Is this a good idea.

Nope. My random reasons why:

It's the same thing as saying Des is too good to compete against the women.

Why punish someone for being the top of thier game based on thier age?

If they choose to play open, they have the option.

No.

There should be enough of a difference in the Open and Master fields and payouts to get the best players into the Open field.

Really, there should only be one division on the course at a time, but we are still a long way from there.

One division because the course filled with one division, not because it was restricted to one.

There's no need for a cap if the proper incentives are there for top Masters to play up. Better than capping.

Incentives are much better than caps. The same logic should be applied up and down our divisional structure.

well then what are the incentives ????
at this point I see a BIG GOOSE EGG or Zero if you will .
IF and only if the PDGA mandates that most if not all of the added cash be put into open does the incentives come obvious .
Any other incentives known > ?????

As long as we are basically playing for enry fees, the incentive will be in the less competitive field (where you have the best chance of finishing in the top three).

We need 10-100 times as many amateur players playing tournament golf to get some serious sponsorship attention and then some television coverage. Then there will be an incentive gap and a Pro tour separate from the Masters tour.

Gary , I heard you say that before and cannot argue that logic but what do we do in the mean time ??? Until we have those players - how do we make the system we have now fair to all those playing ?
Player rating caps is one idea ( not a popular one I realize but an idea non the less )

Peer pressure is the only option we have at the moment.

If there are a couple of players in your area that are abusing the protection of masters at smaller events where they would be competitive in Open, let them know they are hurting the turnout of other potential masters players.

If they don't respond, get all of the other masters to move enmass to Open and leave them alone in their own division. Just make sure the TD is willing to go along with it and it happens so that it is too late for the offending player to do the same.

I think we need to be clear about what our desires are: are we just talking about getting the top guys to play open, or some of the mid-level guys.

If you are after the tops guys that generally play masters, funnel all the added cash to open. You will lure some in that way.

If you are atempting to lure mid-level masters to open, I suggest adding money to open, variable entry fees and deeper payouts; along with deeper payouts in masters so that ROI expectations in each division are more equivalent.

Of course, it is pointless to consider pro incentives without addressing am incentives. The drag created by our screwed-up am incentives helps suck the life out of all pro divisions, regardless of age protection.

peer pressure does not do squat LOL
I have been under peer pressure to move up to pro since I cant even remember and I have not yet .
To be honest however at some lower tiered events I would if that cap on adv master would be the same as adv ( below 955 )
I have no real desire to play in another am worlds and did so only cause I had an oppertunity to do it and of course where it was located ( my home away from home OKLAHOMA )

I think there are 2 main reasons players like Brad Dean etc. play masters a lot.

1. They can play like poop and still win more money than they would with the same score in Open
2. The get bonuses for winning masters.

That could mean, at an NT a Master could easily get 1,500 (with bonus) for bad play, where as their same score in open would only get like 400 dollars.

bad idea. incentives are better.

I agree with your first reason. I don't know those two, but I know a lot of masters view it purely as an economic decision. I think you are right that some rightly conclude that they can play poorly and still get a return in masters, and that enters into their economic decision. BTW, I am not critical of this, it is just the way people are.

As for your second reason, I am not sure, but I think Joel's bonuses from Innova tend to push him towards open at a lot of the smaller regional tourneys.

Bottom line, many people's decisions are pure economics. Set the economic incentives properly, the players will follow.

SO mtl as I have been saying the incentives to play MASTER are there but where is the incentive for those players to play open ???

And I realize added cash is the answer but until we have so much added cash to throw at the open players what do we do in the mean time ??

and james's point about economics moving masters into open is just as valid for moving really good am players into the pro ranks. james is a smart guy. he should get more credit than he gets.

SO mtl as I have been saying the incentives to play MASTER are there but where is the incentive for those players to play open ???





yeah there is. Brad has won a NT in Open. If you are a top Master, you can probably compete in the Open division anywhere. The incintive is simple. If you play good in Open in a NT, you could win twice what you do in Masters.

