Open vs. Masters Division solutions [Archive]

sandalman

Apr 27 2006, 09:18 PM

hmmm...

raising the age doesnt really fo anything except raise the age. there's quite a few MGMs who could cash in MPM and even MPO.

doing nothing means we'll keep discussing g this issue. but out of the choices listed, it is mine.

forcing a 1000 rated MPMer to play MPO is no good. this isnt a question of fairness. playing MPO requires a certain mindset. 1000 rated MPMs who hang out in their age protected divisions do not possess the mindset to play MPO, and that should be OK. they've decided they'd rather be a big fish in a smaller pond, and they've found their pond. let them enjoy their luck.

lower the fees if you want. personally, i'd rather pay a stiffer price to play MPM than MM1 cuz when the day comes that i cash, i want it to be worth something. but thats just me.

actually rob, one answer might be kevin mccoy's idea to run a ratings-based event where everyone over 900 plays MPO. the size field that would result would make for a big fat juicy paycheck for the winner, a nice payout for the top players, and a cash trough that hangs low enough so an overachieving 920-930 player could feed.

i thought i read somewhere a coupla weeks back that a sanctioned event had allowed ams to retain their status by taking plastic instead of government gauranteed notes, but i could be wrong. if its true, then there is nothing at all stopping someone who wishes to try this theory.

rhett

Apr 27 2006, 09:29 PM

I know if I do any fund raising the money will go to the Masters and Womens divisions at a pro event and towards event amenities at am events.

Why would you not want the money to go to the top compeitive divisions? I divvy up all "extra" money to MPO and FPO on a per-head basis. At EIEIO, after all divisions were pumped up to about 120% and all expenses were accounted for, I had about $150 left over. I added another $10 per head to the MPO and FPO divisions (11 and 5 respectively, so it ended up being $160 more added).

Why-oh-why would you ever add cash to only a protected division and not the Open division???

ck34

Apr 27 2006, 09:34 PM

Why-oh-why would you ever add cash to only a protected division and not the Open division???

Would you rather meet Jim Furyk or Jack Nicklaus?

sandalman

Apr 27 2006, 09:35 PM

i bet it has to do with true ams :cool:

bruce_brakel

Apr 27 2006, 09:40 PM

I'd like to see lower entry fees for MPO so that high rated pro masters and Advanced players alike don't have to pay double the entry fees to test the waters with the big boys. It would also make it easier for ams who have no chance to cash or would be declining the cash to donate at a reasonable rate of about $35-$40 instead of the current $60-$250.

I've experimented with trophy-only prices to see where the ams' tolerance for knowingly donating to the pro purse lies. Where I provide humorous TD sidekick services, it is lower than $20. At $20 mostly the only people donating were pros who wanted to play but were not competitive, and one father who wanted his kid to get cheap lessons. At $10 a lot of women will donate to the local pro women and a few men will donate to the men's division for players their age. At $5 large numbers of advanced ams will play pro.

Our players don't put much value on seeing the pros play nor on playing with the pros.

sandalman

Apr 27 2006, 09:48 PM

AviarX

Apr 27 2006, 10:00 PM

If you add money to FPO (gender-protected division) why would you not add it to Masters? -- patriarchal sexism? :eek: :D/msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif also why is it called "Open" Women instead of Pro Women? I'd like to see a Des or Juliana or a Sorenstam or Michelle Wie play and cash in Open some day -- and i think it will happen. Didn't Juliana once cash at the USDGC?

if i ran a tournament (which i haven't so i don't have anything but virtual room to stand on) i would divy up about 60% to Open and 20% to Pro Women and 20% to Pro Masters.

Alacrity

Apr 27 2006, 10:05 PM

I would leave it the same, simply because I have not seen any numbers that show this is a problem. Secondly, I know several extrememly good Masters players that like to play with their peers. I could compete at the Advanced level, but I prefer playing with the Advanced Masters. They know the rules better, they tend to show more courtesy and they are a fun group to play with. I suspect many Masters would tell you the same between Masters and Open.

As for splitting up the sponsorship money, my opinion is that it should be shared amoung all the Open divisions. They are playing in an Open division, why shouldn't part of the sponsorship money go to the Masters division?

Before I am struck from all sides, someone please post percentages showing this is a problem.

AviarX

Apr 27 2006, 10:13 PM

Technicly there is only one Open division: without any restrictions (age, gender) whatsoever.

sandalman

Apr 27 2006, 10:19 PM

it doesnt have to be a problem to justify trying something new. but those new ideas shouldnt turn into requirements or standards unless the marketplace says so.

FPO is not "open" regardless of its name. it is gender protected. same as MPM is age protected. i totally respect your decision to divvy up the extra funds however you wish. i think it is just as admirable to throw all the extra money at the only true open division, MPO. heck, its great to divide it up over all divisinos for that matter. whatever works for the event.

Apr 27 2006, 10:24 PM

Its funny when these conversations start up...you can know with about 90% certainty what someone will say about it by looking at their age and rating...lol

Chuck, I bet you never thought ratings could aid in predicting responses in discussion...lol :D

sandalman

Apr 27 2006, 10:31 PM

so we can rate how predictable a post is? thats pretty cool. is a very predictable post a higher or lower rated post? what is this one rated?

AviarX

Apr 27 2006, 10:37 PM

rhett

Apr 27 2006, 10:46 PM

Alacrity

Apr 27 2006, 11:21 PM

I stand corrected. I should have said that I spread the money amoung the Professional divisions.

Technicly there is only one Open division: without any restrictions (age, gender) whatsoever.

bruce_brakel

Apr 28 2006, 12:05 AM

bruce, do you guys ruin weekly minis? cuz what you just described is exactly what we do every sunday at our local club. $11 open, $8 masters, $6 adv and other am divisions. lots of adv players move to open for the lesson.

On a weekly basis I'm in Michigan where all that gambling is illegal, so I don't run them, and I don't play them except when I'm jonesing for some competition. On a weekly basis I play league with the Waterford Junior Girls Club which is strictly for fun.

At our unsanctioned tournaments in Illinois, where all that gambling is legal, we see a lot top Ams playing up when the entry fee is low, but they aren't playing up to donate. They are playing up hoping to cash. I've cashed in Pro Master, but I think all my opponents were PDGA amateurs. I'm not sure.

On the topic at hand, I don't see that anything needs to be done about high rated pro masters playing pro master instead of open. If the low rated pro masters don't like it, they can go play advanced or intermediate. If high rated Open players don't like it, the last sentence of my often quoted post on this thread (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=PDGA%20Tournament%20Info&Number=351908&Searchpage=0&Main=350754&Search=true&#Post351908) says everything I need to say.

AviarX

Apr 28 2006, 12:36 AM

On the topic at hand, I don't see that anything needs to be done about high rated pro masters playing pro master instead of open. If the low rated pro masters don't like it, they can go play advanced or intermediate. If high rated Open players don't like it, the last sentence of my often quoted post on this thread (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=PDGA%20Tournament%20Info&Number =351908&Searchpage=0&Main=350754&Search=true&#Post 351908) says everything I need to say.

:D:D :D

Bruce, the Open Pros i hear argue against even having a Masters division say it's because they want the competition, still, you might be onto something since nothing prevents them from comparing scores ;) ... As a not-so-highly rated Master, personally i don't mind at all when highly rated Masters don't play Open. It's an honor to compete against anyone that good and if i get the opportunity to play a round or two with them so much the better.

neonnoodle

Apr 28 2006, 09:26 AM

Yeah, I'd like to increase the sponsorship in Masters so that the best Masters play in Masters and not Open. Like Bruce points out, if sponsors and folks were more interested in spectating Open division competition they would likely sponsor them specifically.

As is sponsors get to put their money more or less where they want to put them. I mean if a sponsor came up to you, the TD, and said I'd like to give you $2500 in sponsorship cash, but with the stipulation that it go exclusively to the Masters division, would you say "No"?

Well, that is likely to be the situation the next time I raise sponsorship and offer it to an event. It's not like the Open division has been or is currently denied the greatest portion of sponsorship cash, right? And I have really wondered for some time why?

Not so much that it should be going to another division, but that perhaps it would be better spent on things like:
<ul type="square">
Advertising to bring out spectators Course Improvements - Lord knows they need every penny we can manage. Outreach Programs - to attract youth and community groups. Finance Paid Promoters - who in the end will have far greater impact on the sport as a whole than an average touring pro. [/list]

Touring Pros can't undertake all of these tasks, but if they undertook even a portion of them then they might well deserve the expendature and drag on the local (and national) disc golf economy. Some do, and their benefit to the sport is as clear as a ray of light. And I am not saying that we should cut them off completely, only that we consider, at this stage of our development where best to spend our dollars to bring our sport to the next level.

The lack of spectators and general media interest should be, in my opinion, a cry for greater attention to be paid in the promotional direction. Afterall, only when we have their attention will sponsors really want to position their brand in the vacinity of our top disc golf players; and only then will our top disc golf players be able to make a living wage.

Am I wrong?

gang4010

Apr 28 2006, 11:23 AM

Yup You're wrong.

So many solutions - and so few TDs willing to push them into reality.

Things I've tried (or thought about trying) - some have worked - some should.

1) Sliding entry fee scale based on rating
2) Total of 3 divisions spanning all ratings levels w/breaks @940 and 900 without gender protection. Add rec for 4th division.
3) HC events based on ratings - needs more current data to work.
4) Lump all players into one prize pool and provide "bonuses" for top divisional finishers. (i.e. top "master player" places last place cash and gets $60, PLUS a $100 bonus for being top finisher over 40)

What really needs to happen to make this whole Masters/Adv/Open division overlap go away is to shed our divisional structure all together and get a grip on what it means to offer a COMPETITIVE............................VENUE. Say it with me slowly.

Competition is about who is the best on any given day. Splitting 40-90 people into 6-10 groups to assure multiple "winners" is plainly ludicrous.
We should worry less about catering and coddling the folks who have to have a way to be first or else they wont play. And start promoting straight up COMPETITION.

Wonder how that response fits into my age profile?

ck34

Apr 28 2006, 11:29 AM

Competition is about who is the best on any given day.

...at that venue. If only one division is allowed, TDs will run events at other courses with their one division being Advanced at one site and Women Open at another. Then, someone would say this is foolish to spread ourselves out and disrupt casual players at all of these courses. Let's host these separate divisions at one site and share the admin cost. What a concept! That happened already.

dave_marchant

Apr 28 2006, 12:32 PM

Competition is about who is the best on any given day. Splitting 40-90 people into 6-10 groups to assure multiple "winners" is plainly ludicrous.
We should worry less about catering and coddling the folks who have to have a way to be first or else they wont play. And start promoting straight up COMPETITION.

Wonder how that response fits into my age profile?

Your response fits your ratings profile perfectly. You are a top 50 player in the world, so of course you want heads up competition with everyone.

I fail to see the beef you have with multiple divisions and multiple winners. This fixation with being the best is a diminishing value proposition. If it is all about winning with no excuses allowed, unless you win Worlds or the USDGC, why play?

And why feel good about your win, any win? Either you beat others because they had an off round/day/week, or you won becuase you were the best rated player and you were expected to win anyways. Or, Barry or Ken or Mr. XXX were not there, so you do not know if your win was truly bona fide. By your way of thinking, competition is not meaningful to begin with.

If players are grouped any way where there is a choice, people are competing against the field they want to compete against. So, how is winning against any field more or less gratifying or meaningful than a one-division, one-champ approach?

The reality is that golf is an individual sport and players do not really beat other players. They perform well (or not) against their skill set and the course. That is it. Period. Gratification should come from that. Claiming you beat someone in head to head competition in a game where there is no meaningful interaction with the competitor is hollow. ......full contact disc golf....now that might be......

Moderator005

Apr 28 2006, 12:42 PM

With my preferred answer [3rd option] i am trying to kill two birds with one stone:

get the younger good open players to quit complaining that there are too many high-rated Masters players who should play Open but instead play Masters for guaranteed cash (that's what i hear them arguing at least)

-and-

get the entry fees low enough that i can play a lot of PDGA events in the Pro Masters division even if my game doesn't improve to allow me to cash every now and then.

Option 4 makes no sense, since there will always be highly skilled players of age 40,45,50, etc. and up. Age will NEVER be a valid criteria to break out skill in disc golf.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with option 2 but I realize it will never fly. Too many golfers already accustomed to the gravy train would complain.

I agree that option 3 is best. Make Pro Masters fees less than half the Open entry fees (or aligned with the Advanced entry fee) so that there is more incentive for the highly skilled Pro Masters to play in Open, where they belong.

AviarX

Apr 28 2006, 05:19 PM

Option 4 makes sense in that the majority of the top 50 players are under 40, even more are under 45, and even more are under 50. That alone makes age a valid criterion and that is why we have age-protected divisions.

If disc golf continues moving toward more courses that have pro par 4's and 5 holes and thus are longer and involve more elevation changes in general a younger player will have a competitive advantage in terms of strength and stamina.

The problem with only having one division is that it would decrease PDGA participation. many Masters who presently play events in the Masters division would not be interested in playing Open and might not have an interest in playing as Am.s. Only the exceptional Masters and GrandMasters can really compete in Open.

neonnoodle

May 01 2006, 10:28 PM

I don't see any problem that can't be solved by increasing sponsorship in the Open division. Solving the Open divisions problems is not my (direct) concern though. If they want me to play in the Open division then they need to make the division more attractive, not make the Masters division less attractive.

Indirectly I'd like to help the Open division and have offered a range of solutions, none of which force folks to play in Open. Any solution that penalizes or abolishes other divisions deemed of value to the PDGA as a whole are temporary band-aids that will not work in my opinion. Sponsorship and the creation of a true non-prize-cash classification are the only things that will meaningfully change the battle over our limited resources (players, courses, tds, money, etc.).

Again, if you want me to play Open then make it somewhere I'd "choose" to play by making it better. Trying to make Masters less appealing is only going to alienate your Masters customers(that's what they are after all).

AviarX

May 01 2006, 10:53 PM

I agree except imo making Masters entry fees lower might be a solution. It would encourage Masters-aged players rated below 955 to play Pro Masters. I'd like to see all entry fees lower (and i think polls show the membership in general wants lower entry fees too) but until we attain the sponsors to enable big cash payouts despite low entry fees, i'm afraid Open players will continue to see high entry fees. I'm not sure we need that in the Masters division... What do you see as the pros and cons of making Masters entry fees significantly lower than Open?

neonnoodle

May 01 2006, 11:10 PM

I'm all for lower entry fees, but not to make Masters less attractive in order to falsely or artificially enhance the Open divisions appeal to 2 or 3 players that might stand a far fetched chance of cashing in Open.

