Here's another idea to help Kevin's and McCaine's quest for encouraging more tournout in Open. This is borrowed from ball golf, the USDGC and we've seen it before a few other places. Here's how it would work for events that are at least two days long with at least 18 holes scheduled for Sunday. The Open field would be cut to the top half after Saturday's round(s). Everyone who makes the cut cashes on Sunday with last place getting last cash. Everyone who is cut has the option to play a one-round Second Chance event on Sunday morning by paying a $10 entry fee. As a sweetener, 5% of the Open entry fees are withheld and added to the Second Chance purse.

Here's an example of a B-tier event that has $500 added and 30 Open entrants using this format:
<table border="1"><tr><td> .</td><td>Entry</td><td>Field</td><td>Total Entry</td><td>5% SC</td><td>Added</td><td>Purse
</td></tr><tr><td>B-tier Event</td><td> $60 </td><td>30</td><td> $1,800 </td><td> $(90)</td><td> $500 </td><td> $2,210
</td></tr><tr><td>Second Chance</td><td> $10 </td><td>15</td><td> $150 </td><td> $90 </td><td> $- </td><td> $240
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

Here are the payouts with 50% payout: 15 cash in the regular Open field. The top third of the bottom 15 (5 players) cash in the Second Chance one-round event.
OPEN DIVISION
<table border="1"><tr><td> Place</td><td>Prize
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td> $480
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td> $320
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td> $230
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td> $185
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td> $150
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td> $130
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td> $110
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td> $100
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td> $90
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td> $80
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td> $75
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td> $70
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td> $65
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td> $60
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td> $60
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

SECOND CHANCE
<table border="1"><tr><td> Place</td><td>Prize
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td> $85
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td> $60
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td> $40
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td> $30
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td> $25
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

I think this format would get more players entering Open. More different players have a chance to make the top half and cash because they will play one or two less rounds before the cut and they know on Sunday that they can't go home with less than their entry fee back (like making the semis at Worlds). Those playing in the Second Chance event are likely playing against players much closer to their rating and all will likely have a chance to make the top third in just one round. It's like an evening league round. Even though 5% of base entry fees (no sponsor cash) is set aside, the idea is that more than 1 in 20 players will be entering Open that wouldn't have entered otherwise. So, the total purse for the top half will still be larger than it would have been even taking 5% out for the Second Chance sweetener.

Players who are cut can bail and leave if they wish and not pay $10 to enter the next day if that makes more sense for them. However, we know players travel together and this gives cut players the opportunity to ante up again for something to do on Sunday if their buddies are still playing.

Do the Second Chance players start from zero or do scores carry over?

It's just another way to reward mediocrity and make sure everyone's a winner..... :D:eek: :D ;)

The problem right now is that the Open division has too wide of a ratings range to be fair. No wonder those below 990 are less likely to enter A-tiers and above. Intermediate Am is 40 points from 875 to 915. Any more than a 50-point range and those more than 50 points below have little chance to even cash let alone win. We could split Open or add another Am division above Advanced (which economically is better). However, under the current circumstances, the Second Chance format essentially breaks the Open field into two divisions by actual performance rather than by rating. And, as McCaine wants to see, has higher rewards for better performance.

(Bruce, the Second Chance does not carry over scores. It's 18 holes straight up).

The problem right now is that the Open division has too wide of a ratings range to be fair.

I absolutely agree with this. That why I think we should lower the caps on all the divisions, put a 940ish cap on Advanced and create an Expert Amateur division. The smaller number of players and smaller payouts would give them an incentive not to linger there too long.

The bottom line is, without better sponsors there is nothing you can do to force a player who is not competitive with the elite to compete with the elite. So long as Barry Schulz has competition up there at 1034 or whatever, he is going to keep getting better until he is 50 years old. So long as the top of pro keeps moving up, so will the top of advanced. You can tell 960 and 970 rated players to get better or quit, or you can make a place for them in the competitive structure.

