it also has our password on it again this year -- anyone else think that's a bad idea? :confused:


Not the best idea, for sure... but... you *did* change your password, right? ;)

If you're talking about Heineken, Amstel, Bavaria, or Grolsch, you've proved my point. Although at least Grolsch has cool bottles. Saying that Heineken is better in Holland is like saying Budweiser is better in South St. Louis. It may be true, but it doesn't make it good beer.




Budweiser in St. Louis is esentially the same as Budweiser in Boston or Los Angeles, and they all taste like crap.

Heineken & Amstel use completely different recipes for the stuff they export. The beer made for consumption in Holland really does taste like world class beer.

Ask anyone and they'll say the same thing about Becks & St. Pauli Girl. The beer exported to the United States is totally different (and much worse) from that available in Germany. You probably don't believe it until you go there yourself and try it, but trust me on this one.

Thread drift off. Sorry. :cool:

and Dos Equis in Mexico doesnt taste the same as it does here,tasted a lot better over there but I was pretty wasted. :D

same with molson canadian in canada

Becks was better in Bremen but maybe it was because we were drinking it by the liter.

it also has our password on it again this year -- anyone else think that's a bad idea? :confused:


Not the best idea, for sure... but... you *did* change your password, right? ;)



sure i did but it doesn't matter! :eek:

log out and then log back in using your pdga # and the password on your PDGA card and -- voila -- your logged back in :o

evidently the password on your card is some kind of skeleton key. i gues you could cut it out of your card though with a knife :mad:

it also has our password on it again this year -- anyone else think that's a bad idea? :confused:


Not the best idea, for sure... but... you *did* change your password, right? ;)



Just guessing, but I'm thinking it's on there so you (and thousands of others) aren't constantly calling the office to find out what it is :)

My employer association has weekly email newsletter. We put each member's password at the top of each week's issue to remind them - a little more private than an ID card you have to show to people.

Maybe Steve Dodge could figure out a way to do that with PDGA Member News?

It's complicated enough that no one reading the card who had been drinking or smoking would remember it. :eek:

It's complicated enough that no one reading the card who had been drinking or smoking would remember it. :eek:



:Dso in other words noone in the PDGA will be able to remember it? :eek: :D

goodness, let's ban transfats too ... maybe performance enhancing sugar ... I say water and a crust of bread. No, wait, the carbs would convert to sugars ... ok, just water allowed on the course.



Um, I believe that the topic was at that time on the public's perception of the sport of disc golf. Public consumption of trans fats by disc golfers is not ordinarily very visible to the public during play, nor is it something associated with weakness and illness, as tobacco smoking most definitely is.

I am not concerned about any performance enhancement and I personally am very sad about my friends who are killing themselves with tobacco. My first wife's mother died young of lung cancer and her father died young of throat cancer.

I've never had a problem with people smoking on my card and I would not want to keep people from smoking most of the time other than with intelligent persuasion.

However, it's hard to portray a sport as both athletically and competitively serious when the public gets to see players smoking during sanctioned play.

Note regarding what's legal in parks: Underage smoking is not. A youngster smoking tobacco is violating the law just like a pot smoker is. I do see that a lot and would like to see it start getting called - after some advance warning that it's going to start happening.

Wha???

What we DON'T KNOW, is major sports personal are smoking at thier liesure....pipes, cigars. cigs....etc. When we see them thay are NOT.........yet performing and winning against thier competition.

What we do know....is Michael Jordon smoked cigars......like a fish in water. .....yet his ability on the court was majestic !

YOU DO OR YOU DON'T.......doesn't determine the champion....it's the last putt....at the end of the game that does.

All else, is meaningless!

Dlo

Recently I saw John Daly, smoking a cig after his drive and walking down the fairway to his ball, all the while on National TV. This during the finals against Tiger Woods. The commentators did NOT deride him, or comment about this at all or become negative at all. Daly, in the end did miss his putt to push the playoff. Those who don't smoke.........would say that's why.............those who smoke........didn't care why!

It wasn't long ago you could see professional ball golfer's all having a smoke on the playing field while playing.

So, what's going on? Bartender's should all be dying at a higher ratio today than any other population or occupation....but they are not. The largest age population in the US is now over 80 years old......to remind everyone .........they than lived when cigs were smoked on the bus, train, airplane, elevator, in the office and in every restaurant and bar they visited. Now these folks are over 80 and as I said the largest group of people alive.

Ok, sorry for the side track. My point would be NO liberty or legally allowed activity that is allowed during a sanctioned event will satisfy everyone. (John McEnroe - syndrome)

What is allowed will certainly "aggrevate" someone ALL the time! Simply, there is NO ADVANTAGE or disadvantage when doing what is allowed !

But, someone will get a petition and "chip" away at those things that only make THEIR game perfect. That my friends is not courtesy, but one persons idea of competition in order to perfect thier game. Courtesy on the other hand is the rule on the field of play. Cigs & Alcahol are not even in the same league, since after 5 cigs an hour a person can still drive their car ! Ha.

What's next? Passing gas, blowing your nose too much, contacts vs eye glasses being cleaned too much? If the personally allowed habits of any competitive player effects your play............do we change the rules??? Don't take it personally, your habits........and you have them.............bug the crap out of other's too! We all have something we do, wear, smell, shave, hat, shoes, bag, disc's, .....something that if we focus on about other's or personalize can take us OFF our game! While I'm at it.....is having a steroid in my gateraid ok, as long as you don't smell it ?

Simply as gentlemen and woman we are to be courteous to our fellow players on the field, that all different diversified competitors can join together on the field of play we ALL have a love and passion for without pre-concieved ideas of our fellow competitors on the field. Neither can we ever underestimate them !

Get mentally tough.....don't make YOUR game personal by convincing YOUR SELF.....that the other person is purposely attempting to disrupt your game! That is the wrong road to travel during a competitive event.

If your there to go through the course in the most economical and least shots...................nobody can stop you, becoming or unleashing the disc golf animal you are.....to being the best player on the field that day!!

All else.........meaningless !


Dlo



PS. I sincerely voice my opinion here with all sincere respect for all

I love you all, guys, but addicts find reasons to avoid statistical facts.

Smoking tobacco kills people. People who smoke are addicted. I feel sorry for my friends and relatives who smoke. If I were religious, I'd pray for you.

No matter how many athletes you can point to who smoke, medical and sports scientists will uniformly tell you that smoking reduces your aerobic capacity and endurance, and that it shortens your life.

Exceptions don't make that a fact; dead smokers do.

But that's not the point. We're talking about public perception of the sport of disc golf. Stoners and drinkers who abuse their drugs during play make disc golf look bad; so do smokers who abuse that drug during play.

"it's the last putt....at the end of the game that does. All else, is meaningless!"

When you miss that putt because your blood oxygen is low and you're huffing and puffing, or just more tired than you otherwise would be, be sure to tell yourself it has nothing to do with the cigarettes you smoked during the round.

And when your buddies are playing in the Legends division (70+) they might remember you once in a while.

This is a diversion. I hope I can make these my last words on the subject.

Maybe Steve Dodge could figure out a way to do that with PDGA Member News?



We could do something like this. And actually a long term project is to get more data into the email list so that the email newsletter can be regionalized if folks would prefer that. They could still opt to get the national version too. But this is a good year away. I've still got to convince the rest of the BoD that ALL my ideas are great.

If I were religious, I'd pray for you. ... I hope I can make these my last words on the subject.



Amen.

All do "gooder's" always are looking out for the other guy!

There should be a law that "do gooder's" who look out for the other guy by stripping them of thier personal liberties be locked up!

Pray for me????? Pray for yourself first, as you say.....if you were a religious man........all do gooder's pray for other's already!


As all do gooder's have the same thing in common to one another and that is they ................... "choke on a nat, while swallowing a camel." !


Dlo

we need to get a folder for the "ask the board" stuff, then break out seperate threads by topic. there's some good stuff in this thread, but the topics change, making it more difficult to review and use. thread drift will occur on any thread, but itseasier to dig thru in single topic threads.

whacha think?

As all do gooder's have the same thing in common to one another and that is they ................... "choke on a nat, while swallowing a camel." !



I'm guessing you are a smoker and feeling defensive, so you are reading into my posts something that is not there. Read them again.

I have not advocated any imposition on smokers - not a single one - except for during the 3 hours or so of a PDGA sanctioned competition. And I did not suggest even that for "the good" of the smokers, but for the good of disc golf and the public's perception of it.

To help smokers break their suicidal and expensive addiction I have suggested only persuasion and education.

As for your blanket statement about "do-gooders," fit this story into that: Yesterday I was taking a break in Dupont Circle (Washington, DC) with a friend of mine who is a smoker - a great guy from Houston. I often join him on his "fresh air" breaks when we're in meetings together.

A middle-aged guy walks up, looking stressed, with a handful of coins, and asks us "Is there a pay phone anywhere near here? I can't find one."

I said, "There aren't many anymore since most people have cell phones." He said, "I'm late for an important meeting somewhere close to here and I don't know the address!"

I whipped out my phone, dialed his number, and let him make the call on my phone.

I did good. I was a "do-gooder." Where is the "choking on a nat (sic), while swallowing a camel" in that story, eh?

On the TD report, there was a field for asking if the 2m rule was in effect. What were the results of that survey for 2006?

That 2m item on the report wasn't set up as a survey element but more as background info in the event a rules issue came up. I don't believe the 2m info is captured in the automated import process that's been set up for other items on that page such as course layouts and lengths.

Bummer. If I was more of a Windows hacker, I'd be interested in stripping out that field from the excel sheets and running the stats.

mike, i've asked David Gentry, our Tour Manager, if he had an estimate of the ratio. i'll let ya know what he says.

pat

mike, i've asked David Gentry, our Tour Manager, if he had an estimate of the ratio. i'll let ya know what he says.

pat



i have a request: since the TD reports ask you to categorize the event into one of 3 categories, please do not lump events that utilized the 2 meter rule on some holes with events that used the 2 meter rule on all holes. that would make the use of the 2 meter rule seem more widespread than it really is. the best way would be to show a breakdown of how many events:

did not use the 2 meter rule
used the 2 meter rule on some holes
used the 2 meter rule on all holes

it would be even cooler to see a breakdown by region, but that is probably asking a bit much :D

With the way the 2m rule was resolved, a survey tally is more of a curiosity than anything else. Since the 2m rule is now a design choice, asking whether a TD or designer believes in using the 2m rule is similar to asking whether they believe in using OB or mandos.

^great point^ Chuck

All do "gooder's" always are looking out for the other guy!

There should be a law that "do gooder's" who look out for the other guy by stripping them of thier personal liberties be locked up!

Pray for me????? Pray for yourself first, as you say.....if you were a religious man........all do gooder's pray for other's already!


As all do gooder's have the same thing in common to one another and that is they ................... "choke on a nat, while swallowing a camel." !


Dlo



It's actually a little more complicated. One of the largest causes of lung disease in non-smokers is... proximity to smokers.

I'm a whole lot less worried about our image than others are (while I'm not big on the bad boy image or the clean cut image for that matter, I realize that like in other sports, people will overlook your short-comings if there is money to be made). However, I don't particularly like the exposure and I certainly don't like my kids being exposed (yes, I take my kids with me as often as I can). You want to kill yourself, that's fine, but there's a reason why cities and states are making it illegal to smoke in public, it causes some really bad things to happen that I should not have forced on me so that a smoker can have his "freedom."

agreed its a good point. asking the designer is more of a curiousity than anything else as well. its not a bad idea to take the pulse of how many events used it. it's prolly not worth doing a hole by hole analysis, but to grab a quick birdseye view may be informative for now.

We've been doing without the 2m rule for 2 years now and like I guessed, it hasn't made any difference that I can tell. Of course, we don't have as many sticky trees as I've seen in other areas. On the holes where it might be advantageous to crash in from above, the trees we have guarding the pins don't usually grab and hold on to the discs.

Have a fire threat sign near hole 1. Only have "High" and "Extremely High" signs for it, so smokers know that it's more of a park ordinance for safety.

Then again, those signs would be stolen before you finish the front 9....

On the TD report, there was a field for asking if the 2m rule was in effect. What were the results of that survey for 2006?

David reports a slight majority using "no 2MR" than, but that it is not lopsided at all... running between 50-60% in 2006.

hope that helps.

David reports a slight majority using "no 2MR" than, but that it is not lopsided at all... running between 50-60% in 2006.



Similar to every survey of the membership for the past decade or so, which ran between 50:50 and 60:40 or 40:60.

I'm guessing you are a smoker and feeling defensive, so you are reading into my posts something that is not there. Read them again.


Terry, I consider you a friend so I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but everytime we go through this charade of trying to address pot smoking on the dsc golf course and the image problems it creates, you always sidetrack it towards cigarettes, which makes me guess (from your posts) that you are a pot smoker who is feeling defensive! :eek:

All kinds of people smoke ciggies. But I don't ever hear casual non-disc goflers who have only ever barely head of "frisbee golf" say "Oh, it's those guys who hang out in the park and smoke cigarettes all day."

On the TD report, there was a field for asking if the 2m rule was in effect. What were the results of that survey for 2006?

David reports a slight majority using "no 2MR" than, but that it is not lopsided at all... running between 50-60% in 2006.

hope that helps.



Pat -- the TD Report asks for one of three options:


2 meter rule not used
2 meter rule used on SOME holes
2 meter used for the whole event

Could you please ask David what the breakdown was for each category rather than combining 2 categories into one against the other? Probably 75% or more did not use the 2 meter rule for all holes (aka: the whole event). ;)

here here. what exactly does cigarette smoking have to do with our image? i have a feeling that rhett is on to something here.

maybe our BOD and employees are the ones who should be drug tested regularly....

here here. what exactly does cigarette smoking have to do with our image? i have a feeling that rhett is on to something here.

maybe our BOD and employees are the ones who should be drug tested regularly....



I don't think it came up as an image issue. Chap, tounge in cheek, mentioned that nicotine is a drug and is a performance enhancing drug thus giving smokers an advantage.

Personally, I think all drugs should be allowed during rounds. In fact, I support enforced drug use by all the guys in my division with the exception of myself. I might actually win something that way...

As for the BoD using drugs, obviously true, why else would they essentially volunteer for a thankless, abusive, non-paying position. They have to be high...

But I don't ever hear casual non-disc golfers who have only ever barely head of "frisbee golf" say "Oh, it's those guys who hang out in the park and smoke cigarettes all day."



Thanks, Rhett. Go ahead and throw the handful of malevolent chimps on here a bone to hit me with. :D

I don't abuse anything - except words :cool:- my disgust for tobacco smoking is intense and personal, and began in childhood.

I think we've spoken about this before and you should already know that I do not per se defend people who smoke pot (Remember, I stop them and don't permit it when I know of it.) so much as I object to the focus on that particular abuse when there are other bad things and illegalities - drinking when not permitted, underage tobacco smoking ignored - when pot smokers are attacked. It's a Culture War thing.

I was truly shocked, I can still close my eyes and picture the moment, the first time I saw Kenny smoking a cig. Even the colors are still vivid in my mind and it was 6 or 7 years ago and he was playing GUTs at the DGLO.

And, again, I am not talking about casual park users seeing casual players smoke. I am talking about people watching sanctioned events, especially with top players.

I have personally frequently heard - more from people I know who I show pictures to, etc., not your casual park users, to be sure - that they think it amusing that we think that our sport's top athletes really are such, when they see them smoking during competition.

If the issue is public perception of competitive disc golf, which I believe is what kicked this thread off, then it's what people see at top events that matters.

They do NOT see people drinking beer and smoking joints at those events. If it still goes on, it is hidden. We've stopped that harmful behavior. But they DO see competitive "athletes" smoking cigarettes.

And I believe that makes a joke of our sport, doing long term harm to its reputation.

Obviously you disagree. You're entitled to yours, I am entitled to mine. I wonder who a group of sports media relations experts would agree with?

Texas College Student Athlete Handbook
http://www.texascollege.edu/pdf/Student-Athlete%20Handbook.pdf
"No smoking in public- EVER � year-round." You'll find something like that in almost every college and university athletic handbook/guidelines.

I don't know how many colleges and universities forbid student athletes from smoking in public places, but I'd bet that you can't find a single one that ever permits a student athlete to smoke during competition.

The same can be said about Water vs. Gatoraide!!

Some purist will say why should someone be able to drink a sport drink (drug enhancement, performance booster liquid) while they enjoy water??!!

Water surely is better for the body, and doesn't destroy ones teeth !


Maybe the "do" gooder's will think they have to start saving other's teeth FOR THEM as well ! Because they know better for everyone else!!!

Dlo

The same can be said about Water vs. Gatoraide!!

<font color="red">I think perhaps you missed the Tounge in Cheek comment? </font>

Some purist will say why should someone be able to drink a sport drink (drug enhancement, performance booster liquid) while they enjoy water??!!

Water surely is better for the body, and doesn't destroy ones teeth !


Maybe the "do" gooder's will think they have to start saving other's teeth FOR THEM as well ! Because they know better for everyone else!!!

<font color="red">Perhaps you also missed the I don't care if you want to shorten your life comment. I'm a big personal freedom advocate, and I think you should be allowed to smoke all you want as long as you're forced to pay for it in your insurance permiums (and you are). However,I don't want you to shorten my life or my kid's lives. Perhaps you could carry one of those smoke purifiers that people use with you? </font>

Dlo

Post deleted by FORTUNE

I think he has been known to belt a few cold ones back during a round also..they usually just don't show him at all if he is smoking

watch his hands during an event..he cups the smoke alot when walking the fairways

I'm in a boring meeting and have Internet, so here goes:

Sweetbriar College Student-Athlete Handbook
http://www.sbc.edu/athletics/pdf/handbook_06.pdf
Smoking/tobacco products: NO USE. -1st offense: apology to the team and contract with the Coach and Athletic Trainer. -2nd offense: suspension from competition and sign additional contract agreement. -3rd offense: EXPULSION from the team if you break the contract agreement.

Colorado School of Mines Student-Athlete Handbook
Nicotine is a poisonous alkaloid found only in tobacco, and in its pure state, is one of the most toxic of all poisons. The nicotine from tobacco that is smoked is absorbed through the lung membrane. The nicotine in smokeless or chewing tobacco is absorbed through the mucosa of the oral cavity, and from the stomach and intestines once the juices are swallowed. Spitting of the juices does not significantly reduce the amount of nicotine absorbed, and therefore does not make the user immune from the harmful effects of nicotine.

Also, from Meredith University:
"# In accordance with NCAA Bylaws, the use of tobacco, including smokeless tobacco, by student-athletes, or team or game personnel (coaches, athletic trainers, managers, and game officials), is prohibited in all sports during practice and competition. This rule applies to the field or court of play.
# Any student-athlete or team personnel who use tobacco during practice or competition shall be disqualified for the remainder of that practice or competition.

And they might say it's because of their concerns about the athletes' health, and some of it it, but you know the drive for this policy is from the media relations folks.

Colorado School of Mines Student-Athlete Handbook
Nicotine is a poisonous alkaloid found only in tobacco, and in its pure state, is one of the most toxic of all poisons. The nicotine from tobacco that is smoked is absorbed through the lung membrane. The nicotine in smokeless or chewing tobacco is absorbed through the mucosa of the oral cavity, and from the stomach and intestines once the juices are swallowed. Spitting of the juices does not significantly reduce the amount of nicotine absorbed, and therefore does not make the user immune from the harmful effects of nicotine.




Does anyone else find it funny, well, sorta, that the COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES has a problem with smoking tobacco? Now, Other than the potentially EXPLOSIVE issues of lighting up in a mine (a shaft with only one exit), there's the fact that miners pretty much have a ticking clock as far as lung problems go.

Sorry, of ALL the schools to post, it would seem the Colorado School of Future Lung Cancer would not be on your list. :)

No surprise there Terry, NCAA bylaws prohibit tobacco use during competition.

But that's for the Am's, what about the Pro's? Or should the Am's just not be the ones to use tobacco? :p :D

(he says, obviously tongue-in-cheek)

Sorry, of ALL the schools to post, it would seem the Colorado School of Future Lung Cancer would not be on your list. :)



First one I found. Pretty funny, yes, I didn't get it until you posted on it. :)

Besides thinking I'm a smoker, what other pre-judgements are available to you about me from what I post?