And if you think ALL of the Masters and Advanced players will just switch to Open if you make their divisions ugly enough you are dillusional.

AviarX

May 01 2006, 11:58 PM

Look at my rating (unfortunately Pat's innovative approach that put our ratings front and center got taken away) and you'll see Pro Masters is the pro division i find most attractive. I am not trying to make Open the only division -- i realize that would shrink (rather than grow) the number of participants at PDGA events.

gang4010

May 02 2006, 11:28 AM

Wonder how that response fits into my age profile?

Your response fits your ratings profile perfectly. You are a top 50 player in the world, so of course you want heads up competition with everyone.

Ahhhh so it fits my ratings profile. I see, I thought it was an AGE profile we were talking about. You see, while I may have a decent rating, I am also 42, and eligible for the "protected" status offered to me. As a matter of principle, I have and continue to refuse to take advantage of such protection because I believe in the value of competition in its purest form. And I believe that on any given day, I can come out on top. I also believe that I am not some wild anomaly in the DG community - do not posess any skills that anyone else willing to put the time and effort into - cannot develop themselves. And I personally see no value in competing against fewer players just to have a better chance at "getting first place".

I also see that looking at the top three competitive divisions, that the scoring spread from top to bottom is about the same in each, and that the ACTUAL body of scores from top to bottom are not all that dissimilar. Top Master is OFTEN near the top in Open, as is the bottom. And while the ADV may have it's top scores a little lower, the bottom is very similar, and the top is OFTEN better than the 1/2 way point in typical Open fields. So after watching this for upwards of 20 years, it seems plain to me that separating these players into groups is little more than a feel good way to give people a chance at first place, which brings with it all the inequities which we currently enjoy with our competitive structure.

I fail to see the beef you have with multiple divisions and multiple winners. This fixation with being the best is a diminishing value proposition. If it is all about winning with no excuses allowed, unless you win Worlds or the USDGC, why play?

Well I guess that's where I differ from most. Because to me, winning is not the end all of competition (as seems to be the reasoning behind HAVING the divisions we have). Second place to me is not the first LOSER. I try and explain to folks that WINNING can't meaningfully be the reason why you compete - because in the end - unless you ARE an anomaly - you are PROBABLY NOT going to be FIRST most of the time. So if that is your motivation for playing - you will probably be dissapointed a majority of the time. So you better darn well find another motivation for playing and competing, and be able to find some level of satisfaction in your performances, whether good or bad. So as opposed to your next quoted statement- meaningful competition is derived from the satisfaction you take from your performance - any satisfaction derived from the actual comparative score is just gravy.

By your way of thinking, competition is not meaningful to begin with.

Not true - you have misunderstood me. Competition in the form we offer it is not as meaningful as it could be.

If players are grouped any way where there is a choice, people are competing against the field they want to compete against.

This is the essence of our problem. The CHOICE to compete should be to compete or not compete. Instead - the choice is whether to compete against 6 guys or 26 guys - which (for me) is just plain lame.

So, how is winning against any field more or less gratifying or meaningful than a one-division, one-champ approach?

Good question - how bout you answer it for me? If there's 60 Open, and 20 Masters, how is it more meaningful to be awarded first place in Masters when your overall score would place you 3rd or 5th or 10th in Open? And how is it fair to those other Open players that the Master player is given a higher reward, when his skills so obviously place him amongst the top players?

james_mccaine

May 02 2006, 03:07 PM

Age will NEVER be a valid criteria to break out skill in disc golf.

Who said age or gender divisions were aimed to create divisions of different skill?

By the way, I support providing incentives to play open, in both genders. However, I find this thread pretty much off point. Open guys see the fields dwindling, they get little meaningful response from the PDGA competition folks and they are frustrated. If this is their main focus to increase open fields, and some measure is passed, I suspect the results will be sorely dissappointing.

Moderator005

May 02 2006, 04:55 PM

Age will NEVER be a valid criteria to break out skill in disc golf.

Who said age or gender divisions were aimed to create divisions of different skill?

Breaking out according to skill is exactly how age divisions arose. Come on, you've got a PDGA number less than 10,000 so you should remember. The Pro Masters (and Grandmasters, and Senior Grandmasters, etc.) divisions were created in early 1990s to break out money divisions for those whose skills had diminished with age. Without player ratings, that was the one of the only ways (and apparently, the best way) to separate ability.

Now that we have player ratings it is abundantly clear how inappropriate that method is, with 1000+ rated players in these divisions riding the gravy train and taking easy money from their comrades who on average have significantly lower ratings and abilities. And having since become weaned on their protected status, no PDGA divisional change would ever be enacted that would force older players with, for example, ratings over 985 to compete in the Open division along with young whipper snappers, even though that is exactly where these older highly skilled golfers belong. They would cry bloody murder.

james_mccaine

May 02 2006, 06:00 PM

Breaking out according to skill is exactly how age divisions arose.

I really don't buy this. Sort of for the same reason that women divisions exist. Gender and age are accepted divisional breakdowns in almost every physical sport. It certainly is related to ability and skill, but I think it is misleading to characterize their existence as an attempt to separate out those based on skills.

I sort of understand your point about those "riding the gravy train and taking easy money from their comrades who on average have significantly lower ratings and abilities," but would you apply the same statement to women, or juniors? Personally, I think age divisions make sense, but I would still advocate all measures that encourage people to play open.

By the way, shooting 985 in Texas tournaments these days won't get you squat. So think about what you would be telling these guys: you are not asking them merely to forego some winnings, you are guaranteeing them steep losses.

Chris Hysell

May 02 2006, 06:01 PM

4 out of 5 TD's are Masters age

How is everyone today?

Moderator005

May 03 2006, 11:44 AM

Breaking out according to skill is exactly how age divisions arose.

I really don't buy this. Sort of for the same reason that women divisions exist. Gender and age are accepted divisional breakdowns in almost every physical sport. It certainly is related to ability and skill, but I think it is misleading to characterize their existence as an attempt to separate out those based on skills.

Again, James, please remember back to the old days of disc golf tournaments: You had the Open division, and the amateur division, which was basically kids and the guy who you brought to the tournament who had never thrown a disc golf disc before in his life.

So sometime in the late 80s they created a Masters division for golfers whose abilities had diminished due to age. On average, they weren't as competitive in the Open division but still far more skilled than those in the amateur division. You can't do anything but characterize this creation as separating out based on skills.

matthewblakely

May 03 2006, 03:02 PM

Is this a proffession or a hobby?

pnkgtr

May 03 2006, 04:30 PM

One of the biggest skill divides within the Masters division is between the players that were once Open players and are now older and the players that are over 40 and are too good to play Am and were never Open players. There are a few exceptions (Kenny Lee for one) but overall the former Open players have higher ratings and win more.

neonnoodle

May 07 2006, 10:16 PM

Perhaps these details from the recent event Craig ran will enlighten us concerning his position on this topic:

Seneca Soiree, PDGA A Tier, Pro Only
<table border="1"><tr><td> Div</td><td> # of Players</td><td> Entry Fee</td><td> Ttl Payout</td><td> Ttl Entry</td><td> Added Cash
</td></tr><tr><td>Open Men</td><td> 40</td><td> $90</td><td> $4710</td><td> $3600</td><td> $1110
</td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td> 7</td><td> $60</td><td> $535</td><td> $420</td><td>$115
</td></tr><tr><td>Masters</td><td> 24</td><td> $60</td><td> $1238</td><td>$1440</td><td> <font color="red">-$202 </font>
</td></tr><tr><td>Grandmasters</td><td> 4</td><td> $60</td><td> $290</td><td> $240</td><td> $50
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

I know you want to discourage folks from playing Masters, but this is a little much don't you think?

Note: More added cash was actually added to Open than indicated above because there were several Advanced and Low Rated Open players got discounted entry fees.

Perhaps my numbers are off. I still had a great time and enjoyed hating the course as much as ever.

bruce_brakel

May 08 2006, 09:29 AM

Are you sure there weren't any reduced entry fees in Masters?

Moderator005

May 08 2006, 10:48 AM

Perhaps these details from the recent event Craig ran will enlighten us concerning his position on this topic:

Seneca Soiree, PDGA A Tier, Pro Only
<table border="1"><tr><td> Div</td><td> # of Players</td><td> Entry Fee</td><td> Ttl Payout</td><td> Ttl Entry</td><td> Added Cash
</td></tr><tr><td>Open Men</td><td> 40</td><td> $90</td><td> $4710</td><td> $3600</td><td> $1110
</td></tr><tr><td>Women</td><td> 7</td><td> $60</td><td> $535</td><td> $420</td><td>$115
</td></tr><tr><td>Masters</td><td> 24</td><td> $60</td><td> $1238</td><td>$1440</td><td> <font color="red">-$202 </font>
</td></tr><tr><td>Grandmasters</td><td> 4</td><td> $60</td><td> $290</td><td> $240</td><td> $50
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

I know you want to discourage folks from playing Masters, but this is a little much don't you think?

Note: More added cash was actually added to Open than indicated above because there were several Advanced and Low Rated Open players got discounted entry fees.

Once again the hyprocrite Nick Kight chooses to publicly chastise a tournament director instead of asking these questions through private e-mail, phone conversation, or face-to-face discussion. Even though in the past Nick has scolded others for this very same behavior, he continues to do so himself, and tarnish the reputation of what is widely considered one of our region's best tournaments.

bigchiz

May 08 2006, 12:15 PM

It's quite intersting to have TDed a B tier over the weekend and have the "unfair payouts to protected divsion" issue come up (again), then to see this thread.

This time the resolution was to cave in to pressures from the whinning at a price of $60 added to Masters.

Not offereing a Masters division does sound like a reasonable resolution. Over the last four years, the complainers could have either won or at least cashed in Open.

gang4010

May 08 2006, 03:48 PM

Perhaps these details from the recent event Craig ran will enlighten us concerning his position on this topic:

Perhaps my numbers are off.

Perhaps Nick, if your details were derived from ACTUAL tournament report information you would make less of an #$*&$! out of yourself and me. Try asking before posting such DRIVEL.
Actual added cash $1565
Added to open 75%
Added to Ladies 12%
Added to Masters 8%
Added to GM 5%

Net Loss to Club after expenses $32 We'll get over it. And yes there were several Masters that had reduced entry fees.

Nick did you have an actual point to make? Or were you just trying to #$*&$! me off?

Moderator005

May 08 2006, 03:55 PM

Craig, please don't let Nick get to you. You consistently run one of the most professional and widely acclaimed disc golf tournaments in our region, and shouldn't have to endure this grief.

sandalman

May 08 2006, 03:56 PM

Nick did you have an actual point to make? Or were you just trying to #$*&$! me off?

since nick almost always sticks within his abilities and comfort zone, my money is on the "trying to #$*&$! me off" :cool:

gang4010

May 08 2006, 04:01 PM

gang4010

May 08 2006, 04:58 PM

I've pulled a few recent tournament results to illustrate what I've been arguing on and on about regarding divisions since about 1992. I've chosen events where I have a high degree of confidence that the Open, Masters, and Adv divisions all played the same courses. Here they are:
Rockburn Challenge
Open Players (12) Scoring range 98-130
Masters (13) Scoring Range 106-127
Advanced (20) 109-135

Newport News
Open (7) 88-99
Masters (8) 88-109
Advanced (20) 92-113

Patapsco Punisher
Open (4) 118-147
Masters (12) 122-149
Advanced (15) 128-152

Philly Open
Open (18) 97-127
Masters (14) 105-128
Advanced (15) 111-139

Indiana Open
Open (20) 106-130
Masters (6) 116-136
Advanced (30) 116-151

Ironwood Open
Open (21) 126-167
Masters (9) 132-179
Advanced (31) 137-170

I know people say you can make the numbers say anything you want them to - but come on. With this much overlap (and I doubt our region is the only place this is happening), are you the membership truly believing that separation by these divisional categories are providing fair and meaningful competition?

bruce_brakel

May 08 2006, 05:25 PM

One of the other little noticed changes for 2006 was the abolition of the rule requiring a TD to offer a division if he has three competitors requesting it. Any TD who thinks there ought not be a Masters division ought not offer it!

Lyle O Ross

May 08 2006, 05:31 PM

Oh and Nick - I think you must have misunderstood my position all together. You see I don't want to discourage anybody from playing Masters. I want to see the PDGA find a better way to offer divisions in sanctioned competition. Yes - that would mean not OFFERING a division based on age (at least in its current form). I am not saying there is no place for age based divisions. I am saying in the larger scheme of things, with the current # of tournament players, and with the extreme degree of overlap between the various mens divisions being offered - that MASTERS as a division is superfluous, redundant, and results in an inequitable system of rewards.

How on earth could you ASSUME to post authoritative tournament information without access to the tournament report? You even got the value of the GM entry fee wrong!! What a putz!!

Without going back and reading all of the posts, aren't you simply talking about divisions based on ratings? It's sort of like the ugly step sister/brother, kept locked up in the closet. The solution is simple enough. Someone needs to run the events. That doesn't happen because the reality is that no one is quite ready for it yet. The PDGA isn't stupid enough to force something on it's members that they don't want...

gnduke

May 08 2006, 05:35 PM

I don't think it was removed as much as relocated to the Divisions Guide where it is now 4 or more players.

PDGA guidelines stipulate that events must offer any division for which there are 4 or more registered competitors, unless
advance notice is given. Exceptions are made in the interests of member-player satisfaction, notably in the Women�s and Junior
divisions, where participants are often limited to 3 players or less.

But this is the '05 guide.

Moderator005

May 08 2006, 05:50 PM

How on earth could you ASSUME to post authoritative tournament information without access to the tournament report? You even got the value of the GM entry fee wrong!! What a putz!!

So not only does Nick attempt to publicly discredit one of our premier disc golf tournaments, he does so with incorrect data?

If this is the kind of behavior we can expect from you, Nick, please refrain from attending PDGA tournament events in the future.