Without better sponsorship the cold reality is that pros will not make good money at this game. Better sponsorship requires a bigger audience. A bigger audience requires more growth at the bottom. Focussing our energy and money on anything else is long run counter-productive.

Last time I was in Open I used to run a 970 and under pool. I picked that number because statistically the Open Division based on Ratings is already larger in range than any other but the bottom level at around 90 rating points (940 to 1030). 1000 rated golfers are all but garenteed cash.

Real sponsorship is the only way you are going to get the Open division to gain stability. Forcing "Added Cash" players into it by hook or crook is never going to work.

I think that idea may help but won't it add a lot of pain for the TD (who is likely very busy before/after the 'cut' timeframe)? Why not just have 2 pro divisions with one having a ratings cap at 985 (1040-55) or so (this cap could maybe vary depending on tourny tier)? The lower pro division would receive lower payout but still higher than advanced. I'd suggest lowering advanced payout to further encourage to movement to 'pro'.

I think that idea may help but won't it add a lot of pain for the TD (who is likely very busy before/after the 'cut' timeframe)? Why not just have 2 pro divisions with one having a ratings cap at 985 (1040-55) or so (this cap could maybe vary depending on tourny tier)? The lower pro division would receive lower payout but still higher than advanced. I'd suggest lowering advanced payout to further encourage to movement to 'pro'.



The cut and pay from a different pot won't really add much to the effort of the td a that time. The splits and payouts could be figured out during the first round of the first day. From then on, the players will be playing pretty much as before.

Splitting the open division into two separate pools where 95% of the entries automatically go to the top division will likely be very unpopular, anything else would have the lower division (the one with more players) winning more than the top division.

Dropping the Adv payouts even more than they have already been cut this year will be more likely to push more of the 960ish golfers out of the game than encourage them to move up.

Of course, that's just the way I see it, and since none of this has been tried, there's no proof one way or the other.

create an Expert Amateur division.



they did, it was called pro 2.

bring it back, it was a great idea. But it should be anyone under 980 in open can play pro 2. 955 was too low.

If we had an Expert division above Advanced, it would probably work better if you had to have a rating over X where X is around 955. Then, players below 955 could not enter it. The entry fee would be higher than Advanced, perhaps equal to playing Open. This would be a smaller division than Advanced because players couldn't play up. In fact, requiring players to have a high enough rating to play in an amateur division would take a lot of money out of the Advanced division and push it back into Intermediate and Intermeidate would be pushed back into Recreational. With lower fees, even with larger divisions, those prizes wouldn't be as large as currently in Advanced where many players play up and pay higher entry fees.

bruce, that sounds like the best idea so far.

too bad the whole "help to pros" thing is at least 5 years too early.

anything done to encourage/coerce/trick Ams into playing open is going to raise our already high 40% Did Not Renew rate in the Am ranks.

build your Am base until has created enough Pros to attract sponsorship. thats the shortest line to the goal.

today's Pros must face the unfortunate fact that their sport in just plain not in a position to support a career for them. i wish it wasnt so, but it is.

so focus on what will help in the long term - build the Am base.

The problem right now is that the Open division has too wide of a ratings range to be fair. No wonder those below 990 are less likely to enter A-tiers and above. Intermediate Am is 40 points from 875 to 915. Any more than a 50-point range and those more than 50 points below have little chance to even cash let alone win. We could split Open or add another Am division above Advanced (which economically is better). However, under the current circumstances, the Second Chance format essentially breaks the Open field into two divisions by actual performance rather than by rating. And, as McCaine wants to see, has higher rewards for better performance.

(Bruce, the Second Chance does not carry over scores. It's 18 holes straight up).



