I have been in this fine game we call Disc Golf for nearly 15 years, and over the years I have seen many changes some good some bad. The past 5 years has been somewhat frustrating because of the quote from many "wait 5 years this game is going to blow up." Well I have been waiting a lot longer than 5 years and it seems that Professional Disc Golf Association is really blowing down instead of blowing up. The way things are now a better name for our organization might be the Amateur Disc Golf Association with a few scattered pros.

Here in Oklahoma at tournaments in the past 10 years there has been a serious lack of players in any of the PRO divisions, but yet we have broke records of attendance at many of the events in the past 5 years. This past weekend we has 124 players at the Green Country Doubles, 110 AMS and 14 Pros. This state is FULL of ams and I think the reason is due to there isn't an incentive to move up. I am seeing this same kind of thing all over the country. Here are some of the things I would want to incorporate if I was the head of the PDGA.

1st Entry Fees. We need to bridge the gap between Adv and Pro entry fees. If you look at it from the Adv point of view, should I stay in Advance and pay $60 or try Open and pay $100-$125. It�s a hard sell for a player that is up and coming to throw two more Andrew Jacksons out there if there is a good chance they are going to get smoked. The Pro�s want to play for more money but raising the entry fees seem to take money away because less people are likely to drop a c-note to play in a tournament that touring pros, are going to come in and clean up at NT�s and A tiers.

2nd Separation of the divisions. One thing I would love to have changed in disc golf is the divisional structure in relation to who you play with at tourneys. I would like to see TD�s put cards together by what each player shoots each round. If Open player A, and Adv player B both shoot -9 they played at the same level so they should be paired together the next round. This way some of the adv players will get experience as well as confidence that �hey I can play with theses guys.� The negative feedback I get from this is �I want to know what other players in my division are doing.� I can somewhat understand this but in the big picture we should all strive to be the best player each weekend just not settle for the best player in a certain skill level.

3rd Division Structures, I want to develop a way that everyone that starts the tournament is in one division in appearance but in reality they are still in their divisions. All the entry fees from Open, Masters, Adv, and Women all go into the same purse. You then pay out the top 50% of that field and then for the divisions add a bonus structure. The Top Masters player will get a $200 bonus, Top Woman golfer gets a $200 bonus and so on. Here is an example

1st place Johnny TwoPutt OPEN total score 200= $500
2nd place Sammy Slice OPEN total score 201 = $400
3rd place Abe Greybeard Masters total score 202 = $300 + $200 (for being the top Masters Age)
4th place Sandy Longdrive ADV total score 203 = trophy plus (basket or prize for top AM player)
5th place Jake Hooker OPEN total score 204 = $150
6th place Jules McSexy Open Women total score 205 = $100 + $200 ( for being top Open Woman)
20th place Ebeniezer Greybeard Grand Masters score 300 = $0 + $100 (for being the top GM)

With this kind of structure I�m sure we would see advanced players move up quicker, since they are already paying the same, and already playing with the OPEN guys, they would see that they can compete with them and why wouldn�t they check the OPEN box.


4th Ams Expectations of Payouts. . Disc Golf seems to be the only sport that I can find that AMs actually participate for prizes that are equivillent to the money that Pro players are playing for. What is to stop a player from playing in the AM division to win plastic so they can turn around and sell it on eBay or use it to prize out at their local mini tournament action. Either way the AM player is paying a cheaper price and playing a lower division to make money and true amateurism is not about profit or even trying to make your money back. True amateurism is about the love of the game. There are AMS making more money at this game than I am. The current payout structure makes it too profitable to move up so there we are with sandbaggers everywhere. I�m sure that the guy who cam up with the payout structure for Ams was an AM. We should eliminate the whole theory of Ams playing for the same amount that they put in or we will never get away from the sandbagging. Ams should go into a tournament with the thought that paying $30 for an event and I get a shirt and a disc and hopefully I can win a trophy. That�s the way they do it in ball golf and golf has seemed to do alright for over 100 years with this kind of structure.


Being a traveling touring Pro and the State Coordinator of Oklahoma I have a small voice to the PDGA and I would like to throw these ideas up against a wall and hopefully some of them will stick or be discussed. II�m just like everyone else that loves this game. I want what is best for the game and I want to see the game blow up. I�ve been hearing about �wait five years� well I have and all I see is dwindling numbers in the Pro divisions and swelling numbers in the Am ranks. If this is really the �Professional� Disc Golf Association we need to start developing more ways to promote players to the PRO ranks then continually cater to the AM Disc Golf Association.

These are just some thoughts and opinions feel free to poke holes and cuss me out if you feel that these are bad ideas.

I'm not at all saying we should just cater to the PRO's....I'm just trying to throw a few things out there that would make our GAME grow so that it may be more appealing to television networks. But if ESPN looks at a tournament like we have in OK where there is 90% AM's, I don't think the World Wide leader in sports would be very interested.

And I'm not saying that the PDGA isn't doing a good job, just trying to put some opinions out there to see if anyone might think that it may work to make our game better, and especially eliminate sandbagging.

I just feel like there is too much separation in our game. I feel like we shouldn't judge people on their division or age as much as their score.

This is a common thread topic.

I think it's obvious that there is more incentive to be a career am player than move to pro.

A 955 Advanced player is likely to place in the top three at most B,C and D tier events and take home more in prizes than he paid in entry fees. In addition to that am players more frequently receive player's packages included with their entry.

Now a 955 Open player very rarely cashes at B or C tiers and maybe half the time at D tiers. He pays a higher entry fee than advanced players and probably wins back his entry fee less than 25% of the time.

Isn't it obvious where the better deal is?

Possible Solutions:

Make am divisions trophy only divisions.
-Every entrant gets one disc. Trophies or plaques to top three finishers

Pay deeper in the Pro division

- pay top 65% of the field
- all added cash goes to pro divisions

Reduce the amount of divisions

One am division.

When I started you had Open,Women and Amateur. That was it. The Open fields were far bigger then and the term sandbagger hadn't been invented yet (atleast not in disc golf circles).

Player's packages should be given to all divisions or not at all.


I know these sort of solutions are unpopular with am players. That's understandable since the current system caters to them and these changes would afford them less plastic to sell on eBay.

Not trying to make enemies here, just trying to point out how we got to this point. I agree it has stunted our growth to some extent. It's good to welcome newbies to our sport and treat them well, but I do think we need to make becoming a pro more attractive and give players something to strive for.

As an Am, I agree with eliminating the payout structure for Ams. Reduce the entry, reduce the players pack requirements and give trophie only to the top 4 in each division. It should be about the competition and the love of the game.

For the Pros, more sponsorship is required. This would mean that TDS (I'm not trying to diss anyone here) would need to find more outside sponsorship monies. Instead of trying to make enough profit from the Am payout to provide the added monies needed for the pro payouts. By having more out side sponsors this in turn results in more people being exposed to the sport and it's potential. As it is right now, I hardly remeber attending a tournamnet that wasn't soley sponsored by disc golfers, disc companies, players, or disc vendors. Why do we keep taking from each other when there is other money out there?

Also by eliminating the Am payouts, in Oklahoma alone it would create another dozen pros. The only treason they arn't pro now is becuse they can make money in the Am Division with much less risk of not receiving a payout or return on their money.


Kev, thanks for using my TwoPutt as a winning pro in your example. It could be the closest I ever get to getting paid. :D

I think the ratings are pretty darn accurate across the board.

If you agree with me on that point, then read on. If you disagree with that then you might as well skip the rest of this.

I don't see the sandbagging issue you are talking about. Most of the top Ams are rated in the 960s, and the vast majority of those guys go pro within a year. With a 960 rating the player is giving up 12-16 strokes for a 3-4 round tournament to a 1000 rated player. Should that player be required to play pro?

Going to trophy only and a $25-$30 am entry fee would be okay with me. Going to trophy only and still demanding $60 for am entries would not. The other half of the equation is to lower the entry fee for the pro divisions. Donating $40-$50 max to play pro is a lot more plausible for me that doanting $75 to $250 a pop.

Bottom line is that I don't think your root-cause analysis is correct. There are a lot more ams these days and not a corresponding lot more pros. I don't think it is sandbagging that is keeping the pro numbers "not as big". I think the skill level really isn't there and the ratings show the folly of the 920-940 rated "pro" Open player so you have less of them. It looks like the Ams that would "move up...move up...move out" are skipping the final chapter of the standard saga.

If there were a lot of 970 and 980 rated ams, I would agree with you. But 950 guys who play am will, on average, lose by 20 strokes to a 1000 rated pro in a 4 round event. It's hard to say that guy should be playing pro.

The USGA for ball golfers, the USTA for tennis, the USVBA for volleyball have amateur membership that dwarfs their pro counterparts. Our amateur to pro membership is maybe 60 to 40 compared with 9999 (or more) to 1 in those sports which also have bigger overall numbers. Those looking at the sport with a broader perspective (disc manufacturers) are likely thrilled with the boom in this sport. The only way the sport will get to the 9999 to 1 ratio is for the sport to grow like it is now. It will likely never help the current pros. I think it will be obvious when the time is right to form an elite ADGP (Association of Disc Golf Professionals) org because the money and numbers will be there to support it. For the next 15-20 years, I believe most pros will be disc golf historians who earn a little cash for their expertise while they watch the sport grow from the bottom up. If the PDGA didn't spend another nickel on pro development over and above what's collected from pros in dues and fees, and put all remaining income toward amateur development, I believe it would be the best for the sport overall at this point in our history. That's not to say Kev doesn't have some ideas that couldn't be tested.

I'm not at all saying we should just cater to the PRO's....I'm just trying to throw a few things out there that would make our GAME grow so that it may be more appealing to television networks. But if ESPN looks at a tournament like we have in OK where there is 90% AM's, I don't think the World Wide leader in sports would be very interested.

And I'm not saying that the PDGA isn't doing a good job, just trying to put some opinions out there to see if anyone might think that it may work to make our game better, and especially eliminate sandbagging.

I just feel like there is too much separation in our game. I feel like we shouldn't judge people on their division or age as much as their score.



So run Open only events or a series of Open only events. The PDGA has historically done just about everything it could to get more players to play pro, in my opinion, those efforts were met with customer complaints, reasonable or not.

The only solution to that challenge, as I can see it, is to get more sponsorship and put it exclusively into the top division at a majority of the events. But it isn't easy when sponsors want their dollars or merch going to protected divisions, or when players want those dollars going to their protected divisions.

Somebody needs to take a stand, and I don't think it could possibly be the PDGA, it has to be the TDs.

My suggestion for improving the PDGA would be to make a Tournament Directors "Congress" where directors who have or will run a PDGA in the calendar year get together and legislate all PDGA Tournament Standards and advise on other PDGA Policies. They would also vote on things like runs changes. This would allow faster (and hopefully more informed decision making) than what we have now.

I'd still give the BOD and Commissioner veto power.

I agree with some of the above. How ever, sandbaging is going on. The 940 ams are willing to pay the $60+ because the vast majority of the ams are in the low 900's to upper 800's. and they will or should recieve back an amount equal or in excess of their entry and a lot of the upper 800's players stay down in the intermediate due to not wanting to donate to the 940 player as the 940 player doesn't want to donate to the 1000 rated player.

It truley is an evil cycle. I don't know what the answer is but I think a start is to elimiate payouts for Ams.

Rhett, I would like to know your response to the sponsoship issue I brought up.

Not to derail Kevin's very important topic, but what exactly does "professional association of disc golf players" mean? I'm not complaining about anything, but why not just be the "association of disc golfers"? What does "professional" mean in this context? Does it modify "association"? Even then, what does it mean?

Anyway, I think this is a very important topic. I like ideas 1 and 4 since I feel they are important aspects of a competitive system financed by entry fees.

I also think this discussion needs an agreed upon background, or goals. Once the goals are agreed upon, the actions/strategies become clearer. I would argue that some people want:

1) a system that supports only the top players;

2) a system where the sole goal is to increase participation at every skill level, merely to grow the sport; or

3) a system that increases participation, but with a particular focus on the lower-skilled level, based on the assumption that these players are the future.

I would argue that the BOD has at one time focused on the first and third goals. The first goal created our tier structure, higher entry fees, and top-heavy payouts. Were these strategies successful in achieving the goal?

The third goal eventually resembled the first goal, with the top players in goal 1 replaced by the top baggers in lower-skilled levels. Ironically, this goal also helped create our present tier structure, higher entry fees, and top-heavy payout. It also stifled upward movement. Were these strategies successful in achieving the goal?

BTW, I love the title and can't imagine a sexy Jules. :p

I think the ratings are pretty darn accurate across the board.

If you agree with me on that point, then read on. If you disagree with that then you might as well skip the rest of this.

I don't see the sandbagging issue you are talking about. Most of the top Ams are rated in the 960s, and the vast majority of those guys go pro within a year. With a 960 rating the player is giving up 12-16 strokes for a 3-4 round tournament to a 1000 rated player. Should that player be required to play pro? <font color="red"> Maybe they move up in your part of the country but they don't here.</font>

Going to trophy only and a $25-$30 am entry fee would be okay with me. Going to trophy only and still demanding $60 for am entries would not. The other half of the equation is to lower the entry fee for the pro divisions. Donating $40-$50 max to play pro is a lot more plausible for me that doanting $75 to $250 a pop. <font color="red">I agree 1000% </font>

Bottom line is that I don't think your root-cause analysis is correct. There are a lot more ams these days and not a corresponding lot more pros. I don't think it is sandbagging that is keeping the pro numbers "not as big". I think the skill level really isn't there and the ratings show the folly of the 920-940 rated "pro" Open player so you have less of them. It looks like the Ams that would "move up...move up...move out" are skipping the final chapter of the standard saga.

If there were a lot of 970 and 980 rated ams, I would agree with you. But 950 guys who play am will, on average, lose by 20 strokes to a 1000 rated pro in a 4 round event. It's hard to say that guy should be playing pro. <font color="red"> I disagree somewhat</font>



Rhett, check out the difference in the Player Ratings in the ADV, they usually range from 820-970 Pro player rating usually range from 950-1030* And there are VERY few that are over 1010 per sue.

I don't care if my entry fee was only $30 but it would be more exciting if I could play in a division of 70-100 every weekend instead of 10-30

I like the idea of trying to get more players into a single division by offering the "masters bonus" and so forth. I also think flighting of the super-division is also another idea worth trying, with payouts within flights based on a sliding scale with the top division getting added cash etc, lowest ones playing for less than 100%.

I know the senior ball golf tour uses (used? I know I've seen it before) a "super senior" bonus system to the top players who are, maybe 65 plus or something.

I think the trajectory of DG is pretty strong, but bringing some new formats to the table is a great idea.

Room for all (and nearly that many divisions).

Joe

Kevin,
First, I want to say that you have been an inspiring golfer in my disc golf progression. I used to live in Columbia, MO, and started playing disc golf thanks to George. Watching you in the final nine there several years ago, (and almost acing) was a thrilling and inspiring moment for me that I'll never forget.

I agree, that the am divisions are hard to get away from due to the payout structure. But is this an issue that needs to be addressed by the PDGA or by disc producers/sponsors/local vendors? I'm not certain about this, but it seems to me that large am tournaments are the bread and butter for some of the disc producers. What you're proposing is to lower am entries, and players would get a tee and a disc, and compete for trophies. I think that this could hurt Innova and Discraft, don't you think? Some of that added money ams pay now, pays for the plastic that the top 1/3 go home with. So it's like a guaranteed sale of huge stacks of discs every time there's an am tournament with a full field. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I can't tell you how many times I've heard top am players say that they're going to move up after one more tournament, so they can "stock up". It's almost like we've conned ourselves into believing that it's worth it to spend $50 on an A or B tier am tourney, to maybe win $100 (or so) worth of plastic. I agrree with you that ams should go to trophy only. Then, there would be more incentive to practice, get better, and move up.

I'm not a TD, and I don't know all the economics of running a tournament, but it seems to me that Innova and Discraft will have something to say about your ideas before the PDGA does. I do like your ideas, though. :)

I agree, that the am divisions are hard to get away from due to the payout structure. But is this an issue that needs to be addressed by the PDGA or by disc producers/sponsors/local vendors? I'm not certain about this, but it seems to me that large am tournaments are the bread and butter for some of the disc producers. <font color="red"> This is the root of the problem, we continue to have the players fund everything, including sponsorships and added money. </font> What you're proposing is to lower am entries, and players would get a tee and a disc, and compete for trophies. I think that this could hurt Innova and Discraft, don't you think? <font color="red"> By lowereing entry fees, you would encourage more ams to play in events. Thus, the more playing the more discs that will be sold by the manufacturers </font> Some of that added money ams pay now, pays for the plastic that the top 1/3 go home with. So it's like a guaranteed sale of huge stacks of discs every time there's an am tournament with a full field. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif <font color="red">Again, this is the problem </font>

I can't tell you how many times I've heard top am players say that they're going to move up after one more tournament, so they can "stock up". It's almost like we've conned ourselves into believing that it's worth it to spend $50 on an A or B tier am tourney, to maybe win $100 (or so) worth of plastic. I agrree with you that ams should go to trophy only. Then, there would be more incentive to practice, get better, and move up.

I'm not a TD, and I don't know all the economics of running a tournament, but it seems to me that Innova and Discraft will have something to say about your ideas before the PDGA does. I do like your ideas, though. :)

<font color="red"> I would think that Innova And Discraft would welcome any ideas that promote a larger player base. </font>

Kevin....

My opinion is that if the PDGA and many of our events were top-heavy with Pros and we had little amateur support and participation, THIS ratio would be unappealing to the companies with the fat wallets. Not the other way around.

When we start to be inundated with amateur participation, this will be a clear sign that our sport is starting to appeal to many folks outside the existing Disc Golf community. It's a sign that the sport is making inroads at the grassroots level. It's a sign that kids are telling their parents that they don't want to play soccer or baseball this year - instead they want to "fondle plastic". When that becomes the landscape, and those amateurs and the public start to come to our showcase NT events and watch those top Pros play at an incredible level, that's a signal to corporate sponsors that maybe they should consider sponsoring our showcase events and throwing dollars our way. We need numbers to show the ESPN's and the IBM's that our sport is worthy of supporting us.

To me, ultimately the issue of good Advanced players not wanting to move up because they'd rather pay $X less in entry fees and know they'll win more value in plastic than they would cash as a Pro will be a non-issue. That will happen when (not if) we get to the point that we're attractive to big corporate sponsors. At this point the majority of paid-out value (cash and merchandise) at most of our events is our own money. So I certainly understand why Pros want to play for more money and are frustrated that the Pro fields have been small relative to the Am fields. And I understand why Advanced players don't want to shell out big bucks when they don't think they can cash. When the corporate sponsors are on board and more of the money is not our own entry fees, maybe then those borderline Advanced/Pro players will have a significant financial incentive to improve their game and move up. I know many people hate the Disc Golf vs. Ball Golf comparison, but I'll go there anyway. Look at how many folks play in PGA tour events vs. how many play on the Nationwide tour, mini-tours, state championships, country-club tourneys, charity tournaments, and just casual golf. The ratio is astronomical.

I think the PDGA is moving in the right direction insofar as the tiers is concerned. The National Tour, which in 2006 consists of 11 showcase events, should eventually be able to attract the support of major corporate sponsors if the sport continues to evolve down the path it is currently on. Lower-tier events shouldn't necessarily be all that appealing to the touring Pros once we can increase the sponsorships and the purses of the majors and the NT events. Let the Advanced and amateur players win their plastic and not move up. That's what those events will be for as the gap widens between NT events and those lower tier events. That'll leave more $$$ for you.

The key to all of this is to get more Amateurs. The by-product of that growth will be more Pros.

By the way, will we see you at the Skylands Classic at Warwick NT event in July? We hope to "raise the bar" even higher this year.....

Dan Doyle
Warwick, NY

Kevin, I agree with your direction, but I think you need to work first to increase the Am participation by 10 or 20 times to get the results you are after.

I think that the PDGA has taken major steps in reducing the am payout incentives by lowering entry fee recommendations and falttening the payout structure. More players are being paid out in smaller increments than before. The only reason that the am prizes still compete monetarily with the Pro purses is because of the number of am players.

The only way that the Pro players can truly make a living playing disc golf is to find a source of revenue outside of the player's pockets. When there is $10-50K added per event that doesn't come from entry fees, then the Pros might be able to make a realistic go of it. Once there is a real incentive to play Pro, more players will try to make the jump.

I agree that mixing divisions in regular tournaments could have a positive effect, as long as it is known up front that this will be happening. It would be difficult in a mixed format event like a doubles tournament where how much you risk in tough shot or alternating may well depend on how well your opposition is doing. In standard singles competition, there is still some of that, but it is really more toward the last round, and not based on which rounds that are the tougher formats. I think that you would get more resistance from the Pro divisions than the lower rated am divisions if you mixed Am and Pro. You can also expect some resistance from the Master's divisions.

I also think the Am/Pro ratios are a little low on the Am side. It should be closer to 100-1 instead of 10-1 if the business of disc golf is to support a true pro tour. As it is, the Ams largely support one major event a year (the USDGC) with plastic purchases. If there were 10 times as many Ams, then they could maybe handle 10 large events a year, and maybe attract additional sponsorship from outside the traditional sources.

You said that during the last 5 years, Ams have been breaking attendence records at OK events. Something must be going right for them, or the numbers wouldn't be growing. Being an Am at heart by talent and time I can devote to practice, I do not see a scenario where all ams must eventually go Pro. There are players that are predisposed to being professional, and those that do not have any interest in having a hobby become that time consuming.

What you're proposing is to lower am entries, and players would get a tee and a disc, and compete for trophies. I think that this could hurt Innova and Discraft, don't you think?



While it might hurt disc golf vendors who run AM. tournaments by cutting down on the amount of plastic they move at tournaments -- anything which increases the numbers and notoriety of Professional Disc Golf will serve to increase public and media interest in our sport and will thereby increase the number of people playing non-competitive disc golf. I am guessing the vast majority of disc golf sales are to people who do not play PDGA events, but are casual players.

We do need to figure out a way to get guys playing at Kevin's level a 6 figure salary in earnings for it. How to make that so is the 64,000 dollar question...

Just a note of agreement with what Dan posted.

I can see a day when there are several mainly AM events put together to fund a mainly Pro event. Where the C and maybe B tier events are aimed at the Amateur players with about the same Pro numbers we see now, the NT events are aimed exclusively at the Pros, and the A tier events are really large combined events where there is 1 flight of Pros and 2 or more flights of Ams.

There just needs to be enough A and NT events to keep the 980+ touring players occupied so the 980- players can hit the B and C tiers. :cool:

I have been in this fine game we call Disc Golf for nearly 15 years, and over the years I have seen many changes some good some bad. The past 5 years has been somewhat frustrating because of the quote from many "wait 5 years this game is going to blow up." Well I have been waiting a lot longer than 5 years and it seems that Professional Disc Golf Association is really blowing down instead of blowing up. The way things are now a better name for our organization might be the Amateur Disc Golf Association with a few scattered pros.

Here in Oklahoma at tournaments in the past 10 years there has been a serious lack of players in any of the PRO divisions, but yet we have broke records of attendance at many of the events in the past 5 years. This past weekend we has 124 players at the Green Country Doubles, 110 AMS and 14 Pros. This state is FULL of ams and I think the reason is due to there isn't an incentive to move up. I am seeing this same kind of thing all over the country. Here are some of the things I would want to incorporate if I was the head of the PDGA.



