There's been a lot written about how to get more people to move up into open. It's also pretty clear that Ams keep TDs perfecting their TD coming back to perfect their skills with the incentive of the cash to merch margin.

With that in mind, how would it work for the TD to split Open into two pools of 50-50, 60-40 or whatever with the top rated players separated from the lower rated players ? That way we would have a transition-oriented cash division to encourage people to move up. The players would have the option to play top division, but it would be decided by ratings who would be allowed to play in the lower cash division.

There's been a lot written on another thread about 'forcing' players to move up and unfortunately this may move into that unattractive realm, but how would it work to do a similar pool-split for the amateur ranks as well. Break up the am field into three pools by players current ratings ? I haven't put a lot of thought into it so maybe it's plagued by some fundamental problem but maybe it'll help someone come up with a better idea.

In most areas all this would do it make the Open division smaller. This is exactly what most of the people for the AM "move up" thing are against.

Break up the am field into three pools by players current ratings ? I haven't put a lot of thought into it so maybe it's plagued by some fundamental problem but maybe it'll help someone come up with a better idea.


The ams are currently broken up into three pools: Advanced, Intermediate, and Rec.

There is no ratings limit for Advanced, all Ams can play.

Only Ams rated below 915 can play Intermediate.

Only Ams rated below 875 can play Rec.

how would it work for the TD to split Open into two pools of 50-50, 60-40 or whatever with the top rated players separated from the lower rated players ? That way we would have a transition-oriented cash division to encourage people to move up. The players would have the option to play top division, but it would be decided by ratings who would be allowed to play in the lower cash division.



Do you remember the "Pro2" experiment? That is basically what you are describing and proposing (with some slight variations). The PDGA tried this for 1 year and overall it was much more work for the TDs to administrate than it was worth - overall, it was a very poorly attended division.

I think that players raised in the current system are happy to compete with the top dogs and risk a high risk that they will not cash week in and week out. Those players stay around (at least for a while until they get tired of donating) or they drop out of PDGA events before moving up to Pro. AKA, the "move up, move up, move out" syndrome.

I think the division you describe would work but it would take several years to change the culture to a point where it would be seen as OK to want to play for cash in a protected division. The Pro2 division got the nickname, "the JV's" around here - hardly the reputation that would attract players to want to play in it (I'm moving from Advanced to JV - wooohooo!).

That said, we already have a culture where it is OK to cash in protected divisions: Pro Masters, Women, etc - age and gender based. But, we do not have a skill-based "play for cash" division yet.

Break up the am field into three pools by players current ratings ? I haven't put a lot of thought into it so maybe it's plagued by some fundamental problem but maybe it'll help someone come up with a better idea.


The ams are currently broken up into three pools: Advanced, Intermediate, and Rec.

There is no ratings limit for Advanced, all Ams can play. <font color="red">plus women, masters and grand masters </font>

Only Ams rated below 915 can play Intermediate. <font color="red"> plus women </font>

Only Ams rated below 875 can play Rec. <font color="red"> plus women </font>



Thats 8 by my count. But somehow I think you were just complicating what he was trying to say.

The Second Chance proposal is a more incentive based way to end up with essentially this same idea and it keeps more money in the top half.

You mean 9 with FM1 (or 10 -- don't know if FG1 is a division).

The Second Chance proposal is a more incentive based way to end up with essentially this same idea and it keeps more money in the top half.



What is the "2nd chance proposal"? Is that this year's one time allowance to re-instate as an Amatuer after having accepted cash in years gone by thereby turning Pro?

How about a National Tour, a real Super Tour (a better structured series of A-tiers), and a real Champions Tour(a structured B-tier Tour).

NT's feature all age and gender protected divisions. ST's feature MPO and FPO with no age protection and CT's feature sub-1000 MPO and FPO. Maybe later add the World Tour above all. Or something like that.

See the thread with this title in the Rules topic section.

MA1, FW1, MM1, FM1, MG1, FG1, MS1
MA2, FW2, MA3, FW3
MJ1, FJ1, MJ2, FJ2, MJ3, FJ3, MJ4, FJ4

Either 11, 19, or 7 (often used) depending on how you count it.

The main problem with most Pro 2 ideas is that it does not benefit the top pros, who want more players to move up. It won't add players to the top division; it will take some away. At the same time it does not benefit the TDs, who need the profit on the amateurs to pay the PDGA, the park district, the trophy man, the insurance agent, and the added cash fairy. When there is not enough money to go around, it is the added cash fairy who gets paid last, so any successful Pro 2 concept is going to have twice the negative impact on the top pros. It takes entry fees out of their division and it takes added cash out of their division.

The only way you could get a Pro 2 concept to fly would be if Pro 2s played for less than their entry fee and the difference was added to Pro 1.

The only way you could get a Pro 2 concept to fly would be if Pro 2s played for less than their entry fee and the difference was added to Pro 1.


That is true. The Pro2 players would have to "pay for protection". That might not be such a revolting idea for 960-970 rated players who would get the opportunity to play for cash if they paid for protection.

And who do the ams pay for their protection?

Don't get mad, it's a logical question.

And who do the ams pay for their protection?

Don't get mad, it's a logical question.


James, I thought you read this whole thread. The ams already pay for the sanctioning and insurance fees, park fees, and various and sundry other things that the wholesale/retail markup on their merch provides. By playing pro, you already get a healthy cut of their entry fees.

And the most amazing thing is that if you pay the ams out 100% in retail value, THEY DON'T EVEN MIND that 35-40% of their entry fees aren't used for their payout!!! :D

But when all those seven 975 rated dirty am-baggers have two garages full of discs, they would probably be glad to send five or ten bucks of their entry up the ladder to McCoy so that they could play amongst themselves for cash instead of plastic. If there really are hundreds of thousands of these am baggers, they would surely all want to play for cash, and all that money going upstream would make Kevin happy even if the MPO field stayed at 8 players playing for all that added cash.

I don't see who wouldn't be happy in this scenario.

Alright, take a cut out of everyone to pay park fees, TD incentives, etc. We all should bear that expense equally. Then, the question still remains "who do the ams pay for their protection?"

By the way, the wholesale/retail argument is kind of specious because it implies that there is a market where ams can be paid out in wholesale. That marketplace is an illusion.

Most of the TDs I see running minimalist B-tiers are getting their added cash from the ams too. The ams easily pay 25%-40% for protection at most tournaments.

I know Pro 2s would pay $5 or 10% for protection, and it would fit well with the whole illegal gambling format in states where what we do is illegal. What outfit is running illegal gambling and NOT also running a little protection racket too? :D

But if too many advanced players played Pro 2 in that system, it would get hard to pay everyone else with their hand out. And it would be harder to maintain the pretense that this is a legit activity in the states where it isn't.

OMG , I have run tourneys like this
pro 2 ( at that time ams could take plastic to retain am status ) and Master players paid all the same entry fee and all had to donate $5 up to the open pot .
It worked pretty well too I might add cause it did what I thought it would do , made some of the masters move up since they were good enough to play open and win .
It also allowed advanced to play in a pro division and 2 of them collected cash and turned pro .

When I posted the idea on the message boards ( here and Madc ) I got BLASTED for moving money from one division to the other . I argued at least I was doing it above board ( unlike taking profits from disc prizes and sending it to the open pot )

But if too many advanced players played Pro 2 in that system, it would get hard to pay everyone else with their hand out. And it would be harder to maintain the pretense that this is a legit activity in the states where it isn't.



Nah, there's usually plenty of intermediates who can cover the expenses with the wholesale/retail markup, and you can always move the numbers around so that you can pretend it's all legit. Heck, just take the "protection" (I prefer to think of it as "tribute") money from the pro-2s and pretend that you're using that to cover the expenses, and then the wholesale/retail markup (which falls under the category of "sponsorhip" diverted through the disc manufactueres) to pay the Pros.

If you ask an accountant how much a cup of coffee costs, his answer should be "how much do you want it to cost?"

Alright, take a cut out of everyone to pay park fees, TD incentives, etc. We all should bear that expense equally. Then, the question still remains "who do the ams pay for their protection?"


James, the problem we are having with this discussion is that you refuse to acknowledge that the ams are already paying tribute to the pros.

You need to look at those stacks of plastic that the ams are taking home, and instead of gasping that the retail value is $230 and you only took home $100 with a better score, you need to look at the $230 stack and chuckle to yourself, "Poor slobs. Heh heh, that's another $80 that went to the pros right there." :)

If everyone paid the same entry fee for example.

30 ams
20 pros
All paid $50

Total
Ams = $1500
Pros = $1000

Park fee of $2
PDGA fee of $3

Total fees paid by
Ams = $150
Pros = $100

You pay out Ams at 100% retail value of $1350 which you as a good TD only paid $500 through keystone pricing and donations.

Now you have $850 to add to that pro purse just off the Am's alone. And you still paid out the Ams at 100% even though you gave half their entry to the pros.

So now the pros are getting paid out 175% without any real sponsorship work besides vendor discounts on Merch. This could also be used to pay out deeper in the pro division to encourage more players to play open.

Believe me, Am's are paying for their protection. I do not understand why someone who could compete and cash in open would even want to play Am.

That's your view. That $230 can be sold. I'm not aware of that market, but I'm sure they sell it somewhere between wholesale and retail.

Besides, the whole idea that the markup is a cost paid by ams is misleading. I understand how markup is used in tourney finances, but usually, noone has the option of recieving payout at wholesale, so the idea that they are foregoing a better option (which doesn't really exist) to subsidize the pros is disingenuous.

The basic fact y'all asserted was that pro 2s needed to pay a "protection fee" from open players. Well, just using basic logic, one would naturally assume that since ams would need way more protection than pro 2 players, they should have to pay a larger "protection fee."

btw, I am not in favor of any protection fee schemes, or Nick's rolling ratings scheme (even though its intention is at least admirable); they, like most of the schemes I read here the past four years are doomed to fail because they fail to recognize the core problem.

Sanctioning fee and insurance is also paid for by the margin in Am merch. As well as scorecards and pencils and fliers etc etc et c etc etc etc

You pay out Ams at 100% retail value of $1350 which you as a good TD only paid $500 through keystone pricing and donations.

.....without any real sponsorship work besides vendor discounts on Merch.



So good TD's can find wholesale pricing on DG merchandise that supports a 65% profit margin??!! I am making the assumption you are paying out 100% to Am's based on a resale value of MSRP. I am thinking typical profit margins are more in the 45-55 point range. Or is that just what the poor to average TD's find out there? :D

I want to be a good TD. Can you please post the wholesalers that are giving you (or the "good TD's" that you reference) that kind of cost structure?

btw, I am not in favor of any protection fee schemes, or Nick's rolling ratings scheme (even though its intention is at least admirable); they, like most of the schemes I read here the past four years are doomed to fail because they fail to recognize the core problem.

So what is the core problem IYPO ?
IMPO the core problem is too many protected players who can compete with the upper echelon of the disc golf community who then HIDE in protected divisions .

Yea I know major sponsorship is a core problem too but .... UNTIL we get that I feel a need is to allow the best to get paid the best .

Believe me, Am's are paying for their protection. I do not understand why someone who could compete and cash in open would even want to play Am.




Why not? I would if I could, cuz I could make more money playing ADV.

I could win stacks of plastic.
I could then run local events and prize out the winnings.
I could sell my winnings on ebay at fair market value.
I could save up to 60% on my entry fees.
I could stay away from the touring wolves.
I could play in fields that are 5 to 10 times the size I'm playing with in Open
I could even still be sponsored playing AM (which is the most assinine thing in our sport that AMS are sponsored....WHAT A JOKE!*
*disclaimer* Gateway sponsoring jr's/kids is COOL!

65% is kinda high...but not too far off for most TD's i would think

This is what I count for retail. MSRP is a good bench mark, and it is undebateable and documented.
$15 for Champion/Z
$18 for Star
$12 for Proline/Elite X
$8 for D/DX

From our local retailer who is the rep for Innova and Discraft we can get his costs for disc from the manufacturers. I am not allowed to advertise their wholesale prices, but keystone is basically a universal term.

I covered Sanctioning through sponsorship, so that never came out of the payout. And for my tournament next weeken, I am able to give $8 out of every Am entry to the Pro payout. The Am entry is a $13 net (after PDGA fees). But I am running a trophy only Am division event and I worked it out where I got the trophies donated. :DBut I can count the trophies for their retail value, and boy are they expensive after getting the plates printed for them. I used the prices from local trophy shops to find the value.

The AAO up in Huntsville AL paid out over 400% because it was all Am, and thanks to retail pricing.

I have not been able to get that kind of pricing. But TDs do get good wholesale pricing if they buy direct in quantity. TDs who don't add a lot to the pros or the ams and who deduct from the payout for PDGA fees, series fees, trophies, etc. can easily make $3 an hour running tournaments if they pay their staff the same! :D

Believe me, Am's are paying for their protection. I do not understand why someone who could compete and cash in open would even want to play Am.




Why not? I would if I could, cuz I could make more money playing ADV.

I could win stacks of plastic.
I could then run local events and prize out the winnings.
I could sell my winnings on ebay at fair market value.
I could save up to 60% on my entry fees.
I could stay away from the touring wolves.
I could play in fields that are 5 to 10 times the size I'm playing with in Open
I could even still be sponsored playing AM (which is the most assinine thing in our sport that AMS are sponsored....WHAT A JOKE!*
*disclaimer* Gateway sponsoring jr's/kids is COOL!



Well that is an easy fix....have the pros agree to be paid out in plastic ...with the size of the open entry fees you guys would make a killing and so would the TD's :)

I want to be a good TD. Can you please post the wholesalers that are giving you (or the "good TD's" that you reference) that kind of cost structure?



http://www.discraft.com/dgtourneyspecials.html
http://www.innovadiscs.com/sponsorship/inncolor.html
http://www.discgolfassoc.com/PROLINE-Sponsorship.html

I agree totally
Although I am guilty of putting my winnings back into club plastic and reselling for the club profit .
I definatly agree with the sponsorship thing cause that has ramifications in Masters playing too
This discussion was on another thread about how masters are sponsored and get more for WINS ( which leads back to lowest score winning NOT divisional winners ) .