As much as blast pro masters for not playing open I do feel there are some adv players who should move up ( due to player rating ) also .
My point is that on a % of master players over 980 rating and adv players over 980 there are many more masters hiding out in a protected division then there are Adv players

Just doing some quick checking there are 30 adv players ( out of 5282 ams listed ) who have a rating above 975
I would be willing to bet out of the 2340 registered pro players there are at least 75 masters ( and older ) players rated above 980

All cutoffs are bad IMO, but 980 is ridiculous. You might as well tell the 980 rated master here in Texas to stay home cause 980 in open won't get you Jack Squat. Maybe a "thanks for coming out" from the winner, but certainly no profit.

which brings us back to more events with one division.. "open". the 980 player would have a chance... so would the 950 player... in a field of 100 players (i think)

Ok if that is the case that leads me back to my idea of having
Caps per division per tier event
A/NT all players rated over 1000 must play open
B tiers all players rated 980 and over play open
C tiers all players rated 955 and over play open
Combine that with the possiblity of limiting top players take home at lower tiered events and limiting the entry fee at lower events
Example 1
a C tier event that would normally have ( in our area ) 10 or so open and 10 or so masters and 25 advanced ( all paying about 30 dollars give or take to play )
in my idea almost all these players would be in the same division and by capping what the top pro can win you can pay WAY deeper in the field and at the same time charge less to enter to get the same payout ( pro ) of the original tourney
would now have

Example 2
B tier event would have about 15 open , 15 master , 40 advanced
my way there is about 30 open players , and then about 15 TRUE MASTERS and 25 TRUE Advanced players who are DUE the protection they deserve

Example 3
A tier event
ALL the best of the best ( 1000 rated players ) play against each other with no limit on age .
All others would then be afforded the protection they need .

Why not require a PDGA player to declare there competitive division for the entire year rather than 5 minutes before tee time?

If a player chooses to be a Masters player then if that division is offered they simply MUST play in it. If it is not offered then they are free to play up.

This would make the decision a lot more significant and chances are pretty good that those 1000+ Masters players would man up, if not for pride for payout.

(Unfortunately the same holds true for our "a"mateur class Masters as well.)

Gary , I heard you say that before and cannot argue that logic but what do we do in the mean time ??? Until we have those players - how do we make the system we have now fair to all those playing ?


It is perfectly fair right now. Since every division is playing for their own entry fees, the biggest divisions get the biggest payouts.

Trying to equalize the payouts by charging higher entry fees for the smaller pro divisons turns out in practice to not work because then fewer people are willing to play for those inflated entry fees, and the payout actually goes down.

It is what it is. If we ever get any real sponsorship, then it will sort itself out. (Look at the USDGC. Lots of added cash, only one division, everbory happy.)

If it turns out that our sport can only support 2-5 tourneys like that, then so be it. Disc golf is supposed to be fun, so go swing the clubs if you are more concerned with getting paid than having fun.

I don't think that is his complaint. It isn't about the amount of payout, but the chance of winning some of the payout against better competition that he feels should be playing in the Open division with the Big Dogs.

Well, we can't all be winners. This isn't the Little League Championship game, ya know?

aw shucks.... i wanted to walk hole #12 and take my chances on #13. :)

Who's responsibility is it to make the Open division the most desired division to play in?

Is it necessary to make all other divisions less desirable in order to make Open more desirable?

As a local organizer I really don't see any reason to promote the Open division any more than say Masters or certainly a true amateur class of divisions. I certainly don't see any reason to take from one division to pay more to another within a simple pro/am. Nor do I really see the payoff for spending crazy amounts of sponsorship on the same 10 to 20 players year in and year out with no growth in local player base to show for it.

We need to get our priorities straight here. This is very fundamental.

is that link image a copyrighted image of the PDGA? i remember some people getting in trrrouble for using copywrited pdga intellectual property (aka images).

well who is the responsible party for making the lower divisions more attractive ? would be my retort

How come an am can pay $50 for a B tier event and walk away with $245 in prizes ( that can be converted in to cash ) when an OPEN player pays $100 to play in the exact same tourney and get SQUAT for beating the crap out of that AM who won $245 ????
ALL BECAUSE in a tourney 2 years ago at his home course he " turned pro " by accepting some last place cash and never has had a chance since to cash
WHen someone can explain how that is fair then I will buy into it

It's fair because the $245 "worth" of stuff that the Am just won put about $120 into the tourney coffers so that insurance, permit fees, trophies for all divisions, and "added cash" for the pro divisions could be paid for.