<font color="blue">Does this mean you would run for Commissioner of the PDGA?</font>


1st Entry Fees. We need to bridge the gap between Adv and Pro entry fees. If you look at it from the Adv point of view, should I stay in Advance and pay $60 or try Open and pay $100-$125. It�s a hard sell for a player that is up and coming to throw two more Andrew Jacksons out there if there is a good chance they are going to get smoked. The Pro�s want to play for more money but raising the entry fees seem to take money away because less people are likely to drop a c-note to play in a tournament that touring pros, are going to come in and clean up at NT�s and A tiers.



<font color="blue">Kevin, As a Pro player since 1982, I can tell you this has ALWAYS been a problem. Getting players to move from Am to Pro has been the most difficult thing to get accomplished. I have had several Adv. players tell me in the last couple of years that they will never turn Pro because they can do much better as an Adv player from a monetary standpoint.</font>


2nd Separation of the divisions. One thing I would love to have changed in disc golf is the divisional structure in relation to who you play with at tourneys. I would like to see TD�s put cards together by what each player shoots each round. If Open player A, and Adv player B both shoot -9 they played at the same level so they should be paired together the next round. This way some of the adv players will get experience as well as confidence that �hey I can play with theses guys.� The negative feedback I get from this is �I want to know what other players in my division are doing.� I can somewhat understand this but in the big picture we should all strive to be the best player each weekend just not settle for the best player in a certain skill level.



<font color="blue">I think this is a good idea. The PGA does this when Ams play in Tour events. They place all players in groups according to score regardless of their Pro or Am status. This is done in an effort to give the Am an opportunity to experience and learn to play with Pros. Of course they are able to post Leaderboards all over the course to enable ALL the players to see where they stand at any given time during the round. This could be the largest hurdle, but not insurpassable.</font>


3rd Division Structures, I want to develop a way that everyone that starts the tournament is in one division in appearance but in reality they are still in their divisions. All the entry fees from Open, Masters, Adv, and Women all go into the same purse. You then pay out the top 50% of that field and then for the divisions add a bonus structure. The Top Masters player will get a $200 bonus, Top Woman golfer gets a $200 bonus and so on. Here is an example

1st place Johnny TwoPutt OPEN total score 200= $500
2nd place Sammy Slice OPEN total score 201 = $400
3rd place Abe Greybeard Masters total score 202 = $300 + $200 (for being the top Masters Age)
4th place Sandy Longdrive ADV total score 203 = trophy plus (basket or prize for top AM player)
5th place Jake Hooker OPEN total score 204 = $150
6th place Jules McSexy Open Women total score 205 = $100 + $200 ( for being top Open Woman)
20th place Ebeniezer Greybeard Grand Masters score 300 = $0 + $100 (for being the top GM)

With this kind of structure I�m sure we would see advanced players move up quicker, since they are already paying the same, and already playing with the OPEN guys, they would see that they can compete with them and why wouldn�t they check the OPEN box.



<font color="blue">I don't particularly agree with the percentages given, but the concept is one that has merit and I feel the idea behind this would be worth much consideration.</font>



4th Ams Expectations of Payouts. Disc Golf seems to be the only sport that I can find that AMs actually participate for prizes that are equivillent to the money that Pro players are playing for. What is to stop a player from playing in the AM division to win plastic so they can turn around and sell it on eBay or use it to prize out at their local mini tournament action. Either way the AM player is paying a cheaper price and playing a lower division to make money and true amateurism is not about profit or even trying to make your money back. True amateurism is about the love of the game. There are AMS making more money at this game than I am. The current payout structure makes it too profitable to move up so there we are with sandbaggers everywhere. I�m sure that the guy who cam up with the payout structure for Ams was an AM. We should eliminate the whole theory of Ams playing for the same amount that they put in or we will never get away from the sandbagging. Ams should go into a tournament with the thought that paying $30 for an event and I get a shirt and a disc and hopefully I can win a trophy. That�s the way they do it in ball golf and golf has seemed to do alright for over 100 years with this kind of structure.



<font color="blue">This is an area that I feel our sport would benefit from the most! When we recognize that Amateur sports is just that, Amatuer sports. Not a sport where an Am can make money (cashing in on big prize packages they can sell and pay for all their tournament related expenses and make a little extra cash from the sale to boot.) It definately takes away from the Professional players and Professional aspect of our sport. </font>


Being a traveling touring Pro and the State Coordinator of Oklahoma I have a small voice to the PDGA and I would like to throw these ideas up against a wall and hopefully some of them will stick or be discussed. II�m just like everyone else that loves this game. I want what is best for the game and I want to see the game blow up. I�ve been hearing about �wait five years� well I have and all I see is dwindling numbers in the Pro divisions and swelling numbers in the Am ranks. If this is really the �Professional� Disc Golf Association we need to start developing more ways to promote players to the PRO ranks then continually cater to the AM Disc Golf Association.

These are just some thoughts and opinions feel free to poke holes and cuss me out if you feel that these are bad ideas.



<font color="blue">As an additional comment, NOT SAYING ANYTHING NEGATIVE TOWARD THE CURRENT PDGA BOARD OF DIRECTORS, but, "How many of the current Board members have actually played our sport professionally?" I ask this only to begin the next 2 questions, "If you have not played professionally, how can you truly serve the needs of the Professionals in the organization?" and "Are your concerns geared more toward the Amateur ranks?"

Again I am only asking these questions looking for the answers, and NOT in any way trying to promote any ill feeling toward our current BOD. </font>

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

4th Ams Expectations of Payouts. Disc Golf seems to be the only sport that I can find that AMs actually participate for prizes that are equivillent to the money that Pro players are playing for. What is to stop a player from playing in the AM division to win plastic so they can turn around and sell it on eBay or use it to prize out at their local mini tournament action. Either way the AM player is paying a cheaper price and playing a lower division to make money and true amateurism is not about profit or even trying to make your money back. True amateurism is about the love of the game. There are AMS making more money at this game than I am. The current payout structure makes it too profitable to move up so there we are with sandbaggers everywhere. I�m sure that the guy who cam up with the payout structure for Ams was an AM. We should eliminate the whole theory of Ams playing for the same amount that they put in or we will never get away from the sandbagging. Ams should go into a tournament with the thought that paying $30 for an event and I get a shirt and a disc and hopefully I can win a trophy. That�s the way they do it in ball golf and golf has seemed to do alright for over 100 years with this kind of structure.


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



This is an area that I feel our sport would benefit from the most! When we recognize that Amateur sports is just that, Amatuer sports. Not a sport where an Am can make money (cashing in on big prize packages they can sell and pay for all their tournament related expenses and make a little extra cash from the sale to boot.) It definately takes away from the Professional players and Professional aspect of our sport.





I don't mean to sound rude or put you on the spot or anything but...

Is your series Trophy only to the Ams? Or do you have plastic payouts?

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

4th Ams Expectations of Payouts. Disc Golf seems to be the only sport that I can find that AMs actually participate for prizes that are equivillent to the money that Pro players are playing for. What is to stop a player from playing in the AM division to win plastic so they can turn around and sell it on eBay or use it to prize out at their local mini tournament action. Either way the AM player is paying a cheaper price and playing a lower division to make money and true amateurism is not about profit or even trying to make your money back. True amateurism is about the love of the game. There are AMS making more money at this game than I am. The current payout structure makes it too profitable to move up so there we are with sandbaggers everywhere. I�m sure that the guy who cam up with the payout structure for Ams was an AM. We should eliminate the whole theory of Ams playing for the same amount that they put in or we will never get away from the sandbagging. Ams should go into a tournament with the thought that paying $30 for an event and I get a shirt and a disc and hopefully I can win a trophy. That�s the way they do it in ball golf and golf has seemed to do alright for over 100 years with this kind of structure.


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



This is an area that I feel our sport would benefit from the most! When we recognize that Amateur sports is just that, Amatuer sports. Not a sport where an Am can make money (cashing in on big prize packages they can sell and pay for all their tournament related expenses and make a little extra cash from the sale to boot.) It definately takes away from the Professional players and Professional aspect of our sport.





I don't mean to sound rude or put you on the spot or anything but...

Is your series Trophy only to the Ams? Or do you have plastic payouts?



<font color="blue">Trophy Only has been offered at every event I have TDed in the last 3 years. With 1 - 5 players opting to play for "Trophy Only" in each event.(that is about 14 events) Which I might add, to that offer, I have been the subject of many harsh and unkind words from some that have wanted to take the option, but yet receive prizes for their play after the fact.</font>

We do need to figure out a way to get guys playing at Kevin's level a 6 figure salary in earnings for it. How to make that so is the 64,000 dollar question...



The answer is actually quite simple (even though there's a lot of work to be done).

We need sponsorship dollars.

You attract sponsors by having widespread media coverage.

You get widespread media coverage by selling the media that the sport is newsworthy and viewers will want to tune in.

The media outlets will believe it is newsworthy if an event turns out an abundance of spectators (5000-15000).

The process for getting a draw of thousands of spectators is the hard part which will take years and more likely decades to produce.

People turn out in droves to PGA events because golf is a mainstream sport played recreationally by millions. These golf spectators are also partcipants in the sport and can relate and understand the challenges and will turn out to see the best in the business.

Our sport is far from mainstream. When you mention disc golf to strangers it is still common to get "What?" as a response. If people don't play themselves, they will have very little interest in watching others play.

Even if you did have a potential gallery of a couple thousand, most courses aren't very spectator friendly. It's hard to spectate in our sport on our courses without getting in the way. Also our courses tend to be more wooded than ball golf courses which compromises a spectator's view of the action.

I think programs such as EDGE and summer camps such as the one to be held this year at Highbridge are a step in the right direction. We must introduce and educate the public about our sport and show the benefits of having a course in their local neighborhood, in adding disc golf to the curriculum in phys ed classes, etc.

The sport has grown tremendously over the past 20 yrs I've been a part of it. Unfortunately we have a ways to go. There are certain factors that could jumpstart the growth. I think having the worlds or usdgc being covered by a major network would lend some credibility and garner interest among the american public. It's just getting an ESPN or Fox Sports to take such a step without our sport being mainstream that's difficult.

Okay I answered it where's my $64,000?

I agree with some of the above. How ever, sandbaging is going on. The 940 ams are willing to pay the $60+ because the vast majority of the ams are in the low 900's to upper 800's. and they will or should recieve back an amount equal or in excess of their entry and a lot of the upper 800's players stay down in the intermediate due to not wanting to donate to the 940 player as the 940 player doesn't want to donate to the 1000 rated player.

It truley is an evil cycle. I don't know what the answer is but I think a start is to elimiate payouts for Ams.


Sorry, but that doesn't make sense to me. An upper-800 rated am is by definition an Intermediate, yet you are calling them baggers for not moving up to Advanced. They are playing where they belong with similarly skilled players. If they improve and their ratings hit the magical 915 mark, then they are no longer allowed to play Intermediate at PDGA events.

I think the whole ratings thing has shown the opposite of what many players thought was going on. Instead of widespread and egregious bagging going on, the ratings have shown that there were a lot of 850-910 rated players playing Advanced. This meant that 940 rated players were spanking them and getting called baggers until the 940s moved up pro and then quit playing tournaments because $100+ for DFL and no chance isn't that fun. Likewise with all the 875-915 rated players playing Advanced, if any 880 player did play Intermediate they would stomp the competition and likewise be called baggers.

The problems of the past with the move up...move up...move out progression were due to players playing above their skill set, and not due to baggers.

I think the increase in am field sizes is partly due to the ratings, and mostly due to increases in the popularity of the sport.


One last thing on the bagger reports: someone posted "maybe in your part of the country they move". Please provide as many names as you can of anyone who is a 960+ rated player for the last several years and still plays Advanced. If you have 20 or 30 of them, then maybe bagging is a problem where you are. If you have even three I would be surprised.



Rhett, I would like to know your response to the sponsoship issue I brought up.


Oh yes, absoultely more sponsorship dollars to fund the pro payouts would solve all of our problems. But if it were so easy we would already be there. Getting sponsorship is *NOT* easy.

I don't know what response you're looking for. I don't think anyone will argue that we *DON'T* need more sponsorship.

How about a contrarian perspective just for discussion�s sake? What would happen if we didn�t cap Advanced entry fees and continued to give out big prizes and still paid 50% of the field? We already know this has been a successful model since the early 90s for getting players in the sport and being able to finance event overhead plus add cash to pro purses. Why kill the golden goose that�s been popular and driven growth? Let's just tame it.

Let Advanced entry fees become as high as Open entry fees, whatever the market will bear. We know that Advanced divisions are filling up in many places. The Trophy Only option at a significantly reduced entry fee would still be available so those who can�t afford the entry fees won�t be driven from the sport. The Intermediate entry fee would be a bigger step down from Advanced than it is now. And Recreational would remain where it is at low level.

Here�s the catch. Cap payouts in all Am divisions at no more than 100% payout at retail including the value of player packs no matter what tier level. Overall, this will generate more added cash for the pros and keep the disc product manufacturers interested to support events. In addition, cap the Advanced division rating at 974 max. If your rating goes above 974, you can retain your Am status but have to enter as a Trophy Only player. Or, your other option is to turn pro. I can see players waiting for their last shot at Am Worlds using the Trophy Only option for up to a year, but it could be longer.

On the pro side, go to staged entry fees something like this. Let�s say the base entry fee is $100. That�s what �scratch� players with ratings between 990-1009 would pay. Those over 1009 pay 20% more at $120. Those from 970-989 pay 20% less at $80. Those below 970 pay 40% less at $60. Let�s say the Advanced entry fee has risen to $80 at this event. The 965 player can pay $80 for Advanced playing for merch or $60 for Open playing for a purse with added cash (or Trophy Only in Pro, which would be cheaper than playing Trophy Only in Am, and that adds more to pro purse).

These percentages and ratings can be tweaked but Gangloff proposed something along these lines a while back. It�s pure risk/reward and I�m pretty sure Open fields would increase even if the Advanced fields remained strong, especially if Open paid 50% of the field like the new payout table option.

At an A-tier, those under 970 are essentially donators so they are boosting the pro purse and the amount generated from retail/wholesale conversion continues to be a big boost to the purse. The percentage of net added cash relative to entry fees will go up for the top pros even if the number of 970-1040 players remains small.

Seems like there are a lot benefits to this approach:
- Doesn�t kill the Amateur retail/wholesale financial engine that got us here
- Trophy Only option doesn�t scare away those on low budgets or who have won enough merch already or the NK �true amateurs.�
- More cash for Pro purses from Am merch conversion
- Larger pro fields due to discounted fees for lower rated players which also boosts purse for top
- Doesn�t force Ams to Pro but provides more viable economic incentives to do so.
- I think we might commit to doing ratings updates more frequently as a result of the need

Let Advanced entry fees become as high as Open entry fees, whatever the market will bear. We know that Advanced divisions are filling up in many places. The Trophy Only option at a significantly reduced entry fee would still be available so those who can�t afford the entry fees won�t be driven from the sport. The Intermediate entry fee would be a bigger step down from Advanced than it is now. And Recreational would remain where it is at low level.



Emphasis mine.

The bolded section would have to be mandatory, not "optional" (ie, non-existent).

I like it.

I'm glad this has been an intellegent DISCussion and not turned out to be "Kev your just trying to fill your pockets" and thats far from the truth. I would accept having cheaper entry fees and payout deeper if it would entice more players to move up. I'm not posting to belittle what the PDGA is doing or anything like that, just slingin suggestions and thoughts.

I'm not out to destroy the AM divisions but if you can see that playing AM for profit isn't out there and that it isn't good for the game in the BIG picture.

- I think we might commit to doing ratings updates more frequently as a result of the need




I like your " Free Chicken dinner with the purchase of a new Plasma Screen Tv" that you added to the end there :D

On the pro side, go to staged entry fees something like this. Let�s say the base entry fee is $100. That�s what �scratch� players with ratings between 990-1009 would pay. Those over 1009 pay 20% more at $120. Those from 970-989 pay 20% less at $80. Those below 970 pay 40% less at $60. Let�s say the Advanced entry fee has risen to $80 at this event. The 965 player can pay $80 for Advanced playing for merch or $60 for Open playing for a purse with added cash (or Trophy Only in Pro, which would be cheaper than playing Trophy Only in Am, and that adds more to pro purse).

These percentages and ratings can be tweaked but Gangloff proposed something along these lines a while back. It�s pure risk/reward and I�m pretty sure Open fields would increase even if the Advanced fields remained strong, especially if Open paid 50% of the field like the new payout table option.





That would be a stinger to most of us 1000+ SUPERPRO's ;) BUT I'M WILLING TO TRY ANYTHING to get some of these guys to move up. BIGGER PRO FIELDS is all I want, the cash is fine for what we do.

The USGA for ball golfers, the USTA for tennis, the USVBA for volleyball have amateur membership that dwarfs their pro counterparts. Our amateur to pro membership is maybe 60 to 40 compared with 9999 (or more) to 1 in those sports which also have bigger overall numbers. Those looking at the sport with a broader perspective (disc manufacturers) are likely thrilled with the boom in this sport. The only way the sport will get to the 9999 to 1 ratio is for the sport to grow like it is now. It will likely never help the current pros. I think it will be obvious when the time is right to form an elite ADGP (Association of Disc Golf Professionals) org because the money and numbers will be there to support it. For the next 15-20 years, I believe most pros will be disc golf historians who earn a little cash for their expertise while they watch the sport grow from the bottom up. If the PDGA didn't spend another nickel on pro development over and above what's collected from pros in dues and fees, and put all remaining income toward amateur development, I believe it would be the best for the sport overall at this point in our history. That's not to say Kev doesn't have some ideas that couldn't be tested.


The events that have SOLD OUT here in Texas so far this year have shown much more Am interest in the sport which is great. One of disc golf's problems is there is only so much room on a course at one time.
<table border="1"><tr><td> x</td><td>Total</td><td>AM</td><td>PRO</td><td>OPEN MEN
</td></tr><tr><td>Bear Creek</td><td>137</td><td>106</td><td>31</td><td>19
</td></tr><tr><td>Cedar Hill </td><td>155</td><td>108</td><td>47</td><td>28
</td></tr><tr><td>Victoria</td><td>107</td><td>78</td><td>29</td><td>16
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>
I would really like to see a concerted effort to organize within each state so that all of the state's B and C Tier tournaments, local leagues and clubs are organized to fundraise together in support for the state's annual NT event, or 1 or 2 SuperTours (A-Tiers).
There are some great points out there and I have also kicked around a Flight system to help bridge the gap.

I would really like to see a concerted effort to organize within each state so that all of the state's B and C Tier tournaments, local leagues and clubs are organized to fundraise together in support for the state's annual NT event, or 1 or 2 SuperTours (A-Tiers).
There are some great points out there and I have also kicked around a Flight system to help bridge the gap.



Both of those ideas are <font color="red"> BRILLIANT!!!!!! </font>

I've tried to sell the flight payout like you find at most 4 man-scramble ball golf tourneys, but AMS shoot that down immediatly, but I think that would be the idea that would almost TOTALLY eliminate sandbagging.

I think some markets are getting to the point where more than one C-tier can be hosted on the same day and one or both would fill with foursomes. That's how we'll increase capacity in the future.

...but I think that would be the idea that would almost TOTALLY eliminate sandbagging.


I hope you're working on that list of sandbaggers from your area, because I really don't see it as a real issue. You could get bigger MPO fields if you stopped the Masters who are rated over 1000, or even 980, to quit splitting out to another division for some easy sandbag money.

I would really like to see a concerted effort to organize within each state so that all of the state's B and C Tier tournaments, local leagues and clubs are organized to fundraise together in support for the state's annual NT event, or 1 or 2 SuperTours (A-Tiers).



That is a really good idea Jay, and if IA had a system like that, the DSM Challenge prolly would've been a NT again this year. It would definately take some of the pressure off the local clubs that host the events.

...but I think that would be the idea that would almost TOTALLY eliminate sandbagging.


I hope you're working on that list of sandbaggers from your area, because I really don't see it as a real issue. You could get bigger MPO fields if you stopped the Masters who are rated over 1000, or even 980, to quit splitting out to another division for some easy sandbag money.



That where the ONE pro divison with a bonus structure for the top Masters age players would fit in. I think it would be good for some of the rookie pros, to play with the legends of the game.

AND sandbagging does happen QUITE regularly around here. These guys know they can throw a few horrible tourneys in and keep they're rating in the ADV window, so if they start the tourney with a bad round it becomes party time the rest of the weekend. ;)

We already know this has been a successful model since the early 90s for getting players in the sport and being able to finance event overhead plus add cash to pro purses. Why kill the golden goose that�s been popular and driven growth?



You might think (or more correctly assert) that it has been a successful model, but that is extremely arguable. What if the growth of competitors is slower than the growth of the game as a whole? Is it still successful?

Additionally, how can a competitive model that regularly chases off a higher % of higher-skilled competitors be considered "successful." It's a cycle of accumulating mediocrity and slinging off excellence. And yet everytime, you assert that this is a success.

This is why I mentioned the three strategies. Chuck is a staunch beleiver in the third strategy: you grow by focusing solely on ams. The fact that improving players often get discarded is of no matter.

At some point, the PDGA competition people should really measure how many people actually play disc golf vs how many people compete in disc golf. I suspect this ratio has continually dwindled. But all in all, it is deemed "sucessful." :confused:

That actually reads pretty good Chuck.
I would have to agree with Kevin. This sport rocks all on its own. Most pros relish to play in tournaments with bigger divisional numbers. The Memorial, even though is almost always a losing proposition for most in terms of investment/return is a not to miss just for the quality vs field size all day long.

I would have to add another trend not helping the Pro field is that there should be some restrictions that outside money to the tournament goes to tournament structure/amenities (porta potties) and then the Pro Open Men and Open Women purses.
I thought is was awesome to see 12 Pro Master women at The Memorial vs 14 Pro Open Women. The problem I see given that both groups had the same tournament fees and awesome players package is that the Open Women only got $275 more added cash with two more players. These are the top Women in the sport. The Master ladies can play there if they want to, but have the added comfort of playing amongst gals their own age. I am defenitely not picking on the ladies, I love you all. This can be applied equally to Open Men and other age protected divisions. Even more now that the Pro Grandmaster and Pro Senior Grandmaster divisions are growing.
Not picking on Memorial either, great payout and tournament this year.

How cool would it have been to say The Memorial had 26 Open Women this year. Someone might say our sport is growing. Pay 50% of the field and a bonus for the top placing woman over 40, hmmmmm.

Japan Open does a Master age bonus pool even though there is only two divisons. Open Men and Open Women.

Ams with rating >=955. There are 5 from Oklahoma (and 9 from Texas :) ).

Doesn't look like that big of a problem, IMO. If you have some non-members bagging, then the TDs need to tell those guys that they play MPO or not at all.

On topic...
I agree with the lowering of fees and Am payouts. Jay's idea of funneling sponsorship keeps getting bandied about around here, but getting TDs willing to cooperate in that manner isn't easy, from what I've seen.

