I played a tournament today that had somewhat light attendance in the Rec and Intermediate divisions compared to what I was expecting. I checked last year's attendance [when the weather was not much better -- last year an ice storm caused us to turn back after five miles of treacherous driving] and the big difference I immediately saw is that this year there was a much smaller contingent of non-members.

I'm curious if other tournaments that offer the lower divisions are seeing something similar. What are the consequences for the PDGA if non-members mostly quit playing sanctioned tournaments? Don't most people play a few sanctioned tournaments before they decide to join? If we chase away non-members with $10 fees, aren't we chasing away the future membership of the PDGA?

...another myopic bod decision...

I am curious about and watching this decision as well. I have always thought that members and tournaments need more benefits for being PDGA members and being PDGA sanctioned. The non-member fee does seem prohibitive on the surface, but almost all other sports do and should have some type extra fee that A) allows non-members to compete and B) makes it encouraging to sign up for the full membership (even if it is just a math game). [Will I play enough PDGA events to justify a membership?]

I think it is a little too early to draw conclusions as the economy has weakened and parts of the Midwest have been hit with one of the toughest winters in history. To me, that means folks have been inside and not playing regularly like on a milder winter and thus less likely to be prepared to play in an organized event.

In Texas, there have been five sold out events thus far. Granted that regular tournament players look forward to most of these and leave a little less room for new players, but everyone did have a chance to enter.

30 non members of 183 @ Lewisville Open
8 non members of 124 @ Red Rock
17 non members of 105 @ Victoria
9 non members of 127 @ Cedar Hill
11 non members of 85 @ Jack Brooks

I do know that this comes to 75 non members paying $10. Of that $750 in fees, $375 is new money coming in to the PDGA out of just five events. We can only hope the windfall is put toward more growth and marketing programs meant to:
-Grow the Sport
-Encourage New Membership
-Add Benefits to Sanctioning Tournaments and TDs
-Add Benefits to Dues Paying Members

I do know that this comes to 75 non members paying $10. Of that $750 in fees, $375 is new money coming in to the PDGA out of just five events. We can only hope the windfall is put toward more growth and marketing programs meant to:
-Grow the Sport
-Encourage New Membership
-Add Benefits to Sanctioning Tournaments and TDs
-Add Benefits to Dues Paying Members

In So Cal we are not seeing any decline in attendance in the Rec and Int divisions.

Here is a breakdown of attendance from 2007 & 2008. The non-members do not seem to be from any one division, but from all divisions, Am & Pro. I noticed when looking through the results that several non-members from last year have since joined the PDGA. The small decline in non-members at some events could very well be attributed to players who have since joined the PDGA.

2008 Ice Bowl - 6 non-members of 65
2007 Ice Bowl - 11 non-members of 80
2008 Wintertime Ams -22 non-members of 101
2007 Wintertime Ams - 30 non-member of 101
2008 Wintertime Pros - 6 non-members of 84
2007 Wintertime Pros - 7 non-members of 89
2008 Plastic Pilots - 20 non-members of 156
2007 Plastic Pilots - 19 non-members of 168
2008 Sylmar Open - 11 non-members of 80
2007 Sylmar Open - 9 non-members of 76

The way I see it, the higher fee is good. It will encourage those players who never renew to do so. I have seen many players not renew just so they will not have a rating calculated for them. Hence they can play Am all they want. But if they are forced to pay more for each tourney then they may feel more inclined to renew and thus get put in the appropriate division they should be playing in.
As for me, I don't care what the fee is, because I will be a member at the start of each year, whether I plan to play much or not, I join to be a part of something great! If others do not want to be a part of that, they are missing out.
I am not talking about beginners.

I have seen many players not renew just so they will not have a rating calculated for them. Hence they can play Am all they want.


That's more a failing of the TD than the membership system. If you know these players, offering them to option play Open or not get to play solves the potential bagging issue. There can't be too many 980+ players that are unknown in an area. Allowing those likely under 980 to play Advanced should still be fair.

Good points all!

Please remember that the non-member fee has not been raised in 20+ years while the members dues have gone up many times in that period. Many other sports do not allow participation in their sanctioned events by non-members. This would be a huge mistake for us as we are still in the developmental stage of our growth.

In past years, non-members didn't receive anything from the PDGA except the direct benefits of the event in which they participated. Non-members who compete in a sanctioned event in 2008 and pay the $10 fee will receive a rulebook, a sticker, and a $10 discount should they decide to join the PDGA later in the same year. Add to this the new magazine optional membership level and there are now many low cost options for joining the PDGA.

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

SO, do i get the 10$ back that i had to pay in January for not renewing quick enough.

maybe all the non-members from last year are now members?

(to smiley or not to smiley, that is the question...)

Hi Sjur,

The $10 discount for non-members to join the PDGA, providing they played in a 2008 event and payed the $10 non-member fee, is only offered to new members or members who have not been current in five years. You could have renewed your membership at the event in which you played in January and you would not have been charged the $10 non-member fee.

Regards,
Brian Graham
PDGA Executive Director

Brian & Chuck, I could not agree more with both of you.

If I had my way the first tourney a non-member played of each year would have a $45.00 non-member fee that comes with a free PDGA membership. But that's just my opinion.

Brian I had no idea that a non-member got so much with that $10.00 fee. I cant see why anyone would think its a bad idea to raise the fee. If it has not been raised in over 20 years it high time that it went up. Like I have said before I am here to be a part of something great, if others do not want to get in on that, they are missing out.

Those that choose to no renew are not helping the sport (not giving back), but somehow they do not mind profiting from it. Funny how that works......

I understand the rationale for the fee increase. I'm more concerned about the actual effect of the fee increase. You know, if the rationale is "Lasting worldwide peace" but the effect is, "Global thermo-nuclear destruction," maybe it wasn't so good a plan after all.

