It says that the new pdga standards are for junior are by year of birth. Does this mean that if you were born in 1986 that you must register for an am division instead of juniors. While registering for the PDGA? :confused:

It says that the new pdga standards are for junior are by year of birth. Does this mean that if you were born in 1986 that you must register for an am division instead of juniors. While registering for the PDGA? :confused:



I think that was "ALL Divisions BUT Juniors are by Year of Birth"
For example I was born in Sept of 1965 but I can play Masters as of Jan 1, 2005. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif
Juniors go by how old you are on the day the event begins :D

The new tour standards do indeed state that Juniors are now by Year of Birth instead of Date of Birth.

It says that the new pdga standards are for junior are by year of birth. Does this mean that if you were born in 1986 that you must register for an am division instead of juniors. While registering for the PDGA? :confused:

I think that was "ALL Divisions BUT Juniors are by Year of Birth." For example I was born in Sept of 1965 but I can play Masters as of Jan 1, 2005. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Juniors go by how old you are on the day the event begins :D

Here: take it from one of the BoD members who is also a junior disc golf promoter: In 2005 juniors celebrate their PDGA birthday on December 31. If you are <16 anytime during the year, you are <16 all year long. Ditto <19 and < all the rest. This will facilitate juniors playing state and regional series, but it applies regardless. I'm calling this Megan's Rule. Rhett may explain! :)

My apologies to Jon L. if you caught the original draft of that post.

I think clarification is required. Three players have their 16th birthdays on Dec 31, 2004, Jan 1, 2005 and Jan 2, 2005. It's apparent that the one with a birthday on Jan 2 will have been 15 for one day in 2005 and could play <16 all year under the new plan. What about the other two? The one with a birthday on Dec 31st will not ever be 15 during 2005 so shouldn't be able to play in the under 16 and yet you reference something about Dec 31. The player with a Jan 1 birthday is presumed to be 16 at 12:01am so should also not be allowed to play under 16 during the year? Is the Dec 31 reference that a person must be under 16 on Dec 31st to play in that category the FOLLOWING year?

Okay so I can be considered as a <19 since my birthday is in August. I was just mainly wanting to know because of the 5 dollar discount on membership.

It works just like the Masters rule but opposite. Instead of having your birthday advanced to January 1 it is postponed to December 31. Instead of being the older age the entire year, you are the younger age the entire year. I'd think January 1 is no different from January 2, except for the bowl games.

It is not my rule. I suggested it about five minutes after they published the rule change for Masters a couple of years ago, and I've suggested it again since then, and then it just popped up in one of the revisions of the 2005 format documents.

When I saw it in the 2005 format document I e-mailed Chappy or BDH and what I'm telling you is what they told me, as good as I can remember.

Perhaps the best way to express it is: if you are eligible to play in a junior division at anytime in 2005, you are eligible to play in that junior division for all of 2005 regrdless of the date of your birthday.

Always one year late, eh?

For those that don't know, Megan's birthday is August 6th. Since Worlds was combined this year and they had it on the traditional pro week instead of the traditional am week, she turned 16 the Friday before Worlds and couldn't compete in the Under-16 division.

Not exactly heartbreaking since we knew the rules all along. But irritating that it gets changed just in time to not help us out. :)

and then it just popped up in one of the revisions of the 2005 format documents.



Is this how all the other competitive structure changes for 2005 were enacted as well? ;)

Bruce was only 'at' the Summit by ear & voice for part of it. The Junior age change was one of the regular agenda items for discussion and didn't just 'pop up.'

Pro's with <955 player rating can now play Am....Jeez I'm going to have to play with myself before to long. Whats next Pro 3? We will be lucky to field a pro division with more than 5 people here in OK.

uh oh, will you market a Mc Coy action figure toy again for this... hee, heee

This was actually a change that I instituted, because it is a lot of extra work to enforce the current rule in the IT systems that are being built. I wanted the rule for age protection to be consistent across all age-protected divisions. We are definitely going to move away from your allowed division changing based on your birthdate and the tournament date. As far as which way the rule is applied (the same as older divisions, or the way suggested above), that may not be completely resolved (at least from my perspective, as the one responsible for implementing the computer systems that need to deal with it).