I was never able to get a 65% markup. Man would that be sweet!

I use 35% for discussion like this.


James, I don't understand what you are trying to say about the ams. Are you saying that since they aren't voluntarily sending money up the chain to the pros that it doesn't count as paying protection? That's hogwash. They have no choice. If they want to play the tournament, they accept the terms. What are you talking about?

From the first link I provided above:
Buy 100 SuperColor Pro-D Challengers for $850, retail $2000.

That's 135% markup if I did the math right. Plus they throw in a bunch of stickers, and $275 in "D-Dollars" which gets you some nice CTP and "long drive" prizes.

To be fair that is fundraiser pricing not what you would see in the regular stock. Pro-d plastic is more like $3.00-$4 wholesale and retails at around $7-9.Which is about 55-65% profit margin.(these are educated guesses since i havent seen the wholesale pricing for stuff in a long time)

To be fair that is fundraiser pricing not what you would see in the regular stock. Pro-d plastic is more like $3.00-$4 wholesale and retails at around $7-9.Which is about 55-65% profit margin.(these are educated guesses since i havent seen the wholesale pricing for stuff in a long time)



Yeah, but that's the whole point. These companies offer tournament specials where they charge less than wholesale in some cases, so TDs can increase their profit margin to cover expenses. To get those kind of rates for stock plastic, the TD would have to purchase 500+ discs. Seems a no-brainer to keep up-front costs down and backstock low...making it far easier to "break even".

--Josh

James, I don't understand what you are trying to say about the ams. Are you saying that since they aren't voluntarily sending money up the chain to the pros that it doesn't count as paying protection?


I am saying that it is disingenous to claim that is a "protection fee." If the TD decides to use retail for payout, the ams have no choice. It is disingenous to claim that their payout is a protection fee, or even a subsidy for that matter, like y'all continually claim. It is their payout, not a protection fee, or a subsidy. Maybe if x% of the plastic that was paid out to ams, was confiscated and given to the open, then we would be talking apples and apples.

Anyways, it's irrelevant to me at least, because this protection scheme, while well intended fails to address the core problem inherent in our system. Simply put, once we create a system that does not encourage people to play down, while giving them less-onerous options to play up, they will naturally tend to play up more often. This basic principle applies to almost all walks of life, and most human endevours.

OK I have the best plan to make people want to play up.

If you play Rec you must play on one foot and with your opposite hand. Oh yeah blindfolded.

If you play INT you get to take the blindfold off. When you move up to ADV you get to play on both legs but still with your opposite hand. When you finally make the jump to Pro you get to play like normal.

Now THAT is a flawless plan.

/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

OK I have the best plan to make people want to play up.

If you play Rec you must play on one foot and with your opposite hand. Oh yeah blindfolded.

If you play INT you get to take the blindfold off. When you move up to ADV you get to play on both legs but still with your opposite hand. When you finally make the jump to Pro you get to play like normal.

Now THAT is a flawless plan.

/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



Too Complicated, Whips and Chains work the best...

This might make Pool 1 smaller, but it would probably make Pool 1 + Pool 2 bigger than our current Open. And Open larger if people improve by playing Open and sticking with it since they aren't donating every tourney.


In most areas all this would do it make the Open division smaller. This is exactly what most of the people for the AM "move up" thing are against.

For this discussion it's helpful to see our currrent structure as broken up into divisions, not pools. Pools are determined on site based on the ratings span of the players who show up.

I should have shown an example.
So the pros are to be split into two pools, based on the median (I think it's median or it could be the mean) current rating:
1010, 1000, 995, 990, 990, 985 = top six players pool 1
980, 975, 970, 970 = bottom four rated players in pool 2

But next week, the 1000 & 1010 rated player are playing an A-Tier out of state, so a couple of 960 rated players join and the 980 & 975 player who were pool 2 last week get moved into pool 1.

A Player can opt to play up to pool 1 regardless of the split but not from pool 1 to pool 2. Maybe pool 2 contributes a portion of their entries to the pool 1 purse.

This is different in that the ratings breaks aren't fixed at a previously agreed upon cutoff. The pool makeup is determined by the 60-40 split (or whatever split ratio works best).



Break up the am field into three pools by players current ratings ? I haven't put a lot of thought into it so maybe it's plagued by some fundamental problem but maybe it'll help someone come up with a better idea.


The ams are currently broken up into three pools: Advanced, Intermediate, and Rec.



Again, I'm talking about splitting the field based on range of ratings of the people who show up. Like in our current configuration, players would be allowed to move up, but not down.

From the first link I provided above:
Buy 100 SuperColor Pro-D Challengers for $850, retail $2000.

That's 135% markup if I did the math right. Plus they throw in a bunch of stickers, and $275 in "D-Dollars" which gets you some nice CTP and "long drive" prizes.

If I had the salemanship to sell Pro D Challengers for $20 I'd be selling sand to the Saudis too! Discraft has some good deals, but that is not among them. $20 Challengers have got to be selling like Tigers tickets in September.

The Second Chance proposal is a more incentive based way to end up with essentially this same idea and it keeps more money in the top half.



I like the second chance idea, too. I don't mean to take away from it but to try to add additional ideas to toss around. Because IF there is a situation that encourages people to stay in amateur rather than move to open, AND if more open players is better then we can figure out how to get there.

The idea I mention can be used to good affect in 'random' draw doubles where the field is split into 2 groups byt skill level; the top 50% and the bottom 50%. Each team consists of one player from each group. This leads to tighter competition and a good chance for each team every week. That's why I thought I'd throw it out in this discussion.

I'm surprised that no one has proposed the most obvious way to get large pro fields: handicapped events. You could get players down to 850 or so paying cash to enter against Barry depending on the handicap factor.

Here's how you would do it so that fast improving players don't dominate. You wouldn't be able to enter the Open handicapped division until your rating was based on at least 8 rounds, maybe more. This would also mean that you have to be PDGA current. Only "pros" (to be defined) would qualify for any added cash to the purse which would likely be those over 999. That retains an incentive not to bag and aspire to your highest level of play. Everyone else plays only for the base entry fee purse.

Our handicaps would not be direct conversions from ratings. You would build in a reduction factor like 80% (bowling) so players would not get a handicap for as many throws as really needed to go even up against McCoy. Our handicaps would be significantly more accurate than ball golf because ours would only come from sanctioned rounds, not self reported play as in ball golf.

You could even limit the handicapped field to players over 900 or 915 ratings to retain the two lower amateur ranks and make getting better a worthwhile endeavor like McCaine likes to see. Over 915 or for non-members, the Advanced division remains. But I suspect it would be reduced in size because enough players would choose the handicap option, even if they don't get all of the throws back they need to play the top guys even up.

Everyone has good days and players down to 915 would cash often enough and maybe win. However, the top guys would still pepper the top positions and they receive the added cash bonus money (any cash over 100% payout is bonus money) when available. If everyone plays at exactly their rating level, the finish places will be exactly the same as their ratings before the event.

You could still have conventional Women Pro and Master Pro plus divisions. But just like Advanced, several and possibly all will choose the Open handicapped division, especially those Masters over 999 who qualify for bonus money if they cash. Women Pros over 915 would qualify for bonus money and might be more likely to play in the Open Handicapped field versus a smaller pool of women (which is small anyway) because their chances for a much higher paycheck are better.

No offense intended in this but handicapping is what ruined ball golf, and is quite possibly the stupidest idea on earth. Theoretically I could beat tiger woods shooting 20 over par is my handicap is inflated enough, dospite the fact that I would lose to him score wise by a large deficit. Whats the point in playing a tournament in which there are adittional factors besides pure score change who wins. We already have problems with sandbagging in this sport, why introduce new ways for people to win by bagging. I played ball golf pretty heavily and had a low handicap but wouldnt play with my friends because they didnt play often enough to have their handicaps be realistic but would hit balls for hours on end. Handicaps are weak!

We could not even get a handicapping system to work on the local level. Eventually the regular players drop out because it becomes impossible for them to win due to the grand amount of players with a higher handicap who shoot slightly better then mediocre are beating the top players who play slightly less then perfect.

While many improving Am's (mainly the players in advanced would like this) but you would have a lot of second tier pros (990-1010 rated) who hate it, and they would likely not play in anything handicapped.

We could not even get a handicapping system to work on the local level. Eventually the regular players drop out because it becomes impossible for them to win due to the grand amount of players with a higher handicap who shoot slightly better then mediocre are beating the top players who play slightly less then perfect.



That's because your handicap formula is weak. Steal from the USGA: use the best 10 out of the most recent 20 rounds, it works, and is fair to everyone.

If I had the salemanship to sell Pro D Challengers for $20 I'd be selling sand to the Saudis too! Discraft has some good deals, but that is not among them. $20 Challengers have got to be selling like Tigers tickets in September.



1st, those are "SuperColor" Pro-D challengers, not just regular Pro-D Challengers. Put a cool picture on there and they'll sell.
2nd, you don't have to actually sell them, you pawn 'em off on the Ams in their Player's package, and payouts. :)
Finally, of course that's an extreme example. 135% markup is more than double what mp3_ was questioning as even possible. Other discs in those tournament sponsor programs from Discraft and Innova are desirable/marketable and still great deals for the TD without the ridiculous markup. These are Sponsorship Programs from the manufacturers (available to any TD) that go above and beyond normal retail/wholesale markup.

At the Illinois Open Series we don't treat our amateurs like soiled underwear that way. We give them a brass cash player pack and do brass cash payouts. They get what they want from what we got. Sometimes we have some CTPs like that, and then we call it the Big Bag 'O #$*&$! CTP.

That's because your handicap formula is weak. Steal from the USGA: use the best 10 out of the most recent 20 rounds, it works, and is fair to everyone.



What we did was a running average and removed the scores that were greater then +/- 2.0SD from their current average.

Please tell me how that was weak.

Please tell me how I spent multiple hours a week updating handicaps, sorting score cards, and running the handicap league?

This also helps me sympathize with Chuck with not wanting to update player ratings more often.

If you were to just use that then of course you would have to buy way more then needed, pre-package prizes, and be stuck with the left over which could possibly leave you at a loss after the event. Obviously you could sell off the rest after the event but who knows how long that could take and if you would even be able to get rid of it. So, while it may be a 135% markup on what you actually get rid of the full profit could and probably would be significantly less if not non-existant.

What we did was a running average and removed the scores that were greater then +/- 2.0SD from their current average.




Sounds like you remove a lot of good scores from rapidly improving players so their averages remain fairly constant despite their improvement. Their average lags behind their ability while established players will have an average that more closely matches their ability. Sounds like exactly the problem you mentioned in your previous post.

Following the USGA guidelines of removing bad rounds (and half of 'em, not just those that fall outside 2 std deviations), but not good ones sets the players handicap at or near their potential, not their mean. It works.

http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/handicap_system_manual.html#

If you're only doing it on a single course, then you don't have to worry about indexes and slopes, and all that, just average the best half of their scores. If you're implementing it for several courses, just use WCP as par for each course, and average the worst half of their deltas from par.

The USGA formula is too strict and the data is suspect because it's self reported. Assuming a handicap has good data, a player will only beat their handicap 1 in 4 rounds. Their self reported scores are so poor that the USGA figures one out of 20 players has a valid handicap with the rest either not reporting bad rounds to lower their handicap or padding their handicap to keep it high. They've actually tried to do something like what we do but can't because their handicap numbers are so bad.

The numbers and approach I proposed is so fair that I would personally underwrite Barry's or Ken's entry fees for the year even in 2 round events, knowing I would easily get my money back. What people overlook is that it wouldn't be like a league where you do the calculation and pay out after one round. Anyone can cash with handicaps that way. But after four rounds and then adding the 4xhandicap, the one round phenoms will sink back to their normal level on average. You could then have a straight up final 9.

While improving players do shoot very good rounds, and occasionally above the 2 SD they would also shoot well below there 2 SD.

I found that our newest players, and most improving players also had the highest SD, while the established players would have very little variability in their scores. I would run the leagues in 6 month spans, and most improving/new player would increase their average by 4-6 points, while the established/better players only increased by 1-2 points if any.

This is essentailly the same as Chuck's proposed handicapping system, except with ratings which can be spread over multiple courses, while ours were on one course.

My experience show that it is much easier for a low rated player to improve his average score on a given day by 8-10 strokes than it is for a Pro to improve his average score by 2-3 strokes. In our 80% handicapped club events, the best players very seldom won.

I like handicaps , and I like the idea of running tourneys with handicaps but to go to handicaps only I dont know if that is the answer , either .
I run local series events based upon handicaps and I run 100% handicaps and still dont have a problem with top end guys winning . ( as a matter a fact when I ran 80% handicap tourneys the top end players were mostly winning ) . If things change well then I will go back to 80% or some varation thereof .

No offense intended in this but handicapping is the stupidest idea on earth. Whats the point in playing a tournament in which there are additional factors besides pure score. We already have problems with sandbagging in this sport, why introduce new ways for people to win by bagging.



I agree with you Will. These next few sentences are directed to the people who perpetuate the pansiness of playing disc golf. Please don't ruin disc golf any more than it already is. Handicaps, extra divisions, second-chance events, etc, are all great ideas, but not for the format of the entire sport. You guys all need to log-off. Seriously, log-off and don't propose anymore changes. I will never vote for any of you crack<FONT SIZE=1>ed</FONT> heads if you decide to run for any PDGA positions. All these extra divisions, and socialist thinking is making us look weak to the outside world, and you guys are even weaker to not see it for yourselves. 4 divisions will save disc golf; Am Women, Am Men, Pro Women, and Pro Men. That's it. Go play shuffleboard if you don't fit in.

4 divisions will save disc golf; Am Women, Am Men, Pro Women, and Pro Men. That's it.



