inflamatory than 3-time lifetime banned Kevin McCoy's post 4 posts later on this same thread that still is allowed to persist, your and Rhett�s posts, or the open hostility and unabashed nefarious intentions of Jeff LaGrassa�s constant hounding of which no warnings or actions have been taken.

At any rate, I am impressed with the level of discussion here that is centered on the issue of the relation between our Cash and Prize divisions and the possible addition of a new Amateur one, which is an absolutely crucial one for the PDGA, for which I know, at least , Rhett disagrees with my assessment(which needn't be personal). So if you guys have something to say to me please spare this discussion and PM or email me directly. I will be glad to discuss it with you without public grandstanding. (I figured you guys had a whole day to take your shots at me, what I have posted here is much less accusatory than your posts have been, and speak to tangible facts rather than personal feelings.)

Clearly you both have taken a misstep in letting your personal feelings influence your work here as moderators. I say a misstep because I believe that you are both, overall, doing a fine job and only hope that you will learn from this and do things differently next time.

Again, out of respect to this thread, I will not respond publicly to any posts regarding this mistake; send me a PM or email if you have anything to say. Though disappointed, I personally know the difficulty of moderating, even under worse circumstances than you now operate, so I absolutely forgive both of you and hope that we can move on and take care of more important things than this.

Respectfully,
Nick Kight

I just don't think trophy only will work for 30-40 something men, which is our biggest demographic, rated 900-950 and not getting better when I can hold a tournament somewhere else the same day with a payout.



And I wouldn't expect you or any of the folks that play in the prize divisions to think you would. In fact, it would be weird if you did, right?

You have your reasons for playing and your divisions that suit your needs well, why would you ever want to play in divisions that are suited for a completely differently motivated group of players.

We really need to end the notion that this new classification of competition, based solely on fun and competition with not even the possibility of any financial compensation, would mean a loss of any sort for our cash or prize players. And end the notion that what we are talking about is "trophy only/added cash players" playing among cash/prize player because they are really just "too poor" or that they are in a "Gambler Enticement Boot Camp";

these guys are as valid of atheletes and competitors as any.

They just have a different motivation for playing than we cash/prize players have. There is no more need to belittle or degrade their motivation or method of competition than there is for cash players to do so to prize players. They're just different. I know that isn't a popular thing at the moment, but sometimes differences can be beneficial.

I think Josh is doing it right, and I think Bruce, though a noble try, did it wrong; for the reasons Josh provided. A differently motivated class of player and competition can not succeed so long as it is just an after-thought or the ugly sister of the Prize/Cash classes.

As far as top pros wanting more added cash players in their division.. we have bigger problems to deal with.

"I disagree that the lack of prizes as motivation is a detriment to my or anyone else's competitiveness."

If I know I'm not going to get to the trophy spot, which is probably just to 3rd or 4th place, it's not worth trying as hard then.

Sorry, but my thoughts come out in spurts.

I just don't think trophy only will work for 30-40 something men, which is our biggest demographic, rated 900-950 and not getting better when I can hold a tournament somewhere else the same day with a payout.



And I wouldn't expect you or any of the folks that play in the prize divisions to think you would. In fact, it would be weird if you did, right?

You have your reasons for playing and your divisions that suit your needs well, why would you ever want to play in divisions that are suited for a completely differently motivated group of players.

We really need to end the notion that this new classification of competition, based solely on fun and competition with not even the possibility of any financial compensation, would mean a loss of any sort for our cash or prize players. And end the notion that what we are talking about is "trophy only/added cash players" playing among cash/prize player because they are really just "too poor" or that they are in a "Gambler Enticement Boot Camp";

these guys are as valid of atheletes and competitors as any.

They just have a different motivation for playing than we cash/prize players have. There is no more need to belittle or degrade their motivation or method of competition than there is for cash players to do so to prize players. They're just different. I know that isn't a popular thing at the moment, but sometimes differences can be beneficial.

I think Josh is doing it right, and I think Bruce, though a noble try, did it wrong; for the reasons Josh provided. A differently motivated class of player and competition can not succeed so long as it is just an after-thought or the ugly sister of the Prize/Cash classes.

As far as top pros wanting more added cash players in their division.. we have bigger problems to deal with.



I don't get how it would work on the same day as a payout tournament. Who will move from payout to trophy only, the individual divisions bottom rated players?

I think what we may have here is apples and oranges.

Are the events in Maine full price trophy only, or discounted trophy only ?

If they are full price trophy only which is what they sound like, then all of the players are taking away a pretty good players pack if the TDs are assigning reasonable values to the contents.

I think the best we could hope to do in the prize belt is to go half and half to start. Half the entry in player packs, half in payout. If the TD is even more outgoing and treats merch sponsorship in the player packs as added cash (does not subtract the value from the entry fees or payout), and all added cash/merch goes into the player packs, then it could catch on.

We may lose a few dozen players at the start, but we should recoup those losses and maybe get them back later, or maybe they'll go pro.

I just don't think trophy only will work for 30-40 something men, which is our biggest demographic, rated 900-950 and not getting better when I can hold a tournament somewhere else the same day with a payout.



And I wouldn't expect you or any of the folks that play in the prize divisions to think you would. In fact, it would be weird if you did, right?

You have your reasons for playing and your divisions that suit your needs well, why would you ever want to play in divisions that are suited for a completely differently motivated group of players.

We really need to end the notion that this new classification of competition, based solely on fun and competition with not even the possibility of any financial compensation, would mean a loss of any sort for our cash or prize players. And end the notion that what we are talking about is "trophy only/added cash players" playing among cash/prize player because they are really just "too poor" or that they are in a "Gambler Enticement Boot Camp";

these guys are as valid of atheletes and competitors as any.

They just have a different motivation for playing than we cash/prize players have. There is no more need to belittle or degrade their motivation or method of competition than there is for cash players to do so to prize players. They're just different. I know that isn't a popular thing at the moment, but sometimes differences can be beneficial.

I think Josh is doing it right, and I think Bruce, though a noble try, did it wrong; for the reasons Josh provided. A differently motivated class of player and competition can not succeed so long as it is just an after-thought or the ugly sister of the Prize/Cash classes.

As far as top pros wanting more added cash players in their division.. we have bigger problems to deal with.



I don't get how it would work on the same day as a payout tournament. Who will move from payout to trophy only, the individual divisions bottom rated players?



It might not work. We'll find out. I don't expect many if any of the prize players to play in the division. Some might, none-sanctioned I might.

I know people do it all the time at weekly or bi-weekly tags rounds. And that the level of competition doesn't suffer in the least.

The local club I am a part of will likely run separate events for the two classes. All sponsorship moneys and merch that I raise this year will be going to the totally flat payout event. Since we will be just getting going this year, it will not be overly ambitious, but I will make certain that as much value can be loaded into the event as possible so folks will want to come back again.

A cool thing that just happened tonight is that the new director of the local YMCA contacted me about starting youth disc golf programs this spring. Any events our club helps run for them will definitely be flat payout.

I think what we may have here is apples and oranges.

Are the events in Maine full price trophy only, or discounted trophy only ?

If they are full price trophy only which is what they sound like, then all of the players are taking away a pretty good players pack if the TDs are assigning reasonable values to the contents.

I think the best we could hope to do in the prize belt is to go half and half to start. Half the entry in player packs, half in payout. If the TD is even more outgoing and treats merch sponsorship in the player packs as added cash (does not subtract the value from the entry fees or payout), and all added cash/merch goes into the player packs, then it could catch on.

We may lose a few dozen players at the start, but we should recoup those losses and maybe get them back later, or maybe they'll go pro.


Gary, I've posted the typical breakdown of our entry fees before, but I'll gladly do it again. Our most recent PDGA tournament was 2.5 weeks ago, the Beast Championships (results available on the PDGA Tour link).

We charged $25 to every amateur, regardless of division.
$5 greens fee
$2 PDGA player fee (D-tier)
$1 NEFA regional series player fee
$1 Maine Points Race player fee
$1 CTP prize pool
$15 disc (player's choice of anything in the fully-stocked pro shop, from DX to Star/ESP level)

The greens fee covered administrative costs normally incurred by tournaments such as scorecards, trophies, insurance, sanctioning fees, free coffee and hot chocolate (hey, it's March in Maine...that goes a long way), etc. It also goes toward general upkeep of the course, clubhouse, facilities, employees (not including staff like me who helped run the tournament off the clock). Not to mention that every player had exclusive use of the course for the day (shutting it down from the average of 200 players a day it has been seeing normally).

For our larger B-tier event (the one I mentioned before), we are also charge just $25 for amateurs. With that entry, here's how it breaks down:
waived greens fee for the day (the only tournament we do this for)
$3 PDGA player fee
$2 NEFA regional series player fee
$1 Maine Points Race player fee
$19 toward players pack...a custom stamped Discraft disc, a custom stamped mini disc, a back-issue of DGWN, a limited-edition tournament pencil, a custom bumper sticker, a dinner voucher for the post-event party, a free day pass good at Enman Field or Dragan Field Disc Golf (we charge an $8 daily fee), and anything else we can get from sponsors (in the past, that's included energy and granola bars, gift certificates, other snack foods and candy bars).

And just for good measure, we have also run PDGA events in which the am entry fee was $15 with NO player pack and laminated certificates for trophies. $2 to PDGA, $1 to NEFA, $1 to Maine Points Race, $5 greens fee, and the rest of the entry fee went into CTP prizes. In spite of stating there was no player pack, folks still came out for those too.

As I've said before, we have seen increases in attendence at every tournament in which we have implemented this system...each year bigger than the one before. We also do see a fair share of repeat out of state players in our amateur divisions. Though ideally, we want a healthy enough local tournament scene where we don't need to rely on getting 10-20 out of town players to fill out our tournament fields, and we're getting there. That's why I think the issue of players not going out of their way for such an event doesn't really faze us. Our aim isn't to attract the same old prize-weened ams or getting folks to travel huge distances for our am events (though we love it when they do, and we love having them in town).

In my experience, the tournaments that have consistently filled to capacity in the northeast do so because roughly 30-50% of the field are course locals who tend to only play tournaments at one course. In other words, those events would be successful and well attended with or without travelling amateur players. That's our goal as well.

--Josh

If you look at the post, that you took personal offense to, it is as much a jab at myself as it is towards anyone here. Certainly it was less offensive or inflamatory than 3-time lifetime banned Kevin McCoy's post 4 posts later on this same thread that still is allowed to persist



Again, Nick:

If it's a one-off occurrence, I would agree with you.

But since you are a person with a pattern ingrained over the past several years that has caused long running altercations and long running ill-tempered dialogs with many message board users, it's a different story.

You continue to violate the PDGA Message Board Rules (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/boardrules.php?Cat=). Disagreements are fine; personal attacks are not. Messages containing profanity, inflammatory comments, or other offensive content may be removed at the discretion of the board monitors. Individuals who persist in this behavior may be barred from future posting.

Are the events in Maine full price trophy only, or discounted trophy only ?


I had to come back and address this point again, because after re-reading it, I realize that all the entry fee break downs in the world aren't necessarily going to answer this question appropriately. To respond, I guess I'd have to ask Gary, what is considered full price and what is considered discount? Isn't that a matter of perception?

