Don't know who started it or how it got done, but there's a great new PDGA experiment in the works called "The Unity Summit Open" to be held at PDGA HQ in November.

Since my posting days on this forum are always numbered, I thought I would take this opportunity to congratulate whoever came up with this event, and give my sincere thanks to whoever it is, for leading the PDGA in a new direction of inclusion. It's bold experiments like this that give me hope for the future of the PDGA, and therefore, for our sport as a whole.

I hope you'll all take the time to think about how much stronger the disc golf community will become if the bonds between the PDGA and regional organizations are strengthened. This event's experimental sanctioning model could also easily be incorporated into our international model as well; in fact, I would love to see the Unity Summit Open's sanctioning model be adopted as the new 2008 C-tier standards.

The following is a post I made at the Southern Nationals website. I think it should be discussed here as well---and when I'm banned from posting here again I'll still support this event :D

"Most people don't care or know of the huge reform movement slowly overtaking the SN's favorite punching bag, the PDGA. Perhaps finally realizing the SN (with its open books, affordable fees, and cooperative leadership) is a legitimate alternative disc golf sanctioning entity that could eventually challenge their power, the PDGA has quietly taken the first steps towards accountability---for the first time in its history it hired an outside accounting firm to audit its books. While not producing the actual disclosure that many members seek, the audit is the first step towards the light of fiscal clarity.

The PDGA recently concluded its election cycle which for the first time in memory saw more new candidates elected than incumbents; 6 of the 7 members of the new PDGA Board of Directors will have one year or less of experience when they convene, and the 7th hasn't been in office much longer than that.

Also, less than a year ago, the PDGA was blessed by the resignation of its Executive Director. His successor, Brian Graham, is a southern gentleman residing in Georgia, who has demonstrated ability to promote the sport to the mainstream rarely exceeded by other disc golf promoters.

All this change in the PDGA is hopefully good news for every disc golfer. The past leaders of the PDGA who proved so resistant to change are gone, and it's time that we here in SN land acknowledge that cooperation with the PDGA is a good idea. Hopefully we are on the cusp of a new era in which the PDGA recognizes the value of the SN's streamlined finances and sanctioning requirements, while the SN recognizes that working with the PDGA will bring more national and worldwide respect for everything the SN has accomplished.

I don't even know who came up with the idea of "The Unity Summit", but this tournament is a wonderful example of what I hope signals the PDGA's new-found attitude of inclusion. It will be held at the PDGA's disc golf mecca, the International Disc Golf Center, in Augusta, GA, on November 10-11. It features an experimental format that is extremely similar to the SN's successful model, and this tournament needs our support and attention.

The schedule page desribes the Unity Summit thusly: "This event is part of a pilot program for events in developing areas, the SNDG (Southern Nationals Disc Golf Tournament Series), and NEFA (New England Frisbee Association). The key details of this program will consist of the following for this event: $50 sanctioning fee to cover insurance and administration costs, $2/player to the PDGA, $2/player to the SNDG, and the $5 PDGA Non-Member fee will be waived. If this pilot program is successful, the PDGA office will propose that the BOD implement this program in 2008."

While I will be unable to attend this groundbreaking event due to a prior committment (honeymoon in Hawaii), I am eager to support and sponsor this event, and urge all of you to help make this event as successful as we can. Let's move forward in the spirit of cooperation that the sport needs to find if disc golf ever expects to leap forward into the future."

We plan on attending from New Orleans with at least one car load. The discussion on Saturday evening could be the most important meeting of the year. I have spoken directly with Brian and Addie regarding this summit. It is refreshing to see one of the platforms of my campaign for BOD taking shape even before the elections are completed. I am taking no credit for the actions, just taking a second to express delight in the possibilities of progress.

This is a great opportunity for Southern Nationals, PDGA and those DG'ers in the area that may want to 'pick-up" the necessary SN points to play in one of the best Championships that few have ever heard about.

We may even get something done while Mikey is getting quality busy in Hawaii.

our strength is our weakness
our weakness is our strength
steve timm

Here's a link to the information page (http://www.sndg.org/stats/event.php/780) Mikey was referring to.

When I read: "If this pilot program is successful, the PDGA office will propose that the BOD implement this program in 2008" I kind of wonder:

(a) What kind of benchmarks will indicate whether or not it has been a success (be nice if those were published ahead of time);

(b) How the TDs of other PDGA-sanctioned events will feel about this;

(c) How points and ratings will be handled (nonmembers get ratings or points? members get points for beating nonmembers?); and

(d) Does "implement this program in 2008" mean a change in how all sanctioned events are handled or just those in collaboration with selected large series or groups of tournaments like NEFA, SN, the Ice Bowl, the MDGO, etc.

kudos for the Unity Summit convey mostly to Brian Graham and Steve Dodge. Steve has been bouncing related ideas off the BoD and others for at least as long as he's been on the BoD. Brian has good relationships in both NEFA and SN and has long sought the opportunity to develop constructive synergies i talked to Brian a few minutes ago to go over the sequence that brought about the Unity Summit and to make sure i had the gist of it correct. He, David and Addie conceived this particular idea while brainstorming this topic. Its the perfect storm of interest, timing, and opportunity. It is awesome that our ED, Staff and BoD are looking to the future and taking these proactive steps.

unless the proposed modifications to fees, etc. apply to all events we will see 2 reactions from established pdga td's:
1. make your event a SN event for cheaper insurance/fees
2. take your ball and go home (so to speak)

my inclination as of now is towards the latter.

I don't think too many TD's will take their ball and go home. This is pretty positive for the sport. I support it even though I am not in SN or NEFA country. I would like to see the PDGA adopt a similar approach to women only events. (lower fees and sanctioning)

i would like to see them adopt a similar policy for ALL events but see absolutely no reason to treat one any differently from another.

"If this pilot program is successful, the PDGA office will propose that the BOD implement this program in 2008."

input from other TD will certainly be part of determining success. i hope having this one event wont turn other TDs off.

Myopically, I am mostly interested in seeing how Southern Nationals and the PDGA can grow closer together. SN is the tournament series I am familiar with and in which I have invested so much of my time and resources. It is the lens through which I view disc golf, so to speak.

Having said that, I see absolutely no reason whatever why the success of the "pilot program" could not be applied universally. John B. certainly makes a compelling point. There are plenty of hard-working TDs and disc golf organizers around the country with a lot of sweat equity in the sport who should expect equitable treatment.

I think the PDGA would be missing a golden opportunity by applying any standards which might emerge for discussions and trials only to "developing areas." Let's open our eyes together and realize that, as young as our sport is, all the areas are developing areas.

I think it might be a great idea to look at the idea of regional organizations like NEFA and SN (MADC, others?) as a golden opportunity to begin the creating of a strong region-based structure as the foundation of the PDGA.

My wife participates in dog agility and obedience. For many years, the American Kennel Club was the only game in town. Guess what? They got bogged down with regulations and sky high fees. They focused almost exclusively on creating and sustaining big breed shows and got out of touch with the small dog training clubs at the grass roots level. They didn't realize that many of the fees and regulations were driving clubs away from the AKC umbrella in droves until it was almost too late. By that time a bunch of organizations devoted exclusively to competition and focused on smaller (often regionally-oriented) target groups had sprung up and were flourishing. They offered the same "benefits" as the AKC (dog names on a website for all to see, results, titles, ratings, publications, etc), but they did so with an understanding that the local clubs, and through them, the individual dog handlers and breeders were THE REASON for the parent organization's success.