What if I have a disc cart.......or caddy???? Both enhance my performance. What if I chew gum?? Ouch !!

Dlo

We are not golf. We should not strive to thier standards.

However, the PGA allows smoking of thier competitors. Follow John Daly around - you will see a cigeratte at least one time.

They just have good TV people who make sure he isn't seen on TV smoking.

i'll call ESPN and work with their producers to make sure we eliminate all shots with cigareattes from the live coverage of the 2007 tour... that should solve it :D

Watching Coda tee off with a ciggy in his mouth last weekend was funny. I quit 12 days ago, sure am glad I did.
Now I can be on ESPN, right?

My apologies for mistaking you as a smoker instead of properly identifying you as a civil liberties defender. As a supporter of the same, I still believe that one's rights to abuse oneself should be self contained; that is, I'm again' it when I got to breath it.

As for the rest, what's your point? All sports have vagaries and I think it is highly unlikely that any rule structure will compensate for them. Again, I think Chap's comments were in essense, in fun, as are all web posts... or at least they should be.

No apologies necessary my friend !

As I didn't say I was or was not a tobacco user..........I stand pre-judged from the position I took, with no merit other than that, and in a forum which "sides" are so easily "filtered" through ones own prejudices..........can effect the policy of hundreds or our pdga members. Heck that's all it took to get moving on "image" , and banning personal habits ! (whats next, carts, caddy's, gum chewing, blowing our nose in public, TATOOS.....now there's one!)


Since so few of the member's of the pdga are ever online, so few here, can be prejudice, and actually believe they are making the best decisions for ALL of us .....over a player's personal allowable habits or freedoms that affect all of us player's. Seems that's not right without some say from those who "freely " join the pdga......not have all their voices heard.

So easy here for a few who don't like a thing......take it away......say it's for the good of the sport.....without the consent of the free members who gave the pdga thier money voluntarily in the first place. That does not mean the pdga has been given "free" reign" to personalize our lives as "less competitive", "won't live long" while other's will at 70......! (cigs smoking I see....guarantee's we die sooner.....but nobody want to be quick to guarantee I live to 80 if one stopped today??? Doesn't matter if a drunk kills me on the way home tonight..........in which your prejudice of death, or living longer hold any water )

The largest group of people alive are over 80 year old ! Yet, your death quotes in this thread ....just can't be true.......as these 80 year olds lived when smoking was in their home, car, subway, plane, elevator, office room, movies, car pools, buses, in the sports bleachers, you name it.....they were breathing it !! But you will have to ignore this group..........(bling eye) ........to spout off some personal prejudice how cigs make the person non competitive, or worse....bringing a bad image to the sport. Gee, wish you would apply that to the fans in the gallaries too ! See how far that gets in drawing the crowds.

I do enjoy the humor here though, and dont' put much value in my rants, as I know deaf ear's are here to stay, and I'm ready to simply say,......let's compete......I'll respect you....while you respect me......and may the best competitor win the day!

If you can't do that..........this sport is not for you,.....nor any sport where any personal hygene or habit.....other's have...destroy's your image being with them.....and competing along side them.

I'll play with cig smokers all day long, doesn't bother me one bit.....its the self righteous, "puffed" up nut job, do gooder ripping on other's peoples lives ............I don't want to play with !!

Dlo

Respectfully submitted, in no way meant to be otherwise.

They just have good TV people who make sure he (Daly) isn't seen on TV smoking.



I think this gets to the issue for me. I don't think it is my business what other people put in their systems as long as it doesn't affect me, or the game of disc golf. The appearance of propriety, and other overt behavior, is what matters. Courtesy and sportsmanship matter. I think this is what we need to focus on. Overt drinking, overt smoking, overt anything matters. If covert behavior becomes overt because of the smell of skunk, it does matter. Any behavior that can be seen or experienced by smell or debris, by other players, bystanders, fans, potential sponsors, hotel employees etc., matters. If any player wants to light up, shoot up, brownie or lollipop up, it doesn't really matter as long as there is no detrimental evidence of such. No smell, no trash, no poor behavior. When it comes to poor behavior, it can be natural or "drug induced". Either way, poor behavior is not acceptable.

Yep, seems to be more about proper behavior. Especially during real-life situations. (Although the gum-bumping idealogy has been semi-entertaining.)

Tournament play? Zero-tolerance for drink or bowl. I'm OK with being talked about.

Casual round? Tougher call;

Drink? Just don't be stoopid.

Bowls? If you know me you won't ask. If you don't know me -- and you ask --- most times I just ask them to wait because I am uncomfortable with it in a public park. No long explanation, just a big goofy smile. It usually passes with a moment of awkardness - and then we get back to golf.

Cuts down on who I get to play with. Not my loss -- theirs.

Cigs?? Just be careful with your smoke trail. After some recent problems with asthma -- I have become more aware of careless behavior. Most can learn from their mistakes. On a couple of times I have had to excuse myself to the sidelines to have my asthma coughing fit, not pretty. For the careless few, I make sure they see me take a hit on the inhaler. Most become more careful with their trail. For the stoopid, I have to be less obtuse. I offer a deal, please watch your smoke and I promise not to cough up a lung on the tee pad.

They do NOT see people drinking beer and smoking joints at those events. If it still goes on, it is hidden. We've stopped that harmful behavior.


I very much disagree with that statement. Not surprisingly, I don't see a lot of people lighting up in front of me. Yet somehow when I travel to a big tourney somewhere else in the country, I almost always see it happening. Not usually right at tourney central (although frequently so), but usually not too far away. And no I'm not implying that the issue is "solved" here!

IMHO it's still a big issue. Maybe having your picture plstered around as a BOD member (heck, Dr. Evil still can't figure out that not only are you not a BOD member, but he still thinks you independantly set all PDGA policies) affects your observations?

I think you still miss the point, Tattoos, gum chewing, picking one's nose and halitosis only affect that person's health and are easily avoided. Cigarette smoke is not. I agree with Dave D. that it is bad image, and there is a reason we don't regularly see it on T.V. Our society, for the most part looks down on it and it's bad for ratings and sponsors.

Frankly, all broadcasters avoid the lurid behaviors of those they sponsor, and when those behaviors come to the front, sponsors give sponsored players the boot! The question becomes, as a member run sport, do we want to set limits on behaviors that hurt the sport in the eyes of the general public. That is, are you more interested in your pocketbook (I mean growth of the sport) or your civil liberties?

As a group we would want to use common sense to determine which activities to limit and which to let slide. Common sense tells us that while nose picking is gross, it isn't really that harmful for the sport. The player in question might be perceived as a boor but that doesn't reflect on the sport as a whole (mainly because it is such a popular activity for the general populace, especially those in the younger age categories). On the other hand, we have a reputation for drug use. While that reputation might be unfairly leveled, that doesn't matter. People actually thought Bush was smart for a while. It didn't matter that he wasn't, it allowed him to run the country as he wanted for six years. Perception counts! Therefore, it's an issue we should address.

For me, those questions are interesting and fun to debate but they don't matter much. Cigarettes cause cancer. Being exposed to them can give you cancer. That's a pretty simple issue. Your tattoos don't give me cancer nor does your gum or your caddy or your boogers (well, I suppose if you flick them on me they might). Therefore, your comparisons are apples and oranges. Any liberty that you want that doesn't impact me is good in my eyes, even if it's self-immolation via gasoline and match. But if you do it next to my house and you burn my home down, then I'm against it. Your business is your business, just don't do it in my yard.

They do NOT see people drinking beer and smoking joints at those events. If it still goes on, it is hidden. We've stopped that harmful behavior.


I very much disagree with that statement. Not surprisingly, I don't see a lot of people lighting up in front of me. Yet somehow when I travel to a big tourney somewhere else in the country, I almost always see it happening. Not usually right at tourney central (although frequently so), but usually not too far away. And no I'm not implying that the issue is "solved" here!

IMHO it's still a big issue. Maybe having your picture plstered around as a BOD member (heck, Dr. Evil still can't figure out that not only are you not a BOD member, but he still thinks you independantly set all PDGA policies) affects your observations?



As often is the case, Rhett is saying what we all really know is going on and avoid. Look, I don't get to play as often as I'd like, but I don't see pot anywhere else except at disc golf events. That isn't to say it's not out there, it's just not where we can see it.

I went down to Oak Meadows, a private course next to an upscale neighborhood, to play a round last week. There were beer cans and butts by the dozen and a nice little fire pit with three bottles of very cheap liquor hanging out. Time to fess up, our sport drinks, smokes and parties with the best of them. Even more than skate boarding and snow boarding. Why, well, those sports are dominated by younger players, we appeal to an older crowd (we're talking college and above).

Does it matter? I've seen both sides argued here and I can't say it will long term. However, there is no question that in the parks and neighborhoods where we play, that complaints will drive us out. That isn't speculation, it's not guessing, it happens all the time. If we're perceived as not much better than the homeless and alchies that visit parks, why would they want us?

Although I live in a state with pretty stringent "anti-smoking in public" codes it wafts up on the course often enough (tobacco primarily, though skunk remains a big problem at many SoCal courses. Sorry, Terry, in my experience - as one who has played since 1979 at Oak Grove - you're wrong).

This has become more of an issue for me, and one I have come to call people on more and more, politely I hope. While I join the libertarian chorus on most matters, my 7 year-old son is a severe asthmatic. The inhaler is his friend, prednisone is a regular part of his life, other steroids have been used at various times with varied success (maybe he can sign a contract with the SF Giants... :p).

I thus have become a lot more cautious. If you want to kill yourself, go ahead, and go broke while at it. However if I am trying to play a round with my sons, who love dg and may well become lifers, you will be asked to extinguish or take it away. You are a public health problem when lighting up around others who don't.

Wherever our "image issues" take us I do not know. Dave, Rhett and Lyle are right on this one from where I stand. I hope that care for the sport and common decency will continue to grow as we age away from our semi-hippy origins, which can do nothing but help.

But if I'm playing a round with my son that is all secondary.

Happy flinging,
Bill Maury-Holmes

Congrats to Lyle for breaking his 773 post streak in which he bashed Bush at least once. I know he will be very dissapointed about this however and probably make up for it soon.

BTW Lyle I read ever single one of your posts but anytime I hear you tallk about Bush I stop and move on to the next one. The same is true for other posters who talk about other political figures.

Yet somehow when I travel to a big tourney somewhere else in the country, I almost always see it happening. Not usually right at tourney central (although frequently so), but usually not too far away. And no I'm not implying that the issue is "solved" here!


But, Rhett, et al., are you seeing it *during sanctioned play*? My postings are about that time frame only, not at halftime or after the round. I just do not see drinking or dope smoking during play in sanctioned events any more.

I do see it in unsanctioned events (like yesterday; I got third place in Advanced Ams!) and I still see underage tobacco smokers at sanctioned events. (And haven't started being tough on that yet, although I should.) But it's a good contrast to yesterday (unsanctioned) where I did see pot and alcohol on the course, to look at last weekend (second place in Adv Masters) where I did not see drinking or pot smoking during play, even though it was just a C-Tier.

(Ahem, for the "He's out of touch" folks. It's January 14 and I've already played 80 competition holes of disc golf in 2007.)

If you're talking about other than during play, Rhett, then I agree with you that it is still there. But I do *not* see it in sanctioned play.

If you think the PDGA should be responsible for drug, alcohol, and underage smoking by players when they are not during play, than I remain unconvinced both that (a) the PDGA should be involved and (b) that it has the resources to do anything about it even if it were decided by the board as a matter of policy to try to.

For the moment, the board-set policy is to address the problem during play and, relative to the size of the problem before that policy was set, the policy is being well-served.

If anyone thinks the PDGA should be responsible for these things outside of competition play in sanctioned events they need to (a) get the board to set the policy, which will (b) require showing the board where the resources to try to accomplish that will come from.

The TDs don't have any extra time. Who's going to police the woods, the parking lots, and the tournament hotel? Who's going to pay to police the woods, the parking lots, and the tournament hotel?

You guys must have quite the youth disc golf scene, Terry. If every single youth player I see on the course had a ciggie hanging from his mouth, it wouldn't make a difference in the least.

Well, since it would be AJ Risley it would make a difference because I would be very surprised, but we just don't seem to have any kids playing save but a very very few.

With tee-times at big events, what does "during play" mean? When I see a player in his car with a pipe on the road right next to The Big House at USDGC while competitve rounds are being played, is that "during play" or not? It's not during his play, but competitive rounds are going on at the time.

But I do see it during rounds still. Maybe it's because I "look cool" with my long hair. I should probably cut it since I don't smoke dope and I'm not in a band. :(

Yet somehow when I travel to a big tourney somewhere else in the country, I almost always see it happening. Not usually right at tourney central (although frequently so), but usually not too far away. And no I'm not implying that the issue is "solved" here!


But, Rhett, et al., are you seeing it *during sanctioned play*? My postings are about that time frame only, not at halftime or after the round. I just do not see drinking or dope smoking during play in sanctioned events any more.

I do see it in unsanctioned events (like yesterday; I got third place in Advanced Ams!) and I still see underage tobacco smokers at sanctioned events. (And haven't started being tough on that yet, although I should.) But it's a good contrast to yesterday (unsanctioned) where I did see pot and alcohol on the course, to look at last weekend (second place in Adv Masters) where I did not see drinking or pot smoking during play, even though it was just a C-Tier.

(Ahem, for the "He's out of touch" folks. It's January 14 and I've already played 80 competition holes of disc golf in 2007.)

If you're talking about other than during play, Rhett, then I agree with you that it is still there. But I do *not* see it in sanctioned play.

If you think the PDGA should be responsible for drug, alcohol, and underage smoking by players when they are not during play, than I remain unconvinced both that (a) the PDGA should be involved and (b) that it has the resources to do anything about it even if it were decided by the board as a matter of policy to try to.

For the moment, the board-set policy is to address the problem during play and, relative to the size of the problem before that policy was set, the policy is being well-served.

If anyone thinks the PDGA should be responsible for these things outside of competition play in sanctioned events they need to (a) get the board to set the policy, which will (b) require showing the board where the resources to try to accomplish that will come from.

The TDs don't have any extra time. Who's going to police the woods, the parking lots, and the tournament hotel? Who's going to pay to police the woods, the parking lots, and the tournament hotel?



An easy solution to this would be that if anyone is caught within the park grounds during an event (including lunchbreak and down times) they will be DQ'ed. You don't have to pay anyone to police the parking lot because other tournament will possibly report seein such a thing.

If they want to Smoke or drink(if drinking is not allowed in the park) they can just leave the premises.

I agree with Dave D;if its not affecting you (during rounds)then dont worry about it.What someone does in their spare time is their business,the funny thing is that most people on this thread think that people should be able to drink during rounds.I hate playing with a drunk more than anything,they are very annoying and never shut up!

Rhett, perhaps your "hippy" look works with people who don't know you. Heaven knows I look straight enough to put most people off - although it didn't yesterday during the non-PDGA event I played in.

Matt, please consider the consequences on TDs. Try this scenario:

You're the TD and it's time for the afternoon players' meeting, you've just barely got the scoring done and the afternoon's cards decided and put out, people are gathering, if you don't get the second round out on time it will end after dark . . .

And then someone comes to you and says: "I saw John (who is on the lead Open card) drinking a beer in the parking lot 15 minutes ago."

Do you take the time to take John aside and ask him if he was drinking?

What if he says that he wasn't?

What if the player who reported him says, "My friends saw him, too."

Do you find them, take them aside, and ask them.

What if they agree?

But the Open player's friends all say that they had lunch with him and he wasn't drinking.

Okay, you can't decide, so you start the second round.

Do you wander the course during that round and gather more witnesses' statements?

Do you do that afterwards, instead of working on score tabulation and assigning prizes?

Or, do you blow it off?

Then, a month later, you get a call from the PDGA tournament manager saying he has a complaint from the initial player who reported the drinking. Apparently, you didn't take the complaint seriously enough. Please explain yourself.

I just can't see any way around this that doesn't cause unsustainable work for TDs.

But I do see it during rounds still. Maybe it's because I "look cool" with my long hair. I should probably cut it since I don't smoke dope and I'm not in a band.


I resemble that remark :D

If I were to turn someone in for a rules infraction, I would not do it unless I could testify under oath that I saw what I saw and there was no mistake about it.

in one case a few years ago, (before the current PDGA rules) I was walking to the restroom at the edge of the parking log/road. As Ii walked by a car, I smelled something I should not have. I actually stopped, turned around and looked to see who it was.

I knew the passager, but not the guy behind the wheel. I really had to go so I use the facilities. After I finished I went back to the truck to say something. They were gone.

I then went to the TD and Asst. TD who had both stated they would not tollerat that behavior at there tournaments.

Of course the players were gone by then so It was only me that saw them (so I thought), well after the second/final round, I actually has another player come up to me and say they saw the same thing I did. I wanted those players DQ'd and the TD's did not do anything. I left the tournament #$*&$! off and posted about it later that night.

This #$*&$! off the TD because I posted something negitive on his tournament thread.

so a player was not DQ'd even though 2 other's were willing to go on the record and put there reputation on the line. Yes the player cashed and nothing was ever done.

To make a long story short, the TD and I stayed and maybe even became better friends despite this.

The player whom i have known for years and I wound up playing a round together this last year for the first time in years. He actually came up to me and appologized for doing it and at least told me he quit doing it at tournaments shortly afterwards. We actully enjoyed playing the tournament together. (now I wish some other players could be like this)

I do not dislike "smoker" or drinkers, I just want them to respect the tournament, the PDGA, the TD and Disc Golf in general.

Rhett, perhaps your "hippy" look works with people who don't know you. Heaven knows I look straight enough to put most people off - although it didn't yesterday during the non-PDGA event I played in.

Matt, please consider the consequences on TDs. Try this scenario:

You're the TD and it's time for the afternoon players' meeting, you've just barely got the scoring done and the afternoon's cards decided and put out, people are gathering, if you don't get the second round out on time it will end after dark . . .

And then someone comes to you and says: "I saw John (who is on the lead Open card) drinking a beer in the parking lot 15 minutes ago."

Do you take the time to take John aside and ask him if he was drinking?

What if he says that he wasn't?

What if the player who reported him says, "My friends saw him, too."

Do you find them, take them aside, and ask them.

What if they agree?

But the Open player's friends all say that they had lunch with him and he wasn't drinking.

Okay, you can't decide, so you start the second round.

Do you wander the course during that round and gather more witnesses' statements?

Do you do that afterwards, instead of working on score tabulation and assigning prizes?

Or, do you blow it off?

Then, a month later, you get a call from the PDGA tournament manager saying he has a complaint from the initial player who reported the drinking. Apparently, you didn't take the complaint seriously enough. Please explain yourself.

I just can't see any way around this that doesn't cause unsustainable work for TDs.



So to you as long as it doesn't happen during the round it os ok? This is really easy actually if you think about it. All you do if you see someone doing something they shouldn't is report them to a certified official, Marshall, or TD and let them go check it out. I mean you are a Marshall and if someone told you that Joe schmo was in his car lighting up wouldn't you go and see if this claim was true? :confused: I certainly hope so and if you can see that he was indeed smoking he would be DQ'ed. IT IS THAT EASY.

So to you as long as it doesn't happen during the round it os ok? This is really easy actually if you think about it. All you do if you see someone doing something they shouldn't is report them to a certified official, Marshall, or TD and let them go check it out. I mean you are a Marshall and if someone told you that Joe schmo was in his car lighting up wouldn't you go and see if this claim was true? :confused: I certainly hope so and if you can see that he was indeed smoking he would be DQ'ed. IT IS THAT EASY.



I don't think so. I think I would go out and tell them they were being complete idiots who were not only causing themselves damage and exposure to law enforcement, but were disrespecting the tournament, disc golf, and the PDGA. Oh, wait, I've already done that a couple of times - not a hypothetical, instead a case study.