Then "go save disc golf" with this format. We're so glad you came along to save us. Whew, I could finally stop doing ratings since they wouldn't be needed. Thanks and good luck.

Ratings are awesome, just not for deciding how many strokes I "should" give you if we were to play. Thank you for your selflessness, I mean it must be only once a day where you mention the greatest gift to disc golf, the ratings system.

4 divisions will save disc golf; Am Women, Am Men, Pro Women, and Pro Men.

Actually , to a point I agree . But where is the cut off between AM and Pro in your expert opinion . I think that is the crux of the discussion and your just blurting out an answer without forthought and discussion helps NOTHING . Please by all means answer this question .
you being a 973 rated golfer shoots a -10 at a tourney and you come in 10th place Pro men ( out of 30,paid in 60 ) and win your money back . An am at the same tourney shoots -1 and wins the am division ( out of 60, paid in 30 ) and wins $150 in prizes . At which point he takes this " winning " and sells the prizes to his buddies in the parking lot for $100 total

SO the pro paid 60 to enter , won 60 back
but did not break even due to gas costs lunch and the what not
The am on the other hand paid 30 to play and " $100 " which more then covered his expenses .
SO how do you feel now about being " PROFESSIONAL " ?

I mean it must be only once a day where you mention the greatest gift to disc golf, the ratings system.



Other people like it way more than I do. In fact, who is it that usually is asking for hints before every update? (Post 535351)

www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=535351&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=14&vc=1 (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=535351&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=14&vc=1)

I only defend it where it's misunderstood. I'd rather be playing or doing course designs than rating stuff any day.

4 divisions will save disc golf; Am Women, Am Men, Pro Women, and Pro Men.

Actually , to a point I agree . But where is the cut off between AM and Pro in your expert opinion . I think that is the crux of the discussion and your just blurting out an answer without forthought and discussion helps NOTHING.



Hey poop doggy dogg...I don't just blurt stuff out, I back it up (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=526534&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&vc=1)

How about 4 divisions, based on ratings...

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




Please by all means answer this question .
you being a 973 rated golfer shoots a -10 at a tourney and you come in 10th place Pro men ( out of 30,paid in 60 ) and win your money back . An am at the same tourney shoots -1 and wins the am division ( out of 60, paid in 30 ) and wins $150 in prizes . At which point he takes this " winning " and sells the prizes to his buddies in the parking lot for $100 total

SO the pro paid 60 to enter , won 60 back
but did not break even due to gas costs lunch and the what not
The am on the other hand paid 30 to play and " $100 " which more then covered his expenses .
SO how do you feel now about being " PROFESSIONAL " ?



You just proved my point, that demonstrates the pansiness of the sport. But at the end of the day, I have a ballsack, I beat the Am by 9 throws, and I'm a professional.

I mean it must be only once a day where you mention the greatest gift to disc golf, the ratings system.



Other people like it way more than I do. In fact, who is it that usually is asking for hints before every update? (Post 535351)

www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=535351&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=14&vc=1 (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=535351&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=14&vc=1)

I only defend it where it's misunderstood. I'd rather be playing or doing course designs than rating stuff any day.



I've always backed you up on ratings, in fact I need them for my "Save Disc Golf" model. And I only ask you to make you feel important, I get them the same time you do. Word.

you being a 973 rated golfer shoots a -10 at a tourney and you come in 10th place Pro men ( out of 30,paid in 60 ) and win your money back . An am at the same tourney shoots -1 and wins the am division ( out of 60, paid in 30 ) and wins $150 in prizes . At which point he takes this " winning " and sells the prizes to his buddies in the parking lot for $100 total



I like your thinking. :D



expected replies. (only partial sarcasm on)
"You conceive of things poorly, these are separate pools. It is not right to compare scores, entries, and payouts across separate pools that play the same course. It's just wrong to think that way."

"Hahahaha. That guy made $60. He calls himself a professional. You can't live off $60."

"Hey buddy, unless someone will pay to watch that last place pro, he deserves less than those sixty bucks. In fact, he should just give that money to the rec players in an effort to build the game up."

"Hey buddy, that last place pro better quit crying, because without me subsidizing him, there would be no sport at all. In fact, my ability to make more by playing worse is what makes this sport work."

"Hey, that guy should just quit. Professionals are just leaches on the Professional Disc Golf Association."

or my favorite

"Well that guy that won $150 beat more people. He deserves more." :p

As Gary would point out, these players were not at the same tourney. One was at a pro tourney and the other was at an Am tourney. Apples and oranges. No different from a Pro who shoots -10 at a B-tier across the state and takes home nothing while a pro wins a C-tier with a -5 and wins $200.

Same tourney same course same day same time ( limit 90 players on the course ) . the only difference is the open player starts on a different hole then the am player .
Just to iliminate questions

You just proved my point, that demonstrates the pansiness of the sport. But at the end of the day, I have a ballsack, I beat the Am by 9 throws, and I'm a professional.

You carry yourself like a professional. :(

the only difference is the open player starts on a different hole then the am player .




No Bill they are playing in different tourneys even when on the same course at the same time.

The USGA formula is too strict and the data is suspect because it's self reported. Assuming a handicap has good data, a player will only beat their handicap 1 in 4 rounds.



What do you mean by "too strict"?
Sounds perfect for a system where you want to pay out ~1/4 (or 1/3) of the field. Those that beat their handicap on any given day cash, and those who don't go home empty handed.

And the self-reporting problem of the USGA isnt' a factor here; we're talking about collecting scores from competetive rounds, and tracking league results.

You just proved my point, that demonstrates the pansiness of the sport. But at the end of the day, I have a ballsack, I beat the Am by 9 throws, and I'm a professional.

You carry yourself like a professional. :(



I'm not a professional message boarder, in fact I think it's limp wristed. I do however play disc golf for cash, and wouldn't speak like that during a tournament round.

What do you mean by "too strict"?




The primary reason for only using 10 of 20 is because the scores are self reported. It's like using 50% handicap factor in bowling instead of 80%. Bowling can use 80% because the scores are recorded in competition. We don't need 50% in DG because our scores are recorded in competition.

USGA style handicaps for DG would not encourage much more lower rated players to play than scratch play. It's really a continuum from scratch play to full handicap play. The more you move from scratch scores to full handicaps, the more lower rated players would participate. There's no right answer, just what goal and balance you would want to achieve with the format.

Here is an idea that is so crazy that it just might work:

Everyone that wants to see more incentives to move up starts looking for sponsorship cash for the tournies they plan to attend. With all that added money people are gonna want to jump up and grab it. I am a freakin genius !! You guys can thank me later :D

No Bill they are playing in different tourneys even when on the same course at the same time.



Being that this is a bizzaro world, I cannot tell if Chuck is sarcastic, or serious. If you are serious, then it follows that you don't even believe in your own ratings scheme. If not, disregard my comment and chalk it up to my mind that has become accustom to ridiculous claims being seriously offered. ;)

I am serious as was Gary when he posted about this earlier. Having several divisions play at the same time is just a convenient way to host several separate events at once from an admin cost standpoint. There's no scoring interaction that impacts players in one division from players in another any more than if they played across town with a different TD or played the next day. Each division is always a separate tournament to itself. They are only sometimes mathematically connected via ratings calculations.

I am serious as was Gary when he posted about this earlier. Having several divisions play at the same time is just a convenient way to host several separate events at once from an admin cost standpoint. There's no scoring interaction that impacts players in one division from players in another any more than if they played across town with a different TD or played the next day. Each division is always a separate tournament to itself. They are only sometimes mathematically connected via ratings calculations.



Makes sense to me.

That is a good idea. If we had more players assisting in developing sponsorship, then more sponsors would know the value of assisting. The larger the realized base, the more sponsors receive value for their contribution. I will concur with your assesment of genisus, but just remember that even a blind squirrel can find an acorn now and then. :p


Here is an idea that is so crazy that it just might work:

Everyone that wants to see more incentives to move up starts looking for sponsorship cash for the tournies they plan to attend. With all that added money people are gonna want to jump up and grab it. I am a freakin genius !! You guys can thank me later :D

I understand what you are saying and in all rights you are correct . ( for example the am player may have been 5 strokes ahead with 3 to play and coasted when he could have shot a -5 or whatever ) .
Each person is not really up against each other person .
ON the other hand , if you take the sport seriously and play in a division you really belong in ( which means you are playing every hole out to the fullest ) , THEN you are really playing against everyone ( unless the first place open player ( or masters depending who has lowest score )) is playing to not lose .

My point is that when I play a tourney I judge my end result against everyone who played the same layout I did to see where I REALLY fit in .
ALL hail chuck with the ratings cause it helps tremedously to determine this .
Still some courses I could play up ( open or masters ) and cash ( especially at lower events that dont bring out the big boys ) where at others I would play advanced or advanced masters ( as I do )
This goes back to having different levels of player ratings at different teired events .

I just snapped to it today but I believe we have actually met before. It was in Athens the year Pizza ran PGM...I caddied for AJ in the final round on your card.

Anyway, if I am remembering right, you were much nicer in person...lmao :D

(okay back to regularly scheduled programming)


That is a good idea. If we had more players assisting in developing sponsorship, then more sponsors would know the value of assisting. The larger the realized base, the more sponsors receive value for their contribution. I will concur with your assesment of genisus, but just remember that even a blind squirrel can find an acorn now and then. :p


Here is an idea that is so crazy that it just might work:

Everyone that wants to see more incentives to move up starts looking for sponsorship cash for the tournies they plan to attend. With all that added money people are gonna want to jump up and grab it. I am a freakin genius !! You guys can thank me later :D

My point is that when I play a tourney I judge my end result against everyone who played the same layout I did to see where I REALLY fit in.




As pretty much everyone does. That is the data every player contemplating a move up looks at. That is why the ratings combine pools to measure performance.

Why is earth is that? :D

Because it is simple common sense. No one even thinks of criticizing this premise of combining pools when it is used for ratings, but in their desire to create a lame justification for the inequity of our setup, they somehow find the premise untenable. It's comical.

See, this really is bizzaro world. :D

Another way around this deliema is to have one division and have " special awards " to the first 3 places of protected divisions . I know Craig Gangloff and I have discussed this with Nick on a few occasions on here .

I have no challenges with protected divisions. Until we get major sponsorship though, we need to keep them in some semblance of logical relation or we will hemorrhage too many players to ever build a large enough player base to attract major sponsorship.

It does make sense on an intuitive level to increasingly reward better play, but this needs to be balanced with keeping folks coming back that aren�t that great.

That�s why I so strongly support a new classification of player in the PDGA Competitive System not dependent on winning cash or junk in order to remain involved. Where folks stay involved due to their love of the sport and recognize that financial gain plays no �state� or �actual� role in their motivation to participate.

And yes, I know this is alien as heck for most PDGA competitors (but not all).

So how do you feel about an advanced master shooting better than all of the Int field, and winning less than any casher in that division, or a non-cashing int winning less than all cashing Rec players ?

They are all separate competitions, and none of them have any bearing on any other. The numbers are put together because many of them would have enough players to generate ratings without putting them together.

You win prizes based on how well you do against other players willing to gamble their skills against yours, you are payed out based on finish, not score. The score has no bearing on how you get paid, how many similarly skilled players you beat does. The fact that you whupped up on a bunch of amateurs that were on the same course at the same time doesn't mean a thing.

You guys should just give this lame argument up. We have different divisions because we chose artificial thresholds. The question is if the payouts related to artificial thresholds are equitable. Your response amounts to little more than "the payouts must be equitable since that is the way the system is."

By the way, please spare me the response that ratings include all divisions playing the same course only because some divisions do not have enough players. That response is so weak. Ratings include everyone on the same course at the same time because it is completely logical to do so. It also follows that it is completely logical to compare scores of people that played the same course at the same time. It is also completely logical to ask why people with lower scores get paid more. Believe me, almost everyone not benefiting from the system understands that this is a very reasonable question. Hell, many who are benefiting from the system understand that this is a very legitimate question. They are the honest ones.

I don't have the answer Gary, other than we need to figure out a way to grow faster than we are and get to the point where our competitive system can function more intuitively.

Age protected divisions are as old as organized sport. Skill based protection is fairly new. Where the two should merge is a tough call.

I don't think that we can contrive a system that will make perfect sense to everyone without considerable financial inflow within the Prize/Cash divisions. We can try to make it a little better but it is just like having a giant leak and trying to keep up with the water by bucketting it out.

This is why I offer the solution of creating a classification that is separate in every way from the merry go round of Prize/Cash challenges. Where we might just get the growth and mainstream recognition that would lead us to the financial income we would need to make our prize/cash divisional system work on a less contrived level.

Until that time, I'm convinced that we will just be chasing our tail, and not feeling all that great about where we are getting, resulting in the hard feelings that arise time and again here and at our events as divisions compete for the exact same resources with no meaningful distinction between them.

4 divisions will save disc golf; Am Women, Am Men, Pro Women, and Pro Men.

Actually , to a point I agree . But where is the cut off between AM and Pro in your expert opinion . I think that is the crux of the discussion and your just blurting out an answer without forthought and discussion helps NOTHING . Please by all means answer this question .
you being a 973 rated golfer shoots a -10 at a tourney and you come in 10th place Pro men ( out of 30,paid in 60 ) and win your money back . An am at the same tourney shoots -1 and wins the am division ( out of 60, paid in 30 ) and wins $150 in prizes . At which point he takes this " winning " and sells the prizes to his buddies in the parking lot for $100 total

SO the pro paid 60 to enter , won 60 back
but did not break even due to gas costs lunch and the what not
The am on the other hand paid 30 to play and " $100 " which more then covered his expenses .
SO how do you feel now about being " PROFESSIONAL " ?


Why do you guys always leave out the Pro Master who shot 3-7 shots worse than the Pro Open winnner but took home $350 bucks? The pro master winner typically takes home the 2nd most amount of cash with only the tenth best score. Isn't there a problem there, too?

