I personally don't know any individuals that are changing their status from Pro to Am. Anyone?

because most of those that need this will never see it. They quit playing a long time ago. One of those players played my tournament this last year. He turned pro several years ago, but does not play anymore. He still comes to him old home course tournament, but has not played another tournaent in a long time. He found out he could play Adv instead of Pro this year due to his rating. From what I heard, he had a blast playing again without the pressure from the pro division.

I'm considering it since I have won our Open and Masters points series and an am title would be cool too. It would be a lot of pressure but lately ams and women have been beating me anyway.

Shack says he is gonna do it just to pay the lower renewal fee. Then play open (or masters) all year.

Why wouldn't every pro do that? Sounds pretty intelligent to me.

Shack says he is gonna do it just to pay the lower renewal fee. Then play open (or masters) all year.



:eek: DOH!!

I thought about it............for 1/2 a second...

I never got a response to my question of a REFUND if I changed status, since I signed up for 5 years...last year... :p

im doing it, i want another am points obelisk

im doing it, i want another am points obelisk



how'd you get that?

6700 points is all it takes or what? Looks like about 10 g's (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=23634) this year.

I personally don't know any individuals that are changing their status from Pro to Am. Anyone?



I am. I totally suck anymore and now have a 797 rating. I don't play anymore except for the So Cal Series and am going into retirement for 2007 and won't be out much at all. I thought I'd get a refund of $15 since Pros were $55 and Ams were $40 but I was told no refund because Ams dues are going up for next year. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I personally don't know any individuals that are changing their status from Pro to Am. Anyone?



I am. I totally suck anymore and now have a 797 rating. I don't play anymore except for the So Cal Series and am going into retirement for 2007 and won't be out much at all. I thought I'd get a refund of $15 since Pros were $55 and Ams were $40 but I was told no refund because Ams dues are going up for next year. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif


I just renewed my Am membership and it cost me $53.00 online.

I believe the amnesty copout is for people who are too cheap to pay the full $75 (ooh!) pro renewal for next year. If you were bright enough to follow, you could have renewed for $50(pro) prior to November 14th. I renewed for 5 years and saved $125 by doing so. I understand the plight of the old timer who never plays but one tourney a year, but is that tourney always a Super or National tour where they have to be a PDGA member to play? IIf that is the case, why not have a larger non-member fee rather than turn the hole system upside down to accomadate a few people? If you feel that you really shouldn't be playing pro anymore, petition to move back. My 2 cents.

I believe the amnesty copout is for people who are too cheap to pay the full $75 (ooh!) pro renewal for next year.



If one were to pay $75 just to receive a magazine, then sure, go ahead and call me cheap because I only want to pay $55 for it!


If you were bright enough to follow, you could have renewed for $50(pro) prior to November 14th.



You're the one who's not bright enough. It's $55 for pro. And ams went up so there's not a whole lot of savings going on here.

[/QUOTE]You're the one who's not bright enough. It's $55 for pro. And ams went up so there's not a whole lot of savings going on here.

[/QUOTE]

I just looked to see what pro is now and it said $75 (actually $78). Am I missing something?

If you were bright enough to follow, you could have renewed for $50(pro) prior to November 14th.



You're the one who's not bright enough. It's $55 for pro. And ams went up so there's not a whole lot of savings going on here.


Prior to November 14th you could renew at last year's price, which was $55 for pros.

It was $55.

:)

Well Rich , here is what I did . I joined the Ace Club. For about $ 150.00 or so. Standard Pro renewal , per year , now is $ 75.00. Am membership is now $ 50.00 , Junior ,$ 25.00.

Here is the online site info.
http://www.pdgastore.com/Qstore/Qstore.cgi?CMD=011&PROD=1067409675

Eagle Club ( Lifetime Membership ) add $ 2,000.00 is just a bit out of my price range this year !!!! :eek:

It WAS $55!
It IS a rip-off!

Retirement is just around the corner!!!

That's what my CPA and Broker have been telling me !!!!!!!

Except for the last 3 months , I took a huge loss in the stock market and I'm down $ 560 k. !!!!! :eek:

My dad said ," There goes your house kid " !!!! :eek:

I have recovered about 200 of it , but I'm hoping for a good tax return right now !!!! :p

Come on stock market !!!!! :D

i'm now an am. i stupidly missed the 11/14 deadline, but my main reason to renew at all was to become an am again.

Eh, I would have renewed as an Am, even though I have moved up (non-cash yet). But the check book told me to wait.

But for the people who are copping out and paying an Am membership then still play pro, they will owe the Am-Pro difference if they cash. Oops, loophole closed.

And so when next year, once I actually cash, I will have to pay the extra cash for the pro membership. Oh well.

And so when next year, once I actually cash, I will have to pay the extra cash for the pro membership. Oh well.



In that case try not to turn your ankle again while throwing distance, Mr. Allen :D:o:D

2007 Am Worlds here I come. :D

2007 Am Worlds here I come. :D

Just remember, nobody remember's second... :D...j/k

I'd like to congratulate the PDGA on driving off half of our local Am players.

We have a nine tournament local series, plus the tenth event: the Bark at the Moon. Most of the local Ams ONLY play these nine tournaments, and so it was cheaper to simply pay the PDGA Membership than pay 5$ per tournament. Now? Its cheaper to just pay 5$ per tournament instead of re-joining the PDGA. That leathery smack you heard? 30+ people in the Toledo area closing their wallets.

I wonder how many people elsewhere are realizing the same thing?

Since Am membership went up only $10, just add two more events to the series.

thank god it wasnt raised more. with that logic chuck we'll need to add weekends to the year at some point.

2007 Am Worlds here I come. :D



Wanna hitch a ride with the Discboomer???

But for the people who are copping out and paying an Am membership then still play pro, they will owe the Am-Pro difference if they cash.



Is this true? That is BS

2007 Am Worlds here I come. :D

you'll need to change your name to "EasyPlastic" :D

They haven't been doing this so far. But perhaps if many players make the switch the policy has or will be changed next year to pay the difference when you cash. Sandalman? Did the Board address this yet?

Chuck, leave the BOD alone for a while. They're busy erasing/burning your expense vouchers so they can give me a copy of the financial reports.

That seems stupid to make them pay the difference, but I guess if it becomes a popular trend, it makes some sense. My comment is mostly to fix the message board view for now, rather than a strong opinion.

Yeah. Hey Mikey, I'm 'slowly' ( :D) starting to realize you like your posts to have impact. But, can ya help some DG bruthas out and shorten your alias?

They haven't been doing this so far. But perhaps if many players make the switch the policy has or will be changed next year to pay the difference when you cash. Sandalman? Did the Board address this yet?

chuck, you should be aware by now that BoD members are forbidden under threat of lawsuit and bodily harm to never reveal anything about their BoD conversations with mere Members - especially on the DISCussion Board. the way i understand it is that it's kind of like forbidden knowledge or something. perhaps like the Blipverts in Max Headroom that caused people to explode just from watching. we can't have Members exploding all over the world like mice in a microwave, you know. in addition to causing a serious mess on countless keyboards and monitors, revenue from event fees would be negatively impacted. :eek: :D

Mr. 2, and those who dislike long usernames,

Help me out here. How can I express my outrage at the PDGA raising dues but keeping their spending a secret, while still having a short moniker? Remember, you can't use dirty words, or inappropriate avatars. Oh and I am on probation already so include that in your reasoning.

Board members are not prevented from stating decisions that have been voted on. So, if no vote has been made, then the presumption is that the policy will continue which is not to collect the pro/am membership differential during the year when an Am cashes and turns pro.

just posting to get the front page of the board back to normal.

My name looks so much better on the front page anyway

Very well...carry on. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Wow another 990+ bagger in AM's.....what's new.....

Help me out here. How can I express my outrage at the PDGA


Put it in your sig line. It will still show up on every post and it makes the board easier to read for the rest of ux.

Wow another 990+ bagger in AM's.....what's new.....

Who?

I second that

Wow another 990+ bagger in AM's.....what's new.....



How about a 100+ rated AM? Well there will be at least one starting Jan 1st. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

EasyMoney unless he is just pulling our leg.......

2006 was my first year as Pro and i think raising the membership fee was a bad idea. i also think Am.s and Pros should pay the same fee. otherwise, since there are more Am.s than Pros -- it just becomes one more reason for am.s not to move up. The cost of living has gone up and not the average worker's wages. besides, if they grew up with money, most disc golfers would be playing ball golf :o /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Want more revenue? get more members ... or raise am. memberships $5 -- that probably generates more revenue than raising Pro memberships $15 ... (?)

anywhew, i did renew before the deadline so i could be a Pro for another year at $55. i like supporting the PDGA (the sport and the entire Association membership) but i am not sure the leadership is representing its constituency. then again, if you think about the average disc golfer, maybe they shouldn't support their constituency... :confused: :eek: :D

So......what is the date in early-'07 when we are no longer able to post HERE on the DISCussion Board...if we've NOT renewed? January 1st? February 1st? Firestarter...!

i would guess January 1st plus a few days grace.

not sure why you have to be a member to post. that's backwards. we should encourage non-members to post.

having a members-only section makes sense -- and also having a link that says: "benefits of joining the PDGA"

not allowing non-members (or former members) to come here and say "hey" or post questions is asinine.