I have not been on the board since August, and I am not TD'ing any sanctioned events in 2007, so I have not yet carefully read the various tournament sanctioning agreements for 2007. So, with the caveat that if it was a change for 2007 I am not aware of it, here is my response to that:

No. I would not go out (pre-2007) and check it out.

As a marshall, I am charged with enforcing PDGA rules and other agreed-upon rules between the TD and the PDGA (as well as a lot of other non-rules-related stuff). I am no more a civil law enforcement officer than you or any other player is.

When we introduced the tougher "must-DQ" procedures. the board consciously limited enforcement of that to "during play," which was defined as between the 2-minute rule and the moment at which the card is turned in for any individual group.

When those tougher rules were applied, the majority of the board specified that if there were issues about marijuana, illegal alcohol, or illegal tobacco outside of "during play," TDs may but are not required to refer complaints to the most local law enforcement organization.

Unless there has been a recent change that I am not aware of, unless an action of some kind is directly related to the management of the tournament or occurs during play, it's not the PDGA's business. That's not only my opinion, it is the PDGA's policy. (Or was.)

If that changes, and I will certainly find out if it has before I do any marshaling this year, then what I do will change. But it's up to the board of directors to change it - not to me as an individual member to enforce what I might think I should instead of what I'm supposed to.

What next in this intrusion you want by the PDGA into people's lives? Do you want me out on the road into Hudson Mills with a radar gun giving out tickets to disc golfers who drive faster than 25 mph on their way in?

So to you as long as it doesn't happen during the round it os ok? This is really easy actually if you think about it. All you do if you see someone doing something they shouldn't is report them to a certified official, Marshall, or TD and let them go check it out. I mean you are a Marshall and if someone told you that Joe schmo was in his car lighting up wouldn't you go and see if this claim was true? :confused: I certainly hope so and if you can see that he was indeed smoking he would be DQ'ed. IT IS THAT EASY.



I don't think so. I think I would go out and tell them they were being complete idiots who were not only causing themselves damage and exposure to law enforcement, but were disrespecting the tournament, disc golf, and the PDGA. Oh, wait, I've already done that a couple of times - not a hypothetical, instead a case study.

I have not been on the board since August, and I am not TD'ing any sanctioned events in 2007, so I have not yet carefully read the various tournament sanctioning agreements for 2007. So, with the caveat that if it was a change for 2007 I am not aware of it, here is my response to that:

No. I would not go out (pre-2007) and check it out.

As a marshall, I am charged with enforcing PDGA rules and other agreed-upon rules between the TD and the PDGA (as well as a lot of other non-rules-related stuff). I am no more a civil law enforcement officer than you or any other player is.

When we introduced the tougher "must-DQ" procedures. the board consciously limited enforcement of that to "during play," which was defined as between the 2-minute rule and the moment at which the card is turned in for any individual group.

When those tougher rules were applied, the majority of the board specified that if there were issues about marijuana, illegal alcohol, or illegal tobacco outside of "during play," TDs may but are not required to refer complaints to the most local law enforcement organization.

Unless there has been a recent change that I am not aware of, unless an action of some kind is directly related to the management of the tournament or occurs during play, it's not the PDGA's business. That's not only my opinion, it is the PDGA's policy. (Or was.)

If that changes, and I will certainly find out if it has before I do any marshaling this year, then what I do will change. But it's up to the board of directors to change it - not to me as an individual member to enforce what I might think I should instead of what I'm supposed to.

What next in this intrusion you want by the PDGA into people's lives? Do you want me out on the road into Hudson Mills with a radar gun giving out tickets to disc golfers who drive faster than 25 mph on their way in?



Are you F-ing serious? You can only DQ a guy for an illegal action "during play"? If so I will crack open a beer, smoke a cig, and light up a joint as soon as I hand in my card and blow the smoke in the TD's face. :confused: I am taken back by what you just said and cannot believe that the PDGA would basically support the use of these substances by allowing them to go on without consequence as long as in is before 2 minutes or after the card has been turned in. If you are seen doing ANY illegal activities by a TD, Marshall, or anyone else while still on the park property you should be DQed. The PDGA telling the TD to notify law inforcement is good but allowing him to continue in the event is NOT. I really doubt that the person who was doing the illegal activity would be caught anyway since he would most likely find out the cops are on the way before they arrive.


ARE YOU SERIOUS TERRY???????? YOU WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING OR INVESTIGATE AN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY BY A PLAYER WHILE THEY ARE STILL AT THE PARK OR AT TOURNAMENT CENTRAL?

That is incorrect Terry. Let me publish an email I sent to an the one sent to me by Carlton Howard (with his permission), rules chairman, about this (I also want to point out that I am friends with Carl so I am delelting some personal info like how is so and so, good seeing at this tournament, etc.)

Carl,

I was reading over the new professionalism standards
for 2007.

Am I reading it right that it is now clear that
drinking or using any type of illegal substance in an
area what that is illegal (such as beer in a park)
even after the round is over is now considered grounds
for DQ?

Thanks for the clarification.

Robert

His response....

Morning Robert,

You are correct. Illegal consumption in a park (where it's illegal) is grounds for DQ. The word "shall" is used, which is more mandatory than "should."

Generally meaning "will have to" or "must".

So players must be DQed if they're caught doing these things on the course OR anywhere in the park...including their vehicles.

take care,

chh

Notice he said MUST not could or anything else. He said MUST.

That is incorrect Terry. Let me publish an email I sent to an the one sent to me by Carlton Howard (with his permission), rules chairman, about this (I also want to point out that I am friends with Carl so I am delelting some personal info like how is so and so, good seeing at this tournament, etc.)

Carl,

I was reading over the new professionalism standards
for 2007.

Am I reading it right that it is now clear that
drinking or using any type of illegal substance in an
area what that is illegal (such as beer in a park)
even after the round is over is now considered grounds
for DQ?

Thanks for the clarification.

Robert

His response....

Morning Robert,

You are correct. Illegal consumption in a park (where it's illegal) is grounds for DQ. The word "shall" is used, which is more mandatory than "should."

Generally meaning "will have to" or "must".

So players must be DQed if they're caught doing these things on the course OR anywhere in the park...including their vehicles.

take care,

chh



Unfortunantly I think Terry will use this as an excuse for not looking into illegal activities in the past. I bet he will come on here saying that since this is new for 2007 what he has done in the past is ok. I have news for you Terry, allowing people to openly commit illegal activities on tournament grounds without consequence is WRONG.

Am I reading it right that it is now clear that
drinking or using any type of illegal substance in an
area what that is illegal (such as beer in a park)
even after the round is over is now considered grounds
for DQ?




You are correct. Illegal consumption in a park (where it's illegal) is grounds for DQ. The word "shall" is used, which is more mandatory than "should."

Generally meaning "will have to" or "must".

So players must be DQed if they're caught doing these things on the course OR anywhere in the park...including their vehicles.




Wouldn't it be a good idea to send a letter (or email to save postage) to all PDGA members warning them of this change in policy? or was it already sent and i did not read carefully? :confused:

ignorance of the rules is no excuse but it should (shall?) help prevent transgressions if we get the word out ;)

I'm in a boring meeting and have Internet, so here goes:

Sweetbriar College Student-Athlete Handbook
http://www.sbc.edu/athletics/pdf/handbook_06.pdf
Smoking/tobacco products: NO USE. -1st offense: apology to the team and contract with the Coach and Athletic Trainer. -2nd offense: suspension from competition and sign additional contract agreement. -3rd offense: EXPULSION from the team if you break the contract agreement.

Colorado School of Mines Student-Athlete Handbook
Nicotine is a poisonous alkaloid found only in tobacco, and in its pure state, is one of the most toxic of all poisons. The nicotine from tobacco that is smoked is absorbed through the lung membrane. The nicotine in smokeless or chewing tobacco is absorbed through the mucosa of the oral cavity, and from the stomach and intestines once the juices are swallowed. Spitting of the juices does not significantly reduce the amount of nicotine absorbed, and therefore does not make the user immune from the harmful effects of nicotine.

Also, from Meredith University:
"# In accordance with NCAA Bylaws, the use of tobacco, including smokeless tobacco, by student-athletes, or team or game personnel (coaches, athletic trainers, managers, and game officials), is prohibited in all sports during practice and competition. This rule applies to the field or court of play.
# Any student-athlete or team personnel who use tobacco during practice or competition shall be disqualified for the remainder of that practice or competition.

And they might say it's because of their concerns about the athletes' health, and some of it it, but you know the drive for this policy is from the media relations folks.



Terry,

Why can an athletic team toss some guy after three strikes, but you keep saying that it's so difficult to hammer someone for smoking weed in a tourney? Where's all the lawsuit concerns etc. from the team? Oh maybe they actually want to address the problem unlike the PDGA regarding weed.

heck, Dr. Evil still can't figure out that not only are you not a BOD member, but he still thinks you independantly set all PDGA policies) affects your observations?



Rhett,

Keep in mind that Rich is an idiot.

Yet somehow when I travel to a big tourney somewhere else in the country, I almost always see it happening. Not usually right at tourney central (although frequently so), but usually not too far away. And no I'm not implying that the issue is "solved" here!


But, Rhett, et al., are you seeing it *during sanctioned play*?



Yes.

This is pretty much off subject but I'm bringing it up any way. In the past there has been talk of the message board being a place where potential sponsors may visit to learn more about the sport/tourney they have been asked to contribute money/materials/time to. This was one of the reasons for members only posting.

Lets say for the sake of argument that there is a major sponsor looking to find out more about this tournament he's been asked to sponsor and one of the first things he's going to see on the first page of the message board is the subject "Cheech and Bong" or just "Drugs". Is this the image we want to portray? Our hypothetical potential sponsor hasn't even been out to the course yet and smelled all the weed burning or seen the litter of beer cans and cigarette butts. Yet we the PDGA, the supposed force that will bring disc golf to the masses, on our official website have alerted our potential sponsor to one of our biggest image problems and probably lost his support.

PDGA rules say no drugs or alcohol during tournament play. Like it or not that's the rules. Our hypothetical sponsor probably won't catch the DFL am group firing it up at the tourney this weekend. All they have to do is get on the message board and there's pretty much the PDGA passing the bong around on the internet.

We are our own worst enemies. Think about it.

Rod, the scenario you describe is not that far from reality. There are some things you could say to address those concerns as they come up.

try something like this:

"yes, our sport, like many new or modern sports, has its roots in counterculture. in the case of disc golf, that countercultural heritage does in fact include the late 60's and early 70's hippy culture. When viewed with the broadest definition of the sport, some of those roots persist along with the problems they create. Organized disc golf, as sanctioned by the PDGA takes a different approach. As the worldwide organizing body of disc golf, the PDGA is committed to raising the standards for sanctioned events. We have policies against the use of all illegal substances and enforce published disciplinary consequences for violators. It would be dishonest to not recognize the affect the timing of disc golf's birth had on our sport. But we also recognize we have a responsibility to our sport, its participants, and the public that shares the overwhelming majority of our courses in public parks, to set a higher standard and work towards maintaining disc golf as a sport that any {City / Parks Department / Sponsor} can be proud to support."

approached this way sets the pdga and "organized" disc golf apart from the casual player. Combined with consistant local player support in cleaning litter, other course maintanence, and communication with Park and City officials, honest assessment of issues (real or perceived) increases the credibility of the "we keep it clean" message.

there is no reason to say the problems do not exist. they do. there is every reason to understand our history, and the steps we have taken over the last few years to overcome the legacy we were given - and to be able to discuss these issues openly with ourselves, city representatives, and prospective sponsors.

Rodney,

I've had the same thoughts as you. Personally, I wish that drug references and illegal drugs were not discussed on this message board. However, to forbid or remove all discussion of illegal drugs and/or drug use from this forum would be unrealistic and would deny discussion of a topic that is relevant to our community. The discussion of illegal drugs in and of itself is not illegal and drug use undeniably affects our scene and community.

My solution has been to the change the subject line of my posts to something appropriate (usually the original title of the thread) so that subject lines like "Cheech and Bong" or "Drugs" do not continue to show up on the first page of the message board. And then hope that when users reply, they don't change these subject lines.

So to you as long as it doesn't happen during the round it os ok? This is really easy actually if you think about it. All you do if you see someone doing something they shouldn't is report them to a certified official, Marshall, or TD and let them go check it out. I mean you are a Marshall and if someone told you that Joe schmo was in his car lighting up wouldn't you go and see if this claim was true? :confused: I certainly hope so and if you can see that he was indeed smoking he would be DQ'ed. IT IS THAT EASY.



I don't think so. I think I would go out and tell them they were being complete idiots who were not only causing themselves damage and exposure to law enforcement, but were disrespecting the tournament, disc golf, and the PDGA. Oh, wait, I've already done that a couple of times - not a hypothetical, instead a case study.

I have not been on the board since August, and I am not TD'ing any sanctioned events in 2007, so I have not yet carefully read the various tournament sanctioning agreements for 2007. So, with the caveat that if it was a change for 2007 I am not aware of it, here is my response to that:

No. I would not go out (pre-2007) and check it out.

As a marshall, I am charged with enforcing PDGA rules and other agreed-upon rules between the TD and the PDGA (as well as a lot of other non-rules-related stuff). I am no more a civil law enforcement officer than you or any other player is.

When we introduced the tougher "must-DQ" procedures. the board consciously limited enforcement of that to "during playut tickets to disc golfers who drive faster than 25 mph on their way in?



Are you F-ing serious? You can only DQ a guy for an illegal action "during play"? If so I will crack open a beer, smoke a cig, and light up a joint as soon as I hand in my card and blow the smoke in the TD's face. :confused: I am taken back by what you just said and cannot believe that the PDGA would basically support the use of these substances by allowing them to go on without consequence as long as in is before 2 minutes or after the card has been turned in. If you are seen doing ANY illegal activities by a TD, Marshall, or anyone else while still on the park property you should be DQed. The PDGA telling the TD to notify law inforcement is good but allowing him to continue in the event is NOT. I really doubt that the person who was doing the illegal activity would be caught anyway since he would most likely find out the cops are on the way before they arrive.


ARE YOU SERIOUS TERRY???????? YOU WOULD NOT DO ANYTHING OR INVESTIGATE AN ILLEGAL ACTIVITY BY A PLAYER WHILE THEY ARE STILL AT THE PARK OR AT TOURNAMENT CENTRAL?

I also cringe when I see post titles like 'Cheech and Bongs', but I don't have much optimism in trying to convince the crowd that feels it necessary to utilize an 'in your face' approach that you can get your point across just fine (perhaps even better) without it.

I think what the PDGA is saying that if it isn't during a PDGA sanctioned event (i.e. the tournament), then they have no more jurisdiction over a given park user's behavior than the average park user. They aren't condoning it, just taking the stance that they have no special rights to invoke.

So, since you would have just as much right to get involved protesting the behavior as the TD or PDGA, take it upon yourself to get involved if you feel it so necessary. Quit whining to a TD that someone is doing something during lunch and report the issue to authorities and act as a witness when testimony is required. Why expect someone else to do this for you?

More realistic, consider approaching the 'offenders' and have a talk concerning the problem their actions present. Have a bunch of your competitors do the same, one after another. If enough players would do this on a regular basis, the attention that would be generated would make the users uncomfortable, and they would start leaving the park to be more discreet. That type of activity hates a crowd and the threat that someone in the crowd may call the authorities.

Or the TD's and marshalls could just get off their butts to see if one of their entrants is partaking in illegal activity while at the park during the event. The lunchbreak and awards are part of the event and you should not be allowed to smoke out during these times without consequence.

I like the fact that we have a Zero tolerance rule that is supposed to give us a better image but it is in place for only a portion of the event.

So I could go smoke out with the TD during the lunch break and there is nothing I could be penalized for? I wonder if the PGA would also allow this?

I'm not sure how things go in your neck of the woods, but up here I don't see TDs sitting on their butts ( Or the TD's and marshalls could just get off their butts). To say that TDs need to get off their butts is rather insulting based on how hard I see these people work. As for Marshalls, these are not present at the majority of PDGA tournaments, so their mention isn't relevant.

Comparing the situation to the PGA isn't relevant either. Based on galleries of thousands of people, press coverage, TV cameras the shear number of officials and players, there is no way someone is going to do something stupid in the parking lot. The PGA doesn't need a rule concerning these activities as the press coverage and attention that any illegal use would bring upon itself is deterent enough. They don't have to send Hootie Johnson to tour the parking lot. Apples to oranges.

As for lunch and awards being part of the event, for some yes, for some, no. Especially on the awards side as a good number of people up here never participate in this aspect. Once the tournament ends, if they didn't cash, they are done. At this point, does the TD really have a a leg to stand on beyond the powers and options that you yourself have?

Perhaps the butt that needs getting off of is your own?

i noticed in the present issue (Winter 2007, last page) Rick Rothstein discusses his having been elected the first PDGA Communications Director and having served on the BoD for nearly 12 of the first 15 years. He talks about the importance of communication with the membership as articulated in both the old constitution and in the new bylaws. He then points out that the present PDGA Commissioner as well as the respective BoD members have failed to address the membership via the DGWN for the last four issues consecutively, and that the recent movement away from open communication is a trend that concerns him and he hopes that trend will soon change.

With our recent changes to the BoD i am wondering whether there will be a change in this tendency and if the new BoD members plan to take advantage of the DGWN as one way to provide information and communicate openly with the membership?

i noticed in the present issue (Winter 2007, last page) Rick Rothstein discusses his having been elected the first PDGA Communications Director and having served on the BoD for nearly 12 of the first 15 years. He talks about the importance of communication with the membership as articulated in both the old constitution and in the new bylaws. He then points out that the present PDGA Commissioner as well as the respective BoD members have failed to address the membership via the DGWN for the last four issues consecutively, and that the recent movement away from open communication is a trend that concerns him and he hopes that trend will soon change.

With our recent changes to the BoD i am wondering whether there will be a change in this tendency and if the new BoD members plan to take advantage of the DGWN as one way to provide information and communicate openly with the membership?

I think if you have every one of your employees write a little essay on what they are up to, one can hardly say that you have failed to address the membership. Rick lost me with that comment.

i noticed in the present issue (Winter 2007, last page) Rick Rothstein discusses his having been elected the first PDGA Communications Director and having served on the BoD for nearly 12 of the first 15 years. He talks about the importance of communication with the membership as articulated in both the old constitution and in the new bylaws. He then points out that the present PDGA Commissioner as well as the respective BoD members have failed to address the membership via the DGWN for the last four issues consecutively, and that the recent movement away from open communication is a trend that concerns him and he hopes that trend will soon change.

With our recent changes to the BoD i am wondering whether there will be a change in this tendency and if the new BoD members plan to take advantage of the DGWN as one way to provide information and communicate openly with the membership?

I think if you have every one of your employees write a little essay on what they are up to, one can hardly say that you have failed to address the membership. Rick lost me with that comment.



i thought lawyers read with more comrehension than nick kight :eek:

he said BOARD members...not pdga employees....

geez bruce...i usually can count on you to be the one to get it right :D

i noticed in the present issue (Winter 2007, last page) Rick Rothstein discusses his having been elected the first PDGA Communications Director and having served on the BoD for nearly 12 of the first 15 years. He talks about the importance of communication with the membership as articulated in both the old constitution and in the new bylaws. He then points out that the present PDGA Commissioner as well as the respective BoD members have failed to address the membership via the DGWN for the last four issues consecutively, and that the recent movement away from open communication is a trend that concerns him and he hopes that trend will soon change.

With our recent changes to the BoD i am wondering whether there will be a change in this tendency and if the new BoD members plan to take advantage of the DGWN as one way to provide information and communicate openly with the membership?

I think if you have every one of your employees write a little essay on what they are up to, one can hardly say that you have failed to address the membership. Rick lost me with that comment.



i thought lawyers read with more comrehension than nick kight :eek:

he said BOARD members...not pdga employees....


geez bruce...i usually can count on you to be the one to get it right :D



And the Board of Directors, more than a year ago, delegated the task of providing up to date information to DGWN (now DGW) to the PDGA Staff. That decision hasn't been changed, and current Communications Director Steve Dodge is putting out a frequent (and far more up to date than DGW) e-newletter. By the time anything gets into a quarterly it's not much more than archival. Steve's (and Terry's before him) electronic efforts suit the need for timely communication.