The $100 that the pro put in cost the TD at least $10 because s/he needs to pay otu at least 110%.

That's how it's fair.

Now if you are really whining about how you foolishly accepted last cash once and now have no chance of ever cashing in a pro division for the last two years, I would say you made a serious mistake in accepting cash. Your options would be to continue whining about how unfair life is, or to petition the PDGA for your am status back.

Or, if truly don't have any chance at cashing and your rating is under 955, just play in the am division and beat those baggers and take their plastic.

just to let you know I have neither been whinning about accepting cash nor am I a plastic junkie ( which of course can be turned into cash in the parking lot - ALOT more cash then some of the pros that beat that am by 10 strokes at the same event will take home )

My points are personal to a degree since I am at a true crossroads ( even though my rating is mid 930s )
and was trying to get a basis for alot of us at this point .

MY bigger picture is the unfair practice of what I have stated time and time again on how players can profit ( adv and masters ) more then the Mid to upper echelon pros who play MUCH better then those adv and masters , but because the pros have soooo few players in their division they suffer .

However maybe you are right maybe instead of caps maybe there should be incentives
Like all players below 1000 rating petition the PDGA to come back to ams and collect BASKETS , discs and BAG to the point of such extreme proportions that the am division we call now becomes a true pro division

well who is the responsible party for making the lower divisions more attractive ?

That would be Jon and I.

just to let you know I have neither been whinning about accepting cash nor am I a plastic junkie ( which of course can be turned into cash in the parking lot - ALOT more cash then some of the pros that beat that am by 10 strokes at the same event will take home )

My points are personal to a degree since I am at a true crossroads ( even though my rating is mid 930s )
and was trying to get a basis for alot of us at this point .

MY bigger picture is the unfair practice of what I have stated time and time again on how players can profit ( adv and masters ) more then the Mid to upper echelon pros who play MUCH better then those adv and masters , but because the pros have soooo few players in their division they suffer .

However maybe you are right maybe instead of caps maybe there should be incentives
Like all players below 1000 rating petition the PDGA to come back to ams and collect BASKETS , discs and BAG to the point of such extreme proportions that the am division we call now becomes a true pro division



We have been through this from every angle I can imagine. As long as we play for each other's money, the biggest field is going to reap the biggest rewards. Even when we try to compensate by charging the smaller field twice as much to play. Now if we find an effective marketing ploy and start paying players with other people's money, and use entry fees just cover event costs, maybe we'll see the pros make more than the Ams.

Does it bother you just as much when fifth place MPO shoots better than 1st place Master but takes home far less cash with a better score?

I'm just checking to see if you are consistent.

Does it bother you just as much when fifth place MPO shoots better than 1st place Master but takes home far less cash with a better score?

I'm just checking to see if you are consistent.



That is the main reason people like Brad play masters

Does it bother you just as much when fifth place MPO shoots better than 1st place Master but takes home far less cash with a better score?
YES it does , to be put simply .

Gary is partially right that I realize that I am not the first person to be talking about this inequality but I would just figure there would be more talking about it .
The only thing I can think is that there are sooooo many people getting over that no one wants to really look for a solution ( other then chime in with the tried and true wait till we get big sponsorship )
The problem with big sponsorship is there will still be people wanting a chance at the brass/gold ring without being the best players . If we TRY to fix the problem now ( by ratings limits or most if not all added cash to open men and pro women , or whatever other idea might be out there ) then maybe we could salvage a free for all fight for when the day comes .

As I have said in the past who knows maybe I am looking at this all wrong and it is ok for a person to preform mediorce ( compared to others on a given day ) and gain the most reward just cause they happen to be at the right place at the right time .

Maybe just maybe the last texas no limit holdem tourney that just concluded they should have given the $12 million to the 13 place finisher cause he was born before 1966 ( and there were more competitors there who were born before 1966 ) , and the 12 people who player better who were born after 1966 should get less .

Does it bother you just as much when fifth place MPO shoots better than 1st place Master but takes home far less cash with a better score?
YES it does , to be put simply .