Here's the real kicker: Guess what the AKC started last year? They created panels comprised of dog handlers, breeders, trainers, judges, a trial secretaries from each disipline (Obedience, Agility, Flyball, etc) to convene and look at the competition structure from the ground up. They also have reinstituted a regional competition structure as one of the ways to qualify for the dog competition world's equivalent of its "majors." It is important to remember that all competition is essentially local. Competitors have to travel to events, and with the exceptions of the true top touring pros, almost every player PDGA or otherwise has a "circle" ... a radius of distance they are physically and economically willing to travel to compete.

Why is the Southern National model so successful? Because the red tape is kept to a minimum, the fees aren't crippling, the books are wide open and money all goes back to the players.

I would hope that a good measure of the focus at the Unity Summit would look at reminding the "PDGA" (as an organization) that ultimately the SN has gotten quite a bit of it right: focus on the players, keep the requirements simple, grow strong from the local level up with consistent organization all the way to the top.

I cannot emphasize enough how much I feel this a golden opportunity for the PDGA to reach out and begin the process of establishing a strong confederation of regional organizations which can serve as the middlemen between the parent organization and the whole reason for the parent organization's existence: the players.

Some things to think about:

Create a tiered membership with lots (at least 6-10) levels all the way from the most basic (which gets you a number and ratings) through lifetime membership with all the perks. Make it cheap enough so that a local TD in Hattiesburg, Mississippi or Warwick, RI can integrate the fee EASILY into the tournament entry fee structure without unduly damaging payout. To me this is absolutely essential. The PDGA membership would mushroom with such a tiered approach and my bet is the coffers wouldn't suffer one bit ... would you rather have 40,000 new active members at $10 each and another 15,000 at higher tiered levels or just the 15,000 and keep charging them more every year?

As an aside, the USGA entry level membership is $15. For that price, a new member gets "The Rules of Golf," programs from the U.S. Open, bag tag, "preference" on Championship tickets, a hat, a subscription to the magazine and (I love this one) "volunteer opportunities at USGA Championships." That's what they call in the retail business a "loss-leader." Get 'em in the store then sell 'em the rest of what they already want (even if they don't know they want it yet).

Allow TDs to offer one melting pot of a non-PDGA division if they choose to accomodate those that don't want to fork over the TINY initial fee. For their part, the TDs could then charge a pittance to play in that division and pay out top three trophy/plaques only ... using the balance of the money to augment the payouts for the "official" divisions. Those players are all lumped indiscriminately in one division, no gender or age distinctions. They don't get reported. They don't get points. They don't get ratings. They get nothing except to play a couple rounds and maybe a piece of wood. My bet is that it wouldn't take more than one or two tournaments "on the outside looking in" before every player signed on. Just imagine what the numbers would look like if every player at virtually every tournament in the country was a PDGA member. This would also do away with the need for the non-member fee at tournaments (which is a bane and a pain for players and TDs alike). The non-members simply go unreported and don't compete against members.

Split up the country into regions and begin making overtures to the established tournament series and organizations within those regions in an attempt to bring them under an umbrella.

Use the current state coordinator positions to begin evolving towards an organized regional structure. The SN has an elected board, but there is no reason that it couldn't evolve so that, 5-10 years from now, the "PDGA Southeast Region" board was comprised of the elected state coordinators.

Chris LaSonde

Why is the Southern National model so successful? Because the red tape is kept to a minimum, the fees aren't crippling, the books are wide open and money all goes back to the players.



My two cents would be that it's primarily successful due to volunteers running it not being burnt out and willing to take the financial hit. There are many examples of clubs, events and series who are successful for a while until the super volunteer can't afford to continue either due to money, time or interest and no one is there to back stop him/her. If key SN honchos bailed, would its success be impacted?

The same evolution happened with the PDGA as it grew, but eventually they had a paid Admin which has grown along with the sport to a larger staff because the amount of work can't continually be expected to be handled by volunteers.

All I'm saying is that the implication that SN somehow has it going on economically over how the PDGA has been doing it is conditional based on lack of valuing the economic effort contributed by its volunteers which has an unpredictable future. In addition, SN borrows much of the items the PDGA provides everyone thru rules, competition guidelines and tech standards for example. If these folks were paid even minimum wages for their contributions, the economic picture and fee structure would look different.

chris, thank you for your well-stated views. believe me, some of the points you make are the very ones brought up when the BoD originally discussed the idea. it is great to have the concerns brought forward in this forum. some of the ideas you mentioned might be very well received by the overall player base. this conversation is only just beginning, so thanks again the input and specific examples.

(personally, i love the idea of tiered memberships. but thats just me)

The Unity Summit is one of three events in a pilot project being tested by the PDGA office this year. If successful, the special sanctioning offered in this program will be made available to eligible events under the new Competition Endowment Program, which will debut in 2008. This details of this new program are currently being developed and tested, thus the reason for the pilot program. The purpose of the CEP is to lend assistance, in the way of reduced fees, to events in areas of the country that are underdeveloped in terms of hosting PDGA events. Charity events would also fall into this program, so that a larger percentage of money could benefit the charity. Events would be required to apply for this program and if eligible under the guidelines that are currently being developed, they would receive assistance.

There are many benefits to a program like this, both for the PDGA and the event. As I said, the details of this program are still being worked on so look for more information later this year.

Aside from the CEP, the primary reason for the Unity Summit is to sit down with groups like the Southern Nationals and NEFA, to air our differences and work towards better communication and cooperation in the future.

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

This might work well with the Ice Bowl. I think there are more Ice Bowl events every year than SN events, and getting those sanctioned, and even more significant raising the contributions, would be pretty cool.

My two cents would be that it's primarily successful due to volunteers running it not being burnt out and willing to take the financial hit. There are many examples of clubs, events and series who are successful for a while until the super volunteer can't afford to continue either due to money, time or interest and no one is there to back stop him/her. If key SN honchos bailed, would its success be impacted?



Tell me, Chuck, what is the burnout rate for "super volunteers?"

I am not sure what you mean with the term "key SN honchos." Part of the point of my post (and a good reason for the success of the SN series) is that the "key SN honchos" are the roughly 60-70 TDs each year who run the 100+ tournaments in the series. While there is a volunteer board, I have a feeling that if they all quit en masse tomorrow, the players might learn about it sometimes next year ... or the next. Grassroots, baby! Grow up and grow strong.

But you are absolutely correct ... if all the disc golf volunteers in the world burned out tomorrow, the SN would fall flat on its face ... as would NEFA and MADC and every Ice Bowl and the PDGA. Not all the evolution to paid admin in the world is going to save the PDGA if the volunteers are gone.

There is nothing that can be done to prevent individual volunteers from flaming out. The key to longevity and success is nurturing and maintaining a volunteer base than exceeds the crticial mass needed for forward momentum. (Not sure that is sound physics-wise, but then disc golf doesn't really need a super abundance of rocket scientists to succeed ... it needs players and TDs).


The same evolution happened with the PDGA as it grew, but eventually they had a paid Admin which has grown along with the sport to a larger staff because the amount of work can't continually be expected to be handled by volunteers.



Of course not ... on the other hand, as I have already noted, if the volunteers disappeared tomorrow not all the paid admin staff in the world is going to save the PDGA.


All I'm saying is that the implication that SN somehow has it going on economically over how the PDGA has been doing it is conditional based on lack of valuing the economic effort contributed by its volunteers which has an unpredictable future. In addition, SN borrows much of the items the PDGA provides everyone thru rules, competition guidelines and tech standards for example. If these folks were paid even minimum wages for their contributions, the economic picture and fee structure would look different.