At all our tournaments, we offer just one price for amateurs, so in my perception, that's got to be a "full price" rate. At the smaller tournaments we run (the occasional no-player-pack events), I suppose those are the "discounted" trophy only tournaments. Either way, the value of the entry fee is returned to every player and perhaps then some (again, a matter of perception).


"I disagree that the lack of prizes as motivation is a detriment to my or anyone else's competitiveness."

If I know I'm not going to get to the trophy spot, which is probably just to 3rd or 4th place, it's not worth trying as hard then.

Sorry, but my thoughts come out in spurts.



So, if you "know" you're not going to finish above the "cash" line at a prize-payout tournament, do you give up then too? Again, this argument that there's less motivation and less to play for holds no water to me, as I've just illustrated. Really, what is the difference, motivation-wise, between a 3rd place trophy and a DX disc for coming in 15th out of 30? They're probably worth about the same monetarily. Not to mention that in a trophy tournament, you paid less to get in and therefore have less to lose if you do fall short.

Also, without at least some competitors out for the "spirit" of competition, there'd be no bottom half of any division. If they were all like you describe, losing motivation when they're "out of it", why do they bother sticking around for round 2 or day 2 of a tournament? The way I see it, cutting out the payout entirely probably will eliminate a 1/3 of the field off the top (the folks who fit your description of motivated by the prizes they can win). But you'll probably retain the 1/3 who aren't in it for the prizes and didn't mind consistently "donating" even when they have no shot. And finally, you've got the 1/3 who could go either way. So, IMO, a trophy tournament is probably going to retain about 50% of the old guard. The other 50% I think can and will be replaced with new blood that either like the low-entry, no payout structure or grow accustomed to it because they've known no other way (kinda like everyone is accustomed to prize payouts now). Eventually, prize payouts aren't an issue any longer because no one is expecting it and they aren't necessary for holding a high-quality event.

I have repeatedly said that when we offer our trophy-only amateur tournaments, we're not concerned with retaining all of the old guard, prize-weened amateurs. If some of them come out and keep coming out, great. If not, there are still plenty of opportunities for them elsewhere, including stepping up and playing pro in our events. This isn't about 100% conversion of all current am tournament players, this is about building a new culture of amateur players who don't have the expectation of a prize-payout. And my contention is that this can be done ANYWHERE out there without the world collapsing on itself. I think it can co-exist with the current prize-culture, but I also believe that a healthier solution for the future of disc golf would be for it to replace the prize-culture, or at the very least a blend of the two (leaning more toward the trophy-only style...nominal payouts with caps) exist in its place.

--Josh

Thanks for the breakdown, I'm glad to hear it's working well for you.

I would be concerned if the locals only trend started too much around here. We have minis and leagues that are pretty much locals only, but most of the PDGA sanctioned stuff draws from out of town and gets players together from out of state as well as from all over the state. In Texas that's saying quite a bit because it means players are traveling over 200 miles to attend the events. If we were to drop to a flat $25 entry for all ams, I don't see that happening. If we went with $50 entry fee for advanced with a $25 voucher plus donated merch in the player pack, and $5 for fees, and $20 for payout, it might work. $40 for Int ($10 for payout), $30 for Rec (no performance payout).

I have repeatedly said that when we offer our trophy-only amateur tournaments, we're not concerned with retaining all of the old guard, prize-weened amateurs. If some of them come out and keep coming out, great. If not, there are still plenty of opportunities for them elsewhere, including stepping up and playing pro in our events. This isn't about 100% conversion of all current am tournament players, this is about building a new culture of amateur players who don't have the expectation of a prize-payout. And my contention is that this can be done ANYWHERE out there without the world collapsing on itself. I think it can co-exist with the current prize-culture, but I also believe that a healthier solution for the future of disc golf would be for it to replace the prize-culture, or at the very least a blend of the two (leaning more toward the trophy-only style...nominal payouts with caps) exist in its place.

--Josh



This parapgraph right here almost entirely captures my exact ideals for the future of disc golf. This is living proof that a healthy tournament system CAN exist and will work.

Thanks for the breakdown, I'm glad to hear it's working well for you.

I would be concerned if the locals only trend started too much around here. We have minis and leagues that are pretty much locals only, but most of the PDGA sanctioned stuff draws from out of town and gets players together from out of state as well as from all over the state. In Texas that's saying quite a bit because it means players are traveling over 200 miles to attend the events. If we were to drop to a flat $25 entry for all ams, I don't see that happening. If we went with $50 entry fee for advanced with a $25 voucher plus donated merch in the player pack, and $5 for fees, and $20 for payout, it might work. $40 for Int ($10 for payout), $30 for Rec (no performance payout).



Who cares that you may lose a few traveling golfers when you may develop hundreds of new local disc golfers because of a healthier tournament system.

In your case, I'd consider it discounted because all ams are competing for the Rec entry fee at a "standard" tournament.

I don't think you can generate enough value to draw players from 200+ miles away at those prices, and you have stated that this isn't your goal. In Texas (I am the TX SC) I have to think about creating enough value to draw players that are going to have travel expenses. I'm not saying the value has to be in the performance payout, but it has to be somewhere. If I start with a higher buy in and provide a bigger player pack and a little performance payout for the higher divisions, I might be able to draw some of the out of town players, but I don't think I could do it with $25 entries.

Thanks for the breakdown, I'm glad to hear it's working well for you.

I would be concerned if the locals only trend started too much around here. We have minis and leagues that are pretty much locals only, but most of the PDGA sanctioned stuff draws from out of town and gets players together from out of state as well as from all over the state. In Texas that's saying quite a bit because it means players are traveling over 200 miles to attend the events. If we were to drop to a flat $25 entry for all ams, I don't see that happening. If we went with $50 entry fee for advanced with a $25 voucher plus donated merch in the player pack, and $5 for fees, and $20 for payout, it might work. $40 for Int ($10 for payout), $30 for Rec (no performance payout).



Who cares that you may lose a few traveling golfers when you may develop hundreds of new local disc golfers because of a healthier tournament system.



Except that the the "healthy" system you are praising that rewards the top three with trophies and nothing for the rest is more of a disc golf party for the majority of the players than a competition. Is there any motivation (other than pride) to improve if you are in the bottom half of the players ?

The whole "amateur" structure analysis shouldn't be compartmentalized into one way being better than another either short term or long term. If a structure is popular with players and is successful for TDs, it should be retained long term as an approved option among PDGA formats. With different formats being acceptable, the important part is to make sure an event format is well communicated in advance so potential attendees know what to expect and can choose accordingly.

For a while, KCs events with flatter and deeper payouts with more event amenities were criticized for low payouts to top finishers. But eventually their approach became better understood and now they attract players OK with that style.

Nick's concern about true ams still not being attracted to our typical events because Trophy Only players are buried with the prize players is a reasonable concern. But we keep pointing out that running events the way he envisions them for "true ams" is not against the rules and is similar to the format found to be successful for some Maine events. Players would still get ratings like typical events. So, get out there and learn how to run them successfully if that's your thing.

PDGA policies are much more reactive than proactive because they serve paid members. Proactive ideas are subject to testing. If the tests work, then members and TDs will "vote" with their participation and the initiatives will become woven into the fabric of sanctioned PDGA options.

So, if members want to see improvements in pro or true amateur participation, it will come about from creative ideas being tested in the marketplace where our current members and future members "vote" by participating. The only mystery is coming up with ideas that work.

Gary, as State Coordinator in a place as big as Texas, I'm guessing not all areas have evolved to the same point in their disc golf environments? I think a case could be made that some areas need and might respond to the low entry fee style to build local participation. I know when we hosted a PDGA B-tier in Rochester, 75 miles from the Twin Cities where they had one PDGA member, none of the 20 or so locals played because of the fees and not wanting to get beat by the big bad Twin Cities boys traveling down there.

However, the following year, a D-tier had lower total turnout but 25 local players entered and several became members. So, it's not a one size fits all scenario, but using options that work for the situation. In the long run, we should be able to host multiple C-tiers on the same day in places like DFW with almost all local participation just like many major cities can have five different tennis or softabll events on the same weekend.

Except that the the "healthy" system you are praising that rewards the top three with trophies and nothing for the rest is more of a disc golf party for the majority of the players than a competition. Is there any motivation (other than pride) to improve if you are in the bottom half of the players ?



Stupid question: Then should those players be playing tourneys if their pride isn't enough to get them to improve?

Actually, both you and James have said it. You keep talking about a competitive structure that moves Ams up to Pro so that there are basically more players to support the Pro purse.


For the umpteenth time, in my ideal competitive structure, a present day "am" can continue to play against players of similar skill. He just won't profit by it. No one is "moving him up." However, if he is motivated by profit, the system will "encourage him to move up," but certainly not force him.

By the way, I have always advocated cheap entry fees for people that don't like their chances. I am not at all comfortable with requiring $80-100 bets for everyone. I would let anyone enter at reduced prices, but of course their payout if they earned it, would also be reduced.

In short, I have a few principles that guide my system:

1) If you want to play for profit, play pro;

2) If you want to play pro, there should be options available. These options are not based on handicapping the accomplished players, but merely reducing the possible maximum losses of the less accomplished.



This is exactly the point that Bruce makes to Nick repeatedly. He uses a prize only structure and the Ams don't want it. Please understand, as soon as the local TDs start prize only, that is all I will play. But obviously, Bruce's experience suggests that I am the exception.

So then you have to ask the question, what happens to those Ams that you pull this on? If those guys are motivated by money, can't compete against the top Pros, how long before they find an alternate unsanctioned option or quit?

There are a lot of golfers that are not improving where ever they are playing. Some are playing minis and tournaments now, why should this be any different ? This appears to encourage those that don't care about improving or where they place (except for the top 10%). They all come out to play, and the top three get a trophy, everyone else gets the same thing.

That could be a good thing. It's disc golf at it's roots. The most fun wins (may not get a trophy, but he wins). I would not like it to be the only option available for competition because it could cause stagnation. Even with our current system that rewards the top half, there are players that will blow off (ace run/not play serious) the last three rounds if they have a bad first round, and most will blow off (again, I don't mean quit, I mean not play serious) the last round if they do not feel they have a chance to cash.

In your case, I'd consider it discounted because all ams are competing for the Rec entry fee at a "standard" tournament.

I don't think you can generate enough value to draw players from 200+ miles away at those prices, and you have stated that this isn't your goal. In Texas (I am the TX SC) I have to think about creating enough value to draw players that are going to have travel expenses. I'm not saying the value has to be in the performance payout, but it has to be somewhere. If I start with a higher buy in and provide a bigger player pack and a little performance payout for the higher divisions, I might be able to draw some of the out of town players, but I don't think I could do it with $25 entries.


Again, that's your perception coming from a world of stepped entry fees and entry-fee funded payouts. It can't be considered a discount when it IS the standard.

I also disagree that we can't generate enough value to draw from 200+ miles away. Just looking at our most recent D-tier, out of 37 ams, we had four players come up from Connecticut (easily 200 miles from the MA/CT border to our part of Maine). We had another two from MA, one of whom drove 165 miles (I clocked that many times when I lived at the same address ;) ). We had seven from New Hampshire, a minimum of 80 miles (measured along the turnpike from border to appropriate exit). So a total of 13 "travelling players" (~35% of total field) for a D-tier, and at least 3 of those are signed up to return in two weeks for another D-tier, and we expect more. And those are just the out-of-staters...Maine is a large enough state by itself that there were players travelling in excess of 3 hours (over 100 miles) from in-state to play.

