This is coming up more and more, but what is everyone's opinion. I as an Open player think most open players have the discs they need and a lot of Advanced players feel the same way. This may help T.D.s decide on what to do.

I would think that it should always remain up to the TD and should be clearly stated on the flyer or tourney information, what you will receive for your money.

Players packs, % of players paid, trophies, etc..


An event is a product and as time goes on there will be more competition for the tourney players dollars each weekend.
As an Amateur disc golfer, at some point you wont have to drive more than 2 hours each weekend in order to play in a very competitive event. You may eventually have 2 choices even within one city if you live in a big enough city.

If you are deciding on which event you should attend you should:
A) know what you are getting for your money (how it will be used by the event)
B) be able to decide if the event is right for you based on Players packs, added prizes, qualifying spots, money, etc..

For the pro division I suggest only giving players packs if they are donated and it in no way subtracts from the purse.

No player packs required for Pros in any tier. No player packs are required for Ams in C & D tiers. B-tiers require $10 pack and A-tiers require $25 pack in 2007. I think the idea was to help reduce the potential top end payout in Advanced and spread the wealth among the Ams a little bit.

No players packages to Pros especially if it is coming out of the purse.....

Rule of Thumb:
Players on the top end of the bracket hate PP's and players on the other end like the consolation prize.

Sometimes the stuff you get from sponsors lends itself only to players packs. Bumper stickers, merchandise coupons, etc... you have disperse it somehow.

I don't think Pro's should receive a players pack if it takes away from their purse. If discs, shirts, etc are sponsored w/o tournament money then it's okay to do. The discs they have are what helped them go pro anyway so what would be the point of another esp. since they're playing for cash. Ams play for merchandise, and even if they dont cash at least they have a little bit of something that they can walk away with. Players packages should be used solely for the encouragement of amateur attendants for an event.

But if a club/tournament has enough funding to where a players package can be given w/o hurting the tournament purse then a Pro should be able to choose whether or not to accept the package. I mean, if I was a pro and was sponsored by INNOVA, but the players pack were Discraft items then I would pass and let the next person have it.

PP's suck half of the time.

PP's suck half of the time.



So true. I went to one tournament, a one day C-Tier, paid $30 for Int. and my PP was a DX Roc

That is the opposite of suck. C tiers don't even have to have a player's pack.

I would have been happy with a roc!. I think Pros should get players packs. These should be sponsored items, nothing should come out of the purse, For Ams i think all should get a pack, these should come from sponsorship also but if that is not the case the money should come from entry fees. WHen it comes to buying the PP I really think that PP that are paid for with entry fees should only be valued at a dollar or 2 above their cost(wholesale) I think they should be valued at retail as far the the end numbers go. This is how tournaments can build their value without diminshing the purse by charging retail for the players packages.
If any item is sponsored to the event this should be an added value to the tournament above entry fees and NO money, i repeat NO money should come out of the players fees for these. I see many events where items are donated and the TDS "pay" for these out of the entry fee, WRONG very wrong.

My answer would depend on what the TD does with the money that would have gone to players package.

I'm a rarely-cashing Am and still don't like players packages. At their best, they are vouchers with which I can choose what I want. But rather than pay a $40 entry fee and get a $10 voucher to buy what I want, I'd prefer to pay a $30 entry fee and decide whether I want to spend $10 on merchandise, or not. At their worst, players packs are junk---discs I don't throw, remainders from previous year's tournaments (or worse, leftover custom-stamped discs from some other tournament which I've never even attended!), or one more cheesy tee-shirt to add to the pile.

On the other hand, if the entry fees stay the same, I'd rather it come back in the players pack rather than boost the winnings of the division winners.

Winning discs or getting discs in players packs was a much bigger deal in the1990s, when the only plastic was DX or its equivalent, and players needed a steady resupply to replace their short-lived discs.

For the pros, as seen from the TD side of the table, it doesn't look like many care to get players packs. It seems most pros feel they have moved past that by now.

PPs serve many a purpose and are a welcomed addition to me .
First a tshirt is ALWAYS cool .
ONE TD around the area gives discounts to next years tourneys if you wear an old tshirt of that tourney .
It is the real only way sponsors get shown after the event .
I have on more then one occasion heard people talk about a tshirt that was the shizzle way back when .

A hot stamp disc serves a few purposes even if it is not a " great disc "
If you happen to do well and they dont give out trophies for 2nd,3rd you can create your own trophy for the event .
Tds earn a lot of cash on hot stamp discs for " added cash "

PPs are great for lots of other things too
CTPs and ring of fire as to where you won them .