And the Board of Directors, more than a year ago, delegated the task of providing up to date information to DGWN (now DGW) to the PDGA Staff. That decision hasn't been changed, and current Communications Director Steve Dodge is putting out a frequent (and far more up to date than DGW) e-newletter. By the time anything gets into a quarterly it's not much more than archival. Steve's (and Terry's before him) electronic efforts suit the need for timely communication.



i can't speak for Rick, but i took his point to be more about the failure of the Commish and BoD members to also use the magazine to talk directly to the membership they are elected to represent -- not so much about the nuts and bolts info delegated to the staff to supply, but more a touching base with the membership about where they are trying to lead and how that is going. (i think it also relates to their disconcerting move away from openess)

i noticed in the present issue (Winter 2007, last page) Rick Rothstein discusses his having been elected the first PDGA Communications Director and having served on the BoD for nearly 12 of the first 15 years. He talks about the importance of communication with the membership as articulated in both the old constitution and in the new bylaws. He then points out that the present PDGA Commissioner as well as the respective BoD members have failed to address the membership via the DGWN for the last four issues consecutively, and that the recent movement away from open communication is a trend that concerns him and he hopes that trend will soon change.

With our recent changes to the BoD i am wondering whether there will be a change in this tendency and if the new BoD members plan to take advantage of the DGWN as one way to provide information and communicate openly with the membership?

I think if you have every one of your employees write a little essay on what they are up to, one can hardly say that you have failed to address the membership. Rick lost me with that comment.



that covers them as far as addressing the membership through a proxy goes, but not necessarily in terms of communicating directly (and openly) with the membership ;)

...current Communications Director Steve Dodge is putting out a frequent (and far more up to date than DGW) e-newletter. By the time anything gets into a quarterly it's not much more than archival. Steve's (and Terry's before him) electronic efforts suit the need for timely communication.



Glad to hear that a current BoD member has a more postive perspective on electronic media for real communication than Terry seems to. Thanks Jon!

Point of interest: Has anyone compiled the stats of the percentage of PDGA members that use email for communication. It should be easy to figure out I assume. Can that be shared here?

It's a bit amusing listening to my wife talk about her new role: She is a board member of NAFA, the North American Flyball Association. She just got back from her first board meeting (in vegas!) and guess what they do. They put the meeting minutes up online.

http://www.flyball.org/

While the most recent minutes are not up yet, here's a link to the minutes from the August meeting.

http://www.flyball.org/minutes/2006-08-12-Abridged-Minutes.pdf

This is the "abridged minutes". 17 pages of em. Check out the last 2 pages. They post their financials for anyone, not just members to see.

Granted they are a not for profit, but still, very organized and transparent.

There are also leadership chats every 2 months that is moderated by the board members and anyone can ask questions of the board members. Read a transcript here:

http://www.flyball.org/press/Chat3Jan2007.html

How about BoD chats? I think it would be a good way for people to communicate with them, even if they aren't so savvy as to read the message boards. All they have to do is pay attention to their computers for a few hours.

Maybe we need to create a section of the site where all this information is posted?

BTW, she's not just a Board member, but she's also the webmaster! Actually, that's probably what got her elected.

tell her i'd love to see video of flyball to see how it works. after 10 minutes browsing i have no clear idea of what happens there except it involves dogs, tennis balls, a launcher and jumps! my sheltie might like that. i thought it interesting that they have more member dogs than we have members! :D

My point was made by Idaho John. The Board is speaking through its staff.

...i'd love to see video of flyball ... i thought it interesting that they have more member dogs than we have members! :D



I thought the exact same thing!

my understanding is that Steve Dodge will also be spearheading/supporting the effort to fill the pages alotted to the pdga in the future.

as a new BoD member, i had no idea those pages were available to the BoD and/or PDGA. another thing to add to the BoD Transition Plan.

Flyball is a relay race with 3-dog teams with tennis balls instead of batons. I believe the way it works is that a tennis ball is launched, the first dog retrieves it and carries the tennis ball over the course, (down and back) when it cross the line the next ball is launched, 2nd dog takes off, down and back the third ball is launched, dog takes off down and back. it can either be fastest time or run in heats. I think it is normally run in heats.

Australian shepards or border collies rule in flyball. My Aussie got all crazy just watching a flyball team practicing. They need to be fairly young, because the go all out, 100 percent, and can get injured or overheated

Doe the flyballers have any issues in the parking lot after/before/during the tournament????? I have seen what happens to dogs when they get all strung out on ketamene ( kitty cat crack ) .

...i'd love to see video of flyball ... i thought it interesting that they have more member dogs than we have members! :D



I thought the exact same thing!



Youtube guys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpmKVwgCpio

From flyball.org

Flyball races match two teams of four dogs each, racing side-by-side over a 51 foot long course. Each dog must run in relay fashion down the jumps, trigger a flyball box, releasing the ball, retrieve the ball, and return over the jumps. The next dog is released to run the course but can't cross the start/finish line until the previous dog has returned over all 4 jumps and reached the start/finish line. The first team to have all 4 dogs finish the course without error wins the heat.

If a dog screws up, you have to rerun that dog. If there is a bad pass (there are sophisticated light sensors to that detect bad passes), a ball is dropped, a jump is missed, a dog starts too early, it's a rerun. Just like disc golf, there are "pro" teams and "beginner" teams. They race in divisions based upon a seed time. When you register, you have to put in an estimated (or strategically chosen) time that you believe your dogs can run the course in. You can get penalized for sandbagging (if you record a time 1/2 second faster than you put in), and if you get 3 of these times you are disqualified.

matt, thats good info, especially considering the requests to provide numbers to support your points and for comparisons to real organizations.

the "sports" these two organizations serve both began from nothing in the late 60s and early 70s. both are non-profit associations. the overall enterprise structure is similar, with a group of "staff", committees, and emphasis on volunteers. competitive structure is also similar.

both organizations have about doubled in memberships between 1999 and 2006, although NAFA's numbers are taken from their "Active Dogs" list while PDGA counts paid Members rather than participation.

communication channels are split. the PDGA offers more channels, but those channels appear to be more closed than NAFA's. case in point: the P&amp;L is on the NAFA site. both site offer Balance Sheets via the IRS 990.

the biggest differences appear to be financial. on just 25% of the revenue and 21% of the expenses relative to the PDGA, NAFA shows a 2005 gain of more than $15,000 while the PDGA's total assets lost more than $35,000.

there's always lots of ways to view data. here is a very fast collection of items that stood out to me while making a first comparison of these two organizations.
<table border="1"><tr><td>Comparision of NAFA and PDGA</td><td>*</td><td>*</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>Organizational</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Website</td><td>www.flyball.org</td><td>.</td><td>www.pdga.com</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Invention of Sport</td><td>late 60\'s / early 70\'s</td><td>.</td><td>late 60\'s / early 70\'s</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Founded</td><td>1985</td><td>.</td><td>???</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Members</td><td>16,000 +</td><td>.</td><td>10,000 +</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Events</td><td>334</td><td>.</td><td>750</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Staff</td><td>network of volunteers</td><td>.</td><td>5 salaried employees</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Committees (listed on websites)</td><td>Disciplinary</td><td>.</td><td>Competition</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>Jidges/Education</td><td>.</td><td>Course Design</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>Marketing/Awards</td><td>.</td><td>Disciplinary</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>Regulatory/Rules/ByLaws</td><td>.</td><td>Environment</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>Finance</td><td>.</td><td>IDGC</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>Election</td><td>.</td><td>Ratings</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>Technology</td><td>.</td><td>Rules</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>Nominating</td><td>.</td><td>Statistics</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>Technical</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>Womens</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Club/Courses</td><td>700</td><td>.</td><td>2200</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>BoD</td><td>9</td><td>.</td><td>7</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Local Structure</td><td>19 regional directors</td><td>.</td><td>50 state coordinators</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Growth Rate (active, 1999 - 2006)</td><td>184%</td><td>.</td><td>220%</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Financial</td><td>(from IRS Form 990 for year 2005, both organizations)</td><td>*</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Income</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Program services</td><td>$162,064</td><td>*</td><td>$317,866</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Membership dues</td><td>$19,502</td><td>*</td><td>$408,970</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Total revenue</td><td>$183,745</td><td>*</td><td>$730,096</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Expenses</td><td>.</td><td>pct of Rev</td><td>.</td><td>pct of Rev
</td></tr><tr><td>Program services</td><td>$125,302</td><td>68%</td><td>$600,778</td><td>82%
</td></tr><tr><td>Management / general</td><td>$41,234</td><td>22%</td><td>$164,009</td><td>22%
</td></tr><tr><td>Total Expenses</td><td>$166,536</td><td>91%</td><td>$764,787</td><td>105%
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>pct of Exp</td><td>*</td><td>pct of Exp
</td></tr><tr><td>Salaries</td><td>$0</td><td>0%</td><td>$113,705</td><td>15%
</td></tr><tr><td>BoD Compensation</td><td>$0</td><td>.</td><td>$0</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Balance Sheet</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Total Assets (start of year)</td><td>$299,790</td><td>.</td><td>$167,782</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Total Assets (end of year)</td><td>$315,380</td><td>105%</td><td>$131,364</td><td>78%
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Competitive Structure</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Divisions</td><td>ability based divisions</td><td>.</td><td>ability, gender, age based divisions</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Points</td><td>determines titles</td><td>.</td><td>determines entrance to Worlds</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Communication Channels</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Website</td><td>yes</td><td>.</td><td>yes</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Email</td><td>unknown</td><td>.</td><td>yes</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Discussion Baord</td><td>no</td><td>.</td><td>yes</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Chat with BoD</td><td>yes, open, recorded</td><td>.</td><td>no, closed, public discussion discouraged</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Organization Docs posted</td><td>yes</td><td>.</td><td>yes</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>IRS 990 posted</td><td>yes</td><td>.</td><td>yes</td><td>. </tr></td></table>


it seems that while sharing similar roots in similar times, NAFA has maintained its volunteer emphasis by developing an active BoD and volunteer network. This could be one significant influencer on NAFA performance on building assets. There may be other differences that are even more critical, but this one is the most obvious.

note also that in 205 NAFA's expenses for Program Services and Management were 68% and 22% of income respectively. PDGA came in at 82% and 22%. *** the difference in costs of program services could mean that we, the PDGA Members, are demanding proportionately more benefits, or that the costs of providing benefits is higher for disc golf, or a wide variety of other reasons. the difference is indicitive of something, though... just "what" is shows requires much deeper analysis *** (although with $113,000 of event equipment and timing devices, NAFA appears to be investing in long term tools that are used by many events... perhaps similar in spirit to the realtime scoring offered by the PDGA).

there's prolly tons more someone could talk about while comparing the two organizations. kudos to Matt for grabbing this material and making a real world comparison possible.

btw, for those who would jump my buns for this post... its a comparison, not a judgement. facts is facts. lets see some other examples, including 990s, and we can run comparisons on them as well.

peace

One thing I found interesting, and Matt correct me if I am wrong, is that each dog is required to have a CRN (PDGA #) which is a one-time $15 fee compared to the $50+ annual fee imposed by the PDGA.

Ability based divisions. Nice to see some other sport realizes the proper way to form competitive divisions is ability, not an arbitrary age.

How old are you in dog-years? :p

there are 2 divisions: "Open" and Multibreed. Multibreed requires that each dog be of a different breed. A mutt is an "All American" and even if your dogs are from different host breeds, they are lumped into one breed.

Multi offers dogs that may not be tops in the open field, like german shepherds, an ability to race for that top prize.

Just as there are different plastics and different molds for distance and putting, Flyball too has created a cottage industry of specialized breeding. Short fast dogs are at a premium, so Border Collies were bred to Jack Russells, creating the Border Jack. A fast, nutty half-breed, then came the Border-Staffy, Half Border, half Staffordshire Bull Terrier. We have one of those. He's amazingly powerful, but not small. A fierce competitor, but sweet around the kids.

The two sports have a lot in common. Similar amounts of tournaments, certain areas where growth is amazing (canada), struggles with putting it on TV - While it's a contained event, easy for filming it's so darn fast that it's hard to tell what's going on. A top level race is about 16 seconds for 4 dogs and you have 2 teams racing at the same time, like watching tennis with frickin laser beams for balls.

Do you know where their international HQ building and volunteer staff is located or are they where we were a few years ago with volunteers scattered around working from home? Is the club the economic entity where most of the money from events is handled? Do any of those club people get paid? The reason I ask is that the USGA doesn't make much money off of handicapping services. However, they license local entities to make money running their club handicapping operations for golfers.

the majority of assets and expenses comes from the lighting systems. When I was playing, I a set of competition lights was about 8000 dollars. They come in a couple huge 80 and 105 pound travel crates. A not so complicated timing system based on light triggers allows for exacting times down to the 1/1000 of a second. 2 sets of motion sensors, set 6 inches apart at the start line can tell if a dog passes another dog too early, and can even measure the gap between dogs. Many teams take all the doggy time data and use it to track progress and keep stats, though Nafa does not keep any dog based stats other than points, which are based on team race times only. 25 points under 20 seconds, 5 points from 20-24, 1 point under 30, I believe.

Dogs can race in flyball well into their twilight years. Many have raced as old as 11.

One thing that is interesting: You may be the most consistent dog in your region, you may never drop a ball or miss a hurdle, but if the rest of your team doesn't have it together, you may not get many points.

those answers ar all in the info posted on the site.

staff: dispersed
pay: none
fees: yes, they flow thru NAFA

so, they are closer to where the PDGA was before the center opened. (except with more Members and more money in the bank.)

and jeff, they do have a "veteran" class for dogs 8 and older it looks like.

"NAFA recognizes four classes of competition: Regular, Multi-breed, Veteran's and Non-Regular. In Multi-breed, teams must consist of different breeds (minimum of 4, maximum of 6, with 4 different breeds running in a heat). In the Veteran's class, every dog on the team must be at least 8 years old."

**** Master players :) (altho i guess 8 yo is like 56 for disc golfers :D)

"NAFA tournaments are divided into divisions so that teams compete against other teams of equal abilities. All dogs including mixed breeds are eligible to compete and earn titles in NAFA sanctioned tournaments. Titles are earned via a point system based on the time it takes a dog's team to complete each heat race. "
check out their "Rulebook" 10 pages of rules with 100+ pages of ByLaws, Org Docs, Policies, Procedures, etc.

not bad for True Volunteers �

Point of interest: Has anyone compiled the stats of the percentage of PDGA members that use email for communication. It should be easy to figure out I assume. Can that be shared here?



I've got a roundabout answer for this one. We send the e-newsletter out to just under 9,000 folks. Between 40 and 50 percent open the newsletter. (and a quarter of the folks that open it find something interesting enough to click on.)

altho i guess 8 yo is like 56 for disc golfers



48.
Twenty for first year and 4 for each year after that. Same for cats. Been that way for at least 15-20 years now.

my understanding is that Steve Dodge will also be spearheading/supporting the effort to fill the pages alotted to the pdga in the future.

as a new BoD member, i had no idea those pages were available to the BoD and/or PDGA. another thing to add to the BoD Transition Plan.



First, that's the first I've heard of this plan for me to fill those pages. I'll definitely have something fun to read for everyone next issue. But to fill them? Woof.

Second, I too did not know about this until Lorrie called me a day or two before the meeting and asked if I wanted to put something in. Good call on adding this to the New BoD Member transition document. Whose writing that again, Pat? :D

We have been in a three day Ice Storm so I got to watch a great DVD that you all should go out and try to find.

The Professional Bowling Assocation was struggling big time not so long ago. Three Microsoft executives scooped down and bought the entire PBA and hired a marketing maven who transforms the PBA Tour into what it is today with tour deals with Denny's, Motel 6 and last, but not least Odor Eaters.

"A League of Ordinary Gentlemen"
2006
Magnolia Home Entertainment

It has some great parallels to disc golf.
--Dealing with a bad public image
--Establishing a Pro Tour
--Creating markatable entities
--Finding outside sponsorship

It also follows the lives of four way different Pro Bowlers as many of them travel far and near on weekends for the chance to make "the show" or final 9 in our terms.

Very interesting indeed............................................ .... :p

Ability based divisions. Nice to see some other sport realizes the proper way to form competitive divisions is ability, not an arbitrary age.


TTrue

age is no more arbitrary than ratings breaks in a system based on unsound math.

or ratings breaks in a system based on sound math, for that matter.

age is no more arbitrary than ratings breaks in a system based on unsound math.



That's an awful attack on all the hard work that Chuck Kennedy and countless ratings volunteers across the country have donated thier time for over the past decade. If you truly believe that, I suspect you don't have sound knowledge of how the ratings are calculated and how the system has evolved over the years. Countless energies have been spent on this message board detailing the math behind the ratings system and how sound it is over a broad range of age, gender, abilities and types of courses.

If you truly believe that you either haven't been paying attention or refuse to believe the facts presented to you. http://www.panthersplanet.net/style_emoticons/default/thumbsdown.gif

We have been in a three day Ice Storm so I got to watch a great DVD that you all should go out and try to find.

The Professional Bowling Assocation was struggling big time not so long ago. Three Microsoft executives scooped down and bought the entire PBA and hired a marketing maven who transforms the PBA Tour into what it is today with tour deals with Denny's, Motel 6 and last, but not least Odor Eaters.

"A League of Ordinary Gentlemen"
2006
Magnolia Home Entertainment

It has some great parallels to disc golf.
--Dealing with a bad public image
--Establishing a Pro Tour
--Creating markatable entities
--Finding outside sponsorship

It also follows the lives of four way different Pro Bowlers as many of them travel far and near on weekends for the chance to make "the show" or final 9 in our terms.

Very interesting indeed............................................ .... :p



interesting. i want to check this out.

the differences between our sport and bowling are the biggest difficulties to overcome before disc golf moves towards whatever "big time" might be (TV, more money, both, whatever). identifying these differences will help decide what steps need be taken to try to pull what the PBA has done.

-disc golfers are a fraction of bowlers population wise
-it's alot more difficult to film disc golf in a fashion worthy of tv. golf does it, but golf has 10 gazillion people anxious to pay $30 for a box of balls and $300 for a single club. disc golf has a couple hundred thousand (tops) people who pay $10-15 for a disc that they use indefinitly.
-you typically associate beer with bowling alleys. if you do that with a state park, you typically (not always) have issues.

so...
-grow the player base (it seems the pdga has focused almost exclusively on this and pretty successfully)
-find creative sponsorship opportunities that actually have a payoff for the sponsor (like odoreaters and bowling). maybe sharpie, more shoe companies, red bull, whatever... this is where it's critical to have a massive player base.
-promote private disc golf facilities and give preferential sanctioning arrangements to tourneys at premier/private facilities. as long as we have to play by a state parks rules, we limit growth. this might also help with the image of the sport.

I think you missed the point.

It's not that the ratings are inaccurate, but that the division points are arbitrary.

Unless there is some magical point where an intermediate golfer becomes an advanced golfer in more ways than just rating.

Or it could be that the ratings breaks were set to split the total number of amateurs into three equal sized divisions.

Or maybe to put the bulk of the bell curve of players into the intermediate division, make the depth of that division reasonable for competition (about 5 strokes) and let the down slopes of the bell curve be Rec on the low side and Adv on the high side.

I wasn't there, but I hope the numbers were not completely arbitrary and further hope that the tweaks to them have had some meaning.

or ratings breaks in a system based on sound math, for that matter.




I think you missed the point.

It's not that the ratings are inaccurate, but that the division points are arbitrary.

Unless there is some magical point where an intermediate golfer becomes an advanced golfer in more ways than just rating.

Or it could be that the ratings breaks were set to split the total number of amateurs into three equal sized divisions.

Or maybe to put the bulk of the bell curve of players into the intermediate division, make the depth of that division reasonable for competition (about 5 strokes) and let the down slopes of the bell curve be Rec on the low side and Adv on the high side.

I wasn't there, but I hope the numbers were not completely arbitrary and further hope that the tweaks to them have had some meaning.



No, I get that point, and agree - we can argue until the cows come home on where the appropriate ratings breaks should be.

But at least it's a system based on ability.