It does make sense on an intuitive level to increasingly reward better play, but this needs to be balanced with keeping folks coming back that aren�t that great.


Getting rid of the $100-$250 entry fees for Pro Open that are used to artificially prop-up the pro payout would go a long ways towards balancing things. A new "classification" of player is not necessary.

I believe James would calm down a lot if his entry was $40 instead of $75. Having to pay $75+ to play in Pro Masters hurts, and I guess it hurts more to see an am win $150 worth of plastic off of a $30 entry fee when you have to pay $75+. I don't think it would hurt so much if James were paying $40 to play.

I think yet another thing that a whole lot of you fail to consider is entry fee. I could make up a percentage, but suffice it to say that one of the reasons that there are so many more ams than pros is that people don't mind spending $30-$50 to play a tournament, but those same people don't think $75-$250 is worth it. No matter what their skill level.

Why do you guys always leave out the Pro Master who shot 3-7 shots worse than the Pro Open winnner but took home $350 bucks? The pro master winner typically takes home the 2nd most amount of cash with only the tenth best score. Isn't there a problem there, too?

BELEIVE ME I AGREE . I was just using that example for a pro who thinks there is only supposed to be 4 divisions and having the breaks he feels approiate .

If you equate age protection with ability protection, then your argument makes sense. You could also attack gender protections if you so choose.

By the way, I personally don't have a big problem with your idea. In other words, if as part of a complete system overhaul, they discourage masters from playing masters, and encourage them to play open, I have no problem with it. However, I do think that you equating age protection with ability protection is difficult to maintain. The decay of age is far more natural than the entitlements bestowed on lesser skilled players.

Oh yea that is true too . I dont think we forget these things cause all of these things add up to the situation we have now .
The list can be long
Too many protected players , who can play in too many different divisions .
Too high entry fees
Not enough added cash
Too many people thinking things are fine the way they are now ( who knows in 5 years from now we may all look back and laugh about how we argued about stupid stuff now )
along with the fact that the ability to run a non sanctioned event ( if the PDGA would change ) is just as good as sanctioned ones

However, I do think that you equating age protection with ability protection is difficult to maintain.


Yet you only talk about raw score when comparing ams to pros.

While I admire Nick's effort, there is no difference between this proposal the myriad other proposals that force people to play where they don't want to. The implementation of this just means that TDs will learn to sponsor tournaments during months that result in the biggest turn out and Ams will learn to play during those months that allow them to play where they want to. Instead of killing off the PDGA, this will just mortally wound it. During those off periods, smart TDs will sponsor non-sanctioned events that will grow to compete with the PDGA and eventually draw players away from sanctioned events.

Nice try but nox.

Some day, Nick, and others will realize that you can't force people to do things they don't want to. You have to offer them something they do want.

Now, Nick is correct in his notion that a trophy only option could work. It is a different class of players that you are attracting. You won't move players but you might recreate the player base. But, I just can't envision a player that is dying to play in divisions they have no hope of winning in order to sponser Pros. This goes against human nature and common sense...

That is logical for me.

I see age protections as semi-legitimate if they have the same payout schemes.

I see ability protections as illegitimate if they have the same payout schemes.

I would therefore naturally focus on ability protections.

Like I said, age (at some point) and gender protections have much more of a natural basis than ability. However, I have no problem discussing ways for masters to fit within a coherent and fair system, but it is hardly the primary problem to be tackled IMO.

While I admire Nick's effort, there is no difference between this proposal the myriad other proposals that force people to play where they don't want to.

This is correct cause we have spoiled people and it is going to be difficult to change that . Maybe if people would be willing to give alittle ( either nicks idea or tier based player perfomance ) for the better of the sport ....
I want something understood here when I say that . THERE Are many people who do lots for disc golf for basically nothing .... when are the players going to realize ( especially those who benifit from the current frakas ) that maybe they should give alittle .

While I admire Nick's effort, there is no difference between this proposal the myriad other proposals that force people to play where they don't want to.

This is correct cause we have spoiled people and it is going to be difficult to change that . Maybe if people would be willing to give alittle ( either nicks idea or tier based player perfomance ) for the better of the sport ....
I want something understood here when I say that . THERE Are many people who do lots for disc golf for basically nothing .... when are the players going to realize ( especially those who benifit from the current frakas ) that maybe they should give alittle .



No, we have made modifications to our competitive structure to retain players that had been leaving the sport prior to those changes.

In the past, before ratings, players were pushed up the ladder based on peer pressure until they reached a level at which they were no longer competitive. They could not go back, then interest waned and other things became more important than DG and they quit playing tournaments, ehtn quite renewing their membership.

You can go back there by recreating the same structure now. I hear that it was real simple. Am and Pro.

Are there any statistics posted any where that show average rated rounds shot to win for each division in B tiers, A tiers, and NT's? it would be interesting to look at how high the average rated rounds of the winning Advanced player are for given events. (it would also indicate whether that person should move-up). also with Masters that would be interesting info... Pat, how hard would that be to do?

While I admire Nick's effort, there is no difference between this proposal the myriad other proposals that force people to play where they don't want to.



Not sure what other "proposals" you are speaking of, but the only difference between my proposal and what we have now is that rather than the same skill and age protected players recieving the same protection throughout the year now they have to share a portion of that protection with those who do not currently have the benefit of such protection.

Players are already, under our current system, FORCED to play in divisions where their skill, gender and age dictate. The difference, again, is that in my proposal the "entitlement", "skill protection" or whatever you want to call it "Rolls" so that MORE players get to experience that "arbitrary" or "contrived" protection at least at some point in the year.

The focus or goal is not to produce more "Added Cash" for either the Prize or Cash divisions, but to spread the wealth of being in the "advantaged" portion of our existing protected divisions. I think it eloquently addresses this challenge and should result in greater player/member retention.

I think people are judging this idea on its source rather than on its merits. Nick's concept gives almost everyone playing in a protected division a turn at the top and a turn at the bottom.

Nick, what would you think about your system if the numbers rolled the other way? The way it is now, if a player begins the year at the bottom of a division and he continues to improve, he may stay at the bottom of the division the whole year. If the numbers roll the other way, an improving player is bound to get to the top of a division at some time because the caps are coming down while he is going up.

Food for thought.

I don't know if this was mentioned but how about this:

If an adv am player playing the same tees as the pros post a score that would place him in the top 10 or top 5 pros x amount of times in a given year he would be forced to move up to pro.

i know of some people who are not moving up yet merely b/c they want to go to am worlds and then move up afterwards. so what about allowing those ams who had qualifed for am worlds be allowed to compete in am worlds of that year but move up to the pro level before hand.

is forcing all players to taste the bottom for half the year going to make more people want to play more? or would it reduce the number of players who are rated at the bottom? we already know/believe that players quit if they are mired in the bottom of a division.

how about simply allowing the TDs to set the boundary ratings? if a td wants to run a sanctioned rated event and have two divisions with a 900 rating boundary, then fine. if he wants to invoke the current age/rating/gender protection methodology, then fine. the results will be just as valid either way.

JUMPING IN LATE ON THE CONVO'!
I am sure I will be crucified for this but.........
Why not structure your 4 round weekend around a cut.
Round 1 : A score based cut. i.e.- of 100 competitors the top 30% play for cash , Middle 30% pay for plastic, Bottom 40% trophy only.
Rounds 2-4..... Keep the scores low, and let the best "person" win.
Essentially the pro purse can be dictated by the number of entrants.
The advanced players are limited in payout due to the pro purse.
And, the lower division did not play well enough to win anything but a trophy, come back next time and play better golf.
The equalizer........... The entry fees are the same regardless of your division. ( A tough sell I know ) But logistically, 100 people contributing to a Pro Purse is better than 10. Also, it will give the hottest golfer that weekend a chance to throw with the Barry's, Climo's , and Korvers of the world.
We are not handing out participation ribbons. We are playing a competative sport, which should reward the better golfer at the end of the day. If a pro sandbaggs on the cut, he just lost his money. If an advanced player sandbaggs on the cut, take your trophy home and hang it next to your particpation ribbon from 2nd grade.
With this structure, pro's will come out.
With this structure, advanced players will step up, because they have to.
With this structure, rec players will go home and practice.
Lets imagine that I am a touring pro ( ha ) . Would I rather play an event with 10 people contributing to my payout, or 100.......
Lets imagine that I am an advanced player, would I like to play with the same guys I play with every week? Or would I prefer to go head to head with the like's of Barry Shultz, Chris Sprague, Nolan Grider?????? Kind of a no brainer. Plus, if I do cash. There is one more Pro in the ranks.
Does this IDEA have flaws.......... Yes.
Could it be manipulated into something functional..... Yes

REMEMBER WAY BACK WHEN , WHEN THE BEST PLAYER REAPED THE REWARD. WHATS WRONG WITH THAT???????????/

it seems to do everything you say it does. the only problem is how other, "traditional" events handle players who have cashed in this format. i'm assuming this format doesnt care if a player takes cash in the cash division one week and takes plastic in the middle division the next. thats another benefit to this format. it replaces ratings-based boundaries with boundaries that establish themselves out of competitive play and which are completely fluid.

this is the second outline presented here that is basically division-less and benefits pros while treating ams fairly. the other one was kevin's one division above 900. this idea might be a good payout plan for kevin's idea.

Run it for a couple of years and see how it goes! I would think that the bottom third would simply not show up. And the bottom third would keep redefining itself until you were running pretty low on players.

The nice thing about our current system is that a smart TD can work it to fill up tournaments.

Call me crazy, but, poor performances in competition should inspire. If you have the mentality " I am not good at this so I will quit " you need to be off of the course anyways. The only way the sport will progress is if we increase the number of professionals on tour. Disc golfers must establish a marketability. Amatueurs will never bring adequate funding to an event. Budweiser's, Marlboro, and other sponsors attention will be grabbed by 100 professionals, rather than 200 amateurs. Why promote substandard play, why not reward excellence. To assmue that all ranks of play in our sport can grow as one is very simple minded. Why not develop an empire based on the best, let the rest ride the coat tails to the top.
I do admit that there would be no professionals if not for the amateurs, but...... WHY do we not give the masses inspiration to better themselves . Some can get by not living up to their full potential, not I . Are there flaws in this concept....... Yes. But if Coda Hatfield has to go home one weekend with a stack of plastic, you can bet next weekend he will be inspired to take home the cash. It is called saving face. And that one amateur , who beat out the top pros on any-given weekend.......... Well there is one more professional in the ranks. Thus perpetuating growth in the greatist sport ever! I feel that we (collectivly) are on the ground floor of something huge. It is people collaborating as we are that will change the face of the sport forever. I am not sure about you, but I am ready to leave this hell hole I call work, and head out on tour. Who's with me??????????????????????????????
We can make this happen, but we must do so together. I see numerous different ideas, how do we make them all click???

Amatueurs will never bring adequate funding to an event. Budweiser's, Marlboro, and other sponsors attention will be grabbed by 100 professionals, rather than 200 amateurs.



Do you think those advertisers are trying to attract the attention of Nascar drivers, NFL players, PGA pros, or any other group of professional atheletes in any sport they sponsor ?

They are after the vastly larger pool of amateurs and spectators that watch or follow those sports. Without a large pool of amateur players or spectators interested in watching the Pros play, major sponsors are not going to be attracted to the sport.

An excellent point Mr.Duke, but whom are the amateurs coming to watch? It would be a very difficult to accumulate a crowd of hundreds, to watch 8 guys go head to head. Now take those 8 guys ( or gals ) and turn that number into 100. What is going to produce a larger spectator turn out? Major sponsors will not be able to see the massive spectator fields unless we provide the tour with a substantial amount of touring professionals. In one of my earlier statements I conceded that their flaws in this concept, but there is merit to some of it.

OOOOOOO-RAH!!!


Call me crazy, but, poor performances in competition should inspire. If you have the mentality " I am not good at this so I will quit " you need to be off of the course anyways. The only way the sport will progress is if we increase the number of professionals on tour. Disc golfers must establish a marketability. Amatueurs will never bring adequate funding to an event. Budweiser's, Marlboro, and other sponsors attention will be grabbed by 100 professionals, rather than 200 amateurs. Why promote substandard play, why not reward excellence. To assmue that all ranks of play in our sport can grow as one is very simple minded. Why not develop an empire based on the best, let the rest ride the coat tails to the top.
I do admit that there would be no professionals if not for the amateurs, but...... WHY do we not give the masses inspiration to better themselves . Some can get by not living up to their full potential, not I . Are there flaws in this concept....... Yes. But if Coda Hatfield has to go home one weekend with a stack of plastic, you can bet next weekend he will be inspired to take home the cash. It is called saving face. And that one amateur , who beat out the top pros on any-given weekend.......... Well there is one more professional in the ranks. Thus perpetuating growth in the greatist sport ever! I feel that we (collectivly) are on the ground floor of something huge. It is people collaborating as we are that will change the face of the sport forever. I am not sure about you, but I am ready to leave this hell hole I call work, and head out on tour. Who's with me??????????????????????????????
We can make this happen, but we must do so together. I see numerous different ideas, how do we make them all click???

While I agree with your concept, it is based on a normal distribution principle. That the top touring pros should be the top 5% or less of the playing population. To support fields of 100 pros (maybe a total of 250 touring pros altogether), you would need about 50,000 active amateurs, and a few hundred thousand interested, but not really active players.

With those numbers you might generate a little interest.

BTW, the current PDGA Pro male membership is listed as 1919. We should be able to get more than 100 at a single event now.

We should, but we are not. I was fortunate enough to spend the PGM weekend with touring pro Chris Sprague. The first thing I had to ask Chris was this... " What is it like living the dream???" His reply: "Scary" Knowing that a touring pro is living day by day, hoping to eat and have a place to stay is disheartening. My only ambition is to see an individual like Chris, actually survive on tour. When we can provide touring professionals with an opportunity to thrive in their environment, that is when the numbers will sky rocket. I see so many local DFW pro's that have the potential, yet are lacking the finances. How does that change? How do we make that happen for them??? I only want to be a part of the solution, not the problem. Any ideas, im sure you have as many as I do.
The problem: Time and money.
Apparently those two things make the world go round!