It's usually just before March 1st. Final reports for 2006 are due no later than Jan 31st with points totals and ratings posted shortly thereafter. Members from 2006 will get to see those for a few weeks as I recall.

i would guess January 1st plus a few days grace.

i forget what the grace period was that we programmed last year... it was fairly generous if i remember correctly. it was coded so that grace periods for message board use and ratings detail can be different.

not sure why you have to be a member to post. that's backwards. we should encourage non-members to post.

its great that non embers can read. the troubles that we had when non members could post had a lot to do with anonymity and its impact of civility. membership has its benefits. posting is one of those.



having a members-only section makes sense -- and also having a link that says: "benefits of joining the PDGA"

dangstraight it does! so does publishing our mission and value statements.

this more tactful Pat with business savoire faire is fine and even dandy -- but sometimes i miss the argumentative pat.

fyi -- i just posted regarding the silly old obselete 2 meter rule on the "snow gear" thread ... :p

believe me the arguments are still a potential at any time. but under the threat of lawsuit should i post anything "wrong" i must not publically say anything that might upset anyone.

humpty dumpty was rather fragile, remember. i wouldnt want to be responsible for breaking anything so fragile, no matter how large it is. perhaps good ol HD was just an metaphor for something more personal. ;)

ego and HD have a lot in common. the closer you stay to the ground -- the less trouble falling causes.
what goes up must come down and all that...

keep up the good work ;)

Mr. 2, and those who dislike long usernames,

Help me out here. How can I express my outrage at the PDGA raising dues but keeping their spending a secret, while still having a short moniker? Remember, you can't use dirty words, or inappropriate avatars. Oh and I am on probation already so include that in your reasoning.



You could make it your sig and change your username to "Racer X". He was cool.

I took amnesty. I'm currently a 940 rated player that got married in February. I turned pro (probably a little too early) in 2005, and played open in about 7 or 8 tournaments. I cashed in one, netting $3 ($48 for fifth place, with a $45 entry). This caused me to be ineligible for World's in Tulsa and USADGC this year. I've never won an amateur tournament. I've played well at times, but my lack of consistency and inability to close out is just a reflection of the time that I don't have to practice as much as I need to compete at that higher level. I'm glad that this was offered, as I hope that this gives me the opportunity to compete in Milwaukee, rather than donate in Highbridge.

I think that this a gracious thing that the PDGA is offering, and am appalled at those that are playing at a pro level and think that it's OK to take advantage of the opportunity to skate out of $25. I hope that TD's would have a way of noting ams playing in their events as pros, and, upon them cashing, take their $25 out of their winnings right on the spot and send it in with the TD reports.

How quickly you all forget the work that is going on in Augusta. I've only seen the pictures, but for those of you that have been there, and don't see the value in your membership, shame on you, you friggin' cheapskates. :D

I...am appalled at those that are playing at a pro level and think that it's OK to take advantage of the opportunity to skate out of $25.



I am appalled. Do you realize how broke professional disc golfers are?

Trust me, I realize that. Not to pick on you, but your profile says your hobbies are "disc golf and general chillin". Our sport isn't at the level where you can make enough money to be a "general chiller" unless you're one of about 5 people. The reality is that until our sport becomes more marketable, we won't get the sponsors that the sport needs to make great players (like yourself) rich.

I think that a lot of guys aren't honest with themselves if they think that they can make it on their own with disc golf only right now. Then they wallow in poverty and want to blame it on PDGA memberships going up. :confused: My point is that professional disc golfer's financial situations are not what they are because of PDGA memberships. It goes a little deeper than that.

Don't quit your day job----yet. :D

Since Am membership went up only $10, just add two more events to the series.



If the PDGA membership fee goes up $10, shouldn't the per tourney fee for non-members increase as well. If the single tourney fee went to $7 the incentive of not joining would decrease significantly. Although, there is the, "I don't have a rating but I've been playing for ten years....I guess I'll play intermediate" attitude. Bagging should cost more in my eyes.

Raising the nonmember fee was discussed but they didn't want to boost fees more than necessary. It does make sense in the overall scheme but they've held off for now.

I...am appalled at those that are playing at a pro level and think that it's OK to take advantage of the opportunity to skate out of $25.



I am appalled. Do you realize how broke professional disc golfers are?



That's no joke!

I...am appalled at those that are playing at a pro level and think that it's OK to take advantage of the opportunity to skate out of $25.



I am appalled. Do you realize how broke professional disc golfers are?



That's no joke!



Get a job. What you won for the year playing disc golf you could be making every month at McDonalds working part time. :D

Raising the nonmember fee was discussed but they didn't want to boost fees more than necessary. It does make sense in the overall scheme but they've held off for now.



And those people can't play in A tiers or NT's either. Membership is required. The way the payout is structured now, bagging in intermediate in B and C tiers doesn't really gain you too much, except a bunch of riddicule from your compadres.

Raising the nonmember fee was discussed but they didn't want to boost fees more than necessary. It does make sense in the overall scheme but they've held off for now.




Well Chuck they might want to reconsider. As I can see how this is extremely unfair to the members out there. If you are raising our fees with no problems then how do you see a problem with raising the nonmember fees at events?

Not raising it makes no sense whatsoever.....

It may not make complete sense to the members but the TDs are also an important stakeholder in the overall operation. Raising the nonmember fee impacts potential turnout at events which impacts TDs the most and still impacts players and the PDGA to a lesser extent. I wasn't in the discussions but I suspect the Board is a little gunshy from the decision a few years ago when membership was going to be required for B-tiers. That was also discussed in the Competition Commitee this time but rejected for now.

someone asked who voted for the fee increase.

the Minutes fom the Summit show no seperate vote on the fees, unless i just missed it. i remember discussing the fees, but it was probably included as part of the overall budget instead of a standalone issue. ie, you could vote for or against the budget not the dues amount.

there must have been some concern over the impact of fee increases on Membership rates because the following is in the minutes:

"For 2007 the goal is 12,300. With an increase in membership fees next year the numbers are not expected to be as positive as the current trend. "

here is one excerpt from the published minutes:

"
Action Items (HQ)

1. A check box will be added to the 2007 membership form offering Ace and Birdie Club members the option for the PDGA to �Keep My Gift�

2. Rather than raise the Ace and Birdie Club prices in 2007 the structure will be changed. $100 (Ace) and $50 (Birdie) will be added to the basic membership fee.

3. Beginning in 2007 all 10 year members will be acknowledged with a pin.

4. In 2007 the PDGA National Tour stipend will be increased from $1000 to $1250 per event.

5. Canadian A, B, C and D tier event fees will remain in Canada


Motion (B. Decker/J.Lyksett)
That the Board approves the budget as presented including the adjustments made over the past two days.

For: Unanimous Motion Passed
"

It was voted on in March (http://www.pdga.com/documents/boardminutes/2006-03-01BODMeetingMinutesApproved.pdf) .

ah, thank you Gary. now it is clear that it was the previous, not the current Board, that voted on it. thanks again.

I think that a lot of guys aren't honest with themselves if they think that they can make it on their own with disc golf only right now. Then they wallow in poverty and want to blame it on PDGA memberships going up. :confused: My point is that professional disc golfer's financial situations are not what they are because of PDGA memberships. It goes a little deeper than that.

Don't quit your day job----yet. :D



I'm not saying that people are going broke because of the dues increase.
I'm saying that it is reasonable and acceptable for a pro to sign up as an am to pay less dues in 2007, because in most cases, pro disc golfers are broke.

Get a job. What you won for the year playing disc golf you could be making every month at McDonalds working part time. :D



Grow a set. Once you have taken ca$h, you don't go back.

Get a job. What you won for the year playing disc golf you could be making every month at McDonalds working part time. :D



Grow a set. Once you have taken ca$h, you don't go back.




BBBLLLLAAAMMMM!!!!!!!

Cry me a river you two Michigan ninnies. Grow a set? Grow up, punks, maybe you'll someday realize that you'll never make a living in this sport, and that's why you're broke. Go ahead, prove me wrong. I can't wait.