Most of all , as an AM ,who is not spoiled by the entitlement system that is so popular these days , I dont think we should get LOTS of prizes based upon finish .
Personally I would love to see at least half of my entry fee go to players packs and the profit support the TD for his efforts or the pros that show up that day .


You want to get lots of stuff for your winning PLAY UP .
OTHER wise accept the PP graciously as a gift for being there , and realize as an am that you are there to help the sport grow ( however the TD sees fit ) as much as you are there to compete .

I have to admit however that one of my favorite places to play is Codourus state park in PA . The main reason is , you pay a LOW ENTRY FEE ( normally $25) as an am and the PP is disc of choice out of stock ( normally at $15 ) . TO add to that , in my ideas of am , the players pack takes alot of cash away from that entry fee and therefore does not allow a huge payoff for sandbagging ams . ( which ironically I am one of those sandbagging ams ( am master that is ) at those events ) and I still love it cause it is truely the right way to go .

You make some good points. I should have prefaced my post that while I don't care for players packs, I am pretty sure most Ams around here like them---and that is a valid reason, in itself, to offer.

I haven't seen a sponsor tee-shirt in ten years but, if a TD has a sponsor giving tee-shirts, that's valid as a way of financially supporting the event. The sponsor gets some real value, and the tournament gets the sponsorship. Most of the shirts I've ever received where cheap white shirts, with a tournament logo that wasn't particularly cool.

I agree that a custom-stamped disc of the tournament I'm playing has value; it has great value to me. I'm thinking of a standard, DX-disc of a model I don't care to throw as being virtually worthless.

Finally, the TD makes a profit on players packs, and I have no problem with that, whether it goes to added amenities, the pro purse, or the local club.

But PERSONALLY.....I'd be just as happy if I never received another players pack. Probably a minority opinion, just offered as one side of the discussion.

When player packs first were mandatory, back in 2001 I think, the Advanced players in Michigan hated them. They pooled their player packs and did a second payout. But the lower division players were fine with the concept. Now that most of our players have grown up with player packs, it seems most of the amateurs are fine with them.

I don't care one way or the other. I look at total value. If the player pack is some ugly custom stamped disc I don't throw, that isn't much value. If the payout is sunglasses, or if the TD is going to deduct from the payout the value of stuff he got free and put in the player pack, that's not much value either.

One of the problems for Championship TDs is that sponsors will contribute discs for player packs instead of cash. For Mid-Nationals 2005 & 2006, we had player packs with a legit retail value more than the entry fee. PDGA requires 125% minimum payouts which we were at already with trophies and player packs. However, players expect to get good awards payouts at events like this. So we were psychologically "forced" to provide decent award payouts and ended up barely covering event expenses with little for volunteers, staff and host at Highbridge. Players got over 200% overall payout both years even though it would have been more fair if more of the player pack/merch differential could have been retained for the event. It's a problem of both player expectations and the fact that sponsors are more willing to contribute merch versus cash.

Anytime we've gotten a big load of free stuff for one of our tournaments, and then did a formula where playerpacks+payouts+CTPs = free stuff+100%, we've made an obscene pile of money on the tournament. If you are barely breaking even on a free stuff+100% formula, something is seriously wrong with your process.

Players would not accept zero payouts at Championships if that's how the math worked out. Maybe at C-tiers it's OK but then those aren't the events with the big sponsor merch inputs. The problem is you can't reduce the value of the player pack when the sponsor provides the disc unde the conditions that it be in the player pack. If you could get several hundred discs for sale or for use in the merch prizes, that would allow you to reduce the player pack value to a more reasonable percentage of the entry fee. Either that or raise entry fees.

Always NICE when PP discs are custom stamped.

Chuck said :
For Mid-Nationals 2005 & 2006, we had player packs with a legit retail value more than the entry fee. PDGA requires 125% minimum payouts which we were at already with trophies and player packs. However, players expect to get good awards payouts at events like this.

Players would not accept zero payouts at Championships if that's how the math worked out.

I say :

This is exactly why Kevin , Craig and all those pros are Sooooo Freaking mad about things . NOT only are we shortening the ability of the true pros in our sport to have a division and therefore less of a payout ( based on attendance ) but there are lots of ams who are upset about a 100% players pack and not getting " great " payouts at the end .

Chuck , Going all the way back to my first major tourney ( KCWO 98 ) and my last being Am worlds 2005 ,
IT IS MY belief that the players pack that I got at all those BIG events was AWESOME . Especially when the retail value of those packs are over 100% entry fee .
ANYTHING ontop of that is FANTASTIC
At the KCWO in 98 I came in tied just at the top half spot ( 44th or 45th dont remember ) and I still got 2 discs for that finish ( and remember the players pack was worth my entry fee in retail value )
At 2005 am worlds the players pack was awesome .
I finished in 62 place ( did not even make the semi cut ) and got $20 in prizes .
I like the flat payout but more to the point the top level players should be happy for IMPO half payout of what they get .