AviarX

May 08 2006, 05:50 PM

I know people say you can make the numbers say anything you want them to - but come on. With this much overlap (and I doubt our region is the only place this is happening), are you the membership truly believing that separation by these divisional categories are providing fair and meaningful competition?

it would be fairly easy to pull other recent tourneys and make the opposite case. the major drawback i see to merging those three divisions (Advanced, Masters & Open) is that you will have the bottom half to two-thirds of Advanced and Masters simply not entering such one division competitions -- unless entry fees were significantly lower. Those who presently play Advanced and Masters who feel they have an outside chance of playing hot and finishing in the cash -- will feel like they've lost before they enter and therefore won't bother (to enter).

in other words, the top 25% (if that) of the Advanced and Masters fields might have potential to cash if they played Open, but what about the other 75% who make up a good deal of the membership? While you might slightly increase the size of the Open division in an event -- the larger effect would be less PDGA members renewing and less PDGA event participation for those that do re-new because it just wouldn't be fun (for them) anymore.

ck34

May 08 2006, 05:56 PM

Come to the only official ratings event currently available: www.midnationals.com (http://www.midnationals.com) No Master division. (Or qualify for USDGC)

Lyle O Ross

May 08 2006, 06:31 PM

Come to the only official ratings event currently available: www.midnationals.com (http://www.midnationals.com) No Master division. (Or qualify for USDGC)

See, there ya go, now ya only need to spread the love! BTW - IMO, this is the only real tournament we have. :D A tournament where people of the same skill sets compete, no matter age, etc. I figure in another 50 years everyone will be doing it. :D

rhett

May 08 2006, 06:39 PM

How on earth could you ASSUME to post authoritative tournament information without access to the tournament report? You even got the value of the GM entry fee wrong!! What a putz!!

So not only does Nick attempt to publicly discredit one of our premier disc golf tournaments, he does so with incorrect data?

I'd like to hear from Nick Kight again on this issue. Where is he?

Jeez, did I actually ask to hear from Nick again???

AviarX

May 08 2006, 07:28 PM

i want an admin to review that ^last post^

(specificly the part that says:)

I'd like to hear from Nick Kight again on this issue.

clearly someone has stolen Rhett's password :eek: :D

gang4010

May 09 2006, 07:52 AM

it would be fairly easy to pull other recent tourneys and make the opposite case. the major drawback i see to merging those three divisions (Advanced, Masters & Open) is that you will have the bottom half to two-thirds of Advanced and Masters simply not entering such one division competitions -- unless entry fees were significantly lower.

I purposely chose events not because of the scoring ranges, but because I am familiar w/the courses. I think if you chose a random sampling of events in your area, you would find a similar degree of overlap. PLEASE try it -check and see for yourself, and give us a sampling from your area - I would LOVE to be proven wrong. But after 20 years of stats - I unfortunately know that I am right on.

I use this example not to tout the notion of lumping these three divisions all together (necessarily), but to show that our current divisional structure has no obvious break in skill level associated with it. This SHOULD be the goal of offering divisions in competition shouldn't it? Am I the only one who thinks so?

Yes - the stepchild under the stairs - the entire membership screams for ratings updates, but no one wants to use them to establish credible competition? I think your fear of the membership not buying into it is unfounded. I think the fear comes from the notion of change period - especially when the ONLY THING being threatened is entitlement. Don't take away my gravy train say the Masters or I won't play, don't take away my gravy train say the Advanced, or I won't play. Don't let the best players play says Chuck, and then we can have another winner woohoo. The PDGA's standards for competition are a steaming pile :p.
Remember - I'm 42 - and could be riding the Masters gravy train if I chose to. I choose not to - because I think it's a crock.

ck34

May 09 2006, 08:33 AM

Skill levels are certainly a way to organize players into competition groups. However, why shouldn't people be allowed to affiliate for competition in other ways if they choose? If I want to organize a competition among people who live on my street, or who have the same type of car, or the same color hair, or are the same height, is there something intrinsically wrong with that? What if the blondes or the Ford owners contact me so we can compete in separate groups but on the same day at the same course? What if I get sponsors to kick in $2000 for the salt & pepper hairs but the blondes just "want to have more fun" and play for trophies?

What if 40+ year olds in some sport happened to be the best players in the world? Would it be wrong for the younger players to not play in their group? We already have divisions where older players are better and we don't make the youngsters play up (13 & under versus 16 & under).

If one believes that pros get paid because people will pay watch them, care about paying to see them outside the competition arena, or are willing to pay to hear what they know or can teach, then we only have a few pros in this sport. Most if not all of the sponsor money collected since our sport started has not been for any of the above reasons. So, there's been little justification for placing most of the sponsor money in the Open division. But it's happened because, in general, players and TDs support the 'better players of the day' concept even if there's no requirement to do so.

sandalman

May 09 2006, 09:32 AM

midnationals uses arbitrary cutoffs for its divisions. 924 and 974 players are well protected at midnationals. this is not a criticism of the event, just an observation of the event's fundamental reality.

tkieffer

May 09 2006, 11:40 AM

AviarX

May 09 2006, 03:02 PM

Great point, there is nothing stopping Masters-aged players from forming their own events should the PDGA decide to rid itself of age-protections.

As a 44 year-old who entered my first PDGA event in 2003, testing Pro Masters last year and moving up this year has worked. Moving up to Open would not and i might not have the passion i do now for PDGA competition. If i continue to get better i would play Open, but if i don't i'll play Masters. And while i applaud Johnny Sias for playing Open in the recent A tier event i played in this past weekend, i also applaud Dean Tannock for playing Masters. I was able to play two rounds with him and it was a real treat!

If having more Open players is the goal -- let's get more people into competitive disc golf! That will bring more money too. I have no problem with ratings-based competitions if TD's want to run them, but doing away with masters divisions regardless of ratings at all PDGA events would shrink our organization as well as the number of TD's who step up to the plate and run great events.

If you want to do away with the few players just looking for easy cash -- make the non-Open field entry fees significantly lower than Open. (problem with that of course is TD's will make less money off am.s to subsidize Open payouts)

gang4010

May 11 2006, 07:34 AM

Keep in mind that for 2/3rds of the Masters division (since top third usually gets paid), it's not an issue of "the gravy train". You may want to consider that the motivation is other than 'easy cash'. Your point holds water with Masters rated as high as you, but doesn't for the majority of the division. At least in my neck of the woods.

Eliminate the division and see what happens to these people. Eliminate Grand and Senior Grand as well. Have a great time with it, and let me know how your attendance of people over 40 works out. If you succeed in eliminating the division, I know I'll be playing elsewhere. And by elswhere, I'm not referring to Advanced or Pro.

Hi Tim - before you cop a tude - how bout we go to Wisconsin for a little comparative scoring and talk about what we find. Of course, I can't be sure everybody played the same course configurations - maybe you can confirm that for us.

Tower Ridge
Open 30 scoring range 104-125
Masters 9 112-129
Advanced 22 107-138

Wakanda Park Open
Open 27 86-116
Masters 8 97-122
Advanced 24 101-125

Standing Rocks
Open 55 155-198
Masters 17 167-209
Advanced 70 179-231

Now at first glance, it appears to me that the scoring ranges overlap much the way they do in my own region. It also appears that there is a healthier number of Open players at your events, so I could see how the status quo presents no threat (perceived or real) to competition in general. However, the overlap is still significant and troubling from the standpoint of grouping divisions based on skill breaks. They are so very obviously not organized that way. So maybe there is no "masters gravy train" in Wisconsin, so talk to us about your own motivations for playing in that division. Then please consider and reflect on how your DG experiences would change (for better or worse) if divisions were organized by some other method than age. Maybe even organize them some other way yourself, and see if a larger percentage of what is now the masters group wouldn't actually cash. I'm betting the percentage goes up in a larger group.

Chuck, come on man - the blonde division? What did you dye your hair, wake up in the back seat, and have trouble turning on the light? You are the ratings guy. You should be the CHAMPION of divisions by skill instead of choice. How is that you of all people are the champion of status quo? Are you really hanging your hat on the "we want to socialize with people our own age" argument? And can you truly embrace this attitude while in the same breath claiming to play for the love of the game and not for some level of reward? What ever happened to the love you share by teaching that new kid how to putt, or throw a roller? Or the love you get from that same kid because he "knows who you are", or is awed by your turbo putt? Seems to me the "social club" attitude makes you the "loser" in more than one respect. You lose out on a potentially wide and wonderful range of disc experiences by embracing our stagnant divisional structure.

I said it before, please let me repeat. I do not believe that there is no place for age based divisions within sanctioned play. I DO believe that skill based divisions should be the predominant determining factor in how our divisions are organized. Nobody gets excluded, they just get put into bigger groups.

md21954

May 11 2006, 08:42 AM

why not have a maximum rating allowed for age protected divisions? maybe players rated higher than 980 or 985 or something chuck could come up with MUST play open? that would justify more of the sponsor dollars (when we get sponsor dollars) going to the open div at the same time as creating a less diluted open div. maybe the max rating for the age protected could be dropped for worlds where the true masters championship is won in undiluted masters competition.

i assume this has been brought up before.

being allowed to play in the cake masters div is probably the only reason to look forward to getting old that i can think of. don't rob me of that! :p

ck34

May 11 2006, 09:11 AM

I'm not against skill based divisions. Obviously, I did something to help move us forward in that direction with ratings. However, in an environment with free choice and not enough sponsor money for top players to make a living as true pros, the argument against alternative division groupings like gender and age isn't very compelling while even the competitive sector of our sport is still primarily recreational in nature. As more money flows in, the incentives will increase for better players of all ages trying to make a living to enter Open. In addition, the competitive structure will adapt to and support that transition. It's not that the Competition Committee doesn't recognize the arguments for getting the best older players in Open. I don't believe the group feels the justification to create rules to force those choices are there yet, for that policy to be widely supported.

dave_marchant

May 11 2006, 09:18 AM

Yes - the stepchild under the stairs - the entire membership screams for ratings updates, but no one wants to use them to establish credible competition? I think your fear of the membership not buying into it is unfounded. I think the fear comes from the notion of change period - especially when the ONLY THING being threatened is entitlement. Don't take away my gravy train say the Masters or I won't play, don't take away my gravy train say the Advanced, or I won't play. Don't let the best players play says Chuck, and then we can have another winner woohoo. The PDGA's standards for competition are a steaming pile .
Remember - I'm 42 - and could be riding the Masters gravy train if I chose to. I choose not to - because I think it's a crock.

I think what I am going to say has been said already, but it bears repeating.

I believe that most of the Masters aged players choose Masters for the cameraderie factor, not the gravy train factor. And...most of the real work in running events and spearheading course work and running clubs is done my masters aged players.

From a "pure unadulterated competition" standpoint, I agree with doing away with all protected divisions. BUT, disc golf has a culture from its roots of NOT being about "pure unadulterated competition". The fun factor (cameraderie being the biggest part of that) is just as big as the competition factor for most/many.

If you take away the Masters division, you alienate the workbase of the PDGA. Big Mistake.

gang4010

May 11 2006, 09:53 AM

So basically Dave, Masters players don't get along with folks outside their age group? Or maybe - they aren't able to relax around people under 40? I don't buy it. Love of the game, disc golf community, comaraderie, are intrinsic to what we all love to do - I totally agree.
Don't you just love going places and playing in a group where you don't know ANYBODY? Isn't that part of the allure? Part of the "community"? To me, one of the best parts of "discovering" a new place - is playing with and finding out about the wide array of personalities that discover and adopt DG.

Because the PDGA is largely an organizer of DG COMPETITION - it has placed itself in the position of managing and organizing such events in a fair and meaningful way. The current system largely fails in that regard, as is illustrated by the degree of overlap between the established "divisions". As long as this degree of overlap exists - inequities in rewards will persist. And while who gets what reward isn't necessarily THE primary factor in organizing competitive venues, I would think it should be A factor, worthy of more attention. I don't see comaraderie disappearing due to player pools increasing in size. If so, maybe the "Masters" division isn't as friendly as it purports to be.

dave_marchant

May 11 2006, 11:00 AM

So basically Dave, Masters players don't get along with folks outside their age group? Or maybe - they aren't able to relax around people under 40? I don't buy it.

Nice strawman (misrepresent what I say and then beat down your misrepresentation). It did not say that masters aged players don't or can't do anything. I said that they prefer camaraderie among themselves. I did not make this up. I gathered this by asking a bunch of them why they play in mpm/mm1/gm... I turned 40 this year and wanted to find out.

Love of the game, disc golf community, comaraderie, are intrinsic to what we all love to do - I totally agree.
Don't you just love going places and playing in a group where you don't know ANYBODY? Isn't that part of the allure? Part of the "community"? To me, one of the best parts of "discovering" a new place - is playing with and finding out about the wide array of personalities that discover and adopt DG.

Agreed 100%. That is the culture of DG in general and I like the fact that this social/recreational atmosphere carries over into our sanctioned events. Stripping this out by making things too mathematical will cause a more antiseptic environment than needed, IMO. If you want clean and neat and boring, go play ball golf.

Because the PDGA is largely an organizer of DG COMPETITION - it has placed itself in the position of managing and organizing such events in a fair and meaningful way.

I agree that the PDGA is indeed the main organizing and enabling body of competitive play. But read this from the PDGA constitution:
<font color="red">ARTICLE 2 PURPOSES
Section 1. To promote the sport of disc golf in ways which will enhance the enjoyment of the game for its members and for the general public. To encourage good spirit and fellowship among all who play disc golf.</font>

The current system largely fails in that regard, as is illustrated by the degree of overlap between the established "divisions". As long as this degree of overlap exists - inequities in rewards will persist. And while who gets what reward isn't necessarily THE primary factor in organizing competitive venues, I would think it should be A factor, worthy of more attention.

There is plenty of reward above and beyond the monetary payout. Seeing your name and score (and associated rating and round ratings) published can not be overlooked. Since most events have all players on the same course, the world can see how everyone competed against each other regardless of the division they were in. The world can also see who is bagging and who is hiding from competition in higher divisions.

My take on this whole thread could be summed up as "the Brad Hammock factor" (although he seems to be playing more in mpo these days).

Moderator005

May 11 2006, 11:34 AM

bruce_brakel

May 11 2006, 11:45 AM

In michigan eight of the top ten rated players are Masters age. At some tournaments the easy money is in
Open and the titans are battling it out in Masters.

james_mccaine

May 11 2006, 11:54 AM

dave_marchant

May 11 2006, 12:41 PM

For the record, when I use the term "gravy train," I'm talking about the 1000+ rated Pro Masters players who would finish in the top 10 of the Pro Open division in most PDGA tournaments. Instead, they play in the Pro Masters division and destroy the rest of the Pro Masters field which is primarily composed of competitors with ratings of 930-985. They take home easy money: hence, "riding the Masters gravy train."

