People keep lamenting the decline of Open division attendance, yet when you suggest offering a trophy-only option so that the player doesn't get raped with a $75-$150 entry fee when they are used to paying $35 to $50 in am, you get the standard response of "If ya wanna step up and play with the big boys, ya gots ta pay for the priviledge."

Yet everyone keeps complaining about lack of Open division attendance.

Evidently people aren't very interested in paying for that priviledge.

That is not the experience I have had. I did the admin stuff for the Charlotte Open (A-Tier) and had lots of requests for "trophy only". We decided against it since we thought the event would fill (we capped it at 72) without offing that....and it did.

Charlotte Open is an anomaly among anomalies though... a few days before the USDGC. tons of pros in town, many of whom will cash big in Rock Hill. You won't find a lack of potential players ready to plunk down the $100? or so to play the Charlotte Open. Plus it's at one of the pro division's favorite courses.

Now, take a B-Tier Pro Only tournament and see what kind of turnout you get, especially one that doesn't piggyback off of another big event.

The anomaly you point out does not change the fact that I had lots of requests for the trophy-only option.

That's pretty much why I haven't played in a PDGA-sanctioned event since 2004 and stick to cheaper unsanctioned events such as BYOP Doubles, Ice Bowls, random-draw doubles, tag rounds, and casual rounds.

Offer a trophy-only option and I'd help to fill up a PDGA-sanctioned tournament almost every single weekend.

and given the Steelers season, you have LOTS of free weekends :D

That's pretty much why I haven't played in a PDGA-sanctioned event since 2004 and stick to cheaper unsanctioned events such as BYOP Doubles, Ice Bowls, random-draw doubles, tag rounds, and casual rounds.

Offer a trophy-only option and I'd help to fill up a PDGA-sanctioned tournament almost every single weekend.



I disagree. I think (and this is purely speculatory) that offering trophy-only tournaments in our area would not yield that many more players. Ams enjoy playing for each others' money for small events (think AMMO Series for LVDGC - let's say it were a PDGA event)..I could be wrong, but I think if Robin offered "trophy-only" divisions, it wouldnt get any more interest (nor would the current Ams move to trophy-only.)

- F Doot

The best chance of getting the Trophy Only option to work (getting Ams to play Pro) is to offer it for Pro-Only events and when the Pro's are playing a different (better usually) course than the Ams' during the same tournament. Both of these options invite the Ams to "play with the big boys".

If Pro entry is $75-100 and Trophy-only entry is ~$30 (too lazy to look up PDGA recommendations/requirements), you could raise a lot to add to the purse with the Trophy-only entry fees. Plus with a bigger field size, payout would be deeper to the full price players thereby making it a better experience for the mid-level Pro's.

The best chance of getting the Trophy Only option to work (getting Ams to play Pro) is to offer it for Pro-Only events and when the Pro's are playing a different (better usually) course than the Ams' during the same tournament. Both of these options invite the Ams to "play with the big boys".

If Pro entry is $75-100 and Trophy-only entry is ~$30 (too lazy to look up PDGA recommendations/requirements), you could raise a lot to add to the purse with the Trophy-only entry fees. Plus with a bigger field size, payout would be deeper to the full price players thereby making it a better experience for the mid-level Pro's.



That makes a lot of sense, and prob would work. Why else would a 930 AM slap down $75-100 to play with a half dozen or more 1000 rated players? Sure they'd improve their game (in theory) playing at a higher level, but not worth it at a rate of $50 per round.

All trophy-only really does is make someone less of a donater, with a shot-in-the-dark at winning - which for some people is enough.

I still like the ratings based events like they do at Mid-Nationals. I heard the Jersey Jam did it a a few years ago, before the PDGA stopped encouraging it (correct me if I'm wrong about this.) I havent been in the sport long enough to know how they operated the "Pro-2" division, but those are two alternatives to lumping all Pros into one division. Again it gives the 930-960 players a chance to play against themselves in a Pro divison with a decent shot of cashing.

-doot

All trophy-only really does is make someone less of a donater, with a shot-in-the-dark at winning - which for some people is enough.



Not sure if I'm reading you right here, but just to clarify....."Trophy only" means that if you are "winning" at a high enough level to cash, you will not get cash. You might get a trophy disc or a pat on the back. The TD could also give you a players pack I assume.

You still get ratings for the event and tour points (Pro points) for competing though.

i have offered trophy only for both am and pro events over the years. interest in trophy only in am divisions has been almost nil. we do get some of the ams to play up at the pro only events with this option though. imo we have no interest in t-o for ams here in spotsy because we have reasonable entry fees to begin with. i haven't seen any "retirees" such as jeff return due to the cheaper entry fee option either.

The best chance of getting the Trophy Only option to work (getting Ams to play Pro) is to offer it for Pro-Only events and when the Pro's are playing a different (better usually) course than the Ams' during the same tournament. Both of these options invite the Ams to "play with the big boys".