-Theo Pozzy
PDGA Commissioner

There should be a 1014 rated division where only 1014 rated players can play. I think this will be more fair!

There should be a 1014 rated division where only 1014 rated players can play. I think this will be more fair!

I'll propose it at the next teleconference. Presumably all added cash should go there? Is it o.k. if all players rated less than 738 are required to play up to the =1014= division? Because to get this through, I might need to compromise a little on the concept.

I'll stand by my comments in so far as what I received in e-mail explaining the change, and how the change appeared in post-Summit drafts of the 2005 format document. In the first post-Summit draft I saved it is not there. In the second draft it is. Maybe it was decided and then overlooked and then remembered. I'll take Chuck at his word on that.

And if Theo now or later says the computer programming requires that the birthdays be advanced to 1/1 rather than postponed to 12/31, then that will be the way it is. We can acheive the intended result with a 1/1 date by changing the age parameters on juniors by 1 year, if it is important.

If I were an 18-year old junior who might be advanced out of my last junior year by the rule being changed to 1/1, I'd renew now at the junior rate! :D

Maybe it was decided and then overlooked and then remembered. I'll take Chuck at his word on that.



Must have been because Brian brought it up in the meeting from his notes and we had some discussion.

There should be a 1014 rated division where only 1014 rated players can play. I think this will be more fair!



Chris you are def. the worlds best player rated 1014 in my opinion.

You are a multi-talented person - world skillzone challenge champ, and rated like 1020 in mini golf

And you make funny faces

Kevin, are you saying that a player with an advanced rating but stuck in pro because he either moved up too soon or took cash several years ago is forced to play pro.

(BTW, the new ratings based division eliminates Pro2)

I for one will be playing at advanced next year till my rating gets back above the 955 mark. (my max rating was 955 a few years ago)

BTW, this is only for the 2005 season for me, in 2006 I will be playing Masters from then on.

The only thing that I'm saying is that PDGA keeps thinning out the Open division. I would like to see the PDGA make all divisions ratings based. They should have set the standard of moving back down to am much lower than 955.

I would like to see the PDGA make all divisions ratings based.



I couldnt agree more other than adding age protected brackets as well.

I disagree with making all things ratings based.

People sometimes play one tournament a year at thier home course, and they might have a rating above thier skill level.

Or sometimes people might have a bad weekend, and then they would play in a division below thier skill level.

While I do agree that the open field is being narrowed. I actually think that the PDGA needs to do something about the Pro 2 type of players, but Pro 2 was not the answer and this idea was worse

I disagree with making all things ratings based.

People sometimes play one tournament a year at thier home course, and they might have a rating above thier skill level.

Or sometimes people might have a bad weekend, and then they would play in a division below thier skill level.

While I do agree that the open field is being narrowed. I actually think that the PDGA needs to do something about the Pro 2 type of players, but Pro 2 was not the answer and this idea was worse



If they play only one tournement, then whats the problem? They wont be a threat to anyone anymore, since they play only one.

If they have a bad weekend, then so be it. We all have bad weekends. That would mean you would have to remain consistant which is what is needed in order to maintain the higher ratings. I dont see the point your trying to make here. Got anything better to offer? Im not trying to be a d*&k here, Im trying to find a balance between the what we have currently to where we should be going in the future.

I guess it comes from playing with people that are rated higher than me and they are terriable and people rated below me and they are much better than me.

While limit someone from playing a division just b/c they don't have that rating. While I do play pro every now and then, I don't have a pro rating (937). Why should I not be allowed to play pro just b/c I don't have the 955 rating?

Point taken. :p

I don't think anyone has said anything about stopping people from playing up, have they?

The reason the Open division size will go down is because some of the 920-940 rated non-cashing pros will probably choose to play Advanced where they can be competitive.

I don't think that 930 rated pros are going to be required to play Advanced.

You also assume the 920-40 pros are actually playing currently. I think many in this range have dropped off their tournament activity quite a bit so they're rarely contributing to the Open pool anyway. They can't get much better if they're not playing. So, if allowing them to play in Advanced gets them back in the swing of tournament play, they have the chance to get better, get some confidence and potentially participate in Open more often down the road.