I tried being civil in my initial post, attempting to make some sense of all this, even complimented your performances D. But you wanna stoop and flame on me? I can run with the best of 'em. I'm in Des Moines, if you even have a set. :mad:

Raising the nonmember fee was discussed but they didn't want to boost fees more than necessary. It does make sense in the overall scheme but they've held off for now.



what scheme is this that it makes sense in. i remember when i was a kid i joined a bowling league. to join you had to be a member of the natinal bowling congress or some such thing, but the annual dues was like 5 OR 10$. everyone in those leagues had to be a member to join. the cost was nominal, so nobody complained. and you got a cool little patch to show for it. hundreds of people at that alley were members. right now we average a little over 4 members per installed course i think. maybe a new "scheme" is in order.

how does it make it an advantage to join the pdga? how many non-members play in events nationwide? in my events it is probably like 10% so the gain there wouldn't be excessively high. but maybe if the membership was 15 or 20$ per person, more people would join and more would stay because it was easily affordable to keep current. right now at 50-75$ we are pricing ourselves out of business IMO. i think many many ams will just pay the 5$ for the couple events they play each year. why shouldn't they?

if memberships were 15-20$ people could still feel free to go for birdie and ace memberships if they wanted to contribute more and could afford it. but in the long run the lower required membership fees might bring out more members since the cost to join and stay joined was reasonable. and the increased member number would look much better to any potential sponsors. just looking at a couple of the courses i play most there are hundreds of people who play regularly there and aren't pdga members. those are the people we need to get in to grow and survive.

maybe my idea isn't the perfect plan, but it think it's alot more reasonable than asking the kid working part time in high school or college , or the guy with no job or imposing family financial obligations to come up with 50-75$(in addition to the tournament entry fees we already have)

well said Rich.

Cry me a river you two Michigan ninnies. Grow a set? Grow up, punks, maybe you'll someday realize that you'll never make a living in this sport, and that's why you're broke. Go ahead, prove me wrong. I can't wait.

I tried being civil in my initial post, attempting to make some sense of all this, even complimented your performances D. But you wanna stoop and flame on me? I can run with the best of 'em. I'm in Des Moines, if you even have a set. :mad:



You're my hero.

I just turned Pro this year, and I've cashed at all the PDGA events I have attended thus far. I have two jobs and I go to college. I only have time practice on the weekends and maybe a little midnight putting in the back yard. I know I can't make a living in this sport, but that hasn't prevented me from wanting to get better and try to rise to the top.

Life is tough on me too, but in my opinion, accepting the amnesty just shows a lack of professional attitude. And there are no rules that state a Pro disc golfer has to be broke. If $75 a year is all it takes to break you, then there is something significantly more problematic in your life than disc golf membership fees.

One more thing - does anyone else play another sport professionally out there? For only a few years work and a few hundred dollars one can be considered professional in our sport. What other sports offer that?

Dion "Ron" Arlyn

Foosball...

Life is tough on me too, but in my opinion, accepting the amnesty just shows a lack of professional attitude.



Do you mean actually moving down, or just paying less and playing open? GDL IS accepting amnesty and moving back down. THere is not much of an issue here. GDL is appalled that pros would want to save money, and I wanted him to know that most disc golfers are broke. He seems to be agreeing with me. If I DG'd for a living, I would certainly be very broke as well, and would take the opportunity to save $25 whenever I could.

GDL, I have a job. I don't understand where you think I said that "I can make a living playing disc golf". This is not an issue. I have the opinion that it is reasonable and acceptable for any pro to register as an AM in 07 and pay $25 less. Instead of getting other people to shell out their money to support the IDGC and PDGA, I think you should continue to support your local pros who are trying to make a living in this growing sport, not move back down to play AM.

"Support your local pros who are trying to make a living in this growing sport?"

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. I can see trying to support the efforts of the clubs, efforts of the volunteers and efforts of the organization. At least these have a chance of helping promote and advance the sport. But support your local pros? Sorry, my obligations to house, family, kids education, and maybe providing some nice things like vacations and the like would trump feeling responsible for putting money into the hands of misguided people who think disc golf can be their occupation. Especially as I have very liitle faith that doing so would benefit anyone besides the individual recipient.

Sorry, but if you're looking at the player base as providing your 'living', you're missing the overall picture. That model currently supports only a small handfull nationwide, and barely at that.

Sorry, my obligations to house, family, kids education, and maybe providing some nice things like vacations and the like would trump feeling responsible for putting money into the hands of misguided people who think disc golf can be their occupation.

Sorry, but if you're looking at the player base as providing your 'living', you're missing the overall picture. That model currently supports only a small handfull nationwide, and barely at that.



The picture has been painted. That is our model.
YOU CHOOSE TO SUPPORT IT (and local pros) by playing tourneys, trying to win other players' entry fees. I would also love to see the model change, get a huge corporate sponsor, and not have to play for other players' entry fees.
What do you want me to do?
I want GDL to recognize that pros are generally broke (he has recognized, I think) and that there is no shame in saving $25.

I competely agree with you, the model doesn't create "jobs" or enough money for anyone (except 5 people) to live on.

If I was convinced that giving money to the PDGA immediately and directly grows the sport by getting more members and sponsors, I would agree that the extra $25 should be spent on the organizations, not the players. I am not.

I don't think that the people who are registered as Pros "are generally broke". Maybe for those who think that disc golf is their occupation that may ring true. But as for all who renew in a Pro classified division, I don't agree.

If you check the 2005 demographics page, 74% of the membership makes over $30k per year. I don't know what percentage of those are pro vs. am, but I would think a good percentage, especially the age protected pros, are part of this group.

2005 Member Demographics (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2005/05demographics.pdf)

I don't think that the people who are registered as Pros "are generally broke".



OK. Those are household demographics, BTW.
I respect your opinion, but I still believe there is no shame in saving $25 off member dues in 2007.

No, definitely no shame. Each person has to take their own financial situation and perceived values into account when making a purchasing decision. But let's not extend our situations into generalizations for the whole group.

let's not extend our situations into generalizations for the whole group.



If only EVERYBODY that posts on this message board followed that policy!!

I recognize pros are generally broke, but I also recognized a bunch of them at the Lumberyard (a strip club) at 2004 Worlds, some on multiple nights, where dropping $25 is as easy as taking a leak. And I won't even get into the $$ some disc golfers pilfer away on illegal substances. So broke, maybe, spending money unwisely----usually.

My point is, most, definately not all, because I hate to generalize and/or stereotype, could find a way probably in a months time to save an extra $25 for their membership. If it's that big of a deal, then don't rejoin. Either come to terms with whatever your issues with the PDGA are, accept them, or move on. It's $25 freakin' dollars. You guys act like it's $250. If you can't afford a $25 dollar membership hike (during the offseason), how can you afford to tour in the summer?

I've decided to go amateur with the tournaments I run in Michigan. I'm not planning on offering cash paid divisions. I'll offer a division for players who are not eligible to play in the PDGA sanctioned prize paid divisions, if they just want to play the tournament. I'm going to call the top division Expert and it will be a prize paid division like any other.

Do they get ratings?

I recognize pros are generally broke, but I also recognized a bunch of them at the Lumberyard (a strip club) at 2004 Worlds, some on multiple nights, where dropping $25 is as easy as taking a leak. And I won't even get into the $$ some disc golfers pilfer away on illegal substances. So broke, maybe, spending money unwisely----usually.

My point is, most, definately not all, because I hate to generalize and/or stereotype, could find a way probably in a months time to save an extra $25 for their membership. If it's that big of a deal, then don't rejoin. Either come to terms with whatever your issues with the PDGA are, accept them, or move on. It's $25 freakin' dollars. You guys act like it's $250. If you can't afford a $25 dollar membership hike (during the offseason), how can you afford to tour in the summer?




This is so true. We get this argument sometimes with our club memberships sometimes, and that's only $15 per year.

$25 over 365 days = $0.068 per day.


And if it is that big of a deal financially, then those folks shouldn't be playing tournaments anyway.

Can a newbie even begin to justify spending $50 for a membership?
Many of us find enough value to not complain about the price increase, but that is a function of time and of understanding our organization, ratings, this MB, etc...

Could newbies get a reduced/prorated rate for the first year so they could see for themselves whether they find value or not?

I recognize pros are generally broke, but I also recognized a bunch of them at the Lumberyard (a strip club) at 2004 Worlds, some on multiple nights, where dropping $25 is as easy as taking a leak. And I won't even get into the $$ some disc golfers pilfer away on illegal substances. So broke, maybe, spending money unwisely----usually.

My point is, most, definately not all, because I hate to generalize and/or stereotype, could find a way probably in a months time to save an extra $25 for their membership. If it's that big of a deal, then don't rejoin. Either come to terms with whatever your issues with the PDGA are, accept them, or move on. It's $25 freakin' dollars. You guys act like it's $250. If you can't afford a $25 dollar membership hike (during the offseason), how can you afford to tour in the summer?




This is so true. We get this argument sometimes with our club memberships sometimes, and that's only $15 per year.

$25 over 365 days = $0.068 per day.


And if it is that big of a deal financially, then those folks shouldn't be playing tournaments anyway.