If Pro entry is $75-100 and Trophy-only entry is ~$30 (too lazy to look up PDGA recommendations/requirements), you could raise a lot to add to the purse with the Trophy-only entry fees. Plus with a bigger field size, payout would be deeper to the full price players thereby making it a better experience for the mid-level Pro's.

This is true, especially if there is a trophy-only option in advanced too. We get almost no trophy-only players in the Men's open division. The lower division players who play both days pay $5 more to play trophy-only in Men's Advanced because they have a shot in the dark at a trophy and the ams get more CTPs.

Here's an idea for y'all to tear into: if we want more pros at individual events, how about we limit which events can offer cash-paid divisions? Suppose the PDGA just makes a rule, "No more cash-paid divisions at C and D tiers." This would concentrate more pros at fewer tournaments.

That's pretty much why I haven't played in a PDGA-sanctioned event since 2004 and stick to cheaper unsanctioned events such as BYOP Doubles, Ice Bowls, random-draw doubles, tag rounds, and casual rounds.

Offer a trophy-only option and I'd help to fill up a PDGA-sanctioned tournament almost every single weekend.



I disagree. I think (and this is purely speculatory) that offering trophy-only tournaments in our area would not yield that many more players. Ams enjoy playing for each others' money for small events (think AMMO Series for LVDGC - let's say it were a PDGA event)..I could be wrong, but I think if Robin offered "trophy-only" divisions, it wouldnt get any more interest (nor would the current Ams move to trophy-only.)

- F Doot



We're talking about trophy-only for the Open Pro division. We're not talking about Ams at all.

And we're talking about the Open Pro division at the PDGA-sanctioned events in our region which typically don't fill. Take for example: <ul type="square"> Patapsco Punisher, 2006: Four (!) Open players and 55 total players. The Mighty Gaw, 2006: 13 Open players and 56 total players. Seneca Sizzler, 2006: Ten Open players and 64 total players. Brandywine Windjammer, 2006: 21 Open players and 56 total players. Jersey Jam, Pro, 2006: 34 Open players and 47 total. [/list]

Offer trophy-only in the Open division for a reduced price and I bet you'd easily get another dozen or two dozen Open players, including me, at every single one of those events.

Robin's Ammo series are already a low entry fee unsanctioned monthly tournament ($20 for either Pro or Am) that don't need a trophy-only option. We're talking about underfilled PDGA-sanctioned events with $50-$75 Open Pro entry fees that could easily increase attendance, and probably fill up, with a low-cost trophy-only option. I'd go every weekend!

Some MADC events need Pro division restriction to Open only and get those bagger Masters over to Open. :eek:

i have offered trophy only for both am and pro events over the years. interest in trophy only in am divisions has been almost nil. we do get some of the ams to play up at the pro only events with this option though. imo we have no interest in t-o for ams here in spotsy because we have reasonable entry fees to begin with. i haven't seen any "retirees" such as jeff return due to the cheaper entry fee option either.



John, are you referring to me? I didn't know you offerred a low-cost trophy-only option in the Open division at your tournaments, but now that I do, I would almost certainly attend your next tournament at Hawk Hollow even though it's a four-hour drive from where I live in Pennsylvania.

Some MADC events need Pro division restriction to Open only and get those bagger Masters over to Open. :eek:



Some of us MADC Masters don't bag. Too bad you weren't serious when you said that Chuck :p

Craiger, your willingness to hang with the big boys is well known and my remark was not meant for you even though in fun.

Yet everyone keeps complaining about lack of Open division attendance.

Here's an idea for y'all to tear into: if we want more pros at events, how about we limit which events can offer cash-paid divisions? Suppose the PDGA just makes a rule, "No more cash-paid divisions at C and D tiers." This would concentrate the real pros at the B/A/NTs. The guys who fancy themselves as pros but aren't really would just have to deal with reality.

Yet everyone keeps complaining about lack of Open division attendance.

Here's an idea for y'all to tear into: if we want more pros at events, how about we limit which events can offer cash-paid divisions? Suppose the PDGA just makes a rule, "No more cash-paid divisions at C and D tiers." This would concentrate the real pros at the B/A/NTs. The guys who fancy themselves as pros but aren't really would just have to deal with reality.


I have a better idea: cash payout only for the Open Pro divisions of MPO and FPO, all others pay out plastic!

We are too small to split the top division up into so many divisons. Older players with declining skills who prefer the cameraderie of playing with other old guys would still have that opportunity. They just wouldn't be playing for cash.

That would do it :D

But you would have to appease the masses by having a sliding entry fee based on rating.

But you would have to appease the masses by having a sliding entry fee based on rating.


Why? I say we still offer the age protected pro divisions. We just pay them out in plastic.

Why should older "pros" be penalized for the reality that few care to pay to watch our Open "pros" in this sport to justify our players earning a living as true pros? Why not switch to all plastic and trophy only divisions so TDs can earn reasonable compensation for running quality events?