All I know is that if I play with someone who is rated 20 points higher than me, and we both play well (not on fire and not crappy), I lose by about two strokes.

That passes "the goofy test" for me in the real world. Whatever we choose to do with ratings is another story, but I believe they pretty sound.

Of course any nay-sayer can point to someone with 1 to 3 rated "rounds of their life" and jump and down about how the system doesn't work, but that's not the point. It's statistics. If you keep playing rated rounds your rating will be amazingly accurate.

jeff- i am not attacking anyone nor belittling their work, merely stating a fact.

i am quite familiar with how ratings are calculated, my problem with them is that they fail to account for the probability of a given score being shot on a given course. the sample of scores from any event will approximate a bell curve if charted rather than a straight line. (there will be more scores near the center than at either end) the linear math used in ratings calcs (every stroke worth the same at a given ssa) is, simply that, linear math. this is the source of the problems with comparing very good or very bad rounds from course to course. last year (or the year before?) they introduced some contrived factor to serve as a band-aid for this problem.

to put it differently, according to our ratings system the chance is exactly the same of a given player shooting 20, 50, or 500 on a course of any ssa. obviously that is not the case. i have spoken with chuck about this in the past and they have chosen not to address it although they did consider i at one point. perhaps it is you who do not understand how the calcs work. ;)

Or you could be like me where the only thing consistently accurate about my ratings is my standard deviation. :cool:

PBA talk by Yeti



A good comparison. However, also note that the LPBA folded last year - women now have to compete on the men's tour. (The two tours were run independently of each other - a mistake that DG has avoided so far).


I will now wait for a couple of Google execs to buy the PDGA and bring life to the tourney DG. :)

If it were all based on ratings, but allowed for "playing up" it just may work.

Have divisions based on total number of players. Limit it to 5 divisions in a filed of 90 (or 100 with 2 floating lead cards - that tee off on hole 1 after everyone else). that way you have divisions of 20 golfers per division. The golfers are divided by rating. Unrated players go into a division that is simply unclassified. All others get divvied up into divisions based on their rating. Anyone can play up 1, 2, 3 divisions if they so choose.

The top players would be in the Pro division (Division 1) and can play for cash or at a lesser fee for cash equivalent (80% fee). All other divisions play for trophies. A % of each player's registration fee goes to the "pot" which goes to the pro payout. If an Am cashes in Pro, he gets the equivalent of 80% value in merchandise. With players playing for trophies, players will tend to shop at the tournament pro shop.

Just brainstorming.

ratings breaks in a system based on unsound math.



Of course, you're referring to the system in other sports like ball golf. The only unsound math in DG is incorrectly recorded or added scores.

In the Veteran's class, every dog on the team must be at least 8 years old."

**** Master players :) (altho i guess 8 yo is like 56 for disc golfers :D)





It matters not a whit, but the NEFA homepage lists the veterans age as 7. I known that in AKC events such as obedience and agility a veteran is 8.

And relative age depends on the breed:

A minature poodle has an average life expectancy of nearly 15 years so by age 7 they are in their prime. A Bull Mastiff on the other hand has one foot in the grave and the chances are good that a bulldog has already gone to the land of Milkbones and Honey.

My wife and I were both amused and delighted by Matt's flyball post and the subsequent comparisons as we also both go our seperate ways many weekends; her to the obedience ring and I to the next tournament.

As a side note, on the subject of dogs and discs ... the disc dog sport of Hotzone was an instant success on TV during coverage of the Great Outdoor Games. While disc golf as a spectator sport doesn't hold a candle to Flyball and Hotzone, it is a shame we can't compete with other sports like archery (for pete's sake) for a little GOG air time.

Dogs in the Hotzone (http://www.iddha.com/hotzone.htm)

Second on liking Hotzone.

Almost Ultimate for dogs...

altho i guess 8 yo is like 56 for disc golfers



48.
Twenty for first year and 4 for each year after that. Same for cats. Been that way for at least 15-20 years now.



actually it is 21 for the first two dog years (takes a dog 2 years to become a true adult) and 4 dog years for each year after that -- so an 8 year old dog is 45 equivalent human years...

my problem with them is that they fail to account for the probability of a given score being shot on a given course.



Since we're talking about bowling here, I suspect the probability of rolling a 300 is quite a bit less than shooting a 250 round. And surprisingly, they use the "unsound math" of straight averages to determine team averages for handicapping competition with other teams. Likewise, the player shooting a 300 is only 50 pins ahead of the person shooting 250, not some additional differential based on probabilities of those scores. In BG, your handicap is a straight average of your 10 best handicapped scores out of your most recent 20. The only adjsutment before the calculation is that each of your handicapped rounds is determined using the slope of the course which is ball golf's crude equivalent to SSA.

<u>Growth Rate (active, 1999 - 2006)</u>

184% Flyball
220% PDGA



what numbers are used to determine growth rate?
# of active members?
financial income from fees?
accumulated assets?

:confused:

That sounds more like a theoretical problem for math geeks than a practical problem for TDs who want to sort players by ability.

-promote private disc golf facilities and give preferential sanctioning arrangements to tourneys at premier/private facilities.

I've pretty much decided that I cannot sanction tournaments at private facilities anymore. In order to get get greens fees down to the $10 to $15 range and have a payout that competes with all the other tournaments out there,
(a) my golf course owner needs to get his beer sales, and
(b) I cannot add any more costs on top of the green fees.

my problem with them is that they fail to account for the probability of a given score being shot on a given course.



Since we're talking about bowling here, I suspect the probability of rolling a 300 is quite a bit less than shooting a 250 round. And surprisingly, they use the "unsound math" of straight averages to determine team averages for handicapping competition with other teams. Likewise, the player shooting a 300 is only 50 pins ahead of the person shooting 250, not some additional differential based on probabilities of those scores. In BG, your handicap is a straight average of your 10 best handicapped scores out of your most recent 20. The only adjsutment before the calculation is that each of your handicapped rounds is determined using the slope of the course which is ball golf's crude equivalent to SSA.



the possible score set does not differ from one bowling alley to the next- zero to three hundred is it. they don't need to take into account the wide variety of possible score sets we have in dg.

just because the dg rating system is more sound than the bg handicapping system still does not make the math sound.

please answer this question directly- does the pdga rating system or does it not attempt to account for a non-linear phenomenon (scoring spread) with a linear function?

geez, i swore i wouldn't let myself get pulled into this argument again.

please answer this question directly- does the pdga rating system or does it not attempt to account for a non-linear phenomenon (scoring spread) with a linear function?




Yes it does where applicable. Your concept does not apply for this part of the ratings calc. The odds that a player shoots a great round that's possible in 1 out of 200 rounds for his rating is just as likely as shooting a poor round that's possible in 1 in 200 rounds. So the probabilities and the actual high and low scores (round ratings) on either side of a player's average net each other out. This makes it unnecessry to "improve" the calcs with probabilities applied to each round. The net result would be zero over several rounds and just contribute more volatility in ratings for those with fewer rounds. It's lots of extra math that would contribute nothing but additional work and confusion, and more importantly, no better accuracy.

Presuming we get the SSA correct on a course, a 1070 round will be better than a 1065 round on another course in the same SSA range. Where we have issues is the players who play only high SSA courses versus low SSA courses. A 1070 isn't as statistically "good" on a low SSA course as a 1070 on a high SSA course.

ratings breaks in a system based on unsound math.



Of course, you're referring to the system in other sports like ball golf. The only unsound math in DG is incorrectly recorded or added scores.

and possibly the VERY minor determination of whether we use STDEV or STDEVP (sample set or entire population). :cool:

growth rate for PDGA is for current Members as reported by the PDGA. NAFA's numbers are taken from their "Active Dogs" list. because not all PDGA Members compete, the percentage are not completely comparable... pdga might show a higher growth rate because nafa only include "active", which i believe means "competed this year".

btw, for those who would jump my buns for this post... its a comparison, not a judgement. facts is facts. lets see some other examples, including 990s, and we can run comparisons on them as well.



This is exactly the kind of post from Pat that irritates me. Is there anyone out there who thinks for one moment that Pat isn't critiquing the PDGA and saying they fall short of the standard set in Flyball?

Second, before I go into what's wrong with this, let me point out that Pat does this frequently. The first time, I politely pointed out to Pat that he needed to be more careful. It happened again on another topic and I politely corrected Pat again. After a while I realized that Pat did it as a matter of course and finally I got mad.

The problem is that Pat makes these comparisons without doing a real analysis. Sometimes he doesn't even really compare, he just finds that the PDGA has a shortcoming based on his �intuition.� Take the �our turnover is too high� argument that Pat has made several times. I've pointed out to Pat on numerous occasions, that until he actually compares our turnover rate to that of other similar organizations, his notion that our turnover is too high has no meaning. On the other hand Pat manages to keep bringing the issue up without really looking to see if it has merit.

On to the task at hand, if you buy that Pat is saying, we could do better at least as compared to the Flyball organization, then you have to ask, based on what? Yes the flat numbers look better, but that is a small part of the story. Any business-person knows that comparing the profit margin of Microsoft (a company with little infrastructure) to ExxonMobil, a company with huge infrastructure is nuts. Even if they have the same exact revenue stream, because the businesses are so different, you can't compare them. The notion of comparing Flyball with Disc Golf, simply because they are both small non-profits is something that a non-business-person would do. BTW - did I remember to tell you that Pat has an MBA... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I don't know what the service structure of the Flyball organization is, but some basic questions should be asked (and please keep in mind, the answers to all these may be yes): Do they provide a system for rating the dogs, and what is the cost of that system? Do they provide insurance? Do they provide any of the services and structure that the PDGA does? Do they have an extensive online database? Are their signups ad hoc or are they based on ratings and a PDGA maintained database (note that the posts so far read as if they are ad hoc). Do they get a magazine (even if you argue it�s a waste of money, do they get one?) Do they get a rules book and other goodies each year? Now, as Pat would say, I�m not arguing for these things, just pointing out that they are there.

Pat might say we should evaluate whether we need those things and if losing them would lower our cost structure we should consider it, and I�d agree. It might be that the PDGA isn't doing as well as it could, and there's no doubt that asking hard questions is good. But asking hard questions and then not doing an obvious analysis or true comparison is disingenuous. It's leaving out the details to prove your point. So, is Flyball doing better than the PDGA? Who knows, Pat didn't bother to give us anything but the data that supported the point he was trying to make so we can�t really say.

Lyle, I am not sure where you are going with this, seems to be you are just looking to pick a fight.

The Flyball folks used to have a newsletter, but they started putting everything on the website and thus cut out the cost of the newsletter. They will be adding training sections to the site, and are currently creating some marketing campaign stuff. I think the main reason they stopped printing the newsletter is because most dogs can't read (even the border collies). JK.

As far as fees, in a 2 day tournament, $20-30 per team goes to NAFA, depending on if it's a 2 day or 2 1-day tournament. there are as many as 60 teams at a tournament. Do the math.

For this money you get the lighting equipment shipped or delivered (by a regional representative) for your tournament (can't have a tournament without it), score tracking (you enter scores online), judge training (you pay the judge), no insurance (clubs need to get their own), and regional points for those finishing in the top 3 in the tournament.

Makes the $5 we pay in PDGA tournaments seem like a bargain, really.

Points is the only tracking. With certain point amounts dogs get titles, and then pins, and at 20,000 points they get a fancy placque, every 10,000 after that they get a crest for the plaque. Really nice stuff. At 60,000 points I think they get a GOLD, as in REAL GOLD, pin. Nice stuff. All free of charge. Well, 'cept for that $15 one time registration, and the basically $5 per dog per tournament. A good solid dog can get about 1200 points per tournament, so to get to 60,000, it'd take 50 PERFECT tournaments, and you never have a perfect tournament. That's a lot of weekends. I haven't played 50 disc golf tournaments yet. Awards are given to top dogs in region and worldwide each year.

Flyball clubs are a lot like a disc golf club, when they run an event, a lot of the expense falls on them until the registration checks come in. Many flyball tournaments can lose money, while others can earn lots, but just as in disc golf, you don't earn off the entry fees, you earn off of all the little things you do. Raffles are common, and raffles can pull in up to 1000 dollars. Most of that off of each member supplying a few raffle items, often "regifts" often, raffle items from previous flyball raffles!

The fee structure might seem high, but you must remember each team consists of a minimum of 4 dogs, usually 6. Each dog has a handler, then there's the boxloader. Each team gets 3-5 heats per race, and in a usual tournament, 8-10 races per team. 35 -40 heats per weekend.

OK, enough flyball info.

growth rate for PDGA is for current Members as reported by the PDGA. NAFA's numbers are taken from their "Active Dogs" list. because not all PDGA Members compete, the percentage are not completely comparable... pdga might show a higher growth rate because nafa only include "active", which i believe means "competed this year".



Pat, can you please post the active membership total (PDGA) for each of the years being referenced?
is there a graph anywhere? me like pictures :D

It's online in the Information area under Demographics heading:
www.pdga.com/documents/2005/96-05TourGrowth.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2005/96-05TourGrowth.pdf)

nice sig, aviarx.

This is exactly the kind of post from Pat that irritates me. Is there anyone out there who thinks for one moment that Pat isn't critiquing the PDGA and saying they fall short of the standard set in Flyball?



Lyle, instead of finding fault with what you take as Pat's critique, you might do well to consider the ways in which critiques can be helpful ... perhaps Pat has something productive in mind and you're missing the bigger picture. ;)

did you read Rick's editorial?

rob, the last 100 posts on this thread have been full of plenty unique perspective, discussion and give and take. its been a taste of what discussion boards can offer. one attempt to make an individual the topic wont distract the thread if we dont let it. let it go............

this thread needs to be a bunch of threads, in a new section called Ask the BoD.

well rob, you are right, i didnt cite my math. turns out my math was wrong. trythis one:

<table border="1"><tr><td>.</td><td>1999</td><td>2005</td><td>growth</td><td>reference
</td></tr><tr><td>NAFA</td><td>3945</td><td>7265</td><td>184%</td><td>http://www.flyball.org/nafa_numbers.html
</td></tr><tr><td>PDGA</td><td>5653</td><td>9629</td><td>170%</td><td>http://www.pdga.com/documents/2005/96-05TourGrowth.pdf
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

this thread needs to be a bunch of threads, in a new section called Ask the BoD.

seconded! anyone know how feasible it is to do that?

extremely simple. Does the BoD need to vote on it? :)

only if they are commies who value central planning above all else :D

seriously though, i should hope not, although i am not an expert in these matters. how do youknow it is extremely simple? can you do it? i have no real idea on the who or how.

I think someone can be a control freak without being a commie...

Lyle, lighten up. Pat and all the BOD, PDGA Staff (and even Terry!) are doing the best job they can with the sincere best interests of the PDGA at heart. If you can do better, we await your candidacy for BOD.

I know sometimes my constructive criticism comes across the wrong way, but your attacks on Pat are uncalled for and have no place on this board.

oh, and by the way Lyle, they call that an opinion when someone states something that may or may not actually be true under further research. We all have them, and it's ok to have them. We all don't have to have compiled a zillion states and compared "like organizations" to have them. that comes later before we act on them....

We have been in a three day Ice Storm so I got to watch a great DVD that you all should go out and try to find.

The Professional Bowling Assocation was struggling big time not so long ago. Three Microsoft executives scooped down and bought the entire PBA and hired a marketing maven who transforms the PBA Tour into what it is today with tour deals with Denny's, Motel 6 and last, but not least Odor Eaters.

"A League of Ordinary Gentlemen"
2006
Magnolia Home Entertainment

It has some great parallels to disc golf.
--Dealing with a bad public image
--Establishing a Pro Tour
--Creating markatable entities
--Finding outside sponsorship

It also follows the lives of four way different Pro Bowlers as many of them travel far and near on weekends for the chance to make "the show" or final 9 in our terms.

Very interesting indeed............................................ .... :p



I caught that on PBS awhile back, and agree with Yeti that there are interesting points for a sport trying to get some market share. Back in the day, bowling was at the top of the TV world, now they struggle to get much coverage but still pull in regular viewers and a lot of "classic" ESPN time.

Bowling and DG are both at very different developmental stages, however. Not long ago, bowling alleys filled most nights with two shifts of leagues; around here, most houses don't even fill one shift of league bowlers. DG numbers grow every year, though.

I think its the "spend some money to make some money" attitude that caught me with the show. Nobody in DG, not the biggest manufacturer nor the PDGA, has the resources to support "big time" TV presentation of the game. At least yet.

But we do have Disc Golf Live for public access TV.

Joe

in the past we have heard countless time "we are within the averages for associations of our size and type". thats a comparitive statement that offers no facts to support it. the comparison i did using real numbers that could be used to either support or reject the original notion that we are within averages. its only one data point though. even more useful would be the numbers for about 10 or 20 other organizations like ours. this is a start, not a finish.

Lyle, I am not sure where you are going with this, seems to be you are just looking to pick a fight.



Xterra,

Shirley you jest. Pat hunts and picks data that supports his point of view, leaves out anything that contradicts it, and when I point that out I'm looking for a fight? Interesting notion.

Let me remind you of what was in my post. You're still comparing apples and oranges, and you didn't even address all of the issues I briefly raised. That wasn't the point! The point is that Pat ignores anything that contridicts his basic message. I'm simply asking Pat to view both sides of the equation, something which you and Rob and Dr. Evil are asking me to do. Isn't it fair to ask the same of Pat?

So, here's a question for Pat. Regression analysis, or perhaps a simple Chi Square test. Is there a significant difference in the growth rates between Flyball and Disc Golf or once again, is he making a mountain out of a mole hill?

This is exactly the kind of post from Pat that irritates me. Is there anyone out there who thinks for one moment that Pat isn't critiquing the PDGA and saying they fall short of the standard set in Flyball?



Lyle, instead of finding fault with what you take as Pat's critique, you might do well to consider the ways in which critiques can be helpful ... perhaps Pat has something productive in mind and you're missing the bigger picture. ;)

did you read Rick's editorial?



Good point Rob. The problem is that I don't know if they have merit and I'm not willing to assume they do. I like to work from the assumption that there is innocence until guilt. Some are working from the perspecitive that there is guilt, now lets find the evidence. That doesn't work well for me.

Of course Pat has something productive in mind. His goal is to make the PDGA better. Awesome! I'm simply asking that he be honest about it.

nice sig, aviarx.



I like his signature too. I will point out that the greatest threat to freedom in the past few years has actually not been a lack of criticism, but some out right lies told by the administration that were bought in total by the media and the public. Effective lying and missleading data can be well used to paint any picture that a person wants to. As members of the PDGA, we should look closely at data provided to us and ask it's relevance. We should ask if it's credible and we should ask if it is complete. We should also look to see what has been left out. That logic should be applied to both the PDGA leadership and it's critics... no matter who they are.

Lyle, your opinion re: Pat is noted. (and archived)

you still haven't answered whether you read Rick Rothstein's back-page DGWN editorial?

Lyle, lighten up. Pat and all the BOD, PDGA Staff (and even Terry!) are doing the best job they can with the sincere best interests of the PDGA at heart. If you can do better, we await your candidacy for BOD.

I know sometimes my constructive criticism comes across the wrong way, but your attacks on Pat are uncalled for and have no place on this board.



I disagree with you for a couple of reasons. The first is that my criticisms are real criticisms. Second, I refer you to Aviar Xs signature, it's a good one. Third, I've never seen any Board Member come on this MB and try to make the rest of the Board Members look bad... that is until Pat came along. Fourth, this is Pat's choosen medium for communication. It's where he takes his message and builds consensus for his issues. Should I not address them here? Pat doesn't give a pass to the rest of the Board in his subtle criticisms, are you asking then that Pat deserves better than he gives?

oh, and by the way Lyle, they call that an opinion when someone states something that may or may not actually be true under further research. We all have them, and it's ok to have them. We all don't have to have compiled a zillion states and compared "like organizations" to have them. that comes later before we act on them....



It's simple enough IMO is how you start the post. BTW - am I not allowed to point out flaws with Pat's Opinions?

Lyle, your opinion re: Pat is noted. (and archived)

you still haven't answered whether you read Rick Rothstein's back-page DGWN editorial?



