Why are entry fees higher for Open than Ams? Do Open players ask for higher entry fees? Do 1010 rated pros ask for higher entry fees so that they can win more money? Schwebby? Where exactly is the demand for high entry fees?

Will a higher entry fee attract one touring pro at the expense of detering five local pros for coming? Is this what the PDGA wants? Is this what the competition director wants? Is this what SuperPro want?

I think TDs have this notion that Open players want the highest entry fee possible to feed the kitty.

I am fortunate enough to have won a few open tournaments in my day. One would assume that I would want the highest entry fee possible to ensure a big payout. To the contrary, I would like to see the lowest entry fee possible to encourage more Open players to play. IMO, the cost of entry should not be the determining factor in whether a player attends or not. If I were a chronic donator to the Open field I agree that my opinion might just be considered whining.

PDGA membership costs more for Open players and nearly every PDGA tournament has higher entry fees for Open vs Am. This system seems to further discourage Open players, and respectively encourage ams to play.

The PDGA system is move up, move up, move out. Why should it cost more to be good? Only the PDGA seems to know.

I surmise that the kid who plated 51 PDGAs as an Am last year wouldn't play that many if he played open.

IMO the PDGA is run by ams for ams. Ams entry fees are lower, memberships are lower, yet they get the exact same benefits as Open players.

I personally think high entry fees are due to demand from the ams who have been conditioned to think the should be rewarded for playing at a mediocre level. In the tradition of the PDGA Open entry fees are higher than am entry fees. Therefore, TDs raised entry fees to appease ams and respectively raised pro entry fees for no reason.

I'll finish with a fact. I regularly play with two of the best am players in VA. They both say that high entry fees are the biggest and possibly only reason that they don't move up. I have honestly told them time and again that I support their decision to stay Am 100%. I don't blame them one bit.

I personally think that all entry fees should be rolled back 50% across the board. I also think that Open and Am entry should be the same price at a PDGA so money won't be the reason for choosing a division.

It would be nice to see some tournaments where the entry fee was the same across the board to see how this affected turnout and how many play in each division.

How about another example... why does Advanced pay so much more than Am? At Advanced, I don't have a choice of my division, I have to play at my level. This comes along with a heftier price tag ($20 difference for Bowling Green).

I don't mind playing up, but really, why is there the dramatic increase in entry fee? It's the main thing that makes me regret playing well. :D

I think the answer is pretty simple. Open players ideally want their last place cash prize value to be close to or higher than what the Advanced player wins, especially if the last cash Open player shot a better score. The only way to do that, short of much added cash, is to boost Open entry fees. Don't say the Advanced players should be converted to true Ams and play for trophies. That's not going to happen because they really aren't ams, but players of a certain skill level who have chosen to play for each other's money for merch prizes.

If Open players stop whining about Advanced players winning more than they do and calling them baggers, I see no reason why Open fees couldn't be much lower. There's nothing in the PDGA guidelines that prevents TDs from offering entry fees lower than the guidelines for a particular tier. Persuade TDs that lowering Open entry fees is a good thing and see what happens.

Why does it cost more to go to a movie at night than in the afternoon? Why do certain products cost less than almost identitcal name brand products? Why does a ford cost less than a lexus?

Same answers as why playing pro should cost more than playing am.

Don't say the Advanced players should be converted to true Ams and play for trophies. That's not going to happen because they really aren't ams, but players of a certain skill level who have chosen to play for each other's money for merch prizes.



I think that there may be a slight flaw in that logic. Sure, ams don't mind playing for each other's money in the form of plastic, and maybe we aren't "true" ams, but isn't this the result of business minded TD's that are moving plastic at every tournament that they run? If you make it trophy only, who's going to want to run tournaments? This is also the reason that the original post in this thread indicates that it seems to be "run for ams by ams". The am division is a TD's (plastic middle man) bread and butter.

I agree that higher entry fees deter ams from moving up, especially when a player that is on the line and can play an OK tournament, and walk away with a stack of plastic, or pay $20 more, and possibly win nothing. If you're doing this for fun (i.e. not for a living) this is a pretty obvious decision. And part of the reason for last cash not getting what the winning am gets is due to a flatter payout, but that's another discussion.

Until the PDGA gets the sponsorships (corporate) that make it possible to actually make a living playing our sport, playing pro is just dumb, and a waste of money, unless you're one of 2-5 people in your area, or about 20 worldwide.

I'm not one of them, and I'm comfortable with that.

b/c we are still primarily playing for each other's money. 100 players @ $100 ea = $10,000 pro purse.
100 players @ $50 ea = $5,000 pro purse.

Which looks better on paper? :D

My experience as a tournament director and tournament director's humorous sidekick has been that Open players want to pay more. At our Illinois tournaments where cash payouts are legal, we charge the Open players what our Open playing partner says they want to pay.

At my tournaments in Michigan, I'm charging everyone the same. Having a bunch of entry fees and divisions is just too confusing for whoever is taking the money.

Simple Math:

Minimum pro purse for a B-Tier is $1750 of which $250 must be sponsored (often by the TD). Determine estimated number of players (20) 1500/20 = $75 each.

A-Tier minimum is $6000 with $1000 from sponsorship.
Estimated players: 50; $5000/50 = $100 each.

Beyond that, how many times have you seen a tournament get knocked for a poor payout with no mention of the entry fees, player packs, or ameneties ?

I have never seen a tournament defended because the winner won $500, but the entry fees were only $25.

b/c we are still primarily playing for each other's money. 100 players @ $100 ea = $10,000 pro purse.
100 players @ $50 ea = $5,000 pro purse.

Which looks better on paper? :D



The paper of my checkbook, or the paper of Disc Golf World's list of biggest tournaments? :eek: /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I think the answer is pretty simple. Open players ideally want their last place cash prize value to be close to or higher than what the Advanced player wins, especially if the last cash Open player shot a better score.


Huh. Last place cash in open rarely comes close to first in advanced. I've never heard of that consideration.


The only way to do that, short of much added cash, is to boost Open entry fees.



Or, the more obvious and equitable solution: a very flat payout in the amateur ranks.


Don't say the Advanced players should be converted to true Ams and play for trophies. That's not going to happen because they really aren't ams, but players of a certain skill level who have chosen to play for each other's money for merch prizes.



Why not say it? If one thinks it is needed for the progression of the sport, one should say it strongly and often. It's only a foregone conclusion in your mind. Also, if they really aren't ams, I'll assume they are pros, and if they are pros, why not have them pay the same fees as the other pros which was the topic of the thread.



The point of the thread is important imo, and should really be contemplated by the PDGA. Personally, I doubt the original reason for higher open entry fees is some clever concoction of the PDGA. They probably never gave it much of a thought. The real reason is as Gary mentioned: simple math to meet the tier requirements. A backassward way to do things, but par for the course.

is that Chuck's par 2, or Lowe's Cl;ose Range Par, the course designer's par, or some other formula? :D

Ding Ding Ding. Open entry fees are too high.

$40 for Advanced is a good value. Check the numbers of people pre-reg'ing and playing at this price point.

$75 for Open is not such a good value. Check the numbers of people pre-reg'ing and playing at this price point.


There's also still this dynamic that cantinues to fuel the move up/move up/move out syndrome: when a player reaches the 920+ rating range, they start getting called a bagger for playing am. The Pro entry fee is about twice as much, but the player is expected to just pony up double the cash. If questioned why it costs so much, the standard answer is "if you want to play with the big boys, then ya gots ta pay."

Well, the player had no desire to play with the big boys and therefore no incentive to pay for that "priviledge". But they quit playing am because they were a bagger.

Am field size stays big because a new am discovers tourney golf, pro field stays small.

If pro entry was $5 or $10 more, then I believe more ams would move up instead of moving out.

Or, the more obvious and equitable solution: a very flat payout in the amateur ranks.



If we had true amateur members it might make sense. Maybe some are being developed thru school programs like EDGE. But for now, we have thousands of members and even thousands more nonmembers who enjoy playing to win prizes based on their entry fees. That includes the 10s of thousands who just play for skins among their friends. That's one type of player the PDGA has served and it's been successful despite Polyanna protestations by traditionalists clinging to the outdated Pro/True Am dichotomy. It's been a trichotomy for a long time: Pro/"Am"/True Am. I would guess respective percentages are along the lines of 0.1% / 98% / 1.9%

I think Vince's complaint about this is legit. There are numbers of pros who no longer play much / anymore due to the costs.

However, don't punish those who are good enough to make moeny at it. I think the solution is to pay deeper in the field (which the PDGA has started giving the TD the option to do.

i agree with robert...If the payout is deeper, the only ones who complain are the winners....And its more realistic for the pro/am to play in the the division.

The point of the thread is important imo, and should really be contemplated by the PDGA. Personally, I doubt the original reason for higher open entry fees is some clever concoction of the PDGA. They probably never gave it much of a thought. The real reason is as Gary mentioned: simple math to meet the tier requirements. A backassward way to do things, but par for the course.




James,

The PDGA does not set entry fees, the tournament directors do. The PDGA does provide guidelines for the level of fees based upon the sanctioning tier, but the final decision ultimately rests with the host.

I understand what you are saying and I do not necessarily disagree with you, but it is kind of hard to convince a TD that his/her entry fees are set too high when they are not only filling their events but turning players away.

One thing I have learned from attending several Summit meetings and in speaking with tournament directors and promoters from different parts of the country is that, whats good for some areas is not good for others.

Example:
At the last Summit meeting at the IDGC, the Board discussed the pros and cons of raising the non-member tournament fees instead of membership fees. The folks from the more established disc golf areas generally liked the idea but the folks from emerging areas felt that it would hurt their efforts in attracting new players and encouraging more TD's to sanction their events.

Disc golf is still an emerging sport and is at different developmental levels across the country. Giving the TD's the option to set entry fees appropriate for their area seems like the smart thing to do.

Regards,
Brian Graham

i thought they payed more cuz they got to play from the Gold tees. this makes them walk farther, so they should pay more becuz they are consuming a bigger part of the course.

The PDGA does not set entry fees, the tournament directors do. The PDGA does provide guidelines for the level of fees based upon the sanctioning tier, but the final decision ultimately rests with the host.



I see what you are saying, Brian, but the wording in the agreements that TDs promise to uphold are worded very strongly � not really "guidelines", IMO. More like edicts that will be hard to contest.

Sanctioning agreement:
Agree to follow and enforce the Official Rules of Disc Golf, Competition Manual, and 2007 Tour Standards. If any provision of these documents is unacceptable I shall contact the Tour Manager and request a waiver

2007 Tour Standards
Table 4: 2007 PDGA TOUR ENTRY FEES
TDs are srtongly urged not to exceed the values listed in this table in determining their 2007 PDGA net entry fees.

TDs are srtongly urged not to exceed the values listed in this table in determining their 2007 PDGA net entry fees.




Nothing wrong choosing lower entry fees, of course, which was the point of this thread.

Dave,

As Chuck pointed out, those are guidelines for maximum entry fees. TD's can choose to make their entry fees as low as they choose. I would hardly consider it an edict when it clearly states that those wishing to exceed the maximum need only make a phone call to request a waiver. My experiences working with the PDGA office have always been very positive. They are always willing to work with you to try to overcome any difficulties.

Regards,
Brian Graham

Brian, I totally agree that if a TD is filling their event up, then the entry fee argument is kind of moot. However, there are numerous events that don't even begin to field the open division. In fact, other than worlds, I'm not sure I attended one event last year where the open field filled. The regional variation argument would be more persuasive to me if the PDGA actually addressed the issue, while still allowing flexibility. I get the impression that it is not important to them.

Chuck, once again, you stating that we have amateurs profitting in the sport has absolutely nothing to do with what we should do, or could do. It only takes vision and willpower.

"Vision and willpower" sound like terms for someone willing to form a new organization to address an apparently underserved True Am market (that 1.9% estimate). I think the PDGA is on the right track serving the 98% "amateur" group, that maybe could be called something else if we found a better term than what the mostly "amateurs" are called in the exceedingly fast growing and popular "sport" of poker. In the process of serving our 98% "Am" market, the 0.1% Pro group will continue to benefit.

thank you for your post. i think you are hitting on a big reason many don't stay with our sport after improving as am.s.
As a master, i am not interested in donating to Open unless i get a LOT better first. However, if you charged considerably more to play in the Masters division than to play Open -- i would play Open.

the very best Pros won't like lower entry fees because that is from where most of the payout comes. But the majority of players would probably prefer it. A few years of that format might grow the ranks enough to get sponsors to boost the purse. But i doubt the majority who would benefit from lower Open fees have enough clout with those in charge to get far with this. i get the impression that the leadership is mostly am.s catering to am.s and to the TOP pros who showcase what we'd like to see the "P" in PDGA be all about. lesser Pros get the short stick and that is why it is so hard to get am.s to move up, Masters to play open, and low level Pros to hang around as members of the PDGA (instead of playing local non-PDGA monthly events instead).

i think payout is being given top consideration at the expense of the growth of tournament play and at creating a system which encourages players to play up a division. TD's don't want to disappoint the winners of their tournaments or be criticized by top Pros.

if i am missing something, let me know.

You're all missing something on the topic of why middling pros leave. When people get as good as they are going to get at a game, they quit liking the game for the challenge of getting better. If the game does not have intrinsic value for them, they look for a new challenge.

Competitive people leave all kinds of stuff when they are as good as they are going to get and they decide otherwise it doesn't grab them as much as the challenge of a new game.

There are middling pros running tournaments everywhere you look. If entry fees were causing them to leave the sport, I think they'd just run more tournaments with the entry fees they want to pay.

Idiots can run tournaments and frequently do. If there was a huge cry for lower pro entry fees, some idiot would fill that gap and offer lower pro entry fees. :D

your post mentions the pdga fee as well as tournament fees. the only argument i've heard to justify a higher pro pdga fee is that they somehow garner the lion's share of pdga "benefits."

using this logic, i'd be interested in finding out what the increase was for pdga members residing in the augusta, georgia vicinity. anyone know?

your post mentions the pdga fee as well as tournament fees. the only argument i've heard to justify a higher pro pdga fee is that they somehow garner the lion's share of pdga "benefits."

using this logic, i'd be interested in finding out what the increase was for pdga members residing in the augusta, georgia vicinity. anyone know?



Kevin,

I'd be more than happy to answer your question if I can but I'm not quite sure I understand what you are asking. :confused:

If you are saying that we should be charged more because we will benefit from the IDGC more than I would agree with you and tell you that we are paying much more. The PDGA didn't come here out of the blue to build the IDGC for us. We took the initiative and created the IDGC for the PDGA and the sport of disc golf. We are responsible for getting nearly $500,000 appropriated for the IDGC from the Columbia County government and another $1 million in lakefront property. We are also the ones you will see out there working on the IDGC courses, running fundraiser tournaments and seeking sponsors. The Augusta Disc Golf Association is proud to be a $5,000 cash sponsor of the IDGC and we donated an additional $11,000 to the IDGC through hosting the Pro Worlds last year.

Regards,
Brian Graham

Chuck, are you in the mind of all the members? More importantly, are you in the mind of all potential members? Even more importantly, do you ever consider "equity" in how things could be?

You always assume that our structure is the most successful option, based on your changing goals. Sometimes, you assert that the goal is to get the most people playing, and then assume this structure has accomplished that. Othertimes, you assert that the goal is support the top 0.1% (a very debatable goal in itself) and then assume this structure has been the best at acheiving that goal. If that is the case, why isn't the touring class flourishing? Has their return on investment actually increased much in the last ten years? Are we getting closer to some threshold where people making a living will start to rapidly grow? So, I doubt you can even support the assertion that our system is actually acheiving your questionable goal.

btw, your comparison to poker is couterproductive to your argument. The "sport" of poker encorages players to get better. People don't get better and decide to drop out. If the lure of poker was solely economic (ie. return on investment), just the opposite would be occuring: lesser skilled players would be dropping out because their return is negative, while players with improving skills remain because their return improves as their skills improve. In a macro sense, I bet this does occur in poker, but the phenomenon is partially dampened by the primary motivation of pokers popularity: the obsession with gambling.

I doubt many poker players long for the good old days when their skills were less refined, but their return on investment was greater.

hey brian,

i was merely pointing out the flawed logic of charging pros more than ams based on some idea of benefits. clearly living in the augusta area is/will be quite a benefit to a pdga member. i apologize to use you as an example but it seemed the most appropriate to my argument. i know how hard you work because i keep up with it here on-line. now if someone were to move to augusta in a year or two after all the hard work...well maybe then my argument would make better sense.

if only they would eliminate the pro/am classification completely i'd be able to keep my foot out of my mouth. there is no reason for it to exist at all.

keep up the good work,

kevin

ps maybe the pdga should charge that am that played in way too many tournaments last year more for the extra benefits he received.

ps maybe the pdga should charge that am that played in way too many tournaments last year more for the extra benefits he received.



I believe he likely paid more total fees to the PDGA than most if not all members last year.

I would be surprised if anyone paid more total fees to the PDGA last year than my brother Jon. Players don't pay those fees. TDs do. If players paid those fees, whether to sanction or not would be a no brainer. If the PDGA were to bill the players for those fees, and not the TDs, can you imagine the uproar that would cause? That's why the Federal government collects half of your social security tax from your employer. Most tax payers are too stupid to realize whether their employer pays it or they do, it comes out of the employees pay. Shoot, most employees are too stupid to even know that tax exists. I think the PDGA gets by the same way.

Chuck, are you in the mind of all the members? More importantly, are you in the mind of all potential members? Even more importantly, do you ever consider "equity" in how things could be?



You assume I'm driving some master plan versus just being one of the leaders among those listening to the members and TDs, observing what seems to work and trying to make the competition system work even better for members. By doing so, we attract more members with the same type of interest. We have no evidence to indicate we're not growing as fast as reasonable. For example, if the PDGA doubled tomorrow, we couldn't handle it. It will be interesting to see if we go to a second shift to fit in the new IDGC building if we double in 5-7 years at the rate we're growing. I'm sure technology improvements will help handle some of this growth.

If you're asking about "how things could be", my version of utopia doesn't match your old school ideal of Pro & Am (for sports in general) nor does mine even match what I believe members currently like or will like. Several years ago, I gave up on a purely ratings based system that eliminates all gender and age divisions. That's my theoretical ideal. However, I think ratings based division breaks the way we're doing them can nicely coexist with age and gender divisions because our members and I suspect thousands of other potential members LIKE them. I like them too and would miss playing with my age and gender peers if the PDGA went lock step into some streamlined pure ratings based system with 8 or 9 divisions from top to bottom as the only competition format.

If any spectators actually cared to watch the top pros, then sponsors might be coming onboard faster than they are. Until then, successful growth in the Am ranks helps provide some added cash for pros along with special disc fundraising programs from our manufacturers and gracious, mostly altruistic support from businesses outside the sport. Some like Microtel and Bite might actually breakeven or better on their investments in the short term and will generate loyalty from disc golfers for the longer haul because they believed in the sport as our early outside sponsors.

chuck, i agree with most of what you wrote, and also with where james is coming from. one question - can Bite really be considered an outsider?

I believe Bite made shoes for several other sports before disc golf. So, I would think they at least initially came to this sport as an outsider interested to see what opportunities were here.

chuck, i agree with most of what you wrote, and also with where james is coming from. one question - can Bite really be considered an outsider?

Yes. We're way outside golf but worming in. Bite is way inside golf and breaking out. They picked their name because it is what golfers yell when they hit the ball a little too fast onto the green, not because they were trying to describe how they feel about flat PDGA payout tables.

Entry Fees are being partly driven by TD ego, partly by status quo advocates, but fueled largely by the flawed PDGA competitive system. The sanctioning system and rated tier system has been put together and changed over the past decade in ways that has resulted in the lower tiers "base price" (typically a one day-2 round event) at about $35-$40 for Open, with declining fees for other divisions. Up the sanctioning for BTiers a notch, and you've got $50-$70 entry fees for open - and the lure of a few traveling players willing to play for slightly higher fees. Up to ATier and all of a sudden we're pushing $100 bucks to play.
Well it is and is not the TD's fault for wanting his tournament to be "a big draw", be highly regarded by players who travel to play, and make the list of the country's "biggest purses" - who wouldn't want those things?

The problem is - that the PDGA's system of requiring higher total purses, is not tied to a TD's willingness (or any requirement) to go out and raise money to meet those standards - so more often than not, the burden is borne by the players through higher entry fees.

In our rush to welcome every player with a new course (that wants to run a big tournament) into the sanctioning fold - we have sacrificed almost all sense of control over event quality. The "financial necessity" model of maximizing the number of events and player fees is a driver of this reality.

The results:
1) A tournament schedule so full that people 's traveling radius has shrunk to the point where going more than 2 hrs turns them off. So attendance is down at many lower tier events.
2) A divisional system so inequitable, the only way to ensure the best players get the highest rewards is to charge them ridiculous entry fees.

Sort of a vicious circle. It's good to want people to play. It's good to want to offer them an organized venue to play. It's even good to want to offer more than just the best players a chance to "win". But we've gone way past what's reasonable. Even CK's "ideal" of a pure ratings based system with 8 OR 9 total divisions top to bottom (which he claims is beyond plausibility) is to many divisions.

Chuck - you posted elsewhere that you have the numbers to show that older players "better skills" in the woods, are offset by their lack of distance in the open, but that overall their scores show them at the same skill level as their younger(similarly rated) counterparts. If in the end - the score is the same - why should they be divided?

Simple solution really - make all the mens entry fees the same, and put them all in the same division. Pay deeper in the field, with special recognition prizes for categorical entrants. Those prizes would be commensurate with their total score in the field of all players, assuring equity in prize distribution. Much like we don't HAVE TO be stuck with our divisional system, we dont HAVE TO be stuck with our entry fee and payout structure either.

No TD is stuck with any of the constraints you've mentioned with the exception of the PDGA minimum expected purses on higher tier events. The B-tier has become somewhat less desireable for some TDs economically since they can sanction at C-tier level, save a few bucks and save their players a buck and still have just as much added cash as a B-tier. It keeps the entry fees lower but players sacrifice some points versus a B-tier.

I've always been for the higher sanctioning levels to be based on added cash not total purse. But most of the time, TDs don't know at the time of scheduling and sanctioning if they can get the B-tier added cash they might need. So it falls on the player entry fees to provide backup to meet the PDGA numbers.

On the other topic, I'm not saying the 8 or 9 rating levels can't work, just not as the only competition structure available. I don't believe gender and age will go away as a preference for weekend warriors no matter how much money comes into the sport. At the higher skill levels, much higher purses will eventually shift the top older players to Open for as long as they can hang/qualify.

Simple solution really - make all the mens entry fees the same, and put them all in the same division. Pay deeper in the field, with special recognition prizes for categorical entrants. Those prizes would be commensurate with their total score in the field of all players, assuring equity in prize distribution.



When is your next event and will it be using the above format?

Simple solution really - make all the mens entry fees the same, and put them all in the same division. Pay deeper in the field, with special recognition prizes for categorical entrants. Those prizes would be commensurate with their total score in the field of all players, assuring equity in prize distribution. Much like we don't HAVE TO be stuck with our divisional system, we dont HAVE TO be stuck with our entry fee and payout structure either.