If the lower rated guys like playing with the 1000+ dude, they are probably mature enough to let him bag and take a little of their money. If they don�t like him they won�t show up at the next event he bags at. His gravy train might shrink to just a caboose if he has driven competitors away. If he is the money grubbing bastard you make him out to be, he will move to MPO where the real money is to be had. It should be a self-correcting problem.

Now, if these guys are driven away by this 1000+ guy, it says something about their motivation to play and their perspective on their protected division, doesn�t it?

I assume we are talking about the C & B tier events here. There seems to usually be pretty good competition at the top of MPM in A�s and above. Your mileage may vary depending on where in the country you are.

Moderator005

May 11 2006, 01:03 PM

I wonder, do you consider the top grandmasters who pretty much destroy the field to be riding the gravy train?

Do you consider the top women who destroy the field to be riding the gravy train?

The top juniors?

In other words, is this a discussion about 40 being too low, or is this a discussion about whether age is a legitimate divisional category at all?

I'm just wondering.

It's about highly skilled golfers taking easy money from their counterparts, most of whom are rated significantly lower. That there are 990+ rated Pro Grandmasters who destroy their field and who would be very competitive Pro Open players also seems very wrong to me. But because of the financial infancy of our sport and the way our competitive system is set up, there is every incentive in the world for these golfers to stay in their protected divisions and "ride the gravy train."

Maybe someday there will be enough sponsorship money in the Open division at tournaments to provide incentive for these highly skilled older players to compete there rather than their protected divisions, or a PDGA rule that stipulates that all players with a certain rating (I would suggest 990 and up) MUST play Open.

Moderator005

May 11 2006, 01:14 PM

I assume we are talking about the C & B tier events here. There seems to usually be pretty good competition at the top of MPM in A’s and above. Your mileage may vary depending on where in the country you are.

To me, it doesn't matter that the competition is better at National Tour and A Tier events. It's that there are highly rated Pro Masters and Pro Grandmasters who would be top finishers in Pro Open in these events, and that these guys are so much more highly rated than the bulk of their competition. (look at the average ratings for Pro Masters, Pro Grandmasters, etc.)

tkieffer

May 11 2006, 01:41 PM

Hey gang, not coping a tude, more just trying to convey what my motivation is. Let me try further.

It's not that I don't like playing with Advanced or Pros, it's more that my situation, and the situation of most of the Masters division, doesn't allow me to be on the same playing field as either division. It also doesn't promote the same camaraderie during an event, and thus the event doesn't provide the same payback for me (payback in other forms than cashing).

Most Masters (i.e. those that have no illusion about trying to make a living from this sport) are juggling jobs, families, home ownership and the like. We're able to throw once or twice a week, and for us getting to a tournament is a vaction from the demands of our daily lives. We are not professionals in this sport by any means, only playing in a Pro division. Do I really want to throw against Open Pros who practice daily, and are looking at the tournament as an income source as opposed to a vacation? Do I really want to throw with young Advanced with too much time on their hands who also throw daily and whose motivation is raking in prizes or getting their rating above 975? No. I don't have the time to be competitive in either case, my rating has probably been declining for awhile, my distance is decreasing, I walk slower than most of them, I throw different plastic, and I would probably annoy many of them if I'm just out their having fun while their trying to maintain their competitive focus. In so many different ways, we don't fit in either the Advanced or Open division.

I have nothing against anyone in either division. I enjoy meeting and talking ot everyone at a tournament. None of them are bad people, and I'm not saying that all of them are entirely motivated by what I describe above. But the majority of the Masters fit the 'this is my chosen recreation' mode, are in similar life situations as I am, and don't outhrow me by 150 feet. We have a good time, and its the good time that motivates me to spend the money to attend the event. Take this away, and I have to consider whether the cost (which might actually be increased if moving to Open) is justified.

Basic consumer behavior in place here. Money spent vs. perceived value. If the perceived value isn't there, I consider other options. Perhaps its fishing, going to a ball game, or just staying in town and throwing with a few friends. I have a great time and look forward to the few tournaments that I am able to get to each year. I don't mind if a couple of true 'Pro Masters' come in and take the entry fess of us lower 900s rated 'recreational' Masters as its only one small aspect of the overall experience.

Take this away, and I'm probably no longer interested in shelling out, and can probably find a more fullfilling recreational experience elsewhere.

michler

May 11 2006, 01:41 PM

this is retarded. why would anybody take less money instead of more money? u can't penalize somebody for being too good or for not having any decent competition.

Moderator005

May 11 2006, 02:07 PM

this is retarded. why would anybody take less money instead of more money? u can't penalize somebody for being too good or for not having any decent competition.

It's only more money to play in the protected division instead of the Open division because of 1) our competitive system structure and 2) the financial status of our sport.

Both are things we are looking to improve on in the future.

rhett

May 11 2006, 03:16 PM

The "answer", as always, is more money added to the events. Pay every division 100% of their entry fees, and then add all the rest of the cash to the Open divisions.

When there is enough added cash in MPO, the 1000+ rated MPMs and the 990+ rated GMs and the 970+ rated MA1s will start playing in the MPO division. When a 1020 rated Master enters MPM and wins $3,000 less than his score would've won in MPO, then we can all believe that he really values the cameraderie of the old guys.

Until then, who cares? Putting a ratings limit on MPM won't work. You will just make the 999 or 989 or 979 rated guy the big fish in the pond. We need a system whereby the top rated players all choose to play in the same division. I only see two ways to get that: more added cash with all of it in the Open division(s), or USDGC-style one division tourneys.

Moderator005

May 11 2006, 04:55 PM

When there is enough added cash in MPO, the 1000+ rated MPMs and the 990+ rated GMs and the 970+ rated MA1s will start playing in the MPO division. When a 1020 rated Master enters MPM and wins $3,000 less than his score would've won in MPO, then we can all believe that he really values the cameraderie of the old guys.

I agree 100%. This is exactly what I'm trying to say.

AviarX

May 11 2006, 11:18 PM

how bout we go to Wisconsin for a little comparative scoring and talk about what we find.

Tower Ridge
Open (30) scoring range 104-125 <font color="blue"> cash scores = 104 to 112 </font> :eek:
Masters (9) 112-129 <font color="blue"> cash scores = 112 to 116</font> :eek:

Wakanda Park Open
Open (27) 86-116 <font color="blue"> cash scores: 86 to 98 </font> :eek:
Masters (8) 97-122 <font color="blue"> cash scores: 97 to 104 </font> :eek:

To all the Masters-aged players who do play Open: more power to you, but a closer look at the numbers ^ shows why it is wise for the PDGA to leave us lesser-rated Masters-aged players some options ... ;)

sandalman

May 11 2006, 11:22 PM

thats a really big conclusion to base on one event. :eek:

AviarX

May 11 2006, 11:36 PM

actually Pat, it was two events -- and he had picked Wisconsin and i really didn't want to do the homework so i took the two he cited that occured last weekend. even though the sample size was small, i am not at all surprised it shows what other tourneys i have looked at reveal -- that a large portion of the Masters players who cash in Masters would not cash if they were forced into a one division format.

of the 10 Masters who cashed in last weekend's A tier event -- only 2 would have cashed in Open. Given that -- how would you argue to all the Masters who played but didn't cash in Masters that they should play Open ?

making the point that the winner of Masters could have done well in Open is a simple project, but if you want to argue all masters players should be happy with no age-protected divisions, a deeper look at the numbers will prove counter-productive /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :p

sandalman

May 12 2006, 12:58 AM

its not cashing that counts here, its how much you get paid for your score. take a look at the two largest events in texas ythyis year:

tx states NT:
190 in masters wins and takes $750
190 in open ties for 12th and takes $185

z-boaz A:
180 in masters wins and takes $440
180 in open ties for 7th and takes $180
score...mpo.....mpm
187......120...... 305
188......110...... 205
190......100...... 160

if the divisions were combined the 180s would get approx $275, which is more than the mpo player got with separate divisions. the mpm player would get less in a combined division - but not as little as his score would have gotten in separate divs. oh, and the open winner would get about 50% more!

the 193 in mpm, (next ot last cash) would not only still get paid, but would actually get more in combined division! and since the last cash mpm 197 was beat by several 194s in mpo, those 194s would split about $170 or so.

btw, i like the current divisional structure and want to keep it intact. i also feel that these single division events have a lot of merit. i'd like to see the pdga allow single division events to pay out in plastic and not have it count towards turning "pro" for divisional events. that lets the two formats co-exist and makes them more attractive to the TD.

May 12 2006, 01:01 AM

Most Masters (i.e. those that have no illusion about trying to make a living from this sport) are juggling jobs, families, home ownership and the like. We're able to throw once or twice a week, and for us getting to a tournament is a vaction from the demands of our daily lives. We are not professionals in this sport by any means, only playing in a Pro division.

Hey, ya know what? That goes for most of the "Pro" players regardless of age. Even those of us under the age of 40 who have jobs, family, and other obligations. My rating is 960-something, and I have no realistic chance against Barry, Ken, and those guys. I can wait a few years, but it doesn't matter because I have no chance against Joe Mela or Brad Hammock either.

bruce_brakel

May 12 2006, 12:02 PM

add all the rest of the cash to the Open divisions. * * *

We need a system whereby the top rated players all choose to play in the same division.

I disagree. We need a system that is flexible enough for our TDs to run the kinds of events that they can make successful. If a TD wants to advertise an event where all of the added cash is going to the Masters division or the Pro Women or any other division, we should be fine with events that cater to different divisions.

Our sponsor for Hot Rags IOS #2 [www.hotrags.com] doesn't necessarily want their their sponsorship dumped on the top four to eight players in our Open division. They want it spread around among as many players as possible. We can spread it twice as far if we use the sponsorship money to buy discs that advertise their locations and website. We need to do what works best for our sponsors if we want to retain them. Could it be that the widespread practice of dumping all the sponsor value on just a few players explains the difficulty in attracting and retaining sponsors?

The IOSeries' [www.brasscash.com] sponsors at every tournament are primarily the amateurs that play the tournament. We use their sponsorship to run good events for amateurs. If we had a system that required that all sponsored added value be paid to one small division, that would be something weighing on the wrong side in the decision whether to sanction at all.

AviarX

May 12 2006, 12:11 PM

Pat, it's having a shot at cashing that brings all the lesser rated-players out in any given division. if you combine divisions -- the top Masters players should do fine. But the masters who seldom cash now won't have fun or motivation to play PDGA events. (Same thing with Advanced -- the few players who are good enough to move up should not dictate what the rest of the players in the division are called upon to do.) if you look at the bottom cashers in masters when you talk about whether Masters players should play Open -- it should be easy enough to catch my drift.

Therefore thinking of ways to better incentivize those few players (in Advanced, Pro Masters, or Pro Women) to play Open is the trick, imo. do you disagree?

sandalman

May 12 2006, 12:29 PM

i dont think i disagree. remember, i think the current system should continue as long as people want it. i also think new appraoch and formats should be explored, and this creativity should be encouraged by the pdga.

btw, the bottom cashers in MPM could easily be bottom cashers in a combined division, at least around here where there is not a whole lot of difference between open and masters feild quality.

in fact, i feel i would have a better cash at cashing in a combined division than i would in an MPM field.

AviarX

May 12 2006, 12:42 PM

i doubt that. don't look at score variance (high and low scores) in Masters vs. Open -- look at what score (or round rating) it took to take bottom cash in each respective division ;) Realize too, that if the divisions were combined a third or more of the Masters would not play Pro (if at all) (and might not re-new).

rhett

May 12 2006, 01:44 PM

Tower Ridge
Open 30 scoring range 104-125
Masters 9 112-129
Advanced 22 107-138

Wakanda Park Open
Open 27 86-116
Masters 8 97-122
Advanced 24 101-125

Standing Rocks
Open 55 155-198
Masters 17 167-209
Advanced 70 179-231

I believe that trying to analyze the results based solely on scoring spread is worthless. If Brad Hammock Steve Wisecup come to town and finish close but beat third or fifth place by twenty strokes, then your data is junk. If King Bagger in Advanced has the tourney of his life and laps the field by 15 strokes, you have one outlier in big field pulling the spread right into the top end of the pro spread.

sandalman

May 12 2006, 02:17 PM

rob, looking at the lowest cash score is only part of the story. you need to look at what the results would have been if the divisions combined. yes, i understand your conjecture that not everyone would have played... but maybe others would have, who knows. we're dealing with the hypothetical here, so let me have my fun :) the only it makes sense is to look at combined divisions and what that payout would have looked like

AviarX

May 12 2006, 02:38 PM

Pat, i am looking at what would cause me to not re-new. my goal is to get good enough to play (and compete) in Open -- but if that doesn't happen despite my best efforts and there isn't a Masters division: there's a strong chance i won't have fun and thus won't re-new or participate in PDGA events.

fortunately there is a Masters division and it is sometimes more populated than Open here in the Cincinnati area :eek:

tkieffer

May 12 2006, 06:12 PM

I remember when the Masters age went from 35 to 40 as I was caught in this for a year or so. Many of us then 39 year olds cut our attendance way back and played 1 or 2 events in Open instead of the usual 5 or 6 we would have played during that period in Masters. I think you'd find a high frequency of the same among the +40 crowd if Masters ceased to be offered.

On a positive side, I'd only have to wait a couple of years before Grand Masters. I could easily lay low until then.

sandalman

May 12 2006, 08:14 PM

masters is not going anywhere if i can help it. new events will start, and some will use a single division structure. i'm looking forward to playing both.

keldog

May 12 2006, 08:30 PM

yeah and I seen your game MOVE UP :Djust think what you could do in shoes :eek:

sandalman

May 12 2006, 08:45 PM

they made me change that avatar

neonnoodle

May 13 2006, 01:15 AM

Gee, how could I have ever come to the conclusion that Craig holds some hostility towards the masters division and masters division players? I wonder...

gang4010 Re: Open vs. Masters Division solutions [Re: Neon]
#545616 - 05/08/06 04:01 PM
Oh and Nick - I think you must have misunderstood my position all together. You see I don't want to discourage anybody from playing Masters. I want to see the PDGA find a better way to offer divisions in sanctioned competition. Yes - that would mean not OFFERING a division based on age (at least in its current form). I am not saying there is no place for age based divisions. I am saying in the larger scheme of things, with the current # of tournament players, and with the extreme degree of overlap between the various mens divisions being offered - that MASTERS as a division is superfluous, redundant, and results in an inequitable system of rewards.