Why not have another division betwween adv. and open??? I mean, there is a big gap in the ratings! Plus, Adv. players do not have to move up right??? So, if you just want to bag for the rest of your life, it's ok.. Why not have a cut off at say 980 or so that says you have to move up like all other divisions. How about...Get rid of Rec. and add another division in the 970-1000+ range. That makes sense to me. Depending on the course, there is NO way for a 930 rated adv. player to compete against a 1000 rated adv player. You know what I mean?

The problem right now is that the Open division has too wide of a ratings range to be fair. No wonder those below 990 are less likely to enter A-tiers and above.



If you feel bad for them, think about the 950-970 Open players who statistically have almost zero chance in cashing at B-tiers and above.



create an Expert Amateur division.



they did, it was called pro 2.

bring it back, it was a great idea. But it should be anyone under 980 in open can play pro 2. 955 was too low.



Wow, I actually agree with MTL on something. :D

Abolishing Pro 2 and ratings-based events was a travesty, imo. The phenomena where advanced players make the move to Open, donate for a year or two, then give up tournament golf completely has only been exacerbated.

you are right that people are leaving, but the number are that 10% of players who played as pro in any given year do not renew. this could include people who joined as Ams, then cashed as Pros during the year.

but 40% of those who join as Ams do not renew. the ""move up and move out" problem may be real, but its not the only problem... maybe not even the biggest.

:eek:

Pro 2 exacerbates the problem. Most added cash at B-tiers is money the TD is making on the amateurs. Every time you add another pro division you reduce the number of amateurs and the amount of profit a TD makes.

Just think, if every player played for cash there would be very little added cash. Most real added cash would get eaten up by the $400 to $600 that the PDGA takes out of a successful B-tier.

[That's right: You run a successful B-tier and you are paying the PDGA $400-$600. The No Foolin yesterday will pay the PDGA $629! That's a bit more than they added to the pros! :o]

The solution is the opposite approach: Two pro divisions, men and women. If you aren't good enough to play in either of those divisions you play amateur. We would need to let all those not good enough players back into the amateur ranks, and probably adjust the Advanced ratings parameters so that it did not become a division for players rated 915-999, but that is almost what it is already. Have you looked at the top 75 advanced players' ratings recently? Pretty much all 960+.

The solution is the opposite approach: Two pro divisions, men and women. If you aren't good enough to play in either of those divisions you play amateur.


Now that's an idea worth pursuing!

Most added cash at B-tiers is money the TD is making on the amateurs.



This is actually the problem Bruce. TDs not doing enough work to get sponsorship; instead relying on profits from the retail/wholesale differential in their prizes.

If you look at the cash raised between the retail/wholesale differential in prizes as amateurs providing sponsorship for the pro classes and not funds raised by your club THROUGH LEGITAMATE MEANS, then you should follow your conscience and NOT RIP OFF YOUR AMS by doing this and make sure you use that differential to provide additional payout to your amateurs.

If you don't, then you are the problem, and the one making suckers out of your prize competitors, not the pros who YOU decided to add the cash raised to.

so focus on what will help in the long term - build the Am base.



100% agree. Now we just need one and we can get started.

[QUOTE]
then you should follow your conscience and NOT RIP OFF YOUR AMS by doing this and make sure you use that differential to provide additional payout to your amateurs.[QUOTE]


Did you actually just post this? You, of all people, want to provide "additional payout" to amateurs? :eek:

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! :D:D

[QUOTE]
so focus on what will help in the long term - build the Am base.



I agree, without ams, there would be no dg.... Everybody starts as an amateur. Some people forget where they came from. That is the biggest problem I see with moving up. It becomes more of a selfish game instead of having FUN...

so focus on what will help in the long term - build the Am base.



100% agree. Now we just need one and we can get started.



That's right Nick. I don't suppose you have a proposal that would create one...

I don't like the 2nd chance offer. People who shoot worse then end up winning the 2nd chance make more money than the ones who shot better than them and took last cash in the regular tournament. Sounds dumb to me, plus that's 15% outta the regular purse rewarding players who couldn't even cash!!