Craig,

I really like that format and that was exactly my intention for the inaugural Disc Golf Hall of Fame Classic NT event in 2003. I wanted to offer only two divisions; open men and open women. My plan was to pay deeper into the field and to pay bonus money to the top 3 Masters, GM's, etc to encourage players from the age protected divisions to compete. I was also going to honor the top finishing amateur player. I've always loved the tradition at the Masters golf tournament where they recognize and honor the top amateur finisher each year at the green jacket ceremony.

When the NT committee began its planning for the tour, it was recommended that all of the event formats be standardized so in the interest of solidarity, I reluctantly voted with the committee to standardize the formats. I'm still not convinced that we made the correct decision in that regard. I like the idea of giving the TD's more flexibility in running their events.

While I think it would be a great format for certain Majors and NT's, since those events are intended to be geared towards spectators, I do not think that it should be the format for all events.

Regards,
Brian Graham

if only they would eliminate the pro/am classification completely i'd be able to keep my foot out of my mouth. there is no reason for it to exist at all.



I am an Am for life and do not want to be forced to play for money, or against players who take winning or losing way too seriously and get grumpy, instead of having fun.

I don't mind watching those guys, but I don't necessarily want to play with them for dollars. And I am pretty sure that I am "in the mind" of most PDGA members as well as prospective members.

if only they would eliminate the pro/am classification completely i'd be able to keep my foot out of my mouth. there is no reason for it to exist at all.



I am an Am for life and do not want to be forced to play for money, or against players who take winning or losing way too seriously and get grumpy, instead of having fun.



That is a pretty dismal perspective on all the players who choose to play Pro! :mad: Are you suggesting that there are not as many Am's that whine?

Chances are that with a rating like yours (and mine, for that matter) you would not be playing for money (we'd be donating) and you would not be playing with people with an expectation to win cash....therefore there would probably be less whining.

I am an Am for life and do not want to be forced to play for money, or against players who take winning or losing way too seriously and get grumpy, instead of having fun.



So Terry, you say you don't want to play for money, but you're willing to pay to play in organized events?
And you also want control over who you compete against correct? Since I don't play with Ams in competition (only because the PDGA does not allow it - certainly not by choice), am I to assume that you want me to believe folks in Advanced or other Am divisions don't get grumpy or throw temper tantrums when they play poorly? SORRY NOT BUYING IT!!!!

Your comments illustrate perfectly the claims of self serving motivations levied at myself and others who disavow the sanctity of the PDGA's divisional system - except they are on the other foot.

It all comes down to competition - if you don't want to pay to compete - you don't have to - no ones forcing you. But if you do want to pay to compete - that's the one thing you should be forced to do - COMPETE!!

Simple solution really - make all the mens entry fees the same, and put them all in the same division. Pay deeper in the field, with special recognition prizes for categorical entrants. Those prizes would be commensurate with their total score in the field of all players, assuring equity in prize distribution.



When is your next event and will it be using the above format?

I'm doing a one division, one entry fee tournament Easter weekend on the Saturday. I'm not motivated by any of the concerns expressed above, however, so the format is nothing like that.

At the venue where I'll do the tournament, insurance is required. The tournament format does not quite fit into the PDGA doubles format, but it fits if everyone plays Open pro, trophy-only. So everyone will pay a very low Open Pro trophy-only entry fee of $10 per team [doubles] to enter the PDGA sanctioned tournament. There will be the option to also pay for full amenities for $40 more per team, where the full amenities include a players' pack, CTPs, and ratings based competition for prizes. But the upgrade will be treated as a sidegame. Just like you can pay extra for an ace pool or CTPs that is a sidegame within the game, at this tournament these kinds of amenities are being bundled as one optional sidegame.

When is your next event and will it be using the above format?



My next event is the "Faux Leap Day" Tournament the last Sunday in February. It is unsanctioned and will more then likely be a ratings based event. This event has been my laboratory for several years, where I continue to try format variations to see what might work more equitably than the status quo divisional structure. Some ideas have been more successful than others.

One idea that was well received was a sliding entry fee based on rating. We had 3 mens divisions 940+ was gold, 880-939 was Silver, and under 880 was Bronze. 1000+ rated players payed $50 to play, and the entry fee slid down $5 for every 20 points in rating. This made the whole fee structure more palatable to those that showed up. Status quo attitudes, and fear of change, made the field a little smaller than expected - but was well received by those that showed.

It all comes down to competition - if you don't want to pay to compete - you don't have to - no ones forcing you. But if you do want to pay to compete - that's the one thing you should be forced to do - COMPETE!!



I think your premise is wrong. Not wrong about competition, but as it pertains to an individual sports. In DG you are competing against the course; you are not forced to compete against other players.

Now don't get me wrong - you can compete in DG, but you are not forced to. I liken it to a foot race. I ran track and loved the 1600m much more than the 400m & 800M which I also ran. The 1600m allowed me to be tactical where the other 2 were just more of a flat-out sprint. If the competition was known to be equal, there would be lots of head games during the race between me and the other runner(s). But if the competition was well above me or well below me, I would just run my race hitting my ideal splits as close as possible trying to attain a new personal record.

Same with DG, but it might be even easier in DG to tune out the competition and just play your game. Play within yourself, play the course......and you will give yourself the best chance to achieve your best score. Let others get in your head, and you probably will not get your best score.

Bottom line, DG is NOT about competition with others. Therefore, if you are really all about true and pure competion, it makes zero difference what division you are in as long as you play the same course.

Do you not think the winner of MPM (really every MPM) compares his score to MPO and sees where he would have placed overall? Do you not think the winner of MPO feels less about his win if the winner of MPM had a better score? If you are talking about pure/real competition, the answers to these questions will go a long way.

I wish the NT Committee has stuck to the original plan of MPO and FPO divisions only for the NT Events. We would have a couple of years worth of data on how that was working by now. But since they caved and offered Masters the first year and now every friggin' division of any other ole tourney, there really isn't much difference in an NT event and a top A-tier event.

It's probably to late to herd the cats back into the corral at this point.

I'm in there plugging away on the Comp Committee to reinstate the two divisions as intended. Of course we already had an NT tournament defection with other new rules generally agreed upon for this year. So, the TDs still have the upper hand and that will continue until a major sponsor provides enough cash and requirements to make TDs want to be part of a standardized format.

One idea that was well received was a sliding entry fee based on rating. We had 3 mens divisions 940+ was gold, 880-939 was Silver, and under 880 was Bronze. 1000+ rated players payed $50 to play, and the entry fee slid down $5 for every 20 points in rating.



Talking about head games, I love this idea. It puts more financial pressure on the top players to win and rewards the lesser rated players if they over-achieve. I love it!

I think I would like it even better if the pay-in curve was doubled to $5 per 10 rating points:
<table border="1"><tr><td>Rating</td><td> Your way</td><td> steeper curve
</td></tr><tr><td>1000+</td><td> $50</td><td> $50
</td></tr><tr><td>990-999</td><td> $45</td><td> $45
</td></tr><tr><td>980-989</td><td> $45</td><td> $40
</td></tr><tr><td>970-979</td><td> $40</td><td> $35
</td></tr><tr><td>960-969</td><td> $40</td><td> $30
</td></tr><tr><td>950-959</td><td> $35</td><td> $25
</td></tr><tr><td>940-949</td><td> $35</td><td> $20</tr></td></table>

At 940-949, I still like my chances better buying 20 Powerball tickets...

I truly do believe that for the majority of tournaments the format we have now is fine. As more and more tournaments start to fill up then yes there may need to be an alternate structure for some larger tournaments. But I truly do hope that they never completely do away with the format we have now. If it were not for the structure we have now I feel a lot of people would have never given tournaments a try for the feeling of being out of place. I believe the majority are happy with the structure we have now or at least more happy with it than any other option that I have heard.

Also I just have to point out a flaw in the standard response to why they won't change the system. I find it hillarious that people say they won't change the system because they don't want to upset status quo just keep making everyone happy. So I guess my response is does it make more sense to change something that the majority is happy with to make a few people happy. :confused:

At 940-949, I still like my chances better buying 20 Powerball tickets...



:D

But....it depends on how many 940-960 players there are. If the field is heavily loaded towards the bottom end, the 940 rated guy (or girl?) might hit the jackpot (last cash) if he plays well. Even my sorry-arse 943 rated self has beaten a fair share of 955-975 guys in PDGA play this year.

In the long run, we might be able to develop a parimutuel wagering operation where players and spectators could buy chances that would pay out based on how much is wagered on a player. The top 1/3 cashing would receive payouts based on the wagering. I suppose players would all have to be in for an entry fee to reduce the chances of someone "throwing" a match (hehe).

Now that is kinda a cool idea. I think I am going to give this a whirl. I run an annual weekend event that is a 1-day C-Tier (Renny Mules) followed by a seeded skins tournament (Renny Muleskins) where the seeding for the Muleskins groups are based on players' finish in the Mules. They higher your group is, the more each skin is worth. Added cash makes it that the bottom group gets their money back (each player has the chance to 4x their entry fee if they win all skins) and the highest group is 2-3x that.

I think I might do an unsanctioned Saturday Mulerace with sideaction based on horse-racing. Place your bet on a player to win, place or show in their division and get paid out based on the odds of that player winning (I'll need to concoct a way to do that based on player ratings).

Somethig to think about at least........ :cool:

I think the player ratings are only used like the betting tip sheets at the track. The odds and payout for a player are based on the actual dollars wagered on them regardless of rating, and then which position they finish.

Interesting Bruce. I think this is what we need to see more of...creative thinking by TDs. Don't be afraid to bend and push the "vague" wording of the sanctioning agreement or 07 competition manual. The answer to the "move up move up move out" theory will be solved by trial and error....not by individuals bickering (I say bickering, but I do recognize that the thoughts on this thread do lead to positive ideas) on the board.

One pet peave of mine is individuals trying to run "Top Notch" tournaments (this mainly equals payout among other things), yet they don't do the leg work to get local sponsors. If that means going door to door or asking any disc golfer if they work for a small business who can contribute, that's what needs to be done. We always say "until sponsorship grows" we can't acheive a solution to the division and payout problems we see today. Maybe the PDGA can provide (or re-evaluate) a sponsorship "how to" guide to assist first time (or long time) TDs.

I know a bit about odds making.

Do people really want to bet on disc golf?
I could start a website:
www.betdiscgolf.com (http://www.betdiscgolf.com)

You struggle with the math for ratings, parimutuel math is much tougher. :D

One pet peave of mine is individuals trying to run "Top Notch" tournaments (this mainly equals payout among other things), yet they don't do the leg work to get local sponsors. If that means going door to door or asking any disc golfer if they work for a small business who can contribute, that's what needs to be done. We always say "until sponsorship grows" we can't acheive a solution to the division and payout problems we see today. Maybe the PDGA can provide (or re-evaluate) a sponsorship "how to" guide to assist first time (or long time) TDs.

There are basically three kinds of sponsorship, the even exchange kind, the begging for crumbs kind and the sweat equity kind. I don't expect any TD to go begging door to door or working a second job to support itinerant disc golf pros. Getting a bunch of $50 donations from Joe's Body Shop and Carl's Car Wash is not what will take the game to the next level of sponsorship. We need sponsors who are looking for us because everyone is playing the game.

Growing this game into a national pasttime is what will bring in respectable levels of sponsorship. That won't be accomplished by spending our money on a few pros at every tournament. If we wanted to grow this sport into a national pasttime we'd abolish the B and C-tier pro divisions entirely for about ten years, and spend the savings on Skillshots for middle schools.

We played games that ended with the word "ball" in my schools growing up and guess what I watch on TV? Games that end in the word ball. Get kids playing games that begin with the throwing of a disc, and we'll raise sponsorship for this game that top level players can live well on.

I am one of those players that hasnt moved up due to entry fees at pro events. i added up the difference between the pro entries and am entries in the tournments I played in last year. If I would have played pro I would have spent over 700 dollars more. The Master's Cup was 100 dollars difference alone. I will move up next year but will play alot less tournments unless fees get lower.

In the long run, we might be able to develop a parimutuel wagering operation where players and spectators could buy chances that would pay out based on how much is wagered on a player. The top 1/3 cashing would receive payouts based on the wagering. I suppose players would all have to be in for an entry fee to reduce the chances of someone "throwing" a match (hehe).

Sure, and in the long run we could all wind up in jail or get our knuckles broken by the mafia, depending upon who finds out about our parimutuel scheme first.

I did say the process might involve a "long run" /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

One idea that was well received was a sliding entry fee based on rating. We had 3 mens divisions 940+ was gold, 880-939 was Silver, and under 880 was Bronze. 1000+ rated players payed $50 to play, and the entry fee slid down $5 for every 20 points in rating.



Talking about head games, I love this idea. It puts more financial pressure on the top players to win and rewards the lesser rated players if they over-achieve. I love it!

I think I would like it even better if the pay-in curve was doubled to $5 per 10 rating points:
<table border="1"><tr><td>Rating</td><td> Your way</td><td> steeper curve
</td></tr><tr><td>1000+</td><td> $50</td><td> $50
</td></tr><tr><td>990-999</td><td> $45</td><td> $45
</td></tr><tr><td>980-989</td><td> $45</td><td> $40
</td></tr><tr><td>970-979</td><td> $40</td><td> $35
</td></tr><tr><td>960-969</td><td> $40</td><td> $30
</td></tr><tr><td>950-959</td><td> $35</td><td> $25
</td></tr><tr><td>940-949</td><td> $35</td><td> $20</tr></td></table>




At 940-949, I still like my chances better buying 20 Powerball tickets...



Yes, but in the steeper curve example, players in that skill range are still only paying a measly $20 for the joy of competition and participating in the event, as opposed to a hefty $50 in our current system. I don't know many people that would gripe about donating $20. The typical $50 entry fee is prohibitive and almost singlehandedly responsible for my lack of participation in PDGA-sanctioned events. If all PDGA tournaments were based on such a sliding-scale entry fee system, I'd attend as many as possible in my local region.

From a practical standpoint, it's a better deal than paying a 'Trophy Only' entry fee since you have an outside chance of cashing. It's up to the TDs like Craig to try these ideas. There's nothing in the PDGA sanctioning that prevents this ramped entry fee that I can see. It might be good to get it sanctioned as an X-tier so players are alert that there's something unique about the format. But I'm not sure it's necessary if the fees are announced well in advance.

From a practical standpoint, it's a better deal than paying a 'Trophy Only' entry fee since you have an outside chance of cashing. It's up to the TDs like Craig to try these ideas. There's nothing in the PDGA sanctioning that prevents this ramped entry fee that I can see. It might be good to get it sanctioned as an X-tier so players are alert that there's something unique about the format. But I'm not sure it's necessary if the fees are announced well in advance.



I'm not sure I like the idea of having to pay more for having a higher rating. :confused:

If you don't play, then you just let the lower rated guys share the added cash...

From a practical standpoint, it's a better deal than paying a 'Trophy Only' entry fee since you have an outside chance of cashing. It's up to the TDs like Craig to try these ideas. There's nothing in the PDGA sanctioning that prevents this ramped entry fee that I can see. It might be good to get it sanctioned as an X-tier so players are alert that there's something unique about the format. But I'm not sure it's necessary if the fees are announced well in advance.



I'm not sure I like the idea of having to pay more for having a higher rating. :confused:

This might be a reason for offering this type of entry fee structure. 1000 rated players who don't like donors getting a discount can go play the A-tier that weekend.

From a practical standpoint, it's a better deal than paying a 'Trophy Only' entry fee since you have an outside chance of cashing. It's up to the TDs like Craig to try these ideas. There's nothing in the PDGA sanctioning that prevents this ramped entry fee that I can see. It might be good to get it sanctioned as an X-tier so players are alert that there's something unique about the format. But I'm not sure it's necessary if the fees are announced well in advance.



I'm not sure I like the idea of having to pay more for having a higher rating. :confused:



since you expect to cash and win your entry fee back anyways -- what's the big deal? :eek: :D

the advantage is it would get more people to sign up, and thus strengthen the purse

From a practical standpoint, it's a better deal than paying a 'Trophy Only' entry fee since you have an outside chance of cashing. It's up to the TDs like Craig to try these ideas. There's nothing in the PDGA sanctioning that prevents this ramped entry fee that I can see. It might be good to get it sanctioned as an X-tier so players are alert that there's something unique about the format. But I'm not sure it's necessary if the fees are announced well in advance.



I'm not sure I like the idea of having to pay more for having a higher rating. :confused:



since you expect to cash and win your entry fee back anyways -- what's the big deal? :eek: :D

the advantage is it would get more people to sign up, and thus strengthen the purse



OK so 20 people show up and pay $50 for a total of $1000 at a B-tier. Now what you are saying is that we would have a bigger purse with these reduced fees for lower rated players right?

Well let's say that with the reduced fees 25 guys show up and 3 guys were 1000+ ($150) 4 were 990+ ($180) 5 were 980+ ($240) 6 are 970+ ($210) and 5 were 960+ ($150). There is WAY LESS money overall and per cashing player $930/10= $93.
With our current system it would have been $125 per cashing player.

I don't see how this will increase our current payouts. I mean even if 10 940+ guys showed up and played only $200 bucks would go into the pot and it would be $113 per cashing player.

From a practical standpoint, it's a better deal than paying a 'Trophy Only' entry fee since you have an outside chance of cashing. It's up to the TDs like Craig to try these ideas. There's nothing in the PDGA sanctioning that prevents this ramped entry fee that I can see. It might be good to get it sanctioned as an X-tier so players are alert that there's something unique about the format. But I'm not sure it's necessary if the fees are announced well in advance.



I'm not sure I like the idea of having to pay more for having a higher rating. :confused:



since you expect to cash and win your entry fee back anyways -- what's the big deal? :eek: :D

the advantage is it would get more people to sign up, and thus strengthen the purse



The big deal is that I am being forced to pay more because I have a higher rating. :DI guess I should just play horrible rounds so that I could get back down to 940 and then play well at an A-tier eh? It isn't right to punish players for being "good".

The big deal is that I am being forced to pay more because I have a higher rating. :DI guess I should just play horrible rounds so that I could get back down to 940 and then play well at an A-tier eh? It isn't right to punish players for being "good".



OK then. Offer a trophy-only option for $20 for all the highly skilled players who feel "punished" and have such low self-confidence that they feel they will not be a top finisher. :o :D

You can speculate all you want. Until you host actual events with actual entry fees and actual decisions by players at these levels and have actual results, everyone is just guessing. It's similar to handicap leagues where typically the top players eventually don't want to play because they have to play so well to offset their add-back handicap and finish first.

The Expert option will do a better job putting more cash in the pockets of the top pros since they'll get it as additional added cash from the wholesale/retail differential in Expert instead of getting more players at a discounted entry fee who will take money away depending on how deep the payout goes.

From a stats standpoint, Matt, would you be willing to play a guy at 970 rating, six individual rounds where you pay him $50 if he wins a round and he pays you $20 if you win a round? (The 970 guy is the sucker in this bet.)

I have no problem with TDs exploring this option, but Matt's argument is legitimate, and shouldn't be taken lightly, especially by a competitive organization.

The appeal of this setup is that is acknowledges that we are gambling and attempts to create a bet more people will make, and will therefore encourage people to play up. The downside is that it penalizes excellence, and is therefore inherently unfair.

In sum, it would be a step in the right direction, but why not go further: set up a system which doesn't penalize excellence but still acknowledges that we are gambling, and tries to offer more attractive bets.

btw Chuck, your assertion that the expert division is some kind of fix is naive. It is basically the pro 2 option that people rejected, and will simply transfer the ills in the present system upward. In other words, it's just another version of the same ole, same ole.

btw Chuck, your assertion that the expert division is some kind of fix is naive. It is basically the pro 2 option that people rejected, and will simply transfer the ills in the present system upward. In other words, it's just another version of the same ole, same ole.



Not even close to the same. Pro 2 was another parallel division that stole players from both Pro and Advanced that was capped at 950. I've always supported Craig's efforts to streamline the number of overlapping divisions to the extent members are willing to comply. At the time, pros couldn't play in the pseudo-am division we call Advanced. Now they can. That was one reason Pro 2 wasn't continued. In addition, TDs didn't like it because pros in the prizes got cash and ams got merch. It made it impossible to make payout calcs until TDs knew the number and position of ams and pros in the prizes.

The Expert option boils down to simple facts. First, almost 100% of our members do not make a living from their skills playing the sport. They are not pros. If you accept that, then having another fair ratings based division above Advanced is a logical step for our non-pro divisions that win prizes/cash. To not do so is a form of ratings discrimination with Advanced currently going from 915 to 1000. With pros entering Expert and having the option to convert their merch winnings to cash at 50%, TDs also won't have the same financial issue that plagued Pro 2.

Nevermind. Things will never change. We have too many cash divisions splitting the talent pool.

I think the best argument for an Expert division is simply the current Advanced division. It is 90 points wide right now!

The Expert division is not going to overlap with the Open division any more than the current Advanced division does because it is the same people. We'd just be telling some people who are competing in the advanced division, "You can stay amateur or go pro, but you aren't going to compete against people 50, 60, 70 or 80 rating points below you."

I think once we tell those players they cannot hang out in Advanced for easy pickings, they'll move along to pro. But if they have to play for prizes while waiting for Worlds or Am Nationals, they can play for prizes against similarly skilled players.

90 points wide? 915-1005? I don't think so because 90% of players move up when they hit 975 unless they are going to AM worlds. I have yet to see a 990 rated player in ADV for more thatn a few months.

ADV players make more $$$$ then most "Pros". That in itself is not right.

You need to go look at ratings for amateurs. The top amateur has a rating of 1002 right now. Maybe he was just scamming for a lower membership fee using the amnesty, but I don't know that. I do know that there are over 300 amateurs rated over 955.

By splitting off the top amateurs into another division, amateurs won't make more than pros. Top amateurs won't make much at all because they'd be in a very small division.

I don't think this is so complicated. Pros compete for added cash. Extra money thrown into the pot from sponsors, sometimes even from other divisions' entry fees :eek:. They are already competing for more money than they colectively put in, I think it's right that the cost for that privelege should be a bit higher. Pros also get actual cash, not merchandise that must be converted into cash, almost always at a rate less than 1:1.

There are good aruments on either side of the fence... but IMHO, lowering the entry fees for pros cheapens the sport (no pun intended). Sure, pros are happier because the lower fees encourage mediocre players to move up and donate to their pot... but then TDs are making even less money and there is a drop in number of tournaments.

I really don't think the current structure needs changing. It costs more to play in more competitive divisions... but it costs less to play in the lower ones. I think that's what everyone is missing. New players get to come experience tournament play without risking a huge chunk of change in doing so. Look at fees as discounted for lower divisions rather than incremented for higher ones, and you might get a different perspective on the issue.

ADV players make more $$$$ than most "Pros". That in itself is not right.