If volunteerism has an unpredictable future the conditions apply to all of us, including the PDGA. Being a glass half full guy, I predict that if all the volunteers went away tomorrow ... just vanished to the 19th hole to drown their sorrows ... that by next week, some newbie with a 3-disc set would be saying to his pals, "Let's put up a flyer and get a bunch of people out here on Thursday for a toss" or "Let's chip in and buy some landscape timbers for that place on Hole 15 that is eroding."

And of course we borrow. Why should we reinvent the wheel? The PDGA is a fabulous resource for just the reasons you named.

But, guess what? The states of Maine and New Hampshire and Vermont and Rhode Island and Connecticut and Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana and Arkansas are full of fabulous resources that the PDGA needs: players, player-to-be, disc golf entrepreneurs, experienced volunteers and experienced TDs.

This Summit shouldn't be about airing differences. Substantively, there aren't a lot of differences. We all want the same thing - organized disc golf. The Summit should be about what is SN doing well and what is NEFA doing well and what are other regional organizations doing well that might provide a springboard for moving us (and out sport) forward together.

I think there are more Ice Bowl events every year than SN events



...including 9 SN events that are Ice Bowls. :o

What? You folks have ice down there, outside of coolers and martini glasses, I mean.

Why in the world would anyone want ice for anything else?

Chris makes some excellent points (he always does)

but just as an add on, using MS as an example, being thats where I am from...

there are currently only 27 total active PDGA members living in MS

Yet the club I am a part of has nearly twice as many members as that in just 1 city. Just imagine if all the club members of every disc golf city in MS had a reason to join the PDGA.... and this is just one example of one state in the SN region

as Chris mentioned, the PDGA could easily triple / quadruple in size if they reached out to more players, SN and alike - and raising member fees is not the way to get this done

So, in MS you've got nearly one PDGA member per course. Here in MI we have ~5 PDGA members per course.

and thats the point, 1 PDGA member per course, yet there are easily 5 SN members per course (or more)

infact, I could probably name 30 people who have played an SN tournament from my city alone, yet are not PDGA members

this is not a bash on the PDGA, but just making a point that the PDGA should be reaching out to these players... the fact that they are willing to play in tournaments means they would likely join the PDGA if it was worth it to them

"they would likely join the PDGA if it was worth it to them"

B-I-N-G-O!
we have a winner.

this program will figure out how to make it worth it. i'm not sure what the ivory towers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_tower) and association savants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant) call it, but business uses the term value propostion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_proposition) . pretty cool, huh?

Also, less than a year ago, the PDGA was blessed by the resignation of its Executive Director.



lol

good god, lets be clear that quote doesnt get attributed to me

"they would likely join the PDGA if it was worth it to them"

B-I-N-G-O!
we have a winner.

this program will figure out how to make it worth it. i'm not sure what the ivory towers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory_tower) and association savants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant) call it, but business uses the term value propostion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_proposition) . pretty cool, huh?



i have always said it's about value, real or perceived. i also am greatly in favor of tiered membership options. however, if the org cannot afford to offer everyone the same deal they shouldn't offer it to anyone. why should virginia disc golfers subsidize alabama disc golfers way into the pdga?

Because we are cute and cuddly?

Actually, we are on the same page, John.

Seriously, to re-emphasize the points I made in my original post, this initative should not be about "underdeveloped" areas of the country (makes us sound either late to the party or third worldy).

Take the opportunity to craft a policy that will work for everyone.

The PDGA has a lot to be proud of and with the right entry-level price (applied across the board) a lot that is attractive to the entry-level player.

1. Get these players in the fold and then sell them on the other benefits.

2. Make life easier for your TDs by allowing them to have a non-sanctioned division within a sanctioned tournament, obviating the need for non-membership fees.

3. Begin creating a regional structure as a strong foundation for the PDGA.

JohnBiscoe
You bring up a valid point about "special deals".
Terry C brought up the same argument at AM Worlds when we discussed the summit idea.

It is a balancing act that the pDGA must perform,
1. Remaining consistent with policies and pricing
2. Examining innovative ways to expand the sport
3. Justifying the innovative events/structure to its members
4. Measuring the success/cost of these experiments
5. Relating the knowledge gained to the membership
6. Examination of present structure and making adjustments
7. Again, disseminating the new policies to the membership
8. Repeat steps 2-7

Not an easy process to explain, even harder to execute.

steve timm

So, what are the other events? MSDGC?

Would cashing in a Pilot program event while a PDGA member as a pro be considered accepting cash as a pro, or is it still outside the reach of the PDGA?

2. Make life easier for your TDs by allowing them to have a non-sanctioned division within a sanctioned tournament, obviating the need for non-membership fees.




if there were an appropriately priced entry level membership ($10-15) i would favor requiring pdga membership to play at all. said membership wouldn't need to carry any benefits beyond being given a number and having your rounds rated- neither of those should tax the infrastructure too greatly.

S Matt

Unity Summit is listed as a C-Tier event.

steve timm

It is a balancing act that the pDGA must perform,
1. Remaining consistent with policies and pricing
2. Examining innovative ways to expand the sport
3. Justifying the innovative events/structure to its members
4. Measuring the success/cost of these experiments
5. Relating the knowledge gained to the membership
6. Examination of present structure and making adjustments
7. Again, disseminating the new policies to the membership
8. Repeat steps 2-7


steve, your words are music to my ears!

john, yes, the "special deal" aspect was one of the largest concerns with Steve's proposal also. given the limited use in Brian's Unity Summit program, and the recognition by the BoD that it this a very real concern, i hope this issue does not derail the effort. heck, for all we know there are just as many potential players in areas thought of as pdga strongholds, so applying the program universally (assuming it works) could be in the cards. lets find out. if it looks like a winner, i know i'll be fighting hard so that everyone gets the same deal.

2. Make life easier for your TDs by allowing them to have a non-sanctioned division within a sanctioned tournament, obviating the need for non-membership fees.




if there were an appropriately priced entry level membership ($10-15) i would favor requiring pdga membership to play at all. said membership wouldn't need to carry any benefits beyond being given a number and having your rounds rated- neither of those should tax the infrastructure too greatly.



do-able ... better yet give the TDs the option for the first year of the program. That's a good compromise measure for those "underdeveloped" areas like my neighborhood.

Or appropriately priced entry fees...

But then all DG'ers are so used to getting lots of stuff for "cashing" in Am divisions so lower fees would mean lower payouts and DG'ers aren't willing (or don't want) to accept that idea...

We need to remove entry barriers that are preventing people from joining the PDGA. The main barrier I believe is the cost. If it cost $10 to join and get a number, we would have a lot more people joining. Give them a year to be a member, play in tournaments, etc, at the "introductory" cost. After a year, the normal renewal fee would kick in.

That way, instead of saying, "We have a membership of 35,000 with over 10,000 active members" we could say, "We have a membership of 100,000 with over 25,000 active members"

Don't soak somebody before they decide they want to get wet. Let them wade in the water awhile. That way, we can show the world that we have more people in the water than we had before, so it must not be a bad thing to get wet.

Seems like a no-brainer to me:

X players times $10 > 0 players times $50-75

The downside to that is some members will feel slighted that they have to pay more for a renewal than a new person does to join. The temptation for these people, besides complaining that the PDGA doesn't value its existing members, would be to let their membership expire and then re-up as 'new' when the holding period ends. If the holding period is long enough (i.e. if your membership doesn't completely expire until a year later), you will have members who fluctuate between membership/non-membership on an every other year basis.