How on earth could you ASSUME to post authoritative tournament information without access to the tournament report? You even got the value of the GM entry fee wrong!! What a putz!!

and

Yes - the stepchild under the stairs - the entire membership screams for ratings updates, but no one wants to use them to establish credible competition? I think your fear of the membership not buying into it is unfounded. I think the fear comes from the notion of change period - especially when the ONLY THING being threatened is entitlement. Don't take away my gravy train say the Masters or I won't play, don't take away my gravy train say the Advanced, or I won't play. Don't let the best players play says Chuck, and then we can have another winner woohoo. The PDGA's standards for competition are a steaming pile .
Remember - I'm 42 - and could be riding the Masters gravy train if I chose to. I choose not to - because I think it's a crock.

Craig, if you are so much against the masters division then do the masters players that attend your events a favor and don�t even invite us. The PDGA doesn�t force you to offer the masters division. But let�s see, at the soiree, without the masters division, you would have had 42 players and $160 bucks less of added cash to the Open division.

You complain about the PDGA and how it has messed up (your gravy train, Open) but the truth is even you don�t have the nerve to tell Wayne Zink, Karlton Taylor, Gary Dropcho or other long long long time supporters and attendees of your events that they are no longer welcome at your events. The truth is, that at sign in you didn�t confront them or the other masters about their low moral fiber. What you did to them, with a smile on your face and a smirk at the awards ceremony instead is there for anyone with eyes to see.

Again, if you want masters to play open, you need to make open attractive enough for us to want to play there. Your obvious attempts to make masters the worst treated division at your event in order to make the open look a little better is pure pettiness and self-interest. How can you expect anyone with one iota of logic to see your words and actions any other way? You being 42 is of little consequence. Clearly you have decided to remain in Open, which is your right to choose. I have chosen to play Masters, and not once have I "opted" to play Open, even when clearly it is easier cash division in a lot of situations. You need to quit with all this "forcing" folks crud.

The problem is lack of significant sponsorship in Open. Forcing advanced and masters players to play open is not going to solve that problem. If anything it will only make it worse and delay any future progress. How you don't get this is beyond me.

I wish you would play masters so I could kick your behind all around the course... LOL!

bruce_brakel

May 13 2006, 01:55 PM

I find it delightfully ironic that some TD is doing to the Pro Masters what TDs have done to us amateurs for the 15 years that I've been playing tournaments. It would make sense to have a standard, and to allow TDs to deviate from the standard when they advertise that.

quickdisc

May 13 2006, 05:31 PM

If I'm to be forced to play Open , maybe someone can put up the extra entry fee money each time I play with the kids.

I have played Open for over 20 years.

I'm close to 50 and it is tougher for myself to play anything lower than Masters division.......................................... .................................................. ...........but if I'm FORCED to play Open , no matter what.................I'll do my best !!!!!!

gang4010

May 13 2006, 07:56 PM

Gee, how could I have ever come to the conclusion that Craig holds some hostility towards the masters division and masters division players? I wonder

You complain about the PDGA and how it has messed up (your gravy train, Open) but the truth is even you don�t have the nerve to tell Wayne Zink, Karlton Taylor, Gary Dropcho or other long long long time supporters and attendees of your events that they are no longer welcome at your events. The truth is, that at sign in you didn�t confront them or the other masters about their low moral fiber. What you did to them, with a smile on your face and a smirk at the awards ceremony instead is there for anyone with eyes to see.

Again, if you want masters to play open, you need to make open attractive enough for us to want to play there. Your obvious attempts to make masters the worst treated division at your event in order to make the open look a little better is pure pettiness and self-interest. How can you expect anyone with one iota of logic to see your words and actions any other way? You being 42 is of little consequence. Clearly you have decided to remain in Open, which is your right to choose. I have chosen to play Masters, and not once have I "opted" to play Open, even when clearly it is easier cash division in a lot of situations. You need to quit with all this "forcing" folks crud.

Nick - I do not hold any hostility towards masters players. Many Masters players, especially the ones you include in your example are wonderful people and dear friends of mine. I would cherish the opportunity to actually play with them in competition. In order for this to happen, I as a TD actually have to break PDGA rules - which pretty much blows. We continue to offer Masters at our event because that is what we agreed to do when we sanctioned the event, period - we do not judge the moral fiber of those that choose to enter that division.

My disdain is for the PDGA divisional system itself, which I believe is flawed - this I have tried to make very clear. Is the answer to make the top 3 competitive mens divisions a single division - no probably not. But would it make sense to combine the three into two and use ratings breaks as the defining criteria - yes that would probably be both fair, and acceptable to most players. My disdain for the system has nothing to do with the "open gravy train" you reference - it isn't about me getting more money - I won't be playing forever - and winning and cashing in Open is continually more difficult for me. Perhaps this difficulty fuels my desire to see the system actually TRY and provide some means of equitable reward. But every time it gets brought up - people like you act as if its something personal - instead of something systemic; the change of which will provide many long run benefits.

The problem is lack of significant sponsorship in Open. Forcing advanced and masters players to play open is not going to solve that problem. If anything it will only make it worse and delay any future progress. How you don't get this is beyond me.

The notion of money solving our problems is old and tired. I've been hearing it for 15 years, with only a modicum of progress. There isn't some sugar daddy waiting in the wings to come and pay all the players, if you can't see that the divisional system as it is - is flawed - that's not my problem.

[/QUOTE]I wish you would play masters so I could kick your behind all around the course... LOL!

[/QUOTE]
That would be a first wouldn't it Nick? You want to kick my behind all over the course - you'll have to play open - or maybe your just skeered.

gang4010

May 13 2006, 08:12 PM

Nick, HOW - after both Rich Myers and myself have answered your accusations about unfair treatment of the Masters division on the Soiree thread, shown and proven that the Masters were indeed treated fairly, can you continue to accuse me in this fashion. Time for you to just admit that you were wrong in that instance, and say you're sorry.

Once again - Masters players are not the problem. The divisional system is the problem.

AviarX

May 13 2006, 08:55 PM

[shameless tournament promotion mode engage]

June 10th and 11th there will be a PDGA XB tier open to Masters players (and older) only at the beautiful Idlewild pro-par 72 course in the greater Cincinnati area. Feel free to attend if you're of age :eek: :D

Masters at Idlewild event thread here (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=547310&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)

rhett

May 14 2006, 01:04 PM

Time for you to just admit that you were wrong in that instance, and say you're sorry.

All those who held their breath waiting for that to happen died long ago.

neonnoodle

May 14 2006, 06:44 PM

Nick, HOW - after both Rich Myers and myself have answered your accusations about unfair treatment of the Masters division on the Soiree thread, shown and proven that the Masters were indeed treated fairly, can you continue to accuse me in this fashion.

How?

You have not answered my concerns yet.

You have denied the mistreatment of the masters division related to the amount of added cash provided to them.

Please provide us with the total amounts of entry fees and added cash to all of the divisions at the Soiree?

If those show that you clearly did not treat the masters division any less favorably than any of the other divisions then I will accept your claim to not have unfairly treated them. If not, you leave yourself open to such interpretation. Certainly looking at just the information found in the results here the conclusion of mistreatment is not a difficult one to come to.

quickdisc

May 14 2006, 06:47 PM

Nick, HOW - after both Rich Myers and myself have answered your accusations about unfair treatment of the Masters division on the Soiree thread, shown and proven that the Masters were indeed treated fairly, can you continue to accuse me in this fashion. Time for you to just admit that you were wrong in that instance, and say you're sorry.

Once again - Masters players are not the problem. The divisional system is the problem.

Exactly !!!!!! " The divisional system is the problem."

How do we correct this problem ?

neonnoodle

May 14 2006, 07:05 PM

I would still play in PDGAs if the Masters division were not available. Perhaps fewer events, but I wouldn't quit all together.

That being said, the questions being asked here are more related to "limited" resources than they are to "real" or "endemic" challenges with our competitive system.

I tend to agree that we do have challenges with our competitive system, but not the same ones you have presented; rather the challenges that close our competitions to an entire segment of athletic endeavor: AMATUERISM.

Perhaps I am way off base, but it seems clear to me that all other main stream sports appear to have amateur segments that are roughly 10,000 times larger than the professional aspects of the sports.

Why should we expect to have the necessary raw materials to avoid these challenges when we have absolutely no, nada, nuttin� of that amateur option within our sport?

Please don�t say the �Trophy Only Option� is an answer to this challenge. I just played in an event with it and it is an absolute farce. It is nothing more than another attempt to squeeze more blood from the same old worn out stone.

Dick

May 15 2006, 11:44 AM

i provided exact numbers on the soiree thread. yes, open got the lion's share of added cash. but anyone could play in that division if they chose to. and the masters payout was just over 120% as required by the pdga.

maybe a better route would be to work on getting the pdga to set some kind of standard, since most every TD basically distributes the added cash as they see fit. I run a couple small events with limited added cash now, but if i can ever raise significant added cash, i am coming over more to the school of thought that maybe 2/3 of any added cash at least should go to the open division.certainly the best masters who are taking the cash in MPM could cash in MPO. SO if it is about the cash, if the payouts in that person's relative place in MPO were greater then their payout to place highly in MPM, those top MPM players would play MPO. and if it were truly about wanting a division you can compete in and the comraderie of individuals from a like generation, they will play MPM. I had a fantastic time playing with Carlton, Jerry, J. Gary and others, as always, with no chance of cashing at all.

Jun 08 2006, 08:38 PM

The "answer", as always, is more money added to the events. Pay every division 100% of their entry fees, and then add all the rest of the cash to the Open divisions.

This makes sense to me. Does the PDGA do anything yet to determine which events are adding the most cash to the sport? It seems like we would want to highlight them.

bruce_brakel

Jun 08 2006, 09:31 PM

Does the PDGA do anything yet to determine which events are adding the most cash to the sport? It seems like we would want to highlight them.

A few years ago the TD report tracked that on a percent basis and Rick Rothstein published the best pro events in the mag in the winter stats edition. Then the PDGA quit tracking it visibly on the TD report and I did not see it published this year. Now the TD report is tracking it again.

It would be nice to see those stats published for both pros and ams on the tour page along with scores and how many played. Two bits, like PRO 120% AM 115%, would be very useful.

But, Pat, don't do it without asking!

warwickdan

Jun 08 2006, 10:00 PM

Raise the age to 45 or 50
Masters Entry Fees should be lower than Open, but leave it up to the TD to determine how much lower.
Minimize added Cash to Masters Division at all events A Tier or higher.

Jun 08 2006, 11:22 PM

Raise the age to 45 or 50
Masters Entry Fees should be lower than Open, but leave it up to the TD to determine how much lower.
Minimize added Cash to Masters Division at all events A Tier or higher.

Agreed. But do a study to see where skillz drop off to determine what is an appropriate age. And then raise it nice and slowly so folks are "grandfathered" in, so to speak.

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

Regarding % payout / added cash / payout, I would much rather see added cash as a separate category as opposed to jsut % payout.

In 2004, the MSDGC had a 307% pro payout. In 2005, we had a 215% pro payout. By percentage, it looks like we did worse, but in 04 we added $8,000 and in 05 we added $12,000. The main difference being that we charged more in 05.

When I look at the best tourneys, I factor in added cash, percent payout, and total payout.

Maybe Chuck could build us a Tournament Payout Rating.

neonnoodle

Jun 08 2006, 11:46 PM

Raise the age to 45 or 50

I was initially in favor of this too, but I don't think it serves the customers of the PDGA well, and so I am against it.

Masters Entry Fees should be lower than Open, but leave it up to the TD to determine how much lower.

Why? Seriously. Why? For every reason you can offer in favor of lower entry fees for Masters than Open I can give you a better reason why TDs should not.

Minimize added Cash to Masters Division at all events A Tier or higher.

Again I'll ask why? Do the Open players bring in more sponsorship? Heck, do they bring ANY sponsorship to any of the A Tier or higher (or lower for that matter)? Now answer that question for the Masters players.

OK, I disagreed with your ideas, so it's only fair that I offer my solutions.
1) Don't put any added cash into any events. It is a total waist of money at this point in our sports stage of development. Use that cash to develop your local or regional player base, put new courses in and pay for serious advertisement and promotion of these efforts.
2) Treat all of the competitors that choose to attend your event with precisely the same level of respect, services and rewards. Who are you to judge at this point which division is more valuable than another? By that I don't mean, you Dan Doyle, I mean how can anyone tell where that next course developer, course volunteer, club volunteer or possible promoter that will take our sport beyond one where we all just gamble for each others entry fees is going to come from?

It is a dangerous game to so blatantly show favor, based on zero percent return of value, for one division over another.
3) If you, or any TD, feels so strongly about this, then please do us Masters players a favor and let us know you plan to screw us prior to our sending in our entry fees to attend your event.

Better yet, JUST DON'T OFFER MASTERS. I'd rather play Open then find out you when out of your way to stick it to the Masters players.

I don't see why any division entry fee is less than any other division? It is silliness to do that in some futile effort to create some differentiation in enticement to enter or eventual payout.

Anyway you slice it, the guiding rule has to be to treat your guests as well as you can possibly manage. Having attended your events since 1988, I have confidence you will.

warwickdan

Jun 09 2006, 09:28 AM

nick....

i don't base added cash on how much sponsorship a division attracts, first of all. it is my understanding that at NT events the Open and Women's divisions are the "showcase" divisions. this isn't my decision. this is the PDGA's strategy and frankly the consensus of NT TD's.

i would treat added cash entirely different for events B-tier and lower. at B-tier and lower i add cash to divisons in proportion to the percentage of total entry fee dollars taken in for that division.

i believe there is a place for all different kinds of events, with different agendas and pay-out strategies and entry fee strategies. A-tier and NT events are in my mind stages for the top players to compete aganist each other and i want to be able to offer good prize money for the players who are trying to make a living at this sport. I believe it is good for the sport's growth and publicity to be able to show the public we have a viable pro tour. this means something to some not in the existing disc community.

on the other hand i am 100% in agreement with you about the notion of added cash being paid to the top players not doing a heck of a lot for the growth of the sport relative to the value those dollars would have if they went for advertising, promotion, school clinics, etc. in a perfect world i'd convert some of my fantasies and ideas about partnerships between corporate sponsors and the disc community into a viable program so that we'd truly reach out at the grassroots level. i'd truly like to be able to use sponsor dollars as added cash at top events as well as hitting it from the opposite direction (grassroots).

i treat all entrants at our NT event with the same respect, services, and rewards, regardless of their division, except for the percentage of added cash that goes to the Masters and Grandmasters division. Again, it was the consensus among 2006 NT TD's during early year conference calls that added cash to those non-showcase divisions should be minimized. It is not my place to go off on my own and alter that strategy.

i suspect that most masters players attend our event as much to test themselves against other masters players on a course they love; to enjoy the camaraderie; to attend 2 classy players parties; and to be a part of one of the best NT events as they do to try and maximize their prize money. sure they want to win lots of cash, but i don't believe they are under the illusion(for the most part) that they can make a living off their winnings like many of the open players dream.

i don't believe that by minimizing added cash to non-showcase divisions that we are saying that we perceive those divisions to be less "valuable". Maybe it's semantics. This is a National Tour event. There are 11 events on the 2006 schedule like this, out of 800+ PDGA events. Masters-aged players can choose to play Open if they'd like, just like we have some AM players and players rated less than 950 (who are less than masters-aged) that are choosing to play in the Open division for many different reasons, even though they have virtually no chance of cashing.