I guess it comes from playing with people that are rated higher than me and they are terriable and people rated below me and they are much better than me.



You talkin about me? Am I one of those terriable (sic) players? BTW, does terriable mean that you have the ability to Terri? :)

Name some names. I will start - I think Satan is better than me but is rated worse. That is because he has gotten 100% better over the last 9 months and his rating is lagging. In 1-2 ratings updates, I'm sure he'll be higher than me. These days, he beats me regularly at Kilborne and Cam Yards.

no dave, I was not thinking of you.

I don't want to name names

Tripp is def. a player that plays way above his rating

I fear it will take a lot more work than padiddling with ratings breaks to get the Open class numbers back up; Mainly a complete redirection from the incestuous nature of our current competitive system and the lack of any true amateur classification.

Redefining why we all come out to compete essentially�

What does it have to with ams?

You yourself talk about "move up/move up/move out", so todays ams are playing longer because they don't move up as fast. Up where they would just stop playing altogether.

If you lowered entry fees for the Open, then maybe you'd see an increase in player count. How many times is it fun to donate $100+ top the hired assassins? Sure it's fun a couple of times to see where you stand. But on a regular basis?

Right now tournaments are judged by the 1st place money going to the Open division. High entry fees affect that number the most. If you could get the Open division to play for fun, then you might see more of them.

All IMO, of course.

IMO: Ams should NEVER get they're 100% paid in, back!

25% should goto the Pro divisions, you have to entice players to want to play better and move up in the ranks. You have to dangle that carrot in front of the rabbits. Then stretch the payouts in pro divisions to top half so more boarder line pros can be rewarded for their play.

25% should goto Charity, The club running the event, or even players packages for the AM's.

50% should go into the AM's purse. There are too many ams stacking plastic to the ceiling. There are too many ams that run weekly events that are turning their weekend winnings into weekday minis dollars.

here is the kicker about this.

An Advanced player can keep playing Advanced, even if his rating is 980, but if my rating moves back to 956, I can't play Advanced again.

I personally have no problem with this.

There will always be problems with non rated players knowing where to play. I always recomend playing at least there 1st PDGA event as a Rec, if they do well, then play there next one as an Am. In the last few years, with the new rating system in place, I see less sandbagging going on. (at least in Texas)

I for one have not played a PDGA tournament sense March of 2003, but I have run 3. I can't afford the HIGH entry fees with little or no chance of even winning my entry fee back. I have played several 1 day events (IE Texas 10 and MaceMan's food drives) and have cashed in those, but always near the bottom winning less than my entry fee back.

I am so glad to see the new rule and hope it stays in there. I want to play some of the bigger Am events here in Texas next year. (Waco comes to mind) I will still play Pro at Texas 10's and maybe a small PDGA tournament if i get to play any. Shoot, I may just play Advanced all year just because I can. (it's been a long time sense I have been called a sandbagger)

IMO: Ams should NEVER get they're 100% paid in, back!




I think that is a good idea but I also think if that's the case they should lower the entrance fee to like $20-$40 at most. This way you get more people who can afford to play. Since they don't win cash back there is no reason to charge $60-$70 to get in.

re: Nina's "shovel cash up the food-chain" idea

I support that idea. I have even proposed it here before. But the humongous outcry from the MPM division is always deafening. I mean, if you are buying protection then all those who are hiding should pay.

I have no problem with it because I myself am hiding from McCoy. :)

One thing to remember, though, is that ams pay in whole dollars and get paid out in "retail dollars". So the "100% payback" is really only 50-65% real money. The rest usually subsdizes the entire tournament, which translates to a better payout for the pro divisions.

For anyone thinking I'm just trying to make the rich, richer, I would like to see the Open field pay out half of the entries, instead of top third

You are a multi-talented person - world skillzone challenge champ, and rated like 1020 in mini golf



C'mon MTL, it's 1022, I'm better at mini golf than Warren is at disc golf! :D

I totally agree. If top half were paid out, I think a lot more Ams would feel confident and make the move up.