I can see a day when there are several mainly AM events put together to fund a mainly Pro event.

LOL! I've already seen that day. It was ten years ago, five years ago and today as well. I can connect the dots for you if you don't understand where this is happening. Basically it is everywhere you look.

That's why Jon and I run the tournaments we do, and why we are so successful with them. We got tired of getting the KY jelly player pack and instructions on how to bend over at tournaments where all of the "sponsorship" was coming out of the amateur entry fees.

A lot of the ideas in the initial post in this thread are based on a premise that the PDGA can control the marketplace of disc golf tournaments by imposing one format or another. All the PDGA can control is the format of the tournaments we TDs choose to sanction. They cannot compel us to sanction tournaments that our players don't want to play.

Now that the PDGA has a 4.5-person staff and numerous paid volunteers, the PDGA has less control than ever. The PDGA has basically two sources of income: dues and tournament fees. The PDGA cannot impose stupid formats [that's stoopyd, if stupid is still a #$*&$! word] that our players don't want and expect to keep collecting the same level of dues and tournament fees.

Jon and I have demonstrated that amateurs don't really want a format where they are the secret sponsors for the pro divisions.

I think what we have seen over the years is what Adam Smith could have predicted at the outset. Given free choices and full information, players will pick tournaments that have formats that work best for them. You can concoct lots of formats that work for the top 5% to 10% of the players at the expense of the rest, but you cannot force TDs to run those events or players to play them.

Most of the am players I know, that have tried pro, are am because they don't have as much fun in pro. The majority of those that I know that have not tried pro have not done so because they don't have the skills. Either way, it is because they are not ready to play pro. It takes both a pro skill level and a pro mental capacity to play pro.

This is where it would be helpful for the scores and cards of OPEN, Masters, Adv, W Open all in one field and split them up by score (not division) after the first round. Some of these ADV guys can get ON-the-JOB training by the Masters and the Pros. Once these adv guys see that they can compete then maybe they will start checking the OPEN box on the entry form.

Plus we all know when you play with better players, you usually get better. If week in and week out your playing with the same level you may not get better.

Man!!!.....Are you sure you're just not just stirring this up so you can go buy a new pimp suit or some more "bling"? :confused:.....j/k :D

I like the trophy only option. I got more plastic then I'll ever need. Although at the GCD I noticed some people got one of the Pro DVD's. :cool:

Chuck is a staunch believer in the third strategy: you grow by focusing solely on ams. The fact that improving players often get discarded is of no matter.




Absolutely. And James falls into this camp being helped since he's one of our thousands of "ams" who currently play for money versus merch. I agree that some improving players get cast aside in the current structure such as those who switched to pro too soon and couldn't continue to improve or couldn't afford the higher fees for the low returns and dropped out. I believe the proposal I put forth addresses those issues and reduces dropouts plus boosts the incentives to play pro. In addition, more support for Trophy Only among TDs can help with this when players suffer improvement or economic slumps.

I don't know about a trophy only class, but I'm willing to bet that a fully implemented classification of players playing for little more than "pure competition" with zero regard for compensation would solve quite a few of our marketing and divisional challenges.

Charge the entry fee you like.
Provide top flight event amenities.
Include resort fees if necessary.
But leave the gambling to Pros and Texas Hold'em Tournaments; True Amateurs don't need it, and don't want it!

Very interesting discussion, lots of good points.

However, I would like to bring up one thing.

The development of Disc Golf in the US has been incredible in recent years. I moved from the US to Australia about 3 years ago, since then I have yet to win any plastic from playing tournaments here. In fact, I have only played in one tournament where the numbers have been above 20 (total). I would like to make sure some of you keep that in mind when you are putting on a tournament. Here we worry about getting people in the cards...

At some level, and after all these years, one has to wonder if we don't grow and solve all these challenges, because we just "don't want to"; dispite all the talk.

Or we want to but not at our own expense...

Absolutely. And James falls into this camp being helped since he's one of our thousands of "ams" who currently play for money versus merch.



I'm not sure what this means. However, as we have discussed before, a "competitive" system that doesn't "encourage" upward movement, and simply aims to retain lower-skilled participants, while regularly discarding some of its best is hardly a picture a health.

Over the years of arguing on this topic, I have started to realize the error of my ways. I just assumed that the main task of the PDGA would be to grow the sport and I just assumed the measure of the sport's health was the activity it created at its highest level. It never occured to me that the true measure is the growth of an ever-churning base. :confused:

Once again, has the competitive sport grown at a pace with the activity as a whole? Has it outpaced it?

Once again, has the competitive sport grown at a pace with the activity as a whole? Has it outpaced it?



Why is that even relevant? Growth of the overall sport is what makes money for the manufacturers to support the pros. Those businesses would die if the growth of PDGA membership was all that supported them. Overall growth pushes parks and private entrepreneurs to invest in new courses and better amenities to support the growth. Buzz about the sport among those who barely know it or have tried it once will build to trigger big fish to eventually come out of the woodwork to sponsor, promote and broadcast the top events. What about general growth is bad for the best players?

Why is that even relevant?



Well, the stewards of the sport should aim to create a healthy thriving sport. That's just my assumption of course. ;)

I'm just saying that the ratio of competitive players to all players should be getting smaller if the sport is thriving even while the number of competitive players is growing. Your implication seems to be that if the PDGA isn't growing as fast as the sport in general that it's a failure in the PDGA structure or competition system. I'd say it was much more suspect if the PDGA was growing the same as or faster than the sport as a whole. Then, we'd be in more trouble getting the broad based interest that eventually draws more sponsors outside the sport.

Good point.

The larger number of overall players will create a larger competitive base.

Now I understand. ;)

If you start creating tournaments that don't appeal to us mediocre players, then we'll just create our own tournaments, plain and simple. I'm not trying to discourage different formats, but don't go thinking that we'll all play it just because you're offering it. I wish I could compete in pro, but after 12 years of trying to get to that level I've accepted that it's just not going to happen. My next best option is Advanced without quitting tournament play.

I played in a tournament this last weekend and I heard the bagger comments, but I refuse to become a donater like them. Like I said, after 12 years I've accepted where I'm at and I wouldn't go too far out of my way to attend an Advanced trophy only event. Those tournaments would lose their appeal really fast.

If the PDGA didn't spend another nickel on pro development over and above what's collected from pros in dues and fees, and put all remaining income toward amateur development, I believe it would be the best for the sport overall at this point in our history.

Soccer tried twice to create a US pro league without a US amateur base. Then they gave up on the idea and focussed all their resources on developing the sport in schools and at the amateur level. Now US soccer has a respectable minor league. Disc golf is basically repeating the failures of US soccer, trying to force something at the pro level when we don't have an amateur base to support it.

And maybe that is because of the behavioral principles at work here. What do Innova, Discraft and the PDGA have to gain by explosive growth in this sport? And for that matter, how about the guy who just wants to get in a quick free round at a public park? If spending our resources on the touring pros retards growth, as some have argued, what would be the result of a successful program directed at rapid growth of the base?

If we were to grow this sport into a national pasttime, Nike would be making our discs in Asia and Mexico, where they make baseball gloves and other equipment, and Budweiser would be telling the PDGA, "Um, we really don't need you for anything here." Quick free rounds? Forget about it. It would be just like golf, but a little cheaper beause of lower maintenance costs and faster rounds. Is Nike or Wilson going to be distributing their product through fly-by-night disc golf clubs and guys who buy 100 or 200 discs at a time? I don't think so.

Explosive growth in this sport would change everything. I'm not sure who would benefit from that. Maybe not anybody running things right now. Maybe it would be better, maybe not. For every utopian scenario one can imagine an equally plausible distopian scenario.

Worth repeating in light of the last couple posts...


At some level, and after all these years, one has to wonder if we don't grow and solve all these challenges, because we just "don't want to"; dispite all the talk.

Or we want to but not at our own expense...

I'm not sure who would benefit from that.



They'll still need experienced course designers. Getting a Robert Trent Jones type design fee would be like hitting the lottery. :D

Mr. Munoz, would you say that the reason you only have 20 players in a tournament is because of the lack of plastic payout? If not, what do you think is the reason there is such a lack of attendance? What part of Australia are you in? How rural is it? Are there many casual players that just don't pay to play in tournaments?

They have to draft "players" who have their own built-in golf bags... :DTheir ratings jump around alot...

(I'm sorry, I can't help myself)

I'm just saying that the ratio of competitive players to all players should be getting smaller if the sport is thriving even while the number of competitive players is growing.



Why? Are the new people that pick up discs less interested in competition than the new people five years ago? The % of people playing competitively should either the stay the same; increase if the competitive option becomes more attractive; or decrease if the competitive option becomes less attractive.

Anyways, I read a lot of people point out that as the sport grows, sponsors will become more involved, and the problem will work itself out. Of course it will, but that simply begs the question.

Kevin's original post was what should/can be done do to increase participation at the highest levels? Of course a million here and a million there would fix it, but until then, what can be done?

What we can do to prepare for the sponsorship breakthrough:

Create at true and distinct amateur classification of competition.

Make a conscious effort to promote "competition" over "winning stuff" as our primary competitive system goal.

Promote the highest standards of courtesy and adherence to the rules as an association wide credo.

Promote volunteerism and self-motivated and determined action in promoting disc golf on the local and regional level.

And just basically stop all the talking and start gittin' to WALKING!

Mr. Munoz, would you say that the reason you only have 20 players in a tournament is because of the lack of plastic payout? If not, what do you think is the reason there is such a lack of attendance? What part of Australia are you in? How rural is it? Are there many casual players that just don't pay to play in tournaments?



Not to but in, but...

I had a similar situation years ago; my advice would be to directly involve key players in the success or failure of the event. Give them responsibilities and check in with them about it. Once they are "involved" they will likely help to get more folks to the event.

Don't go it alone.

Just a thought.

I am not ANTI-AM golfer but I am ANTI-AM golfer selling the discs they won in the parking lot or on eBay making more money than I do on the golf course when I beat his brains in by 30 strokes.

I'm not ANTI-Masters Division but anytime I beat the Masters score and they leave with more money than I do. I'm PISSSSSSSED! How could a protected division ever win more than the Open player that has no handicap or age protection involved.

Kevin's original post was what should/can be done do to increase participation at the highest levels?



Participation at the highest levels is not a problem. There are few players with ratings over 1000 that don't participate as much as possible. Guys like Scott Martin have full time jobs but he plays when he can. What Kev is really trying to figure out is how to get players with ratings down to the 950's range (donators) to play more against pros than ams in general, and play more against pros over 1000 ratings in bigger events.

The current structure does not make this a viable choice for most players. There's too big a jump in entry fees from am to pro and the potential economic return drops off significantly. There's also too big a jump in skill level from the 960s to 1010s to make any economic sense. Unless you change the economics of this structure, you're not going to be successful just by encouraging or forcing people to make choices against their best interests.

Lowering Advanced entry fees is the wrong direction because it increases the entry fee and "loss of benefits" gap even more when jumping from Am to Pro. And, it's apparent a large percentage of Advanced players are willing to pay higher entry fees. Let the fees go as high as the market will bear while retaining (requiring) the Trophy Only 1/3 fee for those who don't wish to pay the higher fees.

Cap the payout at 100% which will still be very nice prizes for the top finishers including enough for baskets at bigger events. However, it will also produce more money for the pros. Then, with the proposed discounted and multistep pro entry fees, not only can it be less expensive to enter pro than Advanced for players in the 950-975 zone, their risk/reward economic calculation becomes much more favorable than today with every pro paying the same entry fee.

All of this can be done to improve the situation for pros without forcing anyone to turn pro, forcing everyone to play in a giant division with bonuses, and without increasing the amount of outside sponsorship.

Even more Masters will likely enter Open under this arrangement. If I'm a 960 master or even grandmaster and I can pay a discounted $60 to enter a bigger Open field versus a fixed $80 or $100 to enter Master against 1000 rated players, Open looks like a better option. Then, as the bottom of the Master field dries up, the Masters near 1000 will move over to Open as a better economic deal. So, without forcing anything, you get the desired boost to Open because Masters make choices in their best interest.

I am not ANTI-AM golfer but I am ANTI-AM golfer selling the discs they won in the parking lot or on eBay making more money than I do on the golf course when I beat his brains in by 30 strokes.

That am is making more than you because he is working harder than you. If you want to make more money selling discs in the parking lot, I'll set you up! Pros make excellent salesmen. :D

If there are any pros similarly envious of the advanced players who get to play for lucrative piles of frisbees, at any IOS I would be happy to increase your payout by 80% if you will take a pile of frisbees instead of a wad of cash. That's right. If you win $200 in Open and you'd rather have 360 brass, we can do that for you.

Unless you change the economics of this structure, you're not going to be successful just by encouraging or forcing people to make choices against their best interests.



I totally agree with this premise. However, my strategies would be vastly different. Rather than continue to offer lucrative options for playing down, eliminate them entirely. Noone should look down the ladder with a gleam in their eye. Then offer/entice people to play up. This option of staggered fees based on ratings is an interesting idea. I think offering staggered entry fees is a great idea, but I'm not in favor of handicapping a guy just cause he's better than me. There are other ideas as well.

I think that the best way to view this as if you were a gambling boss trying to attract people to the tables. You control the amount that they can bet and you control the likelihood and amount of their return. Do the best you can to strike a balance that maximizes action.

By the way Chuck, I disagree with you as to what top-level golf is, but the fact remains that this current system is affecting the play play of even 1000 rated golfers, not to mention 980 players, or 960 players. You eliminate the 960s, then the 980s don't cash, they leave, then the 1000 doesn't cash and the 1010 gets his money back. It's happening right in front of us. It is good for no one.

Bruce, I've played that game before. When I was with the D Manufactur my bonus structure was one where I could get $100 or 30 discs for a win at a B-Tier. So I decided to put a hotstamp or design on those 30 discs, sell then for $12 and my bonus went from $100 to $360.

Chuck, I'm not trying to get Donators to play open just to fill my pockets. I want more people in our division because PRO's will train players to be better than ADV players laying around in ADV for 5 years. If OPEN entry fees could be bought down to ADV or ADV entry fees up to OPEN fees these players might be more willing to jump in and LEARN from the best instead of hanging around in mediocrity.

If we are all playing as one divison with a bonus structure for top 5 or 10 ADV players, the ADV players would get to LEARN more about how to play the game the right way.

By the way Chuck, I disagree with you as to what top-level golf is, but the fact remains that this current system is affecting the play play of even 1000 rated golfers, not to mention 980 players, or 960 players. You eliminate the 960s, then the 980s don't cash, they leave, then the 1000 doesn't cash and the 1010 gets his money back. It's happening right in front of us. It is good for no one.





<font color="red"> WORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!</font>

I am not ANTI-AM golfer but I am ANTI-AM golfer selling the discs they won in the parking lot or on eBay making more money than I do on the golf course when I beat his brains in by 30 strokes.

I'm not ANTI-Masters Division but anytime I beat the Masters score and they leave with more money than I do. I'm PISSSSSSSED! How could a protected division ever win more than the Open player that has no handicap or age protection involved.



You didn't beat the Am player, because you were not competing with the Am player. Each division sponsors it's own prizes in our curent system, and the total numbers dictate the amount of sponsorship there is in each division.

The problem is that the current majority sponsors want it that way, and that we are still running up to 10 tournaments at the same time and place. Look at how you like, but there is a separate tournament going on for each division. Different entry fees, different pools of money for prizes, different scores that mean nothing outside of each division. When you have enough players in any one division, of have an event that is special enough to get all players to compete in one division (USDGC) even if they don't stand a chance of cashing. As long as your majority sponsor is the players, and they want to compete with players of similar skill instead of donating to the touring pros, you will be rewarding mediocrity.

I totally agree with this premise. However, my strategies would be vastly different. Rather than continue to offer lucrative options for playing down, eliminate them entirely. Noone should look down the ladder with a gleam in their eye.



I don't understand what you think the hook for the amateur player is under this plan. Will the hobbyist player be traveling out of town and incurring hotel expenses to pay to play for pure competition at just any rag-tag event ? Team sports do it all season for the chance at the regionals, states, nationals, worlds. What incentive is there for me to travel to Austin to play when I could win more and spend the night at home playing or running a mini at my local course ?

The events need to be a (big) step above local minis to draw in the people, and the Ams are the ones that support the current structure. If you don't attract the Ams in large numbers, you can't support the Pros in any numbers.

Any proposal that relies on forcing rather than providing incentives will fail. Gutting the Advanced division entry fees by force and flattening payouts to make Pros feel better about Advanced payouts is a weak strategy. There are many more ams than pros and this direction is not only suspect, it is foolish because nonsanctioned events with bigger payouts would flourish.

The PDGA event structure needs to provide a good value for TDs and players. Bigger total dollar amounts in events is also more impressive as you get more contact with potential sponsors even if a good portion of our event value is in merchandise. And I guarantee, that the more merchandise value that remains in our events, the more potential money will be available for the pro purse.

We already know that a pro with a relatively stable 960 rating is disinclined to enter events with bigger entry fees against top competition. If you don't change that equation via incentives versus force, it will fail. A forcing policy will either cause these players to drop out completely or just not enter sanctioned events.

An incentive plan has to make it worthwhile for these players to enter even the biggest events. Lower absolute entry fees and lower entry fees relative to the Pro players with ratings above these 960 players are rather obvious ways to change the economic equation for these players without forcing them or adding more sponsor money.

Even more Masters will likely enter Open under this arrangement. If I'm a 960 master or even grandmaster and I can pay a discounted $60 to enter a bigger Open field versus a fixed $80 or $100 to enter Master against 1000 rated players, Open looks like a better option. Then, as the bottom of the Master field dries up, the Masters near 1000 will move over to Open as a better economic deal. So, without forcing anything, you get the desired boost to Open because Masters make choices in their best interest.




Chuck,

Can a player that pays the discounted $60.00 entry fee get the same payout as a player that paid full entry fee should they happen to win?

If so, this does sound like a great way to grow the Open field, although it might not grow the purse as much. I think there are a lot of 960 rated Advanced and/or old guys that would be willing to pony up $60.00 instead of $100.00 to play Open.

I don't understand what you think the hook for the amateur player is under this plan. Will the hobbyist player be traveling out of town and incurring hotel expenses to pay to play for pure competition at just any rag-tag event ?



Who said anything about "rag-tag" events. I expect amateur golfers to play for the competition in well run events, on challenging courses, where they enjoy their time. Hell, since most pros are losing money, I expect the same thing from most pros. People do this all the time in all sports. It is really not that unusual.


If you don't attract the Ams in large numbers, you can't support the Pros in any numbers.



I'm a little tired of this assumption. I bet 90% or greater of most pro payouts come from entry fees. In other words, pros support pros, ams don't support pros. Ams mostly support tds, and I am fine with that.

Chuck,

I have my PRO shades on of course and only seeing your remarks from a PRO's point of veiw, and it sounds as if you could careless if Pro's even show up or compete.

I am interpreting the things you say as you are wearing your AM shades and only see what will affect AM particiapation. With those AM shades that you are wearing you are not seeing that the PRO fields are only m,aking up 20% of our tournament fields. I can't see how that is a good thing. Who is that really good for except the disc manufacturers that will be providing the payout. The AMS aren't getting any better playing with themselves.

So CHUCK are you against having ADV and Open pay the same amount? I don't care if it's $100 or $50 I would like to see our prices equal so that moving up isn't a descion based on how much the entry fee is.

Chuck, I'm not trying to get Donators to play open just to fill my pockets. I want more people in our division because PRO's will train players to be better than ADV players laying around in ADV for 5 years. If OPEN entry fees could be bought down to ADV or ADV entry fees up to OPEN fees these players might be more willing to jump in and LEARN from the best instead of hanging around in mediocrity.



More Pros should consider supporting the EDGE program more than they've done so far if eduction is your goal. You presume that if players play with pros they will get good enough to be pros. I don't doubt that they will get better but we've had the discussion before about whether just anyone can reach a 1000 rating if they just work hard enough. I'm in the camp that believes players have a natural maximum potential skill level/rating which few will reach unless they commit to it. And there aren't that many with the built-in 1000 potential. The majority won't commit but more likely just don't have the time, money or interest to get that serious about the sport. If you seriously want to double the number of players with skill levels over say 950, then doubling the total number of competitive players will be necessary versus playing with Advanced players to boost more of them in the 900-940 zone to above 950 than mother nature has already provided.

Bigger purses don't attract sponsors, bigger fields do.

Your assumption that smaller entry fees for ams and flatter payouts will gut the divisions is suspect, IMO. The PDGA, to their credit I might add, has already done this to a small degree the last few years. In an admittedly small sample, I see no signs of decay. The sky isn't falling.

Can a player that pays the discounted $60.00 entry fee get the same payout as a player that paid full entry fee should they happen to win?



Sure, that's the idea. Barry is betting $120 to $60 that he'll cash more often and for more dollars than the $60 players to make each of their entry fee wagers worthwhile. It's still biased in favor of the big shooters but I think it tilts the odds enough that it could make a big difference in the field sizes. And the bigger the field sizes, the more lower rated players will cash in those last places so they continue to try and more will try. Seems like it's worth a shot. The format could probably be run right away as an X-tier that would still be rated.

Bigger purses don't attract sponsors, bigger fields do.

Your assumption that smaller entry fees for ams and flatter payouts will gut the divisions is suspect, IMO. The PDGA, to their credit I might add, has already done this to a small degree the last few years. In an admittedly small sample, I see no signs of decay. The sky isn't falling.




While he may be a VY supporter, I agree with James on this. The shifting so far is working just fine. I have heard some complaints, but the amount is no worse than before--just now the TD's make the PDGA the "bad guy".

I'm willing to try ANYTHING to get more people in our field but different entry fees are going to cause havoc on TD's don't ya think?

And for myself being 1015+ I think its Flippin Bull Spit that I should have to pay more just because I'm good. Its just another way the Pros are getting screwed. If something like this happened, I would be concerned if I was a PDGA bod member that there might be a coup attempt and a riot ;) http://www.nationalvanguard.org/images/teaser/paris_riot_cops_running_fire.jpg

Why not just offer separate fees/bets, but without the handicapping? For example, at the track, the stumbling drunk doesn't get a "stupid discount" where he bets $0.60 exactas while the smart bettors have $1.00 exactas, but they both get the same payout.

However, the track does allow people who are not as confident, or not as good, or not as rich, to play at virtually any level they choose. They can bet a $1.00 exacta and someone else can bet a $2.00 exacta. Of course, they get half as much. Seems fair to me.

So CHUCK are you against having ADV and Open pay the same amount? I don't care if it's $100 or $50 I would like to see our prices equal so that moving up isn't a descion based on how much the entry fee is.



Kev, I'm saying Advanced should be MORE than Open for those getting the discounted open entry fees. So, I'm agreeing with you. My proposed scenario is a win-win for both pros and ams. In my example which could be an A-tier, the entry fee for Advanced was $80, and say $30 for those choosing Trophy Only, including those ams over 975 who would be forced to play Trophy Only (or convert to pro).

Open entry fees would be: $120 for those over 1009, $100 from 990-1009, $80 from 970-989 and $60 for those under 970. Open would actually be less expensive than Advanced for players below 970. Ams over 974 can't win anything but trophies in Advanced. They are likely just staying there until Am Worlds is over to retain their eligibility before turning pro. So they have little incentive to remain in Advanced after Am Worlds.