Nick, there is no need to tell masters players in advance of their entering an NT event that they are "getting screwed". I don't think most masters players think they are getting screwed. Perhaps YOU think that and i understand your viewpoint.

A Masters player that chooses to play masters in an NT event when they can be competitive in the Open division should understand that they are choosing a Risk-Reward option with regard to the payout they may earn. That is their choice. Hopefully they understand that the masters division at an NT event isn't going to have the proportion of added cash that the Open division will have. This isn't a secret. If you perceive it as a screwing then it is a voluntary screwing because you aren't forced to make that choice.

i think if we made the Masters entry fee the same as the Open entry fee we might not have as many masters players in our event. i think it is an inducement to SOME masters players to keep the entry fee at $80 instead of $125 like the Open players.

we will treat our participants really well, as you stated. but masters players will NOT have the same kind of opportunity to maximize their payout like an Open player will.

will you be attending? what division will you play? i hope you can make it. we can have some spirited debates, but hopefully not while you're playing.....

dd

bigbadude

Jun 09 2006, 10:42 AM

I have been playing discgolf for 20 years, the PDGA has ALWAYS wanted 1 division (open) and the PDGA has always put down all other divisions. Its about time the PDGA put this players rating to use. Force 1000 and above to play open. Please stop all the hate on Masters, grand Masters, these are the people who have made the PDGA what it is today. How about some RESPECT!! for these older players...But youngesters today know nothing about respect. ;)

james_mccaine

Jun 09 2006, 11:19 AM

I forgot what this thread is about. I assume it was an attempt to address the declining participation in open.

While I agree that added cash should go to open, let's have some perspective. Added money is not likely to attract most masters players to open. Added cash to actually pay deeper into the open field might have a little allure, but moving that money to pay the top guys or add a pittance to the top 1/3 will not serve as an enticement to most masters, nor many ams looking to move up.

The attendence issues with open are far, far greater than enticing (or forcing) masters to play open. In other words, I get the impression that this is tactic #1 to address open turnout problems, when it should be tactic #5 or #6.

Just to support my point, I notice that the same issues that suppress open pro turnout are in play in open masters turnouts. Unless those issues are addressed, raising the masters age is just another poorly conceived idea doomed to have little or no effect.

paul

Jun 09 2006, 12:51 PM

Publish the minimum payouts in advance. I know -- everyone will now tell me that there's no way to do this because you don't know how many people are coming . . . publish the pay-out structure in advance. The whiners can then whine away -- you told them what they would get BEFORE YOU TOOK THEIR MONEY.

Most guys don't care -- don't even give it to everyone, just tell anyone that wants it it's availible. That way if they're whining about payouts after the event you can show them where you're doing exactly what you promised before the event. It's amazing that disc golfers sign up for tournaments and then whine like babies when they feel cheated. That's dumb. The argument that you can complain about stuff that was never promised to you is poop. The sanctioning from the PDGA has guidelines for TDs that are pretty flexible when it comes to the added $$ and payouts in general. If you can't live with these generalities -- you probably shouldn't play. If you don't care if all the added money goes to a different division than yours and your division gets paid out at the minimum amount allowable by the sanctioning agreement then you should sign up. If you ask the TD prior to signing up and his answers aren't satisfactory -- don't sign up.

Even at a dumpy little local doubles event I asked what lay-out we're going to play. If I don't like it -- I don't pay, no harm, no foul.

The pre-published payouts don't have to be accurate down to the penny -- heck they could even just be percentages. As long as it's published ahead of time and the player signs up and you follow through with what you promised -- where's the beef? TD's know what they're going to do with the money before they get it, everyone figures out what they did with the money after they do it -- why not just say in advance who's getting what? National tour TD's should also be forced to keep at least 10% of all entry fees for themselves or their club.

I post this every couple of years just to be a pain. I'm betting all the status quo will now tell me how crazy it is. No worries.

ck34

Jun 09 2006, 02:20 PM

Agreed. But do a study to see where skillz drop off to determine what is an appropriate age. And then raise it nice and slowly so folks are "grandfathered" in, so to speak.

That study has been done. Starting at age 40, pro players' scores increase by 1 throw on an 18-hole SSA 50 course on average every 5 years losing 10 rating points. This progression continues at least to age 60 which is as far as we have sufficient data. So, increasing the Master age to 45 would penalize the pool of pro 40-44 year olds by 1 throw on average per typical 18-hole round. The pro 45-49 year olds would be penalized by 2 throws per round on average if the Master age were raised to 50.

Regarding stats on tournament payouts, Dave and I boosted the amount of info collected on 2006 TD reports so we could track financial matters better. The vexing issue Dave faces on several reports this year is TDs deducting player packs in the Other Fees column to artificially lower their base entry fee and make their percentage payouts look better. We hope to produce more helpful financial information in the summary of tour results for 2006.

bruce_brakel

Jun 09 2006, 04:55 PM

I think our stats and our standards would make more sense if we were to just throw away the "base entry fee" concept and work from actual entry fees. Another way to jigger your stats upward is to charge a club fee or series fee, and then have the club or series be a sponsor of each event. For the player and TD it is a net zero, but the TD can add 10 or 20 points of ghost value to the TD report numbers that way.

Ask any player who does not know all this PDGA/TD insider stuff a simple math question like, "5 pro women pay $50 each to play. The payout is $150 for first and $100 for second. What was the percent payout?" and if you give them paper and pencil and a couple of minutes they'll tell you, "Mmmmm, 100%?" If Jon does that on a PDGA spreadsheet he gets anywhere from 108% to 112%, depending on the course use fee and value assigned to the trophy.

As a player, I would not want to see jiggered numbers and get confused about what are good events to play. If a TD has expenses that cut into the payout, they should cut in to the %s too. His expenses are his problem.

As a TD, I don't really want a lot of pros coming to our events under the misconception that there is added cash when there really isn't. At IOS #1, a C-tier, we paid them approximately 96% of their money back. We made them pay their own $2 PDGA fees but we covered their course use fees, trophies and pro rata share of overhead. If the TD report said our 96% payout was 104%, that is someone else's version of reality! :D

If the TD report were calculating it, cooler than reporting PDGA % values would be to report Actual Player Value. For a pro that would be the Total Cash Payout for his division entry fees for his division divided by the total gross entry fees paid, where Total Cash Payout includes cash CTPs and other cash sidegames for which no added fee was charged. For Ams I think player packs, prize value and CTPs should be counted. Whether to count trophies is another thing. I don't get $80 of value out of an $80 trophy but maybe that is just me. I would have prefered a $10 trophy and a $70 gift certificate for Steak and Shake if they cost the same!

neonnoodle

Jun 11 2006, 10:40 PM

I understand Dan, disagree, but understand. Yes, I will be coming. I'd prefer that you not even offer Masters though next year, that way I can choose open rather than to knowingly play in a division that is getting the shortest end of the stick.

Did you read the article by Peter Shive, "Someday You'll Be Old Too"?

I'm glad you can understand from where my feelings arise. I am relatively new to protected divisions, playing Open for 18 years; however, when I sense and see mistreatment, it is difficult for me to call it anything different.

Next year, I will not attend the Skylands nor other events that purposefully mistreat (yes, in my opinion and mainly financially) my division. As I've said, I'd rather such events just straight up not offer Masters. You see, since turning Masters I have never once opted for the Open division, even though I'd have had a better chance of cashing in some instances. I didn't want to head down that road, I find that sort of calculation in bad taste, though I don't judge others on their decisions.

The other solution, I've mentioned before, is for PDGA Members to declare their division at the beginning of the year and be ineligible for any other division until the end of that year. I've discussed the advantages to this idea in another thread.

At any rate, I respect 100% the TDs right to run their events the way they see best (within PDGA guidelines), and so long as you let us all know what to expect it is all on us...

What percentage of entry to payout are you projecting for the Masters division?

gang4010

Jun 12 2006, 12:52 PM

Nick,
Unless I missed it someplace else, could you elaborate on what constitutes "purposeful mistreatment"?

The way your last post reads - it could be construed that you are advocating the notion that anything other than giving masters (an admittedly "protected" division) a full share of added cash at an event (I assume based on field proportion) is willful and purposeful mistreatment.

Have I interpreted your statements correctly?

neonnoodle

Jun 12 2006, 02:02 PM

Yes, that is correct Craig.

Again, my solution for events that want to use Masters as an Added Cash division is to just do Masters a favor and don't offer it; that way, if they choose to play in your event, in Open, then they are on equal ground with all the other players at the event.

I've said that I'd likely still participate in the Soiree and Skylands if they were Open only events; again, what I don't like, and what naturally leaves a bad taste in my mouth, is when you invite me and then treat me and my fellow Masters as second or 4th class competitors. It just isn't right.

Imagine I ran a PDGA Major, the MADC Masters Championship, with about $4,500 added cash, allowed Open players to have their own division, even for amateurs to pay half price to play in Open, and then unannounced took all of the amateur entry fees from the Open division and all of the added cash and paid it out only to the Masters Division. Add to that I doubled the Womens payout and gave 150% payout to the Grandmasters.

How would you, an Open player, feel at the event Craig? Again, all without any forewarning at all. Mistreated?

paul

Jun 12 2006, 02:09 PM

"use Masters as an Added Cash division" . . . that's confusing. No one seems to be taking the masters entry fee and giving it to a different division -- they're just not adding any extra . . . . right? You don't mean "added cash", you mean "playing only for each others' entry fees while other divisions get stuff added from outside to compete for" -- right?

neonnoodle

Jun 12 2006, 02:23 PM

No, I mean added cash.
1) A larger percentage of the Masters entry fees went to event expenses than other divisions.
2) The Am players entry fees in the Masters division went directly into the added cash.

All divisions mainly play for each others entry fees, but when added cash is withheld, a greater burden of the event expenses is placed on the divisions getting shorted on the added cash.

I'm really not sure why this is even an issue for discussion. The fact that all other divisions other than Open, and perhaps Womens Open, get mistreated as far as entry fees and payouts at PDGAs (all events?) is not something that needs investigation. It simply is.

And why? I'll tell you why. You probably won't like it, but I'll tell you:

Because we have been caught up in the "Move Up, Move Up, Move Out!" competitive system since our inception in a futile attempt to populate an unattractive Open division.

You want more people to play Open? Then make it the most attractive division to play in. The unfortunate interpretation of this is that many TDs and Organizers have entered a campaign to purposefully make other divisions less attractive rather than making Open more attractive. Hence mistreatment.

bruce_brakel

Jun 12 2006, 02:57 PM

The published PDGA standards this year for B-tiers and A-tiers are for the added cash going to Open and Pro Women, and not Pro Masters. Nick, if you played an A-tier or a B-tier and they did that, they were just following the PDGA format for this year. The standard does not prohibit a TD from giving more to Masters if he wants. But, if he paid Masters 100% after deducting for player fees, series fees, club fees and trophy costs, the Masters got what the PDGA required. So if someone advertises that it is an A-tier or a B-tier, that is all the notice you need that there may be no added cash for Masters.

neonnoodle

Jun 12 2006, 03:06 PM

Yes, I am aware of this. Again, you seem to be caught up in the letter of the law; whereas I am concerned with what is simply "right".

It is, I hope, considered "wrong" to mistreat participants of your event; regardless of whether it can be shown "technically" to have been proper.

This is something I would hope most TDs are interested in; for the good of their event and for the good of our sport.

ck34

Jun 12 2006, 03:31 PM

Why isn't Open more attractive by paying 125% and Masters 100%? It would seem that Masters is only less attractive if they maybe get 90% and don't get their minimum 100%. If you agree that sponsors can specify where their sponsorship goes, then the PDGA is an indirect sponsor thru the TD by providing guidance for where the wholesale/retail spread goes which is primarily to Open.

While perhaps it seems honorable to pick your division at the beginning of the year and stick with it, if I chose GM, I would have had a division of one in every event I played this year. Even if I picked Master Pro, half the events I wouldn't have a division. Fortunately, the more flexible PDGA policy that allows players to shift divisions based on ratings has resulted in my participation in 4 different divisions in 5 events. My 5th division will be Blue at Mid-Nats which might be a record number of divisions for a pro. (Apparently an Am played in seven sanctioned divisions one year.)

neonnoodle

Jun 12 2006, 03:56 PM

As you know I don't contend that making other divisions less appealing is the best way to make Open more appealing. I think we are in agreement there.

The declaring your division at the beginning of the year would not keep you from competing in events where your division is not offered, you would have to play in a parallel or higher skill level division. But what would happen is that if your division were offered, then you would not have any option of playing up or sideways in order to make more profit, you'd have to play in "your" division.

The only folks "suffering" in that situation are the 2 to 3 1000 plus rated Masters players that might have to take a pay cut on occasion playing in a smaller Masters field rather than jumping to Open to beat up on a bunch of added cash players. I for one won't shed a tear for them.