For anyone thinking I'm just trying to make the rich, richer, I would like to see the Open field pay out half of the entries, instead of top third



That was one of my proposals as part of the Pro crossing to Am change that didn't get formally included yet. That would put the focus on getting sponsorship to keep the top finisher payouts decent and give the 955+ players (and lower) a chance to sometimes cash in Open. I believe TDs can pay half now without violating PDGA tables as long as they meet the minimums that would have been paid with the 40% table.

The next event I run will pay out 200%+ of entry fees to 100% of the Open Division and will meet B Tier Standards.

If I still draw breath in 5 years.

72 Player Limit
$25 Entry Fee ($1800)
$2000 Min Added Cash.
First Place will be $350+
Last Place will be cash back.
And yes this will be an invitation only event.
MADCi 2010: A Disc Golf Odessey ;)

I like the idea of lowering entry fees . I want to move up to Pro next year and I want to be able to afford to go to more tournaments than I did this year. Lowered entry fees are helping me move up.

I saw tournaments this year with $50 entry fees that paid well under 100% to all divisions. I also liked the idea that there are standards to be met if the TD gets a cut of the entry fees. Another idea might be to incorperate a % of sponsorship dollars attained by the TD. If they worked hard to get sponsors they should get a reward, and if they did nothing they should get nothing.

While we are talking entry fees...Why can't the PDGA membership dues be the same across the board. I personally know some local pros who are rated in the 920-950 range that doesn't play tournaments anymore not only because the high tourney entry fee, but their PDGA membership is double that of an Adv player. For example, I wanted a friend to play in a 1 day Ctier last weekend that would've cost him $35 for ONE ROUND. On top of that he would have to pay $5 for not being PDGA current. $40 for one round of donating is not too economical. If the need is there for Pro dues to be higher, why don't they charge the higher fee to the guys with the Touring Cards only.

You're complaining that a pro tournament costs $35 to enter?? I mean come on, if you can't afford to pay $35 for a touranment then you shouldn't be playing pro in the first place. I think pro entrance fee's are just fine the way they are now. Now am entrance fee's, I can see those lowered a little bit.

Thats CHEAP as far as entry fees go. I play Advanced and almost ALL of my entry fees for the tournaments i played this year were more exspensive then that. My entry fee for DGLO was 75 dollars. All the other Super Tours i played were 60 so i would be HAPPY as can be if i only had to pay 40 bucks to enter a tournament. :D

I agree with Chris. If you can afford to pay 35 dollars for a tournament you shouldnt be playing them in the firstplace.

He did say $35 for one round.

Chuck, glad to hear paying deeper was proposed. Why not just change the tables, or create additional, deeper payout tables and let the TD choose.

Like Nick said, tweaking the ratings as a solution is like throwing buckets at a housefire: it may make sense, but it is not nearly enough.

$40 for one round of donating is not too economical. If the need is there for Pro dues to be higher, why don't they charge the higher fee to the guys with the Touring Cards only.



My understanding is that those in that range may be able to play Adv. next year. That way they won't be donating, and they can still have fun playing tournaments.

High entry fees at crappy tournaments are what should change. the new entry fee guidlines say that a TD may charge more as long as it is justified. Example: I payed $86 dollars to play in the DGLO and I will be going back next year, because it was worth it to me.

Why not just change the tables, or create additional, deeper payout tables and let the TD choose.



It's already provided if you look at the current pro payout table. Both the regular and a deeper version are included on the same chart just by selecting which header row you look at for the number of places to pay.

You're complaining that a pro tournament costs $35 to enter?? I mean come on, if you can't afford to pay $35 for a touranment then you shouldn't be playing pro in the first place. I think pro entrance fee's are just fine the way they are now. Now am entrance fee's, I can see those lowered a little bit.



I know $35 isn't that much for a normal 3 or 4 round tourney, or even a 1 day 2 round event, but $35 for a single round is expensive. I play Adv and think the fees are fine there. I don't think pro fees are too out of whack for A-tiers and NT's, but for a 1 round C-tier, it's expensive. I will bow out now before I ruffle any feathers. :D

That same C tier if it was 2 rounds may have well been 70 dollars. We have an UNsactioned tourny coming up that is one day round and 1 glow round and Pro fee for that is 65 dollars.