It really boggles my mind that players ( especially anyone who plays in a protected division ) thinks they deserve more for less .

I heard some complaints from those who played in the BG Ams this year about not receiving a decent payout, even though their players package was worth way more than their entry fee. One guy I met at another tournament vowed to never come back here because he didnt like the payout. So a new question arises for all tournaments. Should payouts be equal to or greater than the players package, even for a person who cashes last?

That is the opposite of suck. C tiers don't even have to have a player's pack.



I know why you like players packages so well, its because without them you will go away empty handed :o:D

If anyone can claim to be treating the Ams right, it's BG.

(Just an uninformed opinion based on attendance, since I haven't been there, but the people voting with their entry fees must not be too unhappy).

That is the opposite of suck. C tiers don't even have to have a player's pack.



I know why you like players packages so well, its because without them you will go away empty handed :o:D



Hey old man put your money where your mouth is and come to the Bud Select Corpus Christi Open.

I heard some complaints from those who played in the BG Ams this year about not receiving a decent payout, even though their players package was worth way more than their entry fee. One guy I met at another tournament vowed to never come back here because he didnt like the payout. So a new question arises for all tournaments. Should payouts be equal to or greater than the players package, even for a person who cashes last?



I would always rather have a nice PP, and a small flat payout. I think this is how am's should be, period. I also think that the PP's should be newer disc, that some players may have not tried out yet, this helps the players feel they are getting something usefull, that they may have bought soon anyways to try out.

And how would you feel if you got just the players pack and no other payout unless you won, and even then all you got was a tourney stamped disc with the words Winner on it. How would you feel if the players pack was just a useless tourney stamp disc and a mini and coupons? How would you feel if you normally would have cashed,. How would you feel if you came in second at this event and got absolutely nothing but a crappy players pack? Please respond as this is kind of a survey. Thanks!

depends on the entry fee .

depends on the entry fee .



Yes.

Personally, I'd be satisfied in a disc golf world where entry fees were kept low, and Ams won nothing. Not everyone thinks they should get their entry fee back---i.e.; play for free---or they've been ripped off. I'd pay $25 just to participate in a well-run tournament on a good course, with no PP or prizes, just as I pay willingly for other types of entertainment.

I recognize, of course, that this is not the disc golf world I live in, and mine is a minority opinion.

The original question, about whether players like players packs, may have different answers depending on whether we're talking about good players packs, or lousy ones.

I really don't care too much about player's packs, mainly because, as noted by others, I get no "value" from them in the form of discs and minis which I will never use. I would prefer low entry fees, with only the top scores getting something (if anything). And when I say low entry fees, I mean way below $25. :D

If you listened to Dan Ginnelly's interview this afternoon, you already know the "bombshell" he dropped regarding The Memorial next year. They decided to not award any payouts to Ams next year. The player pack will be major with a value perhaps over $100 for an entry fee less than that. Trophies only for the top finishers.

KUDOS!!!!!

I am all for low cost and no payouts except trophies in all AM divisions. I also like PP, but if the cost to enter was 5-10 with no PP I would be happy also. Once cost get over 25.00 I need a good reason to play.

I play Open am a sponsored player, but,I still enjoy a "tournament" disc even if it`s just a premium.I get the rest of my friends & competitors to sign them .As I get older and I get somtimers I can still look at the disc and remember the tourney!

Thank you all for your reponses. The cost of the tourney is $30, 3 rounds, 18 holes each. My problem is not so much that there's no payout, I've got plenty of plastic. My problem is that only ONE person will be paid out. Last years Memorial had 51 advanced players. How do you pay out just one person out of 51? Also you can stick five discs in a bag and call it $100 players pack, but everyone knows that the actual value is much less. Should there be a limit as to what value tds put on merch? And this is in no way a personal attack on Dan or any one else. I'm a close friend of Dans, and I have expressed my concerns directly to him.. I'm just curious to see what every ones opinion is. And I know that it's hard for a pro to comment because it doesn't really affect you since you play for cash anyways.

How do you pay out just one person out of 51?



No payout tables needed to figure that one out. :D

For a $30 entry fee and a $100 player pack and no prizes other then first place trophy .
I would like to see a little deeper payout to second and third in divisions that have enough players ( at least 9 players ) .
Have a disc in GOLD , Silver and Bronze color for each division .
Other then that .....
I dont mind the idea at all .