Maybe in June I'll have time to take a look at the effect. If the effect is a decline in IOS attendance, we'll probably do what we have to do.

In past years, non-members didn't receive anything from the PDGA except the direct benefits of the event in which they participated. Non-members who compete in a sanctioned event in 2008 and pay the $10 fee will receive a rulebook, a sticker, and a $10 discount should they decide to join the PDGA later in the same year.


as brian said, this is progress. some of us did not want to raise the fees at all, so getting some value attached to the fee makes it somewhat better than before. we continue to look for items or services of value to the non member players, and look for ways to convert them into active members. my own thought is that if we are gonna charge them 10bucks, lets give them enough value for that money so that re-upping becomes a no-brainer.

thnks BG, thats what I figured. If i got the $10 back i would have gotten a Mag script for it. See you in ATL?

I'm ok with the extra fee. Because its been $5 for so long, it is harder to justify it to non-members...but I think its a step in the right direction. In my area, its actually encouraged at least 10 area players to get full memberships and so far, the number of sanctioned events as a whole hasn't droped. We have only had one sancitoned event in West Texas so far, and even though the overall total players was down, there were still 56 non-members that showed up.

I agree with Jay...the more benefits the PDGA and a sanctioned event can offer a full member, the more that non-members will want to be apart of it. Actually, I think 3 levels of membership for Pro and Am along with eliminating the non-member fee would be the way to go...possibly raise the sanctioning fees as well. Although I dont have the numbers to determine what kind of impact that would have on the PDGA financials, resources, etc; I am a full member to support the PDGA, but for most others it all gets back to benefits (what do I get in return).

Would a way of having 3 levels be you pay a once a year fee of $x and that covers you for tourneys? But you still wouldn't get rating tracking and stuff. Maybe have a numbering system like nm0001 (non member)

In my idea, everyone would have to have a membership to play in a sanctioned event...and 3 levels of membership would make it economically feasible for anyone to afford a year membership. Some would argue that even $20 is too much, but it's just not. I don't think memberships are not feasible as they are (14 cents a day for Am - 21 cents day for Pro), but I digress...that's another discussion�.

Hypothetical numbers:
Am: $20-$35-$50
Pro: $35-$55-$75

In this model, I think you have to give everyone a number and a rating. I know that ratings are probably the biggest benefit to membership, but I think the PDGA would have to take advantage of the fact that you could put everyone in their proper divisions (once they establish a rating)�eliminating bagging even more. The highest level of membership would of course give players all benefits available. I don�t know what benefits would be given to the middle level of membership. Here's why I think that more overall benefits (for members and sanctioned events) are needed�to better differentiate between membership levels.

Again, I know there are other factors to consider in this model (mainly man-power for ratings and membership processing). Just thinking out loud at this point.

It's still early but the numbers look promising in IL. There have only been 2 events. Both are first year events. There has been a ton of snow in IL.

February 2nd--Abominable Snowman--Lombard, IL
73 players. 20 Non Members
There is no doubt in my mind this event would have filled had it not snowed 8 inches the day before.

March 8th--Irish You the Best of Luck--Channahon, IL
109 players (Max Capacity)
20 NonMembers.

Some #'s
Of the Non Members
7 of them played both events.

Since those 2 events many that participated have joined. Here they are.
Nick Austin
Miguel Dominguez
Brandon Rosch
Dan Retuerto
Mark Sylvester
Jon Boster
Cory Clements
Scott Coyne
Jonah Ortiz
Brysan Lang
Chris Majerczyk

Are you doing your part to promote the PDGA?
http://discontinuum.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemi d=37

The short-term results at the IOS look o.k. for the PDGA too.

IOS #1 @ Kenosha---- 2007 ------------- 2008
Attendance ---------------- 172 ------------- 181
Non-members ------------ 33 ------------- 22
Non-mbr fees ------------- $165 ----------- $220
Total PDGA fees -------- $700 ----------- $771

It looks to me like the non-member fee is causing non-members to join and is causing an increase in total non-member fees while there is a simultaneous decrease in non-member participation.

If these trends continue, the change to $10 is working o.k. The more players who join, the better the ratings system works for the tournament process.

IMO, the issues with the $10 are different from what has been presented on this thread so far. A prospective TD is (and has always been) faced with a decision in regards to sanctioning. The non-member fee increase adds some weight to the non-sanctioned side of the argument. We all know that TDs and clubs do not make money from Pro players and that this fee doesn't affect that group nearly as much, so let's focus on the Ams.

Sanctioning a tournament already takes potentially hundreds of dollars out of the prize pool via the per-head and flat fees charged by the PDGA. This cannot really be offset by sponsorship because we must assume that the sponsorship is generally available regardless of sanctioning... that's a different discussion. So, the TD or club who stands to profit from merchandise payout is already conceding a big portion of that to the PDGA. Now, with the larger non-member fee, many casual non-member players are likely to avoid sanctioned events when given a choice. This potentially lowers the overall participation of Ams and therefore lowers the profit margin.

I've been working on a proposal for a new competition structure, somewhat akin to the ideas on this thread. It's not 100% hashed out but perhaps this is as good of a place as any to discuss it. It does, after all, involve the non-member fee :).

My idea is to create another tier below C and to promote those events up the requirements ladder. Essentially, this new tier (call it "Z" tier, for lack of a better term) would encompass as many as possible of the non-sanctioned events. It seems farfetched, but I believe that it can work and ultimately result in a better competitive structure overall, not to mention more profits for the PDGA.

Right now, as mentioned upthread, ratings are the primary draw to sanctioned events. The points system is another established tool that could be leveraged, but is currently somewhat useless. It seems nearly impossible for a regular competitor to keep his or her name off of the Worlds' invite list :). My idea is to make points mean something again.