I guess if you KNOW you arent going to cash it seems like alot of money to just play one round :mad:

Does anyone have a payout table or spreadsheet that covers up to 63 positions? Thanks.

63 players or 63 cashing spots - what % payout?

Just take the numbers for the 31 place payouts on the Pro or Advanced table and divide them by 2 to give you 62 places. Then you can tweak the higher place percentages up and down to smooth it out. The lower spots are so close that several places should get the same payout, especially if you round off to the nearest $5.

Well I have each division set up to take 100 players, but the payout chart will not pay out any more than 33 players lol, so I don't think what I have will help you - sorry.

When you find one I would like a copy so I can be ready for my first 100 person MA1 division lmao

Well it's still a PRO tournament even if it is one round, I really hope entrance fee's doing get below $35 for open. If you lower it to $20, then what will first place win, $50? If thats the case then no one will want to play touranments, it wouldn't be worth risking $20 to only make $50 if you shoot great. If you don't want to pay $35 for a tournament then there's another division for you, it's called AM! :)

This is my last point...

I don't think too many people trying to make a living playing discgolf are playing 1 day, 1 round events. I play ADV so I am not arguing this point for myself. If people want bigger turnouts, then why not lower the fee for a 1 round tourney so that people who don't normally play events can play. Who knows maybe they'll win that $50 and think about playing the next 4 rounder that they were going to sit out. I know we disagree on this issue, I am just trying to show another side.

This discussion illustrates the current dynamics in open division. The great players are happy with entry fees because it is a good bet for them. The average level open players are less enthused because it not a good bet for them. The current "solution" is for the average open players to just quit or play am. The result is that you are left with smaller, more competitive open pools that now make it a bad (or marginal) bet for pretty good players (970-1000) who in my estimation are currently 'making that bet' less often. It does not seem like a healthy cycle.

How many 1 round PDGA events are there really ? Are we talking about some thing that inlcudes 1- 2% of all events.

IMO: Ams should NEVER get they're 100% paid in, back!




I think that is a good idea but I also think if that's the case they should lower the entrance fee to like $20-$40 at most.



Agree 100%

1st, I have never heard of a 1 round tournament that was PDGA santioned.

2nd, The new PDGA guidline for Pro's will a rating of 955 or lower will get some players back in the game. (players like me)

3rd, lower entry fees will help turnout somewhat. But these are the lower divisions. If you lower the Pro entry fee too much it does take away from getting your top players who travel. These guys can't afford to only win $300 in a weekend. It cost them that much to play. (all expences included)

4th, Less pros is not that bad of the thing. It spreads the added money to fewer players and boosts up the % of return on investment.

5th, if there are fewer pros playing next year because several (like me) move down to advance, that only helps the tournament because you don't and can't make a dime off the Pro's. Pro's are not even the guys who spend the money on disc sales either. (they don't loose as many discs) I for one have not purchased a disc from a TD in several years. Not that I have played that many tournament, I last purchased about $400 in CE plastic from Chris at 2 Texas 10 tournaments the first year he ran them, other than that, I have only purchased a few discs from people and a few used Roc's at PIAS.

Maceman Par 3 shootout running at the same time as USDGC, one round, PDGA sanctioned. I know a real cool guy who won this event. :D

When you find one I would like a copy so I can be ready for my first 100 person MA1 division lmao



I know of one that goes out to 100 places paid. I will try to get my hands on it, or get the owner to post it here.

Those were fun events, played both Sat and Sun! To bad the data hasnt been posted for those! C Tiers. Small turnout for Sat but Sun was larger, of course due to the cuts at the USDGC for Sun's round.