An example of this is why I dropped my Wall Street Journal subscription years ago. I got tired of my renewal not offering the same perks (lower price, free gift) as a new subscription, and got tired of having to wait out the period required to be considered 'new' or playing games with slight name and address changes. I finally told their customer service to value me as much as they do a new subscriber or lose me. In the end, I left.

Not to mention the fact that the first dues increase when I was on the board came on the heels of a study that showed the PDGA spending more money on each new membership than the first year's dues were worth.

New memberships actually cost the PDGA more manage than do renewals.

The UPA does offer an introductory membership and addresses the 'expire then renew' situation by only allowing the 'introductory rate' (not 'new member' rate) if you have never been a member of the organization.

UPA Membership (http://http://www.upa.org/membership)

Perhaps that approach would help with the situation I described above.

Not to mention the fact that the first dues increase when I was on the board came on the heels of a study that showed the PDGA spending more money on each new membership than the first year's dues were worth.

New memberships actually cost the PDGA more manage than do renewals.

perhaps improving operational efficiency could be considered as an alternative to dues increases.

One of the reasons so many people have asked to see the actual financials is because there are a lot of PDGA members out there who own businesses or work as administrators. They would love to know the actual costs involved in order fulfillment for processing new or renewing memberships so they could judge the cost efficiency for the materials & labor involved.

I return to my original contention: Tier the membership.

The $10-15 rate I had in mind is the basic level - not an introductory rate. If you want an introductory rate make it even cheaper ... say $10.

The rest of this post is just supposition and approximation:

Basic Membership: $10 Introductory, $15 thereafter. Member gets a PDGA number, card and can compete in C , D, XC & XD events. (I am unsure about the overhead for member fulfillment at this level. But off the top of my head I am having the PDGA admin staff print a membership card, laminate and stick it in the mail. Without discounting for bulk rates on supplies and postage cost I guarantee I could do that under $1 - add the value of the 10 minutes your paid admin staffer spent processing the order at $4 and you still have added $5 net to the PDGA coffers.

Front Nine Membership: $25. Add a bagtag and a sticker and can compete in B Tier events.

Back Nine Membership: $50. Add magazine subscription. Can compete in all PDGA events.

Birdie, Eagle, Ace and lifetime memberships up from there.

Price out some of the goodies separately as well so that a member not at the magazine level can purchase a subscription separately ... charge them 120% of the actual cost. Ditto for bagtags.

Doing this could be a huge win for the PDGA ... both in terms of membership numbers and increased revenue stream.

Yes, a bunch of members might gravitate to the lower two levels, especially at first as they judge the relative merits of membership. But you are going to be drawing on a much bigger pool.

What percentage of the active members are birdie and ace club members? What if you suddenly had five times that number of birdie and ace club members?

Offering tiered membership also allows you the brainstorm other ways of creating value for the members. I love the way the USGA offers members at a higher level "volunteer opportunities at major championships." What a great way to attract a well-qualified support staff.

Not to mention the fact that the first dues increase when I was on the board came on the heels of a study that showed the PDGA spending more money on each new membership than the first year's dues were worth.

New memberships actually cost the PDGA more manage than do renewals.

perhaps improving operational efficiency could be considered as an alternative to dues increases.


Oh, it was PDGA board member Pat Brenner, both were done. Did someone tell you otherwise, or is that just an assumption of PDGA leadership laxity?

no one told me otherwise and its absolutely not an assumption of laxity on anyone's part.

i'm glad to hear it was improved. do you know how much savings was attributed to the efficiency gains that were implemented?

Some TDs won't even make the effort to look whether a player's rating is too high to play in a division. Adding multiple member levels as it relates to tier qualifications will be a challenge at best. We should borrow a trick from Williams and Sonoma who had trouble selling their $275 bread makers. They sold like hotcakes as soon as they introduced their deluxe model for $429. How about for a $200 deluxe pro membership you get your stats presented online in a fancy font in gold text and a 10-pt rating bonus to help you get to 1000 for a chance at sponsorship? For Ams it's an even better deluxe deal for just $125 to get your stats in blue font and an automatic invite to Am Worlds?

no one told me otherwise and its absolutely not an assumption of laxity on anyone's part.

i'm glad to hear it was improved. do you know how much savings was attributed to the efficiency gains that were implemented?



You're currently on the board, PDGA board member Pat Brenner, with as good an access to that kind of information as anyone has, much better access to information like that than I have.

Why don't you tell us? Careful now, it might reflect positively on the PDGA.

i'd be happy to, but i have not heard of any such analysis. if it exists in publishable form, i'll gladly share it.

hey terry, i love to be positive about the PDGA. i also love to be honest and admit that, like every other organization that has ever existed, we are not perfect and can improve. to do otherwise would be to fail my fiduciary responsibility.

now you're thinking ... great idea, Chuck ... raise the fees some more ... if we get 'em just a bit higher than current levels we will be in great company with Williams & Sonoma and their overpriced merchandise ... then we can really test brand loyalty.

and, of course it's a challenge ... maybe we could move past knee-jerk negativity and explore if we want and how best to meet the challenge.

It's not negativity but hard nosed reality as Biscoe points out. There are and have been statewide and regional orgs as good or better than SN and NEFA whose leadership at some point has decided that the value provided by the PDGA is worthwhile for their org and its members. All of these are volunteer orgs and many volunteer leaders have passed thru and done their time. However, for long range services for their members, they realized it was better to turn over some aspects of what they did to the PDGA which could be counted on for stability to provide continuing services and historical records for players. And frankly, they could only volunteer so long to do some tasks when so many other volunteer tasks were needed in their area and worth doing.

Ultimately most services are provided locally thru clubs and TDs for leagues and events. Most of the rest can be handled more cost efficiently from a centralized organization at this point in our growth. There are not enough services that someone might pay much for that make sense for regional umbrella orgs (not local clubs) to provide beyond the important task to efficiently coordinate event schedules. Certainly not enough to support paid staff. We've already seen how tough it can be to engage some volunteer state coordinators to do much beyond refereeing scheduling issues. Now if we had a some economic engine like maintaining ball golf handicaps that helps economically support their regional orgs, then maybe we could justify a network of regional intermediaries.

Bottom line on the NEFA/SN issues I believe has been more to do with leadership personality conflicts that have lead to distrust than some fundamental difference with what players want or are willing to pay for in those regions versus those that have a higher percentage of PDGA members. Hopefully, Brian can lead the way into a better situation. Whether the PDGA should have multiple levels of membership and services (my two cents, we should) shouldn't be directly tied to the Unity movement. They should be considered based on the merits of the concepts and how they can work together better for players and for the many volunteer organizations we have at all levels.

i'd be happy to, but i have not heard of any such analysis. if it exists in publishable form, i'll gladly share it.

hey terry, i love to be positive about the PDGA. i also love to be honest and admit that, like every other organization that has ever existed, we are not perfect and can improve. to do otherwise would be to fail my fiduciary responsibility.



That's awesome and a great approach to looking at the PDGA, or any organization.

Perhaps you can tell me the value to be gained if someone were to present worthless information and suggest that members draw their own conclusions, when the only conclusion that could be drawn from the bad data is that the PDGA was not good at managing their finances?

Looking at the PDGA and making it better is great and something we should all strive for, misrepresenting the PDGA to make a point might be considered dishonest, by some.