The Master entry fee would be a flat $100 regardless of rating. However, I'm a Grandmaster at 946. With no GM division, I could pay $100 to play Master and get smoked or play Open for $60 and have less economic pain getting smoked but also feeling like I might have a chance to snag last cash in a deeper Open field. And I also earn many more points (for those who care). I think the same type of decisions would be made by higher rated Masters in the 960 range to pay $60 and enter Open versus Master at $100. With the bottom players in Master disappearing, the top Masters around 1000 then figure they might as well enter Open for the same $100 in a bigger field and they still feel good getting a "discount" of $20 relative to Ken and Barry.

How does this proposal not help the Open pros? I think I'm wearing a PDGA hat that helps all players in this proposal.

No offense Kev, but I don't think Pro's are getting screwed. If you're in it to make money, then you should only play NT events. Memorial payed $2800 to the winner. USDGC payed $11k to the winner. So if you are good enough to win an NT, which you are, then you stand to make, on average, AT LEAST $2000 a month. 24k a year is not bad for a disc golfer. If i was making half of that playing a game, you wouldn't hear a peep out of me. If you are playing disc golf for the money, maybe you need to rethink why you started playing in the 1st place. Like I said Kev, no offense. I won my first pdga event a few weeks ago, as an AM, and my payout was about $66 in plastic I propably will give away. I could've cared less about what I won, the win is what mattered to me. And that's what drives me. If I was in it for the payouts, i think i'd pick up a more lucrative sport.

If you don't attract the Ams in large numbers, you can't support the Pros in any numbers.



I'm a little tired of this assumption. I bet 90% or greater of most pro payouts come from entry fees. In other words, pros support pros, ams don't support pros. Ams mostly support tds, and I am fine with that.


Here's how it works a lot of the time: Let's assume zero outside sponsorship for starters. The wholesale/retail markup on the merchandise paid to the Ams is used to pay for the park permits and sanctioning fees and additional equipment like port-a-potties. I haven't ever seen a "for profit" TD out here in SoCal, but all y'all keep talking about it as if all TDs make money so I will say that any of this phantom-profiteering also comes from the Am merch markup. You can pay the am field "100%+" retail value of their entry fees and still cover all these expenses, and then even have a little left over for goofiness like taking the tourney staff out to dinner or maybe even adding cash to the pro purse.

If you have a pro-only event, you just lost that revenue stream. All those expenses have to come from the pro entry fees. Ouch.

Even though you didn't physically take cash from the Am entry fees and put it in the pro purse per se, you covered costs that the pro entry fees would have had to cover so in reality the ams are funding the larger pro payout by paying all the tourney costs. If you do have outside sponsorship the merch markup will allow you to use the sponsorship to boost the purse instead of using it to pay for tourney expenses.

The ams don't mind this deal. Amazingly it is the pros who mind.


As an aside and just to keep things clear, I don't get the markup at my tourney because I do am payout dollar-for-dollar through the pro shop at Emerald Isle so that it makes business sense for the golf course to shut down for a day for a disc golf tourney. Am payout and pro payout is the same to my bottom line, but I could probably double th epro purse while still paying 110% to ams if I had that merch mark-up available to me.

And the ams wouldn't mind one bit. :)

I see ya working Chuck, just trying to keep ya honest and thinking about ALL of us PDGA members. Your doin a good job! I hope you can understand some of the issues I am seeing out there that is affecting the OPEN division.

. Memorial payed $2800 to the winner. USDGC payed $11k to the winner. So if you are good enough to win an NT, which you are, then you stand to make, on average, AT LEAST $2000 a month. 24k a year is not bad for a disc golfer.




There's a few problems with your theory.

While Kevin is very good, so are Kenny, Barry, Bubis, Doss,Feldberg and many others. A $2k, 1k or even $500 payday is far from automatic with the level of talent present at NTs.

Secondly I think you're ignoring the added expenses associated with NTs. In addition to a $140 entry, you throw in $150 for gas, $150 for hotels, $80 for food. Now your break even point is $500-600 per event. So you have the pressure of finishing top 5 or lose money.

Unless you win nearly every NT event or have substancial sponsorship, coming out 24 grand ahead per year is merely a pipedream.

Chuck,

Here is another question, Why is 955 the mark? I get beat by 940 golfers all the time in my own home town. Whats to say that the mark shouldn't be lowered?

Do you agree that if there were more players in the Open division, that the average rating for those who cash would also lower itself?

Chuck,

Here is another question, Why is 955 the mark? I get beat by 940 golfers all the time in my own home town. Whats to say that the mark shouldn't be lowered?

Do you agree that if there were more players in the Open division, that the average rating for those who cash would also lower itself?



And then in a couple of years, we'll still have small Open fields and less players (the 940-960 Pros)playing events. Status Quo.

. Memorial payed $2800 to the winner. USDGC payed $11k to the winner. So if you are good enough to win an NT, which you are, then you stand to make, on average, AT LEAST $2000 a month. 24k a year is not bad for a disc golfer.




There's a few problems with your theory.

While Kevin is very good, so are Kenny, Barry, Bubis, Doss,Feldberg and many others. A $2k, 1k or even $500 payday is far from automatic with the level of talent present at NTs.

Secondly I think you're ignoring the added expenses associated with NTs. In addition to a $140 entry, you throw in $150 for gas, $150 for hotels, $80 for food. Now your break even point is $500-600 per event. So you have the pressure of finishing top 5 or lose money.

Unless you win nearly every NT event or have substancial sponsorship, coming out 24 grand ahead per year is merely a pipedream.



And that's why playing disc golf for money is a pipe dream. Half the pro's gripe about not making enough money, if they want to make money, get a job. If they want to play disc golf, don't do it for income.
Playing disc golf is a priviledge, not a right. Making money playing disc golf, is a bonus. If you want to play for money, then quit having tourney's and just have a side bet with every pro player.

About the bet analogy: It is exactly the same. The smart bettor is betting on the lowest odds to win. In other words, he is betting $10 to win $20. The others are betting $10 to win $200. The difference here is that the payout remains the same so the bet is being lowered. Both players are betting on a $1200 payout, the favorites are betting on themselves at 10:1, the longshots would be betting on themselves at 20:1.

In knew "rag-tag" would get someone to speak up. I don't mean it as a poorly run event, but as an unaffiliated event. Almost every PDGA event is an end unto itself. It does not gain you an advantage toward a higher tier event. Your record does not get you into the state championship.

Why would I as an Am spend $200 in travel and lodging expenses to compete in a $30 tournament with no payout and no connected incentive ? In most amateur sports that I have been involved in (all team oriented) you paid to compete for a shot at some regional win down he road. There was only 1 regional winner per season, and it was a goal you could boast about for more than 1 season. Texas Teams is an example of a single event that carries similar bragging rights as a single event, but very few other events do.

If you take away the financial incentives, the better players stay home and play locally (unorganized for cash), the players in the middle get tired of spending money to travel, and even sanctioned tournaments become mainly local events.

Good players want good competition, without the incentives, the good competition does not show. Competition in this case means people they are competitve with, not people they know going in they are going to lose to.

As far as the Ams supporting the Pros, I mean that in the broader sense. Amateur ball golfers definately support the Pros, not directly, but in their numbers, fees, and spending on golf related merchandise. If all of the Ams walked away, how long would the DG manufacturers be able to survive ? No matter how you slice, the Amateurs are what makes Pros possible, and the more amateurs you have competing among themselves, the more Pros a sport can support.

That also applies to outside sponsorship, without a large amateur base, you can not attract large sponsors. The bigger the amateur base, the more likely you are to attract large sponsors and large dollars so the Pros can stop playing for each other's money.

Amateurs support the sport, the sport supports the Pros, so Amateurs really support the pros.

where as money is a good thing, I really am not concerned with the money. More players in our division is what I'm searching for. I think once ESPN or other corporate sponsors sees that there are over 80 pros playing event it will be more inticing to sponsor an event that has 10 pros and 80 ams.

If the entry fees were $50 I KNOW that more people would move up quicker. If we double the field that were paying $100 then the same amount will be there, plus MORE people get paid.

To be fair here, I haven't heard Kevin say that he is looking to make more money, I heard him say he is trying to attract bigger fields.

Noone is going to get rich at this point except all the TDs like Rhett. :D

Noone get mad, it was a joke and Rhett, you are right, I wasn't considering the overhead associated with pros and that is a real cost to the TD, but given the trend of fewer pros, it is an ever decreasing cost. :D

No matter what else we do, we need to get into the schools in a big way. If we really believe that once you play, you are hooked, we need to expose more potential players to the sport earlier. If we pick up .5% of the current graduating class that could be enough to attract some big sponsors. I would really expect more than 1 out of every 200 people that try the sport to continue, but maybe that is a number to hope for as members.

My Dream Tourney FLyer

Come out and play the
9th Annual SmOklahoma BrainFry Open
held in the fire pits of Ashtown, OK

PRO Entry $50
AM Entry $50
Good Times Division $25/with players pack and trophy only.

Good Times division will payout with random drawings

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

No part of this may be reproduced here or else where without written permission.

Nostalgia. Or, you could find your "utopia" in a new country getting into disc golf.

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

No part of this may be reproduced here or else where without written permission.



That is a very good read. And all this time I just thought you were a tudatlan cafat <---(that's Hungarian if you need to look it up.) ;) :D:o j/k :D

FACSAVAR A AMATUERS! FACSAVAR A AMATUERS!

b�r �n -m p�nzel!

Bigger purses don't attract sponsors, bigger fields do.




This is an incorrect assumption. I think it was Bruce who wrote it, but we are limited by the size of our courses. The plain and simple fact is that sponsors aren't going to ever give a hoot about any tournament, even the biggest, unless there is a huge chunk of fans watching it. Even as a body, if you had 100 tournaments every weekend, you are still only talking about 100,000 people, not enough bodies for big bucks.

Alternatively, sponsors are interested in one of two other things. First, the number of total players; lets be frank, this has limitations. You don't see Wilson cranking millions of dollars into softball, it's a bad business model. There has to be the potential for viewership. The beer drinking guys who play softball don't watch softball tournaments.

Second, cache. Skate boarding didn't grow because of viewership, high levels of play and cache grew the sport. We're half way there, we've got cache, just not adequate participation... yet.

Well I for one would like to know what it takes to get a major sponsor, Just last week, I sat and watched Extreme Ice Scuplting as a competition. and it was a two hour show. :confused:

it was cold out or I would have been playing golf instead.

Well I for one would like to know what it takes to get a major sponsor, Just last week, I sat and watched Extreme Ice Scuplting as a competition. and it was a two hour show. :confused:

it was cold out or I would have been playing golf instead.


A lot of the weird "sports" you see on the Deuce, the Ocho, or FSN are really infomercials, where the network is paid to air the content, not the other way around.

I suppose we could spend our membership dollars producing a program and then pay to air it if we thought that it would increase participation. But just imagine the hissy-fittin' cat-fight that would ensue trying to pick the event to use!

Yeah, the PDGA has been offered those "infommercials" a number of times. There is a huge expense, and there are 'catches' that just won't work.

If you start creating tournaments that don't appeal to us mediocre players, then we'll just create our own tournaments, plain and simple.

E.g., www.brasscash.com (http://www.brasscash.com) :D

[quote

suppose we could spend our membership dollars producing a program and then pay to air it



Or more people could contact their local community access station and air my show for free. Thanks to the PDGA, Innova, Discwing, and Discraft for their support.

But we know disc golfers just want to play.

Joe

Wow, 100 I just read 100 posts.

I know what Kevin is talking about. (I also remember when he first started playing)

As a mediocre pro, I would/could not play many $100+ entry fee tournament. But I had no problem playing $50-70 for 2-day tournaments.

Now I am a master�s division play and am frustrated at the size of the field. I still don�t have to shoot as good as I did in the Open to cash, but I still would like some competition to play against.

As far as �Sandbagging�, it is not a factor in Novice (opp�s Rec) divisions anymore. However there is a small amount of �Sandbagging� in the advanced division from just a few players. I have always been in favor of a ratings cap for this division. I understand why we should not force up a 950 player, but what about that 980 player.

I would like to see something where those 980 players have to move up the next year to Open. You can still let them compete as Adv at the next years Am Worlds as long as they didn�t cash the year before. (or you could start the current year after Am Worlds instead of the calendar year)

I have no problem with <955 pro players moving down to Advance. This actually helped my game last year. I actually recommended it to any pro player with a rating below 955. It will help build up your confidence and it was down right fun.

But with all that said, it really doesn�t matter right now how many players are playing for cash, as long as tournaments are filling up, who cares. This is what will grow our sport.

As more Am�s play tournaments, some of them will get better. Those that do get better, will move up. Now all you have to do is keep those current cash players playing.

I think the #1 thing that has hurt tournament turnouts in Open fields has been gas prices. I for one have to think about how much it cost me to drive 300 miles (5 hours) to play a tournament. Right now, it is going to cost me $90 in gas to drive to Austin to play the Red Rock Show next weekend. My entry fee was $78 including all fees. Luckily it includes camping so I don�t have to pay for a motel. But I still have to eat. Looking back at the last few years, the only way I can even break even this next weekend is to win. Even second place I will loose money on the weekend. (not to mention I have to pay someone to watch the store while I am out of town)

"I think the #1 thing that has hurt tournament turnouts in Open fields has been gas prices. ......have to pay for a motel. ...still have to eat. ...the only way I can even break even this next weekend is to win. Even second place I will loose money on the weekend. "

I wholeheartedly agree. It costs so much more than entry fees to play. When a player, is married you double that cost.
That is the number one factor for most of the people I know.
However, there is little the PDGA can do about the cost of gas, food, and lodging.

Cross-Posted

One thing that has not been communicated yet, was a proposal - I think from Pete May, but I could be wrong - that the board approved at The Summit that will begin work on a "Teaching Pro" certification program.

I think that having certified teaching pros will give some of our non-touring (or touring) pros, over time, a new and legitimate way to have additional income beyond occasionally cashing.

Cross-Posted

One thing that has not been communicated yet, was a proposal - I think from Pete May, but I could be wrong - that the board approved at The Summit that will begin work on a "Teaching Pro" certification program.

I think that having certified teaching pros will give some of our non-touring (or touring) pros, over time, a new and legitimate way to have additional income beyond occasionally cashing.



Terry can you elaborate on that or send me to the thread that might be on. That would be something I would be interested in.

I posted no more here than on the other thread. Note that these are my recollections - not board minutes - and that I get to play senior grand master in 2007! Also, details may change as things go operational.

Basically, the PDGA is going to invest some resources in identifying a handful of *very* qualified pros who know how to teach. These will not necessarily be the "best" pros. The primary aim is folks who can demonstrate solid disc golf teaching skills.

That small group will be 'grandfathered' into the status. In return for that, they will work with other volunteers and staff to delineate what the attributes are for a PDGA teaching pro, and on the details of how other pros can qualify for certification.

There may be tests to pass, experiences to prove happened, mentoring or lessons taken from already-certified teaching pros. No one can know for sure about that yet.

My personal goal is to find a way that such teaching pros can legitimately claim a decent hourly (or other) rate for teaching lessons.

I was at the Summit when that motion went through.

It wasn't a motion to implement such a program. It was a motion to poll the rest of the BOD and get their buy-in to flesh out the details of such a program, such that a recommended program structure would be brought back to the BOD at a future date to be voted on.

It passed unanimously, I believe.

Contact Pete May. I'm sure he will be looking for input from the guysin the trenches that would actually be paticipating in such a program.

. Memorial payed $2800 to the winner. USDGC payed $11k to the winner. So if you are good enough to win an NT, which you are, then you stand to make, on average, AT LEAST $2000 a month. 24k a year is not bad for a disc golfer.



(edited to condense total post size)
There's a few problems with your theory.
Unless you win nearly every NT event or have substancial sponsorship, coming out 24 grand ahead per year is merely a pipedream.



And that's why playing disc golf for money is a pipe dream. Half the pro's gripe about not making enough money, if they want to make money, get a job. If they want to play disc golf, don't do it for income.
Playing disc golf is a priviledge, not a right. Making money playing disc golf, is a bonus. If you want to play for money, then quit having tourney's and just have a side bet with every pro player.



Are you schizophrenic?

You appear to be argueing both sides. First you suggest to Kevin that he should play all NTs and theorize he could come out 24 grand per year ahead.
Then I point out that your supposition is severely flawed and now you seemed to have changed your tune and are arguing against your prior post.

Did you miss your daily medication dose or are you just playing head games?

Besides, Kevin's complaint was not that pros aren't making enough money. I believe his point is that am fields continue to grow by leaps and bounds (which is good) while pro fields continue to get smaller and smaller (not so good). His is not a selfish cry, but rather an observation about cause and effect as to why pro attendance is dwindling in a sport that continues to grow in popularity.

This is good news. Will it require pro status like in ball golf?

I think plain and simple , other then what has been suggested in lowering and flattening payouts to ams ( or trophy only options ) , there should be player ratings caps for all tiers at PDGA events .
I have said this before however , I believe pro masters have got to be put in this category .

A tiers 985 and up play open , THIS INCLUDES BOTH Advanced and PRO MASTERS , NO EXCEPTIONS

B tiers 970 and up play open , THIS INCLUDES BOTH Advanced and PRO MASTERS , NO EXCEPTIONS

C tiers 955 and UP play open , THIS INCLUDES BOTH Advanced and PRO MASTERS , NO EXCEPTIONS .

There are many ratings " rules " or limits for ams and there is the 954 and below for pros allowed to come back to am and that is fine , it could just be expanded to above .

<font color="red">Apparently this poster cannot refrain from posting personal attacks. His posting privileges have been suspended until he contacts a moderator and discusses this.</font>

Why do I even bother?

<font color="red">Personal attacks deleted. Poster is hereby warned that another offense will result in suspension of posting privileges.</font>

You guys act like $100k for two people who have to suffer the abuses of the office is a lot of money.

Where did that salary info come from, anyway? You would not be well served to believe stuff just because Jason said it. It might be true, but you should definitely verify it first.

I think Brian comes across harsh because he has to deal with a lot of jerks and just wants to cut to the chase. I've never tried to "get over" on the PDGA, and not coincidentally I've never had a problem dealing with Brian.

<font color="red">[Spillover from personal attacks removed.]</font>

<siren> <siren> <siren>

call 911 we need a fireman to put out these new burning flames on this thread.

simma down young grasshoppers
;)

PEACE love HARMONY :D

Well, they are leaving voluntarily in late 2007 and going back to an island but it's too cold for chimpanzees there. They will potentially earn more than $100,000 in their new positions should they decide to pursue the types of private or public sector jobs they qualify for. If you think you'll get the quality, service and dedication from two new hires in those positions for $100,000, the PDGA will be extremely lucky. And I'm pretty sure upholding current sanctioning practices (i.e. no alcohol during events) will be part of their job requirements. I would also expect the bar to continue being raised for sanctioning as event expectations become even more professionalized for our highest tiers. With a learning curve in the neighborhood of two years to fully get a handle on the ED duties, it's unrealistic to expect the PDGA would do well if that position had a 1 or 2 year turnover by design.

I'm just using the $100K figure quoted but I don't know what thay are for sure. That number certainly includes the cost of FICA and other health benefits, etc.

If that gig pays 100 large I would like to apply :D

Playing golf is getting boring :D

Oh gawd, not again.

Jason, have you ever met with Brian Hoeniger? I don't think you have; if you would, I think you might act differently. Could you please have a face to face discussion with the man? I enjoyed his company very much and I think you would too, and an honest discussion may change your opinion. It's not really fair to the both of you to continue otherwise.

At least I've been around Nick Kight dozens of times "in real life" and have a plethora of personal experiences to justify my feelings about him.

LaGrassyass Tounge Kisses my Red Eye, your doing great in our NCAA Tourney Bracket :D

1st place after the 1st weekend

This is good news. Will it require pro status like in ball golf?



What would it mean if it does? What does "pro" status really mean if your player rating drops below 955?

What are the NEGATIVES of having AMS move up after they win an event in they're division.

If a player wins a tourney in the REC division he must move up to MA2, if MA2 wins an event then he is upgraded to MA1, MA1 player wins must move to OPEN, if MA1 player wants to participate in the AM WORLDS then he should have to decline cash OOOOOOR why can't they get paid out in merch?

Hey Jim!

Glad to see you back posting again. Did you notice to which post I was replying?


I posted no more here than on the other thread. Note that these are my recollections - not board minutes - and that I get to play senior grand master in 2007! Also, details may change as things go operational.

Basically, the PDGA is going to invest some resources in identifying a handful of *very* qualified pros who know how to teach. These will not necessarily be the "best" pros. The primary aim is folks who can demonstrate solid disc golf teaching skills.

That small group will be 'grandfathered' into the status. In return for that, they will work with other volunteers and staff to delineate what the attributes are for a PDGA teaching pro, and on the details of how other pros can qualify for certification.

There may be tests to pass, experiences to prove happened, mentoring or lessons taken from already-certified teaching pros. No one can know for sure about that yet.

My personal goal is to find a way that such teaching pros can legitimately claim a decent hourly (or other) rate for teaching lessons.



So rating wouldn't have anything to do with pro status. Similar to how it is now... well that is if you don't count the competitive system purposefully handicapping 955 pros in amateur divisions.

As our system sits now, I have no problem with pros playing am and ams playing pro because THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, nor any real benefit to keeping them separate. Accept for our demented idea that we'll attract more players to our events if we set arbitrary cut off points so that some folks end up "entitled" while others end up "plum out of luck".

As a few have (rightfully) pointed out it does seem that the plum out of luck folks are the top prize players and the above average cash players. James I think it was and I don't really see how anyone could make an argument that he isn't being accurate in that assessment, nor how hemorrhaging at our best players isn't detrimental to the sport.

At any rate, my comment meant that these "PDGA Teaching Pros", similar to in ball golf, would loose their amateur status.

Admittedly that would have zero significance in organized disc golf as it currently stands.

Good hearing from you,
Nick

What are the NEGATIVES of having AMS move up after they win an event in they're division.

If a player wins a tourney in the REC division he must move up to MA2, if MA2 wins an event then he is upgraded to MA1, MA1 player wins must move to OPEN, if MA1 player wants to participate in the AM WORLDS then he should have to decline cash OOOOOOR why can't they get paid out in merch?



I'd rather see a quantum shift in attitude towards winning that something that looks, sounds and feels like being forced up a weird ladder.

By that I mean, creating competitive environments where competitors gain a sense of accomplishment for motivations other than winning their buddies money or stacks of plastic. Where they can feel great just to have played as well as they can, even if that isn't better than you Kev.

Think about the looks in the eyes of folks who, though you absolutely killed at the tournament, when you know enough (and care enough) to know about their game, and can say to them, even though they didn't cash, sincerely and honestly that they really did something special today. Something that they can feel pride in.

I asked a couple of threads ago what top players can bring to events that would benefit the events and the folks that come out to participate in them; and encouragement and instilling a sense of pride in accomplishment, regardless of level, is perhaps the greatest thing you guys can do. There are several touring pros that are pretty good at this, but the upside for the whole tour if all folks acted and gave encouragement like Sweb, Yeti and a bunch of others would seem to be limitless. And it doesn't cost any of you a penny. Just a smile, a handshake and a what's going on, with the effort of learning about the players and showing sincere interest in them.