- invites -
NT and A-tier events are too easy to get into. These events should be invite-only like Worlds is. NT events should have a higher point requirement than A-tiers, but both should be somewhat exclusive. Worlds invites should be something more like the USDGC invites (although I haven't come up with a good idea for that system yet). B-tiers should be open to current members only, but without any other invite necessary. C-tiers should be open to non-members, with the $10 fee. Z-tiers (the hypothetical tier) should be open to everyone, without the fee. Members should get ratings at these Z-tier events, but no points.

- fee changes -
NT and A-tier events remain the same with perhaps an a $1 per head uplift in fees. B-tier and C-tier events stay the same. Z-tier events should only be charged a flat rate sanctioning fee equivalent to that of a C-tier. The per-head and non-member fees should not apply.

I believe the end result of this change would be *far* more sanctioned events resulting in more revenue for the PDGA. The higher tier events become more exclusive, requiring more frequent competition from players to qualify for entry. This also results in more revenue for the PDGA. I believe it would also boost membership because non-members would more easily (and cheaply) get a taste of PDGA competition and be driven to join so that they can play in the bigger events.

Just some thoughts... please feel free to rip it apart at the seams :)

looks like everyone fell asleep before they went to ripping :)

i tried to think of the unintended consequences of the $10 fee but they all seem to be intended consequences that, not coincidentally, add up to more revenue extraction from TDs to the pDGA treasury. pDGA-sanctioned events will have to grow bigger as TDs are forced into greater economies of scale to pay the pDGA sanctioning tax.

I've got an unintended consequence after all, chief. Perhaps the rate of pDGA burnout will increase as TDs are forced to increase personal productivity to satisfy the unsatiable greed of pDGA headquarters. But maybe that's a good thing. Maybe the pDGA has sparked a capitalist's dream of TD competition with the weak TDs quickly run out of business and only the strong few left to split all the resources of the disc golf world. Oh wait, sorry, that's Innova's dream. Wait again... Innova/pDGA...what's the difference?

It's all making sense now. The consequences are that the rich disc golfers will get richer and the poor ones poorer. Pretty soon, you'll end up with an oligarchy of the rich ruling disc golf, like we have in the United States ruling the whole country. Maybe Mr. Innova really is smarter than the rest of us. Maybe I've said too much and I'll end up hanging with the DC Madam again. So nice that all of her customers names will never be revealed...that'll save me a few thousand in lawyer fees since I won't have to explain to a jury or my wife...

the postman always (gets rung up) twice...

a little tidbit on this from one of our local guys (used to post on here as mp3)

<font color="blue">
In reviewing the attendance for the Points Bonanza, I am led to believe that the PDGA has made a big mistake by raising the non-member fees from $5 to $10 (t least for C-Tiers). In 2007, the outreach of the club had brought in 24 non-PDGA members to play in the PB. In 2008, that number was only 9.

Looking at things closer, there were 16 distinct/different non-member players in 2007 (several played multiple events to get to the 24 stated above). 9 of those 16 guys became PDGA members in the ensuing 12 months. Considering that two that did not become members are local guys that probably never will join, that is a high percentage (two thirds) of players seeing the value of PDGA membership after getting the taste of the fun after playing in a few PDGA events.

If the PDGA wants to increase its growth rate, I would suggest that it would make sense for them to lower their fees for C-Tiers to make it more enticing for newer players to join the fun and get a taste. It cost only $17 for Intermediate competitors to play a PB event. The $10 fee almost doubles the cost (at least $27 feels that way compared to $17). $5 fee increasing the price to $22 makes it feel like a similar cost.

IMO, for the good of the sport I suggest PDGA members vote for PDGA board members in the upcoming election who see things this way. Leaders who think this way �get it� as far as what it takes for the PDGA to work with local clubs in their efforts to bring new folks into the fun of competitive disc golf. </font>

Our first event was no-fee. I got hooked and joined soon after.

The fundamental question which is still being sorted out for the PDGA mission statement is whether a Board member's priority is first to the membership and then the sport at large or vice versa. If the stats show that there are more events, more members and more overall participation in 2008, it would be hard to argue that the $10 fee was a problem. So far at least the stats look pretty good even with higher gas prices likely reducing potential participation figures.

The 10 dollar fee is good and bad.

It's good to increase membership. If someone is going to only play 4 or 5 events, it is worth thier money to join. However, in the past that number would have been 7 or 8. Also, this gives more incentives to me as a member. I'm saving 10 dollars every event by being a PDGA member.

I also think that is why the PDGA is encouraging events to advertise the event as one fee with a 10 dollar discount for PDGA members rather than a 10 dollar fee for non members. It all works out the same, but it appears much better to the non-member.

However in the case of the points bonanza, the 10 dollar fee was kinda bad. If a non member were to play all 4 days, that is 40 extra bones they have to throw out. I would much rather see a per round fee of something like 3 dollars.

If a tournament was 6 rounds and the non member paid 10 dollars, I don't think someone playing in a 1 or 2 round sanctioned event should pay the same fee.

Just tossing ideas out...

I wonder how much the membership has dropped in NC.

However in the case of the points bonanza, the 10 dollar fee was kinda bad. If a non member were to play all 4 days, that is 40 extra bones they have to throw out. I would much rather see a per round fee of something like 3 dollars.


The rationale for having the Points Bonanza as four events versus a big event with eight rounds was FOR the benefit of PDGA members to rack up points and ratings which are not relevant to non-members by definition. And if you look at your post, the fact that a non-member would actually pay $40 in non-member fees and not join as an Am with no mag would be irrational.

from MP3

<font color="blue">
Of course things look good in the first year after raising the non-member price � all those who got a taste in 2007 will sign up now to get the double whammy benefit of not having to pay the $10 per event fee versus having to pay only $5 last year. In ensuing years ways fewer non-members will get the taste and end up joining because of it.