Exactly. Another reason why Expert will reduce that problem by making Advanced smaller and their payouts smaller. Expert will be maybe a half to a third the size of Advanced at A-tiers (the only tier where Expert is proposed to exist BTW) and you'll see much smaller top Expert payouts, especially compared with lower Open payouts.

"Expert" will be exactly what todays "advanced" is. You are simply wordsmithing and boundary shifting. The core problems remain. Why not just address the core problems and be done with it?

Why not just address the core problems and be done with it?



I agree. But I think more believe the core problems for this level of player is fairer competition for non-pros that also pushes more money toward "true" pros, rather than having these same skill level players at A-tiers in separate divisions where the pros are donators and the top Advanced reap big rewards.

Why not just address the core problems and be done with it?



I agree. But I think more believe the core problems for this level of player is fairer competition for non-pros that also pushes more money toward "true" pros, rather than having these same skill level players at A-tiers in separate divisions where the pros are donators and the top Advanced reap big rewards.



So maybe I missed it, but what is the core problem?

However you define the "problems" or shortcomings of our competitive system, there are bound to be dualing problems.

The challenge is to find the best balance and that can only be done by determining the relative severity of each of the problems. People will argue until the cows come home (probably longer)about this. It all depends on what is most important to you.

IMO, sorting this out to match the mission and goals of the PDGA (and putting a competitve system in place that reflects this) is what the the leadership (BoD and sub committees) is all about.

So maybe I missed it, but what is the core problem?



I think the Core Problems are agreed upon:

having these same skill level players (950-985) at A-tiers in separate divisions where the pros are donators and the top Advanced reap big rewards



I believe James and Craig want more players in the 940-990 range to feel challenged entering pro and competing to get batter rather than becoming complacent by winning big rewards in Advanced for scores that aren't as good as pros who don't even cash.

I say that players in the 950-985 range are non-pros and should also be playing together at A-tiers rather than split into Pro and Am divisions but play in a hybrid merch/cash division called Expert. This smaller division would have lower prizes than current Advanced division and current Advanced division would also be smaller with smaller A-tier prizes. Open division would be smaller but have more added cash to better reward the true pros finishing at the top.

Forget all the difficult ot administer hystrionics. Make Expert a regular Amateur division offered at all PDGA events, and pay out in prizes only.

For those of you that can't fathom how this will help, what it will do is force players rated 955 or higher to play Expert instead of Advanced. A 965 rated am currently is pretty much guarrenteed a top-10 finish, except at Worlds, usually making the final-9 and always taking home a big pile o' stuff. Always. With Expert in place, the 965 rated am will no longer be winning the entry fees of the 915-955 crowd (plus all the Int and Rec players who play up to Advanced). This will lower the piles the plastic that all you wanna be pros seem to lust after.

"Expert" will be exactly what todays "advanced" is. You are simply wordsmithing and boundary shifting. The core problems remain. Why not just address the core problems and be done with it?


The core problem, James, is that the disc golf talent pool is currently split into too many cash-paying divisions. Instead of focusing on the 940-960 rated ams to increase the size of the pro field, you should be looking at the 960-1000+ rated MPM/MPG/MPS player to beef up the size of the OPEN field.

"Pros" rated below 975 should probably be playing the proposed "Expert Am" division anyway. We are far too small, IMHO, to have so many cash divisions populated with players crying about how little cash there is. It seems to me that we are so small that we could barely support *ONE* cash division, let alone 8.

I do not think that what you point out is the core problem. I think the 2 core problems that pertain to this thread are 1) figuring out who we are and who we want to be and 2) figuring out how we will pay for that. (Communicating these clearly to the masses is vital, but that is for another thread.)

Problem 1:
Who/what is the PDGA? There are fewer than 10 players in the world who derive their livelihood from the sport�.and we call ourselves the PDGA.
Competing Solutions:
We want to support the current world class players (top X%) in their endeavor to derive their livelihood from the sport.
Versus
Having a tour of true professional players is a long term goal. We want to develop a huge base of competition-level players that will be necessary to bring DG towards a more mainstream activity. Adding membership and membership retention are important goals.

Problem 2:
We need more income to achieve our goals.
Competing Solutions:
Raise our membership and/or event fees (raise taxes on our current members).
Versus
Go outside the sport to find sponsorship. (But need a huge base of loyal players to make this attractive demographic. This is at odds with making membership and participation prohibitively expensive.)

Here are some more sub-problems that fall into the above dilemmas:
Protected divisions are not fair (from a standpoint of �pure� competition and fairness of payouts)
The �move up, move up, move out� phenomenon.
We do not have a �True Amateur� division. (Is this really a problem, since we are the PDGA? I just had to include it though for Nick�s sake.)
And, I�m sure there are plenty more of these sub-problems.

All of this needs to be filtered through our stated mission (http://www.pdga.com/org/documents/2006/MissionStatement03Summit.pdf) by our leadership.

I guess we all have our idea of what "core" problems are. In my mind, there are two:

1) we need to divide our competitive structure into for-profit, and not-for-profit arenas. This structure forces everyone to state their motivations, and is easy to defend. Once we do this, most of the noise surrounding the people's complaints goes away, impediments are removed and it will be easier to focus and move forward.

2) We also need to realize that supporting top pros to some theoretical level is not the top goal for the organization. Instead, they should focus on encouraging as many people to play as possible, within the limits of our for profit/not-for-profit distinction.

1) we need to divide our competitive structure into for-profit, and not-for-profit arenas. This structure forces everyone to state their motivations, and is easy to defend.



Not being pain hopefully, but do you mean for/not-for-profit for competitors, TDs/Clubs, and/or PDGA?

Can you expound on your thoughts regarding this? (I personally 100% agree with your #2 statement.)

You frame the issue as "profit" and "not-for-profit" as if that's the difference between Pro and Am. The point is that most members are "not-for-profit" regardless whether they play for cash or merch since few make a living at the sport. If only the the handful of top pros are our "for profit" players, then providing opportunies to bring together our "not-for-profit" members into the same fair divisions makes these divisions better with fewer divisions with overlapping skills.

You need to go look at ratings for amateurs. The top amateur has a rating of 1002 right now. Maybe he was just scamming for a lower membership fee using the amnesty, but I don't know that. I do know that there are over 300 amateurs rated over 955.

By splitting off the top amateurs into another division, amateurs won't make more than pros. Top amateurs won't make much at all because they'd be in a very small division.



C;mon Bruce you should know who Larry Leonard is considering he made the final in MPM at 05' worlds and has been one of the top players in NC for a long time. He did take the amnesty but I highly doubt that he is playing AM.

The #2 guy with a 996 rating doesn't even have any rounds so how he got that rating is beside me and Hutch will never move up so we can't do much.

The #4 guy has one event and Clue is also a Pro that took the amnesty.


So pretty much all the top 10 AMs are either under the amnesty or only have one or two events in thier rating.

And what about the other 287 amateurs who are rated so high that if they were to turn pro they would be to high for Pros Playing Am?

If we were to kick them out of advanced into a division that only had three or four players per tournament, they'd probably go pro. Whether they went pro or not, at least we would take away their incentive to remain amateurs.

How does that not work for the pros generally if we take away the incentive that keeps some players playing amateur with 960, 970, 980 and 990 ratings?

Then eventually the "Expert" division would grow and have ten players per event which would bring that incentive back. The only thing the expert division would do is eventually lead to another advanced division with its own set of baggers.

The best way to get Ams to move up is reduce thier entry fees and thus thier payout. The other downfall is that the Pro purse would decrease at events that put the profits from the merch into the pro payout. The again how about a $15 entry fee and the top 3-5 players get a trophy?

The only thing the expert division would do is eventually lead to another advanced division with its own set of baggers.



The only reason we have the term "bagger" is that some players are perceived to have better skills than the division they play in. Likewise, "donators" are perceived to be players below the skill level necessary to have a realistic chance to cash in the division they choose or are forced to enter. Expert division wipes out the need to use either term for the same group of players.

How about we do a $15 entry fee for your division and the top 3 get trophies? You think enforcing a lame concept on TDs is going to cause them to run a lame concept or not sanction their tournament?

If you have the 950+ guys in "expert" then the 975 guys are baggers right? I mean they will beat the 950 guys 75% of the time. Why don't we just make a new system.

<800- novice
800-825-beginners
825-850-better beginners
850-875- best beginners
875-900- Almost "top" intermediates
900-925- "Top" intermediates
925-950- Not quite experts but pretty good
950-975- Experts but not good enough to be Pro's
975-1000- Doctors with PHDs in DG but not a top pro
1000-1025- Three person division
1025+ Go Barry and Ken!

Then don't forget the Age divisions
<800- Old broke arms
800-825 Old newbies
825-850 Better old newbies

Well you get the point. The PDGA need less divisions and the only way I would support an "Expert" division would be if the 950+ masters, GMs, SGMs, ect had to play in it as well with the younger guys.

BTW the term "Expert" seems to imply that they are the best at what they do and a 950-975 guy is not the best DGer in an event so why call them an expert?

:confused:

You frame the issue as "profit" and "not-for-profit" as if that's the difference between Pro and Am.


I frame it that way so I don't have to enter into these arguments about what is an am, or what is a pro. I don't need to address these meaningless, sidestepping arguments that true pros are those that make a living, or that true pros are those at such and such skill level, etc. These arguments seem to me like they are simply manufactured to muddy the real issue that our competitive structure is seriously flawed and misguided.

I use for profit/not for profit, or gamling/not gambling, or some catchier title if I were creative. I simply want the distinction based on motivation because it lays the foundation for a competition structure which is inherently fair, morally defensible, and in step with the ideal a competitive sport should strive for. In a general sense, this ideal is simply to align rewards with performance.

I envision the not for profit group playing in the same types of divisions we now use. The difference is that they would play for very flat payouts, or trophies, or whatever, just not for profit.

If a player wishes to play for profit, the PDGA has a division for them. However, I think the PDGA should offer anyone the opportunity to play in the for profit division at financial levels they are comfortable with.

No one in the system would ever look down the ladder, or sideways with profit in mind, they could only look up and realize that if they want to profit, they need to improve their skills. In other words, this competitive structure would align itself with the natural order of things, like most sports and professions.

MP3, I have no problem with clubs, or TDs profitting for their work. That too is the natural order of things, and should also be embraced.

How about we do a $15 entry fee for your division and the top 3 get trophies? You think enforcing a lame concept on TDs is going to cause them to run a lame concept or not sanction their tournament?



How is that a lame concept? In other sports AMs play for trophies and they do just fine. It would also make all the 950 guys think about moving up because they aren't making $150 per event in prizes.

When I was an Am in 05' I made about $200 an event in merch and sold it for about $150 on average which is more than I averaged this year as a pro. If I would have had the choice to play for $15 and just get a trophy I would have and even though many events didn't offer trophy only in Pro I still played up just to play with better players. Unfortunantly there are a lot of players in ADV that would much rather sell the plastic they win instead of challenging themselves and moving up.

This is the exact same discussion that has been going on since I started playing disc golf in May. Both sides have excellent points but one sides points almost always contradict the others and one of the things that I have learned through life is that you are never going to make everyone completely happy. The best you can hope for is to make most of the people fairly happy. There will always be people on both sides that don't feel they are getting their fair share. And there will usually be some on the extreme edges that really feel wronged. There will always be baggers and always be donators.

Everybody also keeps pointing out similarities between Disc Golf and other sports. I cannot think of one sport that forces people to turn pro, as a matter of fact some of the pros in Disc Golf are too young to be pros in most other pro sports. If there is a sport that forces someone to turn pro then I would like to know what it is.

Also as stated by someone else most Ams turn pro within a year of reaching around the 950 or so anyways, not all, but as I pointed out it is hard to make someone turn pro. I am sure that whoever has the NBA's first pick is hoping that if the best prospect is an underclassman that they come out but if they don't the NBA can't force them to go pro. Same in the NFL or MLB. MLB can even draft high schoolers but they have the option to go to college.

The best you can hope for is to make most of the people fairly happy.


I'd argue that competitive sports should definitely not be designed to make people happy, especially when "making people happy" in this context is at odds with one of the ideals of sport: to reward performance.


Everybody also keeps pointing out similarities between Disc Golf and other sports. I cannot think of one sport that forces people to turn pro, as a matter of fact some of the pros in Disc Golf are too young to be pros in most other pro sports. If there is a sport that forces someone to turn pro then I would like to know what it is.


Nowhere have I ever advocated "forcing people to turn pro." The structure I've outlined allows people to play for whatever motivation floats their boat. A 1000 rated player in this setup can continue to play in a not-for-profit division. Forever if they so choose. In fact, in this setup, people should be allowed to seamlessy move back and forth between the profit/not-for-profit realms.

scoot_er, you and your buddies need to quit looking to the am field for more Open players. They will move up when they are ready, if at all. If they are not ready and try to force them, they will simply quit playing. You yourself played at least one extra year of Am, one more than you should have. It is amazing how righteous you have become since you chose the pro road.

The skilled disc golfers you seek to fill the Open division at tournaments are already there: they are playing in the pro divisions already. Look there to grow the Open division. If you don't want to fight the good fight to unite the professional players under the banner of the Open division, then don't. But leave the ams alone until you fix the "broken" pro divisional system, okay?

And one more thing for James: we have perfectly good alternate names for the pro and am divisions if you insist on having a Nick-fit about the names. Just call them cash players and merch players.

I'd argue that competitive sports should definitely not be designed to make people happy, especially when "making people happy" in this context is at odds with one of the ideals of sport: to reward performance.



The one thing I remember about the first rule book I read for Disc Golf was the first rule.

Have Fun.

To me, everything else is secondary.

If you want absolute performance to determine payout, then hold one division tournaments. You won't be the first. You make it special enough and it will fill. Otherwise reconcile yourself with the fact that there are many separate and distinct competions going on at almost every Disc Golf tournament you attend and that the attendance and payout for any one of those has absolutely nothing to do with any other.

I don't complain when I take first place in MM1 and the MA2 player scores worse and takes home more plastic. We are not competing against each other. If I want bigger fields, I recruit the players I think should be playing with the OMBs. If they don't think they are good enough, I try to help them improve. You want more Pros, start having clinics before mini or league nights. Teach those that want to learn and they will get better.

Even though the goal is not to make everyone happy nor should it be, that is what all professional organizations do whether they want to or not. When you look at the NFL there is constant negotiations going on between players union, owners, sponsers, and even fans to a certain degree. When unfortunately the final goal is to not make any group too mad but at the same time realizing that not one of the above groups want completely. Players union want no salary cap, Owners want a small cap and lots of profits, and fans want cheap tickets with access to players. However no side is getting all of what they want they have to compromise as they should and we all should.

That is what we have to do here. We all have to voice our opinions on what we want. But the challenge is doing it in a civilized way and to not get upset if the final decision is not what we want as long as it is fair.

Cash, merch. There is virtually no distinction.

btw, it is not about growing the pro division, it is about putting the structure on a solid competitive footing. At some point, people need to just admit that having our ams play for profit has corrupted our sport: turned it upside down and sideways, subsidizing those who don't deserve it and punishing those that improve their game.

The basic fact that our present ams need to confront is that they should not be playing for a profit. If that is what they desire, then play pro.

If you want absolute performance to determine payout, then hold one division tournaments. You won't be the first. You make it special enough and it will fill. Otherwise reconcile yourself with the fact that there are many separate and distinct competions going on at almost every Disc Golf tournament you attend and that the attendance and payout for any one of those has absolutely nothing to do with any other.

Translation: this is the way it is. Live with it.

Alternatively, we could devise a real competition, where performance is rewarded, otherwise we are just some socialsitic activity that thwarts upward mobility, all in the name of appeasing the undeserving. After a while, that's the bulk of what you are left with: the underserving screaming for what they haven't earned. Cater to the weak, and run the strong off.

Nice try at social engineering. Try it on the moon but it won't work here. I would wager that many other sports would be successful with our model and players would flock to it. Our entrenched school infrastructure prevents it so the schools and colleges make the money, while the players get limited merch (tennis shoes, etc). Yes, a college education is very valuable but it requires a relatively small out-of-pocket expense to the college to provide it in comparison to the value (good wholesale/retail differential). You would be hard pressed to find anyone who is an absolute purist amateur at any age. Even playing for an ice cream cone is just the first step in the progression to placing more on the line for playing other people for prizes or cash in any competition.

Cash, merch. There is virtually no distinction.

btw, it is not about growing the pro division, it is about putting the structure on a solid competitive footing. At some point, people need to just admit that having our ams play for profit has corrupted our sport: turned it upside down and sideways, subsidizing those who don't deserve it and punishing those that improve their game.

The basic fact that our present ams need to confront is that they should not be playing for a profit. If that is what they desire, then play pro.


Dude, you still don't get it! (make up a number like 99.97 here) percent of our players don't "play for profit"! How much will it cost you to play Victoria? How much can you win? Are you still going? I guess you aren't a pro!

Like I've said, clean up the cash divisions first, please. There is no greater injustice than the MPM winner shooting the 6th best score but taking home the second most cash. The Advnaced winner cashing out his plastic for more than the last place casher in Open got is no where close to this.

Check out the Wintertime Open pre-reg for the pro weekend. Here are the average ratings as of 1/29:

MPO: 972.7
MPM: 979.4
MPG: 969.3

By constantly harping on the advanced division you are missing the real problem, and the *REAL* area where the best players are divided up amongst equivalent divisions. Either accept the status quo, or get to work cleaning up the cash divisions. The am divisions are growing and selling out tourneys in advance all over the country. Everything you try to say how the am payout corrupts the true spirit of competition applies better to the talent-splintering cash divisions.

Take a minute and actually think about that.

Social engineering is exactly what we have. Your assertion that other sports should use our concept is laughable. I guess every profession, or society should embrace our philosophy. Mediocre doctors making moe than highly skilled doctors. Pretty soon, most doctors wouldn't desire to improve their skills. Why would they, they profitted more when they could barely handle the scalpel. The ambitous and talented would leave for another country where their hard work and skills are appreciated. Boy, I wonder why this idea has not taken over the world.

There are also those that say we shouldn't have age protected divisions like masters because of the same argument that if you 965 or higher rated you should only be playing masters, grandmasters, or so on in events like Pro worlds, but that all other tourneys should be playing open. Because their argument is that having all of these protected divisions undermine the competitive footing.

We have already established that we really can't force ams to turn pro, and that some of the money from ams entry fees goes to the Pro Payout (which is fine by most ams because of compromise). But I do think that the payouts do cause ams to try to improve as another way to gauge progress.

I have no doubt in the next 5-10 years that there will be a lot of few division tournaments. I also have no doubt that they will succeed but with limited national sponsors and limited amount of talent willing or able to travel to more than a few tourneys outside a certain range we have to be willing to share tournaments among am players and pro players. Nobody wants to run off the best but the weak don't want to be run off either. I don't really care if they go to trophy only divisions because the entry fee should only be about $5 a person to cover the trophies(would save me a lot of money this year). But you do have to realize if you go that route that the Pros will suffer because they will not have as much money to receive from am entry fees. Easier to give 100% to ams with the amount of markup on discs. Also easier to get bigger sponsors for a full tourney even if they are ams.

Dude, you still don't get it! (make up a number like 99.97 here) percent of our players don't "play for profit"! How much will it cost you to play Victoria? How much can you win? Are you still going? I guess you aren't a pro!



Dude, this argument is irrelevant. The fact that people don't make a lot of money, or lose money at this sport is hardly a rebuttal to my claim that the incentives are corrupted.



By constantly harping on the advanced division you are missing the real problem, and the *REAL* area where the best players are divided up amongst equivalent divisions. Either accept the status quo, or get to work cleaning up the cash divisions.

Fine, I don't care. A system with no age divisions, properly divided in profit/no profit would be far superior to what we have now.

btw, if you want to argue that all ages should be in the same division, go for it. Lay it out. Also, why not include the women in your theory. If gender and age have no bearing on athletic ability, your theory should be pretty **** convincing.

[QUOTE]
Cash, merch. There is virtually no distinction.

btw, it is not about growing the pro division, it is about putting the structure on a solid competitive footing. At some point, people need to just admit that having our ams play for profit has corrupted our sport: turned it upside down and sideways, subsidizing those who don't deserve it and punishing those that improve their game.

The basic fact that our present ams need to confront is that they should not be playing for a profit. If that is what they desire, then play pro.


Dude, you still don't get it! (make up a number like 99.97 here) percent of our players don't "play for profit"! How much will it cost you to play Victoria? How much can you win? Are you still going? I guess you aren't a pro!

Like I've said, clean up the cash divisions first, please. There is no greater injustice than the MPM winner shooting the 6th best score but taking home the second most cash. The Advnaced winner cashing out his plastic for more than the last place casher in Open got is no where close to this.

Check out the Wintertime Open pre-reg for the pro weekend. Here are the average ratings as of 1/29:

MPO: 972.7
MPM: 979.4
MPG: 969.3

By constantly harping on the advanced division you are missing the real problem, and the *REAL* area where the best players are divided up amongst equivalent divisions. Either accept the status quo, or get to work cleaning up the cash divisions. The am divisions are growing and selling out tourneys in advance all over the country. Everything you try to say how the am p

Rewards increase for better performance within the Rec-Int-Adv progression both for men and women. The incentive based progression you seek is there for improvement. As soon as anyone slacks off to drop their rating from the bottom of one division into the top of a lower division to win again, the process of winning moves them back into the tougher division. More incentive to get better in the higher division than the more expensive and not very fulfilling effort to try and bag/win/bag/win on the breakline.

The only reason incentives are currently broken in the 950-985 range is we didn't start this sport with Ams or the merch process at the beginning and then add a pro cash division at the top when we had enough sponsorship to support "for profit" players. We started with "pros" and worked backwards. That bassackwards evolution problem can be improved with Expert adding another level of fair divisions in the existing R-I-A progression with even higher incentives.

No matter what the incentive program, the majority of our members will either not be able to improve or are not willing or able to take the time improve. They still like to compete. If our structure doesn't provide a fair (ratings) or enjoyable (age/gender) system for those who don't care about an overall incentive based system (bigger money), it's time to fold the tents because there are way more of them than the incentive driven ladder climbers. I believe we have evolved the ideal system for the nature of people in general and our members - overall incentive steps to get better for those who want that and ways to keep those who have peaked continuing to participate within their skill/gender/age level. The only thing missing in the big picture incentives is that spectators may never pay to watch our sport, and we can't do much about that.

James, you keep saying that mediocrity is rewarded because the top finisher in Advanced can (theoretically) cash out his plastic for more than the last place casher in Open receives, who shot a better score. Mediocrity was rewarded, you cry.

Take a look at the age protected divisions. Mediocrity is rewarded there too! Why aren't you outraged about the destruction of moral fiber in the cash divisions, too?

Now, take it one step farther and look at the skill levels demonstrated in the age protected cash divisions versus the Advanced division. If you are honest, you will see that the age protected cash divisions are the ones that are redundant.