At our B-tier event last year, out of 25 Advanced players, only 3-4 could be accurately described as local (less than 50 mile commute to the course). So better than 80% of the field came from significant distances (100+ miles). And again, quite a few of those are repeat players. The Intermediate field was the opposite, many more "locals" than out-of-towners. That's where our fledgling local crew is really growing.



Except that the the "healthy" system you are praising that rewards the top three with trophies and nothing for the rest is more of a disc golf party for the majority of the players than a competition. Is there any motivation (other than pride) to improve if you are in the bottom half of the players ?



Sorry, but what is wrong with pride being the sole motivator? How about the motivator being to strive to improve your game to the point where you can compete in the pro divisions for prizes? Again, it's this perception that you have to have prizes to be motivated that is such an alien concept to me. If it is winning prizes that is the motivator for the bottom half of any division, then why do they come out and pay the entry fee to play before they really have a legit shot at winning those prizes.

If it were me and I was that conscious of my return-on-investment (to the point that it was my primary motivation), I'd stop playing those tournaments until I felt my skills were good enough to finish "in the cash" every time to maximize my return-on-investment (which might be never). I think the folks that do come out and consistently "donate" in spite of not being able to consistently compete are the same folks who'd come out and pay half the price to play for a trophy instead. To them, there's little difference beyond the price...they're out to have fun and compete regardless of the rewards.

Think of it this way, if we could build to a point where there are five different amateur events across a given state/region, and they all fill right up because of huge local support and interest, why is there a need to have to actively draw players from over 200 miles away at every event? Reserve that for a select few events state/region-wide each year (A-tier level events). And even then, with them being fewer and further between, you still don't *need* over the top payouts (although maybe these could feature moderate payouts) to attract a full field. The "specialness" of such events would speak for themselves. And with local events filling to capacity elsewhere, there's such a large base of players to draw from, filling it becomes that much easier.

It's a process, but I think it's a worthwhile one.

--Josh

The Am structure that Josh and Nick are proposing isn't new, it is the structure that is used in all running events throughout the world. Pretty much all runners are there for the glory and the prize pack. It works very well and in the past I've suggested that it might work well here too for the reasons they are suggesting. Yes, there would be a transition, possibly painful but it should happen. There is a difference though and that is in the basic structure of the two sports. Running does not put runners in a head to head competition whereas disc golf does. That more aggressive competitive environment may not be as consistent with a prize only approach. Obviously, the experience in Maine suggests otherwise, but I would be careful. You're still comparing apples and oranges. When Maine sponsors an A teir sized event with this format, then I'll be a believer.Also, Chuck is correct, if this is such a great option, why isn't it happening?

Finally, this still doesn't solve Kevin's issue; unless the notion is that offering prize only options to Ams will prompt them to move into the Pro bracket. If that is the argument I think it is flawed. I think it will prompt them to start, and play in unsanctioned tournaments. That may not be bad for the sport as a whole, but it is the more likely scenario than expecting them to move up to Pro. To me the second most likely scenario is that they will stay Am. They won't get their payout but the same reasons they aren't moving up now will still exist, high risk to benefit ratio.

I want to move to Maine.

So then you have to ask the question, what happens to those Ams that you pull this on? If those guys are motivated by money, can't compete against the top Pros, how long before they find an alternate unsanctioned option or quit?


2.5 seconds

i'm not good enough to play Pro, even Pro Masters. when i do play up, i end up playing on the bottom two cards with the other fools who talked themsleves into playing above their abilities. and if its at an event that scrambled divisions in the first round (yes it happens all the time regardless of sanctioning agreements) i likely never got the "benefit" of playing one round with one or two really good pros.

Sorry, we differ on many definitions.

The Rec standard fee is taken from the 2006 PDGA Tour Standards recommendations for B-Tier events. $20 + fees.

Local here is closer to a 100 mile radius. It will normally take you just over an hour to get there. Bounce it out to 150 miles for evnts you don't need to get a hotel for. The majority of B-Tier events plan for over 100 players and most are held on two courses.

We do not have a lot of private courses, so green fees can not offset expenses. Most of the expenses have to come from the wholesale/retail differential. Cutting the amount paid out in player packs and performance payout in half would have a direct impact on the number of TDs able to afford to put on a tournament.

IMO, we would have to keep the stepped entry fees and probably offer some reduced amount of performance payout in the INT and ADV divs to make a go of it here. At least in the larger markets.

Finally, this still doesn't solve Kevin's issue; unless the notion is that offering prize only options to Ams will prompt them to move into the Pro bracket. If that is the argument I think it is flawed. I think it will prompt them to start, and play in unsanctioned tournaments. That may not be bad for the sport as a whole, but it is the more likely scenario than expecting them to move up to Pro. To me the second most likely scenario is that they will stay Am. They won't get their payout but the same reasons they aren't moving up now will still exist, high risk to benefit ratio.


You make a good point. I don't think it solves Kevin's primary issue (field size), nor do I feel that is the intention. What it does do, IMO, is take away a huge chip from the pros when they do come to these type of discussions. The chip of "sandbagging" ams that "hide" from the pros in a division where they can win more "stuff". It will separate what I like to call the "prize *****" guys hanging around for the easy paydays from the guys who are just out to have fun and have no intention of ever plunking down double the entry fee to play against the Kevin McCoys of the world. For the "prize *****" types, they either acclimate to the new climate or they go to pro where they can test McCoy's "sink or swim" theory of Pro Open play.

The primary concerns I've heard and read from Open players is
1)small fields of players at most events
2)payouts in am divisions having more value than the pro payouts

You can point out all day long that #2 is the case because the fields are larger, but it doesn't change the fact that the pro players feel slighted by it. There's also a perception that their division is small because players are over-enticed to stay am because of the big payouts. Eliminate the payouts (or dramatically reduce them) and you take away concern #2. Then the focus can go to how to build the pro field without continually using the am divisions as a culprit. They can focus on building their purse without pursuing ways to con players into going pro against their better judgment or preference. They can go out and help themselves.

--Josh

All sponsorship moneys and merch that I raise this year will be going to the totally flat payout event. Since we will be just getting going this year, it will not be overly ambitious, but I will make certain that as much value can be loaded into the event as possible so folks will want to come back again.


Is "flat payout" defined as "player packs only"?

I really don't see much difference in this approach and the regular PDGA tourney approach. If this is the "true am" format you preach, why are you worried about buying the players with merch and money raised? I thought "for the love of the game" and "pure competition" were what drove the "true am class". You are still talking about distributing great wealth to the am players, just divying it up dofferently.

I'm being serious in these questions.

We do not have a lot of private courses, so green fees can not offset expenses. Most of the expenses have to come from the wholesale/retail differential. Cutting the amount paid out in player packs and performance payout in half would have a direct impact on the number of TDs able to afford to put on a tournament.


Why do greens fees have to be exclusively a private course thing, though? Why can't TDs come right out and charge a $3-5 upfront fee to cover administrative costs? Where is that written? There doesn't need to be such a reliance on retail profit for a tournament to survive. One or two discs per player (figure it as player-pack or moderate payout, I don't care) plus an "adminstrative" fee built into the entry fee ought to be more than sufficient at most events.

I'd estimate that even with relatively small turnouts like we get here in Maine (20-40 players), we still more than break even when we combine the retail mark-up on the discs and the greens fee versus the administrative costs of the event. The only place where I'd say we lose is in the fact that we shut down the course for a tournament of 50 players and miss out on greens fees from our casual players. We can live with that.

--Josh

It is not dividing it up differently, it is not payout at all. Obviously tourneys dont pay for themselves, players packs provide the income to host the event. You are buying a package deal: a few discs and an event experience for you to compete in for competition sake. No gambling motivations.

I second Tony on the "I wish I lived in Maine". Josh and crew have it right. It's too bad so many are such plastic addicts that their vision is now blurred.

I second Tony on the "I wish I lived in Maine". Josh and crew have it right. It's too bad so many are such plastic addicts that their vision is now blurred.



I beat you guys to it on the "I wanna live in Maine" sentiment. :D Posted on Tue Mar 21, 2006 at 11:13 pm. (http://www.nefa.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=15262#15262) :D

It's nice to know players support the pay-to-play initiative since I believe all courses in Maine are pay-to-play. Considering the other thread lamenting Texas players not being as strong at the top as they "should" be based on their numbers, Maine would likely be another place to find equivalent competition among fewer people. :)

All sponsorship moneys and merch that I raise this year will be going to the totally flat payout event. Since we will be just getting going this year, it will not be overly ambitious, but I will make certain that as much value can be loaded into the event as possible so folks will want to come back again.


Is "flat payout" defined as "player packs only"?

I really don't see much difference in this approach and the regular PDGA tourney approach. If this is the "true am" format you preach, why are you worried about buying the players with merch and money raised? I thought "for the love of the game" and "pure competition" were what drove the "true am class". You are still talking about distributing great wealth to the am players, just divying it up dofferently.

I'm being serious in these questions.



The difference is that no one will have an expectation of profit based on performance. I wouldn't label them players packages as much as I'd call them event amenities, because there will be way more than just a disc and tee shirt if all goes well.

The concept of "Good Value" for the entry fee dollar is a good thing regardless of whether you are playing to win your buddies entry fee or not.

So then you have to ask the question, what happens to those Ams that you pull this on? If those guys are motivated by money, can't compete against the top Pros, how long before they find an alternate unsanctioned option or quit?


2.5 seconds

i'm not good enough to play Pro, even Pro Masters. when i do play up, i end up playing on the bottom two cards with the other fools who talked themsleves into playing above their abilities. and if its at an event that scrambled divisions in the first round (yes it happens all the time regardless of sanctioning agreements) i likely never got the "benefit" of playing one round with one or two really good pros.



You guys are good enough to play pros of equal or similar PDGA Players Ratings. If you fall at the top of one of the skill breaks then your entitlement will only grow when (and it seems they already have been) they are mixed and their fields sizes increase.

This is not true for the Open Pro divisions (JG you out there?) where any skill level can play, but likely won't.

Except that the the "healthy" system you are praising that rewards the top three with trophies and nothing for the rest is more of a disc golf party for the majority of the players than a competition. Is there any motivation (other than pride) to improve if you are in the bottom half of the players ?



I think that you are starting to get it Gary. Right now there is little more than pride at stake for the folks not in the top 33% entitlement positions of the protected divisions; this is true even in the Prize and Cash divisions.

This is the key to changing the motivation of competing at ALL PDGA events to one of pride and enjoyment of competition rather than of gambling. If everything is based on a motivation of gambling then there will always be unintitled losers. But if the primary motivation is pride and enjoyment then everyone can be a winner.

C'mon old timers! Am I right or what? You remember the events in the 80s and early 90s where just being a part of a big event was about as good as it gets! Only in the mid to late ninties did the phrase "Second Place is the First Loser" get coined and we start this headlong rush into trying to bribe gamblers to our events to win each others entry fees. Before that "entry fees" were just that "entry fees".

If it is too late for the Prize Cash divisions, ok, but it is definitely not too late for a new classification of player.