The question is what is happening to non-member participation this year�..especially in the areas where local clubs are making an intentional effort to draw people into playing competitive events.

I would propose a $5 fee for C-Tiers, $10 for B-Tiers, $20 (maybe even $25) for A-Tiers, and members-only for Majors.</font>

now from me...

i would even go a little further to propose that C tiers could only be $3 or free on the am side. I'm sure people are thinking then why not have only C tiers with great payouts and save the tourney/player fees to the pdga... i would combat that by saying that C tiers would then only be allowed to do trophy only to Ams which would/should in turn cause for an even lower entry fee and hopefully more participation for those on the fence and a great intro into the world of 'competitive' disc golf.

this could as sjur said... get people hooked! In Charlotte we are luck to have a mini unsanctioned C tier every weekend with our club holding a weekly singles that draws ~40 people on average. This is what got me hooked and wanting to play in actual PDGA events. If I lived in an area without a strong club and/or with only tournies to travel to I dont think I would've ever cared to test the PDGA tourney waters.

As far as who the board members should serve... Its a tough call and I havent totally made my mind up how to word it. They are elected by the people (dg'ers) for the people (dg'ers). That being said sometimes they need to think big picture (what is best for the sport) and sometimes they need to think about what the members truly want. Odds are I would think if a majority of the membership is for/against something it'd probably be in line with what is good for the sport anyway. Either way i'm sure its a tight fairway to throw.

However in the case of the points bonanza, the 10 dollar fee was kinda bad. If a non member were to play all 4 days, that is 40 extra bones they have to throw out. I would much rather see a per round fee of something like 3 dollars.


The rationale for having the Points Bonanza as four events versus a big event with eight rounds was FOR the benefit of PDGA members to rack up points and ratings which are not relevant to non-members by definition. And if you look at your post, the fact that a non-member would actually pay $40 in non-member fees and not join as an Am with no mag would be irrational.



From mp3:
<font color="blue">
Although this was the original purpose of the event, this is now a poor argument. Hardly anyone cares about PDGA points and no one I know of (I did registration for 4 years for this event) comes so they can rack up points.

What the event has become is the only C-Tier event in Charlotte....and a very accessible event to busy people (there are not many 1-day PDGA events in these parts), non-members and non-current members.

This $10 per day fee is what I said - a detriment to the CDGC in our efforts to help the PDGA and disc golf in general grow. </font>

i would combat that by saying that C tiers are only allowed to do a trophy only to Ams



Is this what you think is true or a proposal?

sorry... i reworded... a proposal if the fee would be lowered

As far as who the board members should serve... Its a tough call and I havent totally made my mind up how to word it. They are elected by the people (dg'ers) for the people (dg'ers). That being said sometimes they need to think big picture (what is best for the sport) and sometimes they need to think about what the members truly want. Odds are I would think if a majority of the membership is for/against something it'd probably be in line with what is good for the sport anyway. Either way i'm sure its a tight fairway to throw.

nice analogy Stack :)

as long as the mission is basically to serve the sport, doing things ***solely*** for the members could be considered off-target. people who wish to help serve the sport show that support by becoming members. but as members we need to remember that ultimately we signed up to help the sport. and that means helping disc golf - not just the other players who have joined as members.

this situation provides a wonderful case for splitting the PDGA (good for the sport) side from the Tour side(s). to me, MANY decisions become much more clear when such a split is made.

from MP3


I would propose a $5 fee for C-Tiers, $10 for B-Tiers, $20 (maybe even $25) for A-Tiers, and members-only for Majors.



This is a good idea.

<font color="red">modified</font>


I would propose a $5 fee for C-Tiers, $10 for B-Tiers, and members-only for A-tiers and Majors.

Mathematically and conceptually the idea might make sense. Practically and organizationally ideas along these lines have already been proposed and considered unmanageable from an operational standpoint. That's what I've been told.

As far as who the board members should serve... Its a tough call and I havent totally made my mind up how to word it. They are elected by the people (dg'ers) for the people (dg'ers). That being said sometimes they need to think big picture (what is best for the sport) and sometimes they need to think about what the members truly want. Odds are I would think if a majority of the membership is for/against something it'd probably be in line with what is good for the sport anyway. Either way i'm sure its a tight fairway to throw.


Agreed. It can be tough on an individual member, sometimes, when they disagree with either the majority of the members or the big picture view of what the board decides&mdash;or both. One example might be that more than 2/3 of PDGA members (about 400 responses) who responded to a recent DGRUS survey think that PDGA dues are "about right." Individual members who disagree probably aren't happen with either the rates the board has set or the fact that most members support those rates.

As for the overall responsibilities, including fiduciary, loyalty, obedience, etc., of members of a nonprofit board, this is a pretty good explanation (http://www.durfeewest.com/120104.shtml).

Mathematically and conceptually the idea might make sense. Practically and organizationally ideas along these lines have already been proposed and considered unmanageable from an operational standpoint.


please elaborate

An example: At a tourney that is run Pro-C/Am-B, it would be weird to tell non-member that it is an extra $5 for pro, but an extra $10 for am. It also just creates a lot of extra work and a chance for error in the collection and reporting of different fees for a single tourney.

Too complicated to manage and explain differing rates. They don't wish to deal with the programming, accounting, communication, etc unless necessary. And at this point, there's not sufficient justification to do so. Once there's a whole year of experience to analyze, that doesn't mean these ideas can't be reconsidered if the analysis merits a change. But we're only 6 months into it and no indication of a problem from the PDGA office perspective.