Which guy would you say gets penalized?
1)3rd place open player shoots 216 at Seneca Creek 5 strokes better than 4th place - prize $420
2)1st place Master shoots 218 and gets $650

This happens in a huge percentage of our sanctioned events. Suggesting that highly rated players "shouldn't have to pay", as opposed to saying "gee it sure is harder to win than it used to be" is an odd view of competition imo. It's not a penalty to have to play against others of equal skill. A 1000 rating has no age indicator, it's an "ability to score" indicator, right? Competition should be about "ability to score" shouldn't it? Having helped to develop the most widely used system to date for quantifying skill level - how is it that you are such a fervent supporter of the divisional status quo?

I support both ratings based and divisional formats. There's a place for both, with the rationale for age based primarily because members like it and support it. I don't think it has to be either/or. We know top older players are fine with the USDGC and Players Cup events with only an Open division. There's nothing preventing TDs from offering Open Men & Women divisions only on regular weekend events (plus all Am divisions) but for some reason they don't. I can't see the PDGA member org forcing that format on TDs as a requirement but it's certainly an option for TDs as long as the format is promoted in advance so players can choose.

It's simple don't offer Masters at your events Craig. With your attitude towards them you really have no business offering it anyway.

You base your entire competitive philosophy concerning the Masters division on Jim Myers and Joe Mela. Dude! There are only 2 of them. 2 of them in our entire region! You might get them to show for an Open only event if the added cash were right, but how many of us other Masters do you think would show to donate to the same 5 guys we've been donating to for 20 years?

There is no systemic way to force players to play in a top division. The only REAL solution is to load up on sponsorship (USDGC, MSDGC, etc.). That and get a true amatuer classification, but that's another topic.

The only way I won't play Masters is if it isn't offered, and then normal event participation criteria kicks in (Course, TD, Local Players), if those are in order I don't care the divisions offered or the Entry Fee charged.

I'll play open almost every time.

There are plenty of pros old enough to be master division that play open. Plenty of ams too.
And there are plenty that prefer the more adult community of competition. Nothing wrong with it, just preferances.

I tend to agree with Craig that some of the best players in masters would be very competitive in open. And I like to encourage them to "move up". Ultimatly it's their choice.

As far as I know, Craig has never played Masters.
I wonder if the hot players on tour will step up to that level of sportsmanship when they come of age?

ITS MAY NOT BE MY PLACE TO ADD A COMMENT BUT WE HAVE HAD THE SAME DISCUSSIONS HERE IN TULSA, IF THE PRO DIVISION IS NOT FULL TO SOMEONES LIKING, ITS BETTER NOT TO COMPLAIN BUT TO PROMOTE PLAYING IN A HIGHER DIVISION FOR THOSE WHO PLAY ADVANCED. MAKING A COMMENT ABOUT THE DIVISION SOMEONE PLAYS IN, OR HOW MANY PLAY IN ONE DIVISION ONLY MAKES THOSE PLAYERS UPSET AND MORE AGAINST PLAYING UP.
I'M NOT THE BEST PLAYER IN THE DIVISIONS I'VE PLAYED IN, BUT WHAT MADE ME MOVE UP AND PLAY IN THE OPEN MASTERS DIVISION WAS TALKING TO PEOPLE THAT PROMOTED THE SPORT, NOT THE PEOPLE THAT COMPLAINED ABOUT WHO PLAYED IN WHAT DIVISION.

EXCUSE THE CAPS THATS HOW I TYPE.
DAN BOUGHER

Why should older "pros" be penalized for the reality that few care to pay to watch our Open "pros" in this sport to justify our players earning a living as true pros? Why not switch to all plastic and trophy only divisions so TDs can earn reasonable compensation for running quality events?

I'm not exactly waiting for the PDGA to adopt this format before I do. Byron Ice Bowl Doubles is all plastic, all divisions. Someone has to get out in front and lead.

It's simple don't offer Masters at your events Craig. With your attitude towards them you really have no business offering it anyway.

You base your entire competitive philosophy concerning the Masters division on Jim Myers and Joe Mela. Dude! There are only 2 of them. 2 of them in our entire region! You might get them to show for an Open only event if the added cash were right, but how many of us other Masters do you think would show to donate to the same 5 guys we've been donating to for 20 years?

There is no systemic way to force players to play in a top division. The only REAL solution is to load up on sponsorship (USDGC, MSDGC, etc.).




that is the truth, offer no masters division at the soiree and see who shows up.

Which guy would you say gets penalized?
1)3rd place open player shoots 216 at Seneca Creek 5 strokes better than 4th place - prize $420
2)1st place Master shoots 218 and gets $650



The reality is that there are 2 different events happening simultaneously in this scenario. How players earn PDGA points proves that, as does the pay-in and pay-out structure. The problem is that ratings calculations and schedule and location muddy the clarity of this.