Nope I haven't please paraphrase. Thanks in advance!

you still haven't answered whether you read Rick Rothstein's back-page DGWN editorial?



Nope I haven't please paraphrase. Thanks in advance!



i did paraphrase the part being discussed here, back on post #638560 (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Board=Other PDGA Topics&amp;Number=638560&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Main=631114&amp;Sear ch=true&amp;#Post638560) --


<font color="blue"> i noticed in the present issue (Winter 2007, last page) Rick Rothstein discusses his having been elected the first PDGA Communications Director and having served on the BoD for nearly 12 of the first 15 years. He talks about the importance of communication with the membership as articulated in both the old constitution and in the new bylaws. He then points out that the present PDGA Commissioner as well as the respective BoD members have failed to address the membership via the DGWN for the last four issues consecutively, and that the recent movement away from open communication is a trend that concerns him and he hopes that trend will soon change.
</font>



but i was wondering if you read Rick's words? -- not mine ;)

Nope I haven't please paraphrase. Thanks in advance!

isnt initiative great?

btw, Matt provided the link on his own. I *proactively* pulled some numbers from both organizations. if you believe a regression analysis is required for a full and complete analysis, then please by all means, proceed with one. i will look forward to reading your analysis.

the biggest differences appear to be financial. on just 25% of the revenue and 21% of the expenses relative to the PDGA, NAFA shows a 2005 gain of more than $15,000 while the PDGA's total assets lost more than $35,000.



So, NAFA came in at almost twice as much (proportionate to budget gross revenues) over budget than the PDGA did under budget. Looks like the PDGA did a slightly better job at balancing revenues and expenses for that year, although both did a pretty good job.

BTW, Pat Brenner, why did you ask the PDGA board to spend members' dues money to provide a free membership for Hawk? Maybe I missed an earlier answer to that?

the budget numbers are not reported, just the results. so i can make no assessment of performance relative to budget. ia minterested in seeing your math though. your post didnt specify which year you are referring to, so i am not clear on what you are asking or concluding.

send me an email or call me if you want an explanation ofhte Hawk thing. i have already answered that question on this Message Board. perhaps i will ask Rick if i can provide some content for our pages in the next DGWN? if this is truly the most pressing issue you would like addressed, let me know and i will do my best.

Every piece of data I used for my post, above, was in the portion of your original post that I quoted.

Just a link to w here you answered the question about Hawk would be fine. Obviously I missed that post.

Thanks Aviar,

I'm sorry I missed the first post and I appreciate your patience in bringing it here.

The sentiment Rick expresses is a good one and one I agree with. Do you think that Pat or Rick are the only people who have ever addressed this issue? In comparison, Rick chose the correct way to view his concerns, IMO Pat does not. That's pretty simple.

One thing that should be said, I do not agree with either Rick or Pat that the issue is as bad as they think it is. Don't get me wrong, things could be better, but there is not some desire to hide data or issues or performance from the membership. BTW - the recent lack of information that Rick is referring to, did that start before or after the recent Board changes. Just curious. :D

Conflict of Interest (COI) was a topic discussed here earlier and i was wondering if we could get an update?
i see from the minutes from the last 2006 BoD meeting that:


Board Conflict of Interest Form/Process � P. Brenner
Based on a template originally provided by Bob Decker, Pat presented to the Board for review the final
draft of the Conflict of Interest Disclosure Form. Discussion ensued regarding the timing of signing the
form by current and future Board members.

<u> Action Item (Staff) </u>

Post the Conflict of Interest Disclosure form at the website for the membership as a whole and for potential
Board members to review prior to running for a BOD position.

<u> Motion (T. Pozzy/B. Decker) </u>

The motion was amended to include approval of the new Conflict of Interest Disclosure form which current
Board members will fill out and submit to HQ by January 15, 2007.

<u> For</u>: Unanimous

Motion Passed



Have all of the COI statements been submitted as required, and is there anywhere online yet where we can go to read copies of these statements?

Nope I haven't please paraphrase. Thanks in advance!

isnt initiative great?

btw, Matt provided the link on his own. I *proactively* pulled some numbers from both organizations. if you believe a regression analysis is required for a full and complete analysis, then please by all means, proceed with one. i will look forward to reading your analysis.



I know that Matt provided the link that you referred to. And if you hadn't added, I would have replied to Matt that he needed to have a wider view. It is always dangerous to compare two situations unless you are well versed in each and know the points of comparison and most of all, are willing to list the caveats in the comparison

BTW - the recent lack of information that Rick is referring to, did that start before or after the recent Board changes. Just curious. :D



it reads to me like he is mainly discussing the BoD prior to the recent changes, given how short a tenure the newbies have had heretofore, but judge for yourself -- here (in blue font) is what he wrote in case you still haven't read it in the Winter 2007 DGWN yet:

<font color="blue"> "While there have been ample reports in the past several issues from the administrative staff and from a few volunteer committee chairmen, this is the fourth issue in a row that we have heard nothing from Commissioner Theo Pozzy, or for that matter, any other of our elected Board members." </font>

(you really should read the above in the context of Rick's whole piece which begins with his discussing that he was the first PDGA Communications Director and that he served on the PDGA BoD for more than a decade.)

"Pat If you want me to reply to the PMs you're sending you have to take me off ignore."

Surely no PDGA board member would ever put any member on "ignore." Geez. I never even put Mike Crump on ignore.

It is always dangerous to compare two situations unless you are well versed in each and know the points of comparison and most of all, are willing to list the caveats in the comparison



all progress involves danger. so do great disc golf holes ;)

do you have a comparison you can post that improves upon what we've seen so far, or are you just playing armchair Climo?

"While there have been ample reports in the past several issues from the administrative staff and from a few volunteer committee chairmen, this is the fourth issue in a row that we have heard nothing from Commissioner Theo Pozzy, or for that matter, any other of our elected Board members."



I liked his words better a year or two ago where he said nice things about me as communication director :) like I was maybe the best there had ever been :)

A little background:

Until just about the time I joined the PDGA board, Rick himself had been on the board, for quite some time.

The agreement between the PDGA and DGW(N) included six (6) pages of PDGA-produced content in the magazine each issue; the "PDGA pages."

Little did I know when I took on the board role, that those pages had primarily been pulled together by Rick himself, acting as kind of a hybrid DGW(N) publisher and communication director, even though he wasn't the communication director. Then Rick left the board, and . . . it took me a while to figure it out, like until when he started bugging me about the next DGW(N) deadline, but his expectation when he left the board was that someone else - me :confused: - would write and/or gather those six pages each quarter, so I did.

Some of the pages got/get used for various stock stuff such as recognizing the Ace and Birdie Club folks, etc., and various PDGA reporting, such as something that was, I think, called board minutes but may not have been the official minutes.

Various staff and PDGA leaders would write brief essays periodically, such as "From the Executive Director" and "From the Commissioner," etc.

Getting minutes on line. One thing I did fairly early on was ensure that official board minutes were actually voted on before they were published anywhere, including DGWN, and that those minutes were made available on the website - so they would be available sooner than the quarterly publication of DGW(N) and would be there for constant future reference by members.

Starting regular email communications. I also created the first PDGA email newsletter and encouraged other, additional email communications to members from the PDGA. That also created less of the stuff that had previously been in the PDGA Pages, because now by the time DGW(N) came out, members had already seen a lot of it - including various notes from senior staff and board members.

The name change from Disc Golf World News to Disc golf World reflects Rick's understanding that much of the "newsy" stuff is now communicated via the Internet - which it was not when I became communication director.

Of course that made it tougher to get content to fill those six pages, but I worked hard at that - often blowing deadlines with Rick, but he and his staff were good to work with.

With the addition of more staff and the consolidation of staff at the IDGC, responsibility for the content of those six pages moved from a volunteer role the staff. The intent was to ensure continuity and that full-time staffers could work more smoothly with DGW to get the content prepared in time. It also reflected the change in management that makes board members less hands-on manager of projects and more budget and policy decision makers.

I'm guessing that the staff has found it a whole lot easier to provide all of that content themselves, and do it on time, rather than dig it out of various volunteers. It doesn't mean an lessening of information from the PDGA to members, it probably means more information and better, since the staff is more on top of almost all details than any volunteer leader is. Obviously, Rick would like to hear more words from volunteer leadership. His complaint wasn't about lack of information or of meaningful communication, it was about words from board members, especially the commish.

Of course, there is also no reason that any board member could't also choose to provide something for that section, but - again, I'm guessing here, except for me for the six months that I was still on the board last year - that they feel that the staff had done a good job of keeping members informed in those PDGA Pages.

I do think that it would be nice to have something from Theo in there as his tenure as commissioner winds down. I hope that he has been preparing something that does a good job of capturing the tremendous advances the PDGA has made as an organization while he was on the board. (It might actually take some multiple of six pages.)

This came out this weekend.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070119/FEATURES01/701190348/1025/FEATURES

http://www.freep.com/assets/static/pdf/2007/01/flyball0119.pdf

The PDF does a great job of explaining Flyball for the uninitiated. Better than any article or diagram I've ever seen.

Every piece of data I used for my post, above, was in the portion of your original post that I quoted.

i am not following your math then. please show the calculation. rob had the same question about one of my numbers, and i had to show the calc to back up where my number came from. turns out my number was wrong, too! ooops.

although i remain convinced i said nothing about "budget", just results. they are different things, right?


Just a link to w here you answered the question about Hawk would be fine. Obviously I missed that post.

its there somewhere. my rate for independant research is $200/hour if you want me to do it for you. :D (<- the smiley means i'm just goofing with ya on that last senence)

Just let me know where to send the invoice for this :)

"the biggest differences appear to be financial. on just 25% of the revenue and 21% of the expenses relative to the PDGA, NAFA shows a 2005 gain of more than $15,000 while the PDGA's total assets lost more than $35,000."

NAFA was $15k off (up) on a budget with 1/4 of the revenues of the PDGA. The PDGA was off $35k (down) on a budget of 4x NAFA's. (My assumption is that you were using comparable figures in that post, despite some slight language differences in how they were described.)

The ratio of the size of the budgets to each other, defined above, is PDGA:NAFA = 4:1.

Therefore, using the NAFA budget as the baseline of "1," in order to see how far "off" the PDGA was in terms relative to their budget sizes, you simply divide the PDGA's $35k by 4, which is "about" $9k compared to NAFA's $15k.

So the PDGA was closer to "on budget" than NAFA was, in terms of managing revenues and expenses to the approved budget.

Not a biggie, since both were very close to hitting their target smack on, except that it is harder to be close with the complexities of a larger organization. OTOH, we have professional staff whose job it is to make sure that we are close.

"Pat If you want me to reply to the PMs you're sending you have to take me off ignore."

Surely no PDGA board member would ever put any member on "ignore." Geez. I never even put Mike Crump on ignore.



Lyle formally requested Theo contact me and demand that i cease all communication with him. i received an email from Theo demanding that i cease all contact with Lyle. Later, after Lyle continued his attacks on me, i sent Lyle a PM asking for a dialog. Lyle refused, and in no uncertain terms. I subsequently asked Theo, who had willingly become involved, to intercede by asking Lyle for a dialog with me. Theo reported back that he had asked that of Lyle and had been refused.

i have sent Lyle my phone number and email address. contrary to his mischarecterization of me, i use many communication channels, not just this message board. when Lyle contacts me via email or phone so that we may work out our differences between ourseleves, i will gladly and permanently un-ignore him. but until he rescinds his request that i cease communiocation with him, i respectfully reserve the right to fulfill his original request by removing PMs as a communication option. i do not wish to violate the spirit of his original request.

i'm sorry, but "budget" and "revenue" are two vastly different things. i do not know NAFA's budget, and i am forbidden from discussing the PDGA budget.

change your "budget" to "revenue" and we are probably in agreement.

change your "budget" to "revenue" and we are probably in agreement.



Omigosh! :D

Getting minutes on line. One thing I did fairly early on was ensure that official board minutes were actually voted on before they were published anywhere, including DGWN, and that those minutes were made available on the website - so they would be available sooner than the quarterly publication of DGW(N) and would be there for constant future reference by members.



For those of you never had been serving on a board, this is a common practice. While someone on the board such as the secretary may keep the minutes of the meeting, sometimes they miss something or some board member has something in their notes that they think need to be added and the minutes get admended and voted on. So, it is in the best interst of everyone if the meeting minutes are not published until they are approved by the BoD. They might not be the most timely, but they will be correct.

actually, maybe another thing needs clarification.

"NAFA was $15k off (up) on a budget with 1/4 of the revenues of the PDGA. The PDGA was off $35k"

NAFA had net gain of +$15,000. PDGA has a net reduction of -$25,000. how that compares to their budgets is unknown. if NAFA had budgeted for a gain of 50K, then they missed badly. likewise, if PDGA has budgeted for a loss of 50K, then they succeeded with plenty of room to spare.

all i reported was the gain or loss. not a comparison to the budget.

putting the budget aside as an unknown, i am still left with the comparison that one organization created 15K and the other reduced 35K. fell free to draw whatever conclusions (if any) you feel are warranted based on that fact.

rob, i am not sure if i am allowed to address any of your questions regarding the COI disclosures. also, i do not know if the disclosures or just the template are to be posted.

i will post my own Disclosure here in the outside chance that anyone gives a whip.


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

I have read and understand the PDGA policy and procedures regarding Conflict of Interest and disclosure of those interests. The PDGA Conflict of Interest Policy is located at http://www.pdga.org/conflict_of_interest.php. As such, I represent that:

1. I am familiar with and will adhere to the PDGA�s Conflict of Interest Policy.

2. I have reviewed my related activities to determine if I have prohibited interests, transactions, or relationships.

3. Except as described in No. 6, I do not hold any prohibited investments nor were any held during the period; I have not entered into any prohibited transactions; nor am I aware of having any prohibited relationships.

4. Any situation where I am either not independent or do not know whether I am independent is listed and explained in No. 6.

5. Any situation in which I am not able or do not know whether I am able to exercise
objectivity in performing my duties as a member of the Board of Directors is listed and explained No. 6.

6. RELATIONSHIP/INVESTMENT and POSSIBLE ISSUES

Course Design Activities: I am currently designing a course whose owner might someday wish to offer as a site for a significant disc golf event. I hope to design and build other courses in the future.

Websites: I own the following domain names that are, or could be, disc golf related. At this time I have no specific plans for any of these names, and none are currently displaying anything disc golf related:

bowlhole.com, discgolfplayers.com, discgolfplayers.net, discgolfplayers.org, discgolfplayersassoc.com, discgolfplayersassoc.net, discgolfplayersassoc.org, discsports-intl.com, discsports-intl.net, discsports-intl.org, discsportsintl.com, discsportsintl.net, discsportsintl.org, glidesmooth.com, glidesmooth.net, glidesmooth.org, intldiscsports.com, intldiscsports.net, intldiscsports.org, smoothglide.net, smoothglide.org, united-disc-golf.com, united-discgolf.com

arlingtondiscgolf.com: I own this domain name and am starting to develop it into a resource for our local disc golf scene. It currently has disc golf related information on it, although it is limited to our local scene.

Event Participation: I play in several disc golf events every year, including both PDGA sanctioned and non-PDGA events. As a result, I regularly speak with Tournament Directors and consider some to be relatively close friends.

Vendor affiliations: by personal preference I only throw Discraft. I have recommended, and expect to recommend in the future, DGA, Innova and other manufacturers� products as I feel appropriate for the particular situation.

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

"Pat If you want me to reply to the PMs you're sending you have to take me off ignore."

Surely no PDGA board member would ever put any member on "ignore." Geez. I never even put Mike Crump on ignore.



Lyle formally requested Theo contact me and demand that i cease all communication with him. i received an email from Theo demanding that i cease all contact with Lyle. Later, after Lyle continued his attacks on me, i sent Lyle a PM asking for a dialog. Lyle refused, and in no uncertain terms. I subsequently asked Theo, who had willingly become involved, to intercede by asking Lyle for a dialog with me. Theo reported back that he had asked that of Lyle and had been refused.

i have sent Lyle my phone number and email address. contrary to his mischarecterization of me, i use many communication channels, not just this message board. when Lyle contacts me via email or phone so that we may work out our differences between ourseleves, i will gladly and permanently un-ignore him. but until he rescinds his request that i cease communiocation with him, i respectfully reserve the right to fulfill his original request by removing PMs as a communication option. i do not wish to violate the spirit of his original request.



LOL

Funny that, I would have sworn that I told Theo to tell Pat to have at it. Now I know Theo reasonably well, he speaks English eloquently. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have misunderstood "I'm counting on Pat replying" as "I refuse to have any communication with Pat. I would have also thought that the PM I received from Pat immediately after I told Theo it was O.K. for Pat to talk to me and the reply I sent to that e-mail would have been clear enough... Of course, maybe I dreamed it all.

BTW - Pat is correct, initially I did tell Pat not to contact me. At the start of this square dance Pat wanted a phone call, I had resigned from my position due to Pat's actions and Pat felt he could convince me to forego my stand on the issue if he talked to me. I knew that wasn't the case so I told him to leave me alone. I admit in retrospect I should have more narrowly defined the issue for Pat. In point of fact I should have done so long ago but one thing leads to another and things just don't always happen. However, when Theo contacted me saying that Pat felt he had the right to defend himself I had to agree.

Theo, If you're reading, I apologize for what I have communicated here about our conversations. As you well know, I believe that private communications, that is those that aren't illegal, should be kept private.

It is always dangerous to compare two situations unless you are well versed in each and know the points of comparison and most of all, are willing to list the caveats in the comparison



all progress involves danger. so do great disc golf holes ;)

do you have a comparison you can post that improves upon what we've seen so far, or are you just playing armchair Climo?



Sure,

Caveat, I've looked, but maybe I missed or miss-read. Did you happen to notice that Flyball doesn't have a MB to maintain. You know, a place where one can go to point out the short-comings of leadership? Beyond the cost savings in software, maintenance, and a sql database, not to mention a server (and I don't know if we're running ours on our own server) there's the man hours in policing and maintaining said site. There's a good bit of cost there.

Did you also notice that they aren't a democracy? That's right, a limited number of votes from each club leadership (by my understanding) are used in voting for the Board. One has to wonder what relationships and deals are made there...

Now, both you and Pat have assumed that it is my job to prove something in this comparison. In my education, I was taught that one is innocent until proven guilty. I have a tendancy to apply that cross board even to trivialities like this one. That is, if you want me to accept there is an issue here, it is your job to prove it, not mine to prove it doesn't exist...

"BTW - Pat is correct, initially I did tell Pat not to contact me. At the start of this square dance Pat wanted a phone call, I had resigned from my position due to Pat's actions and Pat felt he could convince me to forego my stand on the issue if he talked to me. I knew that wasn't the case so I told him to leave me alone. I admit in retrospect I should have more narrowly defined the issue for Pat. In point of fact I should have done so long ago but one thing leads to another and things just don't always happen. However, when Theo contacted me saying that Pat felt he had the right to defend himself I had to agree."

i truly hope people will read this and gain some understanding into what has been going on.

being on the BoD is tough. one perceived mistake makes one completely void of any value, while your detractors can forget to respond, proscrastinate, refuise to talk, etc., and still make like they smell like a rose.

i will welcome your candidacy Lyle. there are at least four BoD spots up in 2007.

jesus, people, this is not about guilt or innocence! its friday afternoon, relax a little. its a comparison of organizations that support young sports and that began their journeys at about the same time. nothing more. if you dont like the numbers in the comparison, how about identifying another similar org so we can expand our data points? there need not be any animosity here.

and by the way, my original comparison DID not that NAFA has no message board. did you read it and attempt to fully comprehend it, or did you just note the author and start blasting away at me?

all i reported was the gain or loss. not a comparison to the budget.

putting the budget aside as an unknown, i am still left with the comparison that one organization created 15K and the other reduced 35K. fell free to draw whatever conclusions (if any) you feel are warranted based on that fact.


So what exactly was the reason you posted those numbers? You have pretty much just admitted that they are meaningless.

Who knows, maybe the PDGA had stockpiled $100,000 in reserves and decided to spend/invest some of that in programs to grow the sport.