I will keep this nice green $25 right in my pocket, because I can register as an Am and save money. nice!

It may not make complete sense to the members but the TDs are also an important stakeholder in the overall operation. Raising the nonmember fee impacts potential turnout at events which impacts TDs the most and still impacts players and the PDGA to a lesser extent. I wasn't in the discussions but I suspect the Board is a little gunshy from the decision a few years ago when membership was going to be required for B-tiers. That was also discussed in the Competition Commitee this time but rejected for now.



I cant speak for td's as a general rule but for me I can say that as each tournament goes by I seem to be sending a lot more 5.00 non member fees to the PDGA than I used to. The temp membership was a nice idea it was not utilized by anyone I saw last year locally but it was nice.

2) A one time amnesty will be offered to all Pros wishing to be reclassified to Amateur
whose player ratings are below a certain yet to be determined threshhold.



I saw this in the minutes. So why haven't we limited the amnesty to a certain rating max cap and below that?

That would make more sense to have a cap wouldn't it? I don't know you tell me....

I believe once they got into it, it became too complicated because caps would be needed for every Am division, male and female, all ages and no one wanted to try and figure out what the fair rating number was for each division. Remember, the amnesty option isn't limited just to Open men.

Where did I say for Open men only? I knew it was for everyone.

I wondered about the cap, too, but it makes sense that it would be too much work to apply it.

There is a loophole where Pros can turn Am, pay $25 less in dues, and play Pro if they want. But if they ever face winning cash, they'll have a tough decision to make. And if they play really well, there'll always be that temptation to play Pro, and when they win something . . . if they don't, well, then, the more $$ in the pot the merrier, eh?

I know of four old-timers here in Ann Arbor who for sure are re-upping as Am instead of Pro. In each case they've found themselves relegated to being unable to compete in the divisions available to them, so they've stopped competing.

Sometimes we have 10-12 guys, each capable of running a major tournament by himself, sitting around chatting in the tournament central tent while everyone else plays. This coming year, hopefully, some of them will be out in the competition.

I look forward to seeing them in Am divisions this coming year. They can join me in beating up on the Advanced young guys in Michigan :D

I just took advantage of the amnesty and turned Am after playing 12 years as a Pro Master player. Most of my long-time golfing buddies are turning (or already have turned) Grand Master. I'm just 46 so while I wait to turn 50, I'll go play with the Am Masters. There always seems to be a lot more of the Am Masters than Pro Masters in events around here anyway.

The difference in entry fee ($25) had some impact on my decision, but it was mostly because I don't play as much anymore and I'm not as competitive as I used to be.

My player rating is down to a 971 and I just can't keep up with the guys that play daily. Would a cap have prevented me from moving down??

It will be fun playing tournaments with a whole new group of people too. My hat is off to the PDGA BOD for the innovative thinking that kept me current as a member. I wouldn't have renewed as a Pro with the higher cost.

wouldn't it be fun[ny] if former Pros sweep Am Worlds? :eek: /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

The only regret about it that I have is that they didn't at the same time create a Real Amateur Class for these folks to play in... Wasted opportunity really, since like folks have been saying a lot of pros did it just to save on membership dues.

It's one thing to do it to save a couple bucks, it would be something completely different to do it and give up piles of plastic, baskets, bags and cash.

The line between am and pro is so faint that this will likely lead to nothing of significance. I do like the tone of it though, good one BOD.

I just took advantage of the amnesty and turned Am after playing 12 years as a Pro Master player. Most of my long-time golfing buddies are turning (or already have turned) Grand Master. I'm just 46 so while I wait to turn 50, I'll go play with the Am Masters. There always seems to be a lot more of the Am Masters than Pro Masters in events around here anyway.

The difference in entry fee ($25) had some impact on my decision, but it was mostly because I don't play as much anymore and I'm not as competitive as I used to be.

My player rating is down to a 971 and I just can't keep up with the guys that play daily. Would a cap have prevented me from moving down??

It will be fun playing tournaments with a whole new group of people too. My hat is off to the PDGA BOD for the innovative thinking that kept me current as a member. I wouldn't have renewed as a Pro with the higher cost.


Advanced Masters division in the metroplex just got one more great person in the group. Always fun to play golf with Joe. Welcome to the dark side.

The only regret about it that I have is that they didn't at the same time create a Real Amateur Class for these folks to play in... Wasted opportunity really, since like folks have been saying a lot of pros did it just to save on membership dues.

It's one thing to do it to save a couple bucks, it would be something completely different to do it and give up piles of plastic, baskets, bags and cash.

The line between am and pro is so faint that this will likely lead to nothing of significance. I do like the tone of it though, good one BOD.



Nick, i am not sure whether the last line is sarcastic or straight? what do you mean by you like the tone of it?

a lot of members that switched to Am. may intend to still enter tournaments in the Pro divisions and if they place in the cash they plan to accept it. iow, they were just bargain hunting, and when they read "no questions asked" they walked through a wide open door.

^ my ^ two cents anyway...

Will there be a list of players who chose to declare amsisty?

I just took advantage of the amnesty and turned Am after playing 12 years as a Pro Master player. Most of my long-time golfing buddies are turning (or already have turned) Grand Master. I'm just 46 so while I wait to turn 50, I'll go play with the Am Masters. There always seems to be a lot more of the Am Masters than Pro Masters in events around here anyway.

The difference in entry fee ($25) had some impact on my decision, but it was mostly because I don't play as much anymore and I'm not as competitive as I used to be.

My player rating is down to a 971 and I just can't keep up with the guys that play daily. Would a cap have prevented me from moving down??

It will be fun playing tournaments with a whole new group of people too. My hat is off to the PDGA BOD for the innovative thinking that kept me current as a member. I wouldn't have renewed as a Pro with the higher cost.


Advanced Masters division in the metroplex just got one more great person in the group. Always fun to play golf with Joe. Welcome to the dark side.



OhhhSnap - and the tiny MPM division shrinks even more. It's always a pleasure playing w/ ya Joe...I don'y buy the "not as competitive" line though! You love playing w/ strong competition!!
Playing with new players is always fun though...I'll have to start bagging at'cha when you win 3 in a row!
BTW...who plays daily at 46?? Shoot...I don't even play weekly. 80% of my DG throws are in tournaments and I don't like to warm up (lost too many discs just before the two minute warning)
971...hmmm, sounds like one or two shots a round w/ most of the MPM field except for the few great 1000 rated players.
Hope to see ya this weekend - If I get an ace I'll pay the extra $25 for the Pro membership for ya ;)

not that i know of... but you'll be able to identify them easily. they've be the 975 rated Advanced Masters players :D

971 rated advanced masters. This sport is rotting away.

yeah, i dont understand that move. 970 is gonna rule MM1 to the point of not even being fun. thank god i am MGM eligible this year. :D

It is caving in to the laws of economics, anyway.

And the reality that most of us are amateurs. Hopefully, this move will speed the progress toward the need for an Expert division next year.

And the reality that most of us are amateurs. Hopefully, this move will speed the progress toward the need for an Expert division next year.



buncha amateurs... :D

Would this new division include a hard ratings cap at the upper end of advanced, like that now in place for the AM2 division?

Will we call the expert division AM-0?

Is this for real?

In simple terms, the laws of economics should have little to do with the laws of competitive structure. In our case, they are related. The law of economics might be that one will naturally seek the largest return while risking the least amount of capital. The PDGA fails to adequately grasp this law works counter to the competitive spirit. Until the PDGA learns this, we will always se the system drag people downward, where the easy returns are.

Chuck, this argument about the "True % of experts" is so contrived. Your cutoff of experts is completely arbitrary. As is mine, and everyone elses. There is no stone where it is written. Besides, it is largely an irrelevant question anyway. If I plan on mulling over a competitive structure, at what point do I need to know what percentages of players are experts? Never.

Just in the occasional discussion phase here and among competition folks. But maybe it's too sensible to happen? Hard to say. There are potential ways to do it that wouldn't require a hard cap and still work.

If I plan on mulling over a competitive structure, at what point do I need to know what percentages of players are experts?



I would agree that's not the number that's relevant and it's hard to draw a hard line. On the other hand, the number who can make a living and truly operate in our sport as 'pros' in the conventional meaning of a 'sports pro' is pretty clear. And that number is somewhere among the fingers on this keyboard.

yeah, i dont understand that move. 970 is gonna rule MM1 to the point of not even being fun. thank god i am MGM eligible this year. :D



Well, then, maybe some people who think they are Advanced Masters need to think they are Intermediate Masters instead. In Michigan we never have that division, but in parts of the south, like Georgia, it seems quite common.

Or, like I do, maybe he plans to play regularly against Advanced Ams and not in his age division. Or, maybe he's saving $25 on this year's fees and will turn Pro again as soon as he gets his first cash in a Pro division event.