All of this information is terrific. I have only recently been interested in learning about the 'behind the scenes' stuff of the PDGA and all this disccusion has helped me understand a great deal about our payout system. I want to thank everyone for their (mostly) civil attitudes and frank opinions of this complex subject.

ITS DISCUSSIONS LIKE THIS THAT THE PDGA MESSAGE BOARD WAS MADE FOR!!

I think that you are starting to get it Gary. Right now there is little more than pride at stake for the folks not in the top 33% entitlement positions of the protected divisions; this is true even in the Prize and Cash divisions.



I think the opposite is true in the current system. With about a 5o point difference between the top and bottom of the divisions and the top 50% cashing, just about every player going into the event feels that they have a chance at last place cash. How many 900ish players don't think they can shave 5 strokes off their score if they are putting or driving well ? With half of the field cashing, everyone thinks they have a shot going in. After 1 or 2 rounds, that feeling may change, but the player has already signed up and played.

The top 30% feel they have a chance at winning the event. The bottom 30% are just hoping to cash, and the middle 30% are just along for the ride and hope to do better than break even. Your system puts everyone in the middle 30%. There are a few that will be playing for the trophy, the majority that know they don't stand a realistic chance at the trophy, but hope to do better than break even (entry fee back in the player pack + a tournament).

Even in the current system I have little motivation to improve my game. I feel I am around the bottom of the top 30% or the top of the middle 30%. I cash often enough I am not concerned about cashing, but win seldom enough that I don't consider myself a front runner. The amount of time and effort required to reach the top of the class is more than I can comfortably commit to now.

Realistically, what's the diference between finishing 11th or 21st in a field of 35 if only the top 3 get recognized adn everyone else gets the same reward ? You either win or you don't in your system, with the prize payouts, you add in the cash line. Now all of the top 50% have reached a goal that the entire field can shoot at.

In Michigan a player like Mr. Duke with a stable 920 rating does not have much hope in Advanced. There are so many players and so many good pros, not very many players are playing up a division anymore. The guy who shot 920/920 in Advanced last Sunday finished 41st of 57. If all you did was play 950 rated golf, you finished in 22nd. The winner in Advanced shot 993 rated golf. He would NOT have cashed in open shooting that "poorly."

Michigan tends to be a leading indicator of the future of the game. Right now our advanced division is 80 points wide. You have to shoot 80 points better than the floor rating of 915 to win at a well attended tournament.

I have never averaged 5 strokes better than my current rating over 2 rounds. This might be possible for lower rated players, but I'd gamble that it is pretty rare anywhere. Remeber, if you are talking about even a 2 round event that means you've shot 10 strokes better than you do on average. That has got to be pretty rare.

Again, this is taking us down a path I'd wished I'd never been a part of 5 years ago, where we switched from having fun and enjoying competition for it's own sake with wanting eveyone to have a chance to win or cash, as if that was the cure-all. Clearly it is not the cure-all, if anything it has only inflamed the, yes, in my opinion, wrong-minded idea that cashing makes you a winner (even in protected divisions) and NOT cashing makes you a loser.

Again, by creating more divisions for these "winners" we also created a new demographic of entrenched "losers".

And again, I'd like to entertain the idea of a Rolling Ratings Breaks system where those entitled by ratings breaks at the beginning of the year slowly become less entitled throughout the season, while those that are stuck at the bottom of ratings breaks get a taste of that "entitlement". Sort of like wrestlers do with wieght classes. It would seem to encourage improvement too, if the entitled players want to keep their entitled status in lower protected divisions.

Credit for the idea is Bruce's.

That's one of the reasons I play in the OMB division. :cool:

Why do greens fees have to be exclusively a private course thing, though? Why can't TDs come right out and charge a $3-5 upfront fee to cover administrative costs? Where is that written? There doesn't need to be such a reliance on retail profit for a tournament to survive.


Well...once you take the real cost of putting on the tournament out of every single player's fees, you have taken away just about the only incentive to play pro!

I wish the pros had more money to play for. I wish more guys could make a living playing pro disc golf. I am an Am and I don't mind one bit the wholesale/retail markup covers the tournament expenses and that the pros get to play for all of their entry fees instead of having those expenses deducted from what they pay to play tourneys.

What I'd like to see is the PDGA have a few Major Corporate sponsors to help with events , through out the year.

Not just once , then bail the next year.

Funraisers really help each event , as well as , CTP's and other activities.

How soon they forget. We used different ratings breaks by tier in the first years of the ratings events. While in theory it makes sense, it seems like another complication for TDs that probably isn't necessary. I suspect if you analyze the average rating of entrants in each division at C, B and A tiers in the same region, you'd find the values increase with tier just like a stepped break system would do. I think this already happens such that those in the bottom half of A-tier division ratings may be in the top half of C-tier divisions.

Anyway, this would be an interesting format that would solve the problem created when the fat part of the bell curve distribution creates much larger fields and better payouts for advanced amateurs than pros:

All men pay the same entry fee, as do all women who choose to play in the men's divisions.

Divisions are determined by rating, assigning 1/4th of the field to Open, 1/4th to Advanced, 1/4th to Intermediate and 1/4th to Rec. We deal with unrated players the same way we deal with them currently.

Open pays top 1/3rd in cash but amateurs forced to play Open can take prizes instead. Advanced, top 40%. Int, top 50%. Rec top 75%. By paying lower divisions deeper and flatter, the winners there will win less than the winner in Open, and unrated baggers have less incentive to bag.

So that the Open players could play for a bigger stake, like they say they want to, the TD could offer a bonus payout or cash sidebet for any pros who wanted to get in.

For split day events you would impose a ratings cap for the lower day and then split the field 50/50 both days. You'd pick a cap that works to split the field evenly based on looking at similar tournaments in your area, or last year's tournament.
--------------

This is not a format anyone can experiment with as a sanctioned tournament, nor is it a serious proposal. It would have the effect of taking donors and moving them back and forth between divisions at different tournaments. It would also have the effect of ensuring equal attendance in the top division.

If it were offered as a sanctioned event, I'd play it.

It is the Relativistic R-tier! :D

I have never averaged 5 strokes better than my current rating over 2 rounds. This might be possible for lower rated players, but I'd gamble that it is pretty rare anywhere. Remeber, if you are talking about even a 2 round event that means you've shot 10 strokes better than you do on average. That has got to be pretty rare.<font color="blue"> It is not important that you actually shoot 5 strokes better than you rating, but that you believe in yourself enough to enter the event on the chance that you will, or at least play well enough to cash</font>

Again, this is taking us down a path I'd wished I'd never been a part of 5 years ago, where we switched from having fun and enjoying competition for it's own sake with wanting eveyone to have a chance to win or cash, as if that was the cure-all. Clearly it is not the cure-all, if anything it has only inflamed the, yes, in my opinion, wrong-minded idea that cashing makes you a winner (even in protected divisions) and NOT cashing makes you a loser. <font color="blue"> I started playing competitively 5 years ago and have never stopped having fun. Even the first couple of years when I was never cashing, and often battling for DFL. Enjoying competition for it's own sake with no regard to who wins or losses is a party, not a competition. I don't understand how it is wrong-minded that cashing makes you a winner unless you think that either everyone is a winner, or only the top finisher is a winner.</font>

Again, by creating more divisions for these "winners" we also created a new demographic of entrenched "losers". <font color="blue"> Who are the entrenched losers ? I have a consistent 920ish rating. My round ratings are normally between 880 and 970. If I was unhappy with my performance, I could put in more practice time and improve my consistency. If I could putt consistently, I could easily shave 5 strokes per round off of my average. I know from experience that working on your driving profiency helps improve that area as well. I spent a couple of hours a day two summers ago getting my drive up to where I was satisfied with it. I increased my control and distance dramatically in 3 months of working on mechanics and release. </font>

And again, I'd like to entertain the idea of a Rolling Ratings Breaks system where those entitled by ratings breaks at the beginning of the year slowly become less entitled throughout the season, while those that are stuck at the bottom of ratings breaks get a taste of that "entitlement". Sort of like wrestlers do with wieght classes. It would seem to encourage improvement too, if the entitled players want to keep their entitled status in lower protected divisions.
<font color="blue"> While I am not strongly opposed to this concept, it looks like a lot of hassle for the players and the TDs.</font>

Credit for the idea is Bruce's.

It is the Relativistic R-tier! :D


Thanks, I needed a good chuckle. :cool:
That's a great and appropriate name.

It's our version of grading on a curve.

2)payouts in am divisions having more value than the pro payouts

You can point out all day long that #2 is the case because the fields are larger, but it doesn't change the fact that the pro players feel slighted by it. There's also a perception that their division is small because players are over-enticed to stay am because of the big payouts. Eliminate the payouts (or dramatically reduce them) and you take away concern #2. Then the focus can go to how to build the pro field without continually using the am divisions as a culprit. They can focus on building the am purse without pursuing ways to con players into going pro against their better judgment or preference. They can go out and help themselves.




Excellent point, but you have to consider why those payouts are bigger! It isn't because sponsors are putting money there, it's because those brackets grew because, yes, lower risk to benefit ratio. Players don't go there because the benefit is big. The benefit is big because players go there. The Pro benefit is tiny for these guys so they don't go there.

This brings us back to the start, how do you get those guys in the Pro bracket; I still maintain that Chuck's original proposal will accomplish that with very low risk to the top Pros.

As for the Pros feeling slighted. I have trouble feeling compassion for them. The gist is that they feel they are owed something, at minimum, a living. That is only going to happen when the disc golf market (sorry James) supports that. Until then, it's just pipe dreams and wishful thinking on their part. On the other hand, if you buy that having a Pro division helps disc golf grow faster, well... I'm not sure I agree but I still maintain that forcing lower ranked players to support them is not the answer.

BTW - There is ample evidence that the play for pride/trophy works well in disc golf, besides Maine. I see it every day in practice and mini rounds that I run at Tom Bass. It's called the bag tag. I've never seen such scrambling to move up, and pride in possession. The question is, how do you translate that up?

Excellent point, but you have to consider why those payouts are bigger! It isn't because sponsors are putting money there, it's because those brackets grew because, yes, lower risk to benefit ratio. Players don't go there because the benefit is big. The benefit is big because players go there. The Pro benefit is tiny for these guys so they don't go there.

No, its mostly just the bell curve distribution of skill levels. It is the bell curve that is sucking the money out of the pro ranks. The nice thing about my non-serious proposal is that it puts a stake in the heart of the bell curve.

As for the Pros feeling slighted. I have trouble feeling compassion for them. The gist is that they feel they are owed something, at minimum, a living.



Ever Since I have been playing they have been adding more and more am divisions to get people out of playing OPEN. So basically the PDGA has been catering to the AMS ever since the game started taking off. I am the feeling if we were still in the original system, golfers that are 920-940 would be cashing at our events. If the golfers at that rating WERE cashing we wouldn't even be having this convorsation....Sure they can't win the BIG money that the 1020+ rated golfers are winning but they still could be accepting cash if we had only 3 divisions (OPEN MEN/WOMEN, Masters 50+, AM <900)

OPEN >900 rated
Masters 50+ and <920 rated
AM <900 rated

All of our events would fill, The 920-950 golfers would be right in the middle of cash every weekend.

Ever Since I have been playing they have been adding more and more am divisions to get people out of playing OPEN.


I do not agree with that statement.