Since you are on the PDGA BOD, I -- as a member -- am wondering what in the heck you are doing presenting those opposing numbers in the worst possible light for the organization you are supposedly representing.

Yes you have wiggle room to act like politician here, but let's not pretend either one of us is an idiot: you presented the "Flyball earned $15k and the PDGA lost $35k" in a manner to intentionally make the PDGA look bad.

Why are you doing that?????????

being on the BoD is tough. one perceived mistake makes one completely void of any value, while your detractors can forget to respond, proscrastinate, refuise to talk, etc., and still make like they smell like a rose.



This I have to agree with, just ask Brian who got eaten up by various posters and when he had had enough called them out... and got ripped for it. Not to mention Theo who has also had to come here and defend himself...

Oh yeah, and Terry, but since Terry is no longer a Board Member, he can defend himself... better than I can.

"negative" is your own personal assessment, not mine, rhettt... as far as presenting the numbers, i didnt massagethem or make them up. its from the IRS filings and published documents. its a comparison of facts. if you were an investor reviewing two companies as possible investment opportunity, i gaurantee you would do something very similar. we call it an industry comparison. many times it does not go much further than looking at operating income percentages, or ROI... basically you look at aspects of the P&L and Income Statement. which is what i posted.

lets get 5 more and then we can draw better conclusions.

i can either vacate my responsibilities and be a do-nothing BoD member (sorry, i aint resigning) or i can apply common business practices to assess performance and preapre for the future. run for the BoD and you too will get to make that choice.

Very political and "wiggly" answer.

As an investor, I look at more than a single line item. As a representative of an organization that you are supposedly trying to better, I fail to see why you would post those numbers in that manner.

Why not something like this:

The PDGA had a non-renewal rate 37% while the Society of Belly-Lint Observers only lost 18% of their members.

(I made those numbers up.)

They are just numbers, Pat. I didn't massage them after I made them up. I picked them to specifically imply negativity towards the PDGA, but I didn't massage them. Wiggle wiggle, political slant political slant.

Yes you have wiggle room to act like politician here, but let's not pretend either one of us is an idiot: you presented the "Flyball earned $15k and the PDGA lost $35k" in a manner to intentionally make the PDGA look bad.

The PDGA had a non-renewal rate 37% while the Society of Belly-Lint Observers only lost 18% of their members.

"(I made those numbers up.)"

Yes, but is there really an organized group of Belly-Lint Observers?

And do they have to reveal content and color? :D

Congrats to Lyle for breaking his 773 post streak in which he bashed Bush at least once. I know he will be very dissapointed about this however and probably make up for it soon.

BTW Lyle I read ever single one of your posts but anytime I hear you tallk about Bush I stop and move on to the next one. The same is true for other posters who talk about other political figures.



I can't believe I didn't see this post! Best I've had all this year. Matt is right, stay out of politics, it's a nasty business. BTW - while rumour has it that Robbie can outthrow Matt, I've not seen it and Matt is still the longest thrower I've ever seen. Here it comes. Bush stinks.

Now lets see if Matt spots the hook.

does anyone know what percentage of overall disc golfers (people who at least play once in a while and maybe are disc consumers) are PDGA members?

i would like to see us reach out to a lot more disc golfers out there to try and increase our base and therefore our draw on sponsors. some form of lower membership that issues a PDGA number may be in order for those playing in their first tournament -- why not let the $5 fee get them a PDGA number and a rating for one update? it might reel more people in...

rob, i am not sure if i am allowed to address any of your questions regarding the COI disclosures. also, i do not know if the disclosures or just the template are to be posted.

i will post my own Disclosure here in the outside chance that anyone gives a whip.




Thanks Pat. Can you let us know if all of those on the BoD have at least submitted their COI statements (or how many have/haven't)? Or -- do i need to contact the PDGA office?

also, was there talk of posting the COI statements of our BoD members online?

my understanding is that i cannot tell you that, no. also, BoD members are not allowed to discuss their discussions with other BoD members. besides, i have no recolllection of whether there was any discussion or not, beyond what is recorded in the minutes.

Here's a concept.

Allow players to play up to 3 PDGA sanctioned events or their first 3 months of sanctioned play (whichever comes first) at the normal PDGA fee. No non-PDGA fees. Each player gets a preliminary PDGA #, via email that has an expiration date. If they do not decide to go for the PDGA membership, the PDGA # is put back in the pool. If they do not decide to opt in, they must start paying $5 per tournament.

One thing this does that other plans don't do is, give them some form of ownership. They can post on the board. They can get tournament ratings (though they won't be getting an official rating unless they register). Most importantly, they can get that number. They can use it at their next event. They can feel like a PDGA member. Will this entice them into ownership? Possibly. Ownership is a powerful thing. It's why people take longer to back out of a parking space when someone is waiting. It's what getting a drivers license gives you. It's what makes you yell shotgun when you see your friend's car. It's why you overbid on that CE Roc on Ebay. It was YOURS.

Giving people that number, the ability to post, and all that, it gives them ownership. They don't want that to disappear. So they register. It's not that much, really. Not as much as having a HIGHER number! Good lord NO!!! Why do you think AOL gives away free hours. They want people to get hooked. Some do. Some abuse it. This is a fact of life. But if there's one thing that it does, it gets people on the fence. Which side they jump off will be determined by their experience during the trial period. Whether they register in the end is somewhat determined on their desire to become part of the organization, and somewhat on whether they feel the organization is worth the price of membership.

Criticize the ability to post as being a major or a minor value, but it's a lot more major when you've had the ability to post then it gets taken away, as opposed to never being able to post.

It's worth a shot, right?



Hmmm... sounds a lot like what AviarX posted a 2 posts back, ehh? From page 17

Here's a concept.

Allow players to play up to 3 PDGA sanctioned events or their first 3 months of sanctioned play (whichever comes first) at the normal PDGA fee. No non-PDGA fees. Each player gets a preliminary PDGA #, via email that has an expiration date. If they do not decide to go for the PDGA membership, the PDGA # is put back in the pool. If they do not decide to opt in, they must start paying $5 per tournament.

One thing this does that other plans don't do is, give them some form of ownership. They can post on the board. They can get tournament ratings (though they won't be getting an official rating unless they register). Most importantly, they can get that number. They can use it at their next event. They can feel like a PDGA member. Will this entice them into ownership? Possibly. Ownership is a powerful thing. It's why people take longer to back out of a parking space when someone is waiting. It's what getting a drivers license gives you. It's what makes you yell shotgun when you see your friend's car. It's why you overbid on that CE Roc on Ebay. It was YOURS.

Giving people that number, the ability to post, and all that, it gives them ownership. They don't want that to disappear. So they register. It's not that much, really. Not as much as having a HIGHER number! Good lord NO!!! Why do you think AOL gives away free hours. They want people to get hooked. Some do. Some abuse it. This is a fact of life. But if there's one thing that it does, it gets people on the fence. Which side they jump off will be determined by their experience during the trial period. Whether they register in the end is somewhat determined on their desire to become part of the organization, and somewhat on whether they feel the organization is worth the price of membership.

Criticize the ability to post as being a major or a minor value, but it's a lot more major when you've had the ability to post then it gets taken away, as opposed to never being able to post.

It's worth a shot, right?



Hmmm... sounds a lot like what AviarX posted a 2 posts back, ehh? From page 17



matt, we do share common goals -- getting more members and i agree with the approach you generated of making membership very low cost or free at first in order to get people accustomed to -- and liking -- having a PDGA number and rating (for some introductory membership period). it seems to me growing the number of PDGA members is what will make us more attractive to corporate sponsorship and media coverage, and i am surprised more people are tooting that horn.

while your use and emphasis of the particular term ownership turned me off as being too capitalistic for my taste, i am surprised a lot more people here didn't DISCuss and welcome your idea.

(while i take 'ownership' for and enjoy the work of helping maintain a local disc golf course, that feeling of responsibility is less about wanting to own something than it is about wanting to contribute and give back something out of appreciation for the work and contributions of others that have made the course possible.)

And do they have to reveal content and color? :D



I'd be more worried about origin.

my understanding is that i cannot tell you that, no. also, BoD members are not allowed to discuss their discussions with other BoD members. besides, i have no recolllection of whether there was any discussion or not, beyond what is recorded in the minutes.

I can see they finally got your chip installed and working properly.

my understanding is that i cannot tell you that, no. also, BoD members are not allowed to discuss their discussions with other BoD members. besides, i have no recolllection of whether there was any discussion or not, beyond what is recorded in the minutes.

I can see they finally got your chip installed and working properly.



:o:D

Very political and "wiggly" answer.

As an investor, I look at more than a single line item. As a representative of an organization that you are supposedly trying to better, I fail to see why you would post those numbers in that manner.


I feel like I am being ignored by the BOD.

Any insight as to your motives, Pat?

Any insight as to your motives, Pat?



i fear Pat is under the influence of the implanted chip Bruce mentioned above and now his motive is to cast everything the PDGA leadership does in the best possible light in order to prevent any improvements to the status quo.

either that or this is a ploy on his part to win the NAFA people over :eek:

What???????

His little worthless financial comparison of PDGA and Flyball does what??

What???????

His little worthless financial comparison of PDGA and Flyball does what??



gives you and Lyle an excuse to accuse Pat of causing the PDGA sky to start falling.

You know, I am almost annoyed that I shared the Flyball info with you guys. All it has lead to is infighting and criticism. Y'all should take a step back and read his original email with virgin eyes/ears. I did not think he posted anything that was pessimistic, he may have posted true statements, and I don't see that he embellished on the financials. He stated that Flyball was in the positive MORE THAN 15000, and that PDGA was in the negative MORE THAN 35000. Now, he could have written it like this: NAFA earned considerably less than 20000, while the PDGA has a deficit of only 5000 (give or take 30000).

He posted the numbers in a frank and straightforward manner. Would you rather he veil it in shades of grey? I'm guessing you'd rather he didn't compare the 2 organizations at all. Which sort of baffles me.

My main point was that they get out the minutes for these meetings in a timely manner for all to see. And I would hope that we can do the same. Tacking the financials onto the end of the minutes would be a great goal for 2007. Then the Mikey_kernan_longest_name_in_the_world_messing_up_ the_messageboard's of the world could actually look at the numbers without having to pester someone endlessly for them. They'd be available after every board meeting.

And don't try to argue with me or I'll put you on ignore. :)

I don't quite get you, xterra.

Oh well. Having BOD members talk bad about the PDGA is sure to grow the sport. :p

Matt, I salute your wife for her leadership participation in NAFA. As an association employee, former PDGA board member, and still a board member of other nonprofits, I know that contributions like hers are valuable.

I'm going to leave aside the issue of Pat's posts seeming overly negative about the PDGA and just note a few things that I learned about NAFA browsing its website this morning. If I make factual errors, please let your wife, through you, correct me. And assure her that I mean nothing negative about NAFA. I don't know its circumstances, overall, and the complexity of what goes on in organizations like NAFA and PDGA always leaves little factoids that can be mis- and multiply-interpreted.

1. NAFA does not appear to have a "budget": A budget is a plan, expressed in dollars. Most organizations have an annual budget, approved ahead of time by the board of directors, and one very good measure of performance of the organization is how well it meets its budget goals for a fiscal year. Maybe there is a budget, but if so, I could not find even a mention of it.

It would be very hard, if not impossible, to compare the financial performance of the two organizations, lacking apples to apples, and also taking into account that the PDGA's finances are approximately an order of magnitude greater.

2. NAFA has leadership chats. I like the idea a lot. Others should note, however, that those chats are moderated. And that, just like here in DISCussion, NAFA agonizes over the small percentage of folks that participate. I believe that in one chat I saw figures like 11 "local affiliates" involved out of 600+, as well as comments that this was a recurring problem.

Is it worth it to tie up valuable volunteer board time for such a tiny percentage of the "membership?" I don't think so, except as an expensive symbol.

3. Speaking of which, by its bylaws, NAFA does not have "members." It appears to elect board members and things like that through voting by "delegates" who are appointed by "local affiliates" according to a formula that gives the most active (in terms of competitive events) affiliates the most delegates. In the case of the PDGA that would mean something like only delegates from affiliate clubs could vote and that the clubs would get more delegates assigned to them, the more sanctioned tournaments they held.

It is also not clear how nominees get to the ballot. The PDGA process basically lets anyone on who wants to be on. There are hints in various places on the NAFA website that its nominating committee might make decisions excluding some people who would like to run, but I just can't tell. (Most nonprofits do this, I think it is rare when an organization like the PDGA lets any and all on the ballot without an intervening committee making cuts and soliciting nominees.)

4. NAFA no longer has a newsletter, having moved to the Web. It also does not seem to have an email newsletter. The PDGA has the PDGA Pages in DGW and its email newsletter, as well as its various websites. I like the navigation to the NAFA website better than than the PDGA's, but the PDGA's websites are more than a bit more complex than NAFA's. NAFA also has nothing like DISCussion.

5. NAFA publishes its minutes on the Web. So does the PDGA. I can't find out on the website how quickly NAFA tries to, or does, publish its minutes after meetings are over. It seems to have "press releases" that publish a handful of important decisions from the most recent board meeting to tide folks over until official minutes are approved. Can't be sure.

No organization should publish unapproved minutes, as that can expose the organization to liability. Very common standard association best practice.

I also note that some NAFA minutes contain the kinds of details about disciplinary actions that could get the organization into trouble when published to the public and recommend that your wife take a look at that issue.

All in all, NAFA seems pretty cool as an organization. I would have to work hard, however, to find comparisons that would make the PDGA look bad.

Darn. Prior to this Sheila and I were interested in Flyball, but we are put off by the "team" requirement for competition. It was something I had been meaning to find out more about for our Australian Cattle Dog, Ozzy, but the complications of forming "teams," since we only have one dog, means we probably will not get involved in it :(

BTW, this "out of touch with the players" member has now played 102 holes in competition in 2007.

2. NAFA has leadership chats. I like the idea a lot. Others should note, however, that those chats are moderated. And that, just like here in DISCussion, NAFA agonizes over the small percentage of folks that participate. I believe that in one chat I saw figures like 11 "local affiliates" involved out of 600+, as well as comments that this was a recurring problem.

Is it worth it to tie up valuable volunteer board time for such a tiny percentage of the "membership?" I don't think so, except as an expensive symbol.



Terry, i look at it very differently. i think the Board members should feel such time is well spent. listening to and exchanging information with those interested enough in the association to attend such chats and spend their own valuable time there would be a great way to widen perspective and gain understanding of some of the concerns of those a Board member is charged with representing. to me, it isn't that the membership elects representatives and they should just do whatever they like. instead they should try and gauge what is best for the PDGA and 11 heads or 21 or 100 are generally better than just one.

i'm not suggesting such chats would be a cure-all for all our ills -- far from it -- but it would be a way to exchange ideas and to that end take advantage of the technology that is available today.

that if nothing else is the beauty of Steve starting this thread -- for despite all the rants and finger pointing ideas and information are being exchanged.

instead they should try and gauge what is best for the PDGA and 11 heads or 21 or 100 are generally better than just one.




That does happen with a dozen or more Staff and volunteer committee heads communicating with the Board. Members with ideas should be contacting the appropriate Staff and Committee heads to commuicate their ideas and concerns. Some of the Board members and Committee heads like myself, are already active on this D-Board. More member ideas and concerns have made their way to the Board and influenced policies than you might expect.

glad to hear it. i still however would hope BoD members would be interested in and check out what's being said on a members-only DISCussion board. not to go too far -- but i would even think some BoD members would come here asking for feedback and ideas.

2. NAFA has leadership chats. I like the idea a lot. Others should note, however, that those chats are moderated. And that, just like here in DISCussion, NAFA agonizes over the small percentage of folks that participate. I believe that in one chat I saw figures like 11 "local affiliates" involved out of 600+, as well as comments that this was a recurring problem.

Is it worth it to tie up valuable volunteer board time for such a tiny percentage of the "membership?" I don't think so, except as an expensive symbol.



Terry, i look at it very differently. i think the Board members should feel such time is well spent. listening to and exchanging information with those interested enough in the association to attend such chats and spend their own valuable time there would be a great way to widen perspective and gain understanding of some of the concerns of those a Board member is charged with representing. to me, it isn't that the membership elects representatives and they should just do whatever they like. instead they should try and gauge what is best for the PDGA and 11 heads or 21 or 100 are generally better than just one.

i'm not suggesting such chats would be a cure-all for all our ills -- far from it -- but it would be a way to exchange ideas and to that end take advantage of the technology that is available today.

that if nothing else is the beauty of Steve starting this thread -- for despite all the rants and finger pointing ideas and information are being exchanged.



While only 11 people actually posted questions, more than 100 are viewing the chat, and any one of them can ask a question. Due to time constraints, I believe some questions do not get to the forum. But that doesn't mean you can't ask it in the next chat.

While they do not have an official messageboard, there are many many old flyball mailing lists online. From regional to rules, to specific breeds, to political, there are many email lists out there. The communication can be just as goofy or cutthroat as it can be on here. And I guess being unaffiliated, there is a little more freedom of moderation.

Terry. If you are interested in Flyball, but not the team aspect. Look at U-fli. They offer individual racing and pairs competition. Pretty cool too, but competing for the same folks as Flyball.

This almost obsession a small handful of the small handful of people active here in DISCussion have that if a PDGA leader isn't here talking with them, then they are doing nothing of value, is just plain weird.

Information is always exchanged. What changes is the people on either side of the exchange and what "thread" or venue it is being exchanged on.

"that if nothing else is the beauty of
Steve starting this thread -- for
despite all the rants and finger
pointing ideas and information
are being exchanged."

As they were before, on many different threads, with pretty much the same level of board involvement.

For each hour spent in a live "chat" or on DISCussion a board member is spending time that could be used for other things - like working on an email newsletter.

Do I think that four hours a month spent on an email newsletter that gets sent to nearly 10,000 people is worth more to the PDGA than four hours a month spent on DISCussion talking with <50 people?

Yes.** I believe it's called "opportunity cost"; getting "A" done at the expense of "B" - when "B" is more important and strategic.

At least two months in 2006, I did not get a PDGA Member News out to the membership, directly due to time spent in DISCussion. I consider that time poorly spent.

** And - little known fact - every time I sent out an email newsletter I received a flood of messages in reply: ideas, questions, complaints, praise, and so forth. Lots of information exchange there, too, between answering people or figuring out who they needed to talk to and then forwarding the message.

This almost obsession a small handful of the small handful of people active here in DISCussion have that if a PDGA leader isn't here talking with them, then they are doing nothing of value, is just plain weird.

Information is always exchanged. What changes is the people on either side of the exchange and what "thread" or venue it is being exchanged on.

"that if nothing else is the beauty of
Steve starting this thread -- for
despite all the rants and finger
pointing ideas and information
are being exchanged."

As they were before, on many different threads, with pretty much the same level of board involvement.

For each hour spent in a live "chat" or on DISCussion a board member is spending time that could be used for other things - like working on an email newsletter.

Do I think that four hours a month spent on an email newsletter that gets sent to nearly 10,000 people is worth more to the PDGA than four hours a month spent on DISCussion talking with <50 people?

Yes.** I believe it's called "opportunity cost"; getting "A" done at the expense of "B" - when "B" is more important and strategic.

At least two months in 2006, I did not get a PDGA Member News out to the membership, directly due to time spent in DISCussion. I consider that time poorly spent.

** And - little known fact - every time I sent out an email newsletter I received a flood of messages in reply: ideas, questions, complaints, praise, and so forth. Lots of information exchange there, too, between answering people or figuring out who they needed to talk to and then forwarding the message.




Terry I'm not sure if what you said is correct. :confused: Does the newsletter get sent to 10,000 people? I know I don't get it and unless Non PDGA members can receive it as well I highly doubt that 10,000 people receive it. Even if that many do I'm sure that only 25% or less read it.

This almost obsession a small handful of the small handful of people active here in DISCussion have that if a PDGA leader isn't here talking with them, then they are doing nothing of value, is just plain weird.



Terry that's not what i said; nor is it what i believe. nice strawman though. ;)

What???????