If MPO and MPM played in the same event that used 2 courses, but played on opposite courses from each other.....that illustrates my perspective pretty clearly.

Why do y'all always want to penalize pros (whether masters, open or female) and treat the AMs so much better?

If I play in my area and there's one of me in FPO and 20 Am 3's, why does first place in Am3 get $160 worth of plastic and I get nothing? (Sometimes minus five bucks for showing up).

How does this indicate you value Pros? Why do ams win anything at all? If you want ams to move up, for goodness sake, don't pay out the winner of AM1 a basket and $200 worth of discs. Give THEM a trophy-only and put added cash into the pro divisions. That way, once a baggin am is even decently good, they move up, create a fuller, more rating-diverse open division. The top pros benefit with better payouts and the mid-levels might actually get paid (MORE than their entry fee; payouts that are 15% of the entry fee aren't really payouts, are they?). Geez, give people a reason to WANT to play pro, especially in areas like Michigan and NC, where it's far better to stay in AM forever than have to face all the thousands.

Why are AMs paid out better than pros in our sport? Plus, without receiving an influx of plastic every weekend, they just might purchase more at the tournaments.

Oh, and if you really want more women playing, I think you've got to waive AM women's entry fee. You guys must know that chicks a) HATE to gamble b) HATE to give up an entire weekend day, whether away from kids or shopping, and c) usually have not developed a very healthy sense of competition and thereby view competition as personal and threatening to sense of self. Most of them don't think like men and it's very few of us who do, which is why there is very few of us who play competitively. Obviously, with no entry fee, the payout would definitely be t-o, as all AM divisions should be.

If I play in my area and there's one of me in FPO and 20 Am 3's, why does first place in Am3 get $160 worth of plastic and I get nothing? (Sometimes minus five bucks for showing up).


sarah, the simple answer to that is that 20 Am3s showed up and 1 FPO showed up. did you really get "nothing", or just your money back minus whatever fees, etc were assessed?

i'm curious about something. do you feel single-player fields should receive greater payout than their entry fee? we've had events here where 1-3 people show up for a particular division and when payouts come around all three get more than their entry fees. i dont have any real problem with it, i just dont understand it.

Yes, I do believe that single-entrants in PRO divisions should get paid more than their entry fee. We are professional athletes and so why treated like leftover garbage? For all aforementioned reasons, it has proven to be impossible for me to get more women out to play, and in Michigan only about one woman a year - if that - moves up. (Let's all raise our glasses to Melissa - way to be the first woman to step it up since I did early 2005). Men don't have to wait two years for one single am man to step up. It's a different landscape.

It's tough on the body for a master or grand master to play an all-day tourney. Kudos to those fellows as well for coming out to play. If there's only one of them, yes, again, pay these pros for coming out.

If you don't, you lose people from the sport. There are currently about 8 FPO in all of Michigan, and for big B tourney's we'll get 2 or 3 to show. Don't you men realize we are already being denied good, varied competition by our gender; now you want to deny us the ability to win money as well?

As for the 20 AM 3's showing up, which justifies huge payouts....they are not PRO. What I'm really asking is WHY PAY THEM????

It's simple don't offer Masters at your events Craig. With your attitude towards them you really have no business offering it anyway.

You base your entire competitive philosophy concerning the Masters division on Jim Myers and Joe Mela. Dude! There are only 2 of them. 2 of them in our entire region! You might get them to show for an Open only event if the added cash were right, but how many of us other Masters do you think would show to donate to the same 5 guys we've been donating to for 20 years?

There is no systemic way to force players to play in a top division. The only REAL solution is to load up on sponsorship (USDGC, MSDGC, etc.). That and get a true amatuer classification, but that's another topic.

The only way I won't play Masters is if it isn't offered, and then normal event participation criteria kicks in (Course, TD, Local Players), if those are in order I don't care the divisions offered or the Entry Fee charged.



Well so much for the new leaf Nick had turned over.

He's been hanging in the background for the last 12 months or so, and his behavior on the message board was much improved.

But now he's back to publicly chastising tournament directors who disagree with his idea of a pefect frisbee world. http://www.panthersplanet.net/style_emoticons/default/thumbsdown.gif

It was nice while it lasted.

asking why we're paying the AMs is a totally valid question, i agree.

some of what you wrote previously seems at odds with the last post.

"You guys must know that chicks a) HATE to gamble b) HATE to give up an entire weekend day, whether away from kids or shopping, and c) usually have not developed a very healthy sense of competition and thereby view competition as personal and threatening to sense of self"

and

"Don't you men realize we are already being denied good, varied competition by our gender; now you want to deny us the ability to win money as well?"

seem to be opposing views. which is it? women hate competition, or women want to compete?

