<font color="red"> The following is a personal email sent to me from Matt Hall. He asked that i post it for him. (Disclaimer - This is not account sharing. This is me posting a personal email with the named author's permission. I will take full responsibility for the content in the email.) </font>



From: Matt Hall
To: My_Hero
Subject: PDGA Suggestion Box
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 12:58:47 -0600



PDGA Suggestion Box

Before getting the boot I had planned on starting this thread so that we can brainstorm ideas in which you feel may be of a benefit to the PDGA but most importantly the sport itself. I thought this would be a good place for people to voice these topics in a positive manner (ala no bashing the PDGA as it would be nice to have this thread more than a day) so that in a few weeks we can narrow the ideas down to a few key ideas in which we can put together a written statement to be presented to the members of the BoD at the upcoming summit.

Of course my idea would be to take $1 from each PDGA entry fee that would be put towards a "main event" such as worlds in hopes that it will bring about even more excitement to the event and also make it the PDGA's true premier event which can provide not only large divisions but great payouts as well. I thought of this after hearing some complaints over the past 2 years about the cost vs payout for the event. This idea seems to work very well for our "southern" bretheren as their championship brings in PDGA players from all over to a C-tier which filled with 144 Pros this year and had the best payout of any event I have played and the entry was only $70.

Ok well I would like everyone to feel welcome voicing ideas which will hopefully give our sport an even bigger push in the right direction! Who knows if we come up with some good ones maybe the BoD will give them some consideration and possibly put some of the new ideas into place. I guess the only way to be heard is to get a solid proposal set up so let's DO IT!

-Matt Hall

Who knows if we come up with some good ones maybe the BoD will give them some consideration and possibly put some of the new ideas into place.


Yeah, right.
The only ideas they listen to are the ones CK or BDH come up with.
Suggestions are only valid if you have to pay for them I guess.

Ideas are a dime a dozen. Being able to shape them into something that brings others on board is the challenge. Sometimes it's not unlike Tom Sawyer persuading others how much fun it is to whitewash the fence. Shaping involves any number of these tasks in sequence: research, potential cost/benefit analysis, prototyping, preparing presentations, communication, feedback, recruiting help, reshaping, communication, widening the circle of included parties, testing, communication, going back to the drawing board, budgeting, delaying (maybe years) until a better environment exists, presentations, approvals, preparing communication materials, training, web support, execution.

If BDH and I have had success in this arena, it's because we've been dedicated to following through with these steps and had the skills to execute several and sometimes all of the steps involved. And BTW, we've had many more ideas, several which have come from members posting here, that have yet to see the light of day than you've seen implemented.

In my case, I've had no elected nor PDGA employee power nor leverage from compromising photos of Board members. How soon some forget that ratings took four years of development and ratings processing before the Board felt the effort was worthy of support both for the competition structure and as general member benefit and still no contract for Roger and me until two years after that. Do you have that level of dedication to follow through with your ideas?

well heres an idea...less banner ads? just a thought....

chuck, ideas that are supported by the association are a lot easier to be dedicated to. pay any of us 15K or 20K or 30K per year and you'll get a lot more dedication also.

Consider that a chunk of that is covering work done in the early 2000s. You've seen some of the presentations on various idea proposals and developments. Most of that work was done free along with all of the committee work where the majority of idea tweaks are implemented. Recent examples would be the major disc and target standards overhaul efforts done free the past two years. The org typically pays for completed projects and ideas mostly after, not while concepts are being developed, and that's if they pay at all.

i too have suggested a $1 or two per event fee (or how about 10% of all PDGA revenues) to go into a fund to increase the Payout for the top Open placers at the biggest events, and i am sure others have probably suggested it years before i did.

If the PDGA's focus is on maximizing the exposure and revenue garnered by the top, most-skilled Professional players of our sport -- this idea seems to be a great one. But, based on this not being enacted by the PDGA leadership -- apparently it is not their present focus(?) Growing the amateur ranks, maximizing revenues, and pleasing everybody seems to trump everything else. (please correct me if this is wrong).

In a recent thread someone posted "who wants to grow the Open field?" It seems to me that if every member doesn't want to do that we have a problem. the way to get our sport the notoriety and exposure which will propel it onto a national stage is by showcasing and growing the highest level of competition we can. Numbers (amateur and protected pro memberships) are great and will help get sponsors, but top level play is what will wow the crowds and win them over. Watching Ken Climo roll a pro par 6 hole to outplay younger guys with bigger arms is great stuff! (Pro Worlds 07) -- especially if there was major media coverage with the kind of camera shots etc. they could bring to bear on the beauty of skilled disc golf play. (watching the long air shots on picturesque courses is fun too, mind you)...