As for 970 making it less fun: My son is at 971 and even with my 925 I can beat him once and a while, and it is always fun to try.

I fully support the amnesty, but those who don't like it can smile at the fact that Pete May took advantage of it, so instead of what I thought might be a walk to victory in the Senior Grand Master division at Am Worlds in Milwaukee is definitely not going to be a walk against Pete; probably not a victory, but I'm getting ready to have fun trying.

Has Pete said he would play in SGM at Am Worlds? Maybe he's playing both Worlds?

Haven't talked to Pete recently, but he had mentioned the possibility before and someone who's talked to him more recently than I have told me that he was planning to. He might do exactly what you mention: Do Am Worlds and then go a bit north to Pro Worlds. I would, for sure, if I had more money and time.

MM2 is dead.

Not sure if it will be part of first place prizes in all divisions but entry fee into Pro Worlds will be the bonus prize for some divisions at Am Worlds.

In simple terms, the laws of economics should have little to do with the laws of competitive structure. In our case, they are related. The law of economics might be that one will naturally seek the largest return while risking the least amount of capital. The PDGA fails to adequately grasp this law works counter to the competitive spirit. Until the PDGA learns this, we will always se the system drag people downward, where the easy returns are.

Chuck, this argument about the "True % of experts" is so contrived. Your cutoff of experts is completely arbitrary. As is mine, and everyone elses. There is no stone where it is written. Besides, it is largely an irrelevant question anyway. If I plan on mulling over a competitive structure, at what point do I need to know what percentages of players are experts? Never.

Paying money to play in a disc golf tournament is an economic activity. The laws of economics will have an effect on this activity whether they "should" or not.

I have always liked Chuck's idea of having an expert division. It takes away the prize incentive to remain an amateur but allows the very best amateurs to continue to compete as amateurs if they so choose.

Currently 278 of our 6228 amateur members have expert ratings. I don't think any of them should be compelled to go pro but it is time they should be compelled not to play advanced anymore.

lou, i'm curious why you think MM2 will be dead?

thx... p

You can ask Lou but MM2 hasn't been available as a PDGA division for several years now. There are no age based Intermediate or Rec divisions in either gender.

ah, i see. we still offer MM2 at some events around here. prolly not sanctioned ones though, huh :)

Good to know that a former BoD member doesn't even know the divisions. :o

It's possible Southern Nats events might have MM2, too.

do you know how many divisions we have? we could drop 50% of them and we'd still need a Cray to track them all :D

besides, i'm not a former BoD yet. (unless you meant Chuck, but chuck corrected me, so he is prolly correct) :cool:

Paying money to play in a disc golf tournament is an economic activity. The laws of economics will have an effect on this activity whether they "should" or not.

I have always liked Chuck's idea of having an expert division. It takes away the prize incentive to remain an amateur but allows the very best amateurs to continue to compete as amateurs if they so choose.

Currently 278 of our 6228 amateur members have expert ratings. I don't think any of them should be compelled to go pro but it is time they should be compelled not to play advanced anymore.



First, you devise a competitive system to meet competitive goals, THEN you acknowledge economics/human behaviorial traits to help the competitive system along, not to hamper it.

What is Chuck's new expert division idea, and how does it take the incentive away from playing down.

278 out 6,228???? No, I'd say that there are least 1,783 out of 6,228. Y'all just use this contrived notion that there are very few real pros as an argument to prop up this anti-competitive system.

No one knows how many real "pros" there are. In less loaded terms, no one knows how many "experts" there are either. However, any honest and disinterested observer of our comeptitive system would find it sorely lacking, primarily because it drags people down through incentives. It's competitive welfare.

do you know how many divisions we have? we could drop 50% of them and we'd still need a Cray to track them all :D

besides, i'm not a former BoD yet. (unless you meant Chuck, but chuck corrected me, so he is prolly correct) :cool:



I was talking about Terry.

I know how many experts there are: 278. I counted.

Chuck and I are using expert to refer to "amateurs rated 955 and above."

I am taking the amnesty and looking forward to playing AM again and the AM worlds, if i get in!!

Watch out for Newhouse 07 :eek: :eek: :eek: :D

Awesome to see Newhouse!! How you doing man? It's been awhile since I seen you. Glad to see you're playing am worlds this year. It's going to be a blast!!

Laters!!

Josh

Hey Josh, All is well here thanks. I had to take some time off from tournaments and playing, having kids can do that. I am looking forward to getting out on the courses more this year. Take care and see you soon.

And the reality that most of us are amateurs. Hopefully, this move will speed the progress toward the need for an Expert division next year.



Hey that's what we need...yet another division to water down the competitive structure. Eventually all of the divisions will look like the women's at events with 2 players in each one. We really should just create enough divisions so that players only have to compete against people within 10 ratings points of themselves. We don't want anyone to face the indignity of defeat at a PDGA event.

Hawk,
Thankyou!!
Chuck - its COMPETITION. If we the PDGA are going to promote it - we should return to a structure that acknowledges its validity. MORE DIVISIONS!!????? That's just plain stupid. God forbid you should never have the opportunity to be the best at something. If DG wants to be considered a legitimate sport - and acknowledges that numbers (in some respect) = legitimacy in the eyes of the outside world - how can we with straight faces, take 90 players and separate them into 6,7 or 13 freaking divisions? Pathetic

We (the PDGA) should've removed all of the age protected divisions (am divisions too) while at the same time offering the current amnesty program. That would consolidate the Open division while giving anyone who's feeling left out an opportunity to "go Am" and be competitive again.

That would probably be a good time to create the "Expert" division, too, for those that want to compete but are tired of $75-$135 entry fees in Open.

That plan would would eliminate 16 divisions and add 2, for a net loss of 14 possible divisions.

For people who want to place well in a division, PRACTICE and get better, don't just make another division that is easier to place well in. It's like "I'm not good enough to compete, so instead of investing time into my game, I will lobby to make a different division, one that I can compete in." It's a competition, not charity.

Why dilute the Open div with an Expert div? It's already thin enough.

what is the definition of this "expert" division? i do not see it anywhere. is it Am or Pro?

It does not exist. Hopefully it never will. It was proposed that Adv be cut off at 955.

It ("expert") does not exist. Hopefully it never will. It was proposed that Adv be cut off at 955.



why don't we just move Advanced to 955 or higher and make the division below that called "baggers-in-training"? :eek:

seriously though, i am not sure what needs to be done -- but it seems to me there are incentives to not turn Pro that need to be addressed. how many Pros are on the BoD?

how many Pros are on the BoD?




Two. Steve Dodge and Pete May.

Theo Pozzy, Jon Lyksett, Bob Decker, Pat Brenner, Cris Bellinger are amateur players.

Chap

And Calhoun thinks Pete may have renewed as an Am under the amnesty plan.

to be clear, i am registered as an Am but occassionally have played Pro Masters. this year i expect to be playing Pro Grandmasters, maybe 1-2 Masters, and the rest Adv Masters. i saw no reason to reg as a Pro even though i will likely play there 50% of the events in '07.

also, there is no absolute reason that a player registered as an Am cannot understand the issues facing players registered as Pros. yes, there might be some learning required. an open mind might be a pre-requisite. checking any biases might be necessary. a reasonably thoughtful Am player could make a valuable contribution, imho.

Pat, I don't disagree that wisdom and understanding related to our competitive structure can arise from anyone, with any competitive qualifications. But, I do think that the super am majority on the BOD creates a slight resistance to real improvements.

My suspicion (once again, since it is never stated anywhere....a topic for another three threads) is that a majority of free thinking BoD members have realized over the last decade that our system is basically lacking, but they realized that the required changes would pizz many people off. Couple that with the fact that there are seductive statistical arguments to support the status quo, and that most pros who really understand and care are few and far between, and the status quo is easy to maintain. Meanwhile, our system not surprisingly keeps inflating the middle and bottom of the bell curve, while churning out the top end: a very unhealthy situation for a competitive sport.

james, i wish most of that wasnt true.

Couple that with the fact that there are seductive statistical arguments to support the status quo


It's called serving members desires which is the most important statistic. The PDGA doesn't have the luxury to exist in a theoretical world where idealized concepts (and people) might flourish.



most pros who really understand and care are few and far between


While that may be true, unlike the Board, the current and previous Competition Committee is almost all pros and all are or have been TDs. Many ideas for changes over the years have come from outside the Board and the Board tends to support the Committee recommendations.

My suspicion (once again, since it is never stated anywhere....a topic for another three threads) is that a majority of free thinking BoD members have realized over the last decade that our system is basically lacking, but they realized that the required changes would pizz many people off. Couple that with the fact that there are seductive statistical arguments to support the status quo, and that most pros who really understand and care are few and far between, and the status quo is easy to maintain. Meanwhile, our system not surprisingly keeps inflating the middle and bottom of the bell curve, while churning out the top end: a very unhealthy situation for a competitive sport.