BTW - If you pull the numbers from the PDGA's databases on costs per member, you can load them into an excel spreadsheet and see how those costs compare to income. You should be able to sort out the new members based on their PDGA #. Then, I'm guessing here, you can pull the data from the first analysis, if Brian G. doesn't know where it is you can call Brian H., and you can do a direct comparison.

now you're thinking ... great idea, Chuck ... raise the fees some more ... if we get 'em just a bit higher than current levels we will be in great company with Williams & Sonoma and their overpriced merchandise ... then we can really test brand loyalty.

and, of course it's a challenge ... maybe we could move past knee-jerk negativity and explore if we want and how best to meet the challenge.



As tempting as it is to slam Chuck's post, I think he hits closer to the truth than you might think on this topic. The relative cost, even if you think it's jacked up, is pretty small. It's all about perceived benefit. You can argue that it's dishonest, and I'd agree with you, but it is also reality. I might also argue that the benefit is bigger than the current perception and doing something to adjust that perception might be considered... honest.

As powerful as the SN is, they are only able to keep their costs down because they leach off the efforts of the PDGA, mainly in the form of utilizing the PDGA rating system. Before concluding that the SN model is a successful one, we really should consider the whole picture.

We should also give credence to Chuck's point that an all volunteer show has limitations. You might not think so, but then every other all volunteer organization would disagree with you, based on the numbers. We might not like that, but it is the truth.

i dont really know what you are talking about, but your hypothetical situation is unlikely since there is seldom just one conclusion that can be drawn from a set of information.

BOI

How about with the big membership or even a full membership, members receive discounts off merchandise all year long at the PDGA store. and create some interesting items that are not just PDGA shipped items from other manufacturers. Cool(er) shirts, hats, umbrellas, custom stamped golf discs, etc.

Members should be able to get an automatic discount on PDGA gear, as it both supports the PDGA and helps promote the PDGA.

i dont really know what you are talking about, but your hypothetical situation is unlikely since there is seldom just one conclusion that can be drawn from a set of information.

BOI



So what you're saying is that you agree? That if someone were to misrepresent to make a point, that would be to the good? I'm sure you can answer that question, hypothetical or not.


"I really don't recall."

Most quoted words by; John Gonzales, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld when questioned about inappropriate behaviors while serving the U.S. of A.

Serving an organization doesn't give you right to lie, someone needs to make that clear to our political leaders. Write your Congress Person today.

How about with the big membership or even a full membership, members receive discounts off merchandise all year long at the PDGA store. and create some interesting items that are not just PDGA shipped items from other manufacturers. Cool(er) shirts, hats, umbrellas, custom stamped golf discs, etc.

Members should be able to get an automatic discount on PDGA gear, as it both supports the PDGA and helps promote the PDGA.



This idea has been posed numerous times before. The reason that PDGA doesn't do it is that would undercut the resellers and the TDs, something the PDGA has been reluctant to do. Personally, I'm ambivalent about it. The PDGA has worked up some PDGA specific materials and could do more but they have to be careful how they manage that.

How about with the big membership or even a full membership, members receive discounts off merchandise all year long at the PDGA store. and create some interesting items that are not just PDGA shipped items from other manufacturers. Cool(er) shirts, hats, umbrellas, custom stamped golf discs, etc.

Members should be able to get an automatic discount on PDGA gear, as it both supports the PDGA and helps promote the PDGA.



Matt,

I like that idea and I will have memberships manager,Addie Isbell, look into it as an added benefit of being a member. Addie and I have been working hard to come up with extra benefits and rewards for being a member. Just two days ago we sat in on a presentation from a member rewards company and we are currently in the process of preparing a proposal for the new Board to review at the Summit. This proposed program would offer huge discounts to PDGA members on travel, car rentals, hotels, dining, entertainment and many other areas.

Likewise, I am working with tour manager, Dave Gentry, to come up with added incentives for tournament directors to sanction their events with the PDGA.

The PDGA office staff is dedicated to serving the members and giving them the absolute best service possible. Don't forget that before we worked for the PDGA, all of us here at the office were competitors, tournament directors, state coordinators, course designers and volunteers.

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

lyle, i am not aware of anyone deliberately misrepresenting anything on here. how would you even know that a person deliberately mispresented something? i'm having trouble understanding what you are getting at.

if you are asking whether or not good could come out of such an act, i'd answer that judging whether something is good or bad is not only contextual but also indivdual. what one person considers the embodiment of evil another may view as a glass half full.

lyle, i am not aware of anyone deliberately misrepresenting anything on here. how would you even know that a person deliberately mispresented something? i'm having trouble understanding what you are getting at.

if you are asking whether or not good could come out of such an act, i'd answer that judging whether something is good or bad is not only contextual but also indivdual. what one person considers the embodiment of evil another may view as a glass half full.



It's really simple Pat. Do you or do you not think that it is a good idea to misrepresent data to make a point? You can break it out into two questions. In case one, the point has merit, that is the point you're making is correct even if the data doesn't support it. In case two, the point doesn't have merit, that is it isn't true. They are yes or no philosophical questions. I'm curious to know where, as a Board Member, you stand on these issues.

Chuck, please don't patronize me and don't blow smoke up my butt. I threw my first round of Frisbee Golf in 1974 and have been playing and volunteering long enough to know what I know.

Before I rant, let me state that I am unequivocally pro-PDGA � there is nothing I want more than to find a way to grow the SN Tournament Series closer to the PDGA and to have the PDGA succeed in all that its many extraordinary volunteers have envisioned.

I had really, really high hopes for the "Unity Conference" but you have thrown "cold, hard" water on them. Is this conference designed as just an elaborate bait-and-switch scheme to get the mediocre, almost-burned-out leadership in the SN/NEFA states to sign on?

Exactly what services does the PDGA offer that you are purporting to wave in front of our rheumy, dispirited eyes?

Ratings? I can understand why you personally value those above all human context, but what makes you think we barely literate rednecks can even count, let alone appreciate the sophisticated nuances and self- fulfilling mathematical functioning of your magnificent database?

Order fulfillment ... Please tell me that's it, I need a good laugh. Is there something else I am missing?

DISCussion? Please.

Oh sorry, maybe the chance to play in tournaments without having to pay usurious fees ... No, that can't be it ... Once we are happily sucking away at the PDGA teat (all that magic mammary milk renewing our collective bruised spirits and transforming the burned out hulks of our volunteers into bright-eyed, cheerful polite yes-bots), we will have to pay even more usurious fees.

Did it ever occur to you that the reason NEFA and SN are flourishing at this very moment in the long, glowing, golden history of the PDGA is that the services being provided by said PDGA aren't worth the price??? That SN'ers and NEFA'ns have taken an informed and educated look at what we'll be getting and what it will cost us and decided it wasn't even close to worth it?

That to make it worth our while to join, you are going to have to do a lot more than invite us to the IDGC, wow us with the courses designed for the rec player, give us a few upside down ricochet putt lessons and tell the TDs they will get a small price break this year if they will only please get every disc golf player in said "underdeveloped" state to join the PDGA.

"Of course you understand, ladies and gentlemen, that next year you and your players will be paying what everyone else is currently paying ... unless we decide to raise the prices again."

If that's all there is to the Unity Summit, unity is going to be in short supply.

I would like to hear Brian Graham's take (or some current or incoming board
member's takes) on what the PDGA's goals are for the Unity Summit. While a bit baffled by some of the official-speak in Brian Graham�s first post on this thread, I was encouraged by his most recent post.

Somehow I had gotten it in my head that it was a round table discussion to lay the framework for growing together. I get the impression from you, however, that it is more like assimilation by the Borg.