Great news!! If a major tournament like The Memorial can do it, maybe that will pave the way for others to follow. I dont know if he has had to turn away Am's in the past, but if he hasn't I bet he will this year.

Big ups to Dan and his staff!!!

This will be interesting to watch play out, but I'm guessing that there will be less out of state players making the trek.

I am against no payouts at all, for the simple fact that we are not playing in academic sports. The PDGA's biggest demographic is 30 something males, including myself and payouts provide a fun factor.

I have to admit that I also agree with people that believe that the payouts should not become huge, though.

If you listened to Dan Ginnelly's interview this afternoon, you already know the "bombshell" he dropped regarding The Memorial next year. They decided to not award any payouts to Ams next year. The player pack will be major with a value perhaps over $100 for an entry fee less than that. Trophies only for the top finishers.



:eek:

Wow. And I bet it fills.

This will be interesting to watch play out, but I'm guessing that there will be less out of state players making the trek.

I am against no payouts at all, for the simple fact that we are not playing in academic sports. The PDGA's biggest demographic is 30 something males, including myself and payouts provide a fun factor.

I have to admit that I also agree with people that believe that the payouts should not become huge, though.



I also bet the tournament fills, and there will be plenty of out-of-staters. The main reason reason many of us Midwesterners head down to Arizona in Febrauary/March is to get out of the snow and play golf in nice conditions. That's not going to change.

Chap

I remember when KC was the main destination for Ams and then they went to a different payout. Now it's not the main destination for Ams.

I remember when KC was the main destination for Ams and then they went to a different payout. Now it's not the main destination for Ams.



I didn't even realize I was replying to someone from KC when I wrote that.

So, Chapman, what happened that one year that killed the excitement for Ams to go to KC? I don't remember exactly if it was just a flatter payout or complete elimination of payouts. I'm assuming from your reply that you had a part in it, though, so you should be able to answer my question.

I agree that the payouts do provide some fun factor. Generally, if you finish "in the cash", you have done better than the majority of your division.

For me, its all about return on investment. If I can pay $30 max to enter a tournament, get 200%-300% back just for signing up, play in a great event, possibly have a meal or 2 provided, and maybe have a chance at a trophy.....I'll take that everytime.

I remember when KC was the main destination for Ams and then they went to a different payout. Now it's not the main destination for Ams.



I didn't even realize I was replying to someone from KC when I wrote that.

So, Chapman, what happened that one year that killed the excitement for Ams to go to KC? I don't remember exactly if it was just a flatter payout or complete elimination of payouts. I'm assuming from your reply that you had a part in it, though, so you should be able to answer my question.



Not sure what you mean by "killed the excitement" for KC. (Also, it doesn't look like you've ever been here for the Wide Open, at least not anytime from 2001 to 2007, so I'm not sure what experience of yours that comment comes from. We've generally gotten good support from the Gopher Staters here and it's much appreciated.)

We had 149 ams this year, not exactly a small number. The most we ever had was 189 in 2002, and that was probably "stifled" in 2003 more by the fact that we went to separate Am and Pro weekends for the Wide Open that year (for the first and last time), plus the fact we also had Am Worlds in 2003, so a lot of people couldn't play in both Am Worlds and the Wide Open. We've had basically the same payout scheme since 1997 (if not longer) here in KC, so I'd say people are still pretty happy with the way we do things here.

Chap

I remember when KC was the main destination for Ams and then they went to a different payout. Now it's not the main destination for Ams.



If we switched dates with Bowling Green, I'm sure we'd have had a chance to get that big as well. Much of the popularity of BG and the Memorial has to do with the fact that they are the first big events in that area of the country, and people are Jonesin' for golf. I'm not belittling what BG has accomplished, but if they were in July, they wouldn't get 700 players.

Chap

No, I haven't played the KCWO. People here talk about how great the courses are (I've only played Waterworks) and it is obviously well run.

That being said, I don't remember exactly what year it was but it must have been before 2000 when the payouts suddenly changed, maybe it was 1996. I don't remember. What I do remember is that the excitement for going waned after the change, until the last few years again.

No, I haven't played the KCWO. People here talk about how great the courses are (I've only played Waterworks) and it is obviously well run.

That being said, I don't remember exactly what year it was but it must have been before 2000 when the payouts suddenly changed, maybe it was 1996. I don't remember. What I do remember is that the excitement for going waned after the change, until the last few years again.



Well, the large attendance and enthusiasm at the Wide Open since 1996 belies your "observations". And since you've never attended the Wide Open, and probably have no clue what the payouts over the years have been, I'm not exactly sure what you've "observed."