It seems like people on this thread were originally for "fixing things" to get more people playing Open, but only as long as that involved making the ams quit playing tournaments....er, I mean making the ams move up. When we start to really look at the division of skills, suddenly we're back to this "destruction of moral fiber" and "true am" #$*&$! that is very reminiscent of Nick Knight.

When you make the Open division attractive, people will play. Trying to make the am divisions unattractive so that people won't play am will not get you where you want to be as most ams do not have the skills to compete in any of the multitude of over-lapping pro cash divisions, and they will quit donating rather quickly if they even try it at all.

I'm not sure what you envision happening to the multiple over-lapping cash divisions when there are no more am players. You can simulate it, though, by running some pro-only tourneys.

BTW, I have nothing against the Masters division. I just like to point these things out whenever someone gets all righteous about "the travesty" of the am divisions.

The am divisions work.

If/when we grow the am divisions to the point where we get some outside sponsorship to pump into the *OPEN* division, then everything will be fine: the 1000+ rated players will all play OPEN for the money and any 975 rated ams will be smelling the cash and moving up to OPEN if that's what they are looking for.

But things are fine the way they are, IMHO. An Expert division would be good because it would bump the guarrenteed cashing 960+ rated ams into a new division where they won't be guarenteed to cash.

No matter what the incentive program, the majority of our members will either not be able to improve or are not willing or able to take the time improve.

Yes, I was unable and unwilling to improve from my high school pitching days. I wonder why I've never got a small financial return for being a good scrub. If the sport of baseball was enlightened, I'd still be hanging my curveball and selling the bats I won on ebay.


I believe we have evolved the ideal system for the nature of people in general and our members

Yes, our policies have created our environment, and our environment tends to escort the strong out.

btw, I challenge your assertion that competitive disc golf cannot succeed without ams motivated by winning merch/money. I bet we'd lose very few ams, and if there are some who are solely interested in a free lunch and leave, the sport would be healthier without them.

I think if you were to ask these two questions independently of each other, the vast majority of PDGA members would answer no to both:

Should 980 rated PDGA members play advanced competing against 920 rated PDGA members?

Should anyone be forced to go pro in disc golf?

If Scooter would answer yes to either of those, and if I had not put him on ignore, that would be something to discuss. If you answer no to both of these, what other solution is there than a cap on Advanced and an Expert division?

The one thing that should be implemented with the Expert division is an automatic invitation to Am Worlds for Experts or a change in the way we calculate points. Otherwise they won't get invited to the tournament they are staying am for.

btw, I challenge your assertion that competitive disc golf cannot succeed without ams motivated by winning merch/money.



If we actually had am members motivated by playing only for the spirit of competition, I might agree. However, we live in the reality that indicates the actual behavior and preferences of our current members. Even if there is a vast untapped group of players who have that traditional amateur spirit, someone has to run events to attract them. If it was such a good deal for promoters, someone would be doing it by now. I don't see many current promoters thinking there's a market and having an interest to tap those potential players. If they're there, someone has to pursue them.

The PDGA only helps run a few Championships. Promoters and TDs do the rest. The option has been there for promoters to have a wide latitude for the types of events they run. That potential utopia lays before us if only just someone would lead us there /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I've played many sports competitively in school and intramural play. I'd play anyone in several of those individual sports today for an ice cream cone or cash, with one stipulation. I would want to know what skill level they played at to determine my wager. Sounds familiar, eh?

I think if you were to ask these two questions independently of each other, the vast majority of PDGA members would answer no to both:

Should 980 rated PDGA members play advanced competing against 920 rated PDGA members?

Should anyone be forced to go pro in disc golf?

If Scooter would answer yes to either of those, and if I had not put him on ignore, that would be something to discuss. If you answer no to both of these, what other solution is there than a cap on Advanced and an Expert division?

The one thing that should be implemented with the Expert division is an automatic invitation to Am Worlds for Experts or a change in the way we calculate points. Otherwise they won't get invited to the tournament they are staying am for.



Wow I got put on ignore? :DWhen I was AM I only played ONE event where there was a 980 rated AM and there were 200 others who were below him. He didn't win.

Bruce should 874 players be playing with 790 rated players?

All I said was that of our top 10 "AMs" only 2 or 3 actually play tournaments regularly and if that is worthy of being put on ignore awesome! :D

All I said was that of our top 10 "AMs" only 2 or 3 actually play tournaments regularly and if that is worthy of being put on ignore awesome!



I doubt you are on ignore for that one post but rather the fact you come on nearly every single thread on this MB acting like you know everything about everything. It must be so cool to be in high school and already know it all. :) ;) :p :D

Bruce should 874 players be playing with 790 rated players?




I'm not Bruce, but I do have an opinion :D . I don't think that 874 players should be playing with 790's... however, I have never been to a tournament that offered a recreational division (though I think I have read about it on the boards here). Maybe what we are saying is that there is a minimum level of skill a player should have before playing? I think that if there are enough players who want to play in a division then it should be offered. However, there is always going to be the problem with players on the lower end of a division donating to the top of that division. I think that the key is to find a balance where the most players are the most satisfied.

The divisions are there but some TDs either refuse to offer the Rec division or players in that range would rather play up in some areas. Since several in the Rec range are new players and nonmembers without ratings, they don't even know that they could request a Rec division. If events are filling without having a Rec division, it also makes it easier for TDs not to offer it.

So Cal events offer the Recreational division and our So Cal Series offers year end awards for the Rec players. Our events would easily fill without these players. However, the majority of new members to So Cal DGA are these very same Rec players. Our club grows, and the PDGA grows because we offer these divisions.

It's very difficuly to project about the am divisions because am tournaments are currently "course limited". Well, around here anyway. Seems so in a lot of places actually.

By "course limited" I mean they sell-out and the attendance is limited by how many players a course can hold. I imagine that's how it is in NC also, so they don't offer the Rec division and the tourneys sell out. That doesn't mean there aren't Rec players who would sign up in Rec if it was offered, it just means it is very difficult to draw any conclusions, except for this one: there are enough am players willing to pre-register for current format PDGA tournaments to sell events out in advance.

All I said was that of our top 10 "AMs" only 2 or 3 actually play tournaments regularly and if that is worthy of being put on ignore awesome!



I doubt you are on ignore for that one post but rather the fact you come on nearly every single thread on this MB acting like you know everything about everything.



Funny I think the same thing about you. :oI never said that I knew everything about everything but instead took the time to look at the 1002 rated "AM" that Bruce was talking about as well as the other 9 guys in the top ten and make an assertion to how often they play.

If a guy has 2 rounds and is rated 990 he is probably not a 996 rated golfer. He may be higher or lower but you can't tell from 2 rounds.

Hey Chuck how does Jan Bauman have a 996 rating anyway since he doesn't seem to have ever played any events? :confused:

Joe was never current in 2006 so his Rating Detail for 2005 when he played, doesn't show up. You can see his last rating update was Dec 2005.

Joe was never current in 2006 so his Rating Detail for 2005 when he played, doesn't show up. You can see his last rating update was Dec 2005.



Yeah I saw that but just couldn't find the event he played in.

I doubt you are on ignore for that one post but rather the fact you come on nearly every single thread on this MB acting like you know everything about everything.



Funny I think the same thing about you. :o



Discette (Suzette Simons) has been playing disc golf since before you were born, Matt, with a wealth of experience in our sport. You don't have the same knowledge and background in disc golf that many, many others have and it's time you start realizing that. Just because you're the 7th-highest rated golfer in the state of Texas does not mean you automatically know everything. Discette is surely not the first one to point out your behavior and attitude on various message boards; you've been lectured about this on the HFDS message board for at least 5 years now that I know of. You're 18 years old now Matt and it's time to start displaying some maturity and respect for your elders.

Bruce should 874 players be playing with 790 rated players?




Answer: Jon and I don't think so. That's why we're doing something about that at our tournaments.

If a guy has 2 rounds and is rated 990 he is probably not a 996 rated golfer.



"Probably" not, but he definitely is a 990-rated golfer. :p

Why are people jumping on Matt? He has his opinions, thinks they have merit, and states them. That description pretty much fits all of us who comment on these subjects. I'm not sure what Matt said that bothers people, but I doubt pointing out his age, his years of experience, or his ranking within Texas is much of a rebuttal to the substance of his arguments.

All I said was that of our top 10 "AMs" only 2 or 3 actually play tournaments regularly and if that is worthy of being put on ignore awesome!



I doubt you are on ignore for that one post but rather the fact you come on nearly every single thread on this MB acting like you know everything about everything.



Funny I think the same thing about you.



I was only letting Matt know that Bruce was ignoring all his posts and not just the last one. It seemed like a plausible reason to me. ;)

And all the smilies got left off my quote! :D :) ;) :p

Bruce - Scoot_er wants to know why you put him on ignore.

Why are people jumping on Matt? He has his opinions, thinks they have merit, and states them. That description pretty much fits all of us who comment on these subjects. I'm not sure what Matt said that bothers people, but I doubt pointing out his age, his years of experience, or his ranking within Texas is much of a rebuttal to the substance of his arguments.



While I personally in fact usually agree with the substance of Matt's arguments, it's the manner in which he presents them. Ask anyone familiar with the Houston Flying Disc Society message board, or his posts on this forum.

i haven't seen much to object to in matt's posts on this forum and lord knows i look at the darn thing way too much.

free scooter!

Why are people jumping on Matt? He has his opinions, thinks they have merit, and states them. That description pretty much fits all of us who comment on these subjects. I'm not sure what Matt said that bothers people, but I doubt pointing out his age, his years of experience, or his ranking within Texas is much of a rebuttal to the substance of his arguments.



While I personally in fact usually agree with the substance of Matt's arguments, it's the manner in which he presents them. Ask anyone familiar with the Houston Flying Disc Society message board, or his posts on this forum.

\

That's because the HFDS has never seemed to listen to people that do not have the same opinion as everyone else. My father and I are no longer members and probably won't ever renew again because it seems that the HFDS should be the AMDGF (Agnes Moffitt DG Federation) since most of their effort goes towards improving that course instead of the other courses in town. They have "fixed" the teeboxes numerous times and the only reason anything every happens at Bass is because of a few guys who fix it up for states.

Ok HFDS rant off.

Matt, just shut your donkey. Obviously these folks have not had the opportunity to experience the manner in which you make your point. You have been on your best behavior here, so you folks who've only read his comments on this thread have NO IDEA. I would compare your style to scratching fingernails on a chalkboard. :D

BTW, Moffitt is NOT the beneficiary of HFDS efforts. It is the most played course in Houston though. But since you are no longer a member how would you know what we're doing anyway.

Matt, just shut your donkey. Obviously these folks have not had the opportunity to experience the manner in which you make your point. You have been on your best behavior here, so you folks who've only read his comments on this thread have NO IDEA. I would compare your style to scratching fingernails on a chalkboard. :D

BTW, Moffitt is NOT the beneficiary of HFDS efforts. It is the most played course in Houston though. But since you are no longer a member how would you know what we're doing anyway.




What there are only like 4 members anyway. :D Have you noticed that there are quite a few people who were BIG in the HFDS that have decided to not renew?

BTW Susan I know Moffitt isn't the benificiary of the HFDS funds because you are. :o:o:o

Why are people jumping on Matt? He has his opinions, thinks they have merit, and states them. That description pretty much fits all of us who comment on these subjects. I'm not sure what Matt said that bothers people, but I doubt pointing out his age, his years of experience, or his ranking within Texas is much of a rebuttal to the substance of his arguments.



While I personally in fact usually agree with the substance of Matt's arguments, it's the manner in which he presents them. Ask anyone familiar with the Houston Flying Disc Society message board, or his posts on this forum.

\

That's because the HFDS has never seemed to listen to people that do not have the same opinion as everyone else. My father and I are no longer members and probably won't ever renew again because it seems that the HFDS should be the AMDGF (Agnes Moffitt DG Federation) since most of their effort goes towards improving that course instead of the other courses in town. They have "fixed" the teeboxes numerous times and the only reason anything every happens at Bass is because of a few guys who fix it up for states.

Ok HFDS rant off.



Alright Matt,

You're not making friends. Lighten up!

Matt, people's impressions of you in Houston go way beyond the AM vs. MacGregor issue. Tom Bass gets little attention because it is little played. Don't try and argue the point, it's my home course and my favorite course in Houston. That aside, Jeff has a definite point when he says you go out of your way to stick the fork in on many issues. Like myself, you get a kick out of it.

While I don't like Matt's style either, I'm sure there are many who don't like mine. On the other hand Matt, as often as any of us, has good ideas.

However, as the saying goes, you get a lot more flies with honey than with vinegar. Maybe Matt's using Horse Pucky? :D

No matter what the incentive program, the majority of our members will either not be able to improve or are not willing or able to take the time improve.

Yes, I was unable and unwilling to improve from my high school pitching days. I wonder why I've never got a small financial return for being a good scrub. If the sport of baseball was enlightened, I'd still be hanging my curveball and selling the bats I won on ebay.


I believe we have evolved the ideal system for the nature of people in general and our members

Yes, our policies have created our environment, and our environment tends to escort the strong out.

btw, I challenge your assertion that competitive disc golf cannot succeed without ams motivated by winning merch/money. I bet we'd lose very few ams, and if there are some who are solely interested in a free lunch and leave, the sport would be healthier without them.




Back to the issue. BTW my answer to Bruce's questions are no but I feel that we should not make the AM divisions more attractive then the Pro divisions.

No matter what the incentive program, the majority of our members will either not be able to improve or are not willing or able to take the time improve.

Yes, I was unable and unwilling to improve from my high school pitching days. I wonder why I've never got a small financial return for being a good scrub. If the sport of baseball was enlightened, I'd still be hanging my curveball and selling the bats I won on ebay.


I believe we have evolved the ideal system for the nature of people in general and our members

Yes, our policies have created our environment, and our environment tends to escort the strong out.

btw, I challenge your assertion that competitive disc golf cannot succeed without ams motivated by winning merch/money. I bet we'd lose very few ams, and if there are some who are solely interested in a free lunch and leave, the sport would be healthier without them.




Back to the issue. BTW my answer to Bruce's questions are no but I feel that we should not make the AM divisions more attractive then the Pro divisions.



Why not make the AM divisions more attractive than the Pro, sans that you're a Pro? I understand that we're the PDGA, but I've never gotten a good answer to the question "what is the best way to grow the sport?" The notion that the Pro is the best/only way eludes me. There's no question that for TDs, AM growth and tournaments is the best way. Pro may sound exciting but why? If we eliminated the Pro division, for example, we'd still have Barry, Kenny et. al. and a whole lot more money floating around in other areas.

BTW - there are many sports centered around Ams that have a whole lot more money than we do and a lot more prestige.

BTW - there are many sports centered around Ams that have a whole lot more money than we do and a lot more prestige.



Agreed but do those AMs make $$$? Ours do!

You know, I don't know. But does it matter? We are what we are. A lot of people keep talking about what's fair. There is no fairness here, only reality. Simple fact is that in the end, TDs will move towards what makes them money. This is why Bruce and Jon do so well. They don't focus on right or Pro, but instead on what works.

BTW - there are many sports centered around Ams that have a whole lot more money than we do and a lot more prestige.



Lyle, this is a misleading way to view the issues. These pro/am arguments are continually used to craft off-target arguments. This issue is not how many sports are centered around ams, the issue is how many successful sports are set up to discourage people to get better. I can think of no successful sport, nor any profession for that matter, that is not set up to reward people as they climb the ladder. We are unique in that matter.

Whether Bruce makes money as a TD under the present system is irrelevant. He, and other TDs, will make money under any scenario. It's a given. People will always demand tourneys, and no one will run them unless it is financially attractive, or at least not financially unattractive. This scare tactic is just another bogus argument to support the obvious fact that many people are comfortable within our sport's inequity, and unwilling to give it up without a fight.

the issue is how many successful sports are set up to discourage people to get better. I can think of no successful sport, nor any profession for that matter, that is not set up to reward people as they climb the ladder.



You continually post this straw man argument. Prove that better players in the Am track do not win more as they get better and play better. Prove that players in the Open division don't make more the better they get. The obvious "problem" in the incentive realm is that older age divisions bleed cash from Open for lesser performances. Many lower rated Open players win less during a year than higher rated Ams who post worse scores than those Open players.

How do you get these players in the same track? James wants them to either mostly play Open or pound down the rewards in Am to fix the Pro track. Both solutions force players to do something against their will. Most of these players in this trouble area are more ams than pros with little chance of ever competing for major titles. Offering a higher level in the Am track which already is known to work makes way more sense and solves the lack of incentive problem in one fell swoop.

Other than some of the top older pros who might refuse to play Open, the incentives would progress right up the ladder from bottom to top. Even the older age division issue would diminish because those divisions would become smaller with defections into Expert which would eventually lead the 1000+ players over 39 to play Open anyway. Nobody is forced in this system against their will. They make choices based on their best interest and where they want to play because there still would be choices for many.

This issue is not how many sports are centered around ams, the issue is how many successful sports are set up to discourage people to get better.



Man and I thought my excuse of shooting poorly was bad I usually tell people that I am just trying to get the most throws for my money. From now on I will tell people I am going to get my rating low enough so that I can win a bunch of plastic and not have to go pro.

Seriously, how often at tournaments do you hear the top ams saying "yeah I could beat Climo if I practiced, but I had much rather play am" Why in the world would anyone try to discourage someone from getting better? If players have the time, desire, and ability to get better then they will. Would it make everyone feel better if they started classifying all divisions as "Pros playing for cash" and "Lower Pros playing for prizes". Because as of now there is no Olympic event on Disc Golf or no NCAA Disc Golf competition. So the PDGA gets to decide what makes an Am and what doesn't. Let's be honest there is no true am in disc golf. Shoot I am awful and still won a disc the other day for winning a card in an Ice Bowl. But I promise as soon as someone teaches me how to be 950 rated I promise you I will go pro even if it does mean giving up the glory and stacks of plastic and adoring chears of "move up bagger" ;) ;)

This issue is not how many sports are centered around ams, the issue is how many successful sports are set up to discourage people to get better.



Man and I thought my excuse of shooting poorly was bad I usually tell people that I am just trying to get the most throws for my money. From now on I will tell people I am going to get my rating low enough so that I can win a bunch of plastic and not have to go pro.

Seriously, how often at tournaments do you hear the top ams saying "yeah I could beat Climo if I practiced, but I had much rather play am" Why in the world would anyone try to discourage someone from getting better? If players have the time, desire, and ability to get better then they will. Would it make everyone feel better if they started classifying all divisions as "Pros playing for cash" and "Lower Pros playing for prizes". Because as of now there is no Olympic event on Disc Golf or no NCAA Disc Golf competition. So the PDGA gets to decide what makes an Am and what doesn't. Let's be honest there is no true am in disc golf. Shoot I am awful and still won a disc the other day for winning a card in an Ice Bowl. But I promise as soon as someone teaches me how to be 950 rated I promise you I will go pro even if it does mean giving up the glory and stacks of plastic and adoring chears of "move up bagger" ;) ;)



Discourage meaning if you move up you won't be able to sell all you plastic. Heck I am rated over 1000 and made less this year then I did selling my plastic as an AM. :confused:

the issue is how many successful sports are set up to discourage people to get better. I can think of no successful sport, nor any profession for that matter, that is not set up to reward people as they climb the ladder.



You continually post this straw man argument. Prove that better players in the Am track do not win more as they get better and play better. Prove that players in the Open division don't make more the better they get. The obvious "problem" in the incentive realm is that older age divisions bleed cash from Open for lesser performances. Many lower rated Open players win less during a year than higher rated Ams who post worse scores than those Open players.

How do you get these players in the same track? James wants them to either mostly play Open or pound down the rewards in Am to fix the Pro track. Both solutions force players to do something against their will. Most of these players in this trouble area are more ams than pros with little chance of ever competing for major titles. Offering a higher level in the Am track which already is known to work makes way more sense and solves the lack of incentive problem in one fell swoop.

Other than some of the top older pros who might refuse to play Open, the incentives would progress right up the ladder from bottom to top. Even the older age division issue would diminish because those divisions would become smaller with defections into Expert which would eventually lead the 1000+ players over 39 to play Open anyway. Nobody is forced in this system against their will. They make choices based on their best interest and where they want to play because there still would be choices for many.


%0

Well then stay am. Shoot if Tiger Woods would have wanted to stay am he could have. We love to compare ourselves to other sports and you can't force someone to go pro. There are very few people making substantial money playing disc golf. Play the game for the competition and the many levels of fun of it. But as of now if you are playing for money you are playing the wrong sport. Very few people make a substantial amount of money ($5000+) and very few are able to make a living solely from playing disc golf. A few are able to make a living combined with disc golf and other ways related to disc golf. But few can make a living just playing. And tryin to force players to go pro will not make this happen it will just have more people trading 20's on the weekend. And as stated if you want money we need sponsers. And how do we get sponsers? By promoting growth. If nobody cared about football the NFL would be making megabucks this Sunday. We may never get that kind of sponsorship in our lifetime but we need to do everything we can to get corporate sponsors outside of the discgolf comunity. And they want numbers of people to pay for a banner.

the issue is how many successful sports are set up to discourage people to get better. I can think of no successful sport, nor any profession for that matter, that is not set up to reward people as they climb the ladder.



You continually post this straw man argument. Prove that better players in the Am track do not win more as they get better and play better. Prove that players in the Open division don't make more the better they get. The obvious "problem" in the incentive realm is that older age divisions bleed cash from Open for lesser performances. Many lower rated Open players win less during a year than higher rated Ams who post worse scores than those Open players.

How do you get these players in the same track? James wants them to either mostly play Open or pound down the rewards in Am to fix the Pro track. Both solutions force players to do something against their will. Most of these players in this trouble area are more ams than pros with little chance of ever competing for major titles. Offering a higher level in the Am track which already is known to work makes way more sense and solves the lack of incentive problem in one fell swoop.

Other than some of the top older pros who might refuse to play Open, the incentives would progress right up the ladder from bottom to top. Even the older age division issue would diminish because those divisions would become smaller with defections into Expert which would eventually lead the 1000+ players over 39 to play Open anyway. Nobody is forced in this system against their will. They make choices based on their best interest and where they want to play because there still would be choices for many.



Chuck, how is reducing the amount of plastic a guy wins forcing him to do something against his will? If the AMs were playing for a players pack and Trophies they would still have a fun competitive event without the ability to profit from thier winnings.


I agree with the fact that many master hang out and win more cash shooting lower scores than then Open players but how does that justify or take away from the fact that ADV players are doing the same thing?

Where is McCoy? He had one of the best competitive sytems I have ever heard proposed. I'll try and dig it up. :D



I actually would have no problem with the trophy, player pack, as long as it went along with lower entry fees. I am not for sure how many other people would be willing to travel around without feeling like they are getting some kind of reward. But I am fortunate enough that I do play for the enjoyment of it and can kind of relatively afford to do so.

Here is my thinking, but I may be wrong. The problem is that people do play for the plastic so they can sell it to travel to other tournies and pay the entry fees. Now how many of the top ams will not be able to play if it was not for this cycle. Now there are a certain number that can afford to play without selling the plastic. But are you willing to alienate those that can't?