The Open: A Proposal For the Rest of Us

One Division: Open
One Entry Fee: $50
Payout: 190% of Total Entry Fees (no taking out for PDGA, Regional or Local Fees)
Cut: 74% of Feild

Example: 90 Players, 4050 added cash

Payout Would Look Like this:
<table border="1"><tr><td> 1</td><td>1000
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>605
</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>450
</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>365
</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>330
</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>310
</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>270
</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>240
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>220
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>205
</td></tr><tr><td>11</td><td>200
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>190
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>175
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>160
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>155
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>150
</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>145
</td></tr><tr><td>18</td><td>140
</td></tr><tr><td>19</td><td>130
</td></tr><tr><td>20</td><td>130
</td></tr><tr><td>21</td><td>120
</td></tr><tr><td>22</td><td>120
</td></tr><tr><td>23</td><td>115
</td></tr><tr><td>24</td><td>115
</td></tr><tr><td>25</td><td>110
</td></tr><tr><td>26</td><td>105
</td></tr><tr><td>27</td><td>100
</td></tr><tr><td>28</td><td>100
</td></tr><tr><td>29</td><td>100
</td></tr><tr><td>30</td><td>95
</td></tr><tr><td>31</td><td>95
</td></tr><tr><td>32</td><td>90
</td></tr><tr><td>33</td><td>90
</td></tr><tr><td>34</td><td>85
</td></tr><tr><td>35</td><td>85
</td></tr><tr><td>36</td><td>85
</td></tr><tr><td>37</td><td>85
</td></tr><tr><td>38</td><td>80
</td></tr><tr><td>39</td><td>80
</td></tr><tr><td>40</td><td>80
</td></tr><tr><td>41</td><td>70
</td></tr><tr><td>42</td><td>65
</td></tr><tr><td>43</td><td>60
</td></tr><tr><td>44</td><td>55
</td></tr><tr><td>45</td><td>55
</td></tr><tr><td>46</td><td>50
</td></tr><tr><td>47</td><td>50
</td></tr><tr><td>48</td><td>45
</td></tr><tr><td>49</td><td>45
</td></tr><tr><td>50</td><td>40
</td></tr><tr><td>51</td><td>40
</td></tr><tr><td>52</td><td>40
</td></tr><tr><td>53</td><td>35
</td></tr><tr><td>54</td><td>35
</td></tr><tr><td>55</td><td>35
</td></tr><tr><td>56</td><td>35
</td></tr><tr><td>57</td><td>30
</td></tr><tr><td>58</td><td>30
</td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td>30
</td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>30
</td></tr><tr><td>61</td><td>30
</td></tr><tr><td>62</td><td>30
</td></tr><tr><td>63</td><td>30
</td></tr><tr><td>64</td><td>25
</td></tr><tr><td>65</td><td>25
</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>25
</td></tr><tr><td> </tr></td></table>

If this format was widely utilized, what would be the effect on players with ratings between 980 and 900 in the "Cash Division"? Would Advanced players be more likely to make the jump? What other systemic challenges would be solved?

no, becaue only last place should get there money back. I expect more for placing higher than 2nd to last place cashing.

(what ever happened to the days of just paying the top 3rd with a heavy top payout?????)

The last 3 cashing spots will all tie anyway. :cool:

no, becaue only last place should get there money back. I expect more for placing higher than 2nd to last place cashing.

(what ever happened to the days of just paying the top 3rd with a heavy top payout?????)



The Advanced and Masters Divisions Happened...

So you would rather get "nuttin" back then half your entry fee?

You are clever like that Bryan... :o;) :D

Nick, this would be excellent for the sport, not necessarily great for the top players, but great for the sport. You would definately see alot of marginal open players (those that don't normally finish in the top 1/3) playing more tournaments and advanced players testing the waters. There are probably lots of good ideas and a deeper/less steep payout is one of them IMO.

Does anyone know how the PDGA figured out how to do their payout scales? I've charted it and it looks like it follows a set rate of increase.

I'd like to create a payout table targetted to keep more than the top 3rd of divisions coming back to events.

Afterall, it is a safe bet they'll be back regardless, right?

Next event I run will have a super deep payout and a maximum of two divisions Open and Women's. And I realize this will not suit everyones needs, perhaps that is why our current structure seems to fail...

You should do it, Nick. There need to be more Pro Only tourneys.

Correct Rhett, I hate it when I get 2nd or 3rd from last place and only get a little more than my entry fee back.