Chap

I remember what Spamtown is talking about. I remember when a lot of Michigan amateur players would travel to the KCWO. And then for a couple of years there were post-tournament payout b--ch threads. And then one year when the pre-tournament hype thread was gearing up I posted links to the past year's post-tournament stuff, and that was really controversial. There were consequences for that. :p

That the Memorial going trophy-only with the amateurs is interesting. Is that going to be well advertised? I actually hope they are successful with that.

Didn't some other big tournament try to go trophy-only a few years ago and then back down at the last minute?

Oh, I agree with whoever it was who said the Memorial is popular because it is an early season tournament with nice weather. I think since players go there for the weather, going trophy-only might actually work there.

At least somebody else on here remembers it because I know it to be true whether Chapman wants to admit it or not. And it doesn't matter whether I played or not because I heard all the talking around here.

But I agree that people are jonesing for disc golf at that time of year, so we'll see.

At least somebody else on here remembers it because I know it to be true whether Chapman wants to admit it or not. And it doesn't matter whether I played or not because I heard all the talking around here.

But I agree that people are jonesing for disc golf at that time of year, so we'll see.




All I'm saying is that attendance hasn't really dropped off, and the results and facts support that view. Sure, there were a few people who decided not to come back because they didn't get an embarassment of riches for winning, but not nearly as many as some would like you to believe. Not as many people travel here from Michigan, that's true, although that's probably because there's a tournament in Michigan just about every week. Admittedly, I haven't played in Michigan since Worlds 2000, and it was a few years before that since I played there (and I've played the GLO a few times). Hard to justify making the 11-12 hour trip, when there are tournaments much closer, and I'm sure Michiganders feel the same way about the trip here.

duplicate post deleted

I think you are correct, Chap. You don't have to leave Iowa and you could be in a tournament just about every weekend during the season. People DON'T have to travel as much to play in tournaments and good ones at that.

In the am ranks, I support a sweet players package and flatter payout. When I won advanced women in the Wide Open (many years ago), Rick paid every women who finished. That took some of the booty away from me. No big deal, IMO because I had just won the freakin' Wide Open! :D

Chapman, you cracked me up with that last post because you knew what I was talking about the whole time and you tried to cover it up. The KCWO is well run with great courses, the payout is secondary to all of that, but there was obviously some backlash to changing the payouts.

Chapman, you cracked me up with that last post because you knew what I was talking about the whole time and you tried to cover it up. The KCWO is well run with great courses, the payout is secondary to all of that, but there was obviously some backlash to changing the payouts.



I covered up nothing. Our statistics speak for themselves. If so many people are unhappy with the payout, how come they keep showing up? The Wide Open apparently has been doing it this way since about 1994 (before I became involved with the tournament as more than a player). I keep hearing talk about the payout causing masses of players vowing to never return on this message board, and the vast majority of those comments are made by people have never been here, and yet the players who HAVE been here keep coming back. Hmmm.....you might have to point out to me what you mean with actual concrete numbers rather than your so-called anecdotal evidence.

[/QUOTE]All I'm saying is that attendance hasn't really dropped off, and the results and facts support that view. Sure, there were a few people who decided not to come back because they didn't get an embarassment of riches for winning, but not nearly as many as some would like you to believe. Not as many people travel here from Michigan, that's true, although that's probably because there's a tournament in Michigan just about every week. Admittedly, I haven't played in Michigan since Worlds 2000, and it was a few years before that since I played there (and I've played the GLO a few times). Hard to justify making the 11-12 hour trip, when there are tournaments much closer, and I'm sure Michiganders feel the same way about the trip here.

[/QUOTE]

You admitted there was a backlash in the above post and I posted that the KCWO is a well run event, but the fact remains it is not the MAIN destination for Ams as it once was.

"attendance hasn't really dropped off" isn't admitting it?

Keep denying it.

My point is that the Memorial is going with no payout this year and I'm guessing that they will have a drop in attendance, too. $30 for no payout is right on the edge of being reasonable. If the entry was any higher, there would be more of a ruckus.

As much as I enjoy the Spam can (I'm a stockholder :D) let's get those thoughts condensed down to one rant.

I guess I don't see what deep secret you are trying to get Chap to divulge. There was a hue and cry about the am payouts when the Wide Open went to the "up front" payout schedule, so what? Attendance hasn't decreased at the Wide Open, so obviously there ARE ams who make the trip to KC. Maybe not Michigan ams, but as Chap and I have pointed out, there are many more events in general. Ams don't have to travel very far anymore to play in quality events. To say that the Wide Open isn't a destination for ams is baseless.