How is reducing the amount of prizes an AM can win and pawn off forcing them to do something against thier will? Also what would be so wrong with AM divisions being low priced and the players receive a player's pack and compete for trophies? To me all this would do is make the guys who win every ADV tournament think about moving up to the next level more so then they already do.

I do agree with you on the really good old guys though.
:D

Well then stay am. Shoot if Tiger Woods would have wanted to stay am he could have. We love to compare ourselves to other sports and you can't force someone to go pro. There are very few people making substantial money playing disc golf. Play the game for the competition and the many levels of fun of it. But as of now if you are playing for money you are playing the wrong sport. Very few people make a substantial amount of money ($5000+) and very few are able to make a living solely from playing disc golf. A few are able to make a living combined with disc golf and other ways related to disc golf. But few can make a living just playing. And tryin to force players to go pro will not make this happen it will just have more people trading 20's on the weekend. And as stated if you want money we need sponsers. And how do we get sponsers? By promoting growth. If nobody cared about football the NFL would be making megabucks this Sunday. We may never get that kind of sponsorship in our lifetime but we need to do everything we can to get corporate sponsors outside of the discgolf comunity. And they want numbers of people to pay for a banner.



You telling me to stay AM pretty much proves my point. Most pros (even the 1000+ ones) could make more money selling plastic than they do winning money. That IMHO needs to change and they only way to do that is to make the AMs play for what true AMs should play for and that is competition without the hopes of financial gain. Granted they aren't making a living off of it but they sure are paying for a lot of expenses.

But what will that accomplish is my point? I don't disagree with any of your points, all of them have a basis and a lot are very good points. I may be wrong but I am afraid that it will run off middle to top ams and therefore possibly cause harm. As I stated I am doing this from a non-biased point of view. I don't win plastic(except that one disc :D). As a matter of fact I am arguing against my best interest, a trophy only, player pack, low entry fee would benefit me. I do think that if someone is interested in finding out why not become a TD. I believe that all you have to do is be a certified official. Then have a tourney with a low entry trophy only am and see what the tournout and quality is. If the turnout is good and people enjoy it then go for it, as I stated a low entry trophy only would benefit me and I would definitely attend but I don't know if 940 rated ams will. I also don't think they want to donate to the pros so I don't think they would play pro either. I think they would just stay home.

Most pros (even the 1000+ ones) could make more money selling plastic than they do winning money. That IMHO needs to change and they only way to do that...


No, a better way would be to stop paying the "pro" division in cash and start paying them in plastic. Problem solved.

Gutting the Am ladder financial engine that draws players and supports events will not happen or it will kill the PDGA. I believe that's a non-negotiable change. I would guess there's not a competition committee or Board member that would vote for mashing down the Am payout structure that already works for TDs and for players. It would be financially irresponsible.

Players may now to enter a division at a lower entry fee to play for "trophies only" due to budget concerns or lack of interest in winning plastic. Ask the TDs who offer this how popular that choice has been. TDs rule in the current Am payout structure, not the PDGA. Take away what small financial rewards there are for being a TD in the current structure and they'll just run unsanctioned events.

The Am track has solid incentives from the bottom up. It's competitive. Players improve. It works. I would even vote for increasing the prizes so that PDGA events have the biggest, baddest payouts possible because we are always competing for TDs and players who can choose unsanctioned events. Adding the Expert division makes the Am structure better and indirectly helps the pro ladder. The fact the problems are on the pro track doesn't mean you screw up what's working and popular for Ams, to theoretically fix pro issues.

Pros are players like Matt who have become better "products" than most out there. But like many other new and improved products like New Coke, Betamax and the Edsel, few are buying. Few spectators. Few sponsors. Maybe that will change, maybe not. But 99% of our players can be satisfied with the options that could be made available.

Chuck you know what really bad? I'll tell you what, when the winner in pro wins less than the winner in ADV and beat the ADV gut by 10+ strokes. If you think that is an efficient structure fine but you must remember that there are a lot of paople out there who dissagree with you.

Heck I was even wanting a trophy only AM division when I was AM because I felt that the system was unfair and yes it does
discourage players from moving up and getting better because they can stay just where they are and gain more.

I absolutely agree it's bad. I've never disagreed there's a problem, just disagreed with poor solutions that mess with something that works and players like.

I totally agree with what you are saying. But don't most that get to a rating that is competitive move up within a year usually. There will always be a few that misuse the system but is it fair to punish the vast majority of ams that can't compete with pros for the abuses of a few?

I totally agree with what you are saying. But don't most that get to a rating that is competitive move up within a year usually. There will always be a few that misuse the system but is it fair to punish the vast majority of ams that can't compete with pros for the abuses of a few?



How are you punishing them? By taking away the plastic they will sell? They get a player's pack, ratings, points, and trophies all for a reduced fee the only thing that chabges it that they are not taking home mounds of plastic. I think that AM worlds should be like this for sure and trophies could be given to the top 15% or something instead of the winner gettong $750 in merch.

Other than some of the top older pros who might refuse to play Open, the incentives would progress right up the ladder from bottom to top.



This is a crock, and you know it. I challenged you over a year ago to track and post return on investment (ROI) on all PDGA players. If you ever accept the challenge, do it in an honest way also. If an advanced player pays $50 but gets a $15 players pack, only use $35 for his investment, then calculate his returns. Since you are a statiscally minded person, plot the results on a rating curve, also be honest and compare the 960 player who plays pro versus the 960 player who plays advanced. Then come back to me and use those stats to buttress your assertion. I'll bet you right now that the stats would undermine your bogus assertion.

Straw man? My claim about our system is not some diversionary argument. It directly addresses the economic decisions that many people use to stay in their am division and the lower level (and increasingly higher rated) pros to eventually drop out or play a lot less. It is driving force behind who plays more and who plays less, and who stays, and who goes. Hardly a strawman.

While you are in your statistical mode, simulate your panacea expert division idea, and you will realize that you have simply transferred the negative economics from the roughly 960-980 level to the 980-1000 level. These guys will now face a lower ROI than they had in the past and eventually play less. You will have brilliantly discouraged even better players from playing. The idea is nonsense.

James, the 940-970 rated pros have been dropping out forever. Address that through lower entry fees and you might retain a few.

Oh, wait. You keep saying pro field doesn't matter. But then you keep going to back to pro payout......which is dependant on field size. So it does matter.

It seems to be a big problem for certain pros that the 960-970 rated guys are playing Advanced instead quitting tourneys.

Other than some of the top older pros who might refuse to play Open, the incentives would progress right up the ladder from bottom to top.



Scare, scare, scare. Any competition committe member, or BoD member simply needs to think it through, have a longer term vision, and the decision is obvious. In fact, y'all flattened out the payouts in the am division recently (to your credit) and as far as I can tell, we're still here.

So, the actual data from a lite version of this policy contradicts your gloom and doom, yet you still maintain that everything would fall apart.

The competition committee and BoD should take the plunge, the sport of disc golf would be better for it, and disc golf historians would look back and write about their leadership and foresight. :D

James, the 940-970 rated pros have been dropping out forever. Address that through lower entry fees and you might retain a few.


Hey, if I were King, that would be addressed also. It's basically a two-pronged solution: set the incentives correctly, and give people more affordable and attractive bets.

Quick solution.

Never offer both Pro and Am divisions at the same event.

This way, the Adv winner will never win more than the last place Pro player.

Allow the Am TDs to do whatever they think will best serve and attract their target audience, and likewise for the Pro TDs.

The larger and more successful the Am events become, the more likely there will be a market for sponsorship for the Pro events.

The fact that there is no event for the ams to be involved in the same weekend as the Pros increases the likelyhood that some of them may show up to spectate.

Until the two groups are separated, the argument over this perceived insult will never go away.

Quick solution.

Never offer both Pro and Am divisions at the same event.

This way, the Adv winner will never win more than the last place Pro player.

Allow the Am TDs to do whatever they think will best serve and attract their target audience, and likewise for the Pro TDs.

The larger and more successful the Am events become, the more likely there will be a market for sponsorship for the Pro events.

The fact that there is no event for the ams to be involved in the same weekend as the Pros increases the likelyhood that some of them may show up to spectate.

Until the two groups are separated, the argument over this perceived insult will never go away.



Eureka!

I keep seeing all these 'the PDGA should modify the Am structure" type arguments and shake my head. Wake up, the PDGA does not have a monopoly on Disc Golf. Ams will go to the tournaments that provide them value. Setting up the sanctioning structure so a TD can't provide value just promotes more non-sanctioned Am tournaments. Period.

The Am thing works, and it is really its own animal. If you want more Ams to play Pro, then you have to make the Pro division more desirable for them. It won't work by making the Am divisions less desirable as there are too may options, and the basics of free enterprise will fill the void that the PDGA would create.

As for Pros complaining that they got less than an Am, get over it! You�re not in the same 'tournament', and they have no responsibility to support your choices.

scoot_er asked me to re-post a table we did on the COTO event. here it is:

__________________________________________________

i took last weekend's payout (div $ column) then used the pdga payout tables to see the payout of a 40% single division (1d $ column). the 3 track $ column is slightly weighted towards the top.

compare the div$ and the 1d$ or 3track$ columns to see exactly how the divisional structure rewards relative performance. this is only one event, but the single division looks like it is remarkably fair. i suspect that even those players who would earn less would not complain about this structure too much.

<table border="1"><tr><td>z</td><td>name</td><td>pdga</td><td>rating</td><td>r1</td><td>r2</td><td>r3</td><td>ttl</td><td>div $</td><td>1d $</td><td>3 track $
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>Michael Olse</td><td>19362</td><td>1006</td><td>48</td><td>52</td><td>52</td><td>152</td><td>$271 </td><td>$270 </td><td>$280
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Vinnie Miller</td><td>5521</td><td>989</td><td>50</td><td>53</td><td>49</td><td>152</td><td>$262 </td><td>$270 </td><td>$280
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Epimenio Ramirez</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>54</td><td>50</td><td>50</td><td>154</td><td>$55 </td><td>$170 </td><td>$180
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Smokin Joe Torres</td><td>12196</td><td>980</td><td>51</td><td>53</td><td>52</td><td>156</td><td>$158 </td><td>$140 </td><td>$155
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Steven Hemmeline</td><td>23569</td><td>976</td><td>52</td><td>56</td><td>48</td><td>156</td><td>$98 </td><td>$125 </td><td>$130
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Joel Kelly</td><td>9152</td><td>1010</td><td>53</td><td>56</td><td>48</td><td>157</td><td>$68 </td><td>$110 </td><td>$120
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>Dagon Owen</td><td>14999</td><td>1003</td><td>54</td><td>50</td><td>54</td><td>158</td><td>$158 </td><td>$100 </td><td>$110
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>Alex Downs</td><td>15217</td><td>994</td><td>54</td><td>55</td><td>50</td><td>159</td><td>$68 </td><td>$95 </td><td>$105
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Matt Hall</td><td>18133</td><td>993</td><td>55</td><td>54</td><td>50</td><td>159</td><td>n/a</td><td>$90 </td><td>$45
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Jamie Callis</td><td>15609</td><td>979</td><td>55</td><td>53</td><td>52</td><td>160</td><td>n/a</td><td>$80 </td><td>$90
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>Jerry Lee Perez Sr</td><td>9957</td><td>974</td><td>56</td><td>52</td><td>52</td><td>160</td><td>$182 </td><td>$80 </td><td>$85
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Rob Lowrie</td><td>26322</td><td>925</td><td>53</td><td>56</td><td>51</td><td>160</td><td>$50 </td><td>$75 </td><td>$80
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Brandon Smitheal</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>52</td><td>56</td><td>53</td><td>161</td><td>$45 </td><td>$70 </td><td>$75
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Mark Stevens</td><td>18342</td><td>969</td><td>53</td><td>55</td><td>54</td><td>162</td><td>$123 </td><td>$70 </td><td>$75
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Ian Hovey</td><td>24943</td><td>957</td><td>52</td><td>58</td><td>52</td><td>162</td><td>$50 </td><td>$65 </td><td>$70
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Jeffrey Hellman</td><td>13732</td><td>970</td><td>59</td><td>55</td><td>49</td><td>163</td><td>n/a</td><td>$60 </td><td>$65
</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Matt Bond</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>56</td><td>51</td><td>56</td><td>163</td><td>$48 </td><td>$60 </td><td>$65
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>Dion Garcia</td><td>21607</td><td>954</td><td>55</td><td>58</td><td>52</td><td>165</td><td>$95 </td><td>$60 </td><td>$65
</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>James McCaine</td><td>4206</td><td>974</td><td>54</td><td>54</td><td>58</td><td>166</td><td>$75 </td><td>$55 </td><td>$55
</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>Efrain Salazar</td><td>21173</td><td>954</td><td>57</td><td>57</td><td>52</td><td>166</td><td>$32 </td><td>$55 </td><td>$55
</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>Anthony Daman</td><td>17995</td><td>961</td><td>58</td><td>60</td><td>49</td><td>167</td><td>$42 </td><td>$55 </td><td>$55
</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>Blair Nicholson</td><td>19327</td><td>953</td><td>58</td><td>60</td><td>50</td><td>168</td><td>$42 </td><td>$50 </td><td>$55
</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>Pete Lopez</td><td>16986</td><td>955</td><td>58</td><td>52</td><td>59</td><td>169</td><td>n/a</td><td>$50 </td><td>$45
</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>Micah Moon Winters</td><td>16033</td><td>924</td><td>61</td><td>55</td><td>53</td><td>169</td><td>$38 </td><td>$50 </td><td>$45
</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>Eric Salazar</td><td>21172</td><td>937</td><td>60</td><td>57</td><td>52</td><td>169</td><td>$35 </td><td>$50 </td><td>$45
</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>David Vaughan</td><td>6511</td><td>945</td><td>61</td><td>54</td><td>55</td><td>170</td><td>$55 </td><td>$45 </td><td>$45
</td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>Jon Parmley</td><td>21653</td><td>943</td><td>59</td><td>55</td><td>57</td><td>171</td><td>$35 </td><td>$45 </td><td>$40
</td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td>Shannon Fosdick</td><td>6110</td><td>974</td><td>64</td><td>53</td><td>55</td><td>172</td><td>n/a</td><td>$45 </td><td>$40
</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>Richard Hardman</td><td>26296</td><td>920</td><td>59</td><td>57</td><td>58</td><td>174</td><td>$29 </td><td>$45 </td><td>$40
</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>Erik Soete</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>57</td><td>61</td><td>56</td><td>174</td><td>$25 </td><td>$45 </td><td>$40
</td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td>Marcus Lujan</td><td>23939</td><td>915</td><td>59</td><td>58</td><td>57</td><td>174</td><td>$25 </td><td>$40 </td><td>$20
</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>Pat Brenner</td><td>10403</td><td>934</td><td>62</td><td>56</td><td>56</td><td>174</td><td>$50 </td><td>$40 </td><td>$20
</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>Jimmy Zamora</td><td>20375</td><td>981</td><td>65</td><td>59</td><td>52</td><td>176</td><td>n/a</td><td>$40 </td><td>$20
</td></tr><tr><td>34</td><td>Larry Thompson</td><td>20095</td><td>951</td><td>62</td><td>57</td><td>57</td><td>176</td><td>n/a</td><td>$40 </td><td>$20
</td></tr><tr><td>35</td><td>Robby Hendrick</td><td>5824</td><td>985</td><td>56</td><td>60</td><td>60</td><td>176</td><td>n/a</td><td>$40 </td><td>$20
</td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>Ruben South Paw Campos Jr.</td><td>14515</td><td>920</td><td>59</td><td>59</td><td>58</td><td>176</td><td>$29 </td><td>$40 </td><td>$15
</td></tr><tr><td>37</td><td>Rick Gaskill</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>65</td><td>58</td><td>53</td><td>176</td><td>$40 </td><td>$40 </td><td>$15
</td></tr><tr><td>38</td><td>Edward Miller</td><td>5503</td><td>961</td><td>62</td><td>57</td><td>58</td><td>177</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>$15
</td></tr><tr><td>39</td><td>Mark Bowman</td><td>20495</td><td>948</td><td>65</td><td>55</td><td>58</td><td>178</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>$15
</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>Gus Calvo</td><td>26463</td><td>923</td><td>60</td><td>61</td><td>57</td><td>178</td><td>$22 </td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td>John Hovey</td><td>24944</td><td>929</td><td>58</td><td>57</td><td>63</td><td>178</td><td>$31 </td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>Dale Nine Lives Hemmeline</td><td>21772</td><td>948</td><td>59</td><td>60</td><td>60</td><td>179</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td>Billy Moody</td><td>11034</td><td>939</td><td>60</td><td>65</td><td>55</td><td>180</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td>Michael Ynfante</td><td>15596</td><td>938</td><td>57</td><td>60</td><td>63</td><td>180</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>Matt MacLane</td><td>25782</td><td>927</td><td>59</td><td>60</td><td>61</td><td>180</td><td>$20 </td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>Joe Herndon</td><td>23284</td><td>915</td><td>63</td><td>58</td><td>59</td><td>180</td><td>$19 </td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>Lino Camacho</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>61</td><td>65</td><td>54</td><td>180</td><td>$16 </td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>Glen Lubeck</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>60</td><td>61</td><td>59</td><td>180</td><td>$21 </td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>Brad Granier</td><td>24337</td><td>921</td><td>64</td><td>63</td><td>54</td><td>181</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>Todd Golden</td><td>21411</td><td>913</td><td>66</td><td>56</td><td>59</td><td>181</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>51</td><td>Blake Nicholson</td><td>19224</td><td>926</td><td>59</td><td>62</td><td>60</td><td>181</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>Jarrod Christopher</td><td>27266</td><td>905</td><td>64</td><td>56</td><td>61</td><td>181</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>53</td><td>Jeremy Rothwell</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>63</td><td>56</td><td>62</td><td>181</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>54</td><td>Edwin Morgan II</td><td>7359</td><td>920</td><td>57</td><td>59</td><td>65</td><td>181</td><td>$50 </td><td></td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>Neal Dambra</td><td>200</td><td>957</td><td>58</td><td>63</td><td>61</td><td>182</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td>Blake Baumgardner</td><td>22362</td><td>934</td><td>62</td><td>61</td><td>61</td><td>184</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>57</td><td>Scott Rozanski</td><td>14254</td><td>922</td><td>58</td><td>61</td><td>65</td><td>184</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>58</td><td>Robbie Schroeder</td><td>16164</td><td>904</td><td>61</td><td>62</td><td>61</td><td>184</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td>Ignacio Nacho Medina</td><td>25478</td><td>827</td><td>61</td><td>64</td><td>60</td><td>185</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>Thomas Kansas White</td><td>15562</td><td>929</td><td>59</td><td>64</td><td>62</td><td>185</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>Jason Baker</td><td>20279</td><td>935</td><td>63</td><td>64</td><td>60</td><td>187</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>62</td><td>Andrew Romero</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>63</td><td>65</td><td>59</td><td>187</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>63</td><td>Guy Boyan</td><td>27442</td><td>909</td><td>66</td><td>67</td><td>56</td><td>189</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>64</td><td>Michael Brownlow</td><td>28097</td><td>917</td><td>66</td><td>58</td><td>65</td><td>189</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>65</td><td>Jayson Houston</td><td>26668</td><td>910</td><td>62</td><td>67</td><td>61</td><td>190</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>Richard L. Lewis</td><td>15057</td><td>887</td><td>64</td><td>68</td><td>58</td><td>190</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>67</td><td>Guillermo Avalos</td><td>26691</td><td>927</td><td>67</td><td>67</td><td>60</td><td>194</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>68</td><td>Walter Rayburn</td><td>12375</td><td>911</td><td>62</td><td>64</td><td>68</td><td>194</td><td>$40 </td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>69</td><td>Wade Kolb</td><td>22783</td><td>838</td><td>64</td><td>68</td><td>62</td><td>194</td><td>$31 </td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>70</td><td>Jake Walsdorf</td><td>15467</td><td>919</td><td>67</td><td>64</td><td>64</td><td>195</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>71</td><td>Casey Guthrie</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>67</td><td>65</td><td>66</td><td>198</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>72</td><td>De\\\'Atra Hunter</td><td>18666</td><td>850</td><td>68</td><td>66</td><td>65</td><td>199</td><td>$43 </td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>73</td><td>Jan Baumgardner</td><td>22361</td><td>886</td><td>67</td><td>64</td><td>68</td><td>199</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>74</td><td>Emily Brown</td><td>27039</td><td>861</td><td>69</td><td>67</td><td>65</td><td>201</td><td>$169 </td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>75</td><td>Gail Repka</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>67</td><td>69</td><td>65</td><td>201</td><td>$36 </td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>76</td><td>Danielle Vargas</td><td>18131</td><td>869</td><td>69</td><td>70</td><td>67</td><td>206</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>77</td><td>Daniel Schroeder</td><td>19158</td><td>863</td><td>71</td><td>69</td><td>66</td><td>206</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>78</td><td>Paige Pierce</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>74</td><td>71</td><td>64</td><td>209</td><td>$28 </td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>79</td><td>Michele Williams</td><td>26923</td><td>796</td><td>69</td><td>68</td><td>73</td><td>210</td><td>$21 </td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>80</td><td>Ana Hernandez</td><td>10611</td><td>820</td><td>73</td><td>70</td><td>68</td><td>211</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>81</td><td>Laura Hovey</td><td>24942</td><td>797</td><td>72</td><td>72</td><td>67</td><td>211</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>82</td><td>Gary Barron</td><td>n/a</td><td>n/a</td><td>80</td><td>70</td><td>67</td><td>217</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>83</td><td>Jennifer Beazley</td><td>26117</td><td>775</td><td>75</td><td>73</td><td>76</td><td>224</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>84</td><td>Ginger Bowman</td><td>22279</td><td>810</td><td>81</td><td>75</td><td>71</td><td>227</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>85</td><td>Darrell Dore</td><td>12051</td><td>761</td><td>81</td><td>83</td><td>80</td><td>244</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>86</td><td>Dan Mueller</td><td>14270</td><td>879</td><td>64</td><td>126</td><td>61</td><td>251</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>87</td><td>Chris Rogers</td><td>24042</td><td>949</td><td>61</td><td>59</td><td>999</td><td>1119</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>88</td><td>Alan Kubala</td><td>4527</td><td>905</td><td>62</td><td>65</td><td>999</td><td>1126</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>89</td><td>Alan Jensen</td><td>6120</td><td>927</td><td>66</td><td>62</td><td>999</td><td>1127</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>90</td><td>Marcus Rios</td><td>24441</td><td>919</td><td>67</td><td>64</td><td>999</td><td>1130</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>91</td><td>John Godfrey</td><td>23447</td><td>852</td><td>67</td><td>999</td><td>999</td><td>2065</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>92</td><td>RT Evans</td><td>21720</td><td>960</td><td>999</td><td>999</td><td>999</td><td>2997</td><td>n/a</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>
_____________________________________________

hope this helps

I've done this several times for events around here. Very similar results. (the one error I think you have is that you did not break the women out....I do not think you are really implying that "1 division" mean all Pro's in one division, but rather all men).