I think the best investment of time and money now is in new championship level courses and getting Disc Golf into the schools and local community sports curriculums. The more people that we introduce to the sport, and the younger that they are introduced to the game, the more likely that the sport will have a chance to grow in the next 10 years.

Support EDGE and STEAM.

I see so many local DFW pro's that have the potential, yet are lacking the finances.



Tell them to get jobs. :D

I could not agree more. The only problem that I have found is that the Championship level courses are a really tough sell. Unfortunately those will have to come from the private sector. Pay to play does challenge one of the fundamental aspects of disc golf. It's FREE! A perfect example is the Ideal Golf Ranch here in Ft. Worth. I find the course challenging and fun to play, with ammenities to boot. But on any given day you will NOT find disc golfers out there. It is hard to imagine that we have a Fly 18 course in the Metroplex that nobody wants to play. Sad really....... What are your opinions on municipal golf courses and the potential hybrid golf. I have the pleasure of driving thru Rockwood park daily. All I can see there is disc golf. It is truly the perfect environment for a champion caliber course. Multiple attempts have been made to install a course there, yet nothing has surfaced. My belief is that if you appeal to the financial aspect, managment is much more likely to jump on board........But there is more time and monies to be spent........
Ever get tired of chasing your tail?????

Creating only a Championship pay-to-pay course is likely a tactical mistake at this point in time. At Highbridge, we had the luxury of doing more than one course so we were able to justify a Gold level course in the mix. However, our Blueberry course that's comparable to the lengths of our metro courses is the most popular followed by Woodland Greens the shortest course at 4300 feet with only one tee and pin on each hole. The Gold course is helpful for marketing the championship nature of the facility, but economically, the less brutal courses maintain the business. The shorter White tees on the Gold course run around 6000 feet which is similar to the long tees of the metro courses. Players can enjoy the Gold course without playing the long Gold tees except once in a while. The Twister golf carts coming soon will also make the Gold course more popular. www.menintools.com/twisterhammerhead.html (http://www.menintools.com/twisterhammerhead.html)

I may have been misleading in my last statement. To create a Championship Only course would only drive people away. The concept of asking people to shell out big bucks to develop the course is the tough sell. As far as municipal projects, multiple tee placements are a must. I would believe that to establish the Champion course, one must establish that the lesser tee's will bring people to the course.

Creating only a Championship pay-to-pay course is likely a tactical mistake at this point in time. At Highbridge, we had the luxury of doing more than one course so we were able to justify a Gold level course in the mix. However, our Blueberry course that's comparable to the lengths of our metro courses is the most popular followed by Woodland Greens the shortest course at 4300 feet with only one tee and pin on each hole. The Gold course is helpful for marketing the championship nature of the facility, but economically, the less brutal courses maintain the business. The shorter White tees on the Gold course run around 6000 feet which is similar to the long tees of the metro courses. Players can enjoy the Gold course without playing the long Gold tees except once in a while. The Twister golf carts coming soon will also make the Gold course more popular. www.menintools.com/twisterhammerhead.html (http://www.menintools.com/twisterhammerhead.html)


BTW- Those Twister carts would bring people out just to drive them. Those things are super cool!

Creating only a Championship pay-to-pay course is likely a tactical mistake at this point in time. At Highbridge, we had the luxury of doing more than one course so we were able to justify a Gold level course in the mix. However, our Blueberry course that's comparable to the lengths of our metro courses is the most popular followed by Woodland Greens the shortest course at 4300 feet with only one tee and pin on each hole. The Gold course is helpful for marketing the championship nature of the facility, but economically, the less brutal courses maintain the business. The shorter White tees on the Gold course run around 6000 feet which is similar to the long tees of the metro courses. Players can enjoy the Gold course without playing the long Gold tees except once in a while. The Twister golf carts coming soon will also make the Gold course more popular. www.menintools.com/twisterhammerhead.html (http://www.menintools.com/twisterhammerhead.html)



In Oregon, we're lucky enough to have the wholehearted support of the State Parks Dept to build courses. Milo McIver (home of the Beaver State Fling NT) went from a pitch and putt to two gold level courses. The State Parks charge $3 per day for parking , but most of the locals buy an annual pass.

There are more courses in the works in the Portland area, due largely to the tireless efforts of volunteers and a supportive and willing State Parks system.

We're super lucky. :D

I'd like to see a DGCD course designer's evaluation to confirm that the designs were actually Gold level. Since Pat Farrell left, Oregon doesn't have any members of the design group. Just Washington and Idaho have members. If they truly are both Gold level for daily play, it may not be the best for all players unless tees of the same surface for White or Red level are also included. Either way, having played the earlier version of McIver many years ago, I'm glad to hear that beautiful property has been upgraded with two courses and the support from the State Parks Dept.

why would the tee surface matter as long as tee positions are well established?

What is this thread about? :confused:

If the back tees are cement and the forward tees are grass, players who might have more fun playing the forward tees won't play the "wimp" tees. I believe they'll just reduce trips to that course altogether if the long tees are too brutal. Many times the forward tees also don't have as nice of signs either. If it's reversed and the forward tees are cement and the back natural, the better players will go back and play them if they are marked even minimally and most everyone else will play the cement ones. If both tees are the same surface and well marked, then players are much more likely to play the ones at their level if they're just designated as Gold, Blue, Red versus Pro/Am/Rec or worse, Men/Women/Jr.

What is this thread about? :confused:

i think its about whether or not lower rated players are properly motivated to play from their designated tees regardless of the tee quality. :cool: or maybe not.

Here in San Diego , we still have novice players that can shoot under par and can play from the men's tees !!!!!

Intermediate players who won't move up because they have to play Advanced players who shoot digits and can out drive me in the Pro division !!!!!!! And play from the Gold tees !!!!!

Let me ask this question............................

How good should you need to be to move up to the next division ? Better than your buddies ? Playing for cash sidebets ?

I know some who want to be Advanced players for life..................Is that fair to the Intermediate players who want to move up ?

955 cap on advanced.
New amateur division for 955+.
Problem solved.

955-985 that would be a 15 player group if all the baggin texans showed up for one event

we can call the new group superadvanced.
this group will be made up of players who like taking candy from children. jk

Here in San Diego , we still have novice players that can shoot under par and can play from the men's tees !!!!!

Intermediate players who won't move up because they have to play Advanced players who shoot digits and can out drive me in the Pro division !!!!!!! And play from the Gold tees !!!!!

Let me ask this question............................

How good should you need to be to move up to the next division ? Better than your buddies ? Playing for cash sidebets ?

I know some who want to be Advanced players for life..................Is that fair to the Intermediate players who want to move up ?


There's definitely something weird about San Diego. The Ams can throw +420' drives, but cannot consistently make 20' putts. **cough***kevingomez**cough**

955-985 that would be a 15 player group if all the baggin texans showed up for one event

we can call the new group superadvanced.
this group will be made up of players who like taking candy from children. jk

"Expert" would work. The mere creation of the division would make it irrelevant. The division would be so small there would be no economic incentive to keep playing as an amateur. And, by creating the division, the childrens' candy plastic is secured.

When the current division caps were created there were just a few amateurs rated over 954. Now there are 172.

When the current division caps were created there were just a few amateurs rated over 954. Now there are 172.

[/QUOTE]

now ive learned something today. thank you bruce.
thats quite an increase a few to 172 just like starbucks.

seems like something should be done for sure. but am not counting on it for a couple of years if ever

955-985 that would be a 15 player group if all the baggin texans showed up for one event

we can call the new group superadvanced.
this group will be made up of players who like taking candy from children. jk

"Expert" would work. The mere creation of the division would make it irrelevant. The division would be so small there would be no economic incentive to keep playing as an amateur. And, by creating the division, the childrens' candy plastic is secured.

When the current division caps were created there were just a few amateurs rated over 954. Now there are 172.


Maybe pros rated under 955 would play in that division since not too many take part in MA1. Maybe pros under 985 should be allowed to play in it?

Nah.....then Kevin McCoy would be even madder since the MPO field would shrink even more.

I think Kevin McCoy won't be satisfied until half of every amateur's entry fee is paid directly to him.

Kelsey and I watched parts of a college baseball game Saturday in between practice rounds at Squirrel. [For those of you who know the course, we we're practicing running our upshots!] I think it was Bradley v Oakland U because there were Peoria Charter buses in the parking lot. In the 7th inning Bradley went on a tear and buried the home team. I wanted to yell, "Move up!" but I restrained myself.

Money is always the best way to move players up. I didn't see anything at that game to suggest that any of those guys were bagging for the free bus rides.

But we don't have money so we should just use rating points. Currently the Intermediate division is 40 points wide and the Advanced division is 80 points wide. How much sense does that make?

Currently the Intermediate division is 40 points wide and the Advanced division is 80 points wide. How much sense does that make?


I think MPO is effectivelytly about 125 points wide, although technically it's more like 450.

One major difference is that all those guys on Bradley and Oakland U. are hoping to one day move up. Noone has an economic incentive to play down.

One major difference is that all those guys on Bradley and Oakland U. are hoping to one day move up. Noone has an economic incentive to play down.


I'm hoping to one day move up. But with a rating of 939 and entry fees of $75-$250 I don't see much point in doing so right now.

In any event, if those Bradley and Oakland U. players weren't such greedy sandbaggers they would declare for the NBA draft right now and move up, instead of sandbagging in the less-than-mid-major division where they know that can get paid a scholarship without having to improve.

Rodney slapped me with some facts. The number of amateurs rated over 955 has almost tripled since the fall of 2002. Of course, that is comparing Fall to Spring. How many of those players were actually competing as amateurs anymore at that point, post-Am Worlds, is another matter.

We could probably kick Intermediate back up to 925 where it started. That might help a bit.

Chuck wants to add a fourth level of Am at 955+ (actually, he wants a hybrid Pro/Am division that for merch only, but for the sake of argument, let's call that the 4th Am division, since that's how PDGA currently defines Pro/Am). Not sure how the TDs feel about that.

Also, there appears to have been some ratings inflation. Mind you, there are more players now, so there are bound to be more 955+ rated players, although triple the number of 955+ seems quite a bit off. I've heard pros complain that 1050 rounds don't seem to be as good as they used to be. Are players really getting that much better that fast? I don't know the answer to that question, but my sizable gut tells me the increased skill level of the players is not entirely to blame for the astronomical rise in player ratings.

Chap

I'm hesitant to see a fourth level of Am added which would be yet another overlapping division, but if it gets me playing in PDGA tournaments again, I guess it's a good fix.

Currently my choices are to play in a division where I'm donating exorbitant entry fees to golfers with ratings up to 85 points higher than mine, (Open) or alternatively playing in a division with golfers with ratings sometimes up to 50-80 points lower (Advanced) and get called a sandbagger. :confused:

ratings inflation does seem real, but when you look at the set of numbers for the last couple ratings periods (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/ratingdistribution.htm), you really can only see a 5-8 point shift in the 890-935 range. the curves over the last year are actually quite consistant.

if chuck wants to run events with a 955+ plastic only division, great. its probably an idea worth exploring. but that format should not become the only structure available. there is a growing contingent that believe less divisions is a better approach to the problems created by the current divisional structure.

why would you kick AM2 back up to 925? again, that might work in some areas, and therefore should/could be an option. but moving AM2 to 925 is not going to help in other areas. all it does is alter which player will win... it does nothing to fix the root cause.

It would bring us more in line with the 50 point per division split and put the perceived MA1 top around 975.

We could probably kick Intermediate back up to 925 where it started. That might help a bit.

Chuck wants to add a fourth level of Am at 955+ (actually, he wants a hybrid Pro/Am division that for merch only, but for the sake of argument, let's call that the 4th Am division, since that's how PDGA currently defines Pro/Am). Not sure how the TDs feel about that.

Also, there appears to have been some ratings inflation. Mind you, there are more players now, so there are bound to be more 955+ rated players, although triple the number of 955+ seems quite a bit off. I've heard pros complain that 1050 rounds don't seem to be as good as they used to be. Are players really getting that much better that fast? I don't know the answer to that question, but my sizable gut tells me the increased skill level of the players is not entirely to blame for the astronomical rise in player ratings.

Chap

Triple the number is definately not off. Rodney sent me the raw data on 2002. I think the number was 56 at 955+ in the Fall of 2002 versus 172 today. The first time I counted it I got 58 so I said "almost tripled" but later last night after I got home from working a second shift I counted it twice more and got 56.

Whether ratings are inflated isn't really relevant. From the stand point of having a fair competitive system, regardless of whether ratings are inflated, there is still an 80 point spread in Advanced. There may be a 100 point spread in open, but that is the choice of the players who moved up. The 80 point spread in advanced is not the choice of the 917 rated guy who has to play advanced.

Given that ratings were inflated at the bottom and not the top, to say that ratings are inflated is to say that the problem is worse than it appears. The 975 players in Advanced were not the ones getting inflated ratings last year. It was the 900 rated players who got inflated out of intermediate. Chuck can explain how the juiced ratings worked better than I can, but the purpose of the juice was to counteract the prior underrating of lower divisions, so a 900 play got more juice than a 970 rated player.

It's not the TDs who would howl; it would be the pros who don't get it. They would think we've created another division where players don't have to put 100% of their entry fee in the cash pot. In fact, the effect of this would be to give those high rated amateurs no incentive to stay out of the cash pot. If Eppy is staying am for Tulsa, he's going to stay am for Tulsa and we should let him. But if some of his peers are staying am for stacks of plastic, putting them in a micro division will make for a shorter stack and a smaller probability of winning it.

The Competition Committee is discussing a variety of options for 2007 tweaks but I'm staying silent here while that's going on. Several ideas discussed here over the past two months have been taken into consideration in the proposals. We want to hash these out in committee long enough in advance for once so that any proposals approved by the committee surface early enough in case tweaks need to be made before final versions for the 2007 tour docs.