My thoughts come out in spurts, sorry. My point is not baseless, either. If you or Chapman can tell me what year the change took place, I will show you why my point has merit, hopefully.

My thoughts come out in spurts, sorry. My point is not baseless, either. If you or Chapman can tell me what year the change took place, I will show you why my point has merit, hopefully.



1994, as I stated earlier, perhaps even 1993. Not sure if it was even really a change in philosophy from the previous regime, just the way Rick did things. It was different than what some people in other areas of the country were used to back then. Still, it seems to have worked well for us.

Chap

I didn't start playing until 1994, so the change was after that. What I mean by change was that KCWO stated up front that they were going with a flatter payout, which at the time was not well taken. I'm thinking between 1998 and 2002

They still paid great in 1997 & 1998.

Sorry for another post, but I want to go on record as saying that I agreed with KCWO at the time. No payout is another thing.

Sorry for another post, but I want to go on record as saying that I agreed with KCWO at the time. No payout is another thing.



I still think Memorial will fill, and fill early.

Chap

I still think Memorial will fill, and fill early.




This point, as well as the continued success of the KCWO is, imo the larger point that Spamtown should address. I often hear that the sky will fall without the traditional am payout structure. Based on the data from KC, it seems as if the dire warnings are unfounded. I will be curious to see if the Memorial continues to attract players as well.

The sky will fall if the entry fee isn't high enough in relation to the value of the player pack. Let's say that the player pack is worth $50 at retail and costs $15. The Am entry fee is $15. The TD would be foolish to do this because they would get no money toward event expenses or added cash for pros. However, if they charge $40 for Ams, then they get $25 toward the tournament operating fund.

From a financial standpoint for both TDs and players, it would be little different from an event that had no player pack, charged $40 entry fees, and paid out 125% (equivalent to $50 per Am in overall merch value). It's just a matter of which format the players prefer given a choice.

"attendance hasn't really dropped off" isn't admitting it?

Keep denying it.



2000 249p combined, $11,288
2001, 124/105 (229), $12,585
2002, 129/192 (321), $11,380
2003, 149/110 (289), $17,566
2004, 92/93 (185), $15,700
2005, 138/84 (242), $13,958
2006, 93/131 (224), $14,151
2007, 149/124 (273), $18.002

no much drop off to see there, is there?

Well, as long as you are admitting that a major am tournament could conceivably go low entry/flat payout, AND the angry sporting gods wouldn't destroy disc golf, I'm calling it a successful Monday. ;)

"attendance hasn't really dropped off" isn't admitting it?

Keep denying it.



2000 249p combined, $11,288
2001, 124/105 (229), $12,585
2002, 129/192 (321), $11,380
2003, 149/110 (289), $17,566
2004, 92/93 (185), $15,700
2005, 138/84 (242), $13,958
2006, 93/131 (224), $14,151
2007, 149/124 (273), $18.002

no much drop off to see there, is there?



While Bowling Green and the Memorial have grown significantly in that same time period. From what I can tell, the change in KC didn't kill it, but it didn't help their tournament either. I remember when KC held the same excitement as BG and the Memorial, but that tournament has become stagnant. I also think that only the biggest tournaments could get away with forcing this type of change on the players because they are already established as being a good event, but try it on all tournaments.

I think all types of alternative formats are fine. The market decides whether a format is successful. It would be interesting but daunting to see if the average distance an amateur travels to KCWO has dropped over that period. I think with the growth of the sport, there will be more than enough new regional ams who want to play in events known to be well run regardless how the they receive value back for their entry fees. With the low payout format, I don't think you'll see as many higher rated Ams traveling far to big events. But if the event fills with regionals, then it's great for the TD and for the lower rated regional players who might fare better in the standings. So it's win-win.

year KC BG Mem
2001 105 167 91
2002 189 204 88
2003 149 246 119
2004 92 330 103
2005 138 449 98
2006 131 554 177
2007 149 724 141

I remember when KC held the same excitement as BG and the Memorial, but that tournament has become stagnant.



From what I understand, big payouts is not the reason players go to BG. So there are other factors at work there just like the Memorial has the early season, winter getaway attraction for many.

What year did KCWO state up front about their payouts?

I remember when KC held the same excitement as BG and the Memorial, but that tournament has become stagnant.



From what I understand, big payouts is not the reason players go to BG. So there are other factors at work there just like the Memorial has the early season, winter getaway attraction for many.



I know, but they keep trying to deny that there was a backlash in KC.

I remember when KC held the same excitement as BG and the Memorial, but that tournament has become stagnant.