I don't like the 2nd chance offer. People who shoot worse then end up winning the 2nd chance make more money than the ones who shot better than them and took last cash in the regular tournament. Sounds dumb to me, plus that's 15% outta the regular purse rewarding players who couldn't even cash!!



No that's 5% plus $10 more the players added that was never part of the original purse.

If you have 1 player sign up in open because of this option for every 20 that would have been there anyway, it is a wash. And in most events that means just 1 additional player since the MPO field is seldom larger than 20 players.

Sounds dumb to me



Make sure to tell Harold that they shouldn't do it at the USDGC including adding cash to the Saturday morning Par 3 shootout.

There's a good chance that the player who wins the Second Chance event will actually have shot a better cumulative score than the player who made the cut and took last cash.

The cut and pay from a different pot won't really add much to the effort of the td a that time. The splits and payouts could be figured out during the first round of the first day. From then on, the players will be playing pretty much as before.

It was stated above that the 2nd day would be optional. You would see if you were eligible by the end of the 1st day. This means the TD has a lot of work to do (collect cash, set up groups, etc.) after the 1st round.


Splitting the open division into two separate pools where 95% of the entries automatically go to the top division will likely be very unpopular, anything else would have the lower division (the one with more players) winning more than the top division.

I disagree... if you give the better advanced players somewhere to play (where they will be competitive with the bottom pros) then people will play. Do you really think the bottom pros will stick around in open to play against 1040 rated players (i.e. donate)? Dropping the advanced payout will build this new division rapidly. We are basically giving the better advanced and bottom pros a shot at better payout (cash)... why would they continue to play advanced for less prizes?

I think we also need to eliminate the requirement of having a pro continue to play in that division (esp. if my above idea isn't implemented). There has to be some method to allow the better Advanced players play pro for B/C tiers (and cash) and play advanced for A-tier/ST events.

Sounds dumb to me



Make sure to tell Harold that they shouldn't do it at the USDGC including adding cash to the Saturday morning Par 3 shootout.

There's a good chance that the player who wins the Second Chance event will actually have shot a better cumulative score than the player who made the cut and took last cash.



Are you talking about the Par 3 shootout tournaments for the players who didn't make the cut for USDGC? Because I think that IS a good idea, plus then some of the people who came there to watch can also play. I'm under the impression that this 2nd chance deal was that you just pay a little extra the day after you get cut, then you can still end up playing for a seperate prize pool. Are the scores still going to carry over from the first day or is it like a whole new 1-2 round tournament?

Are the scores still going to carry over from the first day or is it like a whole new 1-2 round tournament?



No carryover and only one round even if the tournament has two on Sunday. It's just like the USDCG Second Chance except Harold let's players play it free and awards prizes (cash?). That's no different from taking 5% from the paid entries as a sweetener. Then, players still have to chip in $10 to participate. I haven't played Open in a PDGA for a long time but would consider it under this format, especially if I'm facing Ginnelly or Hammock in a Master division anyway.

I'd have to hear more specific details , but a extra $10.00 , for some , may be worth it.

so focus on what will help in the long term - build the Am base.



100% agree. Now we just need one and we can get started.



That's right Nick. I don't suppose you have a proposal that would create one...



Eerie how you can read my mind...

The answer, I haven't written volumes about, is more sponsorship. And not people having no chance of cashing getting a discounted entry fee, nor some second chance prize that makes the last place cashing winners feel like dopes. I have been around both options in "live" circumstances, and though some normally "disenfranchised" players enjoyed a breif stay in the land of "entitlement" the overall feeling was one of WTH as a parade of players playing in protected divisions marched up and got more cash than players who played better than them.

Don't get me wrong, I am in favor of protected divisions and want tds to do as good a job as possible for players in those divisions, there just needs to be some amount of consideration to the "dope" affect it has on players who have worked hard to loose that protection.