But isn't the TD report which is downloaded from the PDGA automatically calculate the amount collected from non-members. I'm pretty sure an excel spreadsheet can be manipulated to show a difference between a C, B, or A-tier tourney.

It's one thing to do it on a spreadsheet. It's another thing to actually do the process in the field. For those who are computer savvy, it's falling off a log. For some, it's still another world such as 2m being OB. It's not impossible. But the PDGA has rarely made big jumps in procedures and breaks things down into annual incremental steps if possible.

Too complicated to manage and explain differing rates. They don't wish to deal with the programming, accounting, communication, etc unless necessary. And at this point, there's not sufficient justification to do so. Once there's a whole year of experience to analyze, that doesn't mean these ideas can't be reconsidered if the analysis merits a change. But we're only 6 months into it and no indication of a problem from the PDGA office perspective.

We already treat juniors differently from adults. That has not been so complicated.

Dealing with juniors was one of those "baby" steps I mentioned (pun intended).

Believe me, there are several ideas over the years that have sounded plausible, possible and/or worthwhile but the Staff or Board didn't want to make the jump in one step. Not an unreasonable position from a Board or Staff perspective. Much of the past ten years has been like a chess game figuring out where we might want to go then figuring out how to break it down in digestible and approvable steps to get going in that direction.

usually you dont get to hear from those that dont play in your tournaments (newbies) but here is an example of someone in Charlotte who is new to disc golf ... (btw... this isnt in response to this thread but was about the $10 fee and why he didnt play)

I would of played in at least 2 of the 4 days, however I am not a PDGA member yet do to lack of funds Ermm Someday I will become one but this is all new to me and I am just taking it all in slowly so I dont overdue myself.. you follow me here.. I play in all the ones around town that I can, but joining PDGA is just on the back burner as of for now.. Congrats to all that did and hats off to the ones that placed..

It took me almost 8 years to join when it was $25.

The price wasn't the barrier, it is the desire to take it slow and not get in over my head.

He may be in the same situation.

but during those 8 years how many tournaments did you decide not to play because of the $5 additional fee?

thats the point here... its not that he isn't joining the pdga... its that he doesnt want to pay the $10 per event fee so he didnt even play in the event. Only reason he mentions joining is because it would've been the only way he would've played since he wouldnt have to pay the $10 per event fee.

I think non member fee should be waived for gender and age.
Focus on growth in our smaller groups.
Non members from INT down with our ladies and 12under in the JRs.
The TWC is historically generated large rec divisions. We keep the entry fee down to enticing the Recs to dedicate a full weekend to the sport.
When the non-member fee went up we lost some. But without a fee/lesser fee. I am sure we would have had a better turn out in the rec division.
Did we vote on the increase and why wasn�t gender and age considered?

Juniors are already exempt, so age was considered. We are filling our tournaments up here in Illinois. With the $10 fee, many are opting for PDGA membership (though there is at least one who has paid $40 in $10 fees so far, can't figure out why he hasn't become a member).

...Did we vote on the increase and why wasn�t gender and age considered?...



You voted on the increase by electing a representative Board of Directors, who, after considering budget, pressure on member resources by non-members, length of time since non-member fees had been increased, and other factors, decided to raise the fee.

Two things to consider when you make a statement like "did we vote on this."

1. This organization has an elected, representative governing body. It's called the Board of Directors.

2. To suggest that every little item that passes through the Board for consideration should be brought to a vote of the membership at the whim of one or a small group of discussion board participants is counterproductive.

The fact of the matter is that the PDGA is nearly alone in the array of sports organizations that even allow non-members to compete in sanctioned events. Trying to balance "letting people try it out" with being responsible with member resources can be tricky, but in the end, its the members resources that win.

Non-members' participation in PDGA sanctioned activites has a cost to the organization, with data processing and other activities related to tournament administration. Those non-members are given the opportuunity to compete for a fair and nominal fee. They are also given the opportunity to join the association, thereby saving future non-member fees. Some may say, "Yes, but....(insert reason here)" to which I say, this is a membership organization, the members pay, as part of their dues, for the right to play in sanctioned tournament at no additional fee. You want that right, then pony up for a membership. Otherwise, pay the fee at those tournaments you wish to play in.

There are opportunities for Competition Endowment tournaments to be held that will waive the fee on a one time basis so that folks can get their feet wet. A savvy TD could raise sponsorship money that could 'scholarship' new players' fees. Be creative. Give memberships as prizes.

Amen brotha....

...Did we vote on the increase and why wasn�t gender and age considered?...



You voted on the increase by electing a representative Board of Directors, who, after considering budget, pressure on member resources by non-members, length of time since non-member fees had been increased, and other factors, decided to raise the fee.

Two things to consider when you make a statement like "did we vote on this."

1. This organization has an elected, representative governing body. It's called the Board of Directors.

2. To suggest that every little item that passes through the Board for consideration should be brought to a vote of the membership at the whim of one or a small group of discussion board participants is counterproductive.

The fact of the matter is that the PDGA is nearly alone in the array of sports organizations that even allow non-members to compete in sanctioned events. Trying to balance "letting people try it out" with being responsible with member resources can be tricky, but in the end, its the members resources that win.

Non-members' participation in PDGA sanctioned activites has a cost to the organization, with data processing and other activities related to tournament administration. Those non-members are given the opportuunity to compete for a fair and nominal fee. They are also given the opportunity to join the association, thereby saving future non-member fees. Some may say, "Yes, but....(insert reason here)" to which I say, this is a membership organization, the members pay, as part of their dues, for the right to play in sanctioned tournament at no additional fee. You want that right, then pony up for a membership. Otherwise, pay the fee at those tournaments you wish to play in.