I believe that people have been choosing to not play Open all on their own. Now people have more choices after making the decision to not play Open. In the old days, when you got tired of giving your lunch money to the same three guys time after time after time, your only choice was to quit playing tourneys.

Excellent point, but you have to consider why those payouts are bigger! It isn't because sponsors are putting money there, it's because those brackets grew because, yes, lower risk to benefit ratio. Players don't go there because the benefit is big. The benefit is big because players go there. The Pro benefit is tiny for these guys so they don't go there.

No, its mostly just the bell curve distribution of skill levels. It is the bell curve that is sucking the money out of the pro ranks. The nice thing about my non-serious proposal is that it puts a stake in the heart of the bell curve.



Link to the post because I don't see how a bell curve could drive guys to play Am? If no one plays there, the payout will by tiny and hence, the circular argument. Of course, I'm not the smartest wheel on the cart so help me out Bruce.

I have an idea...How about creating a division for each rating, that way you never play above or below your competition.


I would have won the 2006 MEMORIAL for the 973 division!!!!

Come on Rhett your PDGA# is under 20000, so you have to have some memory when there weren't 673 different AM divisions?

As for the Pros feeling slighted. I have trouble feeling compassion for them. The gist is that they feel they are owed something, at minimum, a living.



Ever Since I have been playing they have been adding more and more am divisions to get people out of playing OPEN. So basically the PDGA has been catering to the AMS ever since the game started taking off. I am the feeling if we were still in the original system, golfers that are 920-940 would be cashing at our events. If the golfers at that rating WERE cashing we wouldn't even be having this convorsation....Sure they can't win the BIG money that the 1020+ rated golfers are winning but they still could be accepting cash if we had only 3 divisions (OPEN MEN/WOMEN, Masters 50+, AM <900)



I see your point, but my understanding was always that the changes were to encourage those players who were quitting to stay. I can't either concede or deny your argument since I don't have all the numbers but my gut instinct remains the same. Ams play where they are because they feel they have an advantage. Any other structure that moves them into Pro will cause a decrease in players. Your argument that if they all went there, the payouts would go deeper doesn't fit. Fact is that if we moved all those guys in the 950s to 970s up (and I admit I don't know the break down) there would be more payout but I doubt it would actually go further down the food chain than it currently does; it wouldn't make it past those 970 and 950 ranked players to the 920 ranked players unless there is one 970 ranked player and 100s of 920 ranked players waiting to move up.

Ever Since I have been playing they have been adding more and more am divisions to get people out of playing OPEN.


I do not agree with that statement.

I believe that people have been choosing to not play Open all on their own. Now people have more choices after making the decision to not play Open. In the old days, when you got tired of giving your lunch money to the same three guys time after time after time, your only choice was to quit playing tourneys.



Or be forced top get better !!!!!! Happened to me.
Made me step up my game from a over par shooter , when I started.

Now , I hope to have the opportunity to be able to play with some of the World's best.

And I have. :D
They have encouraged me to reach one of my goals to have a 1000+ rating in the near future. :D

There will always be someone better.
I'll never be afraid of that , In fact I welcome it !!!!! Helps me understand what I need to do !!!!!! :D

I just hope to stay competitive with them !!!!!!!
Since I'm almost 50 !!!! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Ever Since I have been playing they have been adding more and more am divisions to get people out of playing OPEN.


I do not agree with that statement.

I believe that people have been choosing to not play Open all on their own. Now people have more choices after making the decision to not play Open. In the old days, when you got tired of giving your lunch money to the same three guys time after time after time, your only choice was to quit playing tourneys.



Or be forced top get better !!!!!! Happened to me.
Made me step up my game from a over par shooter , when I started.

Now , I hope to have the opportunity to be able to play with some of the World's best.

And I have. :D
They have encouraged me to reach one of my goals to have a 1000+ rating in the near future. :D

There will always be someone better.
I'll never be afraid of that , In fact I welcome it !!!!! Helps me understand what I need to do !!!!!! :D

I just hope to stay competitive with them !!!!!!!
Since I'm almost 50 !!!! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



WOW! Utopia, if we force you to move up you'll become a stellar player who will win more. Sounds Orwellian to me. :D

We have less am divisions now than we had a few years ago.

Now we have
6 standard divisions (3 each male or female) and
6 old age protected divisions (3 each male or female)
8 young age protected divisions (4 each male or female).

There are no young age protected divisions for Pros, but they have more old age protected divisions than the Ams do (4 male and 3 female).

The thing that has changed is ratings. Now there is a number that can be referenced as a reason for not moving up when everyone starts yelling "bagger-move up". Just because I won a few events a few years ago does not mean that I belong in the next higher division.

I see your point, but my understanding was always that the changes were to encourage those players who were quitting to stay.



If thats the case they better figure something out to keep the pros from quitting becasue I have seen just as many pro's go by the wasteside.

The biggest thing I see where I am at and in Tejas is that the AM players have the attitude that "We can't beat you Kev,Nolan, Yeti, Olse so why would I move up?" Thats what just sticks in my craw becasue when i started, it wasn't like that...I wasn't even 20 strokes from Climo, Stokely, Hammock. Now the ADV guys are only a few strokes behind me, and I'm "supposedly" one of the top 20 golfers

How soon they forget. We used different ratings breaks by tier in the first years of the ratings events. While in theory it makes sense, it seems like another complication for TDs that probably isn't necessary. I suspect if you analyze the average rating of entrants in each division at C, B and A tiers in the same region, you'd find the values increase with tier just like a stepped break system would do. I think this already happens such that those in the bottom half of A-tier division ratings may be in the top half of C-tier divisions.



Chuck, would you be willing to give up your entitlement for even a small part of the year to allow others to experience the benefits you recieve having a rating of 949?

Shouldn't a player with a rating of 959, 969 even 979 be allowed their moment in the sun?

Or is their improved and superior skill just the cross they must bare at PDGA events?

How about Gary at 920?

And doesn't Kevin deserve a season where the Open field is by far the largest?

I mean while we are at the task of just making the breaks where they suit us best, why not have them suit MORE of us best?

And I don't go for the "Confused TD" argument; if they can handle our current system, then a sliding ratings break schedule shouldn't be much more of a stretch for them. If it is they can just limit the divisions to ones they are comfortable with and the best serve their players (they do anyway...).

Again, would you be willing to give up any part of your entitlement if it served the sport well?

If >900 was considered OPEN the fields would be 90-150 deep every weekend at NT's, A, B tiers. Sure that would cause it's own problems because most tournaments are not ready for that much.

If you just would use any tournament as a tester and put all the >900 in the OPEN division, you would see the 930-950 will be well into the cash spots. Sure it sounds drastic but in the long run the 930-970 rated golfer would see great benifits.

Kev, how many of those Adv players who freely admit to hiding from you, Nolan, Yeti, Olse, etc do you think would move up if the am payouts were eliminated? Take away their binky in Advanced, and maybe you'll get a couple. But if their motivation to stay am is truly because they don't feel they can keep up with you, then they're NEVER going to play Open, no matter how much you chide them or goad them into it. They'll just keep playing Advanced forever.

I think the key to growing and retaining the pro field is to increase the benefits of playing (ie. more money, more exposure, more prestige). Adding in a bunch of folks through division manipulation and contrived entry fee structures aren't going to cut it in the long run. Adding a couple thousand $$ to the purse and paying 50-60% might be enough to entice the scaredy-cats. If last cash pays 2-3X entry and you don't even have to beat 50% of the field to get it, the incentive to go for and stay in the pro ranks might finally be there.

While we're still relying on our own entry fees to make the majority of the purse, we're never going to grow the division past the point where it is right now. There's no getting around that point.

--Josh

I agree but I'm not one to say an Am should pay $80 and half of it goes into the pro purse....

I agree but I'm not one to say an Am should pay $80 and half of it goes into the pro purse....



Ouch !!!! That may raise some controversy !!!!

Kev, how many of those Adv players who freely admit to hiding from you, Nolan, Yeti, Olse, etc do you think would move up if the am payouts were eliminated? Take away their binky in Advanced, and maybe you'll get a couple. But if their motivation to stay am is truly because they don't feel they can keep up with you, then they're NEVER going to play Open, no matter how much you chide them or goad them into it. They'll just keep playing Advanced forever.

I think the key to growing and retaining the pro field is to increase the benefits of playing (ie. more money, more exposure, more prestige). Adding in a bunch of folks through division manipulation and contrived entry fee structures aren't going to cut it in the long run. Adding a couple thousand $$ to the purse and paying 50-60% might be enough to entice the scaredy-cats. If last cash pays 2-3X entry and you don't even have to beat 50% of the field to get it, the incentive to go for and stay in the pro ranks might finally be there.

While we're still relying on our own entry fees to make the majority of the purse, we're never going to grow the division past the point where it is right now. There's no getting around that point.

--Josh



This is rock solid.

I agree but I'm not one to say an Am should pay $80 and half of it goes into the pro purse....



I don't think he did either.

What I heard was not using anybodies entry fees to get the purses that high. We need to find some product(s) that advertising to the disc golfers as a demographic will positively impact and convince the makers of said product(s) that investing in Disc Golf would be to their benefit.

I agree but I'm not one to say an Am should pay $80 and half of it goes into the pro purse....


I never said that, nor would I ever say that either. My ideal scenario is already well documented on here as to how I'd treat the am divisions. IMO, reducing entry and cutting out performance-based prizes in the am divisions might just be the kick in the #$*&$! that TDs need to seek out alternative ways of boosting/supporting the Pro purse. It has become a vicious cycle of dependence that I think needs to stop or at least be greatly curbed in order for the sport to prosper. There is a ceiling when it comes to self-support of the sport and we're probably reaching critical mass in a lot of areas.

Without outside support, the pro ranks aren't going to grow.

--Josh

Kev,

What if there was an effort to bring all thre Pros together in a non-profit org ( Association of Professional Disc Golfers??) The goal of the org would be to organize volunteer efforts by pros to gain sponsorship for Pro purses, organize other ways of profit making like exhibitions, seminars etc., and to organize ways to bring ticket paying spectators to events. As long as the Ams are the TD's and PDGA meal ticket it may be best for something like this so you guys can try to take care of yourselves. Is that feasible??

I agree but I'm not one to say an Am should pay $80 and half of it goes into the pro purse....


I never said that, nor would I ever say that either. My ideal scenario is already well documented on here as to how I'd treat the am divisions. IMO, reducing entry and cutting out performance-based prizes in the am divisions might just be the kick in the #$*&$! that TDs need to seek out alternative ways of boosting/supporting the Pro purse. It has become a vicious cycle of dependence that I think needs to stop or at least be greatly curbed in order for the sport to prosper. There is a ceiling when it comes to self-support of the sport and we're probably reaching critical mass in a lot of areas.

Without outside support, the pro ranks aren't going to grow.

--Josh



Again, indisputably cogent.

Show me where the pro ranks aren't growing? All the divisions are growing here in MN and from what I can see, there are some major tournys with a VERY competitive pro field i.e. the Memorial and many others. Barry & Kenny have more competition to deal with today than ever before, where's the problem? It's not growing as fast as you like? The PDGA's numbers are growing at a healthy pace, I'd have to look again for exact numbers.