To be more specific here is the way I would like to see things paid out . ASSUMING THAT THE MASTERS played the same setup as open
USING the SKYLANDS CLASSIC as an example ,

First place masters scored 228 which would have put in him 15th place in open
First place masters paid $600
15th place open paid approx $345
NOW in my idea the first place masters would have won only $345 ( cause of how well he preformed against all compitition ) and a $55 trophy recognizing the fact he shot the best out of all players over 40 yrs old
This total of the first place master being paid out is $400
***NOW here is the rub that no one wants to see BUT if it is done it would make sence***
If you would take that $200 difference ( $600 he would have won in old tourney - $400 he would have won in my tourney )
and APPLY IT TO THE OPEN DIVISION TO PAY OUT FUTHER IN THE OPEN DIVISION you would START to eliminate the absurdly unfair practice that those who are willing to gamble against the best are NOT being rewarded .
This would also eliminate masters ( and advanced and all others ) getting more then what IMPO they actually deserve .

Next step 2nd place master was tied with first place masters and did win $400 for losing a playoff
This is done the same way as above
Pay him $345 and a $30 trophy for second place in the over 40 division and the rest of the money ( $25 ) in this case goes to the open pot to pay deeper in the field .

AND SO ON AND SO ON AND SO ON until all the money is gone .

As far as all other divisions this would work but also I would think somewhere there would be a cut cause there is NO MORE OVERLAP OF player potential .
AM divisions could do this too but we all know profit from disc give away contributes to open payout via money added

NOW the only thing I have not touched on is open women
This IMPO is the ONLY DIVISION that does not need to follow the above idea
No womens divisions should subsidize mens divisions
I dont really have an idea on this one ( other then added cash , sponsorship ( havent we heard that one before ))
but ..... all in all I am sure if this was a way to do it then all other things will fall into place

This IMPO would create a true class of players and allow those who want to play in the masters or adv division only the oppertunity to do so BUT, WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO PROFIT moreso then those who are willing to play in the best division , by hiding out in a protected division .

If you are paying one division payouts, you will end up with only one division of players. What reason do the masters have to come out and play ?

Joe TD in the next town starts offering AM only unsanctioned events with traditional payouts and you are left with the 15 open players you had before you ran off the masters and ams.

Joe TD in the next town starts offering AM only unsanctioned events with traditional payouts and you are left with the 15 open players you had before you ran off the masters and ams.

That is happening now and I dont see it taking away from the PDGA .
Also if people would accept the fact that players of lower ability DO NOT deserve better payouts then players with higher ability then maybe the system would not seem sooooooo screwed up .

I would hope that anyone who reads this ( even if you are benifiting from the current system ) can see the LOGIC and FAIRNESS in the system stated above .

Also if people would accept the fact that players of lower ability DO NOT deserve better payouts then players with higher ability then maybe the system would not seem sooooooo screwed up .




This is a fundamental flaw in your thinking. The only time this is true is if the players are in the same division. If players are in different divisions, the payouts are based on the gambling ante (entry fee) these players pay into their division plus whatever sponsorship is raised and allocated to their division. If the lowest skill division has the highest purse and payouts, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. However, we do our best to prevent that by lowering entry fees for lower skill divisions, pay them with prizes versus cash, and add money only to the top divisions.

But if that still doesn't make the reward for a lower division sometimes higher than the reward a player with a better score gets in a higher division, oh well. It's still fair but maybe not ideal in the bigger picture. But that's only because these players are at the same event. If the divisions were competing in separate events, even just across town, it wouldn't be an issue at all.

I have an idea, but need a payout spreadsheet to get my point across. It's hard just making up the numbers...

Making a spreadsheet to demonstrate winnings distribution where added cash goes to all divisions, but each division plays for their own cash too.

Chuck, can you send me a payout schedule? I will not post the spreadsheet, only the findings.

Matt

You can download it from the Tour link off the Home page.

I like how people make wild accusatory assumptions about how anybody that doesn't agree with them must be "getting over under the current system."

I mean, it's not like it's even possible that you could be wrong, so that's the only thing left, right?

You only deserve what others are willing to pay you, or what others are willing to gamble in competition with you.

You have a large number of Advanced players that are willing to gamble amongst themselves. You are operating under the assumption that if you force these players to gamble with the top open players as well that they will continue to attend tournaments. I don't see that happening. I see the majority of the ams just playing local minis instead of going to sanctioned events.