I appreciate Chuck offering potential solutions or fixes or patches. But I strongly suspect that what we face is not able to be fixed by such incremental changes; that there is a significant and unavoidable problem at both the top and bottom of our competitive system.

Jim, can you read my mind about what those problems are?

BTW, nice going on the new rules. Will you sign my rule book for me?

Jim,
[...]
BTW, nice going on the new rules. Will you sign my rule book for me?



I'd be happy to. You coming to Texas States?

Jim,
[...]
BTW, nice going on the new rules. Will you sign my rule book for me?



I'd be happy to. You coming to Texas States?



Yeah right after the Uzebekistan and Siberia Open events...

The answer, I haven't written volumes about, is more sponsorship. And not [...] some second chance prize that makes the last place cashing winners feel like dopes.



For one thing, if they feel like dopes, maybe it's because they played DFL in a protected division ! And as has been mentioned, last cash in the Winners bracket probably had a bad round and would have earned squat had the winner of the Loser bracket thrown his score in the Winners group. I always feel like a dope when I don't win because I can see in my mind all the throws I should have hit.

More sponsorship . . . hm, maybe what we need is to consider that a truly professional class may never, or at least any time soon, develop in DG. Think of DG as bingo and golf as poker. Bingo is fun but there's no world series of bingo :)

As far as sponsorship goes, who is responsible for obtaining "more sponsorship"? I suspect this falls on the TDs shoulders. Is there PDGA guidance on how to convince otherwise sane people to give people like (insert name of comic relief here) money to play disc golf ?


But I strongly suspect that what we face is not able to be fixed by such incremental changes; [..]



Well, strong suspicions + $15 buys a new Star TeeBird :)

Besides, incremental change is the best we can ever hope for. Not just in DG, but ever. Unless you win the lottery. But again, what are the chances of that happening ?

One way to get new Pro's to play would be to make 2 Pro fields, like we have in the AM's. Have a Pro1 and a Pro2 and go by your rating to make the cuts. Seems simple enough to me.

Except the Pros want more players in their division, not another protected division where players can hide from them.

The problem right now is that the Open division has too wide of a ratings range to be fair. No wonder those below 990 are less likely to enter A-tiers and above. Intermediate Am is 40 points from 875 to 915. Any more than a 50-point range and those more than 50 points below have little chance to even cash let alone win. We could split Open or add another Am division above Advanced (which economically is better). However, under the current circumstances, the Second Chance format essentially breaks the Open field into two divisions by actual performance rather than by rating. And, as McCaine wants to see, has higher rewards for better performance.

(Bruce, the Second Chance does not carry over scores. It's 18 holes straight up).



I personally like the idea of the second chance - good idea - good use of an alternative format.

HOWEVER - the notion put forth above that the ratings range is too wide to be fair in OPEN is 100% WRONG WRONG WRONG.

History shows us that the open division has ALWAYS had the widest scoring range. It is the CHOICE OF DIVISION that makes payouts as they are unfair. Take all the players from 955 and up (pick a spot it doesn't matter for this argument) and put them in ONE DIVISION not three as it is now (Masters, Advanced, and Open) and the payouts will all of a sudden be both equitable AND reflective of skill. The larger pool of players coupled with a "pay deep" practice (say 50% of the field) would be INFINITELY more fair than the protected choice divisions we have now.

This whole notion of more and (by consequence) smaller divisions is a pathetic excuse for catering to the "everyone should be able to be a winner" culture in disc golf competition. Come on people -it is COMPETITION after all isn't it?

HOWEVER - the notion put forth above that the ratings range is too wide to be fair in OPEN is 100% WRONG WRONG WRONG.



This doesn't require any mathematical proof, just the observation of player's choices. In our current environment where players are regularly presented with free choice to enter Open versus Master or Advanced (or not play), they don't appear to feel the wide ratings range in Open is fair regardless whether you feel it is. If we eliminate the options to force behavior, it's apparent the only way to encourage more lower rated players to enter a division with a wider ratings range is to provide better incentives than currently exist. Second Chance and Stepped Entry Fees address this and hopefully we'll get more incentive ideas. Brakel's dividing the pool into fourths might work, but really isn't an incentive option, but a way to use dynamic ratings breaks to create fair divisions at each event.