From what I understand, big payouts is not the reason players go to BG. So there are other factors at work there just like the Memorial has the early season, winter getaway attraction for many.



While I wasnt at the awards ceremony I do know several people from up north love coming down to play because of the weather, and also to get big points for Am Worlds as well. But it still doesnt explain why the majority choose BG over KCWO and the Memorial every year.

I'm just saying that whatever backlash occurred from some players was masked by general growth in the sport in the midwest hotbed of nearby states.

Backlash. How comical. "Damnit, I deserve $700 for beating those guys. KC was my gold mine."

I already went on record as saying that I do not believe that Ams should get huge payouts.

I remember when KC held the same excitement as BG and the Memorial, but that tournament has become stagnant.



From what I understand, big payouts is not the reason players go to BG. So there are other factors at work there just like the Memorial has the early season, winter getaway attraction for many.



I know, but they keep trying to deny that there was a backlash in KC.



not sure what you mean by backlash. Were there a few complaints? Sure. Every tournament has them. We didn't get many complaints from people who actually played the event. If you want to call that backlash, be my guest. It hasn't hurt our numbers any, so I'm not sure I'd call it backlash.

You're also assuming we'd even want a 700-person Am field at the Wide Open. We're pretty close to capacity for that event right now. Memorial also fills their field....they're not looking for more people. If filling your field every time means you're stagnant, I'll take stagnant every time.

I think people go to BG for the spectacle of the enormity of it more than anything.

Chap

"Were there a few complaints? Sure."

What year did it happen?

I know, but they keep trying to deny that there was a backlash in KC.



Chap said that there was some MB griping. I read it myself. The "backlash" you go on and on about isn't backed up with attendance numbers.

Did the gripers not show up the next year, who knows and I for one couldn't care less. If you do, search the MB archives for the thread and see who posted. The tournament results go back to 2001. Happy hunting.

year KC BG Mem
2001 105 167 91
2002 189 204 88
2003 149 246 119
2004 92 330 103
2005 138 449 98
2006 131 554 177
2007 149 724 141



You need to read back a little bit more.

"Were there a few complaints? Sure."

What year did it happen?



Yawn. What year hasn't it happened?

The KCWO always gets complaints about Am payout. Hunt back a few years on this MB and you'll find multiple years where a couple of people got vocal about it here.

But, the attendance hasn't slacked off.


(Never attended the KCWO but will when I get a chance.)

I was trying to make a point and I'm pretty sure Chapman knows what I am talking about.

The point is that there are enough Ams willing to travel for a good event regardless of payout structure. It shows that a well run event on strong courses will fill year after year if the event itself is worth the trip.

Bowling Green shows that well run events that cater to "Greedy Ams" mentality and provide a good player's pack and event amenities can grow nearly exponentially.

Would the Wide Open be the same size it is now if they had followed the trend instead of going lower and flatter ?

I don't think so, but the real question is whether it is what the organizers want it to be.

I think the KCWO is worth the trip even though I haven't made it myself in many years.

dean's point is well-taken - other events grew while the KCWO did not. altho he should make sure he uses Pro + Am numbers to make a better comparison.

I was trying to make a point and I'm pretty sure Chapman knows what I am talking about.



Actually, you're going to have to say it out loud, because I have no idea what you're talking about.

There was a specific year that KCWO made a payout change. Before that year, everybody talked about going to KCWO the same as they do now for Bowling Green. After that year, KCWO became just another tournament that would be cool to go to, but it was not as big of a deal. Brakel backed me up on this. Chapman tried to deny it and make me look bad (although I may have done a better job of it today), so I was not going to let it go. I still say Chapman knows exactly what I am talking about, but he won't bring up the year it happened.

I do not want to discount what KCWO has/will do. I have always wanted to participate in the KCWO because of the well run event and great courses, but I doubt I can go there now without being jumped. I will disappear now.

If my memory serves, my first Wide Open (2001) was the year that the change took place. At least the loudest complaints on the message board took place after that year. I had not been there before so I don't have any information on what it was like prior to the shift.

Bowling Green shows that well run events that cater to "Greedy Ams" mentality and provide a good player's pack and event amenities can grow nearly exponentially.



So what's wrong with catering to "Greedy Ams"? We'd all like to play pro and win money but there will always be thousands of Ams who may never go pro, but still love to play so why shouldnt they be rewarded for playing to the best of their ability? Here in BG, we certainly make no apology for running an event to showcase the Amateur's skills, and I firmly believe if more tournaments looked at what we do here in BG then their numbers will increase exponentially as well, including the other big Am tourneys such as the KCWO and Memorial.