What does this tell us? To me, it basically says that it does not really matter if we do things the way we do now or a 1D format (although analyzing 1 events does not necessarily yield good conclusions). The top players do not make a whole lot more when the division is made much larger since the $$ needs to be delved out to so many more people.

I keep seeing all these 'the PDGA should modify the Am structure" type arguments and shake my head. Wake up, the PDGA does not have a monopoly on Disc Golf. Ams will go to the tournaments that provide them value. Setting up the sanctioning structure so a TD can't provide value just promotes more non-sanctioned Am tournaments. Period.

The Am thing works, and it is really its own animal. If you want more Ams to play Pro, then you have to make the Pro division more desirable for them. It won't work by making the Am divisions less desirable as there are too may options, and the basics of free enterprise will fill the void that the PDGA would create.



Or you can develop an entirely new competition system where amateurs aren't weaned on the expectation of large amounts of merchandise.

In Maine, the amateur divisions feature low entry fees while providing a sweet player's pack, CTP prizes, trophies, scorecards, exclusive use of the course for the day, and free coffee/hot chocolate.

No mountains of loot are awarded to the winners, but EVERYONE gets excellent value for their money whether they place first or last. The amateur disc golfers there compete for the thrill of competition, not to get awarded oodles of plastic and merchandise at the expense of others.

The era of prize-conditioned players needs to end. Offer low entry fee trophy-only tournaments and you make the amateur divisions all the more healthier, while making the Pro divisions all the more attractive for golfers interested in winning the big bucks. And maybe you'll effect a culture change as they did in Maine.

Did everyone pay the same entry fee?

If not, did you make the entry fee the same when you put everyone into a single division? It should be the lowest entry fee paid.

Also, what does the payout look like when all the women are in one division and the men in another?

Offer whatever format you like. Its a free world, and no one, including the PDGA is in a position to dictate otherwise. Just don't get the impression that PDGA sanctioned is the only game in town, and that you can ignore basic free enterprise. If the Ams in the area prefer a hefty merch payout format, someone will offer it. And in some cases, they will offer 'Am only' type tournaments so they don't have to deal with the issues that the Pros present. It's happening already.

You can't change the basics of free enterprise, and you can't fix what really limits the Pro division payouts (playing only or each other's entry fee) by trying to. It will be about as effective as fixing a flat tire by changing the oil.

If the Ams in the area prefer a hefty merch payout format, someone will offer it. And in some cases, they will offer 'Am only' type tournaments so they don't have to deal with the issues that the Pros present. It's happening already.



I've heard this argument before.

Maybe where you're from. I've never heard of unsanctioned am only tournaments. What's stopping pros from playing in these unsanctioned tournaments when there's no PDGA and no rules? Wouldn't ams at the unsanctioned tournaments eventually wake up and say "Why are we playing for silly discs instead of money?"

What scooter and like minded folks need to realize is that Bruce and Chuck actually agree with most of what you say and see the flaws in the system, you just have to filter through the sarcasm and BS, respectively. They just ALWAYS try and play devil's advocate to try and push your buttons and humor themselves. It took me a couple of spats with them to figure this out years ago. They agree with everything you say deep down so quit wasting your time arguing with them. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

This one is currently an 'Am only' that is sanctioned, but I'm not sure that it was the first year it was offered:

Wham Bam Thank You Am (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=637210&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1)


I would bet that if the PDGA tried to change the format, this tournament would continue to function as is without the sanctioning. It fills every year and the participants enjoy it.

As for Ams saying, 'hey let's play for cash instead', well if the market is there, it may just gravitate to it. But I don't see that happening as there is no benefit to the TD, or even the need for a TD at that point. I believe this currently goes on and is referred to as 'casual rounds with side bets'.

Maybe where you're from. I've never heard of unsanctioned am only tournaments. What's stopping pros from playing in these unsanctioned tournaments when there's no PDGA and no rules?



Must not be any Southern Nationals events in your neighborhood. There's enough knowledge of the Southern Nationals option out there that TDs in strong PDGA areas could easily make the switch to no sanctioning and possibly the SN option if the PDGA missteps. Bruce hosts some of the biggest local PDGA events with their own twist that pulls huge numbers. They could easily drop sanctioning if the PDGA makes the wrong move and go merrily along. The TDs have the pivotal postion in this since they reflect the preferences of their players. If players don't want to play a format but will play another, that's what the TDs will do.

I personally think Best Shot doubles is a weak format to test the skills of doubles teams compared to several other formats. However, Best Shot is so popular, it's hard to buck the tide and use any other format than that one, at least for local events, and expect to get players.

BTW, everyone has misunderstood my original question it seems--"Why do Open players pay MORE?"

The Advanced division is the most desirable division. It usually is the biggest division at most PDGAs. Why aren't they paying the highest entry fees. Open is usually the least desirable division and usually is the smallest division, yet they pay the highest entry fees? Why doesn't every division pay the same entry fee?

Oh, and as for the 'what's stopping pros from playing' question, the TD just won't accept an entry from someone registered in a Pro division. Simple and effective.

i don't understand what you're saying exactly. " ...someone registered in a pro division"?

In Maine, the amateur divisions feature low entry fees while providing a sweet player's pack, CTP prizes, trophies, scorecards, exclusive use of the course for the day, and free coffee/hot chocolate.

No mountains of loot are awarded to the winners, but EVERYONE gets excellent value for their money whether they place first or last. The amateur disc golfers there compete for the thrill of competition, not to get awarded oodles of plastic and merchandise at the expense of others.

The era of prize-conditioned players needs to end. Offer low entry fee trophy-only tournaments and you make the amateur divisions all the more healthier, while making the Pro divisions all the more attractive for golfers interested in winning the big bucks. And maybe you'll effect a culture change as they did in Maine.



I love Maine for many reasons and this is another. I don't think that people from areas where disc golf is huge can truly comprehend this model.

The Advanced division is the most desirable division. It usually is the biggest division at most PDGAs. Why aren't they paying the highest entry fees. Open is usually the least desirable division and usually is the smallest division, yet they pay the highest entry fees?


Gee, do you think there is some correlation there? I bet that if you raised the Advanced entry fees to the level of the Open entry fees, Advanced would become just as lightly populated as Open.

How about we just remove the word "amateur" from the title?

Someone who has signed up with the PDGA in a Pro division or is classified by the PDGA as a Pro.

pros pay more because they want a bigger payout. i have found so far running events, that the less you charge pros the less will show up. and seemingly the more you charge the more will show up. i guess due to the bigger pot available. admittedly, if you have lots of sponsorship likely they will show up regardless of the entry fee.

i am testing the waters a bit with a little local tour thing this year similar to brawl, but no series points and less divisions. ther ewill be the premier divison for 20$ which will be trophy for the winner and a regular 50% payout to the players. then there will be the Second Divison which will be 5$ and trophy only. once you win the trophy you can't play second division anymore as you are "promoted". just for laughs i ought to "relegate" the loser of the premier division, but i need to think it through more. it would be funny though! :)

pros pay more because they want a bigger payout.



Dang, we agree on something.

holy smokes!!!! i better get down and buy a powerball ticket!!! ;)

Gee, do you think there is some correlation there? I bet that if you raised the Advanced entry fees to the level of the Open entry fees, Advanced would become just as lightly populated as Open.



I guess these are numbers from last year, but if you look at the player ratings page you get this:

Pro Men: 2594
Am Men: 6363
Pro Women: 193
Am Women: 483

Pro Men to Am Men = .407
Pro Women to Am Women = .399

Why don't more Pro's show up? Maybe because there aren't as many people that play that level of disc golf. Maybe there are Pro's out there just not playing because of the higher entry fee, but the numbers suggest that there aren't as many Pro's as there are Ams.

That being said, why are different divisions set at different prices if they all get paid out accordingly? The only reason I can see for staggering entry fees is because the more casual player will be less willing to pay a large sum to play.

That could also be a reason why Open pays more to play, because they are willing to in order to compete in events. A true AM (which I know is an entirely different argument) would probably not pay that much.

"I personally think high entry fees are due to demand from the ams who have been conditioned to think the should be rewarded for playing at a mediocre level. " ( from the first post of this thread.)

i think i understand how you are coming to this conclusion, as you are surmising that pro fees have raised as a relational effect to escalating am fees. but from my experience, ams tend to come regardless of the entry fees or payout and usually come more to play and enjoy competition and hanging out. i haven't seen nearly as much cause and effect with am in relation to entry fees vs. participation. now, i admit i have to facts written donw, this is based on a seat of the pants feel from running lots of events in my area, so your experiences may vary.

i do agree however that entry fees should all be the same to encourage ams to move up if they wanted to. but i suspect many pros don't feel as you do and want a bigger payout to make it worth their while if they play well. i very well may make the entry fees the same for advanced and pro this year at an event to test the waters. but i also agree with the previous poster that as am skill level decreases they want lower entry fees as they think they are just donating anyway, even if they have a chance to win. i am hoping my 2 division format solves that problem, though i think a 3 division ratings based formula might be best. i am sorry to see that go quietly by the wayside as a sanctioned type of event...

pros pay more because they want a bigger payout. i have found so far running events, that the less you charge pros the less will show up. and seemingly the more you charge the more will show up. i guess due to the bigger pot available. admittedly, if you have lots of sponsorship likely they will show up regardless of the entry fee.

i am testing the waters a bit with a little local tour thing this year similar to brawl, but no series points and less divisions. ther ewill be the premier divison for 20$ which will be trophy for the winner and a regular 50% payout to the players. then there will be the Second Divison which will be 5$ and trophy only. once you win the trophy you can't play second division anymore as you are "promoted". just for laughs i ought to "relegate" the loser of the premier division, but i need to think it through more. it would be funny though! :)



I would think it would follow a bell curve, the more you charge the more Pros you get, up to a point. At some price level it would fall off. Do you have any feel for that?

That kind of information could be used dynamically to determine what is the optimal amount to charge to maximize participation and payout.

Another thing to keep in mind is that one event won't change anything. If you charge, say, $35 and $35 for Advanced and Open you might get some Ams to play Open because $35 is an okay amount to donate whereas the typical $60 isn't. But you won't have droves of ams moving up and taking the cash and being slaved to the $60 entry fees for the rest of their lives. Ams know too many pros who don't play anymore to be suckered into accepting cash in the one and only low entry fee pro tournament ever.

If they knew that pro entry fess would be $35 from now on, then it would probably be different. All IMHO, of course.

There's enough knowledge of the Southern Nationals option out there that TDs in strong PDGA areas could easily make the switch to no sanctioning and possibly the SN option if the PDGA missteps. They could easily drop sanctioning if the PDGA makes the wrong move and go merrily along. The TDs have the pivotal postion in this since they reflect the preferences of their players.

I do think you should still try any and all new formats. :) You just need to also take a macro view when trying to draw conclusions.

i know, this is all seat of the pants facts. no real conclusions can be drawn from it. yet it is based on my experiences. and i would agree with lyle that it would have a bell curve effect. but i submit the way to have lower pro fees and more participation, could be to find a true sponsorship model rather than the cannibalization \ gambling type model we seem to have now. as long as payouts are based on entry fees then entry fees will have an effect on draw except at the best and biggest events. and they usually are the best and biggest because they have sponsorship. kind of like a catch 22, eh?

This would be interesting... but probably no one would go for it... what if...

What if there was a set entry fee, same across the board, and part of every entry fee goes to open. For instance, let's have rec, am, adv, and open with a reasonable entry fee. The lower divisions have to donate more. Let's say rec donates 30%, am 20%, and adv %10.

People will probably question how this is fair, but here are some possibilities... Rec would get low end plastic, Am could get proline, and adv could get high end plastic. Given the same number of players in each division, the number of discs would be equal, even if payout was not. Since we use retail prices for payout, the cash donated to open would not be missed. Open gets paid out in cash and everyone should be happy.

I suggest this model because it would keep everybody with a reasonable entry fee that is the same, yet it would encourage people to move up because otherwise they are truly donating to the Open division. The higher you move up, the less you are forced to donate.

Anyway, just a thought, and one that I would accept, but I doubt that many would go for it.

TDs could offer that option now. However, the PDGA tries to limit how much it tries to dictate how TDs do their allocations of sponsorship merch, cash and retail/wholesale difference as long as they meet the prescribed minimum payouts they accepted as goals on the tier guidelines.

Chuck proposed a model about a year ago that will work. It got shot down by Kevin McCoy and James but I'm pretty confident they're wrong.

Essentially, you pro-rate based on ratings. The higher your rating the more you pay. While this feels unfair, it will work. You're going to pull a lot of low rated players into the Pro pool because the risk will be less.

The reason you need a system like this one is because the lower ranked players inherantly recognize the fact that playing against the top guys is a losing proposition. They usually learn this the hard way. By playing in the Pro ranks and loosing repeatedly. At $100 a wack that gets old in a hurry. At $20 to $50, it's a lot smaller of a bite.

There is a lot than can and should be said about this format but despite the likelihood that James is going to post that it's not fair, it will work.

I took took the results from Z-Boaz A-tier last year and recast them as if the Expert option was available. As a side note, I've only been proposing the Expert division as appropriate for A-tiers which amount to only 30 of the almost 800 sanctioned events in a year.

I set the Expert division such that every player entered who had a rating from 950-984 would be in it with the exception of the Women &amp; GM Pros. The entry fees for Z-Boaz were: Open $100, $90 Master, $65 Advanced. I made the entry fees the same for my version and set the Expert entry fee at $80. I deducted the same fees that Mace did from each division to get the net entry fee for payout calcs.

I only had their current player ratings versus the ones they had a year ago. The columns starting with a 'Z' are the actual values from the event. The columns starting with 'N' are the proposed new version. The Expert players who are pros would have the option of taking their merch prize as cash at 50% value so that's why two new payouts are shown for them.

New Open
<table border="1"><tr><td> N Plc</td><td>Z Plc</td><td>Z Div</td><td>Name</td><td>Rating</td><td>Total</td><td>Z $$</td><td>N $$
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>MPO</td><td>Barry Schultz</td><td>1038</td><td>166</td><td>$810 </td><td>$815
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>MPO</td><td>Nolan Grider</td><td>1020</td><td>172</td><td>$540 </td><td>$545
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>MPO</td><td>Chris Smith</td><td>1014</td><td>176</td><td>$358 </td><td>$360
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>MPO</td><td>Jay Reading</td><td>1007</td><td>176</td><td>$358 </td><td>$360
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>MPO</td><td>Eric Mccabe</td><td>1021</td><td>179</td><td>$238 </td><td>$240
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>5</td><td>MPO</td><td>Dagon Owen</td><td>992</td><td>179</td><td>$238 </td><td>$240
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>1</td><td>MPM</td><td>Dean Tannock</td><td>1024</td><td>180</td><td>$440 </td><td>$172
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>7</td><td>MPO</td><td>Chris Boro</td><td>994</td><td>180</td><td>$180 </td><td>$172
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>8</td><td>MPO</td><td>Matt Hall</td><td>1003</td><td>183</td><td>$152 </td><td>$142
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>8</td><td>MPO</td><td>Dixon Jowers</td><td>990</td><td>183</td><td>$152 </td><td>$142
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>10</td><td>MPO</td><td>Justin Bunnell</td><td>1012</td><td>184</td><td>$135 </td><td>$120
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>11</td><td>MPO</td><td>Kevin Mccoy</td><td>1013</td><td>187</td><td>$120 </td><td>$110
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>12</td><td>MPO</td><td>Coda Hatfield</td><td>1017</td><td>188</td><td>$110 </td><td>$50
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>3</td><td>MPM</td><td>Joel Kelly</td><td>1015</td><td>188</td><td>$205 </td><td>$50
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>4</td><td>MPM</td><td>Mitch Mcclellan</td><td>1000</td><td>190</td><td>$160 </td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>13</td><td>MPO</td><td>Clint Mcclellan</td><td>989</td><td>191</td><td>$100 </td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>14</td><td>MPO</td><td>John Maiuro</td><td>1000</td><td>194</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>14</td><td>MPO</td><td>Chris Flesner</td><td>997</td><td>194</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>14</td><td>MPO</td><td>Ken "tank" Franks</td><td>990</td><td>194</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>17</td><td>MPO</td><td>Alex Downs</td><td>1004</td><td>195</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>18</td><td>MPO</td><td>Donald Ellsworth</td><td>997</td><td>196</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>19</td><td>MPO</td><td>Steve Hemmeline</td><td>989</td><td>198</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>22</td><td>MPO</td><td>Clayton Bethmann</td><td>992</td><td>199</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>23</td><td>MPO</td><td>Mike Grider</td><td>985</td><td>200</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>32</td><td>MPO</td><td>Dick Parker</td><td>933</td><td>222</td><td></td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

New Expert
<table border="1"><tr><td> N Plc</td><td>Z Plc</td><td>Z Div</td><td>Name</td><td>Rating</td><td>Total</td><td>Z $$</td><td>N $$</td><td>Z Merch</td><td>N Merch
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>MPM</td><td>Jeff Cooper</td><td>981</td><td>187</td><td>$305 </td><td>$90</td><td>.</td><td>$180
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>MA1</td><td>Chris Hutchinson</td><td>992</td><td>188</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$125</td><td>$168
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>MA1</td><td>Shawn Robertson</td><td>966</td><td>189</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$115</td><td>$168
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>3</td><td>MA1</td><td>Brandon Elder</td><td>965</td><td>190</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$115</td><td>$157
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>MA1</td><td>Nate Bitner</td><td>970</td><td>192</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$115</td><td>$146
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>MA1</td><td>Billy Lund ii</td><td>981</td><td>193</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$105</td><td>$146
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>5</td><td>MPM</td><td>John Luecke</td><td>977</td><td>193</td><td>$125 </td><td>$68</td><td>.</td><td>$135
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>MA1</td><td>Devan Owens</td><td>980</td><td>195</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$98</td><td>$135
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>7</td><td>MA1</td><td>Nikko Locastro</td><td>996</td><td>195</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$98</td><td>$123
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>6</td><td>MPM</td><td>Mark Stiles</td><td>971</td><td>197</td><td>$95 </td><td>$62</td><td>.</td><td>$123
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>19</td><td>MPO</td><td>Justin Landers</td><td>978</td><td>198</td><td>.</td><td>$56</td><td>.</td><td>$112
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>7</td><td>MPM</td><td>Brian Guthrie</td><td>971</td><td>198</td><td>.</td><td>$56</td><td>.</td><td>$112
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>10</td><td>MA1</td><td>Joseph Stettinger</td><td>966</td><td>198</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$95</td><td>$101
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>19</td><td>MPO</td><td>Glenn Neill</td><td>963</td><td>198</td><td>.</td><td>$45</td><td>.</td><td>$90
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>11</td><td>MA1</td><td>Edward Palacios</td><td>969</td><td>199</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$85</td><td>$90
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>8</td><td>MPM</td><td>Jay Bitner</td><td>968</td><td>200</td><td>.</td><td>$40</td><td>.</td><td>$79
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>12</td><td>MA1</td><td>Armando "gordo" Garcia</td><td>960</td><td>200</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$85</td><td>$67
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>9</td><td>MPM</td><td>Ron Klein</td><td>953</td><td>201</td><td>.</td><td>$28</td><td>.</td><td>$56
</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>17</td><td>MA1</td><td>Dasun Keylor</td><td>966</td><td>202</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$75</td><td>$56
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>10</td><td>MPM</td><td>James Mccaine</td><td>980</td><td>203</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>24</td><td>MPO</td><td>Kyle Mcclure</td><td>972</td><td>203</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>25</td><td>MPO</td><td>Chris Schmidt</td><td>968</td><td>204</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>19</td><td>MA1</td><td>Alex Bachicha</td><td>960</td><td>204</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$65</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>21</td><td>MA1</td><td>Brice Longerbone</td><td>965</td><td>205</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$50</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>21</td><td>MA1</td><td>Chris Wagle</td><td>964</td><td>205</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$50</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>26</td><td>MPO</td><td>Chris Pepperling</td><td>974</td><td>206</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>23</td><td>MA1</td><td>Tom Langley</td><td>960</td><td>206</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$45</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>27</td><td>MPO</td><td>Jared Pennington</td><td>985</td><td>208</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>27</td><td>MPO</td><td>Blake Needles</td><td>978</td><td>208</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>26</td><td>MA1</td><td>Shawn Wooten</td><td>971</td><td>208</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$40</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>11</td><td>MPM</td><td>D. Bryan James</td><td>966</td><td>209</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>11</td><td>MPM</td><td>David Vaughan</td><td>955</td><td>209</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>29</td><td>MPO</td><td>Colin Evans</td><td>972</td><td>210</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>28</td><td>MA1</td><td>Tracy Ruder</td><td>956</td><td>211</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>30</td><td>MPO</td><td>Dennie Ortega</td><td>962</td><td>212</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>30</td><td>MPO</td><td>Fred Smith</td><td>957</td><td>212</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>29</td><td>MA1</td><td>Justin Bougher</td><td>954</td><td>212</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>32</td><td>MA1</td><td>Lucas Riddle</td><td>978</td><td>214</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>32</td><td>MA1</td><td>David Nicholson</td><td>956</td><td>214</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>13</td><td>MPM</td><td>Kyle Power</td><td>950</td><td>214</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>33</td><td>MPO</td><td>Larry Gardner</td><td>985</td><td>999</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>14</td><td>MPM</td><td>Joe Sofinowski</td><td>981</td><td>999</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>56</td><td>MA1</td><td>Eric Dodson</td><td>951</td><td>999</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>14</td><td>MPM</td><td>Kent Steel</td><td>877</td><td>999</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

New Advanced
<table border="1"><tr><td> N Plc</td><td>Z Plc</td><td>Z Div</td><td>Name</td><td>Rating</td><td>Total</td><td>Z Merch</td><td>N Merch
</td></tr><tr><td>1</td><td>6</td><td>MA1</td><td>ChrisP Pierce</td><td>937</td><td>194</td><td>$105</td><td>$127
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>7</td><td>MA1</td><td>Paul Fry</td><td>944</td><td>195</td><td>$98</td><td>$120
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>12</td><td>MA1</td><td>Drew Neitzel</td><td>949</td><td>200</td><td>$85</td><td>$113
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>14</td><td>MA1</td><td>Joe Rotan</td><td>947</td><td>201</td><td>$78</td><td>$102
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>14</td><td>MA1</td><td>Justin Jones</td><td>943</td><td>201</td><td>$78</td><td>$102
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>14</td><td>MA1</td><td>Ike Eaker</td><td>934</td><td>201</td><td>$78</td><td>$102
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>18</td><td>MA1</td><td>Michael Ezell</td><td>944</td><td>203</td><td>$65</td><td>$93
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>19</td><td>MA1</td><td>Josh Roberts</td><td>931</td><td>204</td><td>$65</td><td>$87
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>23</td><td>MA1</td><td>Jonathan Lee</td><td>942</td><td>206</td><td>$45</td><td>$80
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>25</td><td>MA1</td><td>Jake Christian</td><td>938</td><td>207</td><td>$40</td><td>$73
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>27</td><td>MA1</td><td>Brad Bishop</td><td>943</td><td>210</td><td>$67
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>30</td><td>MA1</td><td>Mike Conners</td><td>944</td><td>213</td><td>$64
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>30</td><td>MA1</td><td>Lee Letts</td><td>944</td><td>213</td><td>$64
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>32</td><td>MA1</td><td>Britt Browning</td><td>931</td><td>214</td><td>$47
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>32</td><td>MA1</td><td>Paul Roman</td><td>917</td><td>214</td><td>$47
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>32</td><td>MA1</td><td>Allan Pisano</td><td>916</td><td>214</td><td>$47
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>37</td><td>MA1</td><td>David Landis</td><td>937</td><td>215</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>38</td><td>MA1</td><td>Heath Whitley</td><td>947</td><td>216</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>38</td><td>MA1</td><td>Jake Regier</td><td>931</td><td>216</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>38</td><td>MA1</td><td>Tim Payne</td><td>931</td><td>216</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>38</td><td>MA1</td><td>Tom Townsend</td><td>925</td><td>216</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>42</td><td>MA1</td><td>Gilbert Casas</td><td>940</td><td>218</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>43</td><td>MA1</td><td>James Williams</td><td>927</td><td>220</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>44</td><td>MA1</td><td>Jarrod Christopher</td><td>918</td><td>221</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>45</td><td>MA1</td><td>Brett Straight</td><td>917</td><td>223</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>46</td><td>MA1</td><td>Marty Pearce</td><td>920</td><td>224</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>47</td><td>MA1</td><td>Guillermo Avalos</td><td>941</td><td>225</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>47</td><td>MA1</td><td>Steve Miller</td><td>922</td><td>225</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>47</td><td>MA1</td><td>Jeremy Lockwood</td><td>917</td><td>225</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>50</td><td>MA1</td><td>Gabriel Molina</td><td>916</td><td>227</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>50</td><td>MA1</td><td>Todd Brigance</td><td>909</td><td>227</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>52</td><td>MA1</td><td>Joe Herndon</td><td>928</td><td>230</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>53</td><td>MA1</td><td>David Kinter</td><td>908</td><td>231</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>54</td><td>MA1</td><td>Mike Judge</td><td>865</td><td>232</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>55</td><td>MA1</td><td>Ben Reynolds</td><td>882</td><td>240</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>56</td><td>MA1</td><td>Brad Merys</td><td>945</td><td>999</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>56</td><td>MA1</td><td>Johnny Hicks</td><td>905</td><td>999</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

This shows the pure model in terms of players choosing their division by rating. The real world is messier and the Masters are the challenge in this situation. Nothing in my proposal would force them to play Open or Expert. They would still be free to play Master. The question is how many of the lower rated Masters in that rating range might choose Expert instead of Master. In this case, if half of the bottom rated 15 chose Master, would the remaining 7 or 8 play master? Or, would the bottom 3 or 4 in that remaining group also choose Expert leaving the top 3 or 4 to play together? At that point, I think the top guys who are World Class players would either decide not to play or to actually play against their skill level peers in Open.