Let me spell this out again in slow, careful words: It's the fees. Far be it from me to speak on behalf of other SN TDs or any NEFA'ns for that matter, but for my part, if fee restructuring isn't at least on the table � well � hopefully the courses will be cool.

Ok ... I will try addressing the issues you raise in your last post.

1. Tell me again why SN volunteers are going to flame out and PDGA volunteers have some magic potion that keeps them going through fat times and lean.

2. Tell me also how the cost efficient "centralized" organization's paid admin staff are going keep the ship afloat if, perchance, the PDGA volunteers hit the wall.

3. You have a volunteer PDGA BOD that meets periodically and supposedly helps steer the ship and makes decisions to chart direction for the PDGA. Why is it far-fetched to assume that you could bring together six volunteer state coordinators on a periodic basis to help steer the regional ship. Why is it far-fetched to assume that regional coordination might be more responsive and hand's on than what is provided by the mother ship? Why not let the regions administer the Marshal Program?

At the moment there are no layers of organization between the local TD or the local player or the local club and the PDGA. Yeah, yeah the state coordinators. Why not give them a real job and some organization. Maybe a little synergy with Georgia talking to Alabama talking to Florida could result in some cool innovations. A little discourse, a little free thinking, an atmosphere where it was ok to question the status quo ... who knows what could happen. As a database guy myself, I like the handicaps idea. As an aside though, we need to remember that ratings and handicaps and SSAs are just tools. The players are everything.

4. Leadership personality conflicts ... more than what players want or are willing to pay for. It's a neat theory that sidesteps my theory that players don't want to pay $50 or $75 annually for a PDGA rating and permission to play in tournaments ... not when there are plenty of tournaments every year within driving distance where they don't have to pay $50 to $75 to join an organization, where the entry fees are lower and where there are no hidden fees or admin costs.

There may have been a personality conflict or two in the past. I don't know. I don't know the personalities well enough to hazard a guess. You seem to think there is a storied and bitter history between SN (and NEFA) and the PDGA. Blame is for historians to decide. It has never been my style. I like solutions. I like to free-think.

I like to throw my ideas against the wall like a fistful of al dente linguine and see what sticks.

help me out just a little bit more. how does one "misrepresent" data? one can present data and draw conclusions from it. is the misrepresntation a deliberate falsification of the data, or is the act of drawing an unwarranted conclusion? ie, are you saying the tobacco company fudged the numbers so that it showed 2/10000 died instead of 50/10000? or are you saying that is showed the 50/10000 but twisted things around in an attempt to show that 50/10000 was ok?

btw, re your case two... are you claiming that points that are not true never have any merit?

<blockquote>Did it ever occur to you that the reason NEFA and SN are flourishing at this very moment in the long, glowing, golden history of the PDGA is that the services being provided by said PDGA aren't worth the price??? That SN'ers and NEFA'ns have taken an informed and educated look at what we'll be getting and what it will cost us and decided it wasn't even close to worth it?</blockquote>

Chris, it just needs to be pointed out that the PDGA and lots of other parts of the disc golf world are also flourishing. Last year was a record year for all sorts of ways to measure "flourishing" for the PDGA. Lots and lots of people have been voting with their pocket books that the PDGA is worth it.

It could just as easily be posited that the SN is flourishing because of many of the things that the PDGA provides for disc golf that benefit far more than just PDGA members. We have lots of PDGA members who are satisfied with the less tangible benefits of contributing to an organization that is doing good.

You can find plenty of people, especially in SN-land, who will state that they are dissatisfied with the PDGA, but that is not necessarily responsible for the flourishing of the SN - although what the measures are that prove that the SN is flourishing are, I don't know; but I'm not disagreeing that it is.

It may well be that the SN satisfies a lot of southern disc golfers' needs cheaply enough that they don't join the PDGA. The fact that the SN is flourishing just is not proof that the PDGA is not providing valuable products and services. The flourishing of the SN may simply be because there are no membership dues. It's not a membership organization at all.

I mean, I am talking with Steve Timm about how to have an SN qualifying event in Michigan next year, but I assure you I am a PDGA member who thinks what he gets from the PDGA is well worth the Ace Club memberships he and his wife each have.

good points all ... everyone and everything connected with disc golf SHOULD be flourishing ... disc golf rules!

I would further emphasize what you say: "We have lots of PDGA members who are satisfied with the less tangible benefits of contributing to an organization that is doing good."

I would hazard a guess that quite a high percentage are current PDGA members primarily because of the intangible benefits, i.e. supporting the mother ship. That was me up until this "year of protest." Believe me, it wasn't the tangible benefits.

I want the PDGA to be all it is and so much more ... the points I am trying to make are directed at trying to impress upon the powers-that-be that because disc golf is becoming such a presence and the popularity is skyrocketing, doubling or tripling the membership could be as easy as falling off a log if we look at a tiered membership pricing scheme that brings in the disc golfers who aren't going to altruistically fork over hard-earned dollars for "intangibles." ...

Once they are on the inside, once they have volunteered or run their first tournament or served on the BOD for a local club maybe they will see the bigger picture and perhaps pledge more of their dollars annually for those intangibles.

But at the moment, the PDGA should be asking itself "What is keeping the un-altruistic away and how can we appeal to them?"

BTW I hope your conversation with Steve was short. How to do it? Post to the SN board with the dates and details. We'll stick you on the calendar. Have your tournament. Send our treasurer $2 per player (no fee for juniors or novice). Done.

Nice to have this conversation, Chris. I thoroughly disagree that we should necessarily be expending any extra amount of energy on the "un-altruistic." In fact, I think that might be a mistake.

This is probably colored by my association management experience and bent. A membership that is primarily composed of altruistic members is, I think, a better one for any organization, and definitely for growing disc golf as a sport.

Association members come in two types, with lots of people falling in between or being a mix: Those who join for high-end purposes and those who have the "what's in it for me" attitude. (Which, BTW, is fine and I am not denigrating that.) It's easy to design a program to appeal for the "what's in it for me" folks, and to execute it, and to get at least short term results.

The problem becomes that as the portion of your membership of "what's in it for me" folks increases, you end up in a constantly recurring "arms race" of providing more and more benefits, or constantly explaining why not when you can't.

And you then (once the un-altruistic are on the inside) end up spending larger portions of your revenues on satisfying those demands, at the same time as you diminish your ability to spend revenues on the more "altruistic" items that do not necessarily benefit each individual member.

Not everything has to be within the PDGA fold, not every disc golfer or competitor has to be a PDGA member. Even in Michigan, we only have 5 PDGA members for every course. Maybe that's okay? Especially maybe that's okay when we are financially healthy, grow each year, do more and more good things with a larger and larger staff?

I fear for a PDGA that tries to spend much time satisfying the needs of members who need to see a solid dollar-equivalent direct return on membership dues.

Once they are on the inside, once they have volunteered or run their first tournament or served on the BOD for a local club maybe they will see the bigger picture and perhaps pledge more of their dollars annually for those intangibles.





But in your instance, we 'had you on the inside' and you are now in a 'year of protest'. How does a tiered fee structure address your issue? If it doesn't, does it just create a large number of 'one year' members who will drop out when they aren't covered by the lower tiers any longer?

"tiered" memberships does not necessarily mean "introductory" memberships (i for one would hope there are no loss leader "introductory" memberships), but levels of membership with differing levels of services/entitlements.