There are opportunities for Competition Endowment tournaments to be held that will waive the fee on a one time basis so that folks can get their feet wet. A savvy TD could raise sponsorship money that could 'scholarship' new players' fees. Be creative. Give memberships as prizes.



^^This^^
With bells on...

From IOS2 Lombard 2007 to IOS 2 Lombard 2008 we saw approximately a 30% increase in attendance and a 30% increase in non-members playing. So far we're not seeing much unintended negative consequences from the non-member fee increase at our tournaments so far.

We have IOS 3 Crystal Lake this weekend. I'll post sometime after if the thread comes to my attention.

We did not see any decline at our yearly event on June 7-8, 2008. We went under the CE program and donated all PDGA fees to our charity. PDGA allowed us to donate the $2 fee, and we had to match that, also they allowed us to donate the $10 non-member fee. We had 35 non-members that ended up being $350 to our charity.
So 120 players @ $2 per player matched by the club = $480
Plus we raised about $720 from outside fundraising drives for a grand total of $1200 to our charity!
I love the new fees and I thank the PDGA for a great program!

ScottO
Congrats on your event.
The $10 you charged non-members
went directly to your charity., Good call TD.
Instead of charging a "'privilege-to-play" fee,
you offered an "opportunity-to-support" the charity.

Sounds like you'all gave the event some
thought and executed your plan.

steve timm

Thanks Steve.
We made sure to read the CE program rules very closely and took full advantage of every benefit we could use to support our charity.
We raised so much outside funding from a Krispy Kreme doughnut sale. It is a great program as well. I suggest all TD's or club BOD's look into it.

And don't be afraid to go out and ask for corporate sponsorships! Especially if your course is near one of theses companies. We hit up every place that a golfer may go before or after a round. Super markets, gas stations, restaurants, etc....

We did not have one person complain about the $10 fee.

Good call TD. . . . Sounds like you'all gave the event some thought and executed your plan.


And, good call and kudos to the PDGA leadership which made those choices available, right Steve?

ditto that.

steve, dont ever forget the kudos to the PDGA leadership. those kudos are incredibly important. even though kudos take up extraordinary amounts of time, to write to read and to realize their true importance, they are considered a critical part of all public and private communications related to the PDGA. messages that fail to include kudos can (and will) easily be construed as anti-pdga, inflammatory, misguided, critical, or any of a host of less-than-positive descriptors.

kudos to you Pat for pointing out that all too often the kudos fostering in our organization is overdone to the point of being counterproductive.

given that disc golf is one of the fastest growing sports it is little wonder that amateur participation at events and new amateur PDGA memberships are both on the increase. to really see how the $10. non-member fee is detrimental involves looking at whether former non-renewing pros are still coming to events they showed up for when the fee was $5. anyone looking at that stat?

it is easy to site increased new membership in a sport that is growing like crazy, but why we aren't lowering the membership fee and instead increasing per event fees by $1 is beyond me. we could then point to a larger membership to leverage sponsorship without hurting the ever-worshipped revenues...

ps: thanks for being a voice of reason in this kudos-diseased organization ;)

given that disc golf is one of the fastest growing sports


I have heard a ton of people say this and have seen it written many times on the MB, but have never seen any actual data on this. So, from what source did you get this info? I have never seen the numbers and wanted to know if this is fact, or myth.

yeah, some of us look at it. from where i sit, it looks like events are mostly full and the PDGA is being maximized, so what motivation is there to change? the PDGA is by far the largest money winner on tour. i need to check my numbers to see if they are still true, but at one point, the PDGA was earning more on average per event than all but the top money winners. i am not saying that this is necessarily a problem, but it has got to raise the question of what motivation there truly is to change.

there are two lenses through which we can look at events fees:

a) how much service can we provide for this money;
b) how much money can we get for this service.

i prefer the approach/philosophy/ethics/outlook of viewpoint A.

But the logic of your first statement is the opposite.

It seems that the only reason likely to result in change is that the PDGA is making less than the event winner.

Given that the PDGA is a constant high place winner at all events it is only logical that it would be the highest money winner on tour. Since no one plays all events nor places highly at all events were they compete.

Though your phrasing makes it sound like something is out of place with that inevitability.

kudos to you Pat for pointing out that all too often the kudos fostering in our organization is overdone to the point of being counterproductive.

given that disc golf is one of the fastest growing sports it is little wonder that amateur participation at events and new amateur PDGA memberships are both on the increase. to really see how the $10. non-member fee is detrimental involves looking at whether former non-renewing pros are still coming to events they showed up for when the fee was $5. anyone looking at that stat?

it is easy to site increased new membership in a sport that is growing like crazy, but why we aren't lowering the membership fee and instead increasing per event fees by $1 is beyond me. we could then point to a larger membership to leverage sponsorship without hurting the ever-worshipped revenues...

ps: thanks for being a voice of reason in this kudos-diseased organization ;)



KUDOS! /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

We post our payouts at every tournament. We should start posting the payout to the PDGA.

Last time on Saturday the Open payout went 405, 223, 111, 111, ... for $1221 total.

The PDGA took $481.50.

On Sunday the pro purse for the age and gender protected pro divisions totalled $515. The PDGA rake was $408.50.

[The 50 cents each day comes from apportioning the sanctioning fee evenly between the days.]

gary, yeah it does seem to get twisted in there, doesnt it :)

certainly if the pdga is the biggest money winner at most events it would stay true for the entire tour.... at least until the Majors start kicking out those $2,000,000 payout checks :cool:

the resistance to change comes from the need for the event fees. there is only so much money in the sport. we're probably just about at the very tippy top of the percentage that we can take out. having achieved that, what motivation is there for us to change it? we occupy a very profitable spot in the sport. convincing someone in such a position to change is difficult, no doubt.