I think you can see that better performance is appropriatley rewarded within each skill level and scoring range within them is tighter than with the divisions in the actual event. There are 23 less player in pro divisions. This boosts the added cash by $500 more than what was added to Open in the event. That's why the payout for first in Open remains the same with 8 less players in the division.

will is a pretty strong word for something as yet untested. i think "could work" is more appropriate. imo, it doesn;t matter if the 1000 rated player pays 100$ and i pay 30$ since he is going to take my money 90% of the time anyway. of course it is less risk to me, but pros are likely opposed because it means less payout.

a much better system would be standard entry fees, but added cash is allocated mostly to the open divison. i usually add a lins share of the added cash to open since anyone is eligible to try to win it. obviuosly several people including nick ( who is now a master) disagree. but i have heard repeatedly from the masters that it's not about the money, i just want to play with my buddies, etc. so i'm not sure why they should care. i like to use a model based on shares of added cash per player, with open getting at least 2 shares per player.

Chuck proposed a model about a year ago that will work. It got shot down by Kevin McCoy and James but I'm pretty confident they're wrong.

Essentially, you pro-rate based on ratings. The higher your rating the more you pay. While this feels unfair, it will work. You're going to pull a lot of low rated players into the Pro pool because the risk will be less.

The reason you need a system like this one is because the lower ranked players inherantly recognize the fact that playing against the top guys is a losing proposition. They usually learn this the hard way. By playing in the Pro ranks and loosing repeatedly. At $100 a wack that gets old in a hurry. At $20 to $50, it's a lot smaller of a bite.

There is a lot than can and should be said about this format but despite the likelihood that James is going to post that it's not fair, it will work.



This was already discussed earlier in this thread. From a "gambling" standpoint it makes absolute sense, but from a ideological and competitive standpoint, it effectively discourages achievement; there are increasing entry fees for increasing ability.

James and Scooter will blast this idea in 3...2...1...

Maybe the question needs to be thought about in different way for a few posts.

What does the average Am player get from the fact that there may be Pros competing in a tournament that we are at, that makes it worth our while to subsidize the Pros? Usually we are playing while they play, so we don't get to even watch them. If we're not, then we are TDing or volunteering, and no one is paying us for doing that. So, why on earth should we subsidize the Pro payout, in effect paying them?

It's because they are better disc golfers than you.

duh... :cool:

You don't deserve to win anything unless you can beat them.

I totally agree with this. There are several tournies in our area that are run using the current payout system, so I am testing the waters. I am running the Am side of our annual tournament in a "True Am" fashion this year.

$27 entry for all Am divisons with $3 ace pot optional.
Players pack - 1 tourney stamped disc, T-shirt, towel or mini, free lunch both days, eligable for CTP's throughout the weekend. (More sponsership dollars could make another disc, of the players choice, possible in the players pack).
Trophies awarded to the top 3 in each division.

The Pro side is basically normal. $52 for Pro, $47 for Masters All Pro's get T-shirt as players pack and free luch both days.

Hopefully I can drum up enough sponsorship to make the second disc happen, or just reduce the entry a bit for 1 disc. Just as many perks as I can put back into the event. Most players around here have never concieved that there could be different ROI methods than the current system offers. So, we shall see how its recieved.....

will is a pretty strong word for something as yet untested. i think "could work" is more appropriate. imo, it doesn;t matter if the 1000 rated player pays 100$ and i pay 30$ since he is going to take my money 90% of the time anyway. of course it is less risk to me, but pros are likely opposed because it means less payout.

a much better system would be standard entry fees, but added cash is allocated mostly to the open divison. i usually add a lins share of the added cash to open since anyone is eligible to try to win it. obviuosly several people including nick ( who is now a master) disagree. but i have heard repeatedly from the masters that it's not about the money, i just want to play with my buddies, etc. so i'm not sure why they should care. i like to use a model based on shares of added cash per player, with open getting at least 2 shares per player.



While I agree with you, the reason I used "will" is because our experience here is that these kinds of deals do drive non-Pros to play up. It's just too good of a deal not to. Even when those guys know they're not going to win, "well, it's only $30."

The question becomes where does it pay off? That is at $100 a pop, if you get 10 guys, there's $1,000 in the pot. If you prorate, how many guys who would of played there anyway catch a break? One or two? Then how many guys pay up so there is more money in the pool? Then add in what their odds of winning is and you know if it pays off for the big guns.

This was already discussed earlier in this thread. From a "gambling" standpoint it makes absolute sense, but from a ideological and competitive standpoint, it effectively discourages achievement; there are increasing entry fees for increasing ability.

James and Scooter will blast this idea in 3...2...1...



Actually, I appluad this idea as an improvement on the present system. It has a well intended aim of enticing people to play up, and attempts to create a better bet for a certain class of players. But as you have already stated, I do believe it has two flaws: as long as lower rated players have the option to get a greater ROI by playing advanced, many will; and the idea punishes the top guys.

In sum, the idea is better than what we have, but is not as proper as it could be, and the idea will never reach its full potential as long as there are other more lucrative options available for its intended player class.

btw, your post on Maine was spot on.

To the poster who threatens the split from the PDGA, and preventing pDGA pros from playing their event, I hope that TD has some good insurance. I suspect someone could easily sue them for denying entry, and I'm sure that the PDGA could easily sue them for using PDGA ratings to run their events. Eventually, they would have to find their own way to properly classify their players (will cost money and require central administration), and overcome the same issues the PDGA has overcome, and is presently facing, some of which the PDGA has addressed and some which we are discussing. In short, you play your threat out long term, and it is not nearly as threatening as you claim. btw, it is not the Southern National setup at all.

Chuck, I suspect your Z-Boas example is flawed. For one, I gaurantee that not all those people will play in the expert division, and just as important, you appear to comparing a top third payout in the actual tourney, to an apparently deeper payout in your simulation. In sum, I highly doubt the assumed dynamics in your simulation: many won't play expert, and the deeper payout in the pro division will attract many to play pro.

Chuck, I suspect your Z-Boas example is flawed. For one, I gaurantee that not all those people will play in the expert division, and just as important, you appear to comparing a top third payout in the actual tourney, to an apparently deeper payout in your simulation. In sum, I highly doubt the assumed dynamics in your simulation: many won't play expert, and the deeper payout in the pro division will attract many to play pro.




You're never satisified. This model works regardless what choices players make. This is the extreme version. Whatever choices are made, it still works, just like it works now for pros below 955 to cross over to Am on occasion. The point is that it does provide fair choices for fair competition. It will also draw players back that may have left sanctioned play after reaching the 960-985 range.

This event was relatively weak for A-tiers in terms of outside added cash. There are other A-tiers with a few thousand added cash that would make Open payouts even more attractive.

You say players won't choose Expert but the Ams in Expert don't have a choice just like they don't in the other progressive Am divisions. I don't really care if the Masters want to be stubborn and stay there. It's only a matter of time when the bottom rated players in Master will cross over and play with their ratings peers and not get hammered by the top guys (Pizza God maybe?). It will happen. And if it doesn't, it still works.

Chuck, I suspect your Z-Boas example is flawed. For one, I gaurantee that not all those people will play in the expert division, and just as important, you appear to comparing a top third payout in the actual tourney, to an apparently deeper payout in your simulation. In sum, I highly doubt the assumed dynamics in your simulation: many won't play expert, and the deeper payout in the pro division will attract many to play pro.




You're never satisified. This model works regardless what choices players make. This is the extreme version. Whatever choices are made, it still works, just like it works now for pros below 955 to cross over to Am on occasion. The point is that it does provide fair choices for fair competition. It will also draw players back that may have left sanctioned play after reaching the 960-985 range.

This event was relatively weak for A-tiers in terms of outside added cash. There are other A-tiers with a few thousand added cash that would make Open payouts even more attractive.

You say players won't choose Expert but the Ams in Expert don't have a choice just like they don't in the other progressive Am divisions. I don't really care if the Masters want to be stubborn and stay there. It's only a matter of time when the bottom rated players in Master will cross over and play with their ratings peers and not get hammered by the top guys (Pizza God maybe?). It will happen. And if it doesn't, it still works.



Hey Chuck i'm pretty sure all the added cash went to the Skins. I could be wrong though.

I am going to try and stay completely out of the split talk because I believe that is the kind of talk that can lead to resentment among pros and ams about who needs who more and we all play the same sport here so I will try to stay away from that one and hope all of us can as well. But I will say this if you want a $5 am entry fee for trophy only then lets do that. But lets be honest most pros don't want a trophy only tourney in that format, but what most really want to say is charge $30-$50 bucks to ams give them one $5 disc one $5 t-shirt and take the other $20-$40 and put directly into the pro payout so that you can have donors that don't even have a chance to get their money back in any fashion. Now if someone can explain the latter is fair then just let me know, because as has been stated we are really just wagering here. If the pros are so obsessed with the benefits of the amount of plastic ams get then I have an idea let the Pros play for plastic instead of money as well because I have been on Discraft and even Z and ESP discs are $5-6. So imagine the profit you could make selling through pro and this would also cause advance to move up because that is what everyone keeps saying is how great playing for discs are.

Hey Chuck i'm pretty sure all the added cash went to the Skins. I could be wrong though.




That's fine. But $1089 total was also added to all pro divisions in the payouts. Mace also paid out 40% following PDGA tables not 1/3. I used the same tables but paid 50% to Open (which is how this would work) and used the 45% Am tables for Expert.

Hey Chuck i'm pretty sure all the added cash went to the Skins. I could be wrong though.




That's fine. But $1089 total was also added to all pro divisions in the payouts. Mace also paid out 40% following PDGA tables not 1/3. I used the same tables but paid 50% to Open (which is how this would work) and used the 45% Am tables for Expert.



To me Chuck it looked good but it went against what you said in a way. You said that it would be a small division but it ended up being the largest. I don't have a problem with that though.

I am going to try and stay completely out of the split talk because I believe that is the kind of talk that can lead to resentment among pros and ams about who needs who more and we all play the same sport here so I will try to stay away from that one and hope all of us can as well. But I will say this if you want a $5 am entry fee for trophy only then lets do that. But lets be honest most pros don't want a trophy only tourney in that format, but what most really want to say is charge $30-$50 bucks to ams give them one $5 disc one $5 t-shirt and take the other $20-$40 and put directly into the pro payout so that you can have donors that don't even have a chance to get their money back in any fashion. Now if someone can explain the latter is fair then just let me know, because as has been stated we are really just wagering here. If the pros are so obsessed with the benefits of the amount of plastic ams get then I have an idea let the Pros play for plastic instead of money as well because I have been on Discraft and even Z and ESP discs are $5-6. So imagine the profit you could make selling through pro and this would also cause advance to move up because that is what everyone keeps saying is how great playing for discs are.



If they are selling Z for $5 they are WAY cheaper than Innova and Gateway. I think Innova wholesales Champion fot around $8-$8.75 and Gateway wholesales E for $7. I don't care if we are getting all that added cash and it seems a lot of events I play payout slightly below 100% in open.

I would like to see the plastic incetives reduced so that you can't make a good amount of money selling your plastic and maybe instead think of moving up.

It doesn't really go against what I said because the model I used was everyone choosing the division where their ratings reside. As James points out, several of those players will choose Open in the real world and it's unclear what the Masters will do. I also think that this event had a few more players in the expert range than the normal distribution among PDGA members. Even considering that, I think the model shows that players have fair competition against their ratings peers, have fair choices, are rewarded appropriately for their performance at each level and Open payouts are not harmed and likely increased. It's also only at the 30 or so A-tiers where this Expert scenario would work well and possibly a few B-tiers as long as there was sufficient added cash of say $1000+.

here is the link maybe why so many tourneys give away discraft then.

http://www.discraft.com/dgtourneyspecials.html

Great Tournament Special Prices!

Any Pro D� line disc: $4.00

Any Elite X� line disc: $5.00

Any Elite Z� line disc: ONLY $5.00!

Any ESP� line disc: ONLY $5.00!

Staff t-shirts: ONLY $5.00!

Discraft hats: ONLY $5.00!

Ghost Stamping only $0.50 per disc!

ColorMax� only $1.50 per disc!
Add $2.00 per disc for Fly-Dye.
Add $3.00 per disc for Photon Glo.
ColorMax� available on select ESP�,
Elite X� and Elite Z� models only.


NEW FOR 2007:
Limited Edition FLX ESP� Surge� and FLX ESP� Buzzz� in high-flex plastic: $6.00 each!!
Minimum order 25 FLX, mix and match Surge and Buzzz okay.


SuperColor� Printing only $6.00!!!
Raise $14 per disc for your event! Imagine the added cash you can quickly raise.

Limited Edition Elite-Z� Surge�, with the new Ultra-Grip�: $6.00 each!!
The Surge� is already the hottest disc of the 2006 season. Add the Ultra-Grip� rubberized surface area for unparalleled grip and release, and we know that you're gonna want a stack of them for your event!


Please keep SuperColor� retail price at $19.99. SuperColor� printed discs are a great value for your tournament. With photo quality printing, the possibilities are endless. Model availability to be determined at time of order, possible models are the Spectra�, Buzzz� or Challenger�. Since we are offering unheard of pricing for this amazing process, the Discraft logo and disc name will be required on all SuperColor� TD Special discs.

here is the link maybe why so many tourneys give away discraft then.

http://www.discraft.com/dgtourneyspecials.html

Great Tournament Special Prices!

Any Pro D� line disc: $4.00

Any Elite X� line disc: $5.00

Any Elite Z� line disc: ONLY $5.00!

Any ESP� line disc: ONLY $5.00!

Staff t-shirts: ONLY $5.00!

Discraft hats: ONLY $5.00!

Ghost Stamping only $0.50 per disc!

ColorMax� only $1.50 per disc!
Add $2.00 per disc for Fly-Dye.
Add $3.00 per disc for Photon Glo.
ColorMax� available on select ESP�,
Elite X� and Elite Z� models only.


NEW FOR 2007:
Limited Edition FLX ESP� Surge� and FLX ESP� Buzzz� in high-flex plastic: $6.00 each!!
Minimum order 25 FLX, mix and match Surge and Buzzz okay.


SuperColor� Printing only $6.00!!!
Raise $14 per disc for your event! Imagine the added cash you can quickly raise.

Limited Edition Elite-Z� Surge�, with the new Ultra-Grip�: $6.00 each!!
The Surge� is already the hottest disc of the 2006 season. Add the Ultra-Grip� rubberized surface area for unparalleled grip and release, and we know that you're gonna want a stack of them for your event!


Please keep SuperColor� retail price at $19.99. SuperColor� printed discs are a great value for your tournament. With photo quality printing, the possibilities are endless. Model availability to be determined at time of order, possible models are the Spectra�, Buzzz� or Challenger�. Since we are offering unheard of pricing for this amazing process, the Discraft logo and disc name will be required on all SuperColor� TD Special discs.



Ok that makes more sense because I think that Innova and Gateway also have special tournament deals. I initially thought that you just meant they wholesaled the discs to local retailers (around here they are also TDs) for the $5 price tag.

I totally agree with this. There are several tournies in our area that are run using the current payout system, so I am testing the waters. I am running the Am side of our annual tournament in a "True Am" fashion this year.

$27 entry for all Am divisons with $3 ace pot optional.
Players pack - 1 tourney stamped disc, T-shirt, towel or mini, free lunch both days, eligable for CTP's throughout the weekend. (More sponsership dollars could make another disc, of the players choice, possible in the players pack).
Trophies awarded to the top 3 in each division.

The Pro side is basically normal. $52 for Pro, $47 for Masters All Pro's get T-shirt as players pack and free luch both days.

Hopefully I can drum up enough sponsorship to make the second disc happen, or just reduce the entry a bit for 1 disc. Just as many perks as I can put back into the event. Most players around here have never concieved that there could be different ROI methods than the current system offers. So, we shall see how its recieved.....



I wish you well in your endeavors to effect a culture change, Jerry. Keep in mind that it may not go over well initially with the already prize-conditioned players. The low-entry, low/no-payout amateur tournament is not going to attract the same old prize-***** ams. But kudos to you and other TDs to have the gumption to take away their bling and see what happens. The top amateurs aren't the ones we should be building our amateur competitive structure around anyway. Let's start alleviating the notion that mediocre amateurs are being rewarded far better than the best players.

The Wintertime Open Am Weekend is on about their third year doing this. All told, it costs an am $25 to play if they are a PDGA and SoCal member. Three rounds, Lunch Saturday (I think they are doing lunch again this year. they usually do), trophies, player pack, big park permit fees convered, and everybody that merches get the same kind of disc. Maybe the trophy winners get one or two more discs.

Yes, that was right. The first year of this format, if you merched in am you got a then-new candy Orc (I think). If you took first, you might've gotten another disc or two with your Orc and trophy. If it paid seven places, 7th got an Orc, and 4th got an Orc.

It's great. :)

I think pre-reg for this year is up to 106 with the tourney a week and a half away. That's with the same style payout at least the last two years, so everyone should know what to expect.

I believe the examples where the low entry fee Am model works have a lot to do with little alternative competition. Maine is off by itself in an environment with all courses being pay for play. There were no sanctioned events in VT, NH or RI last year. The players will play what options they have been presented by promoters. There's still not enough money in Am events for a competitive promoter to make the effort to enter that market with the typical am merch model. If the neighboring states develop events with our conventional Am model, we'll see what happens.

It sounds like the options for events in L.A. are limited and costly to offer in comparison to many places due to the course reservation fees. It's almost pay for play like Maine. Players have to travel far (perhaps to Norcal?) to enter events with our conventional Am payouts. Not much sanctioned events happening at all for a city the size of Sand Diego with essentially one course.

My point is that these areas have little alternative competition so whatever is offered is what the local crowd has to accept or not compete. In areas with conventional Am payouts where the low entry fee Trophy Only option has been offered, it hasn't fared well.

Frankly, there's no reason to lower entry fees if events are selling out. They should be expanded with the same successful model. That doesn't mean the entry level divisions shouldn't have lower entry fees to allow new players a relatively inexpensive option to get started. I believe most players care less about whether they are called Am or Pro since the definitions have lost their meaning, not just in our sport but many others. Players just want a good value for what they pay like any consumer.

prize-*****'s $.02

I like Rhett's example.

Players just want a good value for what they pay like any consumer.



And the low-entry, low/no-payout amateur tournaments provide that to EVERYONE, regardless of finish.

The high entry high payout events reward the sandbaggers, and leave those that don't cash in those divisions as well as observers from other divisions that shoot better scores and walk away with less, a feeling of disgust.

The high entry high payout events reward the sandbaggers, and leave those that don't cash in those divisions as well as observers from other divisions that shoot better scores and walk away with less, a feeling of disgust.



And yet, players are flocking to the format in record numbers. Go figure. There's room for all of these options. It's up to the promoters to determine what works in their market because there's not just one success model as we've seen.

There is a whole SoCal Series that does conventional Am payout, and Mark Horn runs the Wintertime a little bit different. Since Mark runs a well-organized event on the original permanent pole-hole course, it is still appealing. Even to the prize whores.

Since the entry is $25 it's no big deal to have a really small flat payout. If he charged $60 and did that I don't think anyone would return. But it's a great value at $25.

BTW, there are two courses in San Diego county, plus a nine-holer. Each of the bigger courses are successful businesses that shut down for one weekend per year to host PDGA sanctioned tourneys, one am only and the other (EIEIO) a pro/am.

That's good there are now two. But the DG environment doesn't compare with places like the Twin Cities with 30 courses and up to three sanctioned events within 200 miles almost every weekend from mid-April to Oct. I'd guess we're home to the toughest most brutal league that's played every Tuesday night all year long. Last night four hearty souls played in the dark at North Valley with wind chills below zero. (I'm not one of them )

My point being that our competition system needs flexibility for promoters, considering the wide range of DG environments out there.

Frankly, there's no reason to lower entry fees if events are selling out. They should be expanded with the same successful model. That doesn't mean the entry level divisions shouldn't have lower entry fees to allow new players a relatively inexpensive option to get started. ... Players just want a good value for what they pay like any consumer.