More top players need to make that a priority. And the PDGA needs to make it a primary goal of our competitive system. All the other stuff will come naturally after we've established such an inclusive and appreciative environment. Of course some of that exists already, but it hasn't been properly emphasized in my opinion. One might say it has institutionally been made very difficult in a "2nd Place Is The First Loser" culture, where more and more divisions just end up increasing its severity not lessening it.

Nick,

I would agree with your post. SuperPros should definatly be more supportive of the up and comers. I myself didn't realize that until a few years ago. Everyone has their maximum ability level that they can reach, not everyone can be a 1000 rated goler.

So what about this idea. Two divisions like distance runners. 1 division is Competitive and 1 is the Fun-Run
Competitive disc golfers pay $50-$100
Fun-Run disc golfer pay $30 get a players pack and they are there to enjoy themselves.

Chuck, honestly, the think the BoD should hire YOU. I hope this doesn't hurt you politically.

My thing has always been working in support as a volunteer or consultant in my various jobs over the years by proposing and developing ideas. And then trying to persuade those in power to determine whether the ideas are appropriate for helping the org. I'm not sure it's a good combination to have those who are idea people operating somewhat unchecked with the power to actually execute them. Hopefully, more money can be found in the budget to support the things I am doing in the ratings, course development, major event support and education areas.

Rhett you know like that little constitutional thing, "The PDGA will conduct all its affairs in the open?" Shouldn't we be taking that seriously? Even if the new rewrite is still in the works and the Communications Director says the PDGA Constitution is bad and outdated, even if Chuck Kennedy admitted at nefa.com that the PDGA took certain shortcuts (my words, not his), but that was the jist. He said in certain instances the PDGA was more effective. Bah humbug.

I still think it's outrageous for the PDGA to operate outside its own constitution. I think the next constitution should be intentionally, straightforwardly flexible. And hopefully understandable. Frisbee doesn't need to be all cloak and daggarish in its mission statement and constitution, and it needn't refer to too many other documents, either. Members should still know exactly what's going on. I got my 100K figure from a source who'd just die if I blurted out his/her name right here right now. These figures should be common domain, posted somewhere (barely) finable at pdga.com. No big deal. People just want to know.

from a source who'd just die if I blurted out his/her name right here right now



You mentioned Chuck. I bet it was Chuck. ;)

Spring 2005 DGWN issue shows a figure of $210,500 for the 2005 budget to cover four fulltime staff, two parttime consultants and all related insurance and employment taxes. Do the math. The recent Summit meeting financial report would have indicated what the actual 2005 expenses were in this category and the 2006 budget. It should be printed in the next DGWN.

Oh, and Elf Ewe Jeff L Mr. Obsess Over Nick Kight. Nick's okay. I also was going to repost his "copywrited" material, just cause that was so provocative, and because he was finally talking some good truth. Actually, he usually speaks pretty good truth, just his party line was making me gag. Good job Nick. Nick and Jeff. Nick and Jeff. How is it that we never get enough?

...you know like that little constitutional thing, "The PDGA will conduct all its affairs in the open?" Shouldn't we be taking that seriously?


I thought the job of The Administrator was to do the bidding of the BOD, and to also handle day to day affairs of the org. I didn't realize that his job was to uphold the constitution.

Maybe your anger is displaced? You obviously have issues with Brian. But then again it seems like you sometimes want to "get over", so that's not surprising.

Nick,

I would agree with your post. SuperPros should definatly be more supportive of the up and comers. I myself didn't realize that until a few years ago. Everyone has their maximum ability level that they can reach, not everyone can be a 1000 rated goler.

So what about this idea. Two divisions like distance runners. 1 division is Competitive and 1 is the Fun-Run
Competitive disc golfers pay $50-$100
Fun-Run disc golfer pay $30 get a players pack and they are there to enjoy themselves.



I'm not sure it should be quite that simple, but something like that. Though I don't see why there couldn't be an $800 entry fee True Am Worlds played on St Thomas, St John, St Martin, and Dominica via cruise.

Folks get the wrong idea that a True Amateur Class player will be elementary students and rec players. If other sports are any indication it will be so big that it will dwarf the prize and cash classes.

Just in case any folks wonder why Brian & Lorrie are choosing to retire from the PDGA office, this thread is symptomatic of why.


What about the majority of the thread that doesn't take shots at your salary? Hasn't that been more constructive in commentary than not? It looks to me like a lot of people are interested in doing something positive, and I think a savvy leader would PM them and ask if they want to be on a committee or something, perhaps to give a couple of their ideas more attention.

Or maybe stuff like this does go on, but it's behind the scenes. If it does go on, maybe you should toot your own horn a bit and talk about it -- fight negative commentary with positive action. (I sometimes think you leaders need a good PR guy.)

Guys and gals,

I am sorry if someone has already posted this, but I have to put my .07$ (inflation) worth in.

Point one: In the majority of sports, be it golf, tennis, fishing, etc. there are generally three levels of ADULT players. The first is the recreational player. They play for fun and may compete at a local event only. Some of these players move into the next group and some do not. The secod group is the competitive amateur. These ADULT players compete and in quite a few sports, they compete for prizes. I have said this before and I guess I must repeat myself. Ball golf has guidelines on the value of the prizes an amateur may accept and still maintain their amateur status. As do most other sports.

The last group is the open player. At this level players compete for money and try to make a living at the sport. I guess that if you think about it, only a handful of disc golfers even fit in this catagory.

For those of you that argue for a "True" Amateur, can you tell me what you are talking about? Do you mean middle and high school atheletes? Or do you mean recreational players? I am confused. The word amateur means one who is not a professional or who takes money or prizes under a restricted guideline. Not someone who competes for no prizes.

Are college athletes your example of an amateur player? No wait, those scholarships, that are dependent upon performance, kind of screws that. Now if you mean that you would like to see the PDGA move toward recreational play in tournaments then that brings me to my next point.

Point Two: TD's cannot afford to run tournaments for professional events only. They have to have sponsoring at a major level to do that, and guys and gals, that is just not available for disc gofl yet. Maybe someday, but not today.

So how does a TD make enough money to run a tournament? From disc sales and amateur payout. Most TD's loose money doing this (I know this to be true, because I have lost money doing it), but at least they only loose a small amount. That is only a couple of hundred versus's a $1000 or more. Rarely is a TD compensated for their time and Heavan forbid a TD makes a profit, because then players start complaining that the TD is raping from them. My guideline for a tournament where the TD is extracting too much from the players is to not play that tournment or with that TD again.

So if you want to make a tournament into a non payout event, expect to see the number of PDGA sanctioned events drop significantly. Oh yeah, you might as well count on a shrinking number of open players as well, because if you think there is bagging going on now, wait tell tournaments start moving to non-sanctioned events.

Folks get the wrong idea that a True Amateur Class player will be elementary students and rec players. If other sports are any indication it will be so big that it will dwarf the prize and cash classes.



Nick, which sports? Ball Golf, no, their amateurs compete for prizes. The fact is, most sports that have competitive adult players also has payouts. And I am NOT talking about children or rec players.

Do yo mean team league play? Certainly not, none of those teams compete on a national or world level.

Well, if you are using BG as an example then you need to make the comparison in reality. Yes ball golf amatuers get prizes but that is only part of the story. The amount of prizes they get is limited to $500 a year. In the BG world that equates to maybe a little more then a good new driver or perhaps a new golf bag and some golf balls. That translates to what in DG ... maybe a premium disc in an entire year?? Possibly a small Bag??

BTW, if you lose money running a DG event then you are way over-extending yourself. You are losing money because you choose to not because its a losing deal.

According to USGA, Rules of Amateur Status the amount is $750 per event, with I believe, a maximum of $5000 per year. You need to check your facts.


Well, if you are using BG as an example then you need to make the comparison in reality. Yes ball golf amatuers get prizes but that is only part of the story. The amount of prizes they get is limited to $500 a year. In the BG world that equates to maybe a little more then a good new driver or perhaps a new golf bag and some golf balls. That translates to what in DG ... maybe a premium disc in an entire year?? Possibly a small Bag??



And how does this apply to my comment on the expense of running a tournament? Have you run one? If so tell me how many hours you put into it? Did you do the artwork or did you farm it out? How much time did that take? Did you do the setup? How many volunteers stepped up to help? As far as making money, ask ANY TD that has run a few tournaments and ask them if they are making money. There are a few that do, and I do not begrduge them that, but none of them make BIG BUCKS.

The point I was trying to make, is that amateur payouts is what floats a lot of these tournaments. Period. If you want to fault me for basically donating my time and money, that is fine, but I gauruntee you that I, and many others, would not do it if all the expenses came out of our pockets.


BTW, if you lose money running a DG event then you are way over-extending yourself. You are losing money because you choose to not because its a losing deal.

Does it REALLY matter what salary they make. If it wasn't for people like Brian and LORI especially to do the grunt work. Where would we be today? I remember what we had 10 years ago and it's not as good as we have it today and I haven't seen many people lining up that want their jobs.

According to USGA, Rules of Amateur Status the amount is $750 per event, with I believe, a maximum of $5000 per year. You need to check your facts. <font color="blue"> I stand corrected. To my defense I read that in an article a couple of years ago. So either something changed or the article was incorrect.
Lets take that figure you posted of $5000(I did not see a $5000 annual limit in the USGA rules btw) That is about the equivelant of something like 10 premium discs in a year in DG, imo </font>


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

Well, if you are using BG as an example then you need to make the comparison in reality. Yes ball golf amatuers get prizes but that is only part of the story. The amount of prizes they get is limited to $500 a year. In the BG world that equates to maybe a little more then a good new driver or perhaps a new golf bag and some golf balls. That translates to what in DG ... maybe a premium disc in an entire year?? Possibly a small Bag??


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



And how does this apply to my comment on the expense of running a tournament? <font color="blue"> was just something i wanted to point out.</font> Have you run one? <font color="blue"> assistant only once </font> If so tell me how many hours you put into it? <font color="blue">i couldnt tell you it was about 4 years ago and i was only the assistant anyway </font> Did you do the artwork or did you farm it out? <font color="blue"> i am the person that artwork gets farmed out to </font> How much time did that take? <font color="blue"> couple hours to make a decent logo but really depends on what is wanted </font> Did you do the setup? <font color="blue"> i have done tourney setup probably 25+ times </font> How many volunteers stepped up to help? <font color="blue">not applicable </font> As far as making money, ask ANY TD that has run a few tournaments and ask them if they are making money. <font color="blue"> just asked one...he said yes. </font> There are a few that do, and I do not begrduge them that, but none of them make BIG BUCKS. <font color="blue">i never said anyone made big bucks...you made it sound like running tourines is a losing venture, i pointed out that it is not unless you chose for it to be </font>

The point I was trying to make, is that amateur payouts is what floats a lot of these tournaments. Period. <font color="blue"> yup but they do just about as much as what a player pack profit could do </font> If you want to fault me for basically donating my time and money, that is fine <font color="blue"> not faulting you just pointing out that it was a choice you made </font> , but I gauruntee you that I, and many others, would not do it if all the expenses came out of our pockets. <font color="blue">i would hope not </font>


<font color="blue">I think you are reading a tone in my previous post that doesnt exist. I was just pointing out that running an event doesnt have to be a losing proposition unless you want it to be. </font>

Well, I dont know how it was 10 years ago, but I DO know there is WAY too much pissing and moaning about salaries, constitutions, and the like. Give these people a freakin' break!! They are working their A__ off for a bunch of grumbling, unappreciative people. So many peeps on this board sound so holier-than-though....its just depressing. This board is SO negative most of the time. All the nit-picking gets OLD :(

Scott,

Sorry, I did not mean to come off sounding angry either. However, there were two points I was trying to make, the first being that the concept of "true amateur" is invalid in the context of competition as we play it. As for how it compares to other sports, I gave an example of golf. If you look at a typical ball golf, amateur tournament, entry fee varies between $150 to $250. Let us assume a player wins first and received $750 worth of merchandise. This relates to 3 to 5 times back on entry fee. If you look at the current PDGA tables you will see that percentage wise, we fall right in line with that. That is assuming that first place does get the $750 in a ball golf tournament.

As far as TD's making money at tournaments, that is mainly due to what? Amateur payouts. Now I have chosen to attempt to break even on my tournaments. If you re-read my initial post, I was not complaining. You are right, it is my choice, but it is also the choice a lot of TD's make. I was not saying TD's shouldn't make money. I never said that. Please do not detract from my statements with side issues.

As far as a player packages. Is that not just a restructuring of amateur payouts? I don't agree with it, but economically the TD should come out the same.

What I do disagree with is the TD handing out a $3 t-shirt and proclaiming it has a value of $10. Certainly it can be done, but if we are start considering any new reformations then one should be retail limits a TD can mark up player packages.

Well, I dont know how it was 10 years ago, but I DO know there is WAY too much pissing and moaning about salaries, constitutions, and the like. Give these people a freakin' break!! They are working their A__ off for a bunch of grumbling, unappreciative people. So many peeps on this board sound so holier-than-though....its just depressing. This board is SO negative most of the time. All the nit-picking gets OLD :(



WORD!!!!

I would agree, the fact that there is a couple holding two of the positions is a current coincidence. It is unlikely to be the case when they move on. Will the two positions be looked at as one salary then ?

I don't think they get paid enough to put up with the p**sing and moaning of players who complain about inaction and yet never offer to assist in anything. Even at the local front, you see players complaining about a tournament and yet they never offer in any way to help.

IMO, the arguments about what an "amateur" is; or what a "pro" is; or what amateurs in ball golf can make are all unneccesary distractions. The point is that we have a system where the financial incentives are set, by the competitive organization, to discourage many people from improving, or from moving up the competitive ladder . Not surprisingly, we have a problem with stagnation, discontent, envy, greed, etc. at many different levels.

So, unless someone can show me amateur ballgolfers that profit more than any level of pros, those arguments are less than persuasive. The point is that that ball golf doesn't set up their competitive system to encourage people to remain amateurs.

ps. Please spare me the arguments that until there is alot of money for the pros, there is no incentive to become a pro. I'm aware of that cold, hard reality. However, I still find that it is hardly "justification" to put financial incentives at middle points of the competitive ladder. The only logical reason to put financial incentives at middle levels is the Chuck's philosophy which I feel is akin to a "crack addict" business model. One can argue that this business model has resulted in remarkable growth. I say that is debatable. One can counter that argument by saying that it has hampered growth in both the am and pro ranks. One can also counter those arguments with pure philosophical/moral arguments that incentivizing and rewarding mediocrity should never be a goal of a competitive system.

Anyways, to end the babbling, the fact that amateur ball golfers can make a decent amount in prizes is great for them, but not relevant, IMO.

I was not trying to detract from your point with side issues. You made it sound like in your post that most tournaments are losing money. I did not want someone to read that and think that is the way it is becasue that is how tournies work. It is not, it is how some TD's choose to make their event work.

Your example works in a way. It really just depends on how you look at it. You could also look at it as a comparison to what pros make in cash, $750 is but a very very small fraction of what an average PGA tour pro makes in payout.

You could also look at it in what the prizes are. A decent premium driver probably costs most of that $750. In disc golf that equals about $15.

I just want people to know that running a tournament for competition sake with minimal or no prizes CAN work and can be just as good of a tournament as one with boat loads of plastic being handed to the winner. You don't have to lose money and can actually make profit from running one of these events. Yes, you would have to spread the wealth to all in player packs or obtain sponsor money but you have the players competing for competition sake and not for plastic profits made from gambling.


[Just to point something out. That $3 t-shirt that you say does not have a $10 value is 100% incorrect in most cases. In most cases that exact same quality and brand of t-shirt would sell for near $10 without anything printed on it. Add the print to that shirt and they sell for anywhere from $10 to $25 in retail stores.]

Re this thread ... wow, its another day at PDGA Place.

Just in case any folks wonder why Brian & Lorrie are choosing to retire from the PDGA office, this thread is symptomatic of why.

Here it is, Jason, for you and all to see:

Drumroll please ...

In 2006 BDH and FLG will make a combined $91.5K as PDGA Executive Director and Memberships Manager respectively.

It will be a while before the transition unfolds at HQ, but I'll say it now and it will be said many times again ... good luck to our replacements.



This saddens me, although it doesn't surprise me.

I know that what these guys put up with is a lot but I wish they could see it to stay.

I would like to point out that it is never the truly experienced or older members who slam the Executive Director. Those who have worked in business know what Brian does and what he brings to the table. I am not telling you that Brian is perfect, none of us are, but few realize just how hard his job is, and how little he and Lorrie make for what they do.

I dare any here to look at their own lives and consider how they would handle the bashing and slamming that goes on in this organization. Even if some of it was true, and it is not, such abuse would be difficult at best.

Some of the wonderful bombs I've seen lobbed at Brian include, dishonesty, stealing, lying and power grabbing. Yet those who lobbed these bombs in no case had any idea of the structure of the PDGA, the roles of Brian and Lorrie, or how they do their jobs.

If Brian suffers from one fault, it is an inability to take a beating and respond positively to it. Some have that unique ability to take it on the chin and come out and say nice things about those who abuse them, Brian does not and as a consequence the harassment has increased in intensity and vitriol with time. How embarrassing for us as a group that this should happen. How embarrassing that we should feel Brian is at fault for defending himself when attacked.

Brian, when you are done here if you want to start up a for-profit disc golf organization and need some volunteers, drop me a line. On the other hand, thanks for being a great guide for a wonderful sport!

I don't think they get paid enough to put up with the p**sing and moaning of players who complain about inaction and yet never offer to assist in anything. Even at the local front, you see players complaining about a tournament and yet they never offer in any way to help.



I hope that wasn't directed at me, because I have basically quit playing disc golf to build courses and run the Am Worlds as well as other events this year, and let me tell you its a unbelievably stressful and difficult task.

I dont really think it was directed at any specific person...but, I am not Alacrity :-) I for one appreciate your efforts thus far. I got to play the new Haikey last week and got my a__ whooped! Thanks for the great design!! I look forward to giving that one another shot!!

Keep up the good work!!

Kevin,

No I don't believe that was directed at you. I thought that you had some very interesting suggestions at the start of the thread, but by the time I read yours, there were 100 more posts.

Besides, do you not hold the office of official black satirist of the PDGA? ;) Actually, I respect your opinion Kevin and my boy stills hangs the disc you autographed for him.



I hope that wasn't directed at me, because I have basically quit playing disc golf to build courses and run the Am Worlds as well as other events this year, and let me tell you its a unbelievably stressful and difficult task.

However, I still find that it is hardly "justification" to put financial incentives at middle points of the competitive ladder. The only logical reason to put financial incentives at middle levels is the Chuck's philosophy which I feel is akin to a "crack addict" business model. One can argue that this business model has resulted in remarkable growth. I say that is debatable. One can counter that argument by saying that it has hampered growth in both the am and pro ranks. One can also counter those arguments with pure philosophical/moral arguments that incentivizing and rewarding mediocrity should never be a goal of a competitive system.




I take no credit for the philosophy but admire it's effectiveness for getting more money and players into the sport. And why was/is it effective? It's capitalism, our favorite American institution. In James' world, the only legitimate person that should receive a big reward is the World Champion at the World Championships. By his narrow definition, even the Open winner at events other than the Worlds is getting rewarded for a mediocre performance (unless it's the current World champ). No one else deserves a reward even if they do well relative to their current skill level and their peers at that level. No Little League Champs are worthy, no Junior high, no High School, no college, no women, no 50+ year old champs are worthy of reward, especially if it's worth more than what someone with higher skill received. They should all be ashamed that they get anything for excelling relative to their current skill level.

There are many businesses that might still be around today if they ever figured out how to stimulate the "crack addict" mentality in their field. Why is it so hard to stop drug addiction? Because people want to do it and aren't forced to do it. In the early 90s, we discovered the way to hook competitive players which has brought money and players into events and supported pros, I'm pretty sure, better than what low Am entry fees would have done. Of course we have nothing to compare with but we do know what has actually happened and it's positive growth however you look at it.

Players are obviously willing to pay the higher fees if they get value for it and that puts more money into events. It's market driven. The success in Maine with a different formula is also market driven. Their customers want to do it that way and the Maine promoters provide what's been successful. Both models can coexist along with Trophy Only as an option. There are players who like each of these options. Why turn away any customers/participation? Why force any of them to participate in a way they don't wish to (i.e forcibly lower fees and payouts)?

What if playing for cash at sanctioned events all of a sudden disappeared and all events had merch prizes? How much impact would there really be if a several of our current pros quit because they didn't want to play for merchandise (let's assume one or even two merch divisions would be added above Advanced based on ratings)? I'd say not much negative and probably more positive impact. The top division would get even bigger merch prizes than lower divisions so James would have his incentive system exactly as desired. The best players that day would get the biggest prizes. Promoters would be happy because there's more retail/wholesale spread generated.

If this idea puts a shudder down the spines of all the pros out there, it should. The only reason players should be getting paid for their performance above and beyond what others competing with them have antied to the pot in entry fees is because someone is willing to pay to watch them perform. That's it. The bulk of our sponsorship money collected mostly falls in the realm of donations over the years versus hard nosed investments because sponsors figure they have the potential of getting back a reasonable return for their investment. With the exception of the USDGC, where has the purse been boosted by net spectator entry fees or media advertising for a live broadcast? Pros who actually make a living in other sports are getting paid from thousands of small contributions either from spectators or from customers who buy the products advertised. We're not even close in disc golf.

This is not to rag on the pros since I've played for cash since 1990 and prefer it to merch. If promoters are willing to run events at a loss for my division and sometimes even add money, I'm very grateful that it works that way. But I also know I have no right to expect that treatment if promoters one day get tired of doing it. No one except my family would want to watch me play and I know they wouldn't pay for that opportunity.

I didn't mean to take this long to get where I'm going but my point is that our pseudo-Amateur competition system is working. Don't mess with it. Provide opportunities for even more participation with more courses and more events. Raise fees if your market will support it as long as the low fees for Trophy Only are also offered. We should especially not mess with it to solve problems with the pro situation unless expanding the Am system even more helps the pros (which it does).

The pros are only going to be helped if the Am system is stronger, even if the winning Ams are getting baskets. If no one cares to pay to watch the pros, they're not going to get more money that way for a while. Adding more Ams and players in general to the sport will continue to increase sponsorship. Anything pros can do to support those efforts will ultimately help them. Their only other alternative doesn't involve getting more money but changing the economic dynamics of the entry fees such that there are more incentives for existing and future pros to participate.

Stepped entry fees. Just thinking of my own behavior (and I'll bet yours), I'll give extra throws or pay two to one or pay more ante when playing for fun with others when I'm the best player in the group. Why wouldn't you think this would work to get more pros to enter events? We have rating breaks to parcel Ams into competitive groups. Why not step the entry fees for pros as an effective alternative to ratings breaks so the Open field can be larger? As Kevin points out, the entry fees have to be set properly in reference to the Advanced division fees to provide the proper incentives, but we know what those are. Let's try it, then tweak it as we see how it works.

None of these ideas forces anyone to go against their own best interests and increases rewards for better performance.