Up till about 8 years ago, all tournament paid the top 3rd. And yes there were Masters and Advanced then too. (I should know, i won several Advanced tournaments back then)

I understand your point and might just agree with it, but not everyone can win.

one last point. Why charge an entry fee if the event is pro only. Unless someone does not cash, there is no reason to pay an entry fee. If I could have kept up with my added cash for my tournament, I actually though about this too. In fact, I started paying at least one extra player over the top 3rd when I had lots of added cash. It is cool when last place money got over 150% of there entry fee back.

No added cash>
The Open: A Proposal For the Rest of Us

One Division: Open
One Entry Fee: $25
Payout: 100% of Total Entry Fees (no taking out for PDGA, Regional or Local Fees)
Cut: 75% of Feild

Example: 72 Players, 0 added cash

<table border="1"><tr><td> Place Payout
</td></tr><tr><td>1 $190.00
</td></tr><tr><td>2 $150.00
</td></tr><tr><td>3 $120.00
</td></tr><tr><td>4 $100.00
</td></tr><tr><td>5 $85.00
</td></tr><tr><td>6 $70.00
</td></tr><tr><td>7 $70.00
</td></tr><tr><td>8 $65.00
</td></tr><tr><td>9 $55.00
</td></tr><tr><td>10 $50.00
</td></tr><tr><td>11 $45.00
</td></tr><tr><td>12 $45.00
</td></tr><tr><td>13 $40.00
</td></tr><tr><td>14 $40.00
</td></tr><tr><td>15 $35.00
</td></tr><tr><td>16 $35.00
</td></tr><tr><td>17 $30.00
</td></tr><tr><td>18 $30.00
</td></tr><tr><td>19 $30.00
</td></tr><tr><td>20 $30.00
</td></tr><tr><td>21 $25.00
</td></tr><tr><td>22 $25.00
</td></tr><tr><td>23 $25.00
</td></tr><tr><td>24 $25.00
</td></tr><tr><td>25 $25.00
</td></tr><tr><td>26 $20.00
</td></tr><tr><td>27 $20.00
</td></tr><tr><td>28 $20.00
</td></tr><tr><td>29 $20.00
</td></tr><tr><td>30 $20.00
</td></tr><tr><td>31 $20.00
</td></tr><tr><td>32 $20.00
</td></tr><tr><td>33 $15.00
</td></tr><tr><td>34 $15.00
</td></tr><tr><td>35 $15.00
</td></tr><tr><td>36 $15.00
</td></tr><tr><td>37 $15.00
</td></tr><tr><td>38 $10.00
</td></tr><tr><td>39 $10.00
</td></tr><tr><td>40 $10.00
</td></tr><tr><td>41 $10.00
</td></tr><tr><td>42 $10.00
</td></tr><tr><td>43 $10.00
</td></tr><tr><td>44 $10.00
</td></tr><tr><td>45 $10.00
</td></tr><tr><td>46 $10.00
</td></tr><tr><td>47 $10.00
</td></tr><tr><td>48 $5.00
</td></tr><tr><td>49 $5.00
</td></tr><tr><td>50 $5.00
</td></tr><tr><td>51 $5.00
</td></tr><tr><td>52 $5.00
</td></tr><tr><td>53 $5.00
</td></tr><tr><td>54 $5.00 </tr></td></table>



Place and you played for less than $20.
Place in the top 35% play for free.
Place in the top 28% make a profit.
Place in the top 14% double your money.
Place in the top 7% triple your money.
Winner makes nearly 8 times their money.
Everyone gets paid "EXACTLY" according performance.
Entry Fee is Entry Fee. Any discount you get is according to performance.
Raise about $300 and cover all PDGA, Regional and Local fees. 100% payout. (PDGA allows you to take those out and still claim 100% payout...)

This format is designed specifically for the rest of us, not for touring disc golfers, though they are welcomed just like anyone else...

You should do it, Nick. There need to be more Pro Only tourneys.



That's not possible considering all events currently are "Pro Only" tourneys.

yawn.

weak bait.

yawn.

weak bait.



Apparently not 'weak' enough though...