What we have found with the IOSeries, and we have more Rec players than anyone, is that Rec players don't want low entry fees with correspondingly low tournament value any more than anyone else. We charge our rec players what we charge our intermediates and give them the same good value for their entry fee. We did that just to make things easy on the cashier, but then discovered that it was good for attendance too.

I think most TDs suppress rec participation by not charging the rec players enough that the TD even wants them there. The TD sees the $15 rec player and thinks, "That guy took a spot away from a $35 moo-cow advanced amateur. How can I milk a $15 entry fee? Might as well try to milk a hedge hog."

The way it works is [and Chuck already understands this] is the more you charge an amateur the more you have to work with after spending half his entry fee on his 100% payout. On a $15 rec player I have $7.50 to cover sanctioning, insurance, PDGA fees, CTPs, trophies, park use fees, pavillion rental, etc. Sometimes 7.50 isn't enough. On a $35 advanced amateur there's $17.50 to work with. Even when I have a $10 cart and green fee for my golf course tournaments, $17.50 is always enough.

My latest thing is all players in all divisions pay the same entry fee. We aren't doing it at the IOSeries because that is really Jon's thing and I just help, sort of. For my doubles thing this weekend it is $50, $50, $50, per team, any division whatsoever.

Frankly, there's no reason to lower entry fees if events are selling out. They should be expanded with the same successful model. That doesn't mean the entry level divisions shouldn't have lower entry fees to allow new players a relatively inexpensive option to get started. ... Players just want a good value for what they pay like any consumer.

What we have found with the IOSeries, and we have more Rec players than anyone, is that Rec players don't want low entry fees with correspondingly low tournament value any more than anyone else.



Like an addicted gambler hooked on the thrill, people have become weaned on the payday of the merch-heavy system. Frankly, even though events are selling out, there's still every reason in the world to lower entry fees. It has created an unhealthy climate and reward system where the top players in each division sandbag, the middle and lower players go home feeling jilted, golfers in other divisions shoot better scores and go home with less, and it goes against the very basis and foundation of competition in that you should feel inclined to strive to improve and be rewarded more for better performances, instead of there being huge incentives to stagnate at your current skill level.

Players packs for ams is great, so vendors can get rid of the discs nobody wants anymore, dump them on beginners. How much would you pay for a Hammerhead, a Comet2, or an X-treme? $2? Give them to the ams and stick their cash in the pro purse.

It has created an unhealthy climate and reward system where the top players in each division sandbag, the middle and lower players go home feeling jilted, golfers in other divisions shoot better scores and go home with less, and it goes against the very basis and foundation of competition in that you should feel inclined to strive to improve and be rewarded more for better performances, instead of there being huge incentives to stagnate at your current skill level.




Prove it. There's no incentive to bag your rating and stay in a lower division unless there are relatively high flat entry fees as Bruce is promoting. With conventional stepping up of entry fees in the Am track at higher levels, the rewards are better for better performance. Considering how many rounds it takes to force your rating into a lower bracket, there's no payoff for the entry fees you'd have to pay to drop your rating to win more merchandise for one ratings update when you would bounce back up by merching a few times in a lower division.

Those other divisions where players may get lower rewards for better scores have chosen to play for cash AND currently rely mostly on the retail/wholesale differential to boost whatever payouts they do get. Dropping the entry fees in the retail/wholesale divisions that benefit the cash divisions will also reduce the cash payouts proportionally, so that's no solution. The rationale for cash payouts is that people want to pay to watch you play and sponsors then want to provide cash to capture those eyeballs. If that's not happening, then it's just a privilege to play for cash with no expectation of any reward beyond your entry fee pool for better performance.

Expert division will add another ratings level to the Am track system that's already shown to work and allow those low end cash players some chances at A-tiers to actually get rewarded for better performance against equivalent competition.

Like an addicted gambler hooked on the thrill, people have become weaned on the payday of the merch-heavy system. Frankly, even though events are selling out, there's still every reason in the world to lower entry fees. It has created an unhealthy climate and reward system where the top players in each division sandbag, the middle and lower players go home feeling jilted, golfers in other divisions shoot better scores and go home with less, and it goes against the very basis and foundation of competition in that you should feel inclined to strive to improve and be rewarded more for better performances, instead of there being huge incentives to stagnate at your current skill level.


Sorry Jeff, but that doesn't make any sense at all. It actually sounds like the posits of an ivory tower sitter with no real world experience.

I see the Rec players trying to play as well as they can. When they hit the rating limit they are forced to move up to Int. I don't see these guys "sandbagging" and paying full entry fee to tank a few tourneys to try and drop their ratings. Maybe it's happening all over the east, but I haven't seen it out here in the West. The Rec players are less skilled, but they still want to play better and improve, and they do.

Same thing with the Ints. I just don't see these guys paying their entry fees and tanking to sandbag their ratings. They play to win, are more skillful than the Rec players but far less consistant than the Advanced, and they are tyring to beat their buddies.

The Advanced guys are paying big entry fees, and I don't see any of them tanking to lower their ratings either. There is no point. You have to play about a minimum of 960+ golf for the tourney to win advanced around here, and there is no automatic bump to pro, so what would be the point?

960 won't even sniff the cash line in Open most of the time.

So I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "the top players in each division sandbag". I don't see it. It doesn't make sense. I'm calling you on it.

Now if you think that 870 rated players are sandbagging in Rec and should be playing Int or Adv, or that a 910 rated int is "sandbagging", that is a different story. That would mean you simply disagree with the rating cutoffs.

Now if you want to talk about a parallel system of similarly rated players where the top of the division sandbags for the easy money when they would easily cash pretty much every time in Open, there is one to discuss.....but that is taboo to talk about that. :p But every single one of your quoted points above absolutely apply there.

Oh come on you know people are throw a round every now and then just so they can take advantage of the system. :D:D Every tourney I see a guy who is in position to win and 4 putt the final whole to keep their rating low enough to stay in their division. :cool:. But seriously I would say almost every person on the disc golf is trying to get better. Some do it quicker than others and some plateau once they reach their physical limitations (all of us can't drive 500' or sink 30' puts consistantly no matter how much we try).
Now as Rhett said if your problem is with the rating structure then I understand that. But even then that doesn't address Advance because there is no cutoff, and in the lower levels even if you moved say the Int to 900 they would still be called baggers as they approached that level.

The fact is no one has yet to suggest a system for our time in history that will work better for everyone than the one we have now. Maybe as we grow some of these suggestions will make sense in the future. But as of now we just have to realize really good players will play for cash and players that are only so good will play for prizes. It will not change drastically in the 3-4 years so their is no real sense in getting worked up or arguing about it. If you want to have a tournament with a low entry fee and a rather flat payout I don't believe there is a rule against it so go ahead and try it. I don't guess we will ever know for sure until someone tries, but that isn't what people want and you can't force people into something they don't want to do. Somewhere along the line you have to provide value to get the ams to come and if you don't want ams to come then that is fine also, someone else will always want the ams to come and will provide prizes.

So I have no idea what you are talking about when you say "the top players in each division sandbag". I don't see it. It doesn't make sense. I'm calling you on it.



I had exactly the same reaction when I read Jeff's post (and others who have posted similar sentiments about bagging in the past). I do not see it either as a real legit sort of problem.

Chuck, is there an easy way to do a quick sort on Am Men and cull out the guys who have finished in the, say, top 10 in events they have played? It would be very easy to look up their history then and see if they have been doing so for more than a season.

I am not necessarily this be done publicly so as to shame them since there are often reasons outside of selfish/greedy bagging that people might have this pattern in their history. But, it would be interesting to put some real numbers to the oft-heard complaint of there being a problem of bagging. I know that it happens, but IMO it is very rare.

Rhett, I doubt the phenomenon Jeff describes is that obvious at the top of the rec level or the top of the intermediate level. The reason why is that recs (moreso) and intermediates have low entry fees and flatter payouts. Therefore, you rarely see recs walking home with a mountain of plastic. Therefore, they are not enticed to bag: there's no money in it.

The issue becomes more prevalent at the advanced level, where the fees are higher than the recs and payout is steeper. Now, we have artificially created a financial motivation, and presto, we have people who see the writing on the wall and choose accordingly. I don't even want to call them baggers, because they are just making a sound financial decision, but they really shouldn't whine if it is taken away from them.

Chuck, you have just been given examples why a policy change would still work, and is not the end of the world, yet you still throw out the scare tactics to justify your basic approach on the issue: do nothing. I mean, "let the market decide." It's like addressing welfare: if the gov't said to the welfare reciepients "You can either take welfare or not, we aim to give you options." Well, if some continue to choose welfare, it hardly makes the governmnet's policy sound or wise. This whole "let the TDs decide/free market approach" is irresponsible in this regard. Why not also let them decide if allowing pot smoking will draw more competitors also?

The examples shown only indicated low entry fees work in a monopoly environment where the TDs/promoters are essentially in control. In the case of L.A., I'm guessing the low entry fee event was the only option in the area AND it also has a history of being a good value. That works in the Twin Cities in the offseason when there's no other PDGA event nearby. We have our unsanctioned club events, ice bowls and other fundraising or charity events that are well attended. However, attendance at our MN State Games has always been terrible even back in the 90s since you "only" win medals for first thru third. Bruce has tried several entry fee/payout options in a market where there is lots of PDGA competition for players in areas relatively nearby. He's pointed out that the higher entry merch model is preferred and he's bringing in many new players that have no history one way or the other.

BTW, the "lower entry fees for Am" proponents haven't addressed how the pros somehow get paid better or even relative to Ams with this model? Where does the money come from that's not there already?

BTW, the "lower entry fees for Am" proponents haven't addressed how the pros somehow get paid better or even relative to Ams with this model? Where does the money come from that's not there already?



It won't because even advance players would rather play $5 bucks and get a Medal than pay $60+ bucks in pro to not get anything. I think you would agree that a large portion of top advance(940+) remain ams because they want 1 or 2 more shots at the Am Worlds they want a shot at saying they are world champs. I would say that is more of a motivation for most than the payout of advance, so maybe we should be discussing doing away with Am Worlds. Because whether they are being honest or not when you ask the top ams when they are going to turn pro it is usually after this years Am Worlds or after next years Am Worlds.

Sorry Jeff, but that doesn't make any sense at all. It actually sounds like the posits of an ivory tower sitter with no real world experience.



While I haven't played in PDGA-sanctioned events in a few years, I played in the amateur divisions of PDGA-sanctioned events for 7 years. I play in enough BYOP Doubles, One Disc Ace Races, Ice Bowls, random-draw doubles, tag rounds, and casual rounds and talk to people while doing so to know what's going on. I also read the DISCussion board daily. That hardly sounds like "no real world experience." :mad:

I also never implied that people consciously tank on purpose in order to sandbag. But you've got to admit that the current top-heavy system provides a real incentive for those with ratings near the top of their divisions to avoid moving up until their official PDGA rating catches up with them and they are forced to do so, which can sometimes be 6 months or more later. In a low-entry low payout system, the lure of winning trophies or minimal amounts of merchandise would not be an incentive to keep with the status quo.

And yes, the phenomenon is most pronounced with Advanced golfers. The amount of loot one can win is substantial, including poleholes. This is especially true now that we're in the eBay age. The jump in entry fee to Open is enormous, and there usually aren't the perks of player's packages or deeper payouts as you usually find in Advanced.


BTW, the "lower entry fees for Am" proponents haven't addressed how the pros somehow get paid better or even relative to Ams with this model? Where does the money come from that's not there already?



It's not that there is suddenly more money in the Pros, it's that in relation to the Ams, there is more incentive for golfers looking to profit and gamble for big $$. The amateur divisions then rightfully become the place for those who play for pleasure and aren't looking for financial benefit - which is by definition what amateurs are supposed to be. The professional divisions become all the more attractive for those golfers who are actively looking for gain.

Rhett, I doubt the phenomenon Jeff describes is that obvious at the top of the rec level or the top of the intermediate level. The reason why is that recs (moreso) and intermediates have low entry fees and flatter payouts. Therefore, you rarely see recs walking home with a mountain of plastic. Therefore, they are not enticed to bag: there's no money in it.


I do not understand, James. What are you calling "bagging"? All the advanced guys I know and see want their ratings to be as high as possible. They try to play their best at every event because they want to win. Where is the bagging?

Maybe the issue is that not everyone can get to a rating of 980 like you. (980 will regularly cash in Open, especially in Texas, yet you play Masters so we should really discuss pro bagging at some point, too.) Different players have different potentials, and very few have the potential, let alone the drive and discipline, to get to the 1000+ level. When the majority of players reach the 920-960 level because it is close to the their potential, that's it, theu won't improve any more. It seems like you and others think that everyone can reach the 1000 plateau and those that don't are intentionally keeping their ratings low.

Is that how you see it?

I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter what payout scheme you use. Most disc golfers will never reach the magic level of 1000 no matter how hard they work. Winning some plastic has nothing to do with that. IMHO.

Exactly, and why should the players less natural ability not have the ability to "wager" with the players of their skill level. I would have no chance sitting down at the table with the top poker players but I still enjoy a casual round with players of my skill level. But if you take out the "wagering" most people would never play poker. Now people would still play disc golf but it does add a bit of excitement to it and what is wrong with the ams having a little bit of excitement as well.

Maybe I need to write better, or you need to read better. I wrote the word bagger, only to say that I don't use it. When people say the 980 rated advanced player is a bagger, I don't. He is simply making a wise financial choice, one afforded to him by a perverse structure.

I don't know how my lack of using the term "bagger" has anything to do with people's ability to reach 1000. I don't think advanced guys are ibntentionally keeping their ratings low, they have no incentive to do so, and therefore, I don't see why they would. I don't know where you are getting this from.

btw, 980 might get you a pat on the back in most Texas open fields, if the TD is in a gracious mood. Otherwise, the 1000 rated guy is generally happy to maybe get a little more than his hefty entry fee back.

As for your continual shots at Masters, I'm still waiting for your analysis that age breakdowns are completely without merit. If you are going to assert that our that competitions should be solely ability based, are you prepared to tell the women the same thing?

I don't debate this subject on this thread cause I really don't care much, and more importantly, because I think it is off-target, and simply a diversionary argument. Once you can convince me that age and gender breakdowns are exactly equivalent to the difference betweeen advanced and open, then I'll believe they belong in this discussion. By the way, I personaly have no problem with deeper payouts and cheaper entries within the masters division.

And yes, the phenomenon is most pronounced with Advanced golfers. The amount of loot one can win is substantial, including poleholes. This is especially true now that we're in the eBay age.



Please prove this.

It has been a slow day (snow day), so I manually went through the top 72 Am men (down through 968).

I did not see anybody legitimately hanging around for more than a year really cleaning up the loot. In fact what I saw was a lot of fast improving guys who went Pro after Am Worlds, USADGC, and season series finished.

Out of 72 people, here is a list of what I would call bagging (hanging out in Am after their rating topped 965 and playing more than 1 (+/-) event per month). I have made their PDGA number harder to find so as not to shame them, but easy enough to look up if you want to verify since the info is public anyways.

1815x � was a bagger waiting for Am Worlds. Looks like he is playing Open now.
1501x � bagged in 2006. Not many events or a high rating before then
2437x � bagged in 2006 until Am Worlds. Looks like he is playing Open now.
2222x � borderline bagger
2379x � was bagging in 2006, but has moved up
2533x - bagged in 2006 until USADGC and a local series to end. Looks like he is playing Open now.
2559x � possibly a legit bagger
2424x - possibly a legit bagger
2466x - possibly a legit bagger

Conclusion: I would not say 4 possible baggers out of the 72 top Ams is a legit problem worth wasting lots of posts on and devising complicated tournament formats to combat.

Disclaimer: I know nothing about any of these guys and their circumstances. I am not judging or impugning their motives, just the patterns of their historical finishes as they relate to their player ratings.

If everybody that moved up above a 960+ rating it would have almost no positive impact on pro purses throughout the nation. If you take away the amount contributed by ams through the markup on plastic given away to ams it would have at least some negative impact on Pro Payout. If your only complaint is about the definition of what an am is then I concede we are all technically Pros but we are being sectioned off into groups of "similar" skills wagering on different levels, and what is the harm in that. If your complaint is about fairness why is it fair George Bush is president :confused:. My point is though it may be flawed, the system works. Status Quo is usually that because it makes sense to the majority. Is it always the best system, maybe not, but who does the current system hurt and who will it help by changing it?

BTW, the "lower entry fees for Am" proponents haven't addressed how the pros somehow get paid better or even relative to Ams with this model? Where does the money come from that's not there already?



I don't want want more money in the open division. And I don't care if pros get paid more. If you read what I say I don't want more money in the open kitty, I just want people to quit dropping out of disc golf. I figure lowering OPEN entry fees would help with this.

I don't think that advanced entry fees are actually that high if "pro" entry fees are lowered to equal them.

I also don't want a single penny going from the am to the pro divisions in any way like some people assert. Never have, never will.

For the record I don't dislike gender and aged based division and in this way disagree with CG. I like the masters and gm divisions at 40+ and 50+.

Perhaps I am confusing the arguments made by you and Jeff. :)

I still stand by what I posted, but maybe I should've started it with "Jeff..."

For the record, I have nothing against age and gender protected divisions at all. I do have a problem with people who play in the age protected cash divisions continually harping on the PDGA Am tourney structure. That is because I believe that the age protected cash divisions are what is truly keeping the best disc golfers from playing against the best, and that is IMHO what is the most broken in the current PDGA tournament structure.

I do have a problem with people who play in the age protected cash divisions continually harping on the PDGA Am tourney structure. That is because I believe that the age protected cash divisions are what is truly keeping the best disc golfers from playing against the best, and that is IMHO what is the most broken in the current PDGA tournament structure.



It might be that you really have a problem with their sponsorship structure that is motivating them to play in MPM.

It might be that you really have a problem with their sponsorship structure that is motivating them to play in MPM.


I don't think so. The top guys who get performance bonuses for finishing 1-2-3 in tournaments never complain about ams playing for merch. At least not on here.

The tournament system is what it is and I am fine with it. But here is how the cycle goes:

Someone starts complaining about low turnouts in the Open division. Then it's always the "sandbagging ams" that are pointed at for not moving up to make the MPO division bigger. Then the ole "true am" argument about how Real Ams(tm) should be playing for the love of the game and no plastic. Eventually we end up here, where I am a 45 year old Masters hater because I point out that the truly highly skilled disc golfers are not split between MA1 and MPO, they are really split amongst MPO, MPM, and MPG. :)

The idea that the lure of plastic keeps amateurs in the Advanced division is ludicrous. If this was true, there would have been a mass exodus of pros from the pro divisions taking the amnesty. If this was true there would be a lot of pros signing up to play Byron Ice Bowl Doubles. It isn't happening. It isn't true. Plastic has no lure.

Bruce, it's not the lure of plastic; it's the tradeoff between a positive or negative return, or a nuetral return to a negative return, or on point with this thread, the tradeoff between a higher entry fee and a lower entry fee.

On the flipside, if plastic doesn't mean that much (and I actually agree for a lot of people) then taking large stacks of plastic away will hurt no one.

I think it is the absence of a ratings cap on Advanced that causes some players to linger there, so the obvious solution is to put a ratings cap on Advanced.

If you put a ratings cap on advanced, then you have to decide what to do with the over cap players who want to remain amateur for Worlds, Am Nationals or whatever.

I don't understand why the solution is not obvious.

Rhett, I doubt the phenomenon Jeff describes is that obvious at the top of the rec level or the top of the intermediate level. The reason why is that recs (moreso) and intermediates have low entry fees and flatter payouts. Therefore, you rarely see recs walking home with a mountain of plastic. Therefore, they are not enticed to bag: there's no money in it.


I do not understand, James. What are you calling "bagging"? All the advanced guys I know and see want their ratings to be as high as possible. They try to play their best at every event because they want to win. Where is the bagging?

Maybe the issue is that not everyone can get to a rating of 980 like you. (980 will regularly cash in Open, especially in Texas, yet you play Masters so we should really discuss pro bagging at some point, too.) Different players have different potentials, and very few have the potential, let alone the drive and discipline, to get to the 1000+ level. When the majority of players reach the 920-960 level because it is close to the their potential, that's it, theu won't improve any more. It seems like you and others think that everyone can reach the 1000 plateau and those that don't are intentionally keeping their ratings low.

Is that how you see it?

I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter what payout scheme you use. Most disc golfers will never reach the magic level of 1000 no matter how hard they work. Winning some plastic has nothing to do with that. IMHO.



Hey Rhett it takes about 995 to cash in TX

So if you are rated under 990, you should probably stay Am in Texas?

So if you are rated under 990, you should probably stay Am in Texas?



And then it would take 1010 to cash. :confused: If that happened everyone under 1005 would stay AM and soon there would be an Open division.

Likewise, if everyone over 960 moved up it would take about 975 to cash. We don't have too many open players but the ones we do have are pretty good.

here is a list of what I would call bagging (hanging out in Am after their rating topped 965 and playing more than 1 (+/-) event per month).



965 a "pro"? That's really a joke. With our limited number of true "pro"caliber players, then why not let anyone play open that cares to donate, but to force amateurs players into a situation where they'll have slim chance of cashing is a sure recipe to lose tournament players.

My player rating just peaked at 959 and I feel that my golf and disc golf skills are roughly comparable. My lowest golf handicap has been a 10. A club professional is usually between scratch and +2 and the average touring pro is -2.

I'd say that a bump # that would really reflect a true "pro" level would be around the 1000 mark. I realize this would create a huge ability range (915-1000) in advanced and I would argue that the intermediate bump # should be 950. Following this line of thought, recreational could be 850-900 and we could add a "funzie" division below rec if need be.

here is a list of what I would call bagging (hanging out in Am after their rating topped 965 and playing more than 1 (+/-) event per month).



965 a "pro"? That's really a joke. With our limited number of true "pro"caliber players, then why not let anyone play open that cares to donate, but to force amateurs players into a situation where they'll have slim chance of cashing is a sure recipe to lose tournament players.



ding ding ding....you get my point. That was my definition of bagging for the sake of the exercise I did. By looking at the top Am's there is NOT a problem with bagging in MA1 the PDGA.

Like you point out, the social pressures to move up, creates the much bigger problem of "move up, move up, move out".

Hey Rhett it takes about 995 to cash in TX


With the exceptions of VPO and Victoria, I guess it does.

This years events in Tx I played were.

992
998
999
995
974- Victoria
975-little c-tier
991
1003
985
1001- I tied for the last spot into the final 9 but didn't cash with a 1001
1016
997
995
998
988
992
965- 6 of the ten guys were AMs
988-5 out of 6 got payed and I was #6 :D
995

992 for all events and 993.5 for all the events without mosty guys being AMs. If all the 960 guys would move up then the cash line would probably fall to 980.

What matters most is the median rating to cash at the events which is 995 so if you don't shoot 995 you won't cash at most events. :D

If Red Rock would've followed the PDGA guidelines instead of paying 5 out of 15, it wouldn't have taken 995 golf to cash!