I have the same suspicions too, especially with regard to age-based divisions. These were orginally broken out a long, long time ago based on skill. Back in The Olden Days when there was just two divisions, Open and Non-open (which was basically newbies) a masters division was created for those older players who still had skills way beyond novice players but weren't still competitive in the Open division. Without player ratings, that was the one of the only ways (and apparently, the best way) to separate ability.

Now that we have player ratings it is abundantly clear how inappropriate that method is, but having since become weaned on their protected status, no PDGA divisional change would ever be enacted that would eliminate age-based divisions. They would cry bloody murder. Since no organization would take measures that might bite the hand that feeds them, we end up stuck with this archaic competitive system.

I shake my head at every tournament where golfers with almost exactly the same 950 rating shoot almost exactly the same score in Open, Pro Masters, Pro Grandmasters, Advanced Masters &amp; Advanced, and: <ul type="square"> the Open and Pro Masters guys don't cash and win nothing the Grandmaster takes 1st place $$ the Advanced Master takes home a stack of discs and t-shirts the Advanced guy take home a polehole! [/list]

They are ALL 950-rated golfers! Why wouldn't they ALL play against ALL other 925-975 rated golfers at that tournament?!? (And 975+ guys would play against each other, and 875-924 would play against each other, and 874 and below would play against each other)

you're ^making^ WAAAY too much sense! :D

It's called serving members desires which is the most important statistic. The PDGA doesn't have the luxury to exist in a theoretical world where idealized concepts (and people) might flourish.




This is a fundamental difference between our two viewpoints. I feel that the BoD has much more responsibility for the sport, not pleasing the membership. A large group of people without leadership is a mob. Mob rule rarely produces anything of lasting value.

i don't usually post my opinions too much, but on this particular topic your post sums it up quite well

This is a fundamental difference between our two viewpoints. I feel that the BoD has much more responsibility for the sport, not pleasing the membership.



If there was enough money in the sport like lucrative TV contracts, then a governing body has more power to dictate. In the absence of that, you cater to the members. An example of this philosophical conflict is what happened to the NT. It was originally intended to showcase only the Open Men and Women's divisions. Pressure from TDs (and players thru them) soon forced the addition of age based divisions. With enough added cash, the fields might have filled without the need for the older divisions (and Ams concurrently at another venue) to get a decent sized field.

They wouldn't cry bloody murder, they just wouldn't participate.

The tournament is more than just competing against same rated players; it�s also about competing against those in similar situations, and those with similar physical limitations. As a Masters player, I'd rather compete against other 'over 40s' than against up and coming young players who out drive me by 100 feet. As I get older, I'd rather play against 'over 50s' and 'over 60s' as opposed to moving down the rating scale and playing with younger and younger players (Int., rec. youth, eventually youth under 16?).

Along the lines of rating only, are you also recommending the elimination of women's divisions? Youth? It may make sense from some angles, but for those whose main 'payback' is the camaraderie of the event, it results in the event no longer looking like an intelligent purchasing decision. You'll lose a good percentage of the 'protected division' participants (women, youth or old men/women).

Women and Youth divisions should be kept

and not all age protected divisions should be done away with, but we don't need a different division for every decade of age difference over 40 (possible recommendation of 50-65 and 65+ only) - too many divisions looks foolish to those outside of our sport

whats the difference between a 40 year old 1000 rated player and a 39 year old 1000 rated player? or for that matter, any 1000 rated player?

i can see wanting to play against others that are you age, but it just seems that there should be a limit - something is seriously wrong when we have less than 10 people in a division at most tournaments

using less age protected divisions, would then increase the size of the divisions, which as others have mentioned, would get more outside sponsorship chances

and i know this has been debated up and down, but to me personally, its foolish to see 1000+ rated players playing in an age protected division (unless its worlds or some major championship) - to me, those players are in the upper echelon of players and should compete against them instead of hiding behind their age

When rating breaks for Am divisions were first introduced a few years ago, the plan rolled out with one Am division for men over age 39 (except at Worlds). A block of players over age 50 in Florida persuaded the PDGA to change back to have an Advanced GM division. (Don't mess with the AARP)

jeff, thats one good approach. if it works it should be used. all approaches that work should be used. as long as the setup is announced in advance to avoid confusion, players who prefer one type or another could tune their schedules accordingly.

This is probably one that I am not best informed on to post on but I do feel that there should be at least a couple age restricted divisions. I am almost 30 so I am kind of at that funny age where I can still relate to younger people but would prefer to play with a 40 year old than a 20 year old on most days. I truly enjoy playing with players my age and older for a couple of reasons one as a relatively new player they seem more willing to give good helpful advice and also most seem to really enjoy playing the game and even though competitive and still wanting to do well most don't get angry as quickly and this makes the rounds more enjoyable. So I understand the wanting to play in protected divisions with people their own age, but I do understand the wanting to narrow down the divisions and could see maybe moving masters from 40-55 and having a seperate division for everyone after that or something. There has been a lot of discusion about 1000 rated pro players playing in protected divisions but at least where I live the players like Dr. Voakes and Dave Greenwell almost always play Open except at Worlds, and most other players rated around there play open in everything but maybe A-tiers and higher. Just my opinions and feelings but I do see all sides to the debates and they all have very valid and reasonable points so hopefully this can be worked out to make everyone happy.

Perhaps its just here in Wisconsin, but we don't see 1000 rated Masters around here. Just to take a look, I checked out our Manitowoc tournament (July 2006) and found 19 Masters entered, one rated in the 990s (from Illinois), and 12 of the 19 rated below 950. It may be a bigger problem in the NT events, but our state tournaments don't show a large number of Masters who should play open. I'd wager that a good majority wouldn't move to Open if you eliminated the division. If you did, you would either end up creating more Ams or end up with less players.

If you are looking at the Masters as a way to boost Open payouts and field size, IMO you are looking at the wrong place. It ain't gonna happen.

Please, do not mess with the age protected divisions...again. 0-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60-69, 70+ is just fine. The older ya get the fewer players there may be...and playing up by competing with the younger group(s) is just fine.

The decision we need to make is what as the PDGA we wish to promote. If we wish to simply facilitate growth of the player base, exposure of DG to the general public, and a more substantial integration of DG into public infrastructure - then we should be dedicating our resources towards those ends. Currently, a more substantial portion of our resources are focused on providing competitive venues for our members.

If it's competition that is our focus, then we should have a system based on skill - period. It makes no sense to have 90 players on a course, with three seperate mens divisions all basically shooting within the same scoring range. (Yes I am talking about Open, Masters, ans Advanced Men).

Let's not cop out and hide behind the notion of "pleasing the membership" - for that is a crock. When you lead by example - and your example benefits your overall goals - people will follow. When your example is full of inconsistencies and does not achieve your desired goals - it's time to change your approach (whiny little wannabee 1st place or I won't play "competitors" be dammmmed).

BTW thats MPG and what's so funny? :D

My suspicion (once again, since it is never stated anywhere....a topic for another three threads) is that a majority of free thinking BoD members have realized over the last decade that our system is basically lacking, but they realized that the required changes would pizz many people off. Couple that with the fact that there are seductive statistical arguments to support the status quo, and that most pros who really understand and care are few and far between, and the status quo is easy to maintain. Meanwhile, our system not surprisingly keeps inflating the middle and bottom of the bell curve, while churning out the top end: a very unhealthy situation for a competitive sport.



I have the same suspicions too, especially with regard to age-based divisions. These were orginally broken out a long, long time ago based on skill. Back in The Olden Days when there was just two divisions, Open and Non-open (which was basically newbies) a masters division was created for those older players who still had skills way beyond novice players but weren't still competitive in the Open division. Without player ratings, that was the one of the only ways (and apparently, the best way) to separate ability.

Now that we have player ratings it is abundantly clear how inappropriate that method is, but having since become weaned on their protected status, no PDGA divisional change would ever be enacted that would eliminate age-based divisions. They would cry bloody murder. Since no organization would take measures that might bite the hand that feeds them, we end up stuck with this archaic competitive system.

I shake my head at every tournament where golfers with almost exactly the same 950 rating shoot almost exactly the same score in Open, Pro Masters, Pro Grandmasters, Advanced Masters & Advanced, and: <ul type="square"> the Open and Pro Masters guys don't cash and win nothing the Grandmaster takes 1st place $$ the Advanced Master takes home a stack of discs and t-shirts the Advanced guy take home a polehole! [/list]

They are ALL 950-rated golfers! Why wouldn't they ALL play against ALL other 925-975 rated golfers at that tournament?!? (And 975+ guys would play against each other, and 875-924 would play against each other, and 874 and below would play against each other)



What Jeff said.