His little worthless financial comparison of PDGA and Flyball does what??

it is not worthless because both organizations:

1. are non-profit sports membership associations;
2. started at approximately the same time;
3. service relatively niche sports;
4. shared a common management approach during their early years

to dismiss a comparison as "worthless" is fidiciarily irresponsible. fortunately only BoD members need worry about that responsibility. comparing actual performance to that of your peer organizations is an incredibly valuable tool for understanding how well you are performing and for generating new ideas for everything from marketing to organizational structure.

or, you could just get mad at the analyst for daring to find an organization that outperformed the PDGA financially.

I can see they finally got your chip installed and working properly.

yes. i am assimilated :)

ya know, i now understand why people choose to not volunteer for the PDGA. quite frankly, the negative responses to the existance of a numbers-based empirical comparison is completely baffling. any well-managed organization spends significant time doing exactly the same kind of comparison.

i'll try not to let the responses of Terry, Lyle, and Rhett, which i experieenced as negative, degrading and attacking, leave me wondering whether this organization deserves proactive effort.

The $15,000 "profit and $35,000 "loss" is a false comparison because neither identifies capital versus operating expenses. The PDGA has been investing in capital based expenditures related to the IDGC which I don't believe have been identified as a separate capital budget the way some larger corporations do. For example, the PDGA budget has paid for the additional clearing work done to get the courses completed faster than the IDGC sponsorship fund has collected funds. It's my understanding that the PDGA operating fund will eventually be reimbursed from the IDGC fund as more sponsorship continues to flow in. Call it an advance or call it a loan, but some of that "loss" falls more in the investment/capital expense category but shows up as a straight operating loss. Pat should be able to confirm or clarify my comments if necessary.

Pat is not allowed to comment on the Budget, remember?

btw, this is from my original comparison:

"the biggest differences appear to be financial. on just 25% of the revenue and 21% of the expenses relative to the PDGA, NAFA shows a 2005 gain of more than $15,000 while the PDGA's total assets lost more than $35,000. "

does anyone dispute the above statement, based on the financial filings of the two organizations?

As long as your comments are facts and not your opinions, I believe you are 100% allowed to comment.

no, because i could readily provide the actual Budget that was voted on and apprived by the BoD, but the only thing i can am allowed to discuss is the high level rollup of the format published in DGWN.

the sad thing is, so many questions that Members have asked could be answered in two seconds by making that detailed budget available.

i have spoken with a number of knowledgable folks associated with membership organizations and one of the guys i respect the most said this:

"if you have nothing to hide, why not publish it".

but until it is published, i cant talk about it here. i'm still not clear about whether i can talk about it to my best friend on the phone, or in email to my Mom. those rules seem to be a tad more, shall we say, "situational".

I guess my remarks will have to stand as the closest to official then if no Board member can comment. Regardless, as someone completing an MBA, you have to understand the potential misinterpretation of financial comparisons that might include capital investment "expenses" into an operating rollup. Since many small orgs operate on a cash basis versus accrual, that can also influence the interpretation.

we switched to accrual a coupla years ago, according to the minutes.

as far as misinterpretation goes, i do inddeed. thats why i am shock, even horrified, that people with vast experience would consider the comprison and analysis of Balance SHeets and P&Ls as heresy, when in fact it is what the REAL business world does a bazillion times every day.

I don't think the "heresy" is doing the analysis but in doing the comparison when there are issues that may not make a comparison appropriate. Flyball happened to be pulled out of the air as a comparison candidate strictly because Matt was familiar with it, not because a survey of potential comparison candidates had been made and Flyball was deemed appropriate.

When I used to do financial analysis for small businesses, we were very careful to find benchmark comparisons with companies in the same industry, size, growth, investment goals, etc. The efforts to make Flyball work as comparable reference for the PDGA might be fun for the D-Board but might not hold up under scrutiny by those who would care about such things like bankers or investors.

glad to hear it. i still however would hope BoD members would be interested in and check out what's being said on a members-only DISCussion board. not to go too far -- but i would even think some BoD members would come here asking for feedback and ideas.



They have, in various ways. Is it that you want them to come here and "chat" more frequently? They can't all be social butterflies.

reading apparently is a lost art. just a few posts above i listed four reasons a comparison is appropriate. furthere, her is the text from the original comparison:

"the "sports" these two organizations serve both began from nothing in the late 60s and early 70s. both are non-profit associations. the overall enterprise structure is similar, with a group of "staff", committees, and emphasis on volunteers. competitive structure is also similar.

"both organizations have about doubled in memberships between 1999 and 2006, although NAFA's numbers are taken from their "Active Dogs" list while PDGA counts paid Members rather than participation. "

of course the validity of any comparison muist be established, and there is always a difference of degree.

my offer still stands to do a comparison of the pdga to any other organization - especially small sports non profits.

is sooooo easy to shoot down the message... but seemingly difficult to come up with alternative iorganziations to further enhance the comparison.

btw, anyone with even three days of business experience would know that a comparison to Flyball is not the be-all end-all of relevant comparisons. it is the first data point. as more are found they will add to the richness of the comparison, and ultimately lead to a good sense of how the PDGA is doing in comparison to like organizations.

is that such an evil thing to seek?

xterramatt - Flyball is the most relevant organization anyone has suggested yet, at least with available numbers for comparitive purposes. it was a good call.

Hey Pat, try Statutory Accounting, but in all honesty, your "accounting" didn't even fit GAP standards. However, it's simple enough, answer the question, what were you trying to show in that comparison? What do you think it says? Don't add to the information, don't change the story, take the post and explain it to us as it stands.

Remember Pat, you're the "good communication" guy. Tell us how that piece of information is going to improve the knowledge of those that come here. Tell us how our knowing it is going to improve the PDGA.

Thanks in advance...

So, the 100 people "listening" in on that conversation represents what percentage of their membership?

Matt, you commented that you regretted bringing the information on Flyball forward (or was it almost regretted?). The same question to you. Why did you bring it forward? What was your goal?

BTW - I do like the layout of the limited financial information they put forward. It's easily accessible. Too bad I can't get it in their quarterly magazine... :D

I'm all for making the PDGA better, but I refuse to make an issue out of air. I've worked in several private organizations under different conditions and the PDGA communicates better than most. They make decisions on how to communicate based on time, costs, and membership access. Thier current approach to this is pretty good, despite what some say.

Trying to make past and present leaders look bad because someone feels it could be better, without thinking about all the implications and the realities of the situation is unfair. Yes in a perfect world we could hire perfect people at minimal salaries to push disc golf into every market thus making us all rich. It's not that easy and those who are honest recognize that.

reading apparently is a lost art. just a few posts above i listed four reasons a comparison is appropriate. furthere, her is the text from the original comparison:

"the "sports" these two organizations serve both began from nothing in the late 60s and early 70s. both are non-profit associations. the overall enterprise structure is similar, with a group of "staff", committees, and emphasis on volunteers. competitive structure is also similar.

"both organizations have about doubled in memberships between 1999 and 2006, although NAFA's numbers are taken from their "Active Dogs" list while PDGA counts paid Members rather than participation. "

of course the validity of any comparison muist be established, and there is always a difference of degree.

my offer still stands to do a comparison of the pdga to any other organization - especially small sports non profits.

is sooooo easy to shoot down the message... but seemingly difficult to come up with alternative iorganziations to further enhance the comparison.

btw, anyone with even three days of business experience would know that a comparison to Flyball is not the be-all end-all of relevant comparisons. it is the first data point. as more are found they will add to the richness of the comparison, and ultimately lead to a good sense of how the PDGA is doing in comparison to like organizations.

is that such an evil thing to seek?

xterramatt - Flyball is the most relevant organization anyone has suggested yet, at least with available numbers for comparitive purposes. it was a good call.



Pat,

This is like saying that ExxonMobile and Microsoft are the same. They are both large companies that made a lot of money during the past 20 years. They have 10s of 1000s of employees and are in the Fortune 500. They are public companies and are each the leader in their given areas. Polite trivia at best. It's the differences that tell the story.

BTW - I do agree with you, reading is a lost art, especially given that I've already pointed this out to you.

i was not attempting to CONCLUDE anything. i SHOWING a comparison between two organizations, including listing the areas in which they are similar.

except for the obvious financial differences, i did not want to draw many conclusions. i would prefer to have at least 3 other simil;ar organizations before drawing serious conclusions. if we drew conclusion at this time, the PDGA might come out looking bad.

btw, i didnt do "accounting". and if you want to throw buzzwords around at least getthem right. its GAAP, for Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. GAP is either a place to buy jeans, or the Genocide Awareness Program. GAAP is a standard for CREATING, not interpreting, financial reports.

get a clue, dude. then provide at least one more organization for inclusion into the comparison sample.

btw, anyone with even three days of business experience would know that a comparison to Flyball is not the be-all end-all of relevant comparisons. <font color="red"> anyone with even three days of business experience would also know to use more than one year of financial data to accurately compare companies </font> it is the first data point. as more are found they will add to the richness of the comparison, and ultimately lead to a good sense of how the PDGA is doing in comparison to like organizations.

This is like saying that ExxonMobile and Microsoft are the same. They are both large companies that made a lot of money during the past 20 years. They have 10s of 1000s of employees and are in the Fortune 500. They are public companies and are each the leader in their given areas.

actually, those two would make for an interesting comparison.

Polite trivia at best.

hardly


It's the differences that tell the story.

no "kidding" Sherlock. and one difference between NAFA and PDGA is that one is a volunteer based operation and the other left those roots to go into a staff based structure...

here's another: NAFA has enough assets on hand to last a whole lot longer than the PDGA does. assuming all assets are cash (not 100% true, especially since NAFA has some expensive timing equipment they send to events, but for a start its ok), NAFA can run for 1.89 years. PDGA could survive for 2.06 months. ($315,380 in assets divided by $166,536 in 2005 expenses for NAFA. $131,364 in assets divided by $764,787 in 2005 expenses for PDGA.)

you are funny... rag on me for a comparison, then tell me "It's the differences that tell the story." well, d'uh! :D

"anyone with even three days of business experience would also know to use more than one year of financial data to accurately compare companies"

yep. ya start with what ya got, and build.

You are welcome, Pat. I think you went above and beyond in creating a comparison of the organizations.

Here are a few more.

http://www.kickball.com/ World Adult Kickball Association (One of my suitemates in College is a founder of it) Could be the new "Fastest growing sport in the US" - Founded in about 1996.

http://www.usdaa.com/ US Dog Agility Association

http://www.chess-players.org/eng/index.html

http://www.aka.kite.org/

Here's a publication called The Sports Economist that addresses a wide range of sports and their financial issues:

www.thesportseconomist.com (http://www.thesportseconomist.com)

chuck, that looks like a goldmine. i hope they hit more than just the major sports... i'll dig thru it.

matt, most excellant! i'll see if they offer 990 info and add if possible. i also found www.adventurecycling.com (http://www.adventurecycling.com) which claims to have a 990 up, but i can find it so far. they do have a cool annual report, but they also have an annual income of 2.3 million.

btw, this is from my original comparison:

"the biggest differences appear to be financial. on just 25% of the revenue and 21% of the expenses relative to the PDGA, NAFA shows a 2005 gain of more than $15,000 while the PDGA's total assets lost more than $35,000. "

does anyone dispute the above statement, based on the financial filings of the two organizations?


Well golly gee "no", Pat. But I like the "red herring" approach of asking about the validity of the numbers when the concerns expressed here are all about "apples to oranges". I don't recall a single post on this entire thread that questioned the hard numbers.

I also like the intimidation-style you are resorting to when pressed, including talking down to anyone who questiones the apples/oranges status of those numbers, deriding people who are not falling in line with your "financial comparison", and of course whining about how hard is to to volunteer and get shot down on your questionable analysis.

Bravo. It is indeed a brave new world for the PDGA.

Kickball is not an org. It's a business. But people are buying into it. Because it's a fun, casual sport that anyone can play, and it's just set up to be a good time acting like children... Sound familiar?

Good league models, expansion at a pretty astonishing rate (I doubt they have many if any markets that fail to launch). Have yet to see it here in Charlotte, but I am sure it's coming.

Also major "destination" championships and overall winners that creates celebrity status within the organization. Cool stuff.

Sometimes you compare what's familiar, and not just the financials.

Oh yeah, they sell the only recognized ball for Kickball. And the rules are free. It's free to register, and get their newsletter (about every 2 months or so, email) But teams register and pay to play. Fields are free or pay depending on local parks or organizations (like churches and schools). Mainly an after work social get together with a some competition to keep it interesting. Target market is YUPPies. But I would imagine it's popular with anyone in the tech world, restaurants, financial, sales, law, etc circles.

It was born of the softball leagues in DC which were called the "Congressional Leagues". I used to be on a team, it was a great way to blow off steam after a rough day at the office.

Everybody can throw a frisbee.
Everybody can kick a ball.

Lots of grad school and post grad school types play too, an excellent networking sport.

here's another: NAFA has enough assets on hand to last a whole lot longer than the PDGA does. assuming all assets are cash (not 100% true, especially since NAFA has some expensive timing equipment they send to events, but for a start its ok), NAFA can run for 1.89 years. PDGA could survive for 2.06 months. ($315,380 in assets divided by $166,536 in 2005 expenses for NAFA. $131,364 in assets divided by $764,787 in 2005 expenses for PDGA.)



It's another one of those rules of thumb for nonprofits to keep about 6 months' of operating expenses in a semi-fluid state somewhere (less large nonregular expenses for things that would not happen if an organization were "going under"). In the past, I've been assured by staff that what we retain in our fund balance is sufficient for that purpose. (My employer-association has a minimum fund balance for that purpose, and it is not simply the annual budget divided by 12 months x 6 months. We remove the expenses of our big annual conference, for example, because if we were going under it would be one of the first things to *not* happen.)

It's arisen as an issue for our board a couple of times in the past, because I have suggested that we should have a formal policy about this. We haven't, to my knowledge, created such a formal policy yet, but given that the organization is finally financially sound enough to afford it, plus the recent growth of staff (salaries are, or should be, regular), I highly recommend that as a board item for discussion in the near future.

Nonprofits aren't supposed to make profits, so long as they are assured enough reserves to operate without difficulty, dollars that "look like profits" at the end of the year should go to programs and services, not into a bank account, if whatever required minimum fund balance is met.

If the PDGA had enough dollars resting in a bank account to run the organization all out for more than a year without new revenues, I would consider that we were not appropriately investing earnings back into the sport.

<font color="red"> Ouch! That was brutal! My solar plexus is still throbbing. </font>


i was not attempting to CONCLUDE anything. i SHOWING a comparison between two organizations, including listing the areas in which they are similar.

<font color="red"> Same question... Why? What's your goal, do you think there's a problem or do you think we might be able to help Flyball? Oh yeah, and two other organizations.</font>

except for the obvious financial differences, i did not want to draw many conclusions. i would prefer to have at least 3 other simil;ar organizations before drawing serious conclusions. if we drew conclusion at this time, the PDGA might come out looking bad.

<font color="red">So if you're making a comparison between organizations and you think three is important, why didn't you bring forward comparisons between three organizations? Oh yeah, and by the way, why is that we are comparing the PDGA to other organizations? Again, do we think there's a problem so that we're out there looking?</font>

btw, i didnt do "accounting". and if you want to throw buzzwords around at least getthem right. its GAAP, for Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. GAP is either a place to buy jeans, or the Genocide Awareness Program. GAAP is a standard for CREATING, not interpreting, financial reports.

<font color="red">I didn't do accounting either, but I do know enough to know a funny when I read one, even if it is wrapped in sarcasm. Sorry I left out the A, do you want we should go back and find all of each other's typos and misspellings? I can assure you I have many. It might make you feel better...</font>

get a clue, dude. then provide at least one more organization for inclusion into the comparison sample.



Try the Irish American Track Club, The Klamath Indian Tribe, The Willamette Runner�s Club, the South Umpqua Runner�s club, shall I go on? Before I played disc golf I ran and I participated in a number of running clubs and other small private organizations and events. By my experience the PDGA does very well. Oh, and they spell better than I do too!



BTW - do try statutory accounting, you'd like it, it's all the rage in the insurance industry. Again, I don't do it, but the actuaries love it.

Why? What's your goal, do you think there's a problem or do you think we might be able to help Flyball? Oh yeah, and two other organizations.



to see how we are doing compared to our peers. nothing more, nothing less.

hey Terry, do you happen to know the NTEE code for our lil ol' PDGA?

TIA

pat

(TIA = thanks in advance... i know Terry knows that, but didnt want some knee-jerker to think i was swearing or something :eek: )

Why? What's your goal, do you think there's a problem or do you think we might be able to help Flyball? Oh yeah, and two other organizations.



to see how we are doing compared to our peers. nothing more, nothing less.



Ah, so you're benchmarking (please note the use of a sophisticated business term). Well, by all means, have at it. We anxiously await two more references and a complete comparison, that is, not one that just pulls out the items that "appear" to make the PDGA look bad, but also those that make the PDGA look good.

As always, we appreciate your neutrality.

yeah, and i admire your trust and willingness to let me do all the work. i couldnt find those refs your threw out there.

F54




you sunk my battleship

i got the N part right.... but N54 doesnt seem to exist ( http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/guidelines_for_special_eo_information_ordering.pdf .

my guesses were N03 - society/association or N60 Am Clubs.
N80, pro leagues, looked like a fun one to peek into also

i'll see if my sources contain anything for N54...

here's another: NAFA has enough assets on hand to last a whole lot longer than the PDGA does. assuming all assets are cash (not 100% true, especially since NAFA has some expensive timing equipment they send to events, but for a start its ok), NAFA can run for 1.89 years. PDGA could survive for 2.06 months. ($315,380 in assets divided by $166,536 in 2005 expenses for NAFA. $131,364 in assets divided by $764,787 in 2005 expenses for PDGA.)



<font color="red"> Do these numbers seem strange to anyone else besides me? If our assets are 131 and our expenses are 764 then our expenses per month is 764/12 = 63,000 hence the two months reserve notion. However, that doesn't quite fit. To start with our money cycle is on a yearly, not monthly basis, that is, most of our expenses come at a few points in the year (at least it seems that way), like during renewal and maybe during Worlds. Furthermore, our revenue occurs cyclically with a huge boost at the beginning of the year and smaller amounts during the rest of the year as the PDGA sells items through it's online store. There may be other sources but I'm too lazy to look. I'm guessing but it wouldn't surprise me to find that consistent with Terry's post that 131,000 is much more than two months of coverage. It's probably much closer to, well more than two months... </font>

It's another one of those rules of thumb for nonprofits to keep about 6 months' of operating expenses in a semi-fluid state somewhere (less large nonregular expenses for things that would not happen if an organization were "going under"). In the past, I've been assured by staff that what we retain in our fund balance is sufficient for that purpose. (My employer-association has a minimum fund balance for that purpose, and it is not simply the annual budget divided by 12 months x 6 months. We remove the expenses of our big annual conference, for example, because if we were going under it would be one of the first things to *not* happen.)

It's arisen as an issue for our board a couple of times in the past, because I have suggested that we should have a formal policy about this. We haven't, to my knowledge, created such a formal policy yet, but given that the organization is finally financially sound enough to afford it, plus the recent growth of staff (salaries are, or should be, regular), I highly recommend that as a board item for discussion in the near future.

Nonprofits aren't supposed to make profits, so long as they are assured enough reserves to operate without difficulty, dollars that "look like profits" at the end of the year should go to programs and services, not into a bank account, if whatever required minimum fund balance is met.

If the PDGA had enough dollars resting in a bank account to run the organization all out for more than a year without new revenues, I would consider that we were not appropriately investing earnings back into the sport.

i'll see if my sources contain anything for N54...



He said F54. I think you missed the smiley. :D

yeah, and i admire your trust and willingness to let me do all the work. i couldnt find those refs your threw out there.



Do you really think there will be points of comparison between an Indian Tribe, running clubs and disc golf?

I'm guessing that all but the Boston Irish American Track Club are gone. The Klamath Indians sold their land to logging companies and essentially went defunct (although I haven't checked yet). If you find the BIATC, I was with them 15 years ago and it is unlikely there will be evidence of any malfeasance on my part... I hope.