Your continued discussion on here will be worthwhile as additional resource material for our committee discussions.

Hey bruce, Eppi only ha 1 event in his rating(3 rounds) and the highes of those was doubles so he is rated higher then he should be. IMO he is around 960.

It's not the TDs who would howl; it would be the pros who don't get it.



"don't get it." That is one loaded way to phrase it. Well, one could argue that they get "it" just right, or they get it right between the eyes. This "more divisions with financial incentives" nonsense will be a further blow to the top players; but hey, it is all good cause each of us deserve to profit from our mediocrity.

More and more divisions. Just keep repeating the same mistake. Maybe one day it will work. :confused:

The Competition Committee is discussing a variety of options for 2007 tweaks but I'm staying silent here while that's going on.

any thoughts on how the Membership might get clued into the structure of the variations the competition committee is considering? should i file a new freedom of information act request with the pdga office?

The fact that there are three times as many Ams above 955 has nothing to do with the slight ratings inflation. There are not that many more players Pro/Am percentage wise between 955 and say 1000. The issue is that about three times as many Ams now seem to be holding out to turn pro as four years ago. Perhaps more are waiting for their last shot at Am Worlds, or even more than one last shot.

any thoughts on how the Membership might get clued into the structure of the variations the competition committee is considering? should i file a new freedom of information act request with the pdga office?



You can ask Dave. If we can't take the time to formulate options within Committee so they can be presented in an organized format for membership, then we might just wait for the revised constitution to be approved if it allows that option. All communications are part of a Yahoo group that can be reviewed by members as needed. It just seems more useful to have the process documented and available for historical review as opposed to realtime commentary.

Tweaks?????

How about overhauls.

You acknowledge a phenomenon of more good ams staying am longer and no lightbulbs go off? It is just another obvious piece of evidence that the competition committee (an obvious misnomer) chooses to ignore, or is too oblivious to notice; or maybe making advanced more attractive than open is y'alls real goal.

James,

There are known issues of the classic PDGA "move up, move up, move out" syndrome.

Here's a scenario: Let's say that there are 100 high rated ams that, in the past, would've already turned pro. These 100 players are still playing and competing in PDGA tourneys. In the past, let's say they all would've turned pro. If 50 of them would've quit by now, we are 50 players ahead in terms of PDGA tournament players.

Is that good or bad?

I say it's good. More tourney players is a good thing. You say it's bad. Everyone should play pro.

We should agree to disagree.

Even if your only concern is "maximize the total number of players," your analysis should go much deeper.

What about the open players who moved out because those guys did not move up?

What about the open players who have just gotten bored with the small fields and lost interest?

What about the lower/mid level advanced players who quit or lost interest due to the presence of these guys?

What about highly-driven guys/gals coming from different sports who look at our competitive system and see that it slanted towards the mediocre. Those people are turned off. Believe me, this occurs. People used to rewarding performance shake their heads at our system.

btw, I didn't even mention that this system is a major cause behind our screwed up pricing, nor did I mention my time honored obsevation that it is morally corrupt. I was just simply questioning whether this system even works best for Chuck et al's goals.

All I can say James is that your concerns have been taken into consideration. If what happens is along the lines of some ideas discussed on here, I don't think you'll be disappaointed in the overall effect of the proposed changes. It's still not going to bring more money from sponsors. But it may do a better job to progressively increase the reward for better play.

You mean I can start posting positive things. Woohoo. :p

I used the word "tweak" but if it works out, the impact will be more than a tweak. But a lot can happen on this committee so we'll see how it plays out.

I think Kevin McCoy won't be satisfied until half of every amateur's entry fee is paid directly to him.



You think WRONG!!! Bruce you don't know what your talking about...just because I have an opinion, as a top pro, then I want all the ams money?

That is SOOOOO untrue and I take offense...<font color="red"> I have NEVER said anything about wanting more money</font>...I have even asked that our entry fees to be lower and pay out more (which would take money out of my pocket)...all I have ever wanted is more PLAYERS in my division(playing agains 4 guys while there are 40 ADV players flipp'n SUCKS!)...just because I'm good and will always end up in the top %2 doesn't mean I'm just trying to pad my pockets...I just want to make the Professional Disc Golf Association what its name says...PROFESSIONAL...It just doesn't make any sense to me that the "PROFESSIONAL" Disc golf Association mostly cateres to AMS ONLY

Just becasue I think that the current system for AMs is WHACK has NOTHING to do with me wanting more money...It's not my fault, just as its not Barry, Climo, Feldberg, Doss fault that we will beat down 99% of who wants some.

Don't be mad at me for being a witch!

;)

Bruce,

The PDGA needs another AM division like I need

http://www.crabsllc.com/live-crabs-01.jpg

Even if your only concern is "maximize the total number of players," your analysis should go much deeper.

What about the open players who moved out because those guys did not move up?
<font color="blue"> I say they were moving out anyways because the new blood was going to beat them instead of allowing them to cash. The difference is that no one is temporariy replacing those guys, only to move out later. </font>

What about the open players who have just gotten bored with the small fields and lost interest?
<font color="blue"> If this was the case, then the Open division would've disappeared long ago. </font>

What about the lower/mid level advanced players who quit or lost interest due to the presence of these guys?
<font color="blue"> Hmmmm.....not sure I see too much of this. I played a long time in MA2 when there were no ratings and I didn't see too many people drop out because of the exact same situations back then. </font>

What about highly-driven guys/gals coming from different sports who look at our competitive system and see that it slanted towards the mediocre. Those people are turned off. Believe me, this occurs. People used to rewarding performance shake their heads at our system.
<font color="blue"> Whatever. If you say so. Yeah, I see world-class athletes from lots o' different sports crossing over to disc golf. [/sarcasm] </font>

btw, I didn't even mention that this system is a major cause behind our screwed up pricing, nor did I mention my time honored obsevation that it is morally corrupt. I was just simply questioning whether this system even works best for Chuck et al's goals.
<font color="blue"> Nice points to bring up for a civil debate. </font>

actual player retention numbers here (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/player_retention.htm)

we only lose 10-12% of our pros, but 35% of our ams. we lose maybe 2500 players each year. thats roughly one per installed course. that is either proof that we're doing fine or evidence that we cant even do the wrong thing right.

Blue Crabs !!!!!
http://www.crabsllc.com/live-crabs-01.jpg

actual player retention numbers here (http://www.earthoffice.net/discgolf/player_retention.htm)

we only lose 10-12% of our pros, but 35% of our ams. we lose maybe 2500 players each year. thats roughly one per installed course. that is either proof that we're doing fine or evidence that we cant even do the wrong thing right.


So when you constantly call an Advnaced player a bagger until he quits playing, does that count as an Am non-renewal or a pro non-renewal?

When you call an Advanced guy a bagger so much that he starts playing pro, never cashes and is never even competitive, and then he quits, is that an Am non-renewal or a pro non-renewal?

If the am renews as an am to save $15 bucks to put towards the $75-$250 pro entry fees, and then quits because he keeps getting slaughtereed in pro, I think the stats will show that he is an am non-renewal when in fact he is a pro non-renewal.

So when you constantly call an Advnaced player a bagger until he quits playing, does that count as an Am non-renewal or a pro non-renewal?

When you call an Advanced guy a bagger so much that he starts playing pro, never cashes and is never even competitive, and then he quits, is that an Am non-renewal or a pro non-renewal?

If the am renews as an am to save $15 bucks to put towards the $75-$250 pro entry fees, and then quits because he keeps getting slaughtereed in pro, I think the stats will show that he is an am non-renewal when in fact he is a pro non-renewal.

first question: that would count as an AM non-renewal.

second question: first question: that would count as a PRO non-renewal.

it would be helpful to talk to these ex-Members and learn why they didnt renew... that way we even if we couldnt retain them, at least we could classify them properly. :cool:


last one: correct. and similarly a pro who dropped rating below 955, played a bunch of MA1 events getting worse each tim and did not renew. he counts as a PRO lost even though he only played in am events. even if the numbers arent 100.000% correct they are still indicative of something.

I know somewhere, perhaps in Illinois, an amateur read my post about pros who don't get it, and then saw your posts, and then chuckled for reasons you don't understand. ;)

What I don't understand is how an am division starting at 955+ or 975+ would be adding another incentive based division.

If you look at it, it is adding a very non-incentive based division. You remove the extreme top of the MA1 pool and put them in a 3-5 man field, or if the TD decides not to field that division, pro. They would no longer be able to coast to victory and big stacks of plastic over a large field of 920-240 players, but have to fight with a couple of equally talented players for little more than their entry fees back in plastic.

It gives them a place to play without feeling guilty or donating. Takes away the financial incentive of remaining an am player with pro caliber skills, but does not force the player to play as a pro. It keeps the MA1 division competitive by capping the division spread at 50 points or less.

Rec 880> Trophy only
MA2 881-940
MA1 940-960
Super MA1 960<
Open=Open

The breaks seem to be in good places as is:

MA0: Any Am plus pros <965
MA1: Ams <965 plus pros <945
MA2: Ams <925 plus pros <925
MA3: Ams <875 plus pros <875

Never mind..

what about letting players take plastic instead of cash if they compete in open. taking plastic would not change their am status.

it doesnt require any new divisions. it lets lower ranked players move up without worrying about what happens if they sneak into the cash somehow. it helps TDs by adding some profit to the "open" division whenever an "am" takes plastic instead of cash payout.

it increases the ability of TDs to configure their events to suit the local market. it enables every format discussed from the current divisions to variable ratings boundaries to single large divisions.

simple for everyone, better for the TDs, more options for the player, augments instead of destroys the status quo division structures

IMO, they should always let ams take plastic instead of cash and retain their "am" status. However, that is only a small band aid.

The breaks seem to be in good places as is:

MA0: Any Am plus pros <965



Rhett did you pick that number just for me?

The breaks seem to be in good places as is:

MA0: Any Am plus pros <965



Rhett did you pick that number just for me?


Well, I pulled it out of my......

So I guess so! :cool:

IMO, they should always let ams take plastic instead of cash and retain their "am" status. However, that is only a small band aid.

If the PDGA were to go that way, I think Jon and I would apply the wholesale-retail difference to the pro purse. A little Bactine to go with the small Bandaid, I suppose.

The only problem would be at Pro only events where there is no stockpile of plastic to pay out the pro/ams.

there should only be 2 divisions not including age and gender based divs!! Am and Pro!! it's simple!!

I would guess that a 950+ Am would think so.

I would guess that a 950+ Am would think so.


Most definately!! In my opinion if there were only 1 Am division a nice size portion of the current ma1 field would probably play up!! If you could get half the ma1 field to play open then a descent percentage of those may cash!!

I would guess that a 950+ Am would think so.


Most definately!! In my opinion if there were only 1 Am division a nice size portion of the current ma1 field would probably play up!! If you could get half the ma1 field to play open then a descent percentage of those may cash!!



Then you get the lower half of the "Am" field playing unsanctioned. Doesn't seem like it would be a wise move by the PDGA to flush half of its am fees down the drain.

there should only be 2 divisions not including age and gender based divs!! Am and Pro!! it's simple!!



<H1>WORD!</H1>

The only trick is making sure that the AMS getting paid out in a FLIGHT system. for example::::

60 AMS x $50 = $3000 -$1000 (at least 1/3 of entry fees go back into for players pack items)= $2000 payout
1st Flight (The TOP AMS)
1st 250
2nd 200
3rd 150
4th 120
5th 100
6th 80 = $900
2nd flight (The 850-910 golfers should finish in this area)
21st 150
22nd 100
23rd 90
24th 80
25th 70
26th 60 = $550
3rd Flight (The 700-850 golfers will fall here)
41st 100
42nd 90
43rd 80
44th 70
45th 60
46th 50 = $450

Even an EXTRA $100 to throw somewhere else

The Flight system can even breakdown per player rating range
1st flight always be top AMs
2nd Flight cut off at 915
3rd Flight cut off at 825

There can be 2 flight or 6 flight payout as long as the standard 40% or 45% get paid

Mike Conners used the flight system payout at the Chandler Tornado....And it worked AWESOME! Totally eliminates SANDBAGGING into lower divisions ;)

I would guess that a 950+ Am would think so.


Most definately!! In my opinion if there were only 1 Am division a nice size portion of the current ma1 field would probably play up!! If you could get half the ma1 field to play open then a descent percentage of those may cash!!



It would need to be trophy only with cheaper entries or I would guess you would lose all the MA3(which should be MA2 any way) and most of the MA2.

I could buy into what McCoy is selling.

I don't follow, why would the lower half of the ams play unsanctioned? Wouldn't they just participate in a PDGA sanctioned division called amateur?

I don't follow, why would the lower half of the ams play unsanctioned? Wouldn't they just participate in a PDGA sanctioned division called amateur?



Because a TD would offer an unsanctioned event (either in conjunction with or at another course) under better Am-friendly rules.

That is a very valid concern, as unsanctioned equals zero revenue for the organization. I'm beginning to think the best way to fix the system is to get a bunch of those MIB memory zappers and start zapping every DGer.

Better am-friendly rules????

This seems to be accepted dogma around here and brings me back to the original topic of this thread. Why do people just assume the current am-division structure is so **** am-friendly? It simply arbitrarily rewards those at the top of the threshold and arbitraily punishes those at the bottom. In other words, it is "friendly" to some and "unfriendly" to others. Thus Nick's idea: how about letting everyone be at the top and the bottom for a while. Just to see how the other half lives.

The truth is that there is little evidence that this system has done crap for our sport. Posters around here argue about 35% ams that don't renew, yet they don't ever even consider that this might because the competitive system ain't as great as some around here think, and it ain't that friendly to alot of ams.

When I constantly read about people passionately wanting to prop up this system, I understand why so little progress is made in our sport during a time of rapid growth of the activity of disc golf.