Kevin, Nobody that knows you would ever think that you don't do any volunteer work to advance the sport. Given the amount of time and energy you put into the sport, you have earned the priveledge to criticise and have your arguments heard. I may not agree with all of them, but I evaluate them knowing the amount of experience that is behind them.

Sorry for the Assumption, I'm kind of at a cross roads in my disc golf career. I love the game but other than the NT's and the Majors I really am getting bored with tournament play. It's been frustrating playing in tournaments and seeing 90% ams, so I've lost some of that competitiveness, especially at the smaller events.

I'm starting to have the urge to try and do something to make the game better, but I'm in limbo trying to figure out what my task should be.

One of the things I set out to do after getting the Oklahoma State Coordinator gig, I wanted to create disc golf in high school and have a State Championship for disc golf in public schools. I want it to be the same as High School golf where there are 5 players on a team and you take the best 4 scores to determine the school who wins as well as crown the overall champ. With Tulsa getting the AM Worlds I haven't even got to start on this project yet.

I'm itching to get to it. I'm not sure how to sell it. Should I go straight to the OSSAA (Oklahoma Secondary School Athletics Association) or should I go through the high schools athletic departments?

ANY suggestions would be mucho appreciated ;)

**** Chuck, as I scrolled up through paragraph after paragraph after paragraph, I was thinking "this is gotta be a Nick post." :D

You mischaracterize my philosophy. Little leagers are worthy. So are high schoolers and such. Hell, everyone is worthy, but I wouldn't financially reward the 200 lb little league first baseman who has a 1200 slugging % more than the AAA first baseman hitting with a 800 slugging %. As to women and age protections, I have no problem with them.



In the early 90s, we discovered the way to hook competitive players which has brought money and players into events and supported pros,



Did it hook players at a faster rate than the growth of disc golf as a whole? and Does "hooking" equal "retaining." The crack analogy is apt. Addicts die off quicker and their motivations/actions bring trouble to what they love.

I'm not sure about your other arguments. Is your "changing everything to merch payouts" a rebuttal?




but my point is that our pseudo-Amateur competition system is working. Don't mess with it.



and


The pros are only going to be helped if the Am system is stronger, even if the winning Ams are getting baskets.



You are simply asserting these things. In fact, since pro fields have dwindled since when I started in the late eighties, I hardly believe these assertions are true.

Finally, I have never asked for a pro-handout from anyone. I personally don't care if any pros get rich. My ideas will do little to help the top pros. They would probably hurt them. I just want a competitive system that encourages people to excel, to challenge themselves; not one that tells them "if you improve yourself too much, I might kick you out the door."

But there is no kick out the door, and no effective place to bag except at the top of the Advanced divisions. You can try to hang out at the top of the intermediate division, but the winning scores are ussually well above the intermediate cutoff.

You can't win many events and keep your rating below the cap. You can have a really good weekend and win one event followed by a few normal events that drag your rating back down to where it belongs. The Am ratings are not low because the players can't play well, they are low because the Am players can't play well consistently. On a good day, on most courses, I can keep up with most pros having an average day, but I can't keep it up for very long. I usually can't keep it going for a whole round.

Consistency is the key element, If you are good enough to have your A game (or even your B+ game) 80% of the time, you should be moving up. If you see your A game 20% of the time, you should consider more practice.

You are simply asserting these things. In fact, since pro fields have dwindled since when I started in the late eighties, I hardly believe these assertions are true.



We've already been thru this before. The PDGA is growing, the number of events is growing, the number of Ams is growing. We should also hope that the sport itself is growing even faster. Even though the manufacturers don't reveal results, I think we've observed the growth from the traffic at courses.

The amount of money ADDED to the pro purses is growing steadily as a result of the Am growth. That number is a little tricky to come by but we have the tournament results to show it. The number of "pros" is irrelevant because pro purses should not be based on how much money is antied by players but how much is added from outside sources. The number of pros could drop in half and those who are true pros will not be hurt by that if added cash keeps increasing.

If pros want more people entering pro feilds, it's not by doing something different with the Ams than what they are doing because their contributions to purses continue to increase. It's doing something within the pro structure that needs to be dealt with. I offered my step entry fee option which would be fair and I believe would boost participation more than what we've got now. As much as he's whining, I know Kev couldn't put his money down fast enough to ante $100 to my $50 for every round I'd be willing to pay to play him.

**** Chuck, as I scrolled up through paragraph after paragraph after paragraph, I was thinking "this is gotta be a Nick post."


And I thought we were boys...

Chuck, I don't want to be any part of limiting the size of prize for Prize Divisions of the Professional Class. In that context I would agree with your philosophy concerning "Prize" players and competition (testing out the next level at a discount).

What I do not agree with is that we lack any alternative to this form of competition. That we view "amateur class" as just a stepping stone to the inevitable leap into prize or cash competition.

How many other real sports do that? Seriously. Doesn't "Amateur" need to represent something completely and totally different from "Professional" in order for it to function properly in relation?

I don't want to take a single thing away from our current "Prize" class players other than the right to use the name "Amateur" in their name.

As much as he's whining, I know Kev couldn't put his money down fast enough to ante $100 to my $50 for every round I'd be willing to pay to play him.




First of all I'm going to look through that whinning comment, I thought we could be ADULTS about this and we have been thus far.

I would play just about anyone at 2-1, BUT you can't tell me that its not Descrimination, and your going to run off MORE pros just by the idea alone. So then you will have what you want ALL AM RADIO!

The amount of money ADDED to the pro purses is growing steadily as a result of the Am growth.



Why is the amount of money added to pro purses the stat you announce? What about the size of the pro field? Why wouldn't that be a higher concern of the pdga? Besides, I doubt that the "money added to pro purses" has even increased as much as the activity of disc golf has increased?


The number of pros could drop in half and those who are true pros will not be hurt by that if added cash keeps increasing.


If by "true pros" you mean the very top players, then this might be true for a very short time, but it is such a cannibalistic philosophy that it ultimately will slowly kill the sport. The end effect of 50% of the pros dropping out would be an eventual drop out of the 990-1010 players. The gap between advanced and pros would be even wider, creating a bigger door for people to exit. What an end game.

Who's going to run off? Let's take an example (the event is 50 miles from you). A B-tier with $750 added and entry fee of $75 for those rated 990-1009, $90 for those over 1010, $60 for 970-989 and $45 for under 970. Master Pro is $75 and Advanced is paying $60. Are you saying the 1020 player will skip it because he has to pay $15 more than the base entry fee for 1000 rated players, the division standard? Are you saying more players under 970 won't enter than now at $45? Are you saying that the Master Pro at 965 won't be tempted to enter Open for $45 versus $75?

I'd love to see the 1010+ players go on strike because they had to pay a little extra. I can't see them being able to stand it and not play to let someone with a lower rating snag the added cash. If everyone is on the edge 50/50 whether they'll play, that's when you have the incentives balanced properly. The 1020 and the 960 player should both have the same willingness to play if it's done right. It's no different from handicap horse racing where the better horses are handicapped by carrying varying amounts of lead weights.

Why is the amount of money added to pro purses the stat you announce?
It's the only indication that anyone outside the sport gives a darn about pros.

What about the size of the pro field?
Only important to other pros because we don't have many true pros, just gamblers playing for each others money.

Why wouldn't that be a higher concern of the pdga?
Because overall participation is increasing. The pro structure needs to be improved (I'm not abandoning pros but offering a possible solution), but not at the expense of the Amateur success.

Besides, I doubt that the "money added to pro purses" has even increased as much as the activity of disc golf has increased?
Irrelevant. It's going up and pros should be grateful it is. Better than the opposite direction.

If our true pros, who theoretically can make a go of it mostly on disc golf, are players above 1010, then perhaps we should have another merch division for those from 965 to 1009? I think we have indications that this would work and be just as successful as our Merch structure is now. This would pump even more money to help those who could make an even better living at the very top. The top guys aren't living off of C-tiers. They make the pro type money at the A and NT events (maybe a few Bs) where there's usually sufficient added cash. More pro participation primarily helps top rated local pros, not so much national top pros. And these local pros are still more hobbyists than people who make a living off the sport like true pros. They are as much pseudo-Ams with higher ratings as the pseudo-Ams who play for merch at lower ratings.

It's no different from handicap horse racing where the better horses are handicapped by carrying varying amounts of lead weights.



Yes it is. First off, many big races don't have weight handicaps. Secondly, trainers will avoid the weight handicap races that exist if they think their added weight will be more than they like. Thirdly, given the weight ranges of most handicapped races or other races for that matter, wieght is an insignificant factor.

Anyways, I'll give you credit for thinking out of the box with this idea, and for using some logic. However, I'm opposed to it on philosophical grounds. As a player who views this as a bet, I am always looking for a better bet, but not at the expense of handicapping my competition.

I don't consider the proposal as much creative as it is obvious. We know the sport is booming. With more players, one would assume the number of better players would also increase. Our ratings show that to be true. If Open field sizes are down, it could mean that the number of events has increased even faster than the number of players. Or, it could mean that pros with ratings over 950 are entering fewer events.

Now what could possibly be the reason? It's going to break down to dollars however you slice it. The combination of entry fee versus potential payout is what every pro will eventually look at, even at the very top. Even Barry has to decide which event has the most potential bang for the bucks he's spending. If the cost/benefit formula is unfavorable, the pro doesn't enter.

We can either tweak the cost or benefit factor to change the ratio. We can boost the benefit side for top guys by adding cash and the lower rated guys by adding more paid places. We can change the cost side by lowering fees in proportion to the chance a player of a certain rating might cash. At the same time, the higher rated guys benefit with more players entering, even at reduced fees.

Is it fair? Players will decide by their "votes" which is measured in entry fees paid. We already know that the lower rated guys are voting by not entering so we have a reference point. The PDGA can calculate how many events and approximately the amount of entry fees players in each ratings range pay in a year. So, we'll have actual data if this idea flies. It's more work for me if it does since the TD report will have to really be jazzed up to handle it.

But that is the whole point to Chuck's argument. You are not handicapping the competition. The same players have the same odds of winning as not. What is being done it that the field size is increasing by drawing players that otherwise would have passed on the tournament. They add in some more cash, and if done well, pretty much all of the higher rated Pros (970+) that would have been the donators are now the bottom cash spots. And a lot of the lost Pros that don't play because they can't see donating $100 to the top pros may start playing again because $60 and a chance at last place cash is appealing to them.

The whole thing is designed to draw in more players to increase the purse and number of payed places.

If the event would have had 20 MPO players at $100, that's only $2000 to payout to maybe 8 players.

Under Chuck's proposed plan, A few of those would drop to $80 and 2 to $60 for a 20 person field and a purse of 15 @ $100 + 3 @ $80 + 2 @ 60 = ($1500 + $240 = $120) = $1860.
Now you add in 3 Adv guys @ $80 and 5 at $60, that's 28 players and a purse of $2400.
Now a few of the Masters want to jump in the $80 pool, 3 more @ $80 = 31 players and $2700.
Now the 2 high rated masters are left with nobody to play with so they come in at $100 - 33 players and $2900

Now if there are a few Pros that don't normally play tournaments because they are too expensive start showing up, you have a decent size field, and the purse isn't too bad.

The odds are very much in the favor of the highest rated pros still taking home most of the money, and with the additional lower rated players in the division, more of the original 20 players stand a chance to cash.

Who's going to run off? Let's take an example (the event is 50 miles from you). A B-tier with $750 added and entry fee of $75 for those rated 990-1009, $90 for those over 1010, $60 for 970-989 and $45 for under 970. Master Pro is $75 and Advanced is paying $60. Are you saying the 1020 player will skip it because he has to pay $15 more than the base entry fee for 1000 rated players, the division standard? Are you saying more players under 970 won't enter than now at $45? Are you saying that the Master Pro at 965 won't be tempted to enter Open for $45 versus $75?

I'd love to see the 1010+ players go on strike because they had to pay a little extra. I can't see them being able to stand it and not play to let someone with a lower rating snag the added cash. If everyone is on the edge 50/50 whether they'll play, that's when you have the incentives balanced properly. The 1020 and the 960 player should both have the same willingness to play if it's done right. It's no different from handicap horse racing where the better horses are handicapped by carrying varying amounts of lead weights.



Chuck, why is all this necessary? What challenge do you see this sort of thing solving?

Bringing entry fees in Open and Advanced closer, and even overlapping, plus the stepped entry fees in Open will boost Open fields by encouraging more current Open players to play more often. And second, make the crossover from Advanced to Open economically more inviting when it's time. And, as I posted way back, it would then make more sense to update ratings more frequently. I don't see a downside.

THAT IS the biggest load of DISCRIMINATION, I as a white male, have EVER came accross. Your going to TAX me cause I'm good. What a BUNCH of MALARKY!



Sorry, Kev. I took this as "whining" on the other thread, not this one. Perhaps complaining is a better word.

Doesn't it seem all a little contrived though?

You were talking about there being some natural or inherent incentives to make the flow more natural.

The damage I see is that it reinforces the idea that everyone is just there to serve the top players and that the other divisions are somehow inferior.

Why not just make each as strong as market forces, sponsorship and players make them and see what we have, rather than forcing half solutions on them?

I mean, looking down the road, such things have to be viewed as temporary, at best, fixes that can't continue on once we reach a level of success.

The damage I see is that it reinforces the idea that everyone is just there to serve the top players and that the other divisions are somehow inferior.



You must not be reading this thread. Each division gets stronger with this approach. Prizes would be just as big as they are now in Am and more money would support pros.


Why not just make each as strong as market forces, sponsorship and players make them and see what we have, rather than forcing half solutions on them?



These are fully baked custom tailored solutions to help each division.

If the number of pros entering tournaments is in fact down as a percentage of total players at tournaments, I think the reason can be explained by economics and behavioral science. If a TD is doing minimal PDGA 110% B-tier payouts, he is losing 10% on every pro who plays and he is making 45% on every amateur who plays, assuming he is buying his prizes at good wholesale prices and giving handshakes for trophies. Both economics and behaviorism tell you that the TD is going to promote his events to amateurs, not pros. He might not even be polite to the pros.

I know it has that effect on me! :D

Meanwhile I am intrigued by Chuck's step entry fee concept. I can see why top pros object to it. It is kind of like college tuition pricing these days. [How much is tuition? We won't know until we see how much you got!] Kind of unfair for those who have sacrificed and worked hard to get it, but if it draws in more donors, maybe it works for everyone.

Terry Calhoun has a step entry fee concept that I do not think the top pros would object to at all, although it would require a well programmed spreadsheet to calculate payouts. Terry may deny that this is his idea, but he told it to me maybe five years ago back when the MDGO had a step entry fee, so he maybe has forgotten.

Terry's idea was that the entry fee would be the PDGA player fee plus as many shares as a player wanted to buy. Shares could be $20 or $10, with a computer it would not matter. Everyone who plays is competing for the pool created by the first shares. Everyone who bought a second share is competing for the pool created by the second shares. And so on with third, fourth and fifth shares, or as many shares as the TD decided to sell. The TD would have to decide which share level or levels he wanted to apply the added cash to, depending on what he wanted to promote.

The MDGO ran a system like that in 2000 and 2001 and maybe 2002, but with only two shares. The first share was something like $40 and the second share was closer to $20. All of the added cash went on the second share pool.

Chuck's idea could be run within the standard PDGA format; Terry's idea could not. Nothing in the rules, format documents or PDGA/TD contract requires a TD to charge all players in a division the same entry fee. Indeed, the trophy-only option is a limited share concept. Terry's idea could not be run 100% PDGA because the TD could not post payouts before the beginning of the last round. The contract requires the TD to post payouts. This is a breach no one would notice. If Terry would program the spreadsheet, I'd run the tournament. I think posting a hypothetical payout based on morning scores with a disclaimer would satisfy the spirit of the contractual agreement.

I like that idea of step entry fees .
I realize it is " discrimination to a degree " but on the other hand we have around here in the past done a " super pot " to allow the top pros to gamble more then the lower end pros , and the lower end pros were only in the base winnings where the super pot pros were in the base winnings and the super pot winnings .

Bringing entry fees in Open and Advanced closer, and even overlapping, plus the stepped entry fees in Open will boost Open fields by encouraging more current Open players to play more often. And second, make the crossover from Advanced to Open economically more inviting when it's time. And, as I posted way back, it would then make more sense to update ratings more frequently. I don't see a downside.


This idea has a lot of potential.

I know SuperPros like Kevin are frustrated with the growth of the am divisions and the "not growth" of the Open division, but I don't agree with Kev that there is something wrong with the am structure. The ams are going strong.

The changes that need to be made are changes that make playing Open more appealing so that more people will want to play Open. I agree with Chuck that trying to force people to play Open by making amateur divisions less appealing is folly.

Chuck's proposed step entry fees is the first real attempt I've seen at making it more appealing to players to play Open. We should all try to get past the sticker shock and look at it a little more closely. I don't see why Kev should object to paying more than to play than a bunch of people who statistically have no chance to beat him, especially since it might actually get peoplel who can't beathim to start playing tournaments again.

The damage I see is that it reinforces the idea that everyone is just there to serve the top players and that the other divisions are somehow inferior.



You must not be reading this thread. Each division gets stronger with this approach. Prizes would be just as big as they are now in Am and more money would support pros.


Why not just make each as strong as market forces, sponsorship and players make them and see what we have, rather than forcing half solutions on them?



These are fully baked custom tailored solutions to help each division.



In your opinion Chuck. It is not a natural outcome nor is it known that this has happened.

I for one tend to stay away from overly complicated formats and entry fee options. You want me to come to your event? Make the entry fee under $50 and I'll play against anyone. (If the course is good and you have proven you know how to run an event.)

This only gets complicated when we worry about folks not coming out because they're worried they're not going to "CASH". Which is something a true amateur should never be concerned about, and if pros are worrying about it then we're either too poor to be entering or our entry fees are getting out of control.

I don't like the idea of mixing divisions or classifications. What purpose do any of them serve if we do?

And rather than say go back and read something, then you'll get it, just post it again, ok? You know how annoying office folk can be that say that sort of thing...

Nasal sounding voice, "Well, that was sent out in an email last September. Don't you have it? Gad!"

agreed

In your opinion Chuck. It is not a natural outcome nor is it known that this has happened.



Let's put it this way, we have proof that the merch system has worked. You have little to show for the true am alternative except some negative results (Brakel) that true am has any traction. In Minnesota, our true amateur State Games disc golf events have been an abject failure for 15 years with PDGA players barely entering (maybe 5) and no rec players in a highly publicized statewide event. Even Maine, where low fees have worked, is finding out that players are increasingly enjoying the merch style events.

As far as the pro option, we know it's not working as well as it could. And, we also know the reasons. My proposal directly addresses those reasons. Maybe it will work. Maybe it will be too much hassle for TDs and players to deal with stepped fees. But so far, no one has proposed an improvement that is market and/or incentive driven to make things better. We've only gotten socialistic ideas to force players to do what they might not want to do.

And rather than say go back and read something, then you'll get it, just post it again, ok?



If you want to watch a TV rerun you have to watch the whole show to understand it, not just the lines of one actor.

ok one more time...take everyone 925 and above and form a Pdga...below Adga...same body different goals..Usdga is parent org to help govern the sport...yes it would change the structure,but would that be so bad...did not seem to hurt ball golf much...we must leave the volenteer era and enter the paid era...or we could just keep on doing the same #$*&$! year in and out...MJ

It may happen (like the PGA) when there's enough sponsor money for pros to finance it. But for now, there's not enough money to support the admin overhead to manage two separate orgs.

Let's put it this way, we have proof that the merch system has worked.



From now on, everytime you CLAIM this, I'm gonna challenge it. Where is your proof? Show me:

1) The growth of amateur participants, let's just use five tournaments a year, has this subset grown at a faster rate than the activity of disc golf as a whole?

and

2) Is this system retaining those same players? Are they continuing to play at the same rate, an increasing rate, a declining rate, or playing competitive golf at all?

You have a created a terrible system that doesn't make many "competitors" want to improve. You created a system that limits your options as you improve. You created a system where those dedicated to improving their skills are most likely to quit, while those most likely not to care about excelling stand a good chance to profit. Yes, Chuck, the competitive disc golf system is pure freaking genius.

We've only gotten socialistic ideas to force players to do what they might not want to do.



Chuck, it is ironic that you claim your system is capatalistic and the alternatives are socialistic. "Socialistic" ideas help the weak, or "disenfranchized" while taking the incentive out of improving, excelling, and risk taking. The present system is completely socialistic in nature, as is your staggered entry fee based on skill level.

Piece of cake. How about looking at this document available online for the PDGA with stats since 1996 www.pdga.com/documents/2005/96-05TourGrowth.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2005/96-05TourGrowth.pdf)

Here's 1997 versus 2005:
<table border="1"><tr><td> Item</td><td>1997</td><td>2005
</td></tr><tr><td>Am Members</td><td>2597</td><td>7030
</td></tr><tr><td>Pro Members</td><td>1650</td><td>2599
</td></tr><tr><td>Pro purse</td><td>$458K</td><td>$1390K
</td></tr><tr><td>Tour Events</td><td>267</td><td>682
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

I'm sure we could dig back thru the old Disc Golfer and DGWN pubs to get stats from earlier. Terry has pointed out (and the doc might be in DGWN somewhere) that our retention rates are as good or better than other similar orgs.

Our growth rate had better be less than the sport overall if the pros ever have chance to prosper. We need 10 times as many rec players to have the chance to get major sponsor attention.

I'll challenge your assertion that competitors should want to improve in order to justify competing at all and playing for big prizes. Many of us enjoy the competition as fun and do the best we can for the time we can spend practicing and playing. We also have the right to compete for huge prizes at whatever level IF we're paying our way. Pros have the same rights to earn prizes if they pay their way and only deserve to earn exceptional prizes if others wish to pay to watch them, not just on the backs of lower level divisions.

You've also created about 40 more AM divisions since 1997 sure its going to grow at a rapid pace. There are 3 options to play Pro Open, Masters, GM and there are 832 differnt Am divisions....well maybe that estimation is a little off, 724 am divisions

This is a great discussion. It only took me three days to read! It seems clear that there are a lot of great ideas on how to run events. And the main thing the PDGA can do is to create an environment where all of these ideas can be executed and tested. What works will float to the top. What doesn't will be forgotten.

The thing I would change would be to minimize the rules that TDs have to follow. Create minimum standards, let the TDs define the rest, and let the players decide what the best system is.

We've got folks concentrating on creating great AM tourneys and value. We've got folks concentrating on creating great Pro tourneys that ESPN might want to cover. We've got folks developing rating and ranking systems, tweaking the rules, evaluating the courses, making great disc golf mags, and so on. Kev, you are right, the growth is not yet astronomical. And playing as a pro is not yet economical. But we are getting there. And we are getting there at a faster rate.

As cool high schoolers say, "It's all good." And it's getting better.

Capitalisitc = Free choices based on incentives
Socialistic = Attempts to force behavior based on rules not incentives

So far, the stepped entry fee proposal I believe is the only one put forth that falls on the capitalistic side. The other options posed by various pros trying to improve pro fortunes have involved some form of forcing or revenue redistribution (which they are already getting now). The floor is open for creative ideas since the pro structure could use some help. But they better be capitalistic/incentive based or I expect they won't have a chance to succeed.