I wish I lived in ME so I could hold my own tournaments and give everyone the choice of payout or no payout. You're area would be perfect for this kind of test since players have gotten used to no payouts and you could prove which works best. You're not proving it when you're only offering the one format now. The Adv payout needs to be flatter and the Int even flatter yet.

I think we need successfull pay to play courses. Owners of these courses have an incentive for trying to bring in people. Free courses don't bring this into the picture. I think this is where ME could bring about some change as their pay to play courses become more successfull.

josh, what if mandating the reduction of entry fees and cutting out performance-based prizes in the am divisions turn out to be just be the kick in the #$*&$! that TDs need to seek out alternative ways of running events?

why is no one focusing on the 40% Did NotRenew rate that we are experiencing year after year in the Am ranks? does this stat really not matter?

face it - the "market" is 10,000 players. no television, no audience except for wives and girlfriends and the occasional hubby or boyfriend.

what i would do first is email every single one of the Members who did not renew over the last 5 years and ask them if they could provide some insight into their reasoning. why did they not renew? what might make them come back?

jerking around the payout system is not necessarily gonna do anything - and the recently flatter payouts just might be part of the Did Not Renew problem.

many of you here are idealists, and that is extremely refreshing and valuable. dont change! but lets add some realism to the discussion. the 10% overall growth that remains after 30% of any given year's Members do not renew is NOT a recipe for success. THATs the problem that needs fixin.

Come on Rhett your PDGA# is under 20000, so you have to have some memory when there weren't 673 different AM divisions?


I joined in 1998 before I played my first tournament. There were actually *MORE* am divisions back then. I have my first PDGA card, and it says "Intermediate Master". :) (You only had to be 35 back then.)

Show me where the pro ranks aren't growing?

the truth about growth (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/ProAmGrowth20022005.htm)
(forget the 2001 numbers, we know there is a problem with them)

the truth about player retention (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/player_retention.htm)
are these dropoff rates acceptable? is it OK to turn over close to 100% of our Member base (in raw numbers, not actual "names") in just two years?

Show me where the pro ranks aren't growing?

the truth about growth (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/ProAmGrowth20022005.htm)
(forget the 2001 numbers, we know there is a problem with them)

the truth about player retention (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/player_retention.htm)
are these dropoff rates acceptable? is it OK to turn over close to 100% of our Member base (in raw numbers, not actual "names") in just two years?



Wow !!!! Those are some low numbers !!!!!

Here's pro nirvana in the land of the midnight sun and no ams. Perhaps hanging out in Scandanavia for the summer would make pros feel more like pros. Check these results and fields:

www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5136#Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5136#Open)
www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5326#Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5326#Open)
www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5137#Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5137#Open)
www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5138#Open (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=5138#Open)

I'm not sure how the purses are financed and it may be different in Finland versus Sweden. Looks like ripe territory for a promoter to launch a series of bigtime U.S. style amateur events with Latitude 64 disc prizes and lutefisk buffets. Based on our model, they might be looking at quintupling their membership in five years with loads of new ams. :D

Sorry about this , but what is lutefisk buffets ?

What are the entry fees for those events?

It looks like the "old days" here. I wonder if all those 880 and lower rated guys will tire of losing to the 1000 rated players and quit playing tournaments within a couple of years.

http://netnet.net/~pineaire/Lutefisk.html

Looks like raw cod fish ?

What are the entry fees for those events?

It looks like the "old days" here. I wonder if all those 880 and lower rated guys will tire of losing to the 1000 rated players and quit playing tournaments within a couple of years.



Sort of like our system, but we target 945 to 985 players for expulsion.

It is. It's kind of a joke dish around Minnesota but apparently it has a long history from Scandanavia and there are folks with a taste for it. I've been close to it once and that was enough. It would be in the same category as eating bugs on Fear Factor.

Wow !!!! Those are some low numbers !!!!!

well, the growth numbers are low. the Did Not Renew numbers are high. (but thats what you meant i think) thanks for noticing! i was starting to think people were just hoping these numbers would just go away like pixie dust.

If I had more Norwegians playing my tournaments I could do that format! I wonder if I could get the Guttierezes to convert to Norwegian and maybe start a new fad?

"Norwegian -- It's not just for blonds anymore!"

Wow !!!! Those are some low numbers !!!!!

well, the growth numbers are low. the Did Not Renew numbers are high. (but thats what you meant i think) thanks for noticing! i was starting to think people were just hoping these numbers would just go away like pixie dust.



How do we get those other folks to renew on time ? Or do they just don't care until they play a sanctioned tournament ?

the 2006 numbers are prolly just people waitingtil they play in a sanctioned events. i sure hope so anyway.

but the previous years are real numbers that can never be changed. we really do lose 40% of our Am registrants every year.

josh, what if mandating the reduction of entry fees and cutting out performance-based prizes in the am divisions turn out to be just be the kick in the #$*&$! that TDs need to seek out alternative ways of running events?

why is no one focusing on the 40% Did NotRenew rate that we are experiencing year after year in the Am ranks? does this stat really not matter?

<font color="red">This question is number 5 on the list of questions that gets asked de novo every 6 months. The reply is always the same, what's the turnover in other sports? </font>

face it - the "market" is 10,000 players. no television, no audience except for wives and girlfriends and the occasional hubby or boyfriend.

<font color="red"> Exactly, what's the problem. Dealing with reality is not a problem. As me da' used to say, patience is a virtue. </font>

what i would do first is email every single one of the Members who did not renew over the last 5 years and ask them if they could provide some insight into their reasoning. why did they not renew? what might make them come back?

<font color="red">I'm pretty confident something similar was done within the last year... maybe two. Don't know the answer. </font>

jerking around the payout system is not necessarily gonna do anything - and the recently flatter payouts just might be part of the Did Not Renew problem.

<font color="red"> Has the frequency changed since the implementaion? This is a good question, I'd be curious to know the answer especially since the flattening of the payout curve was meant to do the opposite. Have no doubt that if the result is as you've questioned, the PDGA will change the payout structure lickety-split. </font>

many of you here are idealists, and that is extremely refreshing and valuable. dont change! but lets add some realism to the discussion. the 10% overall growth that remains after 30% of any given year's Members do not renew is NOT a recipe for success. THATs the problem that needs fixin.


<font color="red"> Why, what's the growth rate of other sports? How do we measure success and what are we aiming for? Are we expecting a miracle or not enough? What is the growth rate of sports that have similar structures? </font>




<font color="red"> The notion that we are somehow failing comes up frequently here. Me, I'm having a blast. I've improved my ranking by 70 or 80 points in the last two years and have shot several rounds well above 900. I frequently shoot in the mid 900s in practice rounds and I lost 5 lbs this week practicing for my speed golf event at the TS NT. By my measure the sport is doing great!

Of course if the measure is 1000 or so guys making a living at the sport, well we are failing miserably. However, since that doesn't much matter to me, well, we're doing very well thank you! :D</font>

Show me where the pro ranks aren't growing?

the truth about growth (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/ProAmGrowth20022005.htm)
(forget the 2001 numbers, we know there is a problem with them)

<font color="red">Wow! That's facinating, but what does it mean? What is the growth rate measure? What are these numbers based on? The charts seem to indicate per event, has the number of events gone down, up or stayed the same. What's a unique? What's a registrant? What color is the sky? Frankly, I can't garner anything out of this. Publication denied! </font>

the truth about player retention (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/player_retention.htm)
are these dropoff rates acceptable? is it OK to turn over close to 100% of our Member base (in raw numbers, not actual "names") in just two years?

These numbers have been verified and published but the chart doesn't provide some of the details "under the hood."

www.pdga.com/documents/2005/96-05TourGrowth.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2005/96-05TourGrowth.pdf)

a registrant is someone who has a PDGA number who played in a sanctioned event.

a unique is the unique pdga number.

so a sigle player who plays in 15 events would be 5 registrants but only one unique.

poker is growing faster than disc golf, i know that for sure. maybe you've seen it on TV?

umm...i think poker has been around for a little while longer :confused: :)

What are the entry fees for those events?

It looks like the "old days" here. I wonder if all those 880 and lower rated guys will tire of losing to the 1000 rated players and quit playing tournaments within a couple of years.



WHY DOES EVERYONE HAVE TO WIN? :mad:

Thousands of people show up to run the New York City or Boston Marathon and they have a Male Winner and a Female Winner, and a Old Geiser winner. I think 99% of those people that participate because of the event not because they think they deserve a right to win.

Amen, Puli-mon. For me, coming back into the disc golf scene after many years, the oft-expressed message board idea that "players will only continue to play if they can win something" just befuzzles me. Aren't most of us simply playing for the experience?

Some younger folks may not realize this, but competitive disc golf is not an expensive hobby/sport, as hobbies go - try watersking, or boating, or ball golf for comparison! If your kids play too, as mine do, I'm sure you want to grumble as those entry fees sure mount up - but compare it to youth club soccer! Or music lessons and symphony or band fees!

An example in support of Kevin's argument - there's a big 10K this weekend in Charleston - the Cooper River Bridge Run. There will be approx 50,000 participants. (Yes, that's really 50,000 - not a typo!) The winners will be professional runners, mostly from Kenya - and the folks on the sidelines waiting to start will be lucky if they even catch a glimpse of those really special runners. In fact, most of the folks on the sideline won't have gotten more than a mile or so into the race by the time the Kenyans finish! But the remaining 49,900 folks in the "race" are there for the experience and the t-shirt. At least at a disc golf tournament - even if you are no where near the lead card, you can still have the opportunity to watch the "Kenyans of disc golf" warming up, perhaps as you pass around the course during your rounds, and perhaps in a final 9!!

Its nice to have a reward for "winning" the competition, but the real rewards for most all of us are the intrinsic rewards of trying to play at our best.

WOW I feel all tinggly inside that I have a 2-time World Champ saying that I have valid takes. :D

Its nice to have a reward for "winning" the competition, but the real rewards for most all of us are the intrinsic rewards of trying to play at our best.



However, you can get that experience in disc golf by going out and playing free (or for sidebets) with your buddies. Since we play in foursomes at tournaments, there's very little difference during actual play from playing in a casual foursome because tournament play is compartmentalized into small groups. With a running event, your experience in a large group of runners is hard to duplicate compared with recreational running by yourself or with a friend or two. That large group experience may make it worthwhile for runners to pay to experience even with no chance of winning versus disc golfers who would want more from paying a fee to play (chance of winning something) because the experience is only slightly different from playing casually.

Kevin, get your tongue out of your cheek. It'll get stuck there if you aren't careful.

Chuck - You've definitely got a point about the crowd experience, and certainly there's more cachet in the t-shirt from the NY Marathon than there is in the t-shirt from PDGA Worlds! But I'd disagree about your central premise - the tourney experience is, for me, completely different from casual play, or even bag tag/side bet play. (And it is actually even MORE different now that I'm playing for ratings as well.)

Tournies just mean more, even when I've signed up to play in the Advanced Open and haven't got a prayer of "winning". Not only does it "mean more", it's also a very different thing to be away for the weekend, with nothing to concentrate on but disc golf. It is different because you need to focus for 3 or 4 rounds rather than one. Its different because I at least have to deal with aging-body syndrome throughout the weekend, rather than being able to go home for a nap. It takes more effort from the player to put 3-4 consistent rounds together. It takes more to play a dreadful first round and have to pick yourself back up to play again, or play a terrific first round and then go back to playing like a human being again. Plus, at tournies you often don't know the course, or there are at least some temporary holes that you don't know. Tournament rounds take longer so they require more stamina and concentration. Etc. Etc. There are lots of differences between tourney and casual or even local-competitive play!! (My favorite example, and on my mind this week - It takes some amount of effort to play Renny Gold once in the company of my long-arm kids, but I guarantee you it takes a lot more work to play 2 rounds back to back on the same day in the company of a competitive foursome!).