I really don't understand the whole "feeling like dopes" argument.

Doesn't our ball oriented older brother pay out the last place finisher in large tournaments? Don't these players have to make a cut to get into those final rounds?

I think this argument is weak. We all feel like dopes for finishing last. No matter what the division. Even the person who gets last in Rec in their first tournament ever feels like a dope.

Players who make the cut, in this proposed second chance format, have already beaten the other players, they were already in a cashing positition (spelling), and likely they were already going to beat these other players because people play different and make more bad judgements when they are just below the cash line.

The second chance option would a) showcase those players who made the cut, just like Semifinals at Worlds. b) give the cut players an opportunitity for lead card golf. This is great for the new and mid pack pros who have yet to experience that elevated level of competition.

I think this is a great idea, and it gives the opportunity for more people to "get paid" in the open division. This increased opportunity might just intice more players to play in the Open division.

I really don't understand the whole "feeling like dopes" argument.



I think part of that may have been because the last few players that made the cut could be paid less than the winner of the loser's bracket.

I really don't understand the whole "feeling like dopes" argument.



I think part of that may have been because the last few players that made the cut could be paid less than the winner of the loser's bracket.



Perhaps because I do not intend on playing this sport for a living. But to me, this seems that money is the main motivating factor for all pros? If this is so, I imagine that these money motivated pros would practice more to attain the top levels where their chances of being cut is minimal.

Maybe I am naive? But for me, it is more about beating the course and the other players and less about the payout. But right now I think the issue needs to be more about growing the sport and the professional ranks by making the Open division more appealing. If we can do this, then the TD's can get more sponsorship money and payout the players who made the cut better. I think that the system as proposed would have to be in place for a few years to actually develop more open players and gain more sponsorships before the financial beneifits would truly pay off.

Short term loss for a long term gain.

Perhaps because I do not intend on playing this sport for a living. But to me, this seems that money is the main motivating factor for all pros? If this is so, I imagine that these money motivated pros would practice more to attain the top levels where their chances of being cut is minimal.



Either that, or they just quit playing. Hmmmm....

Perhaps because I do not intend on playing this sport for a living. But to me, this seems that money is the main motivating factor for all pros? If this is so, I imagine that these money motivated pros would practice more to attain the top levels where their chances of being cut is minimal.



Either that, or they just quit playing. Hmmmm....



Or just quit playing in tournaments.

Or just quit playing in tournaments.



You mean people play non-tournament rounds? Who?

I still see a few ex-pro players out on the courses and at minis.

I personally like the idea of the second chance - good idea - good use of an alternative format.

HOWEVER - the notion put forth above that the ratings range is too wide to be fair in OPEN is 100% WRONG WRONG WRONG.

History shows us that the open division has ALWAYS had the widest scoring range. It is the CHOICE OF DIVISION that makes payouts as they are unfair. Take all the players from 955 and up (pick a spot it doesn't matter for this argument) and put them in ONE DIVISION not three as it is now (Masters, Advanced, and Open) and the payouts will all of a sudden be both equitable AND reflective of skill. The larger pool of players coupled with a "pay deep" practice (say 50% of the field) would be INFINITELY more fair than the protected choice divisions we have now.

This whole notion of more and (by consequence) smaller divisions is a pathetic excuse for catering to the "everyone should be able to be a winner" culture in disc golf competition. Come on people -it is COMPETITION after all isn't it?



I agree 100% with Craig�s final paragraph, but I still don�t like the idea of ratings based entry fees, second chance payouts, or forcing people to play in a specific division based on skill levels as a solution to Open division size problems and I�ll tell you why if you�d like in detail? Or I could summarize?