Steve, You guys at MSDGC run one of the best Tournaments I have EVER been too. If we had a dozen tournaments accross the country the quality of yours, we would be doing just fine. I think it will be a while before we have a dozen tournaments as good as Marshall St though.

You don't get it. You give me figures about ams growing. I asked what is their growth relative to the total people playing disc golf.

Also, I didn't ask for "total members" in either ams or pros, but those that regularly participate. I was generous in characterizing "participants" as those that only played five tournaments a year. Once again, are these people increasing at a rate faster than the total people playing disc golf; not competitive disc golf, but just disc golf.

You also always avoid the issue about what happens to those that improve. They seem to be less worthy in your system. Upthread, you interestingly referred to them as "just gamblers playing for each others money." Though this is true, it is interesting that you don't refer to the only class you value as "just gamblers playing for each others money in a highly protected game."

You have a created a terrible system that doesn't make many "competitors" want to improve. You created a system that limits your options as you improve. You created a system where those dedicated to improving their skills are most likely to quit, while those most likely not to care about excelling stand a good chance to profit. Yes, Chuck, the competitive disc golf system is pure freaking genius.



No, they've created a system where a player does not have to become a scratch golfer to be competitive and have fun. Much like league bowling or handicap ball golf. Both are popular, and both have come up with a way to make less than professional players feel competitive and have fun. In a system where the only option to be competitive was to get better, very few would hang around, and certainly not the ones that put in all the volunteer time. The ones with the drive and talent to become top pros are seldom (there are exceptions to the rule) the ones doing all of the organizing work. The sport (for now) exists on the backs of the less than professional golfers that know that they will never have the time or talent to become a 1000+ golfer, but are willing to go out and compete and volunteer time and money to the sport in general.

I know that I would have quit organized golf many years ago if there was only one division, or only one real competition. It's not that fun to watch. As it is now, I attend 20+ sanctioned and unsanctioned events a year and donate around a thousand hours and dollars to the sport each year. I spend several thousand in entry fees and sponsorship disc purchases each year.

How many pro players are Ace or Birdie club members ? I've played two events this year where every player on my card was using their Ace club minis to mark their discs.

I am an Amateur player. My only practice time is during tournaments. I have no desire to "go Pro". I don't have the time to practice to get the consistency I need to be competitive at the next level. I don't need to in order to have fun and feel like I am in the hunt at most tournaments. This keeps me playing and volunteering, don't knock it just because I don't want to or can't spend a few hours a week practicing outside of tournament play.

You have a created a terrible system that doesn't make many "competitors" want to improve. You created a system that limits your options as you improve. You created a system where those dedicated to improving their skills are most likely to quit, while those most likely not to care about excelling stand a good chance to profit. Yes, Chuck, the competitive disc golf system is pure freaking genius.



No, they've created a system where a player does not have to become a scratch golfer to be competitive and have fun. Much like league bowling or handicap ball golf. Both are popular, and both have come up with a way to make less than professional players feel competitive and have fun. In a system where the only option to be competitive was to get better, very few would hang around, and certainly not the ones that put in all the volunteer time. The ones with the drive and talent to become top pros are seldom (there are exceptions to the rule) the ones doing all of the organizing work. The sport (for now) exists on the backs of the less than professional golfers that know that they will never have the time or talent to become a 1000+ golfer, but are willing to go out and compete and volunteer time and money to the sport in general.

I know that I would have quit organized golf many years ago if there was only one division, or only one real competition. It's not that fun to watch. As it is now, I attend 20+ sanctioned and unsanctioned events a year and donate around a thousand hours and dollars to the sport each year. I spend several thousand in entry fees and sponsorship disc purchases each year.

How many pro players are Ace or Birdie club members ? I've played two events this year where every player on my card was using their Ace club minis to mark their discs.

I am an Amateur player. My only practice time is during tournaments. I have no desire to "go Pro". I don't have the time to practice to get the consistency I need to be competitive at the next level. I don't need to in order to have fun and feel like I am in the hunt at most tournaments. This keeps me playing and volunteering, don't knock it just because I don't want to or can't spend a few hours a week practicing outside of tournament play.



Here, here!!!

Gary, do you really only play competitive disc golf because there is a good chance you will win valuable prizes?

I am absolutely shocked that there exist all these thriving competitive activities where large amounts of people compete without an expectation of an economic return.

Here is an example of what putting everyone in one flight and seperating players by score instead of divison. The first set of scores are the way it was done. The bottom set of scores is what it would look like when the flight plays as one.

It gives the ADV players an opportunity to play with Open and with the "Legends of the game" Master divisons. In return the ADV player gets expierience as well as learn from the best players. It won't take the ADV players as long to get better when they are always playing with better players.

The Example is the 2005 Riverside Glide in Tulsa, OK

Div Name Rat 1 2 3 4 tot
o Coda Hatfield 1018 44 43 41 42 170 $300
o William Sivils Jr 1003 43 42 45 40 170 $135
o Sam Nielsen 983 40 47 41 43 171 $95
o Jared Pennington 990 46 41 42 43 172 $85
o Josh Robertson 966 42 42 45 45 174 $75
o Kyle Wilkes 976 44 47 44 43 178 $40
o Larry Gardner 980 47 45 47 45 184
o Jose Mendoza 980 50 47 46 41 184
o Ryan Allensworth 949 47 44 49 45 185
o Jason Akbaran 908 48 51 50 52 201

m Scott Wilkinson 986 45 46 41 42 174 $190
m Mitch Mcclellan 1001 45 42 46 44 177 $110
m Mike Wood 950 49 49 45 42 185 $70
m Ray Walker 970 50 44 48 44 186 $40
m Thomas Lowry 934 50 49 46 49 194

ad Mike Conners 946 42 43 45 47 177
ad Anthony Newberry 943 45 44 46 46 181
ad Chris Hutchinson 970 46 44 46 45 181
ad Andy Newberry 949 48 45 42 48 183
ad Corey Briley 970 48 45 45 46 184
ad Joe Rotan 936 46 46 47 45 184
ad David Nicholson 937 52 43 44 46 185
ad Justin Bougher 944 45 48 47 46 186
ad Charlie Burns 941 49 43 48 47 187
ad Dennis Reaves 46 46 45 52 189
ad Chris Wagle 952 44 48 47 52 191
ad J.T. Graham 957 50 46 47 48 191
ad Dasun Keylor 955 49 47 50 46 192
ad Ben Powell 938 50 47 48 48 193
ad Jeremy Ohlheiser 934 47 47 54 46 194
ad Stephen Brower 942 47 53 46 49 195
ad Brad Bishop 933 49 46 53 47 195
ad Robbie Parrish 951 49 49 45 53 196
ad Kelly Ganzel 952 50 50 44 52 196
ad Joseph Stettinger 935 50 50 50 48 198
ad Rodney Carpenter 899 49 51 51 48 199
ad Doug Maxfield 934 51 50 50 48 199
ad James Patton 899 50 51 52 47 200
ad Paul Fry 934 51 52 50 47 200
ad Dave Debois 922 47 52 49 53 201
ad Rob Workman 895 49 50 52 53 204
ad Eric Bailey 906 50 55 54 50 209
ad Dallas Brewer 51 52 54 53 210
ad Robert Burke 932 52 56 49 54 211

Now lets do it the other way where ADV, Open , Masters all pay the same entry fee and play as one group

Div Name Rat 1 2 3 4 tot
o Coda Hatfield 1018 44 43 41 42 170
o William Sivils Jr 1003 43 42 45 40 170
o Sam Nielsen 983 40 47 41 43 171
o Jared Pennington 990 46 41 42 43 172
o Josh Robertson 966 42 42 45 45 174
m Scott Wilkinson 986 45 46 41 42 174
m Mitch Mcclellan 1001 45 42 46 44 177
ad Mike Conners 946 42 43 45 47 177
o Kyle Wilkes 976 44 47 44 43 178
ad Anthony Newberry 943 45 44 46 46 181
ad Chris Hutchinson 970 46 44 46 45 181
ad Andy Newberry 949 48 45 42 48 183
o Larry Gardner 980 47 45 47 45 184
o Jose Mendoza 980 50 47 46 41 184
ad Corey Briley 970 48 45 45 46 184
ad Joe Rotan 936 46 46 47 45 184
o Ryan Allensworth 949 47 44 49 45 185
m Mike Wood 950 49 49 45 42 185
ad David Nicholson 937 52 43 44 46 185
m Ray Walker 970 50 44 48 44 186
ad Justin Bougher 944 45 48 47 46 186
ad Charlie Burns 941 49 43 48 47 187
ad Dennis Reaves 46 46 45 52 189
ad Chris Wagle 952 44 48 47 52 191
ad J.T. Graham 957 50 46 47 48 191
ad Dasun Keylor 955 49 47 50 46 192
ad Ben Powell 938 50 47 48 48 193
m Thomas Lowry 934 50 49 46 49 194
ad Jeremy Ohlheiser 934 47 47 54 46 194
ad Stephen Brower 942 47 53 46 49 195
ad Brad Bishop 933 49 46 53 47 195
ad Robbie Parrish 951 49 49 45 53 196
ad Kelly Ganzel 952 50 50 44 52 196
ad Joseph Stettinger 935 50 50 50 48 198
ad Rodney Carpenter 899 49 51 51 48 199
ad Doug Maxfield 934 51 50 50 48 199
ad James Patton 899 50 51 52 47 200
ad Paul Fry 934 51 52 50 47 200
o Jason Akbaran 908 48 51 50 52 201
ad Dave Debois 922 47 52 49 53 201
ad Rob Workman 895 49 50 52 53 204
ad Eric Bailey 906 50 55 54 50 209
ad Dallas Brewer 51 52 54 53 210
ad Robert Burke 932 52 56 49 54 211

When you put everyone in one flight together its easier on the TD. The TD doesn't have to seperate cards by division anymore. The ADV players see what they could have won if they would have checked the OPEN box on the entry form, then next time they will be tempted to check that OPEN box.

When it comes to payout, you can still payout the same way you do. Top 40% in each division. If everyon was actually in ONE division 10 ADV guys would have cashed. The ADV guy would see this and STOP playing for plastic when he could put cash in his pocket.

By the way, Gary. Quit portraying this as an anti-am campaign. Is disingenuous.

Statements such as:

"No, they've created a system where a player does not have to become a scratch golfer to be competitive and have fun."

and

"The sport (for now) exists on the backs of the less than professional golfers that know that they will never have the time or talent to become a 1000+ golfer, but are willing to go out and compete and volunteer time and money to the sport in general."

and

"I know that I would have quit organized golf many years ago if there was only one division, or only one real competition."

and

"I am an Amateur player. My only practice time is during tournaments. I have no desire to "go Pro". I don't have the time to practice to get the consistency I need to be competitive at the next level. I don't need to in order to have fun and feel like I am in the hunt at most tournaments. This keeps me playing and volunteering, don't knock it just because I don't want to or can't spend a few hours a week practicing outside of tournament play."

are so off-point.

No one on this thread has advocated one division. This whole idea that one can't play competitively, or enjoy competition unless they are playing for large stacks of plastic is bs. I'm not advocating any kind of class war. I am saying that if you are playing for profit, and not competition, than you should play pro. If you want to attack that statement, feel free.

You don't get it. You give me figures about ams growing. I asked what is their growth relative to the total people playing disc golf.



I gave you growth in PDGA. That's very good.
I don't know growth outside PDGA but manufacturers know it and we see it on the courses. I suspect it's even better and we should all hope it remains that way.

That would mean growth in PDGA relative to the whole sport is negative which is where we hope it remains for a long time as long as the PDGA itself continues to grow. Whenever PDGA growth matches or exceeds the overall growth rate in the sport, it means our overall sport is topping out.

As far as participation rates per person, I believe you could get those from the PDGA office. It's apparent that despite the slower increase in pro membership, those pros are either participating at a higher rate now than 1997 or our added cash is increasing at an even faster rate. Either way, that's better than the gloom and doom here regarding the pros. I do know from our ratings data that the number of rounds rated per PDGA member per year has jumped from 12 to 15 going from 2003 to 2005. If I went back further, the numbers would show an even bigger jump. But that would be misleading because we weren't rating close to 100% of the singles events like we are now.

I suspect it's even better and we should all hope it remains that way.



and


That would mean growth in PDGA relative to the whole sport is negative which is where we hope it remains for a long time as long as the PDGA itself continues to grow. Whenever PDGA growth matches or exceeds the overall growth rate in the sport, it means our overall sport is topping out.




Huh? That's crazy talk. It's akin to a sneaker maker CEO going to his BOD and saying "Sales are growing at 10%, while our market is growing at 15%, but this is actually a good, because if our growth surpassed the market as a whole, it means we would be topping out."

If I was on that BOD, that CEO is toast.

I am saying that if you are playing for profit, and not competition, than you should play pro. If you want to attack that statement, feel free.




This is not a pro perspective but that of a skilled gambler at some level, which most of us are. Some of us play for cash, others for plastic. We all play for the anties in each of our divisions, but pros continue to benefit from a portion of the anties of lower divisions whether justified or not.

True pros make a living by competing and get rewarded well for doing well because many others will pay to watch them demonstrate their skills, not because they paid big entry fees.

No one on this thread has advocated one division. This whole idea that one can't play competitively, or enjoy competition unless they are playing for large stacks of plastic is bs. I'm not advocating any kind of class war. I am saying that if you are playing for profit, and not competition, than you should play pro. If you want to attack that statement, feel free.



Thank you James. That more or less sums up what I have been attempting to say all these years.

Gary and others here, I realize there are aspects of the current competitive system that benefit you to your liking, and really, I don't want to take any of them away from you short of using the name "Amateur" or gaining protection due to some comical plastic vs. paper reward criteria.

There is no valid reason for separation of, what we currently call, Amateur or Professional Classes. Short of propagating our arbitrary entitlement program. And for what? In the hopes that by subdividing our competitors on shaky and near meaningless grounds we have provided "Advantage" to a few more players!?! At what cost? Doesn't this at the same time just create an even larger "Disadvantaged" group of players?

Motivation is the key here. It is not just some point of disagreement; it is the ONLY truly significant and MEANINGFUL criteria for separating competitors in all functional and successful competitive systems I have ever observed. It is a model created out of a necessity to nurture and promote. For it to work:

1) Amateurs must compete with no expectation of profit other than experientially.
2) Amateurs must be completely and vigilantly protected from the corrupting influence of Professional competition.

3) Amateur competition must not be viewed as only a precursor or lesser alternative to Professional competition but as something with its own inherent value, separate, special, worth our best efforts to protect and preserve.

None of these things is true of what we currently call our Amateur class. And therein lies the source of dysfunction and constant bickering of resources between the Prize and Cash divisions of a single Professional class.

My proposal is not centered on putting an end to anything more than calling the Prize divisions part of an �Amateur� class and an end to the pointless protection of identically skilled and motivated players in the Prize and Cash divisions.

There simply is not a symbiotic relationship between the Prize and Cash divisions in organized disc golf right now. Each feels that the other is taking advantage of the other.

And lastly this all at the direct cost of ever creating, let alone developing, a True Amateur Classification. Heck! Some folks won't even acknowledge that there "NEEDS TO BE" a difference!?!

Huh? That's crazy talk. It's akin to a sneaker maker CEO going to his BOD and saying "Sales are growing at 10%, while our market is growing at 15%, but this is actually a good, because if our growth surpassed the market as a whole, it means we would be topping out."




It's not the same thing. If the PDGA manufactured discs it might be relevant, but even manufacturers have capital limits on how fast they can grow. The PDGA isn't dividing up the pie with anyone else and it's great for everyone if the pie is getting bigger faster than the PDGA's slice of it. That's not a bad thing and doesn't reflect poorly on the management of the PDGA. The PDGA can only grow so fast and has actually positioned itself for faster growth with investments in staff and facilities to do its best to not hamper growth as it comes. We're still understaffed and underfunded relative to a broader range of things current members would like to see done.

The USGA, USTA, USVBA are like the PDGA as the only organizations for the top amateurs in their sports. I think they would be ecstatic if their sports were growing as fast as DG. A national org will only ever get the top X% of players. That org's growth is tied to the sport's growth. If X% is say 10%, when the overall participation in the sport drops, the org's membership will drop even though 90% of the players are still not members. That 90% is a phantom market.

This whole idea that one can't play competitively, or enjoy competition unless they are playing for large stacks of plastic is bs. I'm not advocating any kind of class war. I am saying that if you are playing for profit, and not competition, than you should play pro.



unfortunately, it seems like one of the few incentives for TD's to take on the headaches of TD'ing year after year is that our so-called "Amateur" divisions win plastic and the profit to be made from that fact helps TD's break even or turn a profit.

i'd love to see a true amateur class, and TD'ing would be easier because there wouldn't be any real payout to deal with, but who would run these events? What incentives could we create?

TD's seem to have the most political clout with the PDGA leadership for obvious reasons, and doing away with AM. prize payouts would probably be very unpopular with many TD's and 'amateurs'. So how would we who support a true amateur class go about making it happen?
Kevin's high school team idea seems to be one way to get it started...

Taken from the USGA Rules on Amatuerism:

-----"1-1. General

An amateur golfer must play the game and conduct himself in accordance with the Rules.

1-2. Amateur Status

Amateur Status is a universal condition of eligibility for playing in golf competitions as an amateur golfer. A person who acts contrary to the Rules may forfeit his status as an amateur golfer and as a result will be ineligible to play in amateur competitions.

<font color="red"> 1-3. Purpose and Spirit of the Rules

The purpose and spirit of the Rules is to maintain the distinction between amateur golf and professional golf and to keep the amateur game as free as possible from the abuses that may follow from uncontrolled sponsorship and financial incentive. It is considered necessary to safeguard amateur golf, which is largely self-regulating with regard to the Rules of play and handicapping, so that it can be fully enjoyed by all amateur golfers." ---------</font>


Why do you think they have these rules?

Trust me, you don't have to look far to find your answer.

While it is true that amateurs, in the classical sense, do not compete for prizes, it is also true, in the same sense, that pros do not compete for each others' entry fees either. People who compete for each others' money are traditionally called hustlers or social gamblers. Pros are paid a salary by the team owner or they compete for a purse put up by a promoter who recoups his investment with ticket sales and broadcast rights.

Within the USGA a player who violates the amateurism rules does not become a pro. He becomes a player who is disqualified from USGA amateur competition. It is much, much harder to ever become a PGA pro if you first lose your USGA amateur status for violating the rules of amateurism.

Inappropriately renaming amateurs as pros is not a solution. It is just another way to hide the problem. So long as the PDGA wants to pretend that there really is no problem, I don't think they will be renaming the social gambling divisions in any way that might describe what is really going on there.

Of course, the promoters want to keep it this way, supposedly in the best interest of the game and golfers because they make money off of this "amateur" industry in the form of greens fees, entry fees, ad sales and merch sales. Since our promoters let the genie out of the bottle back in the 90s to give players more return, I don't think you're ever going to stuff that genie back in the bottle.

Then I think if no one is willing to take that genie into a headlock and start stuffin now, we will continue becoming more and more dysfuctional when it comes to "amateurs". Cold turkey is the only way to go in our situation in my opinion. But thats just not gonna happen unless some huge portion of players all have the same realization at the same time.

I bet the guy who wrote that for the USGA would get a kick out of what disc golf has turned into by not following close to what they have in their rules.

i'd love to see a true amateur class, and TD'ing would be easier because there wouldn't be any real payout to deal with, but who would run these events? What incentives could we create?




A couple of things. From my perspective, I don't necessarily equate amateurism to "trophy only," although I have no problem with trophy-only as an option. I simply advocate "no-financial incentives" for anyone but pros. This could take the form of trophy-only, or simply very flat payouts. A flat-payout doesn't affect a TD's income. Besides, I have no problem with a TD taking a $ cut from every player, am and pro alike, if that is what it takes to pay for their expenses and efforts.

Just to simplify, I do not envision any more pros "making a living" under a system I advocate. I also don't envision marginal players such as myself making any more money. I just want a system that says "If you are playing for profit, here is your division, and here are a bunch of options. If you don't care about profiting from your play, here are your options."

Options for the pro division would come in the form of various bets; small bets for those that prefer small bets, and large bets for those that prefer large bets. For ams, the options will come in the form of divisions based on skill, and tournaments that offer various types of incentives to play; either type of competition, type of course, type of player package, amount of entry fee, whatever. However, the incentive won't be "the amount of profit I can expect."

The way to run true amateur competition and generate a profit to cover your expenses is to have player packs and fair entry fees.

If I charge $21 per amateur and give every amateur a 25 Brass player pack, I will do fine on that format if I attract 20 players and don't have a park use fee.

Players could still play for prizes if they wanted to with this format. They'd just have to organize it among themselves.

I don't think this qualifies as "changing the pdga" but something that i would like to see is when I look at past tournaments on the site, the player's current player rating is posted on the tournaments instead of the PR from that time.
For example, if you look at a player's rating from 2004, their most current rating is posted and changes every update. THat doesn't show me how the player has progressed. It might be a simple flaw in the data system, but I want to know what type of player shot that round at "that" time.

That improvement, to show the person's rating at the time of the event, is in the list of projects as our IT volunteers can get to it.

That improvement, to show the person's rating at the time of the event, is in the list of projects as our IT volunteers can get to it.



What would also be really nice, as we're on the subject, is the ability for non-US players to search the ratings by country, exactly like you can currently search by state...

Sorry James, but how else can I interpert your statements concerning rewarding mediocre play and your dislike of a system that does not demand improvement of all players ?

It sounds like everyone must work toward being an open player, or they shouldn't be playing (or at least winning anything).

I was merely stating that I have no interest in becoming a pro player. I don't want to work that hard at my recreation.

I never stated that I would have quit competing without stacks of plastic, I stated that I would have quit competing if I couldn't be competitive.

As a rule, I don't sell plastic so I'm not in it for the money, I do give away quite a bit, and will trade for discs I am interested in. It's no the reward I am after, but the knowledge that if I play my best game, I will have a good chance of winning. I also know that if I don't play my best game, I probably won't win and may not cash. To me that is what competition is about.

Gary, strange as it may seem your reasoning for wanting to stay in the Prize class is nearly identical to my wanting to stay in the Cash class.

Why should we play in different classes when our skills and motivations are identical?

And shouldn't there be a different classification for folks who have completely different motivations for competing?

but Scott, that same section also talks about the maximum value of a prize a golfer can except. Are you saying that section is referring to winning prizes? Please don't compare the "value" against similar winnings, or what an Open ball golfer wins compared to an open disc golfer. Ball golf still promotes, amateurs winning prizes.


Then I think if no one is willing to take that genie into a headlock and start stuffin now, we will continue becoming more and more dysfuctional when it comes to "amateurs". Cold turkey is the only way to go in our situation in my opinion. But thats just not gonna happen unless some huge portion of players all have the same realization at the same time.

I bet the guy who wrote that for the USGA would get a kick out of what disc golf has turned into by not following close to what they have in their rules.