The decision we need to make is what as the PDGA we wish to promote. If we wish to simply facilitate growth of the player base, exposure of DG to the general public, and a more substantial integration of DG into public infrastructure - then we should be dedicating our resources towards those ends. Currently, a more substantial portion of our resources are focused on providing competitive venues for our members.

If it's competition that is our focus, then we should have a system based on skill - period. It makes no sense to have 90 players on a course, with three seperate mens divisions all basically shooting within the same scoring range. (Yes I am talking about Open, Masters, ans Advanced Men).

Let's not cop out and hide behind the notion of "pleasing the membership" - for that is a crock. When you lead by example - and your example benefits your overall goals - people will follow. When your example is full of inconsistencies and does not achieve your desired goals - it's time to change your approach (whiny little wannabee 1st place or I won't play "competitors" be dammmmed).



What Craig said.

craig, the courses of action you describe are certainly appropriate for the different objectives. are you suggesting that a single organization cannot/shouldnot work towards both goals?

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My suspicion (once again, since it is never stated anywhere....a topic for another three threads) is that a majority of free thinking BoD members have realized over the last decade that our system is basically lacking, but they realized that the required changes would pizz many people off. Couple that with the fact that there are seductive statistical arguments to support the status quo, and that most pros who really understand and care are few and far between, and the status quo is easy to maintain. Meanwhile, our system not surprisingly keeps inflating the middle and bottom of the bell curve, while churning out the top end: a very unhealthy situation for a competitive sport.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I have the same suspicions too, especially with regard to age-based divisions. These were orginally broken out a long, long time ago based on skill. Back in The Olden Days when there was just two divisions, Open and Non-open (which was basically newbies) a masters division was created for those older players who still had skills way beyond novice players but weren't still competitive in the Open division. Without player ratings, that was the one of the only ways (and apparently, the best way) to separate ability.

Now that we have player ratings it is abundantly clear how inappropriate that method is, but having since become weaned on their protected status, no PDGA divisional change would ever be enacted that would eliminate age-based divisions. They would cry bloody murder. Since no organization would take measures that might bite the hand that feeds them, we end up stuck with this archaic competitive system.

I shake my head at every tournament where golfers with almost exactly the same 950 rating shoot almost exactly the same score in Open, Pro Masters, Pro Grandmasters, Advanced Masters & Advanced, and:
the Open and Pro Masters guys don't cash and win nothing
the Grandmaster takes 1st place $$
the Advanced Master takes home a stack of discs and t-shirts
the Advanced guy take home a polehole!


They are ALL 950-rated golfers! Why wouldn't they ALL play against ALL other 925-975 rated golfers at that tournament?!? (And 975+ guys would play against each other, and 875-924 would play against each other, and 874 and below would play against each other)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What Jeff said.

DITTO

While one of the few who wants an Am side (albeit with much smaller financial stake than the current Am side) to continue for those 950+ players who don't want to play Open, I also agree with Jeff.

Now that we have player ratings it is abundantly clear how inappropriate that method is



So, I'll follow you down this road to its logical end. You are advocating no age-based divisions. None, whatsoever, just ratings-based. There is never a point where it makes sense to have divisions based on age, you say. The 55 year old with declining skills (900) gets to, I mean has to, play with the intermediates. As one gets older, they can look forward to playing in the rec division to teach the youngsters the rules.

Maybe this is a good idea, but paraphrasing Mr. Keiffer from upthread "If you are looking at eliminating age-protections as a way to boost Open payouts and field size, you are looking at the wrong place." I'd also add the corollary that if you are looking to increase participation by older people in general (at whatever division they would play), then you'll be disappointed.

Besides ignoring more fundamental problems with our system, I doubt this measure would improve the health much at all.

The 55 year old with declining skills (900) gets to, I mean has to, play with the intermediates. As one gets older, they can look forward to playing in the rec division to teach the youngsters the rules.



As has always been the case, the 55 year old with declining skills (900) can play UP a division or divisions all they want to. If they feel that the 900 division has too many intermediates or youngsters for their liking, they can play in the next division up or two divisions up.

Even though I think it's silly in the first place. That it's such an imposition for older golfers to have to play with someone much younger than them; oh the horror! Even though according to their ratings, they score almost EXACTLY the same as thier younger counterparts. What a traumatic that experience that would be, to have to play disc golf along side with a golfer with EXACTLY the same ability as you, but 20 years younger!

I dont mind age protected divisions but there should be a cap for them . ON top of that at a PDGA event based upon the level you could cap that too

I have listed this idea before and will again .

At a PDGA C tier event ( keep in mind this tourney would have a VERY LOW ENTRY FEE and a very flat payout especially for the pro players , A low entry fee to the point the pro entry fee might be LOWER then the AM entry fee )
This tourney would also have very little if any ADDED CASH . If there is added cash it should go to all competitors via meals , or deals .

ALL players with a 955 rating or more play open
Below 955 rating you can choose ADV or MASTER PRO
Below 915 the standards that exist at this time apply

AT PDGA B tier events

All players above 975 would have to play OPEN
All players 935 to 975 would choose Pro Masters or Adv
935 would be a cut off for advanced masters , Grand Masters .
ALL players 915 and lower have current rules apply

ADDED cash should be alot at these tourneys and should GO to the TOP players ONLY

A tiers and above
ALL 1000 rated players must play OPEN
ALL 950 to 999 rated players could choose PRO Masters if they fit the age requirements
All 935 to 974 could be Grand Masters , Senior Grand Masters , OR ADVANCED .

ADDED Cash would be Divided between the divisions ( due to the age groups )

The numbers ( player rating cut offs ) are just my estimations and do not have to be taken verbatim but they are a starting point of where to make FAIR FOR EVERYONE and also IMPO MAKE PEOPLE PLAY WHERE THEY BELONG .
I also beleive this idea would make the C tier events the most attended but NOT the best players attended while the A tiers would be the PREMIER EVENTS with the BEST PLAYERS .

AS far as Women and Jrs
Jrs should have protection but should also be ratings based cutoffs ( IF a jr is good enough to play in ADVANCED or even OPEN divisions they should )
Women divisions need protection from MEN but could be based upon same idea above .

If you're 55 and playing around 900, it's more like 30 to 40 years difference, not 20.

There is no 'horror' in playing with younger players. I enjoy tournaments that mix the first round. But I'm not looking for a steady diet of it, and I would have much less incentive to travel to multiple tournaments each year. One of the best values of a tournament for me is the opportunity to meet old friends, enjoy a couple of rounds together and see how you stack up to the rest of the 'geezers'. Some of this would be lost if it was ratings only, and some players (or the number of events a given player attends) would be lost with it.

Not saying ratings based events don't have a place or that I would not attend a ratings based event. But I'm less likely to spend a day or two away from home without the payback of getting to enjoy a day of disc golf with old friends. It's hard enough to justify leaving the family for a tournament as it is. If you take away a good portion of what I consider value for the resources spent (time, money), then staying home with the family starts looking like a much better choice. That or just having low key 'Masters and over' gatherings.

The 55 year old with declining skills (900) gets to, I mean has to, play with the intermediates. As one gets older, they can look forward to playing in the rec division to teach the youngsters the rules.



As has always been the case, the 55 year old with declining skills (900) can play UP a division or divisions all they want to. If they feel that the 900 division has too many intermediates or youngsters for their liking, they can play in the next division up or two divisions up.

Even though I think it's silly in the first place. That it's such an imposition for older golfers to have to play with someone much younger than them; oh the horror! Even though according to their ratings, they score almost EXACTLY the same as thier younger counterparts. What a traumatic that experience that would be, to have to play disc golf along side with a golfer with EXACTLY the same ability as you, but 20 years younger!



What Jeff said. That's twice today I've been 100% in agreement with him. I'm going to have to log off for the rest of the day.

There is no 'horror' in playing with younger players. I enjoy tournaments that mix the first round. But I'm not looking for a steady diet of it, and I would have much less incentive to travel to multiple tournaments each year. One of the best values of a tournament for me is the opportunity to meet old friends, enjoy a couple of rounds together and see how you stack up to the rest of the 'geezers'.


Agreed. Also, when one is approaching a shift in age/division group...and then to have it taken away...well it just sux. Happened to me at 35 when master's age was bumped to 40 giving me just one year of masters play. I chose NOT to join the PDGA as, albeit, a selfish & regretful retaliation.

ON a side note
I dont mind straight ratings based events that pits all players of like abilities on the same turf .
That last blurb was just for those who would want to keep some sorta age protection .
Age protection should be more for protecting those who cant play as well as the best then a group of players who CAN do as well who just want to WIN .

Having been involved with strategizing ratings based division possibilities more than anyone, there are certain infrastructure considerations that have to be dealt with for any viable ratings based competition system to work. Let's set aside the known issue of players wanting to play with those of their own age and gender. Let's set aside the fact that more potential winners (more divisions) means happier members. Here's another large stumbling block to pure ratings based play - traditional series and awards.