If the PDGA is making more than the Top Open winner, someone did not raise enough money to the event. Go out and get sponsors, sure many will say no, but the ones that say yes go a long way!

Our event:
1 JohnE McCray $1,000
2 Corey Wisenburg $650
3 Lenny Gomez $490
4 Bryan Moore $318
4 Casey Wisenburg $318
6 Aleksey Bubis $220
7 Mark Gill $170
8 Fabricio Abdala $150


PDGA fees= $0.00
Learn the programs offered to you, the CE program allows you to donate all the PDGA fees to a charity.
But if we did give to the PDGA instead of the charity, the PDGA would have only received $240.00 Barely above last cash.....

Kudos to the PDGA staff for thinking up this great program!
Kudos to my entire staff for raking in the sponsorship money!

Heck, Kudos for everyone!!!!!!
haha

And is $5 really going to break you anyway. If gas prices fell by $0.10 and a player drove 50 miles that would save the $5. Granted we have no control over the price of gas but we cant just sit back and not expand and grow because the price of gas if high right now due to our own fault.

Sorry, I got off on a rant...

And is $5 really going to break you anyway[?]



you are missing the point. obviously to you $5 is chump change. but it isn't to everyone. don't just look at it from a your particular socio-economic class. to some just making ends meet and living paycheck to paycheck $5 might be a deciding factor. (not to stereotype, but maybe there actually are some frisbee players who fit into that category) then there are also those older pros who consider the old $5 fee a charge to rent their own PDGA number. $10 makes them less interested in participating. With Am.s receiving players packages and with their new enthusiasm for the sport this isn't a problem.

but -- it seems to me -- the real problem is how to get back to that fundamental mission of making Pro disc golf a happening venue. amateur disc golf has proven far easier to facilitate and manage.

Does our present leadership look at Pro and Amateur participation and membership separately? I suspect at the amateur level we are growing and booming. what about at the Pro level? is participation increasing? how about retention?
how are we doing with retention? has it gotten better in the last 5 years or stayed the same or declined?

i think we should look at Pros and Amateurs separately. How much of the leadership focus is on Pros and how much on Am.s? when i was an amateur i always wanted the focus to be on getting the top Open players better pay and notoriety.

... are all these stats published somewhere and i just haven't been paying attention?

you are missing the point. obviously to you $5 is chump change. but it isn't to everyone. don't just look at it from a your particular socio-economic class. to some just making ends meet and living paycheck to paycheck $5 might be a deciding factor. (not to stereotype, but maybe there actually are some frisbee players who fit into that category)



::steps on soapbox::

If you're paycheck to paycheck, perhaps playing tournament disc golf on a regular basis isn't the best option to help your situation.

::steps off soapbox::

suggested revision to the mission statement: to serve the sport, except for those players living paycheck to paycheck.

gary, yeah it does seem to get twisted in there, doesnt it :)

certainly if the pdga is the biggest money winner at most events it would stay true for the entire tour.... at least until the Majors start kicking out those $2,000,000 payout checks :cool:

the resistance to change comes from the need for the event fees. there is only so much money in the sport. we're probably just about at the very tippy top of the percentage that we can take out. having achieved that, what motivation is there for us to change it? we occupy a very profitable spot in the sport. convincing someone in such a position to change is difficult, no doubt.



Characterizing the PDGA as "profitable" or the "biggest winner" is a rather slanted view, don't you think? "Profits" makes me think someone's amassing wealth. Wouldn't it be fairer to say these are expenses, paying for the basic structure of our sport? Even if you disagree with some, or even most, of that structure?

If the membership IS the PDGA, and the PDGA is the "biggest winner".....wouldn't that make us all winners?

sure its slanted. it only considers the view from the tour. its only useful in rather narrow discussions. but those discussions are interesting, so viva la slant ;)

IS the membership the PDGA? does the PDGA serve ONLY members, or the ENTIRE sport? these are legitimate questions. is it possible for the PDGA (or any org) to do something that is good for IT but overall bad for members (or the sport, whichever is appropriate)?

Aviar, I don't think I am missing the point I think you and many others are, as said before if you live paycheck to paycheck maybe traveling and playing tourneys is not the best option for your life right now. Why should the masses suffer because few.
I do live paycheck to paycheck and I am on a budget, in that budget is money to play golf. Maybe if others would adopt this method they would have the extra $5.

I played tourney V-ball for 15 years traveled every weekend not every other, and did not win any cash ever. Only a trophy and maybe a shirt. No if we are truly playing for the love of the sport, surely you won't mind a little increase in dues after nearly 20 years without an increase.
I renew every year to support the PDGA, not so the PDGA will support me.

Find solutions not problems.

but -- it seems to me -- the real problem is how to get back to that fundamental mission of making Pro disc golf a happening venue. amateur disc golf has proven far easier to facilitate and manage.



Makes it a lot easier to understand when you think of the PDGA membership as 99.9% amateurs with 25% playing for cash instead of merch. They aren't that much different in that regard. The "cash" amateurs pay $25 more in membership to pay for things that can't be paid for by retail/wholesale differential. The 0.1% pros aren't necessarily determined by the PDGA but by the manufacturers who decide to sponsor them with sufficient compensation that they can maybe earn at least half of their living or more from disc golf activities. The only thing we haven't done is change our name to the Players Disc Golf Association which would better reflect what I believe many feel the mission of the umbrella org for a sport should be.

When considering the total amount of fees the PDGA collects, instead of viewing it as "they" (PDGA) vs. "us" (members), isn't it more a size-of-government question? Do we want our national organization to "do more"---have a national headquarters, etc.---for which more fees must be collected, or would we rather they cut all fees in half and cut out half of what they're now doing? (Ignoring, for the sake of argument, whether lower fees would increase total membership &amp; therefore revenue).