I use an excel spreadsheet that calculates the players round ratings, during a tournament. It prints it just to the side of scores. If you are interested, I can send you a copy to use for scorekeeping. E-mail me at [email protected]


I don't think this qualifies as "changing the pdga" but something that i would like to see is when I look at past tournaments on the site, the player's current player rating is posted on the tournaments instead of the PR from that time.
For example, if you look at a player's rating from 2004, their most current rating is posted and changes every update. THat doesn't show me how the player has progressed. It might be a simple flaw in the data system, but I want to know what type of player shot that round at "that" time.

You are twisting it to favor your opinion. The best an Amatuer could do as far as amount of prizes won is less then what most BG Pros put on their nightstand when they go to sleep at night. Can you say the same for DG? There is a HUGE difference and I am sorry you can't see it or dont want to see it.

You think BG would ever allow an Amatuer golfer to make in prizes an amount equal to or even scratching the surface of what even the least skilled of Open golfers make? There is a reason for that and as soon as you see it you will realize why our current Amatuer structure is not actually amatuer. There is a need for an Amatuer class in our sport, currently we dont have one, we just call it one.

I am sure this post will get ripped to shreds . I wish I could explain myself better .

Gary, strange as it may seem your reasoning for wanting to stay in the Prize class is nearly identical to my wanting to stay in the Cash class.

Why should we play in different classes when our skills and motivations are identical?

And shouldn't there be a different classification for folks who have completely different motivations for competing?



My reasons for staying where I am should be different from any Pro's reason for staying where they are. If I was in a cash division, I would be forced to find time to practice or stop being competitive. Staying an Am, I am not required to stay competitive, because it's a hobby and hobbies are expected to cost money. Winning isn't the most important thing. Supporting the sport and the TDs and having fun are the important things.

If I play well and win, that's great.
If I play average and don't win, that's to be expected.
If I play poorly and finish DFL, stuff happens.

The realistic competition is the important part. It's just the feeling that no one I'm competing against can beat me on my best day. My internal challenge to produce that performance is what makes it fun to compete.

Well, that and the fact that it really doesn't matter where you finish, it's just a game. Everybody I compete with on a regular basis has more plastic than they will ever use, and the prizes don't matter, who beats whom on a given day matters. My division is pretty easy going with many different personalities, and no one is overly serious about the game. In the Pro ranks, it's money and livlihood. It's a more serious game at the top by definition.

If I was involved in a purely recreational league, my motivations would be the same as they are now.

Scott,

I understand that you are looking at proportion of open payout to amateur payout, but if you look at the amount the amateur pays to play and the payout, it is still right in line with the PDGA payout tables. I do understand that you would like to compare the relative amount between am's and pro's, but the point is that the USGA still says that amateur players can be paid out in prizes.

Look at this link Ball Golf minor league payouts (http://www.minorleaguegolf.com/) Here they don't discuss whether an am is paid out or not, they simply state that the league will abide by USGA amateur guidelines. They also show payouts to date.


You are twisting it to favor your opinion. The best an Amatuer could do as far as amount of prizes won is less then what most BG Pros put on their nightstand when they go to sleep at night. Can you say the same for DG? There is a HUGE difference and I am sorry you can't see it or dont want to see it.

You think BG would ever allow an Amatuer golfer to make in prizes an amount equal to or even scratching the surface of what even the least skilled of Open golfers make? There is a reason for that and as soon as you see it you will realize why our current Amatuer structure is not actually amatuer. There is a need for an Amatuer class in our sport, currently we dont have one, we just call it one.

I am sure this post will get ripped to shreds . I wish I could explain myself better .

Scott,

I understand that you are looking at proportion of open payout to amateur payout, but if you look at the amount the amateur pays to play and the payout, it is still right in line with the PDGA payout tables. I do understand that you would like to compare the relative amount between am's and pro's, but the point is that the USGA still says that amateur players can be paid out in prizes.

Look at this link Ball Golf minor league payouts (http://www.minorleaguegolf.com/) Here they don't discuss whether an am is paid out or not, they simply state that the league will abide by USGA amateur guidelines. They also show payouts to date.





You understand I am looking at open payout to amatuer payout. Do you understand why I am looking at that?

It has to do with the spirit of amatuerism. In BG it seems to be ok that they give some prizes to Ams to a limit. That limit is set so low in comparison it amounts to peanuts to what a Professional golfer makes, even on a bad day, is why it is ok. In the grand scheme of things those prizes don't really amount to much and are set that low as to not promote a Professional mindset, and all that comes with it, in an Amatuer class.

Now look at disc golf. In a PDGA event it is common place for an Intermediate golfer to get over $100 in prizes(easily resaleable prizes at that) and they arent even the top "Amatuers", the Advanced guys get sometimes 3-4 times that. In that same event some of the Pros dont even make that much. This occurence in disc golf is what steers us away from Amatuerism and brings us to where we are and that is where "Amatuers" are playing for sometimes more profit then Pros in the same event. The fact that any amatuer makes a profit at all just shows that we don't have an Amatuer class, not too mention it can be more profitable to play "Amatuer " then to play pro. All we have is a bunch of different Pro/SemiPro/Plastic Pro divisions.

We need an Amatuer division, we don't have one. If we were to stay close to the USGA definition and limits, in our own sport of disc golf, then I beleive we would be able to give out a disc, maybe two, to players in order to keep within the spirit of amatuerism. Which is ok as long as we keep the prizes so low that the motives of Amatuers couldn't possibly be profit and could only be competition, competitive growth and Fun. Keeping within the spirit of amatuerism will help us grow in many ways, I am sure of it.

No, what we need is a profesional division with prizes that far out pace the small prizes that the amateur divisions can win. We need a professional division that can support a hundred or so professional disc golfers that do nothing other than play professional disc golf.

In order to readh that we need a dramatic increase in the number of amateur disc golfers (both touring prize winning amateurs and recreational non-prize winning amaterus). With an increase in those numbers, we may be able to attract the sponsorship needed to make a true professional tour possible.

No, what we need is a profesional division with prizes that far out pace the small prizes that the amateur divisions can win. We need a professional division that can support a hundred or so professional disc golfers that do nothing other than play professional disc golf.

In order to readh that we need a dramatic increase in the number of amateur disc golfers (both touring prize winning amateurs and recreational non-prize winning amaterus). With an increase in those numbers, we may be able to attract the sponsorship needed to make a true professional tour possible.



I personally feel that since our "Amateurs" can make just as much as most of our "Pros" that it takes away from them actually being fans of the pros. Having a fan base/audience is one of the keys to getting the money into this sport we need to get these pros what they deserve. Of course this is just one of the side effects of not having an Amatuer class and is just one of the peices to the puzzle of getting more sponsorship and money from spectators. I know, and have met, way to many people in disc golf that couldn't possibly care any less about watching the Pros play, they would just rather get their stacks and head on home. I see this as mostly a side effect which occurred from us not staying within the spirit of Amatuerism and promoting proffessional mindsets, and all that goes with it, in our Amatuer class.

No, what we need is a profesional division with prizes that far out pace the small prizes that the amateur divisions can win.


We just need an equitable system that makes sense.


In order to readh that we need a dramatic increase in the number of amateur disc golfers (both touring prize winning amateurs and recreational non-prize winning amaterus). With an increase in those numbers, we may be able to attract the sponsorship needed to make a true professional tour possible.



Well, given that we have had a dramatic increase in amateur participation, and a corresponding decline/stagnation in pro participation, I'd say that the facts hardly support this assertion.

Well, given that we have had a dramatic increase in amateur participation, and a corresponding decline/stagnation in pro participation, I'd say that the facts hardly support this assertion.




No decline. No stagnation in cash player participation according to the facts. Those who play for cash have gone from 1650 to 2599 since 1997. Pro purse cash paid has gone from $458K to $1390K. Number of events from 267 to 682. Unless most of that money increase was from sponsors, participation in terms of cash players and number of events played have gone up. If it looks like participation is down, it's because the number of events has increased even faster to handle the faster Am increase which reduces the cash player field sizes, not overall participation. In addition, Open fields have dropped relative to Master Pro and older cash player divisions as our active population ages.

Notice I call them cash players on purpose. We probably had no players with the exception of possibly Climo in 1997 who made enough to call themselves a true disc golf pro, and he admits most of his DG income is from signature discs, not playing. Now there's maybe 5-10 who strive to make most of their income via disc golf competition. By that measure, our number of pros is increasing at a pretty good clip.

It has to do with the spirit of amatuerism. In BG it seems to be ok that they give some prizes to Ams to a limit. That limit is set so low in comparison it amounts to peanuts to what a Professional golfer makes, even on a bad day, is why it is ok. In the grand scheme of things those prizes don't really amount to much and are set that low as to not promote a Professional mindset, and all that comes with it, in an Amatuer class.


That is what you believe. What you have stated is not fact.

I believe that you have it backwards. I do not believe that BG sets am prize limits to some percentage of pro winnings. I believe that BG sets am prize limits to something reasonable, that being $750 per event and $5k a year. (Providing of course that whoever posted those numbers was right.) I believe the USGA thinks those are reasonable numbers all on their own and that you are reading far too much "intent" into their decision.

It just so happens that lots and lots of people want to watch the top pro ball golfer play golf, and that is why the top pros get paid so much.

Nobody wants to pay top disc golfers in order to watch them play. Hopefully we're geting there, but we sure aren't there now. We might never get there.

We seem to have been trying to go about it all backwards anyway. We are trying to contrive ways to pay pro disc golfers more money in the hopes that it will make people want to watch them play. But until people want to watch, we'll just be shuffling entry fees around.

It has to do with the spirit of amatuerism. In BG it seems to be ok that they give some prizes to Ams to a limit. That limit is set so low in comparison it amounts to peanuts to what a Professional golfer makes, even on a bad day, is why it is ok. In the grand scheme of things those prizes don't really amount to much and are set that low as to not promote a Professional mindset, and all that comes with it, in an Amatuer class.


That is what you believe. What you have stated is not fact.

I believe that you have it backwards. I do not believe that BG sets am prize limits to some percentage of pro winnings. I believe that BG sets am prize limits to something reasonable, that being $750 per event and $5k a year. (Providing of course that whoever posted those numbers was right.) I believe the USGA thinks those are reasonable numbers all on their own and that you are reading far too much "intent" into their decision.

It just so happens that lots and lots of people want to watch the top pro ball golfer play golf, and that is why the top pros get paid so much.

Nobody wants to pay top disc golfers in order to watch them play. Hopefully we're geting there, but we sure aren't there now. We might never get there.

We seem to have been trying to go about it all backwards anyway. We are trying to contrive ways to pay pro disc golfers more money in the hopes that it will make people want to watch them play. But until people want to watch, we'll just be shuffling entry fees around.



It's tough enough to get all the players to watch the finals , let alone family members , friends and relatives !!!!!

No, I dont think they purposefully went and set the prize limit at some certain percent of what pros make. I do feel they set a limit for a reason and kept it low in comparison for a reason. Their reason imo is to keep professional mindsets and profit making out of the amatuer class. If you read the Rules of Amateurism you will see that their goal is to :maintain the distinction between amateur golf and professional golf and to keep the amateur game as free as possible from the abuses that may follow from uncontrolled sponsorship and financial incentive. I didnt make that up, that is what they said. See below.

---- ---1-3. Purpose and Spirit of the Rules

The purpose and spirit of the Rules is to maintain the distinction between amateur golf and professional golf and to keep the amateur game as free as possible from the abuses that may follow from uncontrolled sponsorship and financial incentive. It is considered necessary to safeguard amateur golf, which is largely self-regulating with regard to the Rules of play and handicapping, so that it can be fully enjoyed by all amateur golfers. -------------

BTW guys, I am not on some mission to slam the PDGA for making a bunch of mistakes. I am fairly certain they are doing what they beleive is right, or maybe was right at one time, to bring in more players to the sport. This thread is/was about ideas to help in a possible reformation errr hypothetical reformation. There is no need to feel like you need to jump to anyones defense over any of my comments/opinions because there is nothing to defend. My intentions are the same as yours and that is to try and makes things better, and things can ALWAYS be better.

[the above comments were not directed at anyone in particular]

I agree that things can be better. I also agree with Chuck that we need to be looking at ways to make the Open division more attractive as opposed to ways to make the am divisions less attractive.

It has to do with the spirit of amatuerism. In BG it seems to be ok that they give some prizes to Ams to a limit. That limit is set so low in comparison it amounts to peanuts to what a Professional golfer makes, even on a bad day, is why it is ok. In the grand scheme of things those prizes don't really amount to much and are set that low as to not promote a Professional mindset, and all that comes with it, in an Amatuer class.


That is what you believe. What you have stated is not fact.

I believe that you have it backwards. I do not believe that BG sets am prize limits to some percentage of pro winnings. I believe that BG sets am prize limits to something reasonable, that being $750 per event and $5k a year. (Providing of course that whoever posted those numbers was right.) I believe the USGA thinks those are reasonable numbers all on their own and that you are reading far too much "intent" into their decision.

It just so happens that lots and lots of people want to watch the top pro ball golfer play golf, and that is why the top pros get paid so much.

Nobody wants to pay top disc golfers in order to watch them play. Hopefully we're geting there, but we sure aren't there now. We might never get there.

We seem to have been trying to go about it all backwards anyway. We are trying to contrive ways to pay pro disc golfers more money in the hopes that it will make people want to watch them play. But until people want to watch, we'll just be shuffling entry fees around.



<font color="blue"> That is what you believe. What you have stated is not fact. </font> This is equally true of all of your opinions here.

The important thing is to consider what is best for disc golf, regardless of opinion or belief.

I'm still interested to get an answer from you about my question, "What objections would you have if you were able to maintain all entitlements you currently enjoy in the "Prize" class with the exception of the name "Amateur" and the protection it affords you from identically skilled "Cash" class players?"

I'd very much appreciate an answer. Thanks.

I'm still interested to get an answer from you about my question, "What objections would you have if you were able to maintain all entitlements you currently enjoy in the "Prize" class with the exception of the name "Amateur" and the protection it affords you from identically skilled "Cash" class players?"

I'd very much appreciate an answer. Thanks.


Nick, you ask loaded questions.

I do not currently receive any "protection" from identically, or even similarly, skilled "cash" class players.

Any 939 rated players that are tired of paying $100+ to have Kevin McCoy kick their heads in by 8 strokes per round (24-32 strokes per tournament) can come and play Advanced Amateur with me in the MA1 division, regardelss of whether or not they cahsed for $13.50 in a PDGA tourament six years ago. I welcome them and look forward to competing against them. And I am not "protected" from them as they are fully eligible for my division of choice.

As for terminology Nick, why is that you cannot let go of this? The PDGA defines "amateur" and I use that definition. Why can't you?

Some on the Competition group have discussed the "Amateur" term issue and aren't necessarily against a name change. Not sure what would be appropriate. However, a practical consideration is what do you do with the Am Worlds in terms of who qualifies in the future? I guarantee that the current merch (Adv, Int and Rec) divisions would still be allowed to attend the Am Worlds, at least for some number of years. I don't see the PDGA changing the name to the Merch World Championships. If an attempt is made to develop the so called True Am divisions, the jury is still out whether it will be successful. Even if it is, it still will likely take many years for enough true ams to justify hosting a true am worlds.

I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, just that it's not just a simple name change to do it.

"Mid-Worlds" well..." The PDGA Mid-World Championships" :confused: :D

If we're going that far, we might as well go for the PDGA Middle Earth Championships for a little marketing pizzazz. We know who would supply Wizards, and Orcs, and also who would set the courses for the Hobbit division... :D

If we're going that far, we might as well go for the PDGA Middle Earth Championships for a little marketing pizzazz. :D We know who would set the courses for the Hobbit division...



Not THAT is funny stuff. :D

Some on the Competition group have discussed the "Amateur" term issue and aren't necessarily against a name change. Not sure what would be appropriate. However, a practical consideration is what do you do with the Am Worlds in terms of who qualifies in the future? I guarantee that the current merch (Adv, Int and Rec) divisions would still be allowed to attend the Am Worlds, at least for some number of years. I don't see the PDGA changing the name to the Merch World Championships. If an attempt is made to develop the so called True Am divisions, the jury is still out whether it will be successful. Even if it is, it still will likely take many years for enough true ams to justify hosting a true am worlds.

I'm not saying it doesn't make sense, just that it's not just a simple name change to do it.



Seriously, what is "World Championship" about the current Am Worlds?

Don't sell your World Ratings Championships short Chuck. They would be the natural fit for the "Prize Class" Championships, open to Pros below a certain rating as well...

I imagine the first real Amateur World Championships would be similar in format to other amateur competitive systems where there would be local, state/provincial and national qualifier events building up to it. Further that there would be FAR greater participation by scholastic players from college through middle school students than there will be hackers; though if other major amateur sports (marathon, etc) are any indication, there will be plenty of them as well.

Mid-Nationals or Mid-Worlds for Prize class players is not an odd concept; if anything it is far more accurate a description than Am Worlds has ever been.

As for terminology Nick, why is that you cannot let go of this? The PDGA defines "amateur" and I use that definition. Why can't you?



Because not only is it "wrong", it is clearly harmful to our current competitive structure as well to our future growth.

And Cash players may play in Prize divisions but they may not accept any prizes, that is your protection Rhett.

New Question: Do you really ever see Educational Institutions ever entering events like what "we" call Amateur Disc Golf, similar to all the other sports they engage in?

And Cash players may play in Prize divisions but they may not accept any prizes, that is your protection Rhett.




That is not true. Pros playing in Am can receive prizes (started in 2005) and they can also enter for a discounted entry fee to play for Trophy Only (started this year).

And Cash players may play in Prize divisions but they may not accept any prizes, that is your protection Rhett.




That is not true. Pros playing in Am can receive prizes (started in 2005) and they can also enter for a discounted entry fee to play for Trophy Only (started this year).



GREAT! Thereby proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that no real "Amateur" classification exists.

i.e. if this is an option, then what significance do the terms "Pro" and "Am" signify?

Isn't "Prize" and "Cash" infinitely more accurate?

Could call the prize class Division A, and if the divisions are to stay the same could be Division 1A....Division 2A....3A. Age Protected divisions would be Masters Division 1A etc. The world championships could be the " Division A World Championships".

Doesn't sound all that bad /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif And the prize class would get to keep a small portion of the (A)mateur name :)

New Question: Do you really ever see Educational Institutions ever entering events like what "we" call Amateur Disc Golf, similar to all the other sports they engage in?


Nick, where do educational institutions do that now???

I would imagine that when EDGE gets disc golf off the ground, with the help of all of us of course, that the schools would compete against each other in some kind of contrived team construct where participants would be exclusively educational institution students that went to the particular schols that were competing.

Just like all their other sports.

When it gets to the point where universities offer scholarships to disc golfers, then the students who were good enough to cash or merch and good enough to compete for a high-valued scholarship would be wise to decline all winnings when they compete in PDGA events. Not because school sports are so pure and genuine, but because the scholarship would be worth more than the tourney payout an it would make financial sense for them to do so.

Amateur ball golfers play for prizes and are still called amateur, why should we have to give up the amateur name.

Schools play amateur sports, just under a different set of rules regarding payout.

There is no need for the name to be removed from it's current place before it can be used in another. No one would expect scholastic competitions to be run in the same format as PDGA sanctioned singles events.

Chuck, all you do is keep throwing out misleading statistics. Any pro who has played the last twenty years in the Oklahoma/Texas area knows for an absolute fact, gathered from their own experience, that Pro fields have stagnated, or declined while am fields have flourished. No presentation of misleading statistics will alter their knowledge.

I don't know why you waste your time trying to demonstrate that aggregate pro members and purse totals equals increased participation. Just continue to bury your head in the sand and create justifications.

By the way, protection based on demonstrated skill is about the best protection one can ask for.

If my High School disc golf ever takes place I would do it EXACTLY like high school golf does in this part of the country.

Upto 6 players per team. Total the best 4 scores out of the 6 and that determines the school/team winner.

Then of course we would prize out the first 5 individuals with a Disc and a ribbon/medallion.

I just presented the PDGA facts, not my estimates. If anything is misleading, it's relying on undocumented observations. Prove it. The Memorial Pro entries have exploded. I indicated that it's likely that the number of Open players entering each event could be down but pro participation can still be up in terms of total pro entries. If 30 Open players in a location used to enter 5 events in a year and now 20 enter 10 events a year, do the math. Overall participation is up. With more events, more older pros and more pro money, total stats for pros are solidly growing, just not as fast as amateurs.

Amateur ball golfers play for prizes and are still called amateur, why should we have to give up the amateur name.




That statement is misleading. We all know that ball golf amateurs receive prizes. IMO, they are able to give prizes to a limit because the spirit of amateurism is the motivating factor for the Ams in ball golf. I can promise you with almost 100% certainty that if their prize limit was such that it caused amatuers motivations to be profit from the sale of those prizes or all about "how much stuff they can win" then they would remove prizes from their amateur class or at minimum reduce the limit.

It is not as simple as you put it by saying "ball golf ams get prizes". It is about keeping within the spirit of amateurism. Something that is non-existant in the disc golf structure with exception to a couple of trophy only deals here and there, which i think is mostly played by people who just don't have the full entry or can't justify paying the full entry then it is about keeping with the spirit of amatuerism.

Look, you and other's argument is:

growth in am participation is great for pro participation.

I say bs: that over the last 17 years, the am fields have flourished while the pro fields have stagnated/declined.

First, you give me bs numbers about total members and purses, now you give me one specific tournament. Since you cannot recognize the obvious unless it is presnted in statistical form, how about take:

the average am field size in 1988 vs. the average am field size in 2005. Calculate an annual growth.

Now, take the average pro field size in 1988 vs. the average pro field size in 2005. Calculate the average annual growth (I mean decline)

Then compare these two growth rates and use the data to support your theory that wild increases in amateur participation benifits pro participation.

Once you realize that you cannot prove this, just come back and say it doesn't matter because noone is a real pro, pros don't matter, blah, blah, blah; but at least stop trying to imply the phenomenon does not exist.

The Memorial Pro entries have exploded.



There are a few events that are worthy for everyone to want to compete in like the USDGC, The Memorial, Bowling Green, MSDGC, Warrick NY.....Sure you can use one of the 5 great tournaments to prove your point but what about the 450 others?

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

Sure you can use one of the 5 great tournaments to prove your point but what about the 450 others?



That's exactly my point. James is talking about anecdotal "evidence" that pro participation is down in OK/TX. That selected undocumented (so far) experience is no more valid to see the big picture as it is to look at events like the Memorial and USDGC to prove a point. You have to look at overall stats and the pros appear to be doing mighty fine overall, just not as well as the Ams. I also showed how individual events can have fewer Open players but overall participation can be up if these pros are playing more events than before. I've offered a market driven option to try and boost the pros even faster. Anyone else?

Just to do it, I grabbed the first A-tier I saw on the schedule and compared this year to 2001(thats as far back as the results go)...

2006-

56 Open Males

107 total Pros


2001-

58 Open

92 total Pros

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



Chuck, lets take the Kansas City Wide Open for example,

2001 82 Open
2002 90 Open
2003 73 Open
2004 47 Open
2005 44 Open

I graduated from Sperry America but I wouldn't say that Pro Participation is up at all, looks to me as if the last 2 years (since the <955 mark was set) the Open field can't even come close to where it was. Plus there were about 237 more am divisions made since 2001

The numbers you keep bringing up are due to the nearly 5 times as many events as we did in 2001 sure the numbers will look inflated.