But after reading this thread the only thing I'm seeing out of it is simply jealousy towards BG. We certainly do not have the most challenging courses, but our numbers continue to grow showing that the Ams have spoken and made their decision.

I hate when other people do this, but I'm going to do it anyways.

WORD!

Hey, when you cater to greedy ams you can still make money off a tournament. If you cater to greedy pros, you lose your shirt.

Unfortunately, those are your two choices if you're in the catering business. :D

Bowling Green shows that well run events that cater to "Greedy Ams" mentality and provide a good player's pack and event amenities can grow nearly exponentially.



So what's wrong with catering to "Greedy Ams"? We'd all like to play pro and win money but there will always be thousands of Ams who may never go pro, but still love to play so why shouldnt they be rewarded for playing to the best of their ability? Here in BG, we certainly make no apology for running an event to showcase the Amateur's skills, and I firmly believe if more tournaments looked at what we do here in BG then their numbers will increase exponentially as well, including the other big Am tourneys such as the KCWO and Memorial.

But after reading this thread the only thing I'm seeing out of it is simply jealousy towards BG. We certainly do not have the most challenging courses, but our numbers continue to grow showing that the Ams have spoken and made their decision.



Hey, I'm happy for Bowling Green, and I know they are very accomodating, and this big tournament is what the club wants to have. DGWN did a survey last year at BG and asked people why they went to the tournament. PDGA points and payout were the least important, being around that large a field and seeing people they knew were tops on the list.

That being said, I'm not really jealous of BG at all. We do not wish to have a 700-player field at the Wide Open. We are filling our desired quotas just fine.

As far the payout scheme, it really hasn't changed since 1993, and now the current PDGA payout scheme has followed our lead. The current scheme is pretty much what the Wide Open was doing all along. There was a big todo at the Wide Open around 2001, because some Adv. Masters players from Oklahoma and Texas who had never been to the Wide Open before and were used to the steep payouts in their region took umbrage at our payout. We didn't change anything we were doing, it was just some players hadn't seen it before and it was unexpected for them. After that year, we started advertising the fact we pay flatter and deeper so no one was confused. But there was no change in our payout philosophy, just better education of it.

And Dean, you are welcome at the Wide Open anytime, no worries.

"And Dean, you are welcome at the Wide Open anytime, no worries."

I truly appreciate hearing that after yesterday.

You have to remember that Chap has been around a LONG time. I don't think he would ever take a MB dust up THAT seriously.

On your way to KC, you can play some NE courses. :D

You have to remember that Chap has been around a LONG time. I don't think he would ever take a MB dust up THAT seriously.

On your way to KC, you can play some NE courses. :D



I rarely take the MB seriously. But I hate misinformation, so sometimes I just have to post something. And your statements were not personal in nature, so no problems, mate.

And I'm not even Masters age yet, I couldn't have been around THAT long. :)

Sorry if anyone took my post the wrong way.

I have nothing against catering to the "Greedy Ams" nor the "True Amateur" niches of our sport. I think it has been clearly shown that the "Greedy Am" approach is just as effective as the "True Amateur" approach, and if an event gains enough momentum (as BG has) that it can cater to both (with great player packs, organized player activities, good courses, and strong payouts) then they will grow to absolutely incredible sizes.

I think BG is a very good example of what can be accomplished by being successful at providing both sides of the coin what they are interested in, as well as the dangers of what can happen if you manage to make everyone happy.

Your PDGA number is lower than mine, so you've been around longer than I have and somedays I feel like I've been around forever. ;)

Oh and I like a sweet players package (tie dye is never bad) and paying deep. (Doing my bit to get back on topic)

Your PDGA number is lower than mine, so you've been around longer than I have and somedays I feel like I've been around forever. ;)

Oh and I like a sweet players package (tie dye is never bad) and paying deep. (Doing my bit to get back on topic)



I love a sweet players package as well. I honestly don't care if I win stuff most of the time. If I were a pro, the cash prize would probably mean more, but finishing in the prizes means more than winning the actual prizes to me, if that makes any sense.

Anita, I'm Masters-eligible next year. I also had the interesting distinction when I was on the BoD of being the youngest Board member (by 6 or 7 years at least), but also having the lowest PDGA #. Go figure, I guess I have been around a long time. Next time I see Alison Cremer, though, I'm giving her a similar hard time....her PDGA # is much lower than mine, and she's only 23. :)

Chap

"finishing in the prizes means more than winning the actual prizes to me"

This is exactly the way I feel, too. The prizes are soon forgotton, but it means something to cash, even in the Am divisions.