That large group experience may make it worthwhile for runners to pay to experience even with no chance of winning versus disc golfers who would want more from paying a fee to play (chance of winning something) because the experience is only slightly different from playing casually.



If >900 were all playing OPEN don't you think the number of Open players would triple or quadrouple? That would give some kind of large group experience, wouldn't it? It would also give these guys a chance to play with the likes of CLIMO, SCHULTZ, or the BORG, maybe just the first round but I think they would enjoy the experience.

If we also lower entry fees to a more reasonable amount like $50, it wouldn't drive the 900-930 golfers away as much as much. And to the argument that the 900 rated golfer has no chance, well what division does the 900 rated golfer excel in anyway?

The ADV golfers would be right in the middle of the cashing spots, sure most of them wouldn't have a chance at winning, but I'm 1016 rated golfer and half the time I don't even have a chance at winning after 1 round.

There's nothing to prevent you from testing this social engineering approach. I think Gangloff tried a big Open division 50% payout event to check it out one time. There's nothing in the PDGA guidelines for sanctioned events that prevents lower entry fees than on the chart and divisions can be limited so only Open can be offered (like USDGC) along with Intermediate Am and Rec (no Advanced). There's no need to speculate. Do it or persuade a TD in your area to do it.

Yeah but CHUCK, youve seen quite of bit of disc golf and numbers, Would you say it has a snowballs chance in hell?

Because obviously it hasn't been tested yet.

Where does this discussion conclude -- thousands of people should be showing up to play disc golf against Kevin since thousands of people show up to run in marathons against faster people?

If you took the number of runners and compared it to the number of number of runners that run in orgainized races, that fraction is probably equal to the number of disc golfers to the number of disc golfers competing in the open division versus Kevin. Running's a really big sport -- disc golf is a really little sport. There's probably more people at the starting line of some of the bigger running events than have played in a PDGA event.

Would you say it has a snowballs chance in hell?




If it isn't successful then who's going to do it long run? Anything proposed here will have to be tested to show it works before it becomes part of any formal PDGA structure.

In my mind, your idea is like an expanded league. I know around here, many Advanced and Masters play Open in winter one round leagues even when Advanced is offered. All you would be doing is taking it one round farther and see if they'll try it.

a registrant is someone who has a PDGA number who played in a sanctioned event.

a unique is the unique pdga number.

so a sigle player who plays in 15 events would be 5 registrants but only one unique.

poker is growing faster than disc golf, i know that for sure. maybe you've seen it on TV?



So basically, we need more gambling than less? I'm not sure I would compare poker to disc golf in terms of how you grow a sport. First, how is poker growth measured and how was disc golf growth measured? Now that I have the raw data I can see that it is based on membership (that wasn't clear to me before :p). If poker measures all poker players, shouldn't we measure all disc golf players, and not just PDGA members? Is there a national organization for poker players that is in some way comprable to the PDGA? I'm still not sure we have a good comparison with which we can say that we are failing in our growth.

Amen, Puli-mon. For me, coming back into the disc golf scene after many years, the oft-expressed message board idea that "players will only continue to play if they can win something" just befuzzles me. Aren't most of us simply playing for the experience?

Some younger folks may not realize this, but competitive disc golf is not an expensive hobby/sport, as hobbies go - try watersking, or boating, or ball golf for comparison! If your kids play too, as mine do, I'm sure you want to grumble as those entry fees sure mount up - but compare it to youth club soccer! Or music lessons and symphony or band fees!

An example in support of Kevin's argument - there's a big 10K this weekend in Charleston - the Cooper River Bridge Run. There will be approx 50,000 participants. (Yes, that's really 50,000 - not a typo!) The winners will be professional runners, mostly from Kenya - and the folks on the sidelines waiting to start will be lucky if they even catch a glimpse of those really special runners. In fact, most of the folks on the sideline won't have gotten more than a mile or so into the race by the time the Kenyans finish! But the remaining 49,900 folks in the "race" are there for the experience and the t-shirt. At least at a disc golf tournament - even if you are no where near the lead card, you can still have the opportunity to watch the "Kenyans of disc golf" warming up, perhaps as you pass around the course during your rounds, and perhaps in a final 9!!

Its nice to have a reward for "winning" the competition, but the real rewards for most all of us are the intrinsic rewards of trying to play at our best.


I've also made the running argument here. In fact, I've run for 30 years and have sponsored and run in many events... I'm not sure that the comparison is completely valid at this point. The reason is that running has a completely different structure than what Kevin and others are trying to support. The simple fact is that the ratio of Pros to casual runners is about 1:5,000, probably greater. We are looking at 1:7 or so and trying to make it work. I understand the the real number of Pros making a living in disc golf is more like 1:500 or so but that is still a huge difference. This is why Chuck and others keep saying we need to grow a whole lot more Ams before worring so much about the Pros.

BTW - I'm not against the Ams playing for prizes model. I've been a strong supporter of it all along, but in the context of where this thread started, it's still irrelevant. One way or the other, there simply is not the base to support the number of Pros our sport has in any dynamic way.

Basically, Kevin is pulling a red herring. In his efforts to get more support for the Pro ranks he's pointing out that Ams are "greedy." Point conceded. It doesn't matter. Unless you find a bunch of sucker Ams/Pros who are willing to kick in $100 entry fees realizing they are going to never win you can't build something viable. If you move those Ams to trophy only, skim $10-$15 off their entry to pay the Pros (what they do in running) you still lose. As you pointed out there are 50,000 runners at this event. 10 x 50,000 is good money. At a disc golf event 10 x 200 is the norm and you are supporting how many Pros? Not to mention the TD who has lost his source of revenue, plastic payouts.

The fact is that the running model won't work here until we have tournaments with - you guessed it, 50,000 players. Personally, I'm not TDing that baby. :D

well, we're talking about the "reformation" of the PDGA , not the sport of disc golf.

An interesting read was sent to me via email.

It is dated 12/17/96, thats right 10 years ago but it will sound VERY familar.

It's Titled Disc Golf Amateur Status & Real Pro (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.sport.disc/browse_frm/thread/3f12b2fcb2b519ee/2e2ca9a3d5f0153f?lnk=st&q=group%3Arec.sport.disc+author%3AZZZ-Mon+please&rnum=1#2e2ca9a3d5f0153f)

I like that first guy, he sounds familiar. Wish peeps would have listened then.

It's interesting that we haven't come up with any really new ideas in 10 years.

What are the entry fees for those events?

It looks like the "old days" here. I wonder if all those 880 and lower rated guys will tire of losing to the 1000 rated players and quit playing tournaments within a couple of years.



WHY DOES EVERYONE HAVE TO WIN? :mad:

Thousands of people show up to run the New York City or Boston Marathon and they have a Male Winner and a Female Winner, and a Old Geiser winner. I think 99% of those people that participate because of the event not because they think they deserve a right to win.


So why did the "old school" disc golf tournament format go away? It used to be all one big division, now it's not. If you want to go back to the old way, you probably need to understand why the old way went away in the first place.

Thanks Kevin, that is a good read. It seems funny that they only wanted the Masters age raised to 40, when it now seems clear that it should be raised to 50. Jason, Joe and I are talking about increasing the payout at the 2007 MSDGC (yes, we've had many meetings about it already) to half the field (or more!?). We think this will continue to attract our regional pros. And folks like you stopping by will continue to attract our regional AMs that might get to play a round with the Kenyans of disc golf.

It seems like what the Mainers (minimal AM payout) are doing might be a good solution. At least one worth trying. AMs pay minimal entry fee, play in a well run event, get a disc and/or a shirt, winner gets a trophy. Pros are paid out to 50% (or more!) and get some money added to the pot. I say give it a go go!

Those changes didn't happen so we'll never know if they would have worked (however Master age did get boosted by 5 years). The PDGA has shown steady growth with the Advanced prize model so it's hard to know whether an alternative plan would have been any better. Growth is somewhat constrained by the number of courses and events. Different regions are at different points along the development curve so growth will be somewhat herky jerky with more options the better to cope with the differences.

What "running" argument do you think I was making? It was my intention to point out that there seems to be a very common conception, frequently expressed here on this board, that Ams, specifically Advanced players, are playing tournaments only because they are greedy and only because they are somehow getting something - as Kevin put it, "why does everyone have to win??"

I don't think "everyone has to win". My response was intended to illustrate that I think most of us are are actually in it for fun - and that most participants probably do recognize that it is a hobby, and a pretty cheap one at that.

Running happens to be a pretty exaggerated comparison - there are more port-a-potties here in town this weekend than there are active members of the PDGA! Take ball golf, or tennis, or Masters swmming, if you'd rather use those as comparisons - lots of people participate, but few "win".

And that's the way we should see our disc golf experiences too.

It seems funny that they only wanted the Masters age raised to 40, when it now seems clear that it should be raised to 50.



Not according to my analysis which is circulating in the ratings committee for comment and review before publication. Bottom line is that there's no indication players lose their skills up to age 40. But a pool of 40-year old pros, on average, lose about one throw (10 rating points) every 5 years up to age 60 which is as old as we could go with enough data. If Master was moved to 50, you would be penalizing the pool of 49 year old players versus 39-year old players in Open by roughly 2 shots a round.

Maybe not 50 but another 5 year incriment would be nice.

Start with 45 and allow the 40-45year olds have the option to move back to adv masters if needed

Baby Steps ;)

The problem is not the age breaks but the lack of incentives for top rated Masters to play Open. Moving up the age will likely force more players out than it will boost Open pools.

So why did the "old school" disc golf tournament format go away? It used to be all one big division, now it's not. If you want to go back to the old way, you probably need to understand why the old way went away in the first place.

It went away because TDs did not have full fields and they wanted to get guys like me playing their tournaments.

I did not play tournaments as soon as I learned about them in 1991. I waited until 1992 when they invented Am III.

What "running" argument do you think I was making?

<font color="red">An example in support of Kevin's argument - there's a big 10K this weekend in Charleston - the Cooper River Bridge Run. There will be approx 50,000 participants. (Yes, that's really 50,000 - not a typo!) </font>


<font color="green">You seemed to be supporting Kevin's argument using the running model but perhaps I misunderstood. </font>


It was my intention to point out that there seems to be a very common conception, frequently expressed here on this board, that Ams, specifically Advanced players, are playing tournaments only because they are greedy and only because they are somehow getting something - as Kevin put it, "why does everyone have to win??"

I don't think "everyone has to win". My response was intended to illustrate that I think most of us are are actually in it for fun - and that most participants probably do recognize that it is a hobby, and a pretty cheap one at that.

<font color="red"> I don't understand the idea that relates everyone having to win to greed amongst Ams. Indeed, I would think the greedy would want a steeper payout with fewer winners so they, when they win, could have a larger payout. A flat payout is much more consistent with, well wanting everyone to have a good time and get something out of it. Sort of consistent with the trophy only option. </font>

<font color="green">The reason so many think that Ams play out of greed and a desire to win is because a number of prominent Ams have posted repeatedly on this site, exactly that point. Furthermore, in the one prominent case where it has been looked at, Bruce's series in Illinois, he has found that the trophy only option gets little attention. Not no attention, just not as much as you would think if we were all out there playing for glory.