"It's tough on the body for a master or grand master to play an all-day tourney. Kudos to those fellows as well for coming out to play. If there's only one of them, yes, again, pay these pros for coming out."

ok, so an all-day tournament (not even a 2 day event) is too much for these "professional athletes" and we should pay them for showing up? are they any more "pro" than our so-called "ams"? male or female, i cant really go along with that, and i'm GM eligible this year. i'd be completely embarassed to take more than my entry fee if i was in a field of one.

sarah, i dont mean to sound like i'm picking on ya. sometimes its hard to discuss this topic without sounding anti-female, and that is certainly not my intent. it has gotta be frustrating as a woman disc golf player. my daughter might face the same situation in 8 or 10 years.

As for the women comment: It comes down to 'us' and 'them'. 'Us' is female athletes who already play, have a healthy sense of competition, and like to gamble. 'Them' is the rest of my gender who have been bred to dislike these things. 'We' are limited in number. 'They' have to be re-trained to think more like us - and more like men - if you want them in the sport.

As for the master men: there are more of you out there than competitive women. So if you don't want this type of policy applied to your ranks, so be it, don't have it. But we have no options. Please refer to my posting under 'Boosting Pro Women's Payouts' in the Women's section. I give alternate scenerios to not drive women out: Chuck Kennedy rejects all suggestions without giving alternate solutions; all we ever seem to get.

I have only been going to tournaments this past year, and I am an AM player, but I thought that I would voice my opinion:

I like the idea of pro players getting paid out an extra amount from the AM fees, but it should be proportional to the number of players in the fields. If there is only 1 PRO player, that player should not receive double their entry just for showing up, but at the same time, I hate the idea of someone losing money for being the only person that showed up. That's just not right. Never should you finish 1st and end up losing money.

As an AM, my ideal tournament set up would be minimal prizes for the Non-Open divisions. But, the entry fee needs to be reflective of that. I think it would be better for AM players to receive the bulk of their entry back in the form of players' packs. A hot stamp disc, a good towel... something that is a reminder of the tournament. Beyond that, give out trophies to the top 3 in each division. This way, I am not thinking about the value of what I might win, but I am playing to show how good I am versus others in my division. I already have my prize (the player's pack).

I might just feel this way because I am good enough to play ADV, but not good enough to win much. But I still love going out and playing against other players even if I don't expect to win. However, there are times that i wonder if I want to spend the $30-$50 just for the privilege of playing in a sanctioned event.

I guess all I am saying is that you shouldn't overcharge a division in order to pay for another division.

If women don't want to compete, I don't know what men can do about it. I think it is up to the women of the PDGA to cultivate more women at PDGA events. My wife and daughter both play PDGA tournaments, so I know exactly how small the field usually/typically is. I would love to see more women playing, but it (still) just isn't happening.

I think it up to the women to make it happen, because Lord knows us dudes really don't understand chicks.

Perhaps more women-only events would be a better environment to get the women out. I know the tournament setting can be hostile towards women, and the TD can only do so much. I've had guys walk off the course and DNF because they were grouped with the women in order to balance the cards of a full field.

It would take a lot of effort to better the sport for women, but then again it always takes a lot of effort to better the sport for anyone. People who are willing to give up playing one event on order to make it run smoothly are in short supply, so with the even smaller pool of women it would be even harder to find them. But hopefully since men and women are "wired differently" about competition, y'all can have an easier time of that for the greater good.

Some of us guys are trying to improve things on the women's side, but I honestly believe that can only go so far. IMHO it'll take the women to move the women's side along.

sarah, you have quite a way with words. sorry i havent been out much. come to kzoo and you will definatley have a better chance at "tryin" to take my money. worlds 08 meeting this sunday.....

as far as trophy only in the open division, does that actually work? it seems like it would draw less competitors. i say do it for the ams. what other sport in the in the existance of the world actually pays out amatures? i cant think of any. yes they may whine, but it does seem like ams are treated better than pros. lower am entry fees, not by much and do trophy only. throw some of that money into the open feilds and the club still makes money.

Which guy would you say gets penalized?
1)3rd place open player shoots 216 at Seneca Creek 5 strokes better than 4th place - prize $420
2)1st place Master shoots 218 and gets $650


This happens in a huge percentage of our sanctioned events. Suggesting that highly rated players "shouldn't have to pay", as opposed to saying "gee it sure is harder to win than it used to be" is an odd view of competition imo. It's not a penalty to have to play against others of equal skill. A 1000 rating has no age indicator, it's an "ability to score" indicator, right? Competition should be about "ability to score" shouldn't it? Having helped to develop the most widely used system to date for quantifying skill level - how is it that you are such a fervent supporter of the divisional status quo?