When I constantly read about people passionately wanting to prop up this system, I understand why so little progress is made in our sport during a time of rapid growth of the activity of disc golf.


Dude, it ain't the am divisions that people are trying to prop up!

Following your logic, if those at the bottom of the breaks are disenfranchised, it would follow that we need more breaks for more divisions so we have more winners, correct? That would be simpler than shifting breaks. It would also undermine any thoughts that reducing divisions would be more successful.

Another downside of fewer or one am division with flighted payouts as Kev proposed is the concept that courses should be set appropriately for different skill levels. Players from 700 thru 975 should not be playing the same course in competition every round if that can be avoided with additional tees.

The truth is that there is little evidence that this system has done crap for our sport. Posters around here argue about 35% ams that don't renew, yet they don't ever even consider that this might because the competitive system ain't as great as some around here think, and it ain't that friendly to alot of ams.


Personally, I think a high attrition rate for a sport like ours should be expected. Sure, I think we should look at it and see how much of an impact we can make in retaining members. But when you look at how bright the passion burns as people get into the game, get totally into it, live and breathe it for a while as an obsession, and then burn out and go away, it really isn't a surprising progression.

Some people stay around and many others go looking for the next thing to get into.

Following your logic, if those at the bottom of the breaks are disenfranchised, it would follow that we need more breaks for more divisions so we have more winners, correct?


Ahhhhhhhhhhh (pulling at my hair)

No, that is is certainly not correct. I see our core problem as having "franchised" and "disinfranchised" classes at multiple levels where the concept should not even exist. Besides creating an "anti-competitive" overall system, it caters/props up the wrong crowd while discouraging the right crowd.

Rhett, you continue to miss the point. Advocating a system where people are encouraged to look up, not down or sideways, is hardly "propping up" the open division. It is merely embracing the spirit of competitive sport.

Rhett, you continue to miss the point. Advocating a system where people are encouraged to look up, not down or sideways, is hardly "propping up" the open division. It is merely embracing the spirit of competitive sport.


I think you miss your own point. I can't recall a single suggestion from you that encourages people to look up. Only things to discourage people from playing where they want to play.

If you discourage people playing, then they will quit playing. That's a point that must be kept under consideration.

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. I'm not sure if changing the welfare criteria made people want to look for a job, or angered them that the gravy train had disappeared. Either way, the reforms created a much-healthier system.

btw, I care little about telling people where they should play; however, I do care a lot about their motivations on why they want to play there.

Rhett,

If every place was as good as Cali we wouldn't even be having this convorsation...My experiences with Cali is that people are a little less cowardly and you don't see the problems that we see in this part of the country...It's hard to have a convorsation about Pro vs. AM with you becasue it does appear to be great where you are, but us in the SW part of the country are having real issues with this. Thats why its hard to sell change to people that do have it good where they are.

If it wasn't SO **** expensive and so many STD's I would move to CALI

:D

Six of one, half-dozen of the other. I'm not sure if changing the welfare criteria made people want to look for a job, or angered them that the gravy train had disappeared. Either way, the reforms created a much-healthier system.


That's funny, James.

Try to remember this: people don't have to play in PDGA sanctioned disc golf tournaments. People don't even have to play disc golf. They can go do something else instead.

If every place was as good as Cali we wouldn't even be having this convorsation...My experiences with Cali is that people are a little less cowardly and you don't see the problems that we see in this part of the country...


I doubt that the people are more cowardly. Maybe we should try to figure out what's different between here and there that makes the PDGA divisional structure so different.

Give it up Rhett. There's a basic lack of knowledge about human nature going on here. The concept that people don't do what they don't want to escapes James and Kevin. I don't know why since both are smart motiviated participants. The notion that you have to make the Pro category attractive if you want Ams to move there doesn't resonate.



The mistaken notion that the only way to improve the sport is by getting more players into Pro needs to be dissected, also, the notion that the best way to grow the sport is by getting the Pro division "bigger." There is a basic lack of understanding that to get the Pro division bigger, you have to build a base. I think as a sport we don't understand this. That is because we all want it now. That is unrealistic.

I do understand the frustration, but face it, today's Pros happened too soon. In 15 to 20 years there will be enough sponsorship and players to give them what they want. At that time, todays Pros will be playing in protected divisions and fighting off the younger guns who feel there should be no protected divisions. :)

The truth is that there is little evidence that this system has done crap for our sport. Posters around here argue about 35% ams that don't renew, yet they don't ever even consider that this might because the competitive system ain't as great as some around here think, and it ain't that friendly to alot of ams.


Personally, I think a high attrition rate for a sport like ours should be expected. Sure, I think we should look at it and see how much of an impact we can make in retaining members. But when you look at how bright the passion burns as people get into the game, get totally into it, live and breathe it for a while as an obsession, and then burn out and go away, it really isn't a surprising progression.

Some people stay around and many others go looking for the next thing to get into.



Wow! we only have a 35% attrition rate. That's awesome! Man are we doing a good job!

It's all about spin baby. At least until someone actually compares our sport with similar sports. About once a month someone comes on and talks about how terrible our retention is and says it's because of this or that but they never bother to look and see if it is good or bad.

The reality is that all to often, the guys who argue that there is a problem are the ones who have a vested interest in trying to change things*. In every case, they want changes that will move people into their division. Yawn.

* Disclaimer - Kevin is not arguing this point because he wants more money in the Pro division, he's doing it for the "good" of the sport.

Basic lack of understanding of human nature here?

Doubtful. I understand that the average human is weak and if given the choice, would prefer handouts over hard work (I myself am definitely that way). However, while doling out those bennies might be a role for socialistic governments; it is hardly the role of governing sport bodies.

By the way, in my mind, I give little meaning to the terms "am" and "pro" as used in our system. Therefore, lines such as "The notion that you have to make the Pro category attractive if you want Ams to move there doesn't resonate." means nothing to me. I see everyone in our system as playing for monetary reward. Therefore, your statement implies that "The notion that beating better competition should be made more rewarding to all competitors" doe not resonate with many of our present competitors. If true, this statement is a testament to the type of "competitors" our sport has attracted and retained. Is it any wonder we are not taken seriously as a sport?

way too many divisions!!! Ams are ams pros are pros!! the reason it probably won,t change is that so many td's and the pdga are dependant on the revenue of all those casual players that play tournies!! In most sports you have to qualify to play at the professional level not just be wiling to donate some money!! how many casual golfers belong to the PGA,PBA or any other professional sports organization!! Don't you think it is ridiculous that there is so many stamp champs at texas states for instance.. Rec mens champ,int mens champ, ma1 champ , MM1 champ, etc etc etc.. how in the world can that be taken seriously!!! Yet it will probably never change !!!! In reality there should be only 1 state champ . anything other than that and your just kidding yourself , for the apropriate fees of course!!! :p rant off!! casual golfer out!!! ;) I bet you could go to any local H.S. and find any semi athletic person , work with that person for a couple weeks and he or she could be a rec state champ!! LMAO!!! :p :p

The reality is that all to often, the guys who argue that there is a problem are the ones who have a vested interest in trying to change things*. In every case, they want changes that will move people into their division. Yawn.




Yawn, it is just as plausible to say that those who want to prop up the status quo are those that benefit the most from it. I think this is patently obvious, however, I don't think that observation advances the debate one bit. It is probably one of those academic debate tactics for those unwilling to argue the merits.

You can question motivations all you want, but someday you might actually address the real criticisms. For one, why is a sport set up to reward those who avoid risks and discourage people from progressing?

I've said it before its a waste of our time James trying to convince the AMS on this board to change the current structure becasue it is set up PERCECT for the AMS

Why would they want to change the way that is perfect for them? They are not concerned what is better for the game...just whats good for them

Kevin, i think it lies more alnog the lines of td's and the pdgas' dependency on am's for funding!! how many tournies would there actually be compared to the current numbers if the pdga was pro only??????I think thats the million $$$$$ question!!

Pro only is NOT the way to go....but I would like to see the AM fields to be more about FUN than what division do I have the best chance to win and/or win the most merch. AS long as the AMS are in thier current situation they are going to stay in the division they feel comfortable cashing in, instead of trying to progress their game.

The flight system eliminates the people that are hanging around in the Rec and Intermediate levels just becasue they know they will cash in that division.

To succeed, you have to attract and retain the middle of the bell curve.

Maybe there should be a PDGA and a WDGA (or USDGA to follow ball golf's pattern), but there aren't enough Pros to support a seperate organization. If the general membership increased so that the top of the bell curve was 7K-10K players and the middle was 100K-200K, then two organizations might make sense.

Pro only is NOT the way to go....



And Why Not???????? The #1 tourney is USDGC , it has prestige!! If you ever want to be taken serious its the only way to go!!! It should be a privlege to be a proffesional disc golfer not a finacial arrangement!!! where is the incentive for lesser players to want to move up? where is the prestige???? hey, i can be a professional disc golfer if I can afford to shell out $100 a weekend to play with a handful of real pros.. sounds like a pretty **** ridiculous arrangement to me!!!it's all about $$$$$$$$!!

....but I would like to see the AM fields to be more about FUN than what division do I have the best chance to win and/or win the most merch. AS long as the AMS are in thier current situation they are going to stay in the division they feel comfortable cashing in, instead of trying to progress their game.


Dude, you are describing the PRO divisions, not the am divisions! All your 1000+ and 990+ rated pros who are over 40 carefully look at the registration and switch divisions based on where they have the best chance to get the most money for the least performance.

The ams have ratings. Ams don't get to pick whether they play in Rec, Int, or Adv unless they have a really crappy rating that allows them to play Rec. Then they can compete with their peers or step up and get slaughtered in a higher division.

I think you have your facts mixed up.

"Why would they want to change what is perfect for them?"

And why would you if it's perfect for them?

I like the sound of the flight system now, but I won't really know for sure until I see it in action. Don't try to force a major change on a format that seems to be working based on the FACT that the org is growing. You're going to have to prove, on your own, that your system will work. The PDGA allows you this flexibility, so prove it to me.

We just had an event a month ago that used this system. The Chadler Tornado....It was opposed at first by all the AMS, they were ticked off at first but when they saw the payout structure, there wasn't one more word about it. The AMS actually took to the idea after it WORKED.

Mike Conners aka M_C ran that event and I hope there are many more just like it.

And why would you if it's perfect for them?




Because its SO good no one wants to move up...not just to PRO but even to ADV or Int

And why would you if it's perfect for them?


Because what is good for highly rated advanced players, or highly rated intermediate players, or highly rated rec players may not be good for the sport. Simply put, if one can shoot 960 for years and get a greater financial return than the guy that shoots 990 for the same period of time, something is terribly wrong.

As wrong as a guy with an IQ of 115 getting paid less than a guy with a 100 IQ year after year? If both enjoy their work (or sport) the problem is?

When reading that analogy, I thought "huh." Then I read it again and thought "huh." On the third time, I struggled, but I got it (must be my 100 IQ).

Let's just say that we see things totally different. It would never cross my mind that a sport would not differentiate between inate skill (following your analogy) in a meaningful way. "Meaningful way" to me obviously implies that higher level skills are promoted/rewarded more than lower level skills. I feel that if a sport does not reward performance, it is not even really a sport. Instead, it is merely an organized activity, and a relatively meaningless one at that.

Good. People trying different formats is the way to create the best format, which is the one that brings in the most people; pro, am or spectator. DARE is not the most successful program at helping people, but it is successful at bringing in a lot of money.

Timmy Gill has been very successfull with amatuers AND the pro division under the current format and now he's working on the spectator part of it, which is where the real money will come from.

Maybe ya'll need to take notes from TG.

Because its SO good no one wants to move up...not just to PRO but even to ADV or Int.



The only problem with that statement is that it normally takes shooting well above the ceiling of a division to win much beyond your entry fee back. If You are playing above the division ceiling, you are forced to move up. If you can't manage to shoot above the division ceiling, then you are probably where you belong.

Let's just say that we see things totally different. It would never cross my mind that a sport would not differentiate between inate skill (following your analogy) in a meaningful way.



You still don't get it.
The PGA tour is full of professional golfers. They get paid at PGA events.
The Nationwide tour is full of professional golfers. Most of them aren't good enough to play on the PGA tour, but they still win money at the national tour events.
The local pros play in local non-pga events and win cash or prizes, and most of them can't get on the nationwide tour.

They never combine tours at the same events, so they never have PGA players playing against PGA players at the same time and place as Nationwide players playing against Nationwide players at the same time and place as LPGA or Local players. If they did, you would have the same thing happening there as you do here. You would have players in the PGA event that didn't cash playing better, but making less than the winners of the nationwide event. There would be a lot of overlap in payout if they were playing for their own entry fees.

The only difference is that we don't have any qualifications to being a PDGA Pro, and we normally have all of our competitive divisions on the same course at the same time, and we have no significant sponsorship at most of our events. If you want to see the best players winning the most money, go to events where only one division (tour) is playing.

One of last concrete examples was about a player shooting 990 for a long period of time and having a lower return than a player shooting 960. This has nothing to do with analyzing the results from one single event. Show me that same phenomenon in professional golf.

Here are two players with one from the PGA tour and one from the Nationwide tour. Nationwide guy has won more money so far this year with what appears to be a slightly worse scoring average on easier courses. These aren't extreme examples either.

http://scoreboards.aol.com/golf/pga/player/93684/player.aspx
http://scoreboards.aol.com/golf/natwide/player/93658/player.aspx

hmmm... after reading all this i'm wondering if we are really talking about two types of events. one for "regular" tournaments, developmental/experimental events, and similar, and the other for showcase events. use traditional divisions for the first. the second are the major showcase OPEN events. open means open, period. take plastic instead of cash if you wish, but its one division, one winner.

some premier events are true Open events. it is natural for demand for the format to spread to the grassroots as players trying to qualify for the big events try to get experience in that environment.

the only thing that is not clear is how to pay out. whether you use a straight payout or a flight system, the pdga would still need to allow plastic in payout to bring the <950 players in. seems like a no-brainer to allow this, sanction the event and provide pdga services to its td and players. if it works there will be more.