The $10 non-membership fee is just a small part of this. Does the extra $5 significantly affect the total revenue of the PDGA? It seems it has less to do with generating revenue, than apportioning expenses fairly between members and non-members, and enhancing the benefits of memberships.

"Does the extra $5 significantly affect the total revenue of the PDGA?"

a very good question. i believe the Staff could get us that answer if asked.

"Do we want our national organization to "do more"---have a national headquarters, etc.---for which more fees must be collected"

another excellant question, and a very very relevant and timely one. my personal position is that using tour-generated moneys to pay for things like the IDGC is not the best structure. there is not a real strong connection between having an IDGC and having a viable tour, iMo. i believe money donated to the good of the sport (to the governing body, aka PDGA, should pay for stuff like the IDGC. Tour money should stay with the tour. i do NOT want my event fees to go to paying for the IDGC.

now, if processing event results for a non-member (a person who I believe IS our constituency) does truly cost $10 and processing them for members costs $5, then fine. that would mean we have a different sort of problem. but if it costs less than that, then i'd prefer to keep the money in the tour.

to be clear: i wold like to donate directly to the IDGC and similar PDGA projects/efforts. i do not like my event fee money going to pay for stuff like that. that is not blasphemous, i hope. it would be EASY to set something up that seperates the two and allows participants in the sport to contribute as they wish.

Sounds more reasonable when you put it that way.

Though I personally have no problem with the current structure, and the PDGA being one organization trying to do it all. Odd, since I'm a Libertarian.

To wander back to the original question of the effects of the $10 non-member fee, of which I have mixed feelings....around here it has minimal effect, since tournament players tend to be almost 100% PDGA members. But it must be a real problem in areas with low membership, such as SN Land, and a disincentive to sanctioning. Is there any merit to a cap----to pick a number, $100 per tournament, so if there are 20 non-members the fee is $5 each?

hmmm... a cap might help the perceptions, yes. i have heard people in SN land say things like "i might not even care about the $10 if the membership was a lower price". i was surprised to hear that stated. from my conversations with players in non-pdga areas, those areas tend to have the feeling that overall, the cost to have the pdga around exceeds the benefits derived from having it around. thats a far cry from the pdga-saturated areas, which appraently like what they are getting enough to keep getting more of it.

you are very astute to point out that the event fees are a different type of issue depending on the level of pdga saturation in the region. it is those differences that lead us to believe we do not have anything to worry about - because we really do focus more on the active areas than we do on the nonactive areas. if all we look at is member areas we wont hear much complaining about nonmember fees - most everyone is a member. its hard, but to grow in areas where we are weak, we must listen much mor eclosely and be more flexible. that approach works for the international program - it can work domestically also.

How about using a dollar of those fees and putting them towards a tour final? I know how about worlds? I'm pretty sure that would nearly triple the purse.

no pyramid scams to prop up events thanks.

kudos-diseased organization


Especially DISCussion. Man! This place is so choked with kudos the server is nearly overloaded.

Steve, if you're reading this, my comment about kudos to the leadership was not a slight against you so much as a gentle demonstration of the kinds of things that do get votes and, that once you are a board member, allow you to make things happen.

I worry that you may not understand that although there are a small handful of people who chime in with PDGA board member Pat Brenner, there are far more who do not. You don't hear from them in DISCussion because they don't feel like they want to get caught up in this fray. But they will vote. Or have already.

Remember, in my recent survey, more than 2/3 of the ~400 members who responded thought that PDGA dues were "about right." Those are probably not people who align with Brenner's attitude.

no, probably not. although dues are only one of the important issues we face.

i'm quite happy my views do not align with everyone's. why would you need me if they did?

terry, regarding "Remember, in my recent survey, more than 2/3 of the ~400 members who responded thought that PDGA dues were "about right." " ... what survey was that? where and when was it done? i dont remember seeing any PDGA survey done by the PDGA, so i am at a loss here.

steve, i worry that you may not understand that although there are a small handful of people who chime in with PDGA member Terry Calhoun, there are far more who do not. You don't hear from them in DISCussion because they don't feel like they want to get caught up in this fray.

(actually, Steve, i dont worry about that at all. i know you are both smart and experienced enough to know that already, and definitely do not need a lecture from an overweight old man such as me about it. )

suggested revision to the mission statement: to serve the sport, except for those players living paycheck to paycheck.



There are many other ways to serve the sport besides making it "easier" for the financially stressed to play in tourneys, unless you want to work on lowering entry fees altogether. That would help out both members and non-members and be much more effective than just help non-members.

IOS 3

2007
23 Pros X $2 = 46
163 Ams X $3 = 489
47 Non X $5 = <u>235</u>
----------------------- $770 total fees collected for the PDGA

2008
25 Pros X $2 = 50
154 Ams X $3 = 462
41 Non X $10 = <u> 410</u>
------------------ = $922 total fees collected for the PDGA

IOS 1-3 are good apples to apples comparisons since they involved the same venues each year and similar weather each year. Although tournament attendance declined slightly for IOS 3 this year, and non-member attendance declined the same amount, with the $10 fee the PDGA did much better financially than last year.

Still not seeing any negatives for the PDGA from the increase in the non-member fee from $5 to $10.

It would be nice if some other members would post apples-to-apples for their local annual tournaments.

This tournament works:

2008: http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=8071#Advanced

2007: http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=6942#Advanced

The only difference is the name and it was very windy this year.

43 players last year, 42 this year. Four non-members each year. Two of the non-members last year are members this year and one non-member last year played again this year as a non-member but moved up to pro. One of the non-members this year I know is a prior member, so he must not have renewed this year.

Dean