HOW MANY OPEN PLAYER?
HOW MANY OPEN MASTERS?
REGUARDLESS OF THE SCORES, THE DIVISIONS, COURSES PLAYED, WHAT ORDER THE COURSES WERE PLAYED, EACH DIVISION IS CONSIDERED AN EVENT TO THE PAYOUT. IF YOU HAVE A LARGER OPEN MASTERS FIELD, THEIR PAYOUT SHOULD BE LARGER. IF YOU HAVE A LARGER AM FIELD AND THEIR PAYOUT IS LESS THAN THE OPEN, THEN THEY HAVE ALL THER RIGHT TO FEEL SCREWED. THE AMS SHOULDN'T HAVE TO ADD TO THE PRO DIVISION "JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A PRO DIVISION".
IF ITS ABOUT THE MONEY GET BETTER SPONSERS...ONES THAT WILL ADD MONEY TO THE MORE COMPETETIVE FIELD.
I NEVER HEARD OF THE MINOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYERS, ARENA FOOTBALL PLAYERS, CBA PLAYERS AND OWNERS HAVING TO GIVE UP THEIR MONEY.
MONEY AT THE SCALE THE PROS WANT IN THIS SPORT WILL FIRST COME FROM THE SPONSERS, LIKE IN THE PGA, ALL THE TRUE PROS HAVE SOME TYPE OF SPONSERSHIP DEAL, AND EVERY EVENT HAS A SPONSER WITH THEIR LOGO ADDED TO THE TITE OF THE EVENT. IF THIS SPORT EVER GETS A GOOD NAMED SPONSER FOR THEIR EVENT, THEN DISC GOLF COULD BE AS POPULAR AS ANY OF THE OTHER SPORTS.

First, I agree that it sucks that you have so few women wanting to play open at tournaments and affecting payouts. I wish that there were more women playing Open in Michigan.


As for the 20 AM 3's showing up, which justifies huge payouts....they are not PRO. What I'm really asking is WHY PAY THEM????



HOWEVER

First we both know that $160 of plastic does not equate to $160 for the TD. It is much easier to payout bigger sums in plastic. If you would like to get paid out in plastic, I am sure that you can get larger sums as well.

Also, that is the whole point of divisions, to give people of equal abilities the chance to compete against each other. You just want the AM3s to show up and just hand over the lion share of that money go to the Open Division? If that is the case, why would they show up? I don't want to hear, "For the love of the game or the chance to compete", because we all know that people want to win something for their effort. Who really wants another trophy from tournament X? They are not going to show up and pay $25-$30 for next to nothing. Change the payouts to the large amount going to the Open Division and then fewer and fewer AM3s are going to show up. What does that accomplish?

I wish that there were 30 Women playing Open, but there is not. However, I do not think that it is right to try to take money from other divisions to make up for it...

Should we pay AMs at all ?

I don't know the correct answer, but do know that many AMs like to get paid and many TDs like the chance at profit (for self, club, or course) that comes from that combination. I also know that if the PDGA required touranments to go to a "true am" payout schedule, that there would be a lot of non-sanctioned tournaments springing up. I think that the payout should be a combination of player pack and performance based reward with the larger share being the player pack. But no more than 75% and probabaly closer to 60/40 in advanced.

Should single player divisions be paid more than entry ?

I think all Pro divisions should be paid at the same percentage of entry fee. If you payout MPO at 125%, the other Pro divisions should be paid at 125% as well. As far as the AM/PRO comparison (or any interdivision comparison) they should never be made. Each division should be treated as a separate event because they are only related by the fact they are on the same course. Different entry fees, different competitors, different prize purse.

what other sport in the in the existance of the world actually pays out amatures? i cant think of any.


Just about every other non-team sport: bowling, darts, pool, golf, etc.
In fact, the amatuer versions are separate entities and pay out in "pro-shop" money, same as us and DON'T FUND THE PROS. Be lucky the dg system works the way it does. There would be no pros without the ams in DG, so don't bite the hand that feeds you.

ams get paid out in these sports? and what do they get paid?

how so do the ams support the pros? i think there would still be pros with no ams. dont get me wrong, i love ams, espsecially all the guys

ams get paid out in these sports? and what do they get paid?

how so do the ams support the pros? i think there would still be pros with no ams. dont get me wrong, i love ams, espsecially all the guys


1. Bowling Am Tourney (http://trueamateurtournaments.com/), read for yourself.
2. The extra money from "pricing" Am payouts goes to either the pro's or the club, or typically both. Everytime you see "Player's pack valued at...." it means 30% of that amount is going to the club/pro payout.
3. The whole problem we have in pro divisions is pro's don't want to play "just" for each other's entry fees. Therefore the extra money for payouts comes from Am entry fees and added cash.

Ams in this sport have come so accustomed to getting rewarded heavily for their play. Taking it away initially might result in fewer sanctioned events and a few grumbly players. However sometimes you have to take a step backwards to take that giant leap forward.

Taking a closer look at restructuring the way the Ams in this sport are paid out, more value in players packs, trophy's for the top competitors as an example already mentioned, will be necessary to further define and grow this sport.

This will help improve our sport at all levels of competition. I am definately FOR less am payout, I dont necessarily think all their money should go to the pro divisions however it will give ams more incentive to move up and grow our pro division.