At some point in our future there will likely be different tours for these divisions; why not prepare for that eventuality?

warwickdan

Jun 12 2006, 04:57 PM

Nick:

"Again, my solution for events that want to use Masters as an Added Cash division is to just do Masters a favor and don't offer it; that way, if they choose to play in your event, in Open, then they are on equal ground with all the other players at the event."

your words....

how am i doing masters-eligible players a favor by NOT offering a masters division at the Skylands Classic NT event?

some of the Masters players already registered would be very competitive and probably cash if they entered Open. most of the masters players already registered probably wouldn't play in our event if they had to pay $125 instead of $80, knowing that their chance of cashing would be minimal.

by offering a masters division, albeit with a limited added cash component, these players who might not otherwise come to our event, get to rub elbows with the world's best players, get 2 awesome players parties, and get to play on our beautiful course when it will be as groomed and manicured as it's ever been.

i believe i'd be mistreating masters players if i decided not to offer a masters division.

the whole purpose of the NT events was for it to be a showcase division for the open and women's divisions. one could therefore argue that since masters is not a showcase division and they are "being mistreated" and they are taking players away from the showcase division then we shouldn't offer it.

one could argue that, but i don't think that too many people would come down on that side of the debate.

i think it is important to differentiate between NT, A-tier, and B-tier and lower events. my method of distributing added cash at b-tier and lower events has always been to divvy it up in proportion to the entry fees taken in for every division.

Nick....come to Skylands....play whichever division makes the most sense to you.....

to answer your question, i can't answer your question. i have to look thru my notes to see what we decided as a club as far as added cash for the non-showcase divisions. we'll fall within PDGA guidelines. but the overwhelming majority of the added cash will go towards the Open division.

neonnoodle

Jun 12 2006, 10:29 PM

I am coming and I'll be playing in the division I have played exclusively in for the past 2 years, Masters.

I think that you should be able to answer the question though; that being, why are Open players (Women and Men) more deserving than Masters as far as added cash? Why are Masters entry fees $45 less? Have they done something to deserve less than the Open Men or Women? Do they spend less money to travel to the event? Have they given less time to growing and promoting the sport? Have they put less courses in the ground? Have they organized and developed fewer local clubs? Or is it that they are somehow undeserving because they are "harming" or "taking away" from the Open division? In that case arent't the Women alsow "taking away" from the Open Payouts?

All of these attempts to bolster the Open divisions at the direct cost of the other divisions is one of the many things that keeps our sport from really catching on.

I know that you and other NTs are trying to set a standard, and trying to yank at the possibilities from the other end of the challenge. And it is not wrong thinking. It is necessary. Where the trouble, for me begins is when the Masters are an afterthought. It would be better, again, just to not offer Masters at all, and let those Masters that really feel they can compete in Open choose to attend or not, period (USDGC-like).

I think I finally and fully comprehend how amateurs feel at some events. As a TD I have never done that to any division offered, and never will. If I offer your division it will be ALL IN, and you can expect totally equal treatment. And if there is any difference you will know well in advanced. (I think you have done this Dan, I'm just speaking out loud.)

Bottom line, there just is no way for me to think my way around the fact that the Masters are getting the runt of the litter. Maybe this has been going on all along and I am just now realizing it. At any rate, I'm going to do what I can to see that this policy changes. It certainly will at all of my events.

Jun 13 2006, 12:28 AM

warwickdan

Jun 13 2006, 07:58 AM

nick....

it seems as if you are of the opinion that the purpose of offering added cash proportionately should somehow be related to one's contributions to the sport. if we did away with masters and forced them to choose to play in an NT event with Open players when many of the masters have no prayer of cashing, or not attending, most would choose the latter, i believe. there may be open players that haven't put any courses in the ground; haven't organized any local clubs; haven't given any time to growing the sport (these were YOUR examples). should i require all open players to complete a form asking them to itemize their contributions so that those that have can get extra added cash?

the purpose of NT events is to offer a stage for the 2 showcase division: FPO and MPO. the added cash going primarily to those 2 divisions is used to reward SKILL and has no relationship to one's contributions to the sport.

it would be naive at this point in the evolution of our sport to believe that the 11 NT events are on such a huge level so as to help the sport grow significantly at the grassroots level. i believe that the best way to help the sport grow is to promote it from various levels. NT events alone won't accomplsih that much. However, in conjunction with good local PR campaigns and other ways of spreading the word at the grassroots level, they can be an effective tool. i believe if the PDGA and the NT TD's stick with this approach, every year that goes by the NT events have a chance to become bigger and better and more helpful to the growth of the sport. Every time a new corporate sponsor or radio station comes into the fold we're that much further ahead in terms of growth.

Having a Pro Tour where the most skilled players can earn enough money from their performances to be able to commit themselves to making a living off the sport helps to legitimize our sport and give it more of a big-time feel. When potential sponsors are approached I believe it is really helpful to be able to say "We have a Pro Tour". (It would also be helpful to be able to say "and when the Pro Tour plays in Warwick there will be 10,000 spectators." So I'm not suggesting that the Pro Tour alone is the golden egg.)

Masters fees are $45 less because it was agreed during NT TD conference calls earlier in the year or late last year that TD's of NT events should keep the MPM and MPG entry fees lower. It has nothing to do with rights or what these old crotchety players deserve.

This does NOT stop our sport from catching on. We're talking about NT events here. There are 11 NT events out of 800 tourneys.

The overwhelming majority of people that play Disc Golf enjoy the sport for many reasons. Keeping added cash for Masters at NT events minimized has absolutely nothing to do with the sport catching on. The masses have no idea there is even such a thing as NT events. THIS is what is minimizing the growth: not getting enough exposure at the grassroots level. It's happening! each year more and more people find out about Disc Golf. Hopefully NT events in their own little way assist this process.

neonnoodle

Jun 14 2006, 02:43 PM

This is becoming more complicated than it need be; my point is a simple one: If a division is treated significantly differently than other divisions, "worse" being the qualifier, then why is it surprising that they feel slighted?

Dan, your answer that the Open Men's and Women's divisions are the showcase divisions is fine; but the question then is why offer other divisions at all?

You say that it is to allow players that wouldn't otherwise play in the event if it was just the Open division to participate even though they are clearly being treated differently. The result is that you may get more of those divisional players to play in those non-showcase divisions (that is not a certainty), but you then provide an out to all of the Masters and even Grandmasters players that would have played Open. Particularly the ones who you might have specifically targetted as wanting to play in your Open division.

Like you said, the NT is not a series of events for Masters or Grandmasters, it is for Open players. I support the effort at that level; I simply don't think is ever a wise idea to treate divisions differently (specifically worse) in order to get 2 or 3 players that might be able to compete in Open to play Open.

It is a compromise I don't think we need to become involved in.

To be clear: I'd rather the NT not offer Masters than for them to use them just to boost attendance and purse numbers while appearing to or really shortchange them. I'd rather they just be Open Only and let us make the choice whether to attend or not.

Do you get what I am saying about how it "appears" to be a slight to Masters? How it appears clearly to be a downgrading of the Masters division in order to make the Open division more attractive?

neonnoodle

Jun 14 2006, 02:52 PM

I think that you should be able to answer the question though; that being, why are Open players (Women and Men) more deserving than Masters as far as added cash? Why are Masters entry fees $45 less? Have they done something to deserve less than the Open Men or Women? Do they spend less money to travel to the event? Have they given less time to growing and promoting the sport? Have they put less courses in the ground? Have they organized and developed fewer local clubs? Or is it that they are somehow undeserving because they are "harming" or "taking away" from the Open division? In that case arent't the Women alsow "taking away" from the Open Payouts?

I think he answered you already.....

....the whole purpose of the NT events was for it to be a showcase division for the open and women's divisions.....

This is fine, and I agree on some levels that this is appropriate to do. What I am saying is, then don't offer the other divisions because there is no way around them not feeling like second class participants.

This and many of the challenges our competitive system have center on the idea that the Open division is more deserving than any other division as far as out efforts. If anything that is nearly exactly opposite of where most of our energies should be going.

Do you know why?

Jun 14 2006, 03:05 PM

Yes I know why.

But basically i see it like this: The NT events are there for the Open players....all focus should go in that direction since that is what they are for. Offering other divisions is just a nice thing to do since there will be room for them. I see no problem with that. If there were 500 Open players racing to play every NT then you can bet that there would be no other divisions even offered.

Sure you can find flaws in that but it is just one aspect in the grand scheme of getting the sport out there.

neonnoodle

Jun 14 2006, 07:31 PM

I more or less agree with you Scott and Dan, I just don't like seeing my division getting treated this ol' way.

Perhaps at NTs, but at A Tiers I don't see any compelling reason for it other than trying to force the 1 master player with a rating above 1000 to play Open. That is too steep a price to pay for the disgruntlement of all the other masters players.

We need to focus on keep ALL of our players happy, not just the youngin's.

gang4010

Jun 15 2006, 07:57 AM

Nick,
Your position basically fails to recognize the inherent benefit to Masters AS a division - in that it is (in the scheme of our competitive venues) a PROTECTED division. Simply by entering that division - you as a player are CHOOSING to tell the rest of the competitive field that you are willing and prefer to play in a limited field. One that is seldom subject to the same level of competition in # or overall ability of players (the # part is seen as a problem - at least on this thread).
That being the case - how can you either 1) advocate for equal treatment (they are getting preference from the get go) or 2) ignore the resulting inequities in the system of rewards - that is of course what is at the heart of this thread in the first place, or 3) have the nerve to accuse the entire system of purposeful mistreatment.

I can also see from some of your recent comments, that you still have a burr up your but, and are confused about event math. At the Soiree (which we have shown Masters received 122% of their entry fees), ALL PLAYERS payed the same share of event expenses ($3 each). And all the so called "added cash" players that paid 1/2 and entered Masters, had their entry fees kept in that division.

I agree with one thing you've said - but I'm sure for different reasons than why you say it. I think Masters has no place in major competitions (in it's current form). Our divisional structure, entry fee structure, and system of rewards should be based on skill, not on age, or on choice. Your choice should be to compete or not (I'm glad we finally agree on something ) :)

As long as the organization is going to "cater" to player choice of the division they enter, there needs to be a better balance of offering those choices in relation to the overall competitive venue. What makes no sense to me is at the end of a day of golf, looking at the scoreboard, and seeing that all three of the top mens divisions have basically shot the same scores. If we are all shooting within the same basic range of scores - why are we divided at all?

bbotte

Jun 15 2006, 09:32 AM

As long as the organization is going to "cater" to player choice of the division they enter, there needs to be a better balance of offering those choices in relation to the overall competitive venue. What makes no sense to me is at the end of a day of golf, looking at the scoreboard, and seeing that all three of the top mens divisions have basically shot the same scores. If we are all shooting within the same basic range of scores - why are we divided at all?

FT-MF-Win! Amen! Bravo!

neonnoodle

Jun 15 2006, 07:49 PM

I don't see it as being quite so complex; the Masters division is charged less entry fee and given less sponsorship, that IS being treated differently and in my opinion worse than the other divisions. If you are going to offer a division then don't just half welcome them or try to entice them to play another division by making their division less appealing. That is wrong.

I believe you are mistaken about the entry fees from the Am Masters going to the Masters division; it was my understanding that it went to the Open division. If it didn't then your math of 122% doesn't work. Regardless, the numbers clearly show that not only did the masters get less than the Open, they got less than the Womens AND the Grand Masters proportionately. But that is behind us now.

I never said that Masters should not be offered at NTs, Majors or A Tiers as you would like, only that if they are offered they shouldn't be treated poorly or discriminated against. I'd rather the TD not offer them at all if they are going to try and stick it to them as far as entry fees and payouts. (And for what, to try and get Jim Myers to play Open!?! PULL EAZE!!!)

Craig, if you truly believe that there is no place, or only a reduced benefit place, for other divisions at PDGAs then I have your solution: DO NOT OFFER ANY DIVISIONS THAN OPEN. I have no issues with TDs doing what they like with their events so long as they treat everyone the same and don't have some hidden agenda to make a certain division feel unwelcome or as if it is detracting from the other divisions. If they do or are planning on offering less, then just let us know about it before we register, show up and play.

As to why we are divided at all: it is because we, like so many other sports have created divisions for competition based on what we have found to best suit ALL of our members and competitors, not just to provide fresh meet for the same 10 guys who have been winning everything for the last 15 to 20 years (that is precisely where we have failed).

What do you think of my proposal that PDGA Members must declare their division at the start of the season (following the Worlds), and stick to it if that division is offered?
I.E.
Joe and you declare that you are Open Players, you may not play in any division other than Open.
Jim and I declare that we are Masters Players, we must play in Masters if it is offered but may play Open if it is not offered.
Soiree is an Open Only event. If we want to play we must play Open.
Kennett Classic is Masters Only. So Joe and you would not be eligible.
The Windjammer has Open and Masters, we all must play in our chosen divisions. No jumping divisions to make an easy buck.

I think this would give 1000+ masters players, even 980+, a serious choice at the beginning of each season (not at the beginning of each event, giving TDs major headaches).

I've always believed that divisional choices should be far more significant than they are currently; with real consequences, and even moreso for the decision to change classifications. The further and ever increasing graying of our class and divisional lines is a big mistake in my opinion. It has led to much of ill feeling and dysfunction between them, and for what? So folks can float around trying to slip in here or there for the easy plastic or cash? Some ill conceived notion that we can build a stronger player base by forcing folks to play in divisions where they don't have a snowball's chance in August of competing?

I am a Masters Player, just as I was an Open Player for 18 years before that, and an Advanced Player for a year before that. I don't see any reason to play Open anymore other than if Masters isn't offered. It isn't because the competition is easier, the entry fees lower, the players tell better jokes, or I'm once again playing with guys I started out the sport with (all true other than the competition (for my skill level) is actually stiffer top to bottom of division); it is because I have made my choice and I am a Masters player now.

That being said, my gauging of treatment at events is the same as it has ever been, and when I see and feel mistreatment, you can be sure that I will squawk as loudly as I do when in appreciation for being treated well. To that end I was as appreciative as anyone at the Soiree, it was only later, when I saw the payouts that something clearly seemed amiss. As I said, I handled that poorly and apologized to you and Rich, his numbers worked to meet PDGA requirements, but even he admitted just by the skin of a cedar needle; and the difference between the payout treatment of the other divisions is undeniable. I wouldn't have had any issue if you'd have told me of your plan prior to the event, other than wondering why you offered Masters at all. I likely would have played Open anyway.