Leadership is picking what ideas to attempt to put into place and also about setting priorities. i would like to see the PDGA create a committee soley focused on the (true) Open (not gender nor age protected) division. A sub-section and secondary focus of the PDGA should be the non-Open pro amateur field(s). absent that, we risk having our focus be on growing the membership and increasing revenues -- and the top Pro players will continue to suffer for it.


maybe the present leadership already has that as the top of their agenda and each resolves to spend a mimimum of 25% of their time (and 50% of revenues) on that issue. does anyone have a link that delineates the focus and priorities of our leadership?
Could we get a committee with the top Pros as their primary mission and could it be comprised of the leaders at the very top of our organization? if this is already in place -- thank you!

Happy 2009 to all and may it be a great year for <u>P</u>rofessional Disc Golf!

Chuck, your critics are probably few and far between. What you do for free for the PDGA is definitely recognized but isn't giving back part of the reason we are members? Maybe I'm an idealist but seeing as I will never play anything higher than a C-Tier, giving back something to the sport is the reason I joined, the old strength in numbers cliche'.

I see Matt's idea as being very valid, so based on your experience, how should Matt and others go about piquing the BoD interest? How should they go about lobbying support from fellow members? It's their right to succede or fail.

Frankly, I don't see Matt's idea producing any benefit at this time. I doubt our other leaders see it either because they've likely seen it (they check this board but rarely comment) and could act on it if they felt it would be useful. I'll go back to my list of items posted above to develop an idea "delaying (maybe years) until a better environment exists" as relevant here. We still have few spectators and haven't yet developed a way to effectively cover an event live nor a way to fund that effort. If we were to tax pros only or all members for an effort like this, I believe the money could be better spent on efforts to promote the sport, figure out how to attract spectators and provide more live coverage at Worlds versus provide additional bonuses to top players.

Using the Southern Nationals as a reference for the success of taxing is not an apples to apples comparison. The SN tour itself (not their volunteers) does little else for the sport because they can borrow all of their operating structure from the PDGA. They have no other stated mission than to run a tour and their fees go for that versus the broad range of things the PDGA and its volunteers perform. It's unclear whether all of the SN players want to pay the tax or just accept it as part of the deal for playing the SN events. I know that NEFA members continue to reject contributing $2 per player per event versus $1 even though that money could support prizes for a larger number of players.

Rather than proposing to tax PDGA members, it might make more sense to propose a check-off program on the renewal form for members to voluntarily contribute at least $5 toward this mega Worlds purse and see how many will do so. Perhaps see if people will contribute their $5 savings from the Club Affiliate Program. Even if that was done, I would think members would be more likely to want a plan for how that money would be used rather than just add to the purse.

Do you have that level of dedication to follow through with your ideas?


I did at one time. Not too long ago, I had some great ideas and tried to get a grass-roots program started on the local level. So I started talking to as many disc golfers, schools, and businesses as I could. For my efforts, I was rewarded with ridicule, mockery, and resentment. So, since I quickly realized people either didn't share my vision (or were too lazy/pompous to help me), I took the next step and started to do things on my own. However, I found it to be overwhelming and a nightmare. So for a while I gave up. Then when I joined the PDGA, I saw the message board as a way to gather support for my ideas and get a coalition together. But quickly learned that this DB is not for that. I have seen many great ideas come up on here for discussion. The only ones I have seen developed or even considered are the ones that come from inside the PDGA ranks. I think this is the PDGA's biggest weakness. So I guess if I wanted my ideas to get any traction, I would either have to try and get hired as a consultant (in my dreams) or run for a BoD position.
To answer your question though, I had that level of dedication at one time, but now I don't. It's just not worth it to me anymore. I give up. I have let things get to me, and am a little bitter and very callous.

Hate to tell you this but that's life, not just the world of disc golf. Most people do not embrace change because they have to learn new things and do things differently. I'm that way also for some parts of my life. I hate it when certain food or health product brand I buy at the grocery is not made any more and I have to take time to try different brands and figure out my new choice. And that's just minor stuff.