Even given that, I agree with the observation that we could change over to a trophy only option, I am simply pointing out, that would not address Kevin's concern in the way he thinks it would. My understanding, perhaps incorrect, is that Kevin believes that it is the greed of those Ams that is keeping adequate funds from coming up to the Pro ranks. The only two models discussed here, forcing them up, or into trophy only options, will not generate significantly more income for Pros.

If indeed, your notion is not consistent with Kevin's, and is that many could easily convert to a trophy only format with a couple of top people taking home trophies, I agree, that is consistent with what I've seen occurring with Bag Tags. </font>

Running happens to be a pretty exaggerated comparison - there are more port-a-potties here in town this weekend than there are active members of the PDGA! Take ball golf, or tennis, or Masters swmming, if you'd rather use those as comparisons - lots of people participate, but few "win".

And that's the way we should see our disc golf experiences too.

<font color="red">While on a philosophical level I agree with you, my faith in my fellow man is probably weaker than your's. The notion that we should see our disc golf experiences in a (for lack of a better term) altruistic way isn't even consistent with what I see in running. The guys I see running, and run against want to win. Yes they do it for fun, but they are highly competitive, want to win in their age group, and would love to make a living at it. It is only the knowledge that they have no hope to compete against the top guys, and their complete inability to fool themselves otherwise, that gives them perspective.

I might say that in disc golf many are allowed the luxury of believing they might just be able to be a champion, and the fact they can compete and win something of value allows them to believe. Then again, I'm a sucker. :D </font>

BTW - Pat, in response to your retention frequency issue. The club I work out at is a very interesting case study. It is a semi-private club for BP employees. However, my company rents space in a BP facility so we get to use it. We pay, but BP employees get to use it for FREE! The retention rate is very low. I am going to check tomorrow to see, but the manager has talked to me about this a number of times. They constantly offer incentives and special competitions to get people to come out and work out more frequently. In fact, by my measure (guess), BP spends close to $100,000 in incentives annually with mixed success. My suspicion is that people in general take up and drop many forms of competition and exercise. Judging the PDGA by the high turnover without a good comparison is unfair at best.

i dont dispute that. but unless you can measure it you cant manage it, regardless of the comparisons that can be made (relevant or not). the first step is measuring where you are. the next step is improving your position.

dont forget that your gym is not trying to achieve six figure incomes for 50 or 100 players. i am not suggesting the PDGA is failing. i am just describing the current situation in realistic terms, with real numbers. and i am suggesting that if an above average living is the objective of the organization, the current growth rate will require a whole bunch of years, if not several more generations to achieve. if that schedule is OK (and its not, otherwise this thread wouldnt exist) then fine. if not, then changes must be made - in either the approach or the objective.

So why did the "old school" disc golf tournament format go away? It used to be all one big division, now it's not. If you want to go back to the old way, you probably need to understand why the old way went away in the first place.

It went away because TDs did not have full fields and they wanted to get guys like me playing their tournaments.

I did not play tournaments as soon as I learned about them in 1991. I waited until 1992 when they invented Am III.



I really mean no offence Bruce, but the result is that now not only have we been able to get and keep people like you, but that the unintended result of that "prize/cash incentive" is that now we ONLY get people like you (and me) at PDGAs. This to the exclusion of folks that had previously just come out for the camaraderie and competition (even the pro players!).

I like gambler disc golfers, don�t get me wrong, many are my friends; heck I am one. But through the decades I have notice the slow and steady dissolution of that unified feeling that came just from participating in an event. You sense it here and there, like at Paw Paw, the Japan Opens, Laurel Springs, and the Yetter. But mainly to get that feeling anymore you have to go to league play or a tags challenge round.

I don't see why we couldn't have a classification within the PDGA competitive system dedicated to this type of competition. I think that there is a lot of real world evidence out there that such a class of players and competition would do very well (even within disc golf).

Nick,

For what time period would players be allowed to go back and forth if your proposal were to be put into place? How do you propose the transition period take place?

I 'd leave that to the PDGA to decide. But I'd imagine something like 2 or 3 years considering the ramp up and getting used to time needed.

Again, I doubt there would be a ton of interest from current prize/cash players, and that is more or less as it should be. I'd like to try it out, and certainly to run some new class only PDGA events for these new players.

Why, what are your thoughts?

Just seems that initially for it to get some legs it would have to pull from the current Am/Prize pool of players. I couldnt possibly speculate a time frame it would take to develop that class to where it could stand on its own. I suspect it would be more then 2-3 years based on the fact that current PDGA players would have options that better cater to their motivations for attending PDGA's and my belief that it would take a good amount of those players to help it to mature to a place that it can hold its own.

given that year after year 40% of our Am players do not renew, and that the ones that do renew seem to like the plastic prize system (altho considerable numbers do not like the flat payouts for MA1), may i respectfully suggest that Nick's proposed system is better suited for an entirely new organization.

let the PDGA focus on retaining and growing its membership numbers. if some new organization wnts to reinject purity into the word "amateur", thats fine. it might even find some members. but the PDGA can accomplish more simply by going back to a steeper payout the higher the division. ie, MA3 = very flat, MA2 = kinda middle, MA1 = steep as in top 30%, MPO = steepest, as in top 25%.

a lot of this discussion is discounting or ignoring the mental aspects of the game. we need to train our best Ams how to make the winning shot when the winning shot is actually worth something. if you still your t-shirt and a couple disc players package, plus maybe 3 discs, then who care if you nail your upshot for a dropin birdie to win?

that flat approach works for entry level divisinos but not for one step away for the True Pros

rachet the mental game up as the skill level goes up.

First, I think you need to verify those turnover numbers. Hoeniger presented numbers at a Summit meeting in the last few years closer to 23% but I can't remember for sure. It was a detailed analysis and is likely in the DGWN PDGA pages somewhere. It showed how the retention rate for those who were members for two years was much higher than the first year and I think age was also a factor (older>more retention). And, Terry verified that we were in the normal range for similar organizations. it can always be better but I don't think the 40% is valid.

Second, I believe going back to steeper payouts in Advanced and only 45% vs 50% is worth considering along with somewhat higher entry fees and lower Open fees.

When I first started running tournaments the PDGA published multiple payout tables and recommended which tables to use for which divisions. I think that was a good approach. It gave TDs the freedom to experiment with different approaches. So long as the tier value is being met, the PDGA should be flexible to allow TDs to run events that work for their players and their circumstances.

I found this chart from Hoeniger in my files regarding attrition from 1999 thru 2002:

<table border="1"><tr><td> Year</td><td>New</td><td>Prev Sep-Dec</td><td>Renew</td><td>RenewLost</td><td>Total</td><td>Growth </td><td>PrevCurrent</td><td>Rate of
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>New-Renew</td><td>Standard</td><td>andFound</td><td>Members</td><td>Rate</td><td>MembersLost</td><td>Attrition
</td></tr><tr><td>1999</td><td>1531</td><td>266</td><td>3602</td><td>255</td><td>5654</td><td>12.7%</td><td>1149</td><td>22.9%
</td></tr><tr><td>2000</td><td>1689</td><td>319</td><td>3955</td><td>267</td><td>6230</td><td>10.1%</td><td>1380</td><td>24.4%
</td></tr><tr><td>2001</td><td>1964</td><td>395</td><td>4308</td><td>365</td><td>7032</td><td>12.9%</td><td>1527</td><td>24.5%
</td></tr><tr><td>2002</td><td>2135</td><td>337</td><td>4752</td><td>414</td><td>7638</td><td>8.6%</td><td>1943</td><td>27.6%
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Notes
Previous Current Members Lost ex. 1999 = (1999 News + 1999 LostandFounds) - (1999 Total Members - 1998 Total members)
Rate of Attrition: % of previous year currents who did not renew. At present roughly 1/4 of current members do not renew the following year.

I agree that it would take more than 2-3 years to get to the point that it could sustain itself without considerable help from existing Prize/Cash tds. But I think that 2-3 years is enough for existing players to decide which kind of competition they are most interested in. And for new players I don't think that there really needs to be any ramp up time at all.

For cash/prize players to say that all players should be permitted to taste the forbidden fruit before making a decision is understandable in consideration of their desire to both add cash to their competitions and to preserve the gambler disc golf competitive system; however it would make this class no different from the Trophy Only sods currently wandering the Cash/Prize divisions as a rare and misunderstood* sideshow, and this classification has the potential to absolutely dwarf the existing one. So they are worth protecting.

Note: I'm in no way saying I have all the answers to this, just that the need for a new and separate classification of player based "exclusively" on love of competition and fun is as clear as the mid-day sun to me. I know this because I was an amateur sportsman before and because I remember that same familiar sensibility in the early days of organized disc golf, so I know it works and I know what a great feeling it is to have at a disc golf event.

*Misunderstood because their true motivation for competiting goes misrepresented or mischaracterized as being motivated by lack of money to pay, or lack of will to compete, when the TRUTH is that they just want to play for the enjoyment of competition itself, unencumbered by considerations of profit or loss.

Dont you think that will keep the higher rated Adv guys in Adv even longer since they are the ones winning and taking home bigger stacks, more plastic then they can guarentee in cash in Open. I see many more high rated players hanging out longer and the gap widening between bottom Adv and top. And if the theory that fat stacks is what keeps people coming back then the lower half of Adv would just fall off instead of the lower half of Open. So basically you are saving the would be no-cash pros by enticing them to hang around for fatter stacks in Adv and giving the low Adv guys the reason to give up now. Since there are many more 915-950 players then 950-1000(i believe that is correct) seems like a losing proposition. But I am sure someone here can justify it.

he shows a 28% dropoff rate for all players in 2002. i show about a 30% rate. not much difference there.

the 40% figure is for AMs only, not all players. Pro players are no renewing at much lower rates.

Since there are many more 915-950 players then 950-1000(i believe that is correct) seems like a losing proposition.



As part of reverting back to lower%/steeper payouts & higher fees, I would be for capping the Advanced at around 964 to be able to win prizes, as long as TDs were required to offer the few 965+ Ams the Trophy Only option in either Advanced or Open.

Scott, that is a separate discussion from the creation of a non-prize classification.

The move up, move up, move out phenomenon is a purely prize/cash division one. In that discussion, once a non-prize classification is established and protected from prize players, then I am fine with more strict ratings breaks between prize/cash divisions; because all of those players have chosen to play for profit and it is only natural to play in appropriately set skill level divisions, to not would be to provide meaningless and clearly harmful protections to those who don't need it.

Again, I think many of the discussions Chuck and others are having here and the solutions they offer are credible if we understand that we are "Actually" talking about a single classification of player and competition (cash/prize). My objection to them, without the non-prize division, is that they would result (and already have) in no real option for players who have a sincerely different motivation for playing organized competitive disc golf (or to phrase it differently: we have no amateur class when everyone is on the same competitive track of divisional play).

so then the TD would haveto keep some trophies around in case a 965 player won the event, but what would he do with the trophies if a 960 player won?

whatever happened to the KISS method?