One of last concrete examples was about a player shooting 990 for a long period of time and having a lower return than a player shooting 960. This has nothing to do with analyzing the results from one single event. Show me that same phenomenon in professional golf.


yawn.....

We've been over that about, oh, A THOUSAND AND FIFTY TIMES. We basically play for each other's entry fees. That means the biggest divsion will usually get the biggest payout, provded entry fees are the same.

Go get more sponsorship for the pro division and you will see a change to something akin to ball golf.

Certainly not out of the question. The USDGC shows the extreme aspect of the one division format.

hmmm... after reading all this i'm wondering if we are really talking about two types of events. one for "regular" tournaments, developmental/experimental events, and similar, and the other for showcase events. use traditional divisions for the first. the second are the major showcase OPEN events. open means open, period. take plastic instead of cash if you wish, but its one division, one winner.


That's what the National Tour was supposed to be.....except they caved and added James' division the first year. And then they caved some more and added even more pro divisions. And now the NT events really aren't any different than big A-tiers.

I guess the pros don't like the one division thing since it threatens their entitlement divisions. :)

chuck maybe thats not an identical case. the nationwide player is motivated to play his way onto the pga tour even if he makes less up there. because the pga tour pays BIG money for good performance. you must earn your way onto it and then get better after you're there. in disc golf you can walk into the field of some A tiers less than an hour before the players meeting. thats a big difference in motivation.

Certainly not out of the question. The USDGC shows the extreme aspect of the one division format.


USDGC has the cash due to Innova giving them the exclusive to the candy Rocs. The USDGC has the added cash and, voila, everything works out fine for that one.

I agree they are separate sets of motivations. The point was the amount earned being higher by the Nationwide player versus PGA. Of course, a case could also be made that Master Pros have a different motivation than Open players, on average.

why do we play???? to cash? because we enjoy?to build friendships? to become better thanwe were? to get another ace or our first ace?
one of these answers is driven by greed.
why do we enter compition? to cash? measure our abilities against others? to get a tournament ace? or others? any way my point is if sombody plays or competes soly to cash i pity him!!!! i hope that we all are better than that.


I cashed at a teered payout tourny . it was my best performance to date in competition and the chips fell accordingly. I tied for 13th place it happened to put me in a tie for first in the second teer however since i had already competed well against my previous results i" won "already the cashing result was not the focuss of my competition it was a pleasant additional result. thank you M.C. for exposing me to this arrangement I believe the format is mor conducive to playing for playings sake. There is less likly a way to sandbag in this format because no player can modify their game to "cash" big beause they have no idea what the other competitors results will be. it is man with plastic against other men with plastic all trying to compete for better score than the group.the competitor is there to compare his abilties of practice with others abilites of practice if one performs exceptional against his own history he has already won. if one performs poorly against his own history he has lost. if either competitor cashes it is strictly luck or the way the chips fall or gods will or charma or etc. it is a better way to put player against himself not with greed taking ahold of the player. :) :) :) :) :) :)

what division did you cash in?

It was a non-sanctioned event with only two divisions. Pro & Am.
The payout was done on a flight system for both divisions.
There were approx 38 in the Am division. The pay outs went something like this:

1st -4th
13th -17th
28th -31st

1st, 13th and 28th all received the same money, as did 4th, 17th and 31st positions. This format completely does away with Sandbagging.

Sounds pretty **** cool!! i would like to try this type of format!!

the only thing i dont like about that is there is no way to know anything about where you stand in the field. thats wierd. i think its great TDs offer these events if thats what players want, but i doubt i would play in one myself. i'd rather play in a single field that pays 30% deep. but thats just me.

where you in the pro or the am field?

Maybe I am misunderstanding the format but... am I wrong that getting paid out for 2/3 of the cashers was based on chance?? Correct me if I am wrong but I think the format may be illegal in most states...

???????

It promotes doing the best you can, and letting the chips fall into place. It takes the decision of what division I should play out of the players hands.

There is 2 main ways youcan seperate.
1. divide it evenly per total count...persue; 60 players taking the top 40% of the 3 different 20 man flight.
2. determine the flights by player rating POST final scores. So the first flight would be open to all above 915. The second flight 1st place would have a final rating for the weekend of equal or less than 915. 1st place of the 3rd flight would be equal or less than <820
It makes it where the PDGA could determine in each event if you played 915 golf then you would be the top on the 2nd flight.

If you enter REC and you play 920 golf, aren't you in the wrong division? well the flight system will put them in the correct spot by his performance that weekend.

Almost every ball golf scramble I have ever played in used the flight pay system so it can't be illegal if every golf course is using it for their scramble tournaments.

the only thing i dont like about that is there is no way to know anything about where you stand in the field. thats wierd. i think its great TDs offer these events if thats what players want, but i doubt i would play in one myself. i'd rather play in a single field that pays 30% deep. but thats just me.

where you in the pro or the am field?



You would know by what card you're on in the final round. I kinda put the Victoria open in this format and it moved the top of the ADV field up over most of the pros and the top of the INT field over most of the ADV field. Age protected divisions just got mixed in. It really would eleminate bagging.

Play your best.

and while it does away with sanbagging, it completely distorts skill levels. Fifth place played significantly better than 13th, but 13th received the same payout as first. It is not my place to denigrate what you did, but if I was a sandbagger sitting in 5th place on day two, I quite possibly would start playing poorly because it might be easier to make 131h - 17th then to move into 1st-4th. Just an observation.

It just seems to random to me. A little closer to handing ribbons to all players for competing once you get past 1st-4th.


It was a non-sanctioned event with only two divisions. Pro &amp; Am.
The payout was done on a flight system for both divisions.
There were approx 38 in the Am division. The pay outs went something like this:

1st -4th
13th -17th
28th -31st

1st, 13th and 28th all received the same money, as did 4th, 17th and 31st positions. This format completely does away with Sandbagging.

But if you're the one in 5th place, how do you know how poorly to play to get to 13th.? You don't.

Thats the point, it forces you to just play your very best all weekend and hope you end up in the cash in one of the flights.
All I know, is the 80+ people that played the tournamnet, liked the format.
It wasn't my tournamnet, I just played in it.

I have played in events that used the flight format. The annual Snow Disc in Waterloo, Iowa has a 20 year history with this format. Everyone pays the same entry fee, plus they offer a cash added option. You pay an additional $20.00 to be a cash pool.

At the end of the first round everyone is grouped into three equal flights based on scores. Before the second round, you can get an idea of what you need to shoot to get into the "cash" in your flight. Once you are in a flight, no matter what you do in the second round you remain in that flight. You cannot shoot poorly to try to get to the top of the next lower flight, nor can you shoot lights out and move to any higher flight. The guys at the top of the "Champion" flight are usually the ones that put up the extra cash, but not always.


The lament that "everyone gets the same pay" even though 12th is better than 22nd is a mute point. Remember that a Rec player can often win as much or more than an Intermediate player on any given weekend depending on field size. According to Kevin, Advanced players often win much more money than him playing in a lower division. By having the top players competing for extra cash, you insure that the top scores of the day will most likely be earning more than the other flights. You can always choose to pay the top flight 1/3 and the second flight 40% and the lowest flight 50% so all divisions do not get the same payouts. Most of the players in the top flight have also contributed an extra $20.00.

People will not shoot poorly in the first round simply to try and make it to the top of a lower pool (especially those playing for added cash). They could easily end up at the bottom of a flight. Not a good strategy.

I like the flight system because there is actual competition over the usual small women's divisions. I get to compete in that second round against players who shot similar scores in the first round.

I think until you have played in this style event, you can't say it won't work. At least one event has a 20 plus year history and a very large field year after year. If a tourney is currently running an event on only one day and all divisions are playing the same course, it is actually easier for the TD to run a flight event. You order trophies for only three divisions instead of 14!!

Players could probably still receive ratings if the event could be sanctioned as a PDGA X-Tier.

x tiers dont get ratings that count.

I have played in events that used the flight format. The annual Snow Disc in Waterloo, Iowa has a 20 year history with this format. Everyone pays the same entry fee, plus they offer a cash added option. You pay an additional $20.00 to be a cash pool.

At the end of the first round everyone is grouped into three equal flights based on scores. Before the second round, you can get an idea of what you need to shoot to get into the "cash" in your flight. Once you are in a flight, no matter what you do in the second round you remain in that flight. You cannot shoot poorly to try to get to the top of the next lower flight, nor can you shoot lights out and move to any higher flight. The guys at the top of the "Champion" flight are usually the ones that put up the extra cash, but not always.




That sounds like a GREAT format to me. I would like that much better than what we do now.

But if you're the one in 5th place, how do you know how poorly to play to get to 13th.? You don't.

Thats the point, it forces you to just play your very best all weekend and hope you end up in the cash in one of the flights.
All I know, is the 80+ people that played the tournamnet, liked the format.
It wasn't my tournamnet, I just played in it.



Sounds like fun, but why not just pay every other spot ?

If you are on the third card, you play a little soft hoping to drop a card, while the forth card doesn't know how to play because the card in front may be bagging, and the fifth card may be trying hard to catch up and jump all the way to the third card.

It would be easier to just play your best, buy discs and don't worry about the prospect of cashing or not. Am trophy only Pro cash, and reduced entries.

listen to some of you guys...
...you play a little soft hoping to drop a card...

what are you thinking? this is the ideal to which you aspire? to perfect your deliberate misses? ??? :confused:

Gotta Go Gotta Throw launched their business by running a league format like this where payouts skipped down to different positions depending on how many players showed up. Many Rec players love this format because of the luck element that determines who cashes. Make the final putt and go home empty handed. Miss it and win a disc. But you don't know until you turn in the scorecards.

There's no question that many will like this format. But what about the social aspects of women and older divisions? Are those retained with this format? If not, why not go to full ratings based divisions like originally intended if we have no age or gender divisions? Seems more fair and competitive. In addition, you can still have series prizes for divisions which would be impossible with the tiered prize format.

It would be easier to just play your best, buy discs and don't worry about the prospect of cashing or not. Am trophy only Pro cash, and reduced entries.


Hear! Hear!

I just don't understand why people don't come to their senses. It's not like we are talking about huge amounts of money - the travel/lodging/entry fees anyway swallow the winnings for all but the very few top pros. Why can't everybody see that we play this game for fun? (99% are losing money, and the top 1% that is maybe making some (little)money must love the game anyway, otherwise they won't be that good).

Getting rid of AM payout will get rid of the sandbagging and the need for rating-protected AM divisions. There would also be less incentive to play in an age-protected divisions. No payout in AM divisions will also be an added incentive to move to Open if the payout is really what you are looking after. There will also be less animosity about moving between AM and Open - perhaps even to the point that the players will be free to move up/down at their will.

For the record, I am 926 rated player who almost always caches on local AM tournaments, typically playing on the top two cards and having lots of fun competing with my peers. So I am supposedly one benefitting from the current setup.

I don't think rising tournament fees for AMs is a good idea - more AM payout will only cause more sandbagging, and discourage the beginners/weaker players who tend to end at the bottom half of the field.

Once again, if I have a sandbagging mentality, why don't I just play horrible the first round, pre-flight cut. Then I am assured of being in the second or third flight. Sand bagging is defined as under playing your skills. The flight payout system is perfect for assuring that occurs. I know that the most common definition of sand bagging in disc golf is playing in a division that is below your skill level, but in other sports, sand bagging is exactly as I defined above. I just don't see how the flight payout system is not just another means of creating a different type of sand bagger.



People will not shoot poorly in the first round simply to try and make it to the top of a lower pool (especially those playing for added cash). They could easily end up at the bottom of a flight. Not a good strategy.

Lance,

I agree with most of what you say, but if you cut the wholesale to retail payout, TD's will NOT be able to run tournaments. Period. It is to expensive.


It would be easier to just play your best, buy discs and don't worry about the prospect of cashing or not. Am trophy only Pro cash, and reduced entries.

Chuck, what in this is so objectionable that you don't even acknowledge it?

It's truth is undeniable.

Is there a threat to some crucial demographic that we don't understand? If so would you or someone on the PDGA Competition Committee please provide the details that lead you to believe there is a threat?

Please don't come back with the completely and totally discreditted argument that it will hurt tds in their pockets; we all know that so long as value is returned to all participants they will pay an appropriate entry fee. (It's the reason 66% of all fields enter events now ANYWAY!)



It would be easier to just play your best, buy discs and don't worry about the prospect of cashing or not. Am trophy only Pro cash, and reduced entries.


Hear! Hear!

I just don't understand why people don't come to their senses. It's not like we are talking about huge amounts of money - the travel/lodging/entry fees anyway swallow the winnings for all but the very few top pros. Why can't everybody see that we play this game for fun? (99% are losing money, and the top 1% that is maybe making some (little)money must love the game anyway, otherwise they won't be that good).

Getting rid of AM payout will get rid of the sandbagging and the need for rating-protected AM divisions. There would also be less incentive to play in an age-protected divisions. No payout in AM divisions will also be an added incentive to move to Open if the payout is really what you are looking after. There will also be less animosity about moving between AM and Open - perhaps even to the point that the players will be free to move up/down at their will.

For the record, I am 926 rated player who almost always caches on local AM tournaments, typically playing on the top two cards and having lots of fun competing with my peers. So I am supposedly one benefitting from the current setup.

I don't think rising tournament fees for AMs is a good idea - more AM payout will only cause more sandbagging, and discourage the beginners/weaker players who tend to end at the bottom half of the field.

Chuck, what in this is so objectionable that you don't even acknowledge it?



I'm not sure what's not being acknowledged. If it's the tired "true Am" issue, I believe the Competition Committee feels that format already is supported and falls under the umbrella of PDGA sanctioned competition options available for TDs to run. Thay just have to run the format. And, apparently events along those lines have been successful in Maine.