All over the country there are annual series, events and courses that have traveling trophies for the Open, Master, Women and Advanced winners and sometimes even more divisions. Even without traveling trophies, series competitions offer prizes in many more divisions based on earning points in some fashion in qualifying events.

So, any viable plan for ramping up ratings based events has to figure out how to persuade clubs and TDs to run a parallel series of ratings based events with new awards. Or, you must figure out how to recast ratings events results to produce points for traditional series divisions. That becomes impossible if different ratings divisions play different course layouts and say some Advanced Masters or Women are scattered among divisions.

Another challenge is dealing with Am Worlds. If you have weekly competitions with integrated ratings divisions where some players/divisions earn prizes and/or cash, who can play in Am Worlds, in what divisions, and what's your justification for that plan? Mid-Nationals can provide part of the solution but you've already seen that type of competition derided on another thread as somehow second class (mediocre). We already have hosts selected for Am Worlds out thru 2011. Will those plans need to be disrupted, and if so, what's the transition plan?

Those are some valid concerns but no showstoppers that couldn't be worked around if the PDGA decided to. But the status quo and the fear of change will never allow for it, no matter how persuasive the argument may be that it's the "right" thing to do. They've been weaned on it for far too long.

We already have hosts selected for Am Worlds out thru 2011.


What are the host cities through 2011?

2008 Kalamazoo (along with pros)
2009 (not sure if this is confirmed)
2010 Mid-Ohio (several small towns north of Columbus)
2011 Rochester, NY

Those are some valid concerns but no showstoppers that couldn't be worked around if the PDGA decided to. But the status quo and the fear of change will never allow for it, no matter how persuasive the argument may be that it's the "right" thing to do.


Or, alternatively, it is not all that persuasive of an argument, and that is why it won't be adopted.

The whole premise behind ratings based events is lacking: either the ratings ranges are small enough to include relatively "equal" players, and we end up with multitudes of divisions, or the ranges are larger and people near the top dominate, and people near the bottom get disinterested.

A much better aproach imo is twofold: acknowledge that our incentives are wrong, and finally setup a true am/pro distinction, or a not for profit/ profit distinction, or a non gambling/gambling distinction, whatever term people want to use; and after acknowledging that we have a pro/playing for profit/gambling class, we abandon our third rate gambling structure, and devise one that is more attractive to a greater number of players.

The whole premise behind ratings based events is lacking: either the ratings ranges are small enough to include relatively "equal" players, and we end up with multitudes of divisions, or the ranges are larger and people near the top dominate, and people near the bottom get disinterested

Wait
You mean we dont have too many divisions now , and we dont have people in divisions being dominated and not liking it .
That is exactly what we have now
The ratings might do the same thing BUT AT LEAST the people who were winning would be winning against like players .
UNLIKE now when a PRO MASTER can have a player rating of 1000 and playing against Hawk Gammons who has a player rating of 920
COME ON RATINGS are much more fair and that is all I would want to ask for .

A much better aproach imo is twofold: acknowledge that our incentives are wrong, and finally setup a true am/pro distinction, or a not for profit/ profit distinction, or a non gambling/gambling distinction, whatever term people want to use; and after acknowledging that we have a pro/playing for profit/gambling class, we abandon our third rate gambling structure, and devise one that is more attractive to a greater number of players.

I admit I will buy this idea but where do you go and how do you go about it .

The idea of using ratings at least allows TDs to operate in a system they can be familiar with .
You have to remember it is not just Greedy players who want the system to stay the same but also TDs and clubs and manufactures who make a profit too

craig, the courses of action you describe are certainly appropriate for the different objectives. are you suggesting that a single organization cannot/shouldnot work towards both goals?



Pat,
What I'm suggesting is that it is overly apparent that the existing organization is unwilling to work towards both goals. Chuck's opinions appear to be prevalent in the current BOD (let's be fair - it's been prevalent for the last decade) - don't step on toes, don't lead, don't use the best - most objective tools available to us (which ironically he helped to develop), don't even think about upsetting the status quo.

You know what - that's perfectly all fine and good - but at least lets be honest about it. Don't put up this BS front about promoting honest competition while complaining in the next breath we don't have the means to attract sponsors to support a real tour. The existing divisional structure has nothing to do with honest and true competition, and everything to do with coddling the middle of the pack for fear of them finding another hobby. This is what I mean when I say we need to make a choice - and there's no reason why we can't do both - we just choose not to. It's really rather sad.

If we chose to take the exposure route - we would use player fees and any funds generated by sanctioned events to fund the EDGE program, have full time promoters selling courses to municipalities around the country, eliminate all but a single PDGA World Championship,and establish a teaching environment for everthing from schools to summer camps where pros could actually make a living by spreading the game.
Events would become whatever the TD's want to make them (hopefully they'd all end up like MSDGC or USDGC) - and the meaningless point system would go by the wayside (as it deserves to). The only events that would survive would be the ones that deserve to - instead of 16000 events where people never travel more than 2 hrs to play.

If we chose the competitive route, we change the tier structure so that the difficulty of the course would dictate the level of sanctioning (no more A Tiers on sub 50 SSA courses), alter the entry fee structure to mirror skill level by rating, and minimize divisions instead of maximizing them in already limited field sizes. Upper level sanctioning would allow for qualified players, while lower tiers would promote alternative formats instead of endlessly repetitive singles tournaments. Oh but what am I thinking, we could never do that - someone might get offended, or the old guy might not get paid enough for shooting a mediocre score, or god forbid - they might just quit alltogether. Well guess what - it happens everyday. The fact is - is that there are more 1000+ rated players (it's quantifiable now - but it didn't used to be) than ever before. Exposure & technology has driven skill level through the roof - and there are more and more people willing to put in the time to make their game better and better. The current attempt by our "player organization" to promote competition flies in the face of these new superstars. It belittles them and makes them second class citizens while we celebrate the mediocrity of "Major Tournaments" like Chuck's Mid Nationals.
As I said above - if that's what we want to do and be - at least lets be honest about it.

UNLIKE now when a PRO MASTER can have a player rating of 1000 and playing against Hawk Gammons who has a player rating of 920




I got those eight strokes no problem.

I got those eight strokes no problem.

With that avatar I dont disagree with you .

And besides you cant beat me with a 944 rating how are you going to get the 1000 rated golfer . ? ........ HUMMMMMMM ?????? :o:p

...like Peter Frampton's stunt double, or a guy who just missed the cut for being in Foreigner. You try making a 25'er while looking at that while those songs play in your head.

My avatar supports the PDGA as I spotlight various members. (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=23625)

By the way I was not busting on the avatar .
I did not want it to come off that way
I was busting on you busting over that avatar . Hope that clears it up .
Do you feel what I feel ???
:D

Do you feel what I feel ???




I'd answer that, but I don't want to put your wife in an awkward position.

Do you feel what I feel ???




I'd answer that, but I don't want to put your wife in an awkward position.


If she wasn't in that awkward position, you wouldn't have felt it :eek: :D

Looks like we have our first 1000 rated player (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.php?offset=0&division=M1O&order=rating) taking amnesty. :)

Looks like we have our first 1000 rated player (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.php?offset=0&amp;division=M1O&amp;order=rat ing) taking amnesty. :)



He will cash in Pro Masters at the very first tournament he plays in. So all that did was save him $15 for this year only.

Looks like we have our first 1000 rated player (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.php?offset=0&division=M1O&order=rating) taking amnesty. :)



:D:D:D :D

that's 2 meals at denny's for LL. :D

Looks like we have our first 1000 rated player (http://www.pdga.com/player_ratings.php?offset=0&division=M1O&order=rating) taking amnesty. :)



Don't exactly blame LL.

I asked him about it and he said he fully intended to sign up for Pro. The guy at the PDGA told him it was foolish to do so, so LL did am.

I just thought that he did not have enough allowance money :D

i can't wait to see him crush those baggers in the am worlds this year!!! :eek:

he could play both worlds this year without leaving wisconsin :D

Thats pretty smart, I may do the same thing....

Thats pretty smart, I may do the same thing....



had to do it by Dec 31.

On a side note, I'm now the highest rated PROFESSIONAL Leonard in NC

On a side note, I'm now the highest rated PROFESSIONAL Leonard in NC



What a relevant statistic there, MTL. ;)

FYI, I'm the highest rated LaGrassa on the planet! :D

Will there be a list of players who chose to declare amsisty?



Probably not, but the following was printed in Communications Director Steve Dodge's PDGA Member E-News:


Amnesty Program Results. 142 members took advantage of the PDGA's Pro to Am amnesty program. 100 had ratings of 955 and below. 9 had no ratings. 33 had ratings above 955. We are happy to have all of them back for 2007! Current pros wishing to reclassify as Ams may still do so through a written request to HQ.