With a built-in human bias against change, there are likely to be many more people neutral or negative to new ideas than supportive. If it seems like insiders are the ones making the changes, recognize that they are the ones who have developed a strong inner fire to follow through in the face of daily criticism and still keep on ticking. Several of them don't fuel the criticism by posting here. Others, like myself, are willing to take the pounding on this D-Board, hoping that the many members out there who don't criticize will learn what went into a new program and understand it better. If you wonder why others may not try to pursue their ideas, all it takes is watching how our leaders are treated on here by some (or on their regional or local D-Board) to see why few will accept the social challenge in addition to just the work to execute a new program.

"The SN tour itself (not their volunteers) does little else for the sport because they can borrow all of their operating structure from the PDGA"

that is just plain silly. i love ya chuck, but come on. i disagree with "little else for the sport" and "borrow all of theirt operating structure". what operating structure do they borrow???

Rules, approved discs, division definitions, payout mechanisms, tournament operation guides, course design guidelines and the higher profile of the PDGA in the sport which helps get courses approved and lends credibility with park departments. That's not to say some do things like payouts a little differently but the PDGA docs are all there online free for reference just like a lending library.

"Rules, approved discs, division definitions, payout mechanisms, tournament operation guides"
a dime a dozen for any of those.

"course design guidelines "
the best ones are from DGCD not PDGA, as you absolutely know

"higher profile of the PDGA in the sport which helps get courses approved and lends credibility with park departments"
having some sort of "governing body" is nice for those reasons, but one could get this benefit with a far smaller operation than the pdga.

plus, far more important than some org in GA is the hard work, contacts, grass roots sweat equity of the local scene. course go in because of that, not the pdga. take the pdga away, courses still go in. take the local effort away, and it doesnt happen anymore.

There have been millions of dimes of effort by PDGA volunteers involved in those tasks that you flippantly comment are a "dime a dozen."

I'm pretty sure that most if not all of the North American DGCD members are PDGA members and the design guidelines were developed based from data produced at PDGA sanctioned events like Worlds. If a Park person in SN country questions a local volunteer about a course issue, the PDGA guidelines can "backstop" their position.

All of those local efforts by PDGA members over the years were indirectly done representing the PDGA and local clubs in the eyes of their park departments, leaders and citizens whether directly implied or not. My guess would be that Park Departments in SN country are sharp enough to want their courses to be up to those of the PDGA standards body, not just the SN tour or local "experts."

"My guess would be that Park Departments in SN country are sharp enough to want their courses to be up to those of the PDGA standards body"

?

www.pdga.com/course-development (http://www.pdga.com/course-development)

my guess is that they are sharp enough, but dont. not all or most of them anyway. i think the DGCD goes farther with them.

dime a dozen is not meant to be flippant. i mean that those things are easily produced. you want rules, how longs it gonna take to write your own set? the rules of play for disc golf can be excruciatingly simple. theres prolly several thousand folks who could write a decent set of dg rules in an evening.

Then why don't the non-affiliated groups write their own? Because they want the affiliation with the accepted governing body whose committees do the work of writing, revisions, interpretation and publishing along with training (marshals) and testing for certification.

No, it's because someone already wrote the rules and instead of basically re-writing what's already written it's a heck of a lot easier to use the status quo. the fact that you think people play by the pDGA rules because they want to be affiliated with the org has got be the dumbest thing I've heard this year.....It's still early though......

No, I would think your comment qualifies for that. They could have continued to use the older rulebook in effect when the SN started and yet they use the current PDGA rules and Q&amp;A rulings for some reason. They're also concerned about sandbagging and now some SN folks see borrowing ratings as a way to deal with it. Imagine that.

The SN seems to do a decent job running a tour and it's just smart for them to use the materials available out there whether from the PDGA (with many) or other sources. My point related to Matt's proposals is simply that the money collected from their entrants can be looped back to the players since they have a smaller overhead operation whose volunteers haven't burned out yet and they don't have the same broader mission as the PDGA that requires paid staff and coordinating the contributions of many volunteers.

thats an excellant point.

"they don't have the same broader mission as the PDGA that requires paid staff "

what is the mission (in reality, not what the MS says), and does that mission really need a paid staff?

Until the Board updates the mission statement I guess we'll have to wait and see. I doubt you'd find a consistent stream of unpaid volunteers who would do all of the things needed to handle 1000 event reports a year even if running a tour was the only function of the PDGA.

event reports only take that long because of what is required by the PDGA. require less, take less time. deliver more value for less. the alternative is to use self-made complications to justify self.