Somehow the Amateur's perceived notion of playing tournaments needs to be modified. The way the current system is setup will hinder growth in the future if it isn't already. I should also add that this doesnt mean that ams wont get paid out more in the future, but as long as they get paid more to play at an amateur level than most bottom cashing pros there will be no incentive to improve beyond that point and grow the pro division which are the divisions that will attract the big sponsors and will need a much larger member base. As the money grows in open, I can see the rewards for amateurs increasing but never to a level where it pays more to stay am.

Just my opinion... agree or disagree its all good!

Forgot one very important point.

Giving up a full weekend or even one day of the weekend is a big deal to most Ams as well. Especially those that don't plan to be playing on the top card. Tournaments have to give them enough of a return on investment that they will continue to come out and play.

The challenge for low entry fee, trophy only events is making the event special enough to separate it from the local mini.
The challenge for high priced trophy only events is making the event special enough that the players feel they got their money's worth.
Bottom line, the more money and staff you have, the more memorable you can make the event. The more memorable (good memories) the event, the more it is worth to the players in the future and the easier it is to get staff.

If you take away the retail/wholesale markup revenue stream from paying ams in merch, what you will see a whole lot of grumbly pros who will accuse of cheating them because their payouts will go down.

If you disagree with that statement, go out and try to run a tournament that doesn't have the extra cash flow of a USDGC or Memorial. You will then start to understand tournament finances.

I think this is a good discussion, but I think the problem lies in finding a way to keep the pros we have, not forcing Ams to move up. To defend this argument:
Tiger woods won 3 Junior Amatuer Championships and 3 US Amatuer titles.
Do you think when he won those people were calling out "bagger!" NO.
You can't force Ams to move up, they will move up when they are ready. When I hear of pros wanting Ams to move up, it sounds like they are only wanting them to move up while they are not as good, so they can pad their pocket. If they move up when they are ready, they might actually end up taking the "resident" pro's money.

Somehow the Amateur's perceived notion of playing tournaments needs to be modified.


I disagree, but support a wider variety of events types.

I think there is a demand for trophy only style events that could sustain itself in larger markets and not threaten turnout at existing "PDGA" style events.

There is no real reason to abandon the current system entirely just because some Ams win more than some Pros. That is a problem with the current model for funding the Pro tour, not the Am. The existing Am model is healthy and growing as is. It can be supplemented with trophy only options of torphy only events, but should continue as is in either case.

We need to find a reasonable method to raise funds for the Pro tour, and the most reasonable method is to increase the number of players that compete in PDGA associated events. The best way to do that is to give the segment with the largest margin for growth exactly what makes them happy.

It is much easier to get new amateur players.

Many of them like the existing tournament structure and for those, it leads indirectly to the Professional ranks.

There seems to be a large number of players that like a tournament environment without the gambling aspect. I believe that a sanctioning structure needs to be developed taht caters to this class of player. Maybe even a different category and cost of membership.


I can see the rewards for amateurs increasing but never to a level where it pays more to stay am.


Again, I don't see a problem with Ams playing for each other's entry fees at whatever amount they support. If there are enough Ams willing to pay $200 entry fees to play for $1000s in merchandise, then more power to them.

The problem I see is that our Pros are still playing for each other's entry fees. They need to be playing for purses that are funded outside of entry fees, and the entry fees should be used wholly to cover the expenses assiciated with putting on the event.

One part of the equation that can not be ignored regarding having a prize-heavy system for Am�s is the local need for funds to do course improvement and maintenance. That is a major need that currently drives the culture/system.

What I have proposed that we do on a club level (and this could be extrapolated to the PDGA event level) is adding 2 decisions by our competitors that take away the artificial Pro/Am distinction�..and will hopefully make more people more happy:

1a) Choose a $2 entry fee option and forfeit any payout you may earn by your score. That $2 goes to the club. You still get to BagTag, get points toward the club championship standings, and throw for the ace pool (if you opt to enter for $1 extra). This is basically a �trophy only� choice.
1b) Choose to be part of the potential payout. Pay $7 to play. $2 goes to the club, $5 goes to the payout.

2) At payout (for those who chose the $7 option), payout can be taken either in cash at 100% of payout ($5 x # of players taking the payout option), OR take their payout in Merch Bucks at 125% of payout. In other words, if you won $8 you could take $8 in cash or $10 in Merch Bucks.

The goal here is to make our events as accessible to as many people as possible and to make as many people as possible as happy as possible. If we succeed in that, our much needed revenue stream will increase.

Hmmmm....very interesting proposal there MP3.

I like the way that it still preserves an income stream for the club/organizer enough to provide motivation for an organizer to still want to hold an event.

2) At payout (for those who chose the $7 option), payout can be taken either in cash at 100% of payout ($5 x # of players taking the payout option), OR take their payout in Merch Bucks at 125% of payout. In other words, if you won $8 you could take $8 in cash or $10 in Merch Bucks.