The first two ideas (tiered entry fees and second chance) don�t properly address the very fine point Craig made at the end of his post:

This whole notion of more and (by consequence) smaller divisions is a pathetic excuse for catering to the "everyone should be able to be a winner" culture in disc golf competition. Come on people -it is COMPETITION after all isn't it?


If anything they only perpetuate or enhance that idea that it is �ALL ABOUT THE MONEY� or gambling.
The last, that a certain skill level (above 955) should be forced to play Open, I disagree with primarily because it is an admission of defeat.

Defeat of the idea that the Open division can be it�s own incentive.

And

Defeat of the idea that there could ever be a �Classification� of player (regardless of skill level) separate from the Cash division since all roads obviously would end in the Open division.

If a good td on a good course with a reasonable entry fee and as many event amenities as he/she can muster ran a single division event even with no to little more than payout for the top 3 spots I�d likely play in it.

Note: Some of you guys aren�t getting the �Pro 2 Dope� factor. It is not just the non-cashing top division players that feel like dopes but even the cashing pros. I�m not saying this feeling is �right� only that it very much exists, and the bad taste it leaves is not likely to change, even over time.

Significant sponsorship is the ONLY way to make our Cash/Prize Classification of divisions function properly, all other solutions are going to be contrived and be mostly designed to meet the needs of the entitled protected divisions. Believe me, I wish it weren�t so as much as anyone, but it is inescapable.

Rather than endless tinkering with an inherently imperfect system, securing that sponsorship should be the sole mandate of the Cash/Prize divisions, otherwise known as the PDGA Competitive System.

Amateur considerations should not be forced on the Cash/Prize divisions, it only makes for strangeness and trouble.

HOWEVER - the notion put forth above that the ratings range is too wide to be fair in OPEN is 100% WRONG WRONG WRONG.




This doesn't require any mathematical proof, just the observation of player's choices. In our current environment where players are regularly presented with free choice to enter Open versus Master or Advanced (or not play), they don't appear to feel the wide ratings range in Open is fair regardless whether you feel it is.


It has nothing to do with what I think Chuck - and certainly has ZERO to do with what players in protected divisions think is FAIR!! Give me a break. People play in protected divisions plainly for a greater chance of WINNING. All the while those players winning those divisions place nicely within the Open division scoring range. It is the obvious environment of CHOICE that perpetuates inequity in the reward system of PDGA sanctioned competition.


If we eliminate the options to force behavior, it's apparent the only way to encourage more lower rated players to enter a division with a wider ratings range is to provide better incentives than currently exist. Second Chance and Stepped Entry Fees address this and hopefully we'll get more incentive ideas.


This I agree with and reflects the kinds of things I have been doing in my events for a couple years now. Examples of incentives:
1) half price entry fees for advanced players to play up to Open
2) Minimum payout of 50% of field
3) Flattening overall payout to pay more players
4) Stepped entry fees in 20 point ratings gaps (1000+;$50, 980-999;$45, etc)


Here's how I would set up divisions if it were up to me.
Men
Women

Take some percentage of entry fees (let's say 10% just for starters for each category) to use to reward "categorical finishers". These would basically be either bonuses for the players who were already able to cash (e.g. master age player places 3rd in Open Men - gets $150 prize money plus $100 for best "old guy" finisher) or a "second chance" type reward for those not yet in the top half. There's no reason why categories by division (less preferable), or ratings group (more preferable) could be rewarded. The result would be an incentive system not difficult to manage - and automatic equity in prize distribution.

Choice has got to go. If it's going to be competition - make it real competition, not - how do I feel today competition - it's getting more and more lame every year.

Craig, imagine what your event would be like if you did it exactly the same way but removed all financial considerations. No complicated entry fee or payout schemes, just a simple affordable entry fee, with the event and its amenities themselves being the payout.