In this case, better talk specifics because I'm doing minor updates to the report for 2009 today. If we could eliminate anything that's required of TDs in the reports, we would. Much is provided as optional assistance to the TDs such as automated payout tables. There are several optional things on the Event Info page like course records and holes-in-one that are either not currently captured or not displayed online. Those could be eliminated but I think players would rather see that information displayed online when the coding can be done.

we're talking about two different things i think.

Carlton Howard long ago propossed that every club in the country take just one event and donate all the profits to the Worlds.

Lets say there was an average of 10 clubs per state. This is probably a gross underestimate, but some small states may only have one or no clubs. Anyway, that is 500 clubs.

If every club on average donated 50 dollars from one single event (and keep in mind, some larger clubs could run bigger sanctioned events and make 500ish dollars just from profit) you are talking $25,000 added to the Worlds.

And this is a GROSS understimate.

I think this model could work very well and we could easily see 50,000 or even 100,000 just from clubs added to the worlds. Throw in a corporate sponsor, CFRs and other things and you are getting close to 150,000 added for the worlds. 144 pros at 200 dollars a head and you have a 175,000 dollar purse without even trying.

Raising money is simple - you just have to ask a lot of people for a little bit. When I run tournaments I ask people and clubs for $25.00. It's a lot easier to get 4 people to give you that than one person to give you $100.

This same philosophy should be applied to the worlds and I think it is silly that roughly only 10 - 15 of the worlds best at best break even at the worlds. Finishing 20th is a great accomplishment at the world championships as long as you don't mind losing money.

The problem is making the case that producing a bigger purse on the backs of the players is worthwhile and would do anything to further the sport. The MFA has taxed the local players in several leagues for over 10 years to produce a good chunk of the added money for the MN Majestic A/NT event. Not sure that's done anything but upgrade a few traveling pros from McDonalds to Denny's for a few more days on the road.

Is the primary reason people join/renew to save $$$ based on the $10 fee?

Mostly it's for the women and the message bored disciplinary list.

Mostly it's for the women and the message bored disciplinary list.


It's for the women!!!!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/13585073@N02/3120496287/

http://pixelhut.com/uploads/image/2ys05h10mk.jpg

Yeah, it's for the women

I'm no hunter, but isn't her right arm cocked a little too high?

Hate to tell you this but that's life, not just the world of disc golf. Most people do not embrace change because they have to learn new things and do things differently. I'm that way also for some parts of my life. I hate it when certain food or health product brand I buy at the grocery is not made any more and I have to take time to try different brands and figure out my new choice. And that's just minor stuff.



yet i'm sure if you got contacted the owner of the store or manager and explained how much you shop there and how much of that product you buy... or even better could show that there are lot of others like you that would be shopping elsewhere if the product was off the shelf... then they'd be inclined to listen to you ... because you are the customer. Like we are for the pdga.

only problem with that example I see is that unlike w/ the store... with the PDGA one doesnt have the ability to say they will shop elsewhere which might be why it appears as if suggestions/critiques fall on deaf ears. Actually I guess there is a 'shop elsewhere' option and thats not renewing (if they player has that option)

I'm not talking about when the store stops offering the product but the manufacturer stops making it. I complained to Cub Foods when they changed from providing pop 12-packs in 3x4 containers which use less paper and are more compact and went to 2x6 packaging which is harder to fit in the grocery bag and uses more heavy paper. It wasn't the supermarket but the pop distributors that made the big changeover in a span of a few months, at least around here. So complaining to Cub had no impact.

But if you had referred to it as soda packaging they might have listened... :D

While the 2x6 may require sightly more cardboard, the fact that dimensionally, it is about the length of most refrigerator shelves makes it a better aspect ratio for the average soda-drinking consumer. With the old 12 pack, the soda would have something else behind it in the fridge... something that might be green and fuzzy by the time you finish the 12 pack.

Now, if they could only perf some of the cartons properly so the whole end doesn't come off (Sunkist terrible, and 'yes' I've told them). ;)

"2x6 packaging which is harder to fit in the grocery bag"

why bother putting soda boxes into bags?

When you buy them two at a time, it's easier to carry one in the bag with the other items and one free in your other hand. The 3x4 fit the bag much better and had a lower center of gravity for better balance.

i hope its a cloth re-usable bag.

To get this back to disc golf... the player's pack for the Virginia Open this year came in a sweet reusable grocery bag with the Grange logo on it. :)

nice segway! :D