This is along the lines of the new option we tried at the Mid-Nats last year. Pros were allowed to convert their merch prizes into cash at 50% of merch coupon value. Instead of making it a $2 tax for the payout division(s), consider the 50% or even 60% conversion. If your club merch cost is 60% of your retail, a 10-person division would produce $28 "profit" (40% x $70) with 100% payout ($70) in certificates or 60% conversion to cash ($42). Your club earns $8 more than the $20 you earn with your model and players would perceive it as 100% payout with no tax.

Maybe there should be a seperate organization for for pros in mind. Possibly formed by the top players in the sport whos main purpose is to get money for A-NT events. Maybe the sport is getting to the point where the PDGA is just trying to juggle too much at once?

With the small number of pros at most events how is this going to attract money outside of the disc golf world?

That is a good proposal, Chuck - I'll need to chew that over and see if that is something worth proposing to the club. The one thing it does not preserve is the "trophy only" option, although I assume you could still offer that (but the numbers would not necessarily work out then the way you are presenting).

To keep this on topic, hopefully some of the people who had questions about "trophy only" will see by the example, that the $2 take the club gets in my example could go to the pro purse.

In a PDGA event the trophy only fee structure could be like this:
PDGA sanctioning fees + insurance + "greens fees"/club fees + $X.XX trophy only fee = total entry fee.

If you advertised that the $X.XX will go to the Pro purse (from entry fees from the AM divisions AND Pro divisions - Open primarily), I think everyone would be cool with that. (I am a huge proponent of treating people like adults via financial openness in tournaments.)

Basically, all the folks who choose "tophy only" would be sponsors of the Pro purses.

With the small number of pros at most events how is this going to attract money outside of the disc golf world?


If you count all the pros instead of just MPO, the numbers aren't as small. You should also look to the "other" pro divisions in the search to increase the ranks of the MPO division.

If you take away the retail/wholesale markup revenue stream from paying ams in merch, what you will see a whole lot of grumbly pros who will accuse of cheating them because their payouts will go down.

If you disagree with that statement, go out and try to run a tournament that doesn't have the extra cash flow of a USDGC or Memorial. You will then start to understand tournament finances.



I understand tournament finances, I never gave immediate viable fixes in my comments, just my thoughts.

Maybe there should be a seperate organization for for pros in mind. Possibly formed by the top players in the sport whos main purpose is to get money for A-NT events. Maybe the sport is getting to the point where the PDGA is just trying to juggle too much at once?

With the small number of pros at most events how is this going to attract money outside of the disc golf world?



Cool concept, that PDGATG (tour group)!

Who will do the work? I suggest the benefactors do the work to organize and beat the bushes for sponsors.

With the small number of pros at most events how is this going to attract money outside of the disc golf world?


If you count all the pros instead of just MPO, the numbers aren't as small. You should also look to the "other" pro divisions in the search to increase the ranks of the MPO division.



I am still talking all the Pro divisions. The numbers just arnt there. There need to be more! Its a combination of a bunch of "small" Pro divisions. Still a small number. 1000 rated Masters players should probably be playing Open division then? Most changes would go against the grain and probably wouldn't be to popular though so i'm stumped right now!

I give alternate scenerios to not drive women out: Chuck Kennedy rejects all suggestions without giving alternate solutions; all we ever seem to get.



Sarah, you are barking at the wrong dog here. Just ask my several friends among the top pro women what I've done to help women over the years and now into the future. It was primarily my lobbying efforts to allow pros to play in am divisions at the same rating level which has allowed women and oldsters options at events with only one or two. I created and hosted the first event (Mid-Nationals) where a woman (Karen Jaskolka) won a major title in a mixed gender division. I'm now lobbying to allow pros playing in am divisions to receive cash at 50% of any merch they win like we tried at Mid-Nats. If you enter an Am division at your rating level, you would likely take home more than you would breaking even by yourself playing pro, even at 50% of merch value.

I pioneered course guidelines to provide appropriate challenges for all skill levels, gathering data from both men and women. Ask Juliana who's a big proponent of skill based course design. Her comment is along the lines of, "Don't make the women play a particular set of tees because we're women, but because we are blue level players, not gold."

There's no question Des has developed more disc skills as a result of the EDGE program. She had to to become a credible teacher. It also puts a little more money in her pocket to sustain life as pro. Several years ago, Harold asked if he could adopt the Skills Challenge (I had already developed in 2001) to become the core of the EDGE course curriculum. Since the gender mix in schools is close to 50/50, I suspect that the EDGE program may do more for women's disc golf than anything else in the long run.

I've done what I can from a mover and shaker and man's perspective. It's up to women to help take it further. I recall you telling me, "You just want to become a top pro by practicing and playing. Let others do the admin stuff to make it happen." It mostly hasn't worked that way for guys, so don't expect wonders for women's advancement without your help at least continuing to recruit.