Then base any additional payout purely on any sponsorship dollars you raised. Pay them to whatever percentage you wanted (top 3, 10%, 25%), it wouldn't matter since value was already returned to ALL of the participants in the form of the event itself and the amenities.

This is similar to large marathon events I believe.

It also makes your event in complete compliance with your excellent point concerning returning the motivation of participation back to joy or competition vs the currently all-pervasive "winning your buddies entry fees" or �finding a division for which you can whoop up on lesser players�.

Consider the Soiree; $85 entry fee, includes sat night room at host hotel (if players stay with a buddy or are local and wave the hotel room, then kick the extra into the sponsorship cash), player party at host hotel, 2 lunches at course, and free raffle ticket for sponsor merch like baskets, discs, apparel, gift certificates etc. The $2500 in cash sponsorship would go directly to the cash payout for the top (whatever) players (plus any wholesale/retail differential from the event amenities.

This would de-emphasize �Cashing� and re-emphasize �Participation� as well as �Enjoyment�.

I would make it a point to make it to such an event every year.

I think that you are a True Amateur at heart Craig. And that is the highest praise in my opinion.

Consider the Soiree; $85 entry fee, includes sat night room at host hotel (if players stay with a buddy or are local and wave the hotel room, then kick the extra into the sponsorship cash), player party at host hotel, 2 lunches at course, and free raffle ticket for sponsor merch like baskets, discs, apparel, gift certificates etc. The $2500 in cash sponsorship would go directly to the cash payout for the top (whatever) players (plus any wholesale/retail differential from the event amenities.



I would play this event in a heartbeat. Where and when is it?

I tried to do something similar 2 years ago at the last MADCi at Druid Hill. I wanted it to be free to the invitees but bowed to the wisdom of the other involved organizers that we need an amount that would at least lock people into registering and showing so we picked $25 for all players regardless of divisions. I don't recall exact numbers but the pro divisions all got about 280% return of entry fees and we gave away over $1500 in prizes to the amateur divisions plus trophies for more than top 3 (I got 7th in open and have a crystal trophy I'm looking at right now).

Yes, toot toot, the point is that it is possible, and people will come and payouts and entry fee schemes need not take a degree in nukular (little tribute to G) physics to understand.

Hopefully JD will continue this tradition at the 2006 MADCi.

Hopefully JD will continue this tradition at the 2006 MADCi.



I sure hope the format of the next MADC invitational is reconsidered. I have always thought that an invitation/members only event was a terrible idea. Disc golf tournaments have always been based on inclusion, not exclusion, and if the 'privilege' of playing in an invitational event was a ploy to get more people to join the MADC or play in MADC events, it didn't work. The historical poor attendance at these MADC invitational events should have sent up red flags and I hope the viability of holding this type of event in the future is examined.

I like the idea of a second chance format. If it has worked in Ball golf it could work well for us. Could you as a player within the proposed format play within the tourney you are currently playing, decide to stay in the tourney you are in, and climb back up into the cash if you didn't want to join the other tourney?? I would hate to be out of a tourney if it was for some reason or another, tightly packed and there was alot of room for movement still.. On the other end it would be nice to have something to play for other than a possible ace in a tourney.. Disc golf is a game that can be very tough on your wallet, what if you don't have the $10 to pay for a separate tourney but you still want to play your round, could you opt to choose either one? Why would you only get to play one round if 2 rounds are offered? Why not 2? That part makes no sense? I like the idea, it would be cool to have a chance if you've had a horrible Saturday to still take home a little gas cash.. Who cares if you still finish in last cash, you aren't going home empty handed. my $.02

All of these entry fee/payout schemes are interesting, I just wouldn't want to standardize them at the PDGA level.

In consideration of the non-prize competition they are all beyond the point and as far as the magic answer to all of our challenges I think that they are 100% off target, or more accurately that they are robbing peter to pay paul; something we really need to get over and get back to playing based on the joy of the sport and participation.