I see your point ... That is a question that the Board needs to answer ... if all they want is a smaller band of altruistic, happy-to-be-a-member-whatever-the-financial-cost disc golfers they are definitely on the right track.

I am not sure I understand your references to an "arms race." If you have a basic bare bones membership rate that gives players a number and allows them to play tournaments without a surcharge, why would they ever expect anything more. They select the level BECAUSE they don't want the trappings ... they just want to play.

The bare bones members could stay bare bone members forever or until they had an epiphany and morphed into altruistic members.

Understood, but I'm curious as to how this would be implemented to entice new members as well as keep existing members, and how it can be implemented without erroding the support of some of the less tangible benefits or the overall financial state of the org. Coming up with such a plan, and not having that plan include an 'introductory' component yet still accomplish the increased membership aspect, will be a challenge.

The bare bones members could stay bare bone members forever or until they had an epiphany and morphed into altruistic members.



If this just results in most of the membership moving to a bare bones option (both new and existing), aren't we really discussing a membership cost reduction and a reduction in services (dropping those components that the majority doesn't want to pick up)? In the end, would the few people paying the full fee be equivalent to what we now refer to as the Birdie or Ace membership?

Maybe the plan will address some of this, but right now it looks like we could do the same by cutting all memberships 50% and lowering the cost of the Ace and Birdie clubs.

I applaud the effort being made here. Any increased interaction / communication / cooperation between the PDGA and non-PDGA disc golfers is bound to be good for disc golf. If it leads to increased PDGA presence in those areas, and brings talented non-members and their ideas and energies into the PDGA, so much the better.

However, comparing the SN and the PDGA is apples-and-oranges. The SN is not a comparable or rival or alternative to the PDGA. The PDGA is the national, and to some degree international, organization for disc golf. The SN is a tournament series, much like a state point series. Which is not to denigrate the SN in any way---it's just an altogether different project.

As far as I can tell---and SN members, please correct me where I'm wrong---the SN is primarily a series of mostly non-PDGA tournaments in Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. There are SN qualifiers in other states, of course, but it looks to me like they are also PDGA-sanctioned events that added SN qualifying. South Carolina is a pretty "southern" state, but the SN has little presence here.

The SN webpage provides schedules, results, and points totals for competitors. The only fee is $2 per person. We have a South Carolina points series, for which this is also true.

Except, of course, for the SN championship. Which I understand to be a big-deal---a major-league tournament with an impressive payout, both from the $2 fees and volunteers doing a good job obtaining sponsorships. So in saying the SN is like a state points series, it is, in this aspect, much more. The people who accomplish this would be a boost to the PDGA if they were brought in.

Posters who are both SN boosters and PDGA bashers sometimes refer to what the SN does not do---charge big fees, or charge extra for non-members playing in their tournaments. However, there are other things the SN does not do, which the PDGA does, which separates the organizations:

* Codify, maintain, publish, and distribute written rules. To my knowlege the SN uses the PDGA rules of play; if the SN has issued separate rules, they were probably based on the PDGA rulebook.
* Maintain and publish an extensive and detailed course directory, both online and in paper, free to members and non-members alike. Non-PDGA, SN members are welcome to use this resource, and I suspect many do.
* Establish and govern technical standards and relations with manufacturers for targets and discs. I guess the SN uses these standards, as well.
* Is the face of disc golf to communities, governments, and the outside world.
* Maintains and extensive website with many resources, beyond those mentioned above, including but not limited to ratings, historical tournament results, tournament standards, etc.
* Provided an excellent weekly online radio show (not currently active).
* Provides a quarterly, glossy, professional magazine (at this time).
* Provides player ratings, and feature many disc golfers like.
* When ESPN or Conan O'Brien went looking for a representative to give us national exposure, they found them in a national organization
* and more and more and more and more.

I may not like the ways the PDGA does some of these things, and I may think they should stop doing some of them or do some other things instead. They may not be worth the cost of membership to some disc golfers. But they demonstrate the fundamental difference between the PDGA and the SN.

Personally, I joined the PDGA when I first heard of it, when I was playing only 2 events a year, because I wanted to contribute to whatever national organization there was. I joined the local club for the same reason. If we are to increase membership in non-membership areas, it will be partly for the individual benefits, but also for reasons such as these.

And if not, increased communication and cooperation between the national organization and an unaffiliated, successful regional series will still be a big boost to the sport.

I apologize in advance for the tasty metaphors ... once a foodie ...

You have it mostly right, David.

Yesterday, for the purposes of our discussion, I allowed Terry Calhoun to categorize all disc golfers as either A) "altruistic," or b) "un-altruistic."

A fellow volunteer and disc golfer pointed out to me that accepting that kind of oversimplification is dandy if we are just shooting the breeze, but if real change is to be discussed and trialed, we need to be careful that we take a more accurate pulse. I think we all know that trying to lump a large group of humans into only two distinct groups certainly has it pitfalls.

Ditto, therefore, to the characterization of the Southern Nation/PDGA comparisons as "apples &amp; oranges."

I would agree wholeheartedly that the PDGA is already doing many of the things you itemized fairly well. (SN does use the PDGA rules of play, but has also codified, maintained and published additional standards germane to the tournament series).

I also know at least two third-party sources who have undertaken on-line course directories with a different flavor than the PDGA's. While it may not be nearly as extensive yet, it is pretty neat because it has different functionality and is far more interactive to the individual disc golfer.

The face of disc golf? Well, that's every golfer's job isn't it? I always preach to any new players I teach or to any golfer I see doing anything negative that we are all diplomats for the sport. Has the PDGA attracted some of the best and brightest? Of course. All one need do is look at the thoughful posts on DISCussion to see that the PDGA is one helluva good face for disc golf. Are they the face of disc golf in my community? No. The Mobile Area Disc Golf Association is the face of disc golf in our community. We nurture the ties to the city council and the Parks Department. We partner with perennial sponsors to ensure value for their sponsorship dollars. We sit on citizens councils and help pick up trash and plant trees.

There are other disc golf websites, other media outlets (including two publications currently bidding to become the outlet for PDGA news and information, neither of which is the PDGA "provides."

I guess what I am getting at is that while the SN's is different than NEFA, which in turn is different from the PDGA, all of them have as many simliarities in mission statement and services offered as they have differences.

The "apples &amp; oranges" idiom to me has always connoted vast differences between items which have been compared. I could list as many similarities between SN, NEFA and the PDGA as you have listed differences. Then you could pick apart my list and neither of us would be wrong.

The bottom line is that we are all after the same thing: organizing our sport. The PDGA is already doing a great job having already done a great job.

Without citing specific examples, the PDGA in large measure acts as an umbrella for all our promotion efforts local, regional and national. It is also the repository of the accumulated wisdom gleaned since the sport's inception.

As such, there is no point in the SN or any other regional organization re-inventing the wheel whether it be rules, technical standards, white papers, etc.

So rather than comparing apples and oranges when we compare the SN or NEFA to the PDGA, I think we are comparing Macintosh to Granny Smith ... they may look different and taste different, one might be better eating and one might be better for cooking ... but they are both apples in all their essential apple-ness.

One of the over-arching points in my original post on this thread was a desire to explore the possibility of using existing regional organizations as the foundation of a regional structure for the PDGA ... a way to tie local clubs to regional organizations to the PDGA.

Imagine six regions of six states each (give or take) with a seventh as a catch-all for Alaska and Hawaii and the military and possessions, etc ... together those seven comprise the USDGA, which in turn is the counterpart to the PDGA's International organizations such as the European Disc Golf Association and the Pan-Asian Disc Golf Association. (What's the Professional about anyway, when there are more members who are ams than pros? Is the PDGA disc golf's counterpart to the USGA or the PGA, or is the PDGA trying to do both?