It won't be long before there are monthly minis that rival the current tournaments for amenities and competition and that's where all of your former tournament players will be.

Chuck says
This is a fundamental flaw in your thinking. The only time this is true is if the players are in the same division

IT IS SOOOOOOOOOO BLEEEEEEPING OBVIOUS there is such an overlay of competitive ability in the PDGA ( IMPO ESPECIALLY BETWEEN PRO MASTERS AND OPEN PLAYERS )
OK chuck
DEFINE DIVISION
you are the EXPERT in player ratings and PLEASE do not use PDGA " defined " divisions
who really has a shot against whom ???
You were the king of ratings based tourneys
IF my thinking is sooooo flawed ......
take us down the path of true divisions
I have to be honest
My ideas are based upon what I see as UNFAIR at the tourneys I run and go to
I know you have more ( lots more ) knoweldge then I

You are operating under the assumption that if you force these players to gamble with the top open players as well that they will continue to attend tournaments. I don't see that happening

I ( we ) are operating under a system that has TOTALLY SPOILED a LOWER class of players into thinking they deserve more then the best class of players ( or at least the players who are willing to compete in the highest class of players )

This system of spoiling has GOT TO CHANGE if ALL PLAYERS are to be treated equally under a true competitive system THAT REWARDS the truely best of the best .

At one extreme, we could have simultaneous events on courses with almost identical SSAs only for Open in San Francisco, Masters in Minneapolis, Advanced in Augusta, Intermediate in Philly and Open Women in Baltimore. No one would care what the payouts were in comparing the scores from these events. It's only because these divisions are usually playing in the same event that players get disgruntled about payouts. From a player's standpoint, once they pay their fee for a specific division, all that should matter is whether their division is treated fairly relative to what they paid in and what sponsors either indicated they wanted to add to their purse (or what the TD decided to add).

On the other hand, there's some universal feeling that better players should get paid better. But since very few outside the sport really care, we force the issue by raising entry fees in higher skill divisions to make the better players feel better. It's still artificial payout propping with the exception of (fortunately) more and more events with added cash. So we shouldn't worry too much how well it works in comparing divisions with each other as long as each division is internally as fair as it can be.

The issue with highly rated Masters not playing in Open is really more an issue that the range of skills in Open Master is less fair than it could be due to a ratings range close to 100 points in some events. If 50 point ranges are acceptable for separating amateur divisions, why should that not be the case for Open Master, Advanced and a few other divisions for that matter?

Other sports have multiple skill levels for older divisions. We have the Advanced Masters and Open Masters but the typical ratings range for these divisions easily covers 150 points or more. So, an alternative to incentivizing top Masters to play Open would be to add a semi-pro Master division below say 965 or so.

This system of spoiling has GOT TO CHANGE if ALL PLAYERS are to be treated equally under a true competitive system THAT REWARDS the truely best of the best .



You are free to make one, but how many intermediate or even advanced players are going to show up and compete with open players on a level and fair playing field ?

William, I like that idea, of ratings and Tier events

thanks
Well there is one vote LOL

You only deserve what others are willing to pay you, or what others are willing to gamble in competition with you.



I consistently see you, Chuck and Rhett throw out this like it is some hard hitting argument. It isn't. It's simply a result of the system the PDGA created, not some universal truth.

I liken our system to a racetrack with different betting windows based on one's handicapping IQ. This setup is legislated by the track management. The guy winning big bucks in the beginner's pool starts yapping how he deserves his payout because "others are willing gamble in competition with him." He states it like it is actually some deep, meaningful truth.

The real truth is that his financial success is only possible because the track has sanctioned this bizarre betting system. In fact, there are many others, not in the beginner's pool who would gladly gamble against him for a profit. However, they are not allowed. The track will have none of that. Without protection, this guy would certainly not be crowing, he would just be a beginner, forced to hone his skills if he ever wanted to profit from this activity.

So please, think about this analogy everytime y'all rationalize why inferior golfers should be subsidized by our sanctioning body.

Bad analogy for when you are betting at a race track, you are betting against the 'house', not each other. Odds are set, and if you win you are paid based on a formula that takes into account these odds and how much you bet. Skill levels don't matter, the number of people in your division doesn't matter, only the odds of the bet and how much you put down. The other players at the race track aren't competing against you.