At any rate, I'm not POed, I just don't want for this to go un-noted for future reference. I've been lovin' the Soiree and Seneca for nearly as long as I've been playing, and the Skylands (so long as they keep their scorekeeper under lock and key ;) ) is a near flawless event. They both have the 3 things I look for in an event:1) Great Course 2) Great TD 3) Great People. You can fault me for being a little over alert and open with my feelings if you want, but you know one thing for sure, I don't have any hidden agenda and I am going to tell you the truth as I see it. It's up to you to do with it as you please.

rhett

Jun 15 2006, 08:04 PM

quickdisc

Jun 15 2006, 08:23 PM

Masters division is less stressful than the Open division.

bruce_brakel

Jun 15 2006, 08:35 PM

Masters division is less stressful than the Open division.

And Nick needs less stress.

Moderator005

Jun 16 2006, 12:28 AM

how can you either 1) advocate for equal treatment (they are getting preference from the get go) or 2) ignore the resulting inequities in the system of rewards - that is of course what is at the heart of this thread in the first place, or 3) have the nerve to accuse the entire system of purposeful mistreatment.

paul

Jun 16 2006, 08:08 AM

Nick:

"Joe and you declare that you are Open Players, you may not play in any division other than Open.
Jim and I declare that we are Masters Players, we must play in Masters if it is offered but may play Open if it is not offered."

Is this what you meant? A player that declares "masters" gets to play open if masters isn't offered but a masters aged player that declares open doesn't get to play masters if open isn't offered . . . ??? Why bother with the double standard?

When's the Kennett Classic? (What fun it'll be signing up for advanced masters and watching Nick's head explode . . . .)

lafsaledog

Jun 16 2006, 09:17 AM

Nick , I have thought about your ideas for awhile without jumping in on the subject but here it goes ( although it is alittle retreading where I have been before on this subject )

I do agree with you that we should all choose our divisions at the beginning of the year and stay there unless that division is not offered and we could then move up or lateral as you say .
With that being said here is the problem with that .
Right now I am playing advanced masters and IF I was to move up and play pro masters at a PDGA event ( assuming it is pro divisions only , that I cant play advanced ) and accept cash I cannot go back to advanced masters cause my player rating is over 915 .
NOW you say that people should not be limited in where they play but the pdga not allowing me to go back to MY CHOSEN DIVISION .
I realize that this is sorta apples and oranges but do you see the point of the PDGA MANDATING to certain players where they must play . ( BASED UPON AGE AND RATINGS )

NOW if that is the case , as it is , then why cant the PDGA tell certain masters who are OPEN Caliber to play in open division ONLY ( based on ratings ) .

gang4010

Jun 16 2006, 09:56 AM

I don't see it as being quite so complex; the Masters division is charged less entry fee and given less sponsorship, that IS being treated differently and in my opinion worse than the other divisions. If you are going to offer a division then don't just half welcome them or try to entice them to play another division by making their division less appealing. That is wrong.

As Rhett stated, many MPM players appreciate the lower entry fees. If folks want to choose to play in a limited division, which a good %age of the time has a lower entry fee - are they generally playing for the prizes (in your opinion)? Or are they playing for the good jokes, comaraderie, and a purportedly "less stressful" competitive experience, which are some of the most frequently heard "benefits" of the division?

I have no issues with TDs doing what they like with their events so long as they treat everyone the same and don't have some hidden agenda to make a certain division feel unwelcome or as if it is detracting from the other divisions. If they do or are planning on offering less, then just let us know about it before we register, show up and play.

I'm sorry that you are carrying with you this feeling of having been wronged in some way. The decisions TD's make for sanctioned events are driven by the sanctioning agreement they signed. In this regard the return to players is formulaic. The notion that players are treated differently fails to recognize that the formulas vary from one level of sanctioning to another. The fact that we met our requirements in regards to payout (even by a cedar needle) should be lauded, not bashed. If you want to complain about something - have the PDGA revoke our A Tier sanctioning for failing to meet the $6500 minimum purse. Sorry - not enough people showed up.

As to why we are divided at all: it is because we, like so many other sports have created divisions for competition based on what we have found to best suit ALL of our members and competitors, not just to provide fresh meet for the same 10 guys who have been winning everything for the last 15 to 20 years (that is precisely where we have failed).

best suit all players and competitors? Oh I see, so there is no problem with either our divisional structure - or rewards system. Thanks for clearing that up for me - it's fine the way it is. I'm afraid I must disagree - which is why I am an advocate for other methods.

What do you think of my proposal that PDGA Members must declare their division at the start of the season (following the Worlds), and stick to it if that division is offered?

I think it's like a cheap bandaid. It won't stick.

I've always believed that divisional choices should be far more significant than they are currently; with real consequences, and even moreso for the decision to change classifications.

Wouldn't fewer divisional choices, based on quantifiable skill level address this issue?

The further and ever increasing graying of our class and divisional lines is a big mistake in my opinion.

Not sure I understand this.

I am a Masters Player, just as I was an Open Player for 18 years before that, and an Advanced Player for a year before that. I don't see any reason to play Open anymore other than if Masters isn't offered. It isn't because the competition is easier, the entry fees lower, the players tell better jokes, or I'm once again playing with guys I started out the sport with (all true other than the competition (for my skill level) is actually stiffer top to bottom of division); it is because I have made my choice and I am a Masters player now.

And I am entitled (he says) - well good for you.

That being said, my gauging of treatment at events is the same as it has ever been, and when I see and feel mistreatment, you can be sure that I will squawk as loudly as I do when in appreciation for being treated well. To that end I was as appreciative as anyone at the Soiree, it was only later, when I saw the payouts that something clearly seemed amiss.

Funny - the formula for added cash used this year was almost identical to what it's been every time I've either run or been a part of running that event - with the exception of giving the GM's just a little more. So either you never noticed the injustice of it all, or your perception of what constitutes "poor treatment" has changed dramatically.

As I said, I handled that poorly and apologized to you and Rich, his numbers worked to meet PDGA requirements, but even he admitted just by the skin of a cedar needle; and the difference between the payout treatment of the other divisions is undeniable.

And so giving a little more to underpopulated divisions like FPO and MGM is a poor form of encouragement? I have heard you advocate for such things in the past.

the 3 things I look for in an event:1) Great Course 2) Great TD 3) Great People. You can fault me for being a little over alert and open with my feelings if you want, but you know one thing for sure, I don't have any hidden agenda and I am going to tell you the truth as I see it. It's up to you to do with it as you please.

Over alert? More like waking from a dream state and responding to whoever was speaking in the dream - Lucid - but in some odd detached way.
Conspiracy theory is not a part of what we do NK. There is no hidden agenda at our events. As you know - in addition to running sanctioned events at Seneca, I also run unsanctioned events, where experimenting with format, divisions, etc. is the letter of the day. Some of those efforts are better received than others - but at least we are willing to try. This is what I would like to see happen on a larger scale.
When we run sanctioned events that have set structures for those things - we follow them - no hidden agenda - no need to put it on the flyer - oh wait - it is on the flyer - right there where it says PDGA A-Tier Event.

So how about unhijack this thread from your stump for entitlement and lets talk about realistic alternatives for a divisional structure where at the end of the day - the scores aren't all the same for all the divisions.

lafsaledog

Jun 16 2006, 09:56 AM

Come to think of it along those lines , at this time ,
An advanced master who moves up and cashes who is above 915 but below 955 can only play advanced if he chooses to move back down .
Based upon that , a master player who " moves up " and plays open and cashes should not be able to go back to masters if his rating is .... what ???

Any ideas on how to solve this uneven unfair practice among your beloved over 40 crowd ??? ( remember although we are talking about advanced and pros the idea of MASTERS is what you are arguing right ). The ablility to play in a division over 40 with the same rights as others who are over 40 have .

ck34

Jun 16 2006, 10:09 AM

tkieffer

Jun 16 2006, 10:36 AM

I'm in full agreeance here. As a Masters player, I appreciate the lower entry fees, and expect no added cash. My living is made elsewhere, this is my hobby. IMO, any Masters player advocating higher fees and expecting addded cash is in the minority of the overall group. Perhaps they should consider the easier option (just play Open if you want higher fees and added cash) as opposed to carping that the whole division is being slighted.

lafsaledog

Jun 16 2006, 01:42 PM

The problem is not in the lower divisions cause there is caps to which you can play in those divisions .
the overlap is where there is divisions with no caps and those are Advanced , MASTERS divisions
Now the advanced divisions have a "minimum barrier " in the sandbagging calls and the peer pressure to move up but the MASTERS can play basically whereever they want whenever they want ( which unlike Nick is normally where the more money is )

Now playing for more money is NOT a problem it is ONLY when you can hide out in a protected division and claim the most money . Therefore if a master wants the more money he should decide this at the beginning of the year and register open or should stay masters and have less money ( via lower entry fees ,wider payout ,and less added cash to that division )

rhett

Jun 16 2006, 01:53 PM

This is very interesting. Nick is now fully supportive of, and even demanding, an entitlement-based competitive system now that he is in an "entitled division".

Wow. I guess all that sanctimonious talk from him about the Advanced division was total BS.

neonnoodle

Jun 16 2006, 02:26 PM

Let�s not mention the MPM payouts at the Soiree again. I was mistaken to bring it up here on the DB. I should have just brought it directly to Rich, Dave and you.

Even without that experience, from your public declarations about getting more players to play Open it is pretty easy see that you advocate the practice of making other divisions less appealing in order to make the Open division seem more attractive. To pressure or egg Masters and Advanced players into either directly or indirectly being �Added Cash� to the top Open players.

Why can�t Open be made more appealing without it being any cost at all to the other divisions?

I hope at this point in our sport I don�t even need to provide arguments as to why the ol� push players to the top divisional system has failed us; it should be completely self-evident.

neonnoodle

Jun 16 2006, 02:41 PM

This can be broken down into the following: Treat folks as best as you can and as fairly as you can, they will know when you mistreat them and they will know when they have been treated unfairly.

The rest is static.

lafsaledog

Jun 16 2006, 02:50 PM

Why can�t Open be made more appealing without it being any cost at all to the other divisions?

My question would be why cant people who know they are not the best at this sport realize such and accept it . Those who play double A baseball do NOT in any way think they should make as much as baseball players who play in the majors . DO they ???

Double A baseball players do realize that they may sometimes play people better then them ( rehab assignments ( in disc golf terms better rated players coming back into the fold due to injury or coming back to the game ) , up and comers ( advanced players moving up )) but they never think they should make as much as BETTER PROVEN PLAYERS DO .

neonnoodle

Jun 16 2006, 02:51 PM

Having to choose a division at the beginning of the year makes no sense if we also allow players to play above their ratings, juniors to play in amateur divisions, pros to play in am divisions and women to play in "mens" divisions. In addition, we require players to move divisions if their rating changes brackets during the year. From a consistency standpoint, if Masters are required to pick a division for a year, would we not have to eliminate the other choices, to the potential detriment of player participation?

Chuck, your supposition is based on the idea that all of these ratings based divisional options have increased participation, when no conclusive data has been established one way or the other on this yet.

One thing is for sure, making division hopping as easy as possible has not lowered the tension or pressures between divisions as far as competing for players, events and added cash.

bruce_brakel

Jun 16 2006, 11:15 PM

I've got enough conclusive data. At every tournament an Am Master or Grand Master will play Intermediate or Rec, and an Advanced Woman will play Men's Rec, and a Rec will play Advanced Trophy-Only and otherwise they would not have been able to play at all. Lots of divisions works great for split-day tournaments.

The obvious solution for Masters who agree with Nick on the Open vs Masters issue is to patronize and run Masters oriented tournaments. If there is a masters tournament within 500 miles of you, like that Masters at Idlewild, fill up the car with gas and Masters and leave early.

I used to have an issue with the Pro vs Am thing, but now I'm too busy running good tournaments for amateurs to care what some other TD wants to do. The other way is an economic dead end anyway.

Nick, you have the power. You don't need the PDGA to do it for you.

lafsaledog

Jun 17 2006, 12:09 PM

j_d

Jun 17 2006, 02:48 PM

Hey Nick found this post in an old master vs open thread , discussing where to play ( what division at 2005 worlds )thought you might like it ( or not )
This " quote " is by you NICK

Play open with Matt. Anyone with a current rating over 968 should play open all the time.

So true -- I can remember Nick vehemently opposing Masters on this very board a few short years ago -- how things change when you wake up 1 day, you're 40, your body aches, and you are not quite feeling up to hanging with the young guys for several rounds (and yeah yeah yeah, you can justify your decision to play Masters with whatever logic you feel like concocting). Just wait until you get to 50 -- it can get way worse unless you actively combat Father Time by playing alot, stretching, working out, and/or taking more downtime ...

neonnoodle

Jun 21 2006, 10:23 AM

Unlike our President and our culture in general I have no reservations about changing my mind or admitting when I have been wrong about something.

Naturally I am an advocate for the division for which I participate. I haven't noticed too many folks stepping out of their own division for advocacy; saying they are, yes, but actually doing so, no.

My point is pretty simple though, unless you read more into it than is there; divisions that get treated differently, specifically "worse", will notice it, and will not let it go unchallenged.

In the past I advocated all sorts of schemes to try and force some logic on our competitive system; but it all was just that: forcing logic on a system that was not ready or willing to have logic forced upon it. And why should it? As people have pointed out, and I now agree, market forces have the final say on just about everything. And when a TDs actions or agendas are in conflict with those "customer oriented" forces quite naturally there will be problems. Namely folks at events feeling like they don't matter to the TD, or at least not as much as other divisions at the event.

Are any of you saying that that doesn't happen? Are you contending that market forces stop at the course gates of PDGAs? That folks don't notice when they are getting slighted? Or purposefully or intentionally given a bad break?

Why would anyone return to an event where that has happened without some acknowledgement that it won't happen again, or at least that they understand how you feel but have chosen a different path and this is what you can expect at their event?

If the TD let's you know that you, or your division, will not be a priority prior to the event, then it is all on you once you decide to attend. But if the TD says nothing and then it is all too apparent to all that he has purposefully attempted to short your division without any prior warning then there should be no pretended surprise when they are called to the mat by the effected players, should there?

If the PDGA wants to go to an all skill based divisional system then the Amateur Class as we know it should cease to exist. There is absolutely no substantiation for it other than the generated wholesale to retail revenues generated from prizes, that could just as easily be intermixed with cash awards at events.

I think the skill-based divisional structure has been soundly and completely defeated and the traditional structure has prevailed, at least to this point.

On a personal level I'd have no problems going with skill based divisions. At events where it was say 955 and up I'd have to judge the event on its own merits, but if it had a good TD, Course and Local Player Base I'd probably play. But if all competitions were set up that way I'd probably play disc golf casually and play a lot more ball golf.