My bottom line point;

Whatever our inherent differences in services offered, fees charged, wisdom accumulated, expertise of volunteers ... we are all after the same thing ... so at the table at the Unity Summit, rather than finding a way to just add members for under-represented areas, why not find a way to tap into the regional and local resources and really create some synergy?

Whatever our inherent differences in services offered, fees charged, wisdom accumulated, expertise of volunteers ... we are all after the same thing



I wouldn't be so sure of that. I find the PDGA itself to be extremely schizophrenic when I look at the organization from the outside, and I suspect other organizations are as well. The non-unity now expressed by the existance of somewhat diverse and competing organizations is simply a manifestation of non-unity amongst the membership. However, I do think airing competing concerns at the meeting might enable leadership types in all organizations to see the entire landscape. Hopefully, this will provide useful knowledge and experience for their actions down the road.

Thanks for your reply and clarification of my knowledge (such as additional tournament standards of the SN). I hope I made it clear that I feel the contributions existing non-members could make to the PDGA, in terms of their experience and energies and new ideas, are at least as valuable as the services the PDGA could provide to them by gaining a larger presence in SN territory---probably more so. This, whether they join the PDGA, or just cooperate in ventures such as the Unity Summit.

You're right, of course, that I was simplistic in my "face of disc golf" description. In some ways, the PDGA is....in other ways, the local clubs are. But many activities have a national organization that fills this role on some levels, and ours is the PDGA.

I still think that they're quite different in the type and scope of services they provide, for the most part. For those others out there who point out that SN fees are so much less....that's the real "apples and oranges" part, to me.

But my hope is that they all flourish---the PDGA, the SN, and the other series of which I know less---and flourish more so with cooperation and interaction, from the Unity Summitt forward.

Whatever our inherent differences in services offered, fees charged, wisdom accumulated, expertise of volunteers ... we are all after the same thing



I wouldn't be so sure of that. I find the PDGA itself to be extremely schizophrenic when I look at the organization from the outside, and I suspect other organizations are as well. The non-unity now expressed by the existance of somewhat diverse and competing organizations is simply a manifestation of non-unity amongst the membership. However, I do think airing competing concerns at the meeting might enable leadership types in all organizations to see the entire landscape. Hopefully, this will provide useful knowledge and experience for their actions down the road.



The schizophrenia may always be a problem as long as the PDGA, or other organizations, or even our local club, is "we"---and "we" disc golfers have such varying ideas of what we want and what we want disc golf to be. "We" want it to be a major sport, where our top players earn million-dollar purses on ESPN. "We" also want it to be a party---a stroll in the park, a beer, a joint, and a dash of counterculture. "We" want the courses made longer and kept short for rec players. "We" want the rules called fanatically and never called at all.

We may never cure ourselves, but perhaps we can learn to manage our condition a little better.

I'm the course "pro" at a small 13, soon to be 18, hole course in Hartselle, Alabama. I would like to get PDGA sanctioning for the one event we run during the year, but it's a charity tournament. In order for me to sanction it, I have to pay a $50 sanctioning fee and on top of that penalize my local rec players $5 just so they can play. How can I justify that for a charity event? If I get SN sanctioning it is a very affordable $2 a head for everyone.

Where the PDGA fails most is dealing with small tournaments in communities with only one course. Thats where these low cost local bodies come in. They allow us to advertise our event to a large online audience and make nonlocals feel that they won't get taken for a ride by the TD if they show up. They allow my locals, who won't play in a tournament even 30 miles away, to watch more experienced players in a tournament format.

That's the problem in the south. There are tons of small disc golf communities spread out over a large area. They want sanctioning, but are unable to run A and B tier events. By working with the SN and allowing us cheaper sanctioning, it will help us funnel our locals to the PDGA. That's why the Unity Summit is a good idea. It will grow golf in the small communities. Huntsville and Birmingham arien't going to stop holding B Tiers and run to this type of sanctioning so they can save money on fees, but places like Hartselle, Tupelo, and Columbus will run to the PDGA if allowed the chance.

Josh

Josh,

I ran in to the same issue when trying to host a disc golf scholarship tournament to award a college scholarship to a student golfer. The PDGA was unable to waive the sanctioning fees, where the the SN decided to gift the fees back to the scholarship. It was a no brainer in that instance of who to sanction with. Maybe there could be a seperate tier system if a tournament is a charity tournament and 100% is going to charity or benefits?

Josh is a good friend of mine, but I disagree with him on this. I run a charity tournament in a town 30 miles north of his course. In Athens, AL we have had three Ice Bowls. The first first 2 were SN while this year we decided to sanction it with the PDGA, it was a B teir for ams, C for pros. In '05 &amp; '06 we had about 45 each year. In '07 we had 95 players. The money collected for sanctioning fees was insignficant compared to the increased money brought in by doubling our attendence. We were able to double what we donated to the charity this year while paying the PDGA 3x what we payed the SN.

I do not feel like I am "penalizing" anyone by collecting the $5 non-member fee. In fact I encourage all of our locals to join the PDGA. We are hosting 4 sanctioned events in our one course town to give these locals increased value for their membership fee.

The requirements for a pro B teir will make it hard for us to run one here, but why would that make us want to run an unsanctioned tournament rather than doing a C teir. I do not understand your reasoning.

The PDGA wants you to run sanctioned tournaments in Hartselle. I can say with all honesty that you and your lovely wife do a GREAT job with all your tournaments, the two of you are the best I have ever seen at adding extras to your events.

Other discussion of this event, now planned for March 15-16 at the IDGC is on the SN discussion site here:

SN Site (http://www.sndg.org/forum/read.php?2,114067)

Thanks to Addie for agreeing to run this event and for BG for continuing to push for it. Regardless the outcome, it is a worthwhile endeavor.

Here was my last post on the SN board:

Thanks John (Kittrell - SN Treasurer) and Brian for clarifying the timeline of the decision-making process.

Thanks also to Brian for your answer. I do think it is disingenuous to claim at this juncture that your decision when to schedule and whether to actually come to a SN event are predicated on a desire to avoid invoking further negative posts from a few of our message posters.

Having read many of your even-handed, level-headed posts on the PDGA discussion board, I was under the impression that you were above being swayed by the rants of a few.

I honestly don't see (and have yet to hear) a reason why the PDGA considers it necessary to have the SN edition of the Unity Summit in Augusta. I, for one would love to attend for the discussions but after looking at expenses I figure the weekend would cost me about $750. I know PDGA recent board candidate Steve Timm would like to be there, but that happens to be the weekend of his PDGA/SN sanctioned tournament. I think John Kittrell might like to attend but I think that is about an 18-hour drive for him.

Personally, I have no axe to grind if anyone from the PDGA comes to one of our tournaments for the purposes of opening channels of communication. If you don't want to do it for the Pot O' Gold, I would like to personally extend you an invitation to come stay with me and my lovely wife for the City of Mobile Championships the previous weekend (March 8-9). We can put up two people (three, if two of them are very friendly). I can talk with Mobile Area Disc Golf Association President Willie Waite about the possibility of sanctioning that tournament as PDGA for the occasion.

Speaking of channels of communication, have you contacted the SN Board members to coordinate this event? Is there some suggested talking points on the table that we could all be considering? Are there some lessons learned from the NEFA and Kentucky Summits that we could be talking about now as a way to make the actual Summit more substantive?