As for the statement you take issue with, yes this is pretty much a universal truth in line with basic micro-economics principles. You are worth what other people are willing to pay for your services. Your division will be worth the number of participants willing to gamble with you (the entry fees component of the cash payout) plus the sponsorship added (the value you provide to those outside of the participants). Try to take more from other areas (forcing people to play against you to increase entry fee component or creating unknowing 'sponsors' by moving cash into one division from others) will be a short term gain at best.

Racetrack betting is pari-mutuel, which basically means that you are betting against everyone else in the pool. You are NOT betting against set, track odds. PDGA events are inherently identical contests to pari-mutuel betting pools, the main difference is that the PDGA takes a smaller cut out of the pool that the track does.

No, it's more like this. You can not put on your own race to bet on with others of similar skill. You can easily go out and play a few rounds of disc golf with others of similar skill for a small potential profit or just for fun. There is nothing a tournament offers the true amateur golfer short of a lot of players to compete with. I've seen quite a few places where minis or leagues pull in 72 players or more. What does a tournament have on that ?

A TD must bring something to the table that the players can not get otherwise. For now it's usually the potential for winning more at one time than they can playing against their friends. I you reduce the potential winnings to the point that they could win more playing the local mini, then that's where they will be. For the players less interested in winning, they are also probably less interested in the inconvenience of playing longer rounds on someone else's schedule.

Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and Michael Dell can get together and wager 100 million on the front nine. So what? What does that have to do with the PDGA, or more importantly, why should their wager effect the policies of the PDGA?

Same argument though. Why are they able to profit 100 million when they are clearly less talented players than the Semi-pros playing for $200 on the hole behind them ?

I have no problem with them profiting from their gambling, they just SHOULD NOT be doing under the umbrella of PDGA sanctioning.

That is a completely different question.

It is a problem, butif I must choose between being entirely fair in rewards versus putting players on the course, I will always choose the solution that puts more players on the course.

but if I must choose between being entirely fair in rewards versus putting players on the course, I will always choose the solution that puts more players on the course.


Yes, the time honored "I don't care about what is fair or right, I just want numbers" reply.

This is the part where I say "But this strategy of gaining numbers cripples the top level of the sport" and I ask the question "Does this strategy even get the most numbers out of the universe of people who play disc golf." Then you, Chuck, or Rhett, throws out some out-of-context stats and proclaim victory.

The bottom line is that there are many people residing on easy street, and if the PDGA considers leveling their homes for the betterment of the sport, they cry foul. Since they are the majority, and the BOD is an elected body, the PDGA continues to delay the necessary actions needed to lead our sport forward.

Although not a good thing in some endeavors, in this case our leadership has been growing a bigger bottom to the benefit of everyone :o

Hmmm....I think he was talking about MPMs, so never mind.

This is the part where I say "But this strategy of gaining numbers cripples the top level of the sport" and I ask the question "Does this strategy even get the most numbers out of the universe of people who play disc golf."



I agree with parts of Gary's argument and part of James' argument.

Gary is right that numbers are more important than falsely propping up professional purses.
James is right that the over-indulgence of a protected professional division of players and I'm not talking about Masters and Womens is absolutely crippling the growth of our sport and definately having a negative effect on the top competitive divisions.

The problem can be summed up in 3 words:

TRUE AMATEUR CLASS

Until we have one, we will keep banging our heads, as far as growth, on the glass ceiling of our play for each others entry fees competitive system, and our professional divisions will remain devoid of the top competitors so long as there are 4 to 5 divisions competing for the same players, tds, courses, events and sponsorship.

It is the solution to both problems.

You are operating under the assumption that if you force these players to gamble with the top open players as well that they will continue to attend tournaments. I don't see that happening

I ( we ) are operating under a system that has TOTALLY SPOILED a LOWER class of players into thinking they deserve more then the best class of players ( or at least the players who are willing to compete in the highest class of players )

This system of spoiling has GOT TO CHANGE if ALL PLAYERS are to be treated equally under a true competitive system THAT REWARDS the truely best of the best .



Just to clarify when you say , Lower class of players.

Are you speaking of Pro Masters vs. Pro Open players ?

I still get ribbed for not ALWAYS playing Open Division.
Is this what your talking about ? :confused: