i'm with you Lyle. we should not compare the PDGA with anything. heaven forbid!

what do you propose as Pat and Matt's punishment? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

no, but i assumed you were participating in honest dialog here.

sorry, my bad.

i'll see if my sources contain anything for N54...



He said F54. I think you missed the smiley. :D

you're right, i missed the F. in that case, it was hilarious :) we'll let the "lazy" folks out of the joke :cool:


note to self: read this report (http://www.nonprofitpanel.org/final/Panel_Final_Report.pdf)

i'm with you Lyle. we should not compare the PDGA with anything. heaven forbid!

what do you propose as Pat and Matt's punishment? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



I don't recall saying that, I do recall saying to be honest in the comparisons made. Does that bother you?

no, but i assumed you were participating in honest dialog here.

sorry, my bad.



Shirley you jest Pat. Honest dialog... now where was that smirk emoticon.

i'm with you Lyle. we should not compare the PDGA with anything. heaven forbid!

what do you propose as Pat and Matt's punishment? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



I don't recall saying that, I do recall saying to be honest in the comparisons made. Does that bother you?



what bothers me is your contributions have generally become merely negative, argumentative, or both -- and they seem to head into thread drag and back-and-forth, petty debate. i don't mind if you criticize or disagree with me, Pat, or X ; but if you are going to take him to task over the comparison he made -- then present one yourself that demonstrates the right way to go about it and which moves this DISCussion forward. :p

column 1 tells you where the numbers came from. column 2 describes the measurement. the next five columns are the numbers posted by PDGA's peer group at each specified percentile. It is compiled from the IRS990 of 1,546 organizations classified as N60 by the IRS.

To the right are the numbers for 11 specific organizations, including the PDGA. As a cautionary note, these numbers are best used to identify areas for improvement, not to render value judgements about any organization or its operations.

<table border="1"><tr><td>990 line</td><td>Financial Measurement</td><td>10th</td><td>25th</td><td>Median</td><td>75th</td><td>90th</td><td>Handball Association</td><td>US Field Hockey Association</td><td>Road Runners Club of America</td><td>Amateur Snowboard</td><td>Southwestern Athletic Conference</td><td>World Senior Games</td><td>USA Weightlifting</td><td>US Fencing Association</td><td>Ultimate Players Association</td><td>AAU of the US</td><td>PDGA</td><td>PDGA Percentile
</td></tr><tr><td>12</td><td>Total Revenue</td><td>$25,178</td><td>$60,592</td><td>$128,186</td><td>$282,690</td><td>$719,824</td><td>$1,463,483</td><td>$4,365,598</td><td>$1,004,538</td><td>$545,685</td><td>$2,839,158</td><td>$1,257,306</td><td>$1,129,370</td><td>$3,445,449</td><td>$1,056,509</td><td>$14,228,486</td><td>$730,096</td><td>just above 90th
</td></tr><tr><td>17</td><td>Total Expenses</td><td>$24,134</td><td>$57,726</td><td>$121,571</td><td>$273,869</td><td>$705,796</td><td>$955,081</td><td>$4,380,211</td><td>$788,141</td><td>$593,589</td><td>$2,724,481</td><td>$1,225,074</td><td>$1,215,822</td><td>$3,110,588</td><td>$893,841</td><td>$14,252,480</td><td>$764,787</td><td>> 90th
</td></tr><tr><td>59</td><td>Total Assets</td><td>$8,029</td><td>$24,409</td><td>$73,057</td><td>$212,203</td><td>$568,737</td><td>$1,081,348</td><td>$3,115,845</td><td>$789,605</td><td>$54,693</td><td>$1,702,401</td><td>$148,775</td><td>$376,601</td><td>$1,358,049</td><td>$694,100</td><td>$11,378,508</td><td>$131,364</td><td>50-75th
</td></tr><tr><td>66</td><td>Total Liabilities</td><td>$0</td><td>$0</td><td>$0</td><td>$11,255</td><td>$99,056</td><td>$112,974</td><td>$2,415,126</td><td>$511,854</td><td>$66,208</td><td>$1,283,801</td><td>$168</td><td>$211,601</td><td>$1,051,378</td><td>$161,477</td><td>$2,363,638</td><td>$0</td><td><= median
</td></tr><tr><td>73</td><td>Net Assets</td><td>$3,993</td><td>$18,420</td><td>$61,497</td><td>$179,583</td><td>$449,680</td><td>$968,374</td><td>$700,719</td><td>$277,751</td><td>-$11,515</td><td>$418,600</td><td>$148,607</td><td>$165,000</td><td>$306,671</td><td>$532,623</td><td>$9,014,870</td><td>$131,364</td><td>50-75th
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>Program Ratio</td><td>49%</td><td>76%</td><td>91%</td><td>99%</td><td>100%</td><td>77%</td><td>84%</td><td>74%</td><td>90%</td><td>89%</td><td>74%</td><td>82%</td><td>88%</td><td>90%</td><td>86%</td><td>79%</td><td>> 25th
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>Debt Ratio</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>10%</td><td>55%</td><td>10%</td><td>78%</td><td>65%</td><td>121%</td><td>75%</td><td>0%</td><td>56%</td><td>77%</td><td>23%</td><td>21%</td><td>0%</td><td><= median
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>Fundraising Ratio</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>38%</td><td>5%</td><td>23%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>4%</td><td>0%</td><td>5%</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td><= 75th
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>Contributions/Grant Ratio</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>3%</td><td>28%</td><td>87%</td><td>65%</td><td>21%</td><td>18%</td><td>4%</td><td>36%</td><td>34%</td><td>60%</td><td>27%</td><td>12%</td><td>3%</td><td>0%</td><td><= 25th
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>Other Income Ratio</td><td>0%</td><td>2%</td><td>27%</td><td>84%</td><td>100%</td><td>26%</td><td>14%</td><td>28%</td><td>39%</td><td>5%</td><td>3%</td><td>18%</td><td>30%</td><td>67%</td><td>51%</td><td>56%</td><td>50-75th
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>Program Service Ratio</td><td>0%</td><td>0%</td><td>25%</td><td>77%</td><td>97%</td><td>9%</td><td>65%</td><td>54%</td><td>58%</td><td>58%</td><td>63%</td><td>22%</td><td>43%</td><td>21%</td><td>45%</td><td>44%</td><td>50-75th
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

the PDGA numbers are not directly available from the research service i use, because its IRS 990 history is not long enough to support the other analyses the firm offers. therefore, i had to calculate the ratios myself. to verify my formulas, i manually cvalculated the UPA ratio and compared them against the numbers from the research service. after validating my formula, i processed the ratios for the PDGA. calculations are listed below... please let me know if i went wrong anywhere.

<table border="1"><tr><td>Ratio</td><td>990 line</td><td>UPA</td><td>PDGA
</td></tr><tr><td>Program Ratio</td><td>17</td><td>$893,841</td><td>$764,787
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>13</td><td>$808,804</td><td>$600,778
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>13/17</td><td>90%</td><td>79%
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Debt Ratio</td><td>59</td><td>$694,100</td><td>$131,364
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>66</td><td>$161,477</td><td>$0
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>66/59</td><td>23%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Fundraising Ratio</td><td>15</td><td>5739</td><td>0
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>1d</td><td>127362</td><td>890
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>*</td><td>5%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>*</td></tr><tr><td>Contributions/Grant Ratio</td><td>1d</td><td>$127,362</td><td>$890
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>12</td><td>$1,056,509</td><td>$730,096
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>1d/12</td><td>12%</td><td>0%
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Other Income Ratio</td><td>4</td><td>$9,209</td><td>$2,370
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>3</td><td>$684,273</td><td>$408,970
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>9</td><td>$0</td><td>$0
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>10</td><td>$13,541</td><td>$0
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>11</td><td>$0</td><td>$0
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>sum</td><td>$707,023</td><td>$411,340
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>12</td><td>$1,056,509</td><td>$730,096
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>sum/12</td><td>67%</td><td>56%
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>Program Service Ratio</td><td>2</td><td>$222,124</td><td>$317,866
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>12</td><td>$1,056,509</td><td>$730,096
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>*</td><td>21%</td><td>44%
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

i'm with you Lyle. we should not compare the PDGA with anything. heaven forbid!

what do you propose as Pat and Matt's punishment? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif



I don't recall saying that, I do recall saying to be honest in the comparisons made. Does that bother you?



what bothers me is your contributions have generally become merely negative, argumentative, or both -- and they seem to head into thread drag and back-and-forth, petty debate. i don't mind if you criticize or disagree with me, Pat, or X ; but if you are going to take him to task over the comparison he made -- then present one yourself that demonstrates the right way to go about it and which moves this DISCussion forward. :p



Did you miss the post by Rhett where he clearly pointed out that Pat is pulling out data that means nothing and presenting it in such a way so as to make the PDGA look bad? Let me turn your comment around. I'm great with constructive criticism, but when someone is pulling data and trying to prove something that isn't there, isn't that being argumentative just for the sake of arguing? Isn't that being negative without anything to base your negativity on? And as I said before, if you're going to make an argument that there's a problem, then I'm of the opinion, innocent until proven guilty. Show me something real before you condemn my position.

BTW - I like the way Rhett posts, no bull pucky. I don't buy for a minute the "we're just putting up comparisons for the sake of comparisons" argument.

be careful how you interpret this one. its based on a single year's 990. the best recommendation is to track several years of an organization's results.

<table border="1"><tr><td>990 line(s)</td><td>.</td><td>Handball Association</td><td>US Field Hockey Association</td><td>Road Runners Club of America</td><td>Amateur Snowboard</td><td>Southwestern Athletic Conference</td><td>World Senior Games</td><td>USA Weightlifting</td><td>US Fencing Association</td><td>Ultimate Players Association</td><td>AAU of the US</td><td>PDGA</td><td>PDGA act. Value
</td></tr><tr><td>% of Revenue</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>
</td></tr><tr><td>1d</td><td>Contributions</td><td>64.70%</td><td>21.38%</td><td>17.62%</td><td>3.67%</td><td>30.14%</td><td>28.66%</td><td>60.29%</td><td>27.05%</td><td>12.05%</td><td>3.49%</td><td>0.12%</td><td>$890
</td></tr><tr><td>1c</td><td>Government Grants</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>6.04%</td><td>5.57%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>$0
</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Program Services</td><td>9.20%</td><td>64.77%</td><td>54.23%</td><td>57.75%</td><td>58.38%</td><td>62.68%</td><td>22.16%</td><td>43.23%</td><td>21.02%</td><td>45.13%</td><td>43.54%</td><td>$317,866
</td></tr><tr><td>4+8</td><td>Investments</td><td>0.19%</td><td>0.48%</td><td>0.15%</td><td>1.00%</td><td>0.40%</td><td>0.12%</td><td>-0.97%</td><td>0.31%</td><td>0.87%</td><td>1.86%</td><td>56.02%</td><td>$408,970
</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>Special Events</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>$0
</td></tr><tr><td>10</td><td>Sales</td><td>22.74%</td><td>0.81%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>2.98%</td><td>5.35%</td><td>0.22%</td><td>1.28%</td><td>0.76%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>$0
</td></tr><tr><td>3+11</td><td>Other</td><td>3.17%</td><td>12.56%</td><td>28.01%</td><td>38.57%</td><td>5.04%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>13.16%</td><td>29.20%</td><td>64.77%</td><td>48.75%</td><td>56.02%</td><td>$408,970
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$730,096
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>% of Expenses</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.
</td></tr><tr><td>13</td><td>Program Services</td><td>77.11%</td><td>83.85%</td><td>73.88%</td><td>89.84%</td><td>88.66%</td><td>74.21%</td><td>82.04%</td><td>88.43%</td><td>90.49%</td><td>86.30%</td><td>78.55%</td><td>$600,778
</td></tr><tr><td>14</td><td>Administration</td><td>18.27%</td><td>11.23%</td><td>26.12%</td><td>10.16%</td><td>11.34%</td><td>25.79%</td><td>15.51%</td><td>11.57%</td><td>8.87%</td><td>13.70%</td><td>21.45%</td><td>$164,009
</td></tr><tr><td>15</td><td>Fund Raising</td><td>4.62%</td><td>4.92%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>2.45%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.64%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>$0
</td></tr><tr><td>16</td><td>Other</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>0.00%</td><td>$0
</td></tr><tr><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>.</td><td>$764,787
</td></tr><tr><td></tr></td></table>

Perhaps its just me, but I'm not grasping what the purpose of this exercise is. Are you trying to make a point from this compilation of numbers? As an example, are you trying to state that our % of revenue from government grants is too low?

peer comparisons can be used to assist in the identification of areas in which an organization is performing well, or could use improvement. these numbers provide a basis for such activities, and suggests areas for more in depth research.

for example, we can see that the PDGA comes in at 79% for its Program Ratio. this is just above the 25th percentile while the organization's revenue is above the 90th. an improvement program might want to consider examining the specifics behind that result to determine if it stems from the unique requirements of the organization or if it is an area where peers are performing better.

btw, such comparisons are ubiquitious in business and management. check out any "competition" page on yahoo's stock section (http://finance.yahoo.com/q/co?s=IBM) to see some common comparisons that investors and analysts use

Since determining what is 'Admin expense' usually involves an allocation process, organizations either may not think much about it or can adjust it if necessary based on the perceived message they wish to convey. Unless 990 is so strict in holding orgs to exacting detail on what is Admin and what isn't, the comparison of percentages is only approximate not specific.

But businesses use comparisons when looking at organizations in the same situation. Stock comparisons are used when looking at companies in the same sector. Believe me, as an investor and a person that has been in business for over 20 years, I am aware of such practices and where they may be applicable. And in most if not all cases, the comparison is done because there is a point that is being made or a conclusion that is being seeked (i.e. this stock is a better buy than the other, our cost of sales puts us at a competitive disadvantage, and so on).

I'm having a hard time seeing how comparing the Southwest Athletic Conference (a University supported organization) or Olympic sponsored sports to the PDGA results in value. Unless there is a specific thing you are looking for, what is the point beyond just putting out numbers and fueling debate? Is there a premise to the comparison? Are the organizations you researched really 'peers'?

Again, I don't get it. But glad to see you have the time, and if you have a premise here, I hope you share it with the rest of the BOD.

This would be pretty cool if a board member took it on, did it in detail with valid facts and comparisons, and shared it with the board and staff. Even better if the board and staff had asked for it first.

On DISCussion, it is interesting, but why here? Why not expend this energy on something asked for and useful to the board, our elected representatives, and staff?

In fact, this is the kind of thing a board member would usually ask the staff to compile?

aha, i think i see the problem. far more relevant than a single org's numbers are the peer group percentiles. i included the specific orgs mostly out of curiousity. i share your concern with comparing just two entities, and may have confused the issue by including some specifics.

This would be pretty cool if a board member took it on, did it in detail with valid facts and comparisons, and shared it with the board and staff. Even better if the board and staff had asked for it first.

i did ask for it. i'm on the board. the facts are valid. i offered no conclusions. it is shared with the BoD and Staff, cuz i know they read this thread. how wonderfully efficient! there ya have it. :D


On DISCussion, it is interesting, but why here?

why not here?


Why not expend this energy on something asked for and useful to the board, our elected representatives, and staff?

this has the seeds of usefullness in it.


In fact, this is the kind of thing a board member would usually ask the staff to compile?

yeah, that would be a fantastic approach if i was a do-nothing BoD member. our staff is busy enough. why should they have to do the research if a volunteer is prepared and willing?

Terry, perhaps you and i simply diverge when it comes to what it means to be responsible and proactive. i can accept that.

"can adjust it if necessary based on the perceived message they wish to convey"

chuck, this is a tax return, not a sociology term paper :D

actually, though you do make a good point... not all orgs follow the guidelines as closely as others. experienced analysts will be familiar with the areas subject to the most interpretation and add that knowledge into any assessment they might make.

All I know is that when you have staff, most split their time on both Admin and Operating activities. How those allocations are accounted for can easily swing the Admin expense percentage +/- 5% points or more. How to allocate overhead is one of the toughest challenges in any business to determine whether a product or activity is truly profitable, or effective in the case of non-profits.

Terry, perhaps you and i simply diverge when it comes to what it means to be responsible and proactive. i can accept that.



Maybe. I don't know.

I was usually pretty busy with things that the board was officially doing and had asked me to support in some way, or with similar requests from staff that related to ongoing projects, etc. Does this work fit in any way into some overall strategic look that the board is taking at the PDGA and other organizations?

I guess I am surprised that you have the time on your hands to undertake something like this on DISCussion, as opposed to part of some overall board plan for action. I was thinking we might need a couple more board members to share the load, because I usually had more to do than I could get done and always had things I could not get to.

Things must be in pretty good shape with the PDGA if you're not overburdened with "official" things to do That's cool.

Pat,

Your comparison chart provides us with some interesting information but it does not tell the whole story. I'm not sure where the following numbers would go but I think the members should know that not all of the PDGA' s assets can be accurately accounted for on forms and charts.

Columbia County alone has nearly 1.5 Million dollars invested into the International Disc Golf Center that will directly benefit the PDGA and its members.

$1,000,000 - Very conservative value of the 100+ acres of prime waterfront property loaned to the PDGA on which to develop the International Disc Golf Center.

$375,000 - Amount appropriated by Columbia County, GA through their Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax (SPLOST) to construct the IDGC headquarters building.

$100,000 - Estimated cost of the initial tree thinning project at the IDGC by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to make way for the IDGC.

$80,000 - Cost of the new covered tournament pavilion under construction at the IDGC.

$15,000 - Funds spent by Columbia County to remove tree stumps and perform clearing at the IDGC.

$20,000 - Equipment donations made to the IDGC by Innova, Discraft and the DGA.

This is just a partial list. I would guess that when it is all said and done, the PDGA will reap benefits valued at well over 2 million dollars with minimal investment and risk on its part. The opening of the IDGC this year will also present the organization with many new opportunities to generate funds, that previously were not available.

Regards,
Brian Graham

While that's true, and you should also consider all of the hours of volunteer time that benefit the PDGA in the same breath, none of that is reported on the IRS 990. This comparison was based entirely on data from that form.

The interesting thing is the other individual organizations chosen to be included in the version published here. The PDGA ranked around 90% in the first two items, but are below almost every other organization listed in those 2 items. It looks to be a very top heavy comparison.

"with minimal investment and risk on its part"

Except, of course, Brian, the investment of the time of yourself, Pete May, the rest of the board members during this period of time, including the commissioner, Theo, the staff, and tons of other disc golfers.

Thank you.

While that's true, and you should also consider all of the hours of volunteer time that benefit the PDGA in the same breath, none of that is reported on the IRS 990. This comparison was based entirely on data from that form.

The interesting thing is the other individual organizations chosen to be included in the version published here. The PDGA ranked around 90% in the first two items, but are below almost every other organization listed in those 2 items. It looks to be a very top heavy comparison.

you'd need to determine the percentile rankings of other orgs. it could be that orgs over 90% in revenue typically perform at 50-75th percentile in a given metric.

again, though, i must caution against comparing a single org to another single org. too much can vary from year to year and from org to org.

I read this stuff and shake my head. I hate to respond - Lyle, Chuck, Rhett, and others have really already made all the points that need to be made. Adding responses somehow seems that it gives a kind of legitimacy to the sensationalist and scandalseekers among us.

But I can't help responding sometimes !!!!

Its remarkable that a member of the board of directors repeatedly seeks to "stir the pot" while maintaining an air of injured respectability when anyone asks what the goal of all this is. Perhaps he forgets that he represents the board and the PDGA and that the general idea is that you'all folks are supposed to be working together for the benefit of the members of the organization.

I believe that the individuals whom we have elected to the board should bring their best efforts to the board of directors, not spend their time creating straw men and happily setting them alight on the Discussion Board. Evidently the sandal-footed one is finding it hard to communicate directly with the board of directors and is choosing this forum to try to gather some kind of constituency.

Pshawww on that. As a PDGA member, I'd like to remind you, Pat, that you were elected to serve on the board. It is the opinion of this PDGA member that you'd be serving the organization, and me, better if you were to harness your energy for good as opposed to trying to generate strife.

[sarcasm mode on]
Yeah Pat what were you thinking? as far as comparisons go, just think how ridiculous it would be to compare oneself with Barry Schultz? surely nothing can be learned by looking at others verses oneself.
if you tell me to study Shawn Sinclair's putting form i will accuse you of painting me in a negative light and since he is clearly a much better putter than i -- i may even ask that you be banned for it. please don't suggest it was to help me get better! :eek: :p

in 2007 the PDGA will:

hire a new Executive Director
hire a new Membership Director
elect four Directors

imagine you are a new BoD member. what would you do to prepare yourself to responsibly support this transition?

btw, i appreciate your opinion. your conclusion that "Evidently the sandal-footed one is finding it hard to communicate directly with the board of directors" could not be farther from the truth.

In light of Terry "T.B." Calhoun's queries regarding Pat's attempt to force me to stay a PDGA member I raise this question: Who is paying for this guy's (http://www.pdga.com/tournament/playerstats.php?PDGANum=1&year=2001) membership? Besides not having played a sanctioned round in about five and a half years I believe he's dead which makes counting him as part of the active membership somewhat suspect.

There are lifetime PDGA memberships called the Eagle club for $2000 and I believe Jeff Homburg was granted one for all of his tech standards volunteer work over many years. Perhaps Steady Ed actually had the first lifetime membership (or in perpetuity) from the very beginning of the PDGA as part of his grant to turn the Org he created over to the players.

imagine you are a new BoD member. what would you do to prepare yourself to responsibly support this transition?



I'd be on the phone every day, asking board and staff what I could do to help make the transition work well, until I had so much to do that I would have no extra time.

cool. then i am on the right track.

but why just the phone?

Steady Ed has the Miller High Life Time option.

but why just the phone?



A phone call can often let you travel discussion paths in 5 minutes that might take dozens of email messages. Most things can be done in a variety of media venues, but some things are often best done in one or another. Trying to get the facts on if you can help someone works better on the phone, IMO.

There are lifetime PDGA memberships called the Eagle club for $2000 and I believe Jeff Homburg was granted one for all of his tech standards volunteer work over many years. Perhaps Steady Ed actually had the first lifetime membership (or in perpetuity) from the very beginning of the PDGA as part of his grant to turn the Org he created over to the players.



not to be silly, but as a logistical issue -- who is getting his DGWN subscription? does the PDGA still send him new rules books, etc. :confused:

Since DGA is now run by his wife, I would assume that's where the materials go. His [email protected] email is still active on our DGCD group but Sylvia in the office tracks it.

(We haven't gotten posts from it on our DGCD Yahoo group in quite awhile but his name comes up every so often so his influence is still with us.)

after checking with Lorrie, here is the deal:

Steady Ed is an honorary Member. His Membership will never expire.

Eagle Club Members also have a (paid) lifetime Membership.

When the "members-only" stuff kicked in a year or so ago, we found that stats for Steady Ed and David Tayloe (a deceased Eagle Club Member) no longer would be displayed on the site. The quickest way to make it happen was to kinda trick the website into thinking that they were active by extending their Membership date way out. Its not a long term fix, but it got the job done.

bottom line - there are a very few (two that i know of) deceased Members who still show up as active Members. not enuf to skew numbers though.

hope this helps.

p

after checking with Lorrie, here is the deal:

Steady Ed is an honorary Member. His Membership will never expire.

Eagle Club Members also have a (paid) lifetime Membership.

When the "members-only" stuff kicked in a year or so ago, we found that stats for Steady Ed and David Tayloe (a deceased Eagle Club Member) no longer would be displayed on the site. The quickest way to make it happen was to kinda trick the website into thinking that they were active by extending their Membership date way out. Its not a long term fix, but it got the job done.

bottom line - there are a very few (two that i know of) deceased Members who still show up as active Members. not enuf to skew numbers though.

hope this helps.

p



Whew!

I feel so much better now. For a minute I thought Steady Ed was stealing from the grave. What a chinch! Father Dave on the other hand would have loved any confusion that his membership might have caused.

[sarcasm mode on]
Yeah Pat what were you thinking? as far as comparisons go, just think how ridiculous it would be to compare oneself with Barry Schultz? surely nothing can be learned by looking at others verses oneself.
if you tell me to study Shawn Sinclair's putting form i will accuse you of painting me in a negative light and since he is clearly a much better putter than i -- i may even ask that you be banned for it. please don't suggest it was to help me get better! :eek: :p



I'm kind of starting to wonder how many times we're going to have to say this. No one has said don't make comparisons. Everyone has said "why" and asked for the reasons, and gotten a very poor reply... which seems kind of ironic... given Pat's overall message. :D

What's more, everyone has also said if you're going to make comparisons you should actually make ones that have some meaning. Comparing your putting technique to Shawn's is awesome. Comparing your putting technique to Ted Wolinski's batting style might prove interesting but would be of little value.

Finally, pulling out information that has no relevance and presenting it in such a way as to make the PDGA look... Oh wait, Rhett already said that. Nevermind.

if you're going to make comparisons you should actually make ones that have some meaning. Comparing your putting technique to Shawn's is awesome.

<font color="blue"> you've seen me putt. </font>

Comparing your putting technique to Ted Wolinski's batting style might prove interesting but would be of little value.



<font color="blue"> so Pat's comparison is interesting but has little value to you and you feel he is out to make the PDGA look bad.
it's funny, but it reads to me like you are out to make Pat look bad. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

no problemo Lyle. Marshall Street is proud to sponsor whatever you and i want to say :D

</font>

I'm kind of starting to wonder how many times we're going to have to say this. No one has said don't make comparisons. Everyone has said "why" and asked for the reasons, and gotten a very poor reply... which seems kind of ironic... given Pat's overall message.


I thought Pat had repeatedly stated that comparisons with any organization with the same general parameters offered some value. He also stated that individual comparisons were of little value and often misleading. I recall him asking for suggestions of more appropriate organizations that provide information to compare to the PDGA numbers. We happen to be in a fairly unique position at this point in our history and it makes like-to-like comparisons difficult.

I'm kind of starting to wonder how many times we're going to have to say this. No one has said don't make comparisons. Everyone has said "why" and asked for the reasons, and gotten a very poor reply... which seems kind of ironic... given Pat's overall message.


I thought Pat had repeatedly stated that comparisons with any organization with the same general parameters offered some value. He also stated that individual comparisons were of little value and often misleading. I recall him asking for suggestions of more appropriate organizations that provide information to compare to the PDGA numbers. We happen to be in a fairly unique position at this point in our history and it makes like-to-like comparisons difficult.



in the interest of clarity, i'd like to point out that the quote (at top) which you are addressing was written by Lyle, not me.

You know that no one replies to the correct message on this board. :cool:

^that^ last statement would carry more weight if you made it without replying to the correct message :eek: :D

besides isn't that like saying "dude, nobody calls foot faults" ;)

[Edited for personal attack.]

I'm kind of starting to wonder how many times we're going to have to say this. No one has said don't make comparisons. Everyone has said "why" and asked for the reasons, and gotten a very poor reply... which seems kind of ironic... given Pat's overall message.


I thought Pat had repeatedly stated that comparisons with any organization with the same general parameters offered some value. He also stated that individual comparisons were of little value and often misleading. I recall him asking for suggestions of more appropriate organizations that provide information to compare to the PDGA numbers. We happen to be in a fairly unique position at this point in our history and it makes like-to-like comparisons difficult.



Excellent point Gary, so define some value for me... And at the same time, define same general parameters... And tell me why, if he felt that multiple points were needed for relevance did he start out with a single point, one that he placed in such a way as to make the PDGA look bad...


I do agree with you that we are in a unique position and that making point-to-point comparisons is tough. Good thing we have a hard-nosed comparisonist here to do it for us.

gosh. and i thought GuideStar's (http://www.guidestar.org/) methodologies had some merit. maybe it was just their pretty website.

I think that Lyle uses a Dick Dastardly voice when he reads any of Sandalman's messages. Therefore, anything he types sounds sinister.

It's hard to be impartial and unbiased when you are obviously uh... partial and biased.

http://muttley.tibonia.net/images/Dastmut/Mutanim.gif

Steady Ed also has a MySpace page: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=38372072.

He has a lot of friends ;-)

along with excellant background music :cool:

gosh. and i thought GuideStar's (http://www.guidestar.org/) methodologies had some merit. maybe it was just their pretty website.



That's about as relevant as applying the Pythagorean Theorem to a triangle on this board and then posting a link like this:

Point support (http://www.cut-the-knot.org/pythagoras/index.shtml)

While no one can argue the point itself, it's relevance to what we are doing here is questionable. And talking down to us by presenting the site like we're some sort of Neanderthals is insulting.

i dont understand that comment. GuideStar is a research firm with specific expertise in the research and analysis of nonprofits. the link to GuideStar is relevant in that it demonstrates that this type of comparison and approach is used (at considerable expense) daily. those who have issues with comparisons can at least understand that its not a "pat" thing, and perhaps join a discussion about how to apply this knowledge.

[Edited for personal attack.]

i dont understand that comment. GuideStar is a research firm with specific expertise in the research and analysis of nonprofits. the link to GuideStar is relevant in that it demonstrates that this type of comparison and approach is used (at considerable expense) daily. those who have issues with comparisons can at least understand that its not a "pat" thing, and perhaps join a discussion about how to apply this knowledge.



You're the one who thinks there's a problem Pat. You tell us how to apply this knowledge...

Lyle, please stop disparaging me. i am NOT trying to make the PDGA look bad. you are not qualified to determine my motives... obviously, because my objectives are pretty much the opposite of what you describe.

because i am required to perform unbiased comparisons several times every week in my paid profession, your continued attacks on me are approaching slander.

post removed by pat on advice of attorney.

The comparisons are not 'knowledge', they are information.

The evaluation of information to determine its accuracy, relevancy and applicability requires knowledge. Determining a course of action if required requires knowledge. Taking information, digesting it into a meaningful and usable form, and then presenting it positively as a call for action to the rest of the BOD will require knowledge (including the less than black-and-white areas of study such as Sales, Interpersonal Communications and so on).

Good luck with your search for knowledge. But please don't throw numbers at us and expect that we will consider it knowledgeable.

Lyle � dude, you�ve gone off the deep end. I seriously suggest taking a chill pill or something to help you get over the obvious man-crush you have on Pat.

Your gibberish is making very little sense:


Pat and I have different approaches to this issue. If I feel there is a problem, I have a tendency to dig in and try and find a solution. For example, if I feel the PDGA doesn't provide enough services, I try and figure out a way to bring more services to our customers/members. That would be my job as a volunteer or Board Member. Pat's approach is to do comparisons, to bring forward numbers that in his opinion show the PDGA isn't doing a credible job.

One of Pat's issues is that he feels the PDGA isn't responsive enough, which is why he spends time here responding. The big issue seems to be that Pat feels the PDGA doesn't respond quickly enough. Yes I know the argument has been made that they don't respond at all, but every time someone like Jason or UPM said this, it was quickly shown that what they wanted was already there. But the point that the PDGA doesn't jump up and answer every question is a legitimate point.



These 2 paragraphs are so full of self contradictions, they do not even make sense:
* You say you think digging in to find a solution when you see a problem is a great approach. You go on to talk about Pat observing a potential problem(s) that shows up in his comparative analysis. Who says Pat is not now digging in to find a solution?!
* You infer that Pat does nothing when he sees a problem, but then in the very next paragraph you state that Pat works hard and fast to help resolve a problem.


Good companies think about their opportunity costs, where do we spend our �capital� to get the most value. Now I used parentheses for a reason. Capital isn�t just money, its all resources.



Those are not parentheses brother, those are quotation marks.


Back to the Ed case, is there anyone out there that thinks this was the best use of PDGA time?


Yes.


That is, if we are spending too much money, or not retaining enough members, how does this bit of trivia about Ed�s lifetime membership help? Does anyone care, other than the item as a bit of gossip?


Yes�.Pat was defending the financial integrity of the PDGA. How is that bad? You are smart/wise enough to know how gossip/slander quickly multiplies and causes bad attitudes and mistrust. That directly effects membership. It is good to see Pat on the DISCussion Board interacting��.as well as the other BoD members who show up every now and then.


The real problem is that in researching this case, Pat called Lorrie, a paid staff member who had to stop whatever important task she was pursuing to find this out for Pat. Hopefully, she didn�t involve any other volunteer or employee time in this, but I can�t say.



As for the rest of your rant�.get a clue, dude! How on earth do you know how any or all of the BoD spends/budgets their time?


It�s easy enough to point fingers and find fault; we all have some. It�s a lot harder to actually make a contribution. It�s even harder to set aside our need to point out other people�s faults and work towards a solution.



Your post demonstrates this quite eloquently! Now please move on with your life....

i am in complete agreement with your post. information is a start.

thank you for your best wishes.

this is a discussion board, not a conclusion board. i wish information sparked discussion instead of the stuff it seems to spawn.

btw, i do recognize that you are trying ot point out how to make this better rather than attacking me. i have no doubt i can learn from you, and i do take your input to heart.

If I do come across as attacking, which I know I can sometimes, I apologize.

My apologies Pat...

Wow, feel the love. Did I miss a question for the board?

here's one for you. has the dress code requirements resulted in any new sponsorship opportunities? has there been any discussion about amending the code? will cotton overcome apartheid? personally i can't wear collared shirts in deference to our revolutionary brothers fighting corporate power. and the "high tech" fabric, well, let's just say it's rejected purely on fashion sense. and, possibly, it's incongruity with manboobs. thanks.

Post deleted by atxdiscgolfer

I've got to get more time to read at work. :cool:

cool. then i am on the right track.




You think so?

Rob, you asked previously about message board use:

logged on in the:
last 24 hours: 501
last 7 days: 793
last month: 1088

Pat,

Just curious... do those numbers reflect the number of unique users that log on or is that a total of all log ins? The reason I ask is that its not unusual for me to log on up to ten times in a single day, due to the the type of work I do on my computer. If that is a running total of all log ins, is there a way to find out how many unique users logged in during the same time periods that you listed above?

(edit)
also... Can you list how many total hits the discussion board got during those time periods versus how many members actually logged in? Many times, I do not log in unless I am planning to post something.

Thanks,
Brian Graham

they appear to be unique users... i logged off and on a couple times using two different accounts and it didnt change the number at all. i searched the UBB Threads site but could not find the definitions of the admin reports that generate the numbers. so... thats not a conclusive answer, but it seems consistent with being count of "unique" users.

some users have multiple usernames, so if anyone logged in on more than one account the count would be overstated by a few.

The numbers look a little odd. The 1,088 log ins in a month looked about right, but the fact that almost half of those log-ins (501) occurred in the last 24 hours seemed a little strange to me.

Anyway... thanks for the info!

Regards,
Brian Graham

it seemed high to me at first glance. thats like 5% of our Member base in a single day... but with BG coming up, and 21 event threads active in the last day, plus the usual "miscellaneous" action at the bottom, maybe its possible.

Rob, you asked previously about message board use:

logged on in the:
last 24 hours: 501
last 7 days: 793
last month: 1088



Wow! The 1088 per month must be each individual b/c if I go 1 week between clicking "New to me" there seems to be 3000-4500 new posts in 7 days. That means that some people must be posting a lot. I bet Schweb, MTL, and Chuck combined account for at least 2000 a week...

Wow, feel the love. Did I miss a question for the board?



The apology was because Pat is correct, I couldn't possibly know what is motivating him and to speculate was wrong.

Pat,

Can you explain to us what these numbers mean, what their relevance to the PDGA is, and how they can help us to be better as an organization? If you were to speculate, what kinds of conclusions would you think we might draw from them as per your last line. Also, what kinds of conclusions would you think were warranted? Thanks!




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.

taking a large expense for relocating headquarters or adding staff and services is probably common in the org world as it is in the business world. flyball is much more voluteer worker oriented so it is hard to compare. most dg volunteer work is done on courses and events rather than in running the organization. personally i have no qualms about spending money to make the pdga better. i think we could get as much money or more with cheaper memberships and have a more impressive member number, but you kind of have to try that road to find out. if it doesn;t work i guess you could be in trouble. i think non-touring memberships might be the way to find out if it is feasible without risking too much.

BTW, thanks Brian and Lorrie for all your hard work. no matter if i didn;t agree with you sometimes, i do realize that alwys you have done what you believed to be in the pdga's best interests as have all the former and current bod members. i think EVERYONE should keep that in mind when commenting on this thread.

well said, Rich!

Rob, you asked previously about message board use:

logged on in the:
last 24 hours: 501
last 7 days: 793
last month: 1088



thanks Pat. what i was more interested in was a comparison of total number of visits several weeks after we went members-only for a given month to the same month in the prior year when we were not members only. while i see the advantages in terms of a decrease in disruptive posts, i wonder whether we are giving serious enough consideration to the disadvantages of having PDGA DISCussion be members-only(?)

we can rationalize that noone is excluded from visiting, but realistically the capability to interact is much more likely to create interest and repeated visiting of the www.pdga.com (http://www.pdga.com) website. message board visits will lead to interacting, further interest, rules familiarization, exposure to upcoming tournaments, learning more about courses, throwing techniques, and discs and bags available for purchase, etc.
the way i look at it is we should make this place attractive for non-members to frequent, since all future new members are presently in the non-member population.

a members-only section is perhaps warranted, and so is tying in non-member posting privileges in other sections with log-in accounts tied to veriable email addresses.

i hope that is in our future because i think it will be good for our association. other related disc golf sites such as Blake T's www.discgolfreview.com (http://www.discgolfreview.com) saw an increase in daily visits and repeat visiters after this site went members-only...

Considering options for allowing non-PDGA members to post:

1. Have a thread dedicated to non-members (I don't like this b/c it would be hard to have several topics crowded in one place)

2. Allow non-members to have limited access accounts. They would not be able to have avatars, signatures, or PM privilege, and the number of posts per day/week/month would be limited. Also, there would be no warning for banning resulting from a posting violation. (This would be a moderator nightmare I am sure, but I think it would be the fairest as far as interaction with limited benefits)

Those are very quick ideas, so they are full of problems!

Or, taking it one step further, have 3 levels:
1) PDGA Member - full access for current PDGA members. Have their own area (for PDGA government discussion, rules discussion etc.)
2) Known Member - Must use their real name as user name. Read-only access in Members area. Posting priveledges everywhere else. Strict banning procedure (since you can not really know for sure who the poster really is).
3) Guest - Read all area except PDGA Member area. Post only in Guest area. No-warning bannings.

$0.02

Rob, i've struggled with this idea since you first brought it up. i'm not sure i have a "final" opinion. help me understand something... is the real question "how do we reach out to non-Members and convert them into Members?"

if so, non-Member posting might have a part to play. there may be other alternatives, like linking to "benefits of membership" and "signup" pages from the DB... and exploring other ways to encourage communications while not increasing Moderator and IT work.

here a few thoughts that keep popping up when i think about this topic...

1. communication. yes, the DB can be awesome for that. the immediacy of response and ease of use provides some real advantages. one downside occurs when postings from non-members increase demands on Moderators. if a non-Member wishes to communicate directly with a poster, email is readily available with a single click. Staff, BoD and Committees are reachable from the Contact Us page. this may mean only the most motivated non-Members will reach out... a case could be made either way for whether this is a good thing.

2. discgolfreview and other message boards. increases in their board traffic are not surprising, since a number of non-Members lost their venue for expression when the DB went Members-only. i hope Blake's site, and all the other message boards, continue to grow, and view their growth as generally positive for the sport.

3. PDGA as sole source of a service. This is a more fundamental philosophical issue. I believe we should encourage sites like Blake's to grow. There seems very little value in being the single source for any service, especially while we are still in the (relatively) early development of the sport. The more ideas the better, and more venues may lead to a wider variety of ideas.

but then again, the Mission Statement specifically concerns growing the PDGA, not the sport. It does mention standardizations for the sport, but growth statements are targeted towards the PDGA.

as you can see from these ramblings, i do not have a fully formed opinion on this one.

whatever

taking a large expense for relocating headquarters or adding staff and services is probably common in the org world as it is in the business world. flyball is much more voluteer worker oriented so it is hard to compare. most dg volunteer work is done on courses and events rather than in running the organization. personally i have no qualms about spending money to make the pdga better. i think we could get as much money or more with cheaper memberships and have a more impressive member number, but you kind of have to try that road to find out. if it doesn;t work i guess you could be in trouble. i think non-touring memberships might be the way to find out if it is feasible without risking too much.

BTW, thanks Brian and Lorrie for all your hard work. no matter if i didn;t agree with you sometimes, i do realize that alwys you have done what you believed to be in the pdga's best interests as have all the former and current bod members. i think EVERYONE should keep that in mind when commenting on this thread.



Are you high?

careful Hawk. Rich will appreciate the comment, but there seems to be something in the water high ups drink around here that takes away their sense of humor. Steve and Pat don't seem to have come down with that malady though, at least not yet :D

I resemble that remark.

I resemble that remark.



that is greatly appreciated Steve. i am posting this because i don't want you DISCussion Board BoD members having it too easy with nothing left to read or address in this thread :eek: :D

Steve, in the version of the the PDGA By-Laws that includes the proposed changes (view proposed changes here) (http://www.pdga.com/enewsletter/Proposed_ByLaws_Change_0307.doc) i don't see anything about requirements for Conflict of Interest disclosures by each member of the BoD. am i missing something?

i'm not steve, but... the proposed change clarifies the wording of the paragraphs in question.

the COI is a seperate matter. the Directors are now required to complete the COI disclosure. it is not yet clear to me whether or not the disclosures will be publicly available, or what the penalties, if any, are for directors who fail to provide a disclosuie statement within the required time.

Pat, i find the way in which the proposed changes are presented (old wording shown with line-strike thru it and new wording in red) refreshingly clear and only wish the presentation of the changes to the Constitution that was put on last ballot had been as well presented. It's good to see the PDGA being more open. was there any discussion of adding a clause about openess and transparency? Even Bush (of all people) called on businesses to be more transparent in his last State of the Union address ;)

I am curious why the COI requirements aren't being written into the latest greatest proposed By-laws?

the short answer to the "why" question is that this proposed clarification was begun some time before the COI issue came up. yes, there are discussions about openness and transparency. thats the reason the proposed changes are in front of you before being voted on by the BoD.

personally, given that the ByLaws can be amended at any time for any reason by the BoD, i dont see much reason to put openness and transparency clauses into the ByLaws. requirements that can be changed at will, or ignored without consequence, are not truly requirements. i would totally support such additions to the ByLaws, but feel my own time is currently better spent on other issues. bottom line for me is that openness and transparency are organizational values. we either have them or we dont. actions and behavior are the proof. an organization that has these values will practice them regardless of how strongly they are mandated by the ByLaws. an organization that doesnt will not - also regardless of what is written. ie, there is typically a gap espoused values and enacted values. i am happy you recognize some progress towards openness and inclusion. hopefully you will continue to be pleased with our progress.

i'm wondering if core values are better off in an organization's vision/mission and value statements than in its ByLaws. (just kinda thinking out loud here)

in that case, keep up the good work ;)

Pat, I recall completing Conflict of Interest Forms for the BoD years ago. I thought what was different now was that they were going to be published? Which I think is a very good idea.

AviarX - I'm glad you liked the way the proposed changes in the by-laws were presented this time. :cool: That was my doing. :eek:

I'm also recommending that the COI statements be posted on the website. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif We'll see what happens. :cool:

I'm not against openess and transparency but as a CPA I know that such must be presented in a balanced and well thought out approach. /msgboard/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

P.S. I try to watch this forum on a regular basis but don't normally post very often. This time of the year I do it even less. So don't take it personally if you don't see a post from we for quite a while. ;)

I am curious why the COI requirements aren't being written into the latest greatest proposed By-laws?



It would definitely not hurt anything to have this information made public to the members, and to have the by-laws state this requirement. Perhaps this is how Bob will move forward with this item.

Two cheeseburgers with a side of fries, openness and communication coming up.

I Have a question that i just cant seem to find out my self... what does M1O mean. I see next to a friend my age an MJ1 in what division he is in but what does M1O mean? thanks...

That's kind of an Advanced question...

(Old code for MA1)

what does that mean?

For a tournament, it's the code for Advanced Amateurs. However, in certain places it's basically the code for all male Amateurs (Adv, Int, or Rec) who aren't age-protected. As in 20-39 year old Ams, who can only play in the three Am strictly-ratings divisions.

so i am not age protected meaning i cant play in the 19 and under or 16 and under even though i am 16?

There is no M1O. All current divisions, codes plus their age and gender qualifications are listed in the tour section every year: www.pdga.com/documents/td/2007tourinfo.php (http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/2007tourinfo.php)

and specifically in this document: www.pdga.com/documents/td/07PlayerDivisionsGridFinal.pdf (http://www.pdga.com/documents/td/07PlayerDivisionsGridFinal.pdf)

If you were born in 1991 then you can play in MJ2 which is 16 and under this year. If you were born in 1988 or later, you can play in MJ1. Based on the chart, it looks like you can still enter MJ1 even if you've accepted cash in Open.

There is no M1O.



Chuck, how come when I go to Membership and search by last name I see my PDGA number, M1O, and then my name. If it isn't something and doesn't mean anything, why is that next to my name? If I do a search for Climo, he has MPO next to his name, and that's his division? By that logic, M1O should be my division, but "there is no M1O" so what gives?

All members are in one of four classes (not divisions) which have the codes: MPO, FPO, M1O and F1O for Pro Male, Pro Female, Am Male and Am Female no matter what age. Players used to become members of a division; now it's a Class, either Am or Pro, since many players qualify to enter several different divisions with different points multipliers. No matter what your Class, if you enter an appropriate division within your class, all of the points you earn get added together. So, players will have their total points tracked in either Am and Pro (some Ams earn points in both during a year).

Before this change, points were tracked separately for every one of thirty divisions which hurt older players who many times had to play up in areas where there weren't enough players in their age bracket. So, you ended up with top older players who wouldn't get invited to Worlds because their points were split among two or three divisions and they didn't have enough in any.

Now, every event a pro enters in a pro division will add points to their total. Every division an Am enters, regardless of age or gender, will add to their Am points total.

M10 is a different labelling system. different systems are used in different places in the database and web code.

Thanks, Chuck. That's pretty much what I thought (without knowing all the detail), but then you said "there is no M1O" and I didn't know what that meant.

It would definitely not hurt anything to have this information made public to the members, and to have the by-laws state this requirement.



I think the COI statements should be accessible by our members but I don't believe the COI "rules" should be in the by-laws. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Typically, ariticles and by-laws have only the very basics in them. :D

IMO, we need to develope a "policies and procedures" manual (or something of a similar name) that contains the policies and procedures related to the COI, our disciplinary procedures and other similar detail type items. :cool:

Chuck, how come when I go to Membership and search by last name I see my PDGA number, M1O, and then my name. If it isn't something and doesn't mean anything, why is that next to my name? If I do a search for Climo, he has MPO next to his name, and that's his division? By that logic, M1O should be my division, but "there is no M1O" so what gives?



M10 is a financial classification and lets the Association know whether you are in the majority. If you have any other classification assigned to you -- you are in the minority ;)
not having the 10 also means you probably paid more to be a member than the 10's did. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif :p

How long does it usually take to process and get a PDGA #

the answer is right on the front page when you sign up through the online service....
if you mail it in it could take longer depending on mail service and which day it arrives

by the way #'s are assigned usually a few weeks before receiving your cards and stuff in the mail

hope this helps
keith

Thanks Kieth, I feel like an idot it was right in front of me, Thanks for the quick reply very helpful :D

Thanks Kieth, I feel like an idot it was right in front of me, Thanks for the quick reply very helpful :D



no problem....glad i could help out

Forgive me if this has already been asked...
Why is the WFDF requesting $5/head from every Pro and Am Worlds entrant? Has this been paid in the past? What benefit is received by entrants and the PDGA? What agreement is there with the WFDF?

When is the begining and the cut off for Pro rookie of the year?

Forgive me if this has already been asked...
Why is the WFDF requesting $5/head from every Pro and Am Worlds entrant? Has this been paid in the past? What benefit is received by entrants and the PDGA? What agreement is there with the WFDF?

first of all, happy birthday!

could you refresh my memory... where did you get that WFDF is requesting $5 per head for our Worlds events? i only vaguely understand how the pdga relates to some of these other organizations, so any input you cna provide or point me to will be appreciated.

Forgive me if this has already been asked...
Why is the WFDF requesting $5/head from every Pro and Am Worlds entrant? Has this been paid in the past? What benefit is received by entrants and the PDGA? What agreement is there with the WFDF?

first of all, happy birthday!

could you refresh my memory... where did you get that WFDF is requesting $5 per head for our Worlds events? i only vaguely understand how the pdga relates to some of these other organizations, so any input you cna provide or point me to will be appreciated.



Were you or were you not at the 01/03/07 (and 2/7/07) BOD Teleconference meetings?

ok, i didnt know they were published, usually there's a note on the announcement threads. i just read thru them again.

i dont personally know why the WFDF is requesting $5/head from every Pro and Am Worlds entrant or what benefit would be derived, or if it was done in the past. i can probably find out if you want me to. regardless, it doesnt look like it will be done in the near future. the minutes (http://www.pdga.com/documents/boardminutes/2007-02-07BODMeetingMinutesApproved.pdf) describe what the next annual agreement will look like and the reasoning behind it.

here's some interesting stuff from the wfdf site (http://www.wfdf.org/structure/committees/discgolf/dg_committee_minutes_20050219_draft.pdf)

Hmm...Were those minutes posted today? That explanation is sufficient for me.

WFDF is recognized by other sports organizations as the world sanctioning organization for disc sports the same way FIFA is recognized as the world sanctioning organization in soccer or the IAAF is for track and field. WFDF has delegated its world sanctioning authority in the area of disc golf to the PDGA and the PDGA agreed to do something tangible for WFDF.

That's the way I understood it anyway, when the issue first came up.

Forgive me if this has already been asked...
Why is the WFDF requesting $5/head from every Pro and Am Worlds entrant? Has this been paid in the past? What benefit is received by entrants and the PDGA? What agreement is there with the WFDF?



Brian and Stork are the fellas that know the most about this. I asked them for some details and they sent me the following:

Brian H: "Factually speaking, during the last 10+ years (= timeframe of which I can be
certain) PDGA only paid the $5 per player fee to WFDF for the pro division
players of the 2001 ProAm Worlds only, an event which also served as country
qualifier for (the WFDF facilitated entry of disc golf into) the 2001 World
Games.

There has never been a PDGA-WFDF agreement per se. The PDGA has been an
institutional member of WFDF for some 20 years. See www.wfdf.org (http://www.wfdf.org) for more
info. The PDGA and WFDF attempted over the past 12-18 months to reach
agreement, as part of the development of the PDGA International Program, but
failed to do so. Said agreement would have recognized PDGA as the de facto
leader of International disc golf, and PDGA would have paid additional fees
to WFDF for WFDF recognition of the PDGA Disc Golf Worlds, as WFDF charges
Ultimate and other disc sports these same player fees for recognition of
their Championship events."

-----------

Stork Roddick: "Brian's description of the event sanctioning fee summarizes it well. No need for folks to get too riled up on that issue since it's off of the table and dead at this point.

PDGA is a charter member of WFDF, but WFDF won't be sanctioning the PDGA championships as also being WFDF World Championships. I expect that will be pretty much of a non-issue to North American players. So... it's a dead, non-issue.

There is a list of WFDF member benefits on our website:
http://www.wfdf.org/index.php?page=membership.htm

Membership Benefits

WFDF Membership provides the following benefits to national organisations and their players:

Competition - The ability to compete in world Championships and continental championships. WFDF strives to ensure that these tournaments are the best-run flying disc events in the world.
Promotion - World championships provide opportunities for all members to promote the sport by bringing the best in the world together at a single event.
Athlete pathways - World championships give your athletes something to strive for beyond your national championships.
Event standards - WFDF events are produced to the highest standards, serving as a model for competition at national level, and providing resources that can be reused by national organisations..
Hosting - The opportunity to host world or continental championships, and the financial, administrative and athletic rewards that come with hosting a championship.
Rules - Standard rules for all disc sports that are used throughout the vast majority of the world.
Representation - Members have a voice in decision-making processes which affect disc sports globally, nationally and locally.
Communication - WFDF is aforum for international discussion on the development of disc sports and sharing of ideas and expertise. WFDF disseminates information about disc sports to its members through email lists and its website.
Lobbying - WFDF promotes disc sports in the international sporting community through its membership of GAISF and IWGA.
Credibility - WFDF's membership of GAISF and IWGA and its profile on the international sporting landscape can help national associations gain recognition and support from their governments, corporate sponsors and the wider community.
Recruitment - Being on WFDF's contact list will attract local and visiting international players to your organisation and events.
Spirit of the Game - WFDF safeguards spirit of the game globally by developing and communicating programs for strengthening SOTG and by fostering international fellowship bound together with SOTG..
World Records - Administering world records and the standards by which they are set.
Inspiration - Athletes that compete internationally often become inspired to get more involved with administration at a local or national level and drive organisations and teams to achieve more.
Expansion - WFDF facilitates the establishment of disc sports in new countries, through developing ties with established neighbouring national organisations, supplying administrative advice and providing models for competition and development. The establishment of new national organisations provide variety in competition for its existing members, closer to home, and enriches the cultural experience of playing disc sports.
Long-term benefits - The foundations that WFDF is laying will pay dividends in the long-term to organisations and players at all levels."

o.k. Steve, now you have me interested. Who governs rules structure the PDGA, or the WFDF? Who runs the WFDF and what is their relationship to the PDGA if any?

I looked quickly at their web site and obviously, they aren't stewarding Disc Golf in any "real" fashion, that is, their most recent commentary is almost 2 years old.

I'm asking this in part because I'm curious to know who owns the rights to disc golf and it's govenance and rules structure? Can anyone use our rules structure (other than on an ad hoc basis) and the ratings structure that the PDGA maintains? Overall, while I am in support of the WFDF, it seems that they get more out of the relationship that we do but maybe I have a misunderstanding?

Lyle,

The simple answer to that is PDGA has the right and responsibility to set its own rules. There are often competing organizations in other sports, each having their own set of rules, which are similar, but there are differences. In boxing, you have the WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO, and probably a few I don't know about. Softball has the ASA, USSSA, and NSA (no Valerie Plame jokes, please). Even something as simple as football has the National Federation of High Schools, the NCAA, and the NFL. All 3 levels of play have different rules. There's something like 300 rules differences between high school and NCAA football.

I think the issue here is whether or not WFDF recognizes the PDGA as the home of disc golf. WFDF membership has its advantages, some of which Stork and Brian H. laid out above (channeling through Steve Dodge). I think the crux of the issue is whether or not PDGA wants to go through all of the WADA requirements. I think in theory, it would be a good idea, but practically, it's too expensive and would demand too many resources PDGA doesn't currently have.

Chap

It also seems that WFDF would be the link on a more global level to more recognition for the sport.

I think the reason we can't set World Distance records at our World Championships has to do with not being with WFDF. With the disc technology these days Avery, Des, Val and several other men could be capturing World Records for our sport at our events. However, I am sure there is more to it that the PDGA and WFDF couldn't come to terms.

I also think that WFDF was the instrumental force behind disc golf inclusion in the World Games. Particularly saddened this was a one time deal as telling people disc golf was a part of the World Games provided some instant respectability for our sport. Hard to quantify that by saying disc golf was part of the World Games this one time back in 2002 :confused:

Thanks for the insight given. I am curious as to the failed negotiations. Why didn't they work out?

I figured it would have come down to bang for the buck and I would agree that more bucks toward growing a fanbase (playerbase) is a wiser investment at this point in time. The Worlds Games thing bothers me though as our foot was in the door. Heck, we had walked into the party already.

Is it impossible to have a WFDF sanctioned Distance comp at Worlds and not be a WFDF member?

I figured it would have come down to bang for the buck and I would agree that more bucks toward growing a fanbase (playerbase) is a wiser investment at this point in time. The Worlds Games thing bothers me though as our foot was in the door. Heck, we had walked into the party already.

Is it impossible to have a WFDF sanctioned Distance comp at Worlds and not be a WFDF member?



I would suspect that the issue with WADA compliance had A HUGE effect on the decision. ;)

Lyle,

The simple answer to that is PDGA has the right and responsibility to set its own rules. There are often competing organizations in other sports, each having their own set of rules, which are similar, but there are differences. In boxing, you have the WBA, WBC, IBF, WBO, and probably a few I don't know about. Softball has the ASA, USSSA, and NSA (no Valerie Plame jokes, please). Even something as simple as football has the National Federation of High Schools, the NCAA, and the NFL. All 3 levels of play have different rules. There's something like 300 rules differences between high school and NCAA football.

I think the issue here is whether or not WFDF recognizes the PDGA as the home of disc golf. WFDF membership has its advantages, some of which Stork and Brian H. laid out above (channeling through Steve Dodge). I think the crux of the issue is whether or not PDGA wants to go through all of the WADA requirements. I think in theory, it would be a good idea, but practically, it's too expensive and would demand too many resources PDGA doesn't currently have.

Chap



Thanks John! Just as a point of curiosity, do we own the rights to our rules structure or is that even a question that one would ask?

It feels like the WFDF owns the rights, or perhaps it would be better to say, has a position here based on historical precedent rather than an actual role, but that for all practical purposes the PDGA is the controlling body? Recognition is an advantage because it allows for a unified "marketing" position for all disc sports through the WFDF.

If that interpretation is correct, then I see no advantage and indeed a possible disadvantage.

First, reading through the points made by Stork and Brian, I don't see anything that at some level is not being pursued by the PDGA for our sport, that is, I'm not sure how much added value there is. Second, any attention we receive by being linked to the WFDF is diluted by the overall greater structure.

Take ball sports, you'd never put Ball Golf and Football together or Ball Golf and Baseball in promotion. Granted, disc sports are much smaller in general than are the ball sports and I can see a benefit to wanting a unified promotion, however, I'm not sure (I admit I don't know) that at this point we shouldn't be looking beyond that.

Take for example the all to common misperception that since I'm carrying discs I must be playing that sport... "Oh what was it again, you know, the one with two teams where they throw the disc down the football field from player to player, what do you guys call it?"

This is brand dilution and having us lumped in with Ultimate helps spread the Ultimate message, but certainly not the Disc Golf message.

I would want to think very hard about the benefits we get in working hard for a WFDF relationship and whether it's in our best interest or theirs.

One thing to consider is a change in demographics. For older players who came into disc sports years ago it seems there was a greater tendancy to play multiple disc sports (I admit I have limited perspective on this, just anecdotal evidence based on what I see here and in the local scene). For those guys, joint growth is a natural conclusion. However, many of the newer (not younger) players seem to be more focused on Disc Golf, as opposed to disc sports. From their perspective, joint promotion does nothing for the sport (let's be clear, I'm a newer player and the concern becomes how much is my perspective skewed by that?). The real question becomes, is Disc Golf big enough to go it alone without worrying about the benefits of joint association?

I think Yeti's perspective on this is keen, althought the notion of worlds records and who gets to set them again seems based on precedent rather than real position.

If we hold a competition in disc golf and a "worlds record" is set outside of a blessing by the WFDF and we declare it as such what can they do? Granted you don't want to start a battle over such things, very bad, but I'm not sure they have any real rights to setting worlds records other than precedent. Of course, I could be dead wrong... :D

Another question should be asked and that is, why do we promote non-disc golf competitions at our biggest events? Obviously we do it to add value to pariticpants. But like Ball Golf, our long drive competition is based on golf discs, not lids or aerobie rings. I might consider changing the name of such events to something reflecting what it is, a golf disc long drive competition. The WFDF can be responsible for worlds distance records and if they choose to use golf discs, good on em!

Isn't the reason that most PDGA Worlds field events for distance are not eligible for the World Record in distance is because these "long drive" competitions don't adhere to the rules of distance competitions?

Isn't the reason that most PDGA Worlds field events for distance are not eligible for the World Record in distance is because these "long drive" competitions don't adhere to the rules of distance competitions?



Rhett,

That's been my understanding exactly. According to Stork, the one in Des Moines in 2004 was pretty much like any WFDF Distance Competition. OF course, Stork organized it and ran it like a WFDF event, so that stands to reason. Also, I think it might be something you have to sanction with WFDF, like sanctioning any PDGA tournament, but I'm not even 50% sure about that.

Chap

Don't know, my impression from earlier posts was more that they weren't "sanctioned" but that's just a perception. However, I still prefer the concept of our own sanctioning and recognition of them as disc golf related world titles

The WFDF site says the distance competition needs to take place at "meet" sanctioned by the WFDF or one of it's national member associations. I think the PDGA should qualify as one of those.

The hard part is the competition area.


601.04 Distance: The playing area in distance shall be of sufficient size to permit the entire course of the disc flights to be contained within its perimeter, essentially level to insure an accurate measurement, and in an area which permits an unblocked windflow. The layout of the field shall be such that throws may be made with the prevailing wind. There shall be five throwing sites, each marked with foul lines which consist of a 3 m front line and perpendicular sidelines which are 3 m to 15 m in length. These lines shall be between 5 cm and 10 cm in width. Small, flexible cones should be used to mark the front corners of each site. At least 6 m of additional space shall be provided between each throwing site.



Throws are made in sets of 5 throws each with 2 1/2 minutes allowed for each competitor make his 5 throws. There does not seem to be a defined number of 5-throw sets required, but it looks like more than one is expected.

Doesn't look too hard, but we need a flat level site that allows throws of 250m in any direction with no trees close enough to block the wind.

thats a really big crop circle

The WFDF site says the distance competition needs to take place at "meet" sanctioned by the WFDF or one of it's national member associations. I think the PDGA should qualify as one of those.

The hard part is the competition area.


601.04 Distance: The playing area in distance shall be of sufficient size to permit the entire course of the disc flights to be contained within its perimeter, essentially level to insure an accurate measurement, and in an area which permits an unblocked windflow. The layout of the field shall be such that throws may be made with the prevailing wind. There shall be five throwing sites, each marked with foul lines which consist of a 3 m front line and perpendicular sidelines which are 3 m to 15 m in length. These lines shall be between 5 cm and 10 cm in width. Small, flexible cones should be used to mark the front corners of each site. At least 6 m of additional space shall be provided between each throwing site.



Throws are made in sets of 5 throws each with 2 1/2 minutes allowed for each competitor make his 5 throws. There does not seem to be a defined number of 5-throw sets required, but it looks like more than one is expected.

Doesn't look too hard, but we need a flat level site that allows throws of 250m in any direction with no trees close enough to block the wind.



is that 250m message board distance or 250 meters real distance? :eek: :D

Some of the heavy hitters at VA States (Jack Cooksey, Randy Lahm, etc.) would need 400m of message board distance (approx. 625 feet). :D

Some of the heavy hitters at VA States (Jack Cooksey, Randy Lahm, etc.) would need 400m of message board distance (approx. 625 feet). :D



That's actually greater than 1,300ft. :D

For the denser readers out there: my point was 1312 ft. message board distance = 625 ft. real distance!

For the denser readers out there: my point was 1312 ft. message board distance = 625 ft. real distance!



Oops! :o

Poor Matt, even when he's right he's wrong... :D

John, thanks for answering Lyle's questions while I was out gallavanting over the long weekend.

John, thanks for answering Lyle's questions while I was out gallavanting over the long weekend.



Long weekend? Mine was short, not to mention cold, wet, and windy. (Anybody who played in St. Louis on Saturday can sympathize) I'm ready for warm, dry golf. :) All of those playing in the Memorial this weekend, I hate you. :) And I'm jealous.

To answer Lyle's other question, I believe PDGA owns the rights to its rules. By mutual agreement, I believe WFDF and PDGA have adopted the PDGA rules as the rules of disc golf for both organizations. (Conrad might step in here if I'm wrong) That's why the PDGA rules book numbers are numbers are numbered 800-805.

The WFDF rules sections (can also be found here (http://www.wfdf.org/index.php?page=rules/index.htm)):

100s are general WFDF rules
200s: DDC
300s: Guts
400s: Ultimate
500s: Discathon
600s Field Events (Distance, Accuracy, MTA, Throw, Run, and Catch)
700s: Freestyle
800s: Disc Golf

Chap

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this... if there is a more appropriate place, please move it.

I was wondering if it would be possible to put a filter on the PDGA Tour Schedule that allows users to search for events based on how long they are. Maybe have 3 options: 1 day, 2 day, 3 or more.

I am more likely to attend 1 day events due to hotel costs, but I would like an easier way to search the events. Just a suggestion. I may be the only person interested.

What I'd really like in the tourney listing is to a) have the tournaments have links to the courses used in the PDGA directory and b) then offer the ability to search for tournaments with a radius search rather than by state.

dude, the google search has had the radius feature since it was launched more than a year ago.

good idea on the link to the directory from the event page!

Radius searches for courses were around before the google directory search. What I would like is a radius search for tournaments.

Radius searches for courses were around before the google directory search. What I would like is a radius search for tournaments.



Agreed... searching by state doesn't help me with distance.

ah, i see wot ya mean... my bad... hmmm... that should be doable... its all built off of zips, so linking events to courses would be most of the battle.

One of the snags, which is part of the issue with processing player ratings, is that a fair percentage of events use temp courses not in the directory.

we still know the zip of the city (presumably).

I'll ask Dave when he gets back from The Memorial if we can get a list of currently scheduled 2007 events with either zip code or City/State. I have an Excel forecast model for Worlds that does a distance by zip code calc that could easily be adapted for this. We could maybe create a file available for download.

cool. we already have web-code to do the distance calcs... its in the google part of the directory, and written i a way that allows it to be readily "borrowed" by other parts of the site.

I'm sending an e-mail to the board as well. I

Board Members,
Would you please look into setting a new rule for PDGA memberships? I believe a PDGA member should have the right to play a PDGA event over nonmembers when events fill on preregistration. Events are filling quicker then ever and it's only going to become more of a problem in the future. This might also get nonmembers to join.

Is there some inherent reason that non-members can pre-reg sooner than members? I don't think there is, but I have an open mind on this issue.

We hear the same thing about pros versus ams for our pro/am events out here. For some reason ams can pre-reg as soon as the entry form comes out, but for some other reason pros can't seem to register until a few days before. Of course the preferred solution of the pros is to reserve spots just in case the pros do decide to sign up the day before.

I can see this working like the Tour Player at NT and A-Tiers where they have a certain number of spots for up to two weeks prior, but after that, it's first come first served.

But I think players that commit to your event months in advance and make travel and lodging arrangements deserve a solid confirmation.

Not that it matters, but I could not agree more. As a pro who wants to play an A tier and a major, I am forced to renew, and renew at a higher rate. I have seen a number of tourneys this year where PDGA members (both pro and am) have been turned away while fields include a number of non-members. I don't see the sign-up-early rebuttal as on-point here. The point is that your membership should account for something, and you shouldn't be turned away while a non-member is allowed to play. Non-members could be put on a waiting list, and allowed to play if the tourney doesn't fill.

This is a no-brainer to me. Something the organization should definitely do for its membership.

I disagree with James and agree with Gary: I say if someone is willing to sign up and make travel arrangements early, I want them in my tourney. I do not want to turn away paying players in the hopes that other players might decide to sign up.

If the issue is as bad James makes it out to be, then perhaps we should consider requiring PDGA membership in order to play in PDGA tourneys, as if all tourneys were A-tiers. But going back to the lame old days of "bumping" pre-regged paid players is, IMHO, lame.

The whole travel arrangement argument isn't persuasive to me, because someone can easily avoid that uncertainty by renewing or joining.

I am not advocating it unless a tourney fills, but it seems terribly wrong to me to see a PDGA member turned away while a non-member gets to play.

I am not advocating it unless a tourney fills, but it seems terribly wrong to me to see a PDGA member turned away while a non-member gets to play.


I would say then push for requiring PDGA membership for all players in PDGA tourneys.

who gets bumped????

I agree with Rhett. Just make PDGA memberships requried for B A and Majors.

C and D Tiers shouldnt be filling anyways and besides, those are for smaller more local tournaments. More people, even if non members, is a good thing.

Not sure if cevalkyrie was asking as a player or as a TD. If a TD wants to give preference to PDGA members, they can limit pre-reg to PDGA members only or limit to PDGA members only until X days before a tourney.

His request is really no different than 2.5.D in the extra rule book. Just that the upcharge ($45/$70) is different.


D. Players paying full price should have priority over players paying the reduced rate. If an event or division is full, a TD may require trophy only players to pay the full price in order to maintain their position in the tournament.

I think bumping rights would be an administrative headache for the person dealing with pre-registration. Now he has to keep track of the order they come in so he knows the order to bump them out. He has to communicate the bump outs to the bumped out players. He has to cut refund checks and mail them out. He has to deal with angry players who drove all the way from Minnesota to find out they got bumped. It will discourage non-members from pre-registering at all, since pre-registering doesn't get them anything.

I'm fine with all that if Brett is volunteering! If he is volunteering Mirth or Jon, he needs to check with them. :D

2.5(D) is discretionary with the TD. It is not something we plan to do at the IOSeries. If you pre-register, you're in. If you sprint from the car and get in line ahead of ten other guys who were moving slowly, maybe you get in and they don't. I don't care whether you play trophy-only or not. If I cared, then I'd raise the price on trophy-only, which we did. I think we'll keep raising the price on trophy-only until I actually prefer trophy-only players! :D

No one associated with the IOSeries is going to remember the new trophy-only bumping rule unless someone who wants in also wants to force a trophy-only player to pay more before he still doesn't get in.


When I think about it, it seems like that person would force all the trophy-only players in their flight to pay more before they didn't get in. Yuck. :p

I am not advocating it unless a tourney fills, but it seems terribly wrong to me to see a PDGA member turned away while a non-member gets to play.



This past weekend a B-tier event was held in Huntington Beach, CA. Registration for Ams closed three weeks before the event was held. One week later, after Am registration had been closed the event was added to the PDGA on-line schedule. Twenty-four of the 74 amateur players in the event were not PDGA members (I'm assuming this because they have no PDGA# listed on the results page).

I know of several regular PDGA players who wanted to register, but were unable to because registration closed. Yes, we should have signed up earlier. However, if this is a PDGA B-tier event, shouldn't we be able to either: learn about it on the PDGA website before it closes, or have spots held for PDGA members before opening it up to non-members?

I am not advocating it unless a tourney fills, but it seems terribly wrong to me to see a PDGA member turned away while a non-member gets to play.



This past weekend a B-tier event was held in Huntington Beach, CA. Registration for Ams closed three weeks before the event was held. One week later, after Am registration had been closed the event was added to the PDGA on-line schedule. Twenty-four of the 74 amateur players in the event were not PDGA members (I'm assuming this because they have no PDGA# listed on the results page).

I know of several regular PDGA players who wanted to register, but were unable to because registration closed. Yes, we should have signed up earlier. However, if this is a PDGA B-tier event, shouldn't we be able to either: learn about it on the PDGA website before it closes, or have spots held for PDGA members before opening it up to non-members?



Even if spots were held, it's unlikely that they would be held beyond 14 days prior.

That would have been OK - I understand having a cut-off, as long as it's advertised. I wanted to register 23 days before. At that point I was already 2 or 3 days too late, but 1/3 of the field had been filled with non-PDGA players, and the tournament had not been advertised/listed on the PDGA schedule.

It sounds like the root issue for you, Allen, is that the tourney was not listed on the PDGA Tour page in a timely fashion. Holding spots for PDGA members or dis-allowing non-members from playing wouldn't have necessarily prevented that from happening.

Brian and Stork are the fellas that know the most about this. I asked them for some details and they sent me the following:




Very informative post, Steve. Thanks.

I just brought this up because the way disc golf is growing it's going to become harder and harder to get into events. The Advanced field at Standing Rocks Open on April 28 &amp; 29 filed 2 weeks prior to the event. My traveling buddy sent his check and just missed the cut. There are 15 non PDGA members playing in the Adv Division. This will happen to a lot of players this year. I just don't think it's right someone who has paid $45 to be a PDGA member does not get to play when non PDGA members get to play.

alan, when was the tourney sanctioned? i'm wondering why it showed up on the schedule with only two weeks to go.

thx

It sounds like the root issue for you, Allen, is that the tourney was not listed on the PDGA Tour page in a timely fashion. Holding spots for PDGA members or dis-allowing non-members from playing wouldn't have necessarily prevented that from happening.

Granted, not having the tourney listed on the PDGA tour page was a contributing factor, but not the root issue. How can a player earn points and a rating in PDGA tournaments if non-PDGA members are filling 1/3 of the spots? Members should be given a reasonable shot at entering before the event is opened to non-members.

alan, when was the tourney sanctioned? i'm wondering why it showed up on the schedule with only two weeks to go.

thx

Pat - I don't have direct knowledge about this but I read an exchange between Rhett and KeithJ where they hypothesized that the sanctioning agreement and/or fees were submitted late.

Having not competed in a while I wasn't aware of the rules behind how events are placed on the PDGA Tour schedule. I think it would be helpful to have a disclaimer on the schedule page reminding players/members to check with their local clubs for the most up-to-date information on tournament schedules. If I had done that and checked the SoCal Disc Golf website I would not have missed registration. Unfortunately, I had been treating the PDGA Tour schedule as the go-to source (which I think I ought to be able to do?). I now rely on the local club website.

Post deleted by mp3_

I just don't think it's right someone who has paid $45 to be a PDGA member does not get to play when non PDGA members get to play.



The competitors who are not current members are members for the day/weekend when they pay $5. They have paid 1/10th of the $50 and get probably less than 1/10th of the value.

A possible solution:

Is there anywhere in the rules or sanctioning agreement that states that a TD is not allowed to put stipulations like "PDGA members only" on their tournament at C or B tiers? (D Tiers by definition are developmental, so I doubt you could get sanctioned as such as a members only event).

I looked into this a year or so ago when I was considering a "by invitation only" format and found nothing prohibiting that.

To me, that would be the best solution rather than dictating it from on high. After all, the TD knows the event history and probability of it filling.

I think that making a B or C tier "PDGA Members Only" would be fine as I see nothing prohibiting it.

Of course that would be the TDs decision, and TDs want people to play their event. I know of some B-tiers that could be A-tiers but choose not too because they don't want to limit the player base to PDGA members only. So I wouldn't hold out too much hope for that happening a lot.

thx allen for the info. i'll see what i can find out.

I highly doubt Randy will limit Standing Rocks to PDGA members only.
The AM weekend is unsanctioned, but competes with IOS #1 and possibly even the North Valley Open in Minnesota.

I posted this question to Peter Shive but thought I should also post it here so that our current Board and new Candidates could respond outside the Peter Shive questions thread.

We currently have one Board Member who is the part owner of a disc golf merchandizing company. On more than one occassion he has utilized the MB as a medium to direct members to his company. Furthermore, there is a least one candidate in this election who owns a disc golf related company. Would the Board and our current crop of candidates be willing to propose amendments to the by-laws of the organization to include documents prohibiting Board Members from marketing their companies, and from enacting changes in the PDGA that would directly benefit their companies? Even better, to modify the Conflict of Interest statements to directly address these issues with the penalty of removal from office if a Board Member is not in compliance.

While this seems harsh, please view it from the perspective that IMO, one should run for the Board with the intent of helping disc golf, not one's company.

By extension, it would seem that Board members should not be pros since efforts by the PDGA to increase sponsorship and purses might directly benefit them?

it is possible for a BOD member to separate personal interestes with those of the Association. an interest in a retail venture is fairly innocuous. BoD members are already required to disclose potential conflicts. given the small size of our sport, it is reasonable to expect some overlap of those who want to help the sport by serving on the BoD and those whose business plans involve the sport.

in my short tenure i have yet to see a BoD member's retail interest affect any decision making.

i tried to get a clause added to deal with BoD members who refuse to submit COI disclosures or fail to provide notice of material changes, but the consensus was that no such measures were needed at this time.

i would say that Steve's use of the message board is not substantially different than that of other retail operators. there's way more insider stuff elsewhere in the Association... why should we limit his use of the message board simply because he is on the BoD? after all, he is a Member and is entitled to the rights and privileges of Membership.

By extension, it would seem that Board members should not be pros since efforts by the PDGA to increase sponsorship and purses might directly benefit them?



Good point and one I had not thought of before. On the other hand, what is the break down of board members and staff along Pro Am lines and what is the break down in effort of the PDGA towards Pro and Am issues? There is no question that people act in their own best interests, should we not limit that?

There is a reason that our politicians are asked to divest from the interests they are required to regulate. I admit that you won't be able to do that in terms of the Pro Am issue, but I do think that it is inappropriate to lend credence to one's business ventures because one is a Board Member.

it is possible for a BOD member to separate personal interestes with those of the Association. an interest in a retail venture is fairly innocuous. BoD members are already required to disclose potential conflicts. given the small size of our sport, it is reasonable to expect some overlap of those who want to help the sport by serving on the BoD and those whose business plans involve the sport.

in my short tenure i have yet to see a BoD member's retail interest affect any decision making.

i tried to get a clause added to deal with BoD members who refuse to submit COI disclosures or fail to provide notice of material changes, but the consensus was that no such measures were needed at this time.

i would say that Steve's use of the message board is not substantially different than that of other retail operators. there's way more insider stuff elsewhere in the Association... why should we limit his use of the message board simply because he is on the BoD? after all, he is a Member and is entitled to the rights and privileges of Membership.



I'm not sure I agree. Let's take a recent example. There was discussion concerning the historical development of disc golf. A Board member got onto that thread and referenced a written work that covers the history of the sport. That reference came in the form of a direct link to that Board Member's on-line sales venue.

As a member, the individual could well have referenced the book, participated in the discussion, even given a link to the publisher or author's site (if one is available). It is quite possible to participate in any discussion that occurs here as a member without marketing.

Now, the issue is that you have a Board Member who has a different status on this MB than say Gateway Dave or Innova Dave lending credence to his sales venue because of his enhanced status here. That gives him an advantage over say Twisted Flyer and other merchandisers. Is that fair? Do those other merchandisers have to run for the Board to ensure that advantage?

Let me point out clearly that I do not think this was the BMs intent. That BM is a relatively careful guy. However, this isn't the first time he has done this.

The issue of whether a Board Member should be denied their right as a member to market here is another question. I think they should be allowed to, but only on a personal, non-moderator account. I would even opt to have their signature line state that it is their personal account. This compromise would take away the enhanced credibility that comes with being a Board Member so that members posting here could focus on the business benefits of buying from that Board Member's company as opposed to the status of that Board Member.

As for a by-law prohibiting BMs from modifying our structure to enhance their own interests, given that your post suggests you feel there is already inappropriate behavior going on, I'd think you would support this? I realize there will be gray areas but after all, a signed statement sends a clear message to be careful and to evaluate your actions, does it not?

As for a by-law prohibiting BMs from modifying our structure to enhance their own interests, given that your post suggests you feel there is already inappropriate behavior going on, I'd think you would support this?

with all due respect, please read my original post carefully. i do not feel, and did not say, there already is "inappropriate behavior going on" when it comes to BoD members.

As for a by-law prohibiting BMs from modifying our structure to enhance their own interests, given that your post suggests you feel there is already inappropriate behavior going on, I'd think you would support this?

with all due respect, please read my original post carefully. i do not feel, and did not say, there already is "inappropriate behavior going on" when it comes to BoD members.



Please except my humble apologies. I misintpreted this comment
there's way more insider stuff elsewhere in the Association...

in the context of the discussion to mean that you were.

So if indeed you have no concerns about inappropriate behavior by BMs, in terms of this issue, that's great! On the other hand, my experience with human nature is that if there isn't adequate stucture in place, abuse will happen, even if unintentionally. I seem to recall somewhere in the bowels of some thread that you held a similar position, but I could well be wrong about that...

yes, that is why i advocated for formalizing the COI disclosure policy to the level it now is. if any BoD members are gaming the system they are doing it far below the radar. none of my concerns about COIs relate to BoD members or staff. i would like to see the existing COI disclosure given more teeth by becoming more explicit about penalties for non-disclosure, but the current policy seems adequate now that we require formal COIs. the relationships and deals that may benefit from oversight and transparency do not involve BoD members.

Hi Lyle,

Recently I got another user ID and I will try to be more diligent in using it.

(Now I just have to figure out which is personal me and which one is BoD me ;))

I agree with the COI and remind the BoD of my potential conflicts when they arise in discussions.

Hi Lyle,

Recently I got another user ID and I will try to be more diligent in using it.

(Now I just have to figure out which is personal me and which one is BoD me ;))

I agree with the COI and remind the BoD of my potential conflicts when they arise in discussions.



Steve, you're one of the most upstanding guys I've ever communicated with. I'd vote for you... again.

Thanks,

Lyle

Do you think you should have to be a pdga member to play any sanctioned event?

Some people find it cheaper to pay $ 5.00 three times a year.
What are we doing to combat this problem?

This is a good question, although wording it as a "problem" leans towards a given mindset.

I personally do not think it is a problem to let disc golfers who do not want to join the PDGA compete in PDGA events, especially lower tiered events. This would lead to the questions, "Should they have to pay a non-member fee?" and if so, "What percentage of a full membership is a fair and adequate fee?"

You are right "problem" is not the right term. I would say avoiding
future conflicts. As the rates to be a member increase over time $5 gets more and more attractive to a lot of people.

The people that really care about the growth of this game will always support the PDGA. I am worried about the fringe players. The people that take over local courses and never join and play in a couple of tournaments. In my experience these people bag events with no rating, take plastic, sell plastic and only give $5.00 to the overall growth fund.

I have one more question. Has the P.D.G.A. ever looked at table tennis as an example of rating based competition. It is set up the way the mid nationals will be played. It is rating based competition. The only winner that does not get cash and receives prizes instead is a first time competitor. This allows no financial bagging to take place. If you are new you can't win money. After one tournament you receive a rating and then can only play in your rating group.

This seems like a "Ron Paul" (makes so much sense most people just don't get it)

I know you all hear it all the time so I won't beat a dead horse. Most people want to play for money not discs. In my experience around tournaments and with clubs is that the most people receive junk disc, beer signs, random hats, and a lot of other junk that people donate as a prize. Some are great, some are just silly. I once saw a 15 kid win a Jack Daniels mirror as a prize. WoW! I bet his mom was happy.

Simply put. Why can't we all play for money within our divisions? The rating system is dead on right. My buddies and I use it to handicap our games and it always comes down to the wire.

Sorry, I was going to jump in on the "most players" statement, then saw that pick-your-own payout is not the norm where the poster plays. I would agree that players really hate getting prepackaged junk, but in locations where pick-your-own payout is the norm, I don't think the Ams are really upset with winning prizes and most realize that the retail markup is what keeps tournaments going.

Do you think you should have to be a pdga member to play any sanctioned event?

Some people find it cheaper to pay $ 5.00 three times a year.
What are we doing to combat this problem?

The PDGA takes $7 or $8 from these players and offers them nothing in return. What's the problem?

I have one more question. Has the P.D.G.A. ever looked at table tennis as an example of rating based competition. It is set up the way the mid nationals will be played. It is rating based competition. The only winner that does not get cash and receives prizes instead is a first time competitor. This allows no financial bagging to take place. If you are new you can't win money. After one tournament you receive a rating and then can only play in your rating group.

This seems like a "Ron Paul" (makes so much sense most people just don't get it)



I know that other sports' systems have been looked at. Table Tennis seems to have it together with their system. At the last summit meeting, I think we agreed to add a check box asking the TD if they want to have their event be straight ratings based (only ratings based divisions) or the standard age/gender/ratings divisions.

(Note: I'd have to double check to see if this was agreed to be discussed at a later time or if we voted to add it to the TD agreement.)

This would be a half step towards the Table Tennis system and would allow us to determine if this type of event is truly favored. As with many things, it may turn out to be regionally preferred.

Steve Dodge.

PS. I like the Ron Paul reference. I wish more people got it.

It is not a real problem. Just a suggestion.
Pick your own prizes is a better system no doubt.

I would still personally love to play for cash and not be drawing dead. I have enough disc.

Has the P.D.G.A. ever looked at table tennis as an example of rating based competition. *** This seems like a "Ron Paul" (makes so much sense most people just don't get it)



Current board member Pete May is a world class table tennis champ. He's talked at PDGA BoD meetings about what they do many times.

I like the Ron Paul reference. As a former Goldwater Youth, I'd love to see a conservative resurgence that buries the corrupt Bushian philosophies.

Thank you for the answer. It is nice to know that the PDGA is open
minded and does listen to it's member base.
Take care everyone.

Table Tennis seems to have it together with their system.



Could someone elaborate, please?

Table tennis? The game I played in the 70s. It seemed way more popular then than now. I did see table tennis on tv recently........rewatching Forrest Gump playing in the 70s, or was it the 60s.

This is a good model?

Everyone plays for money, regardless of skill? Let's review: we can look at any number of successful sports, ones which have true ams and pros, where people are drawn upward. Instead, we plan to model it after a sport that (at least in my experience) is less popular now than it was 30 years ago. Madness has taken over.

check this out: http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzz/Balls_Of_Fury

"Just in time to ride the wave of ping pong hipster popularity, a kung-fu/sports flick mashup about the world of underground table tennis. Finally, a fringe sports movie not starring Will Ferrell or Ben Stiller! Actually, this is from the people who brought you "Reno 911" and "The State." Christopher Walken relies on his signature creepiness as the ping pong-loving bad guy, Feng."

like the Ron Paul reference. As a former Goldwater Youth, I'd love to see a conservative resurgence that buries the corrupt Bushian philosophies.




Looks like I have been in the wrong threads.

Finally someone on this board recognises Ron Paul.

Yes we can get him elected. I am going to a Meetup monday night in the Dallas area.

Vote Ron Paul 2008

I certainly will be voting for Ron Paul. I saw him talking to congress on CSPAN. Very wise.

Table Tennis is the most popular sport in the world. Of course not in the US. I know tons of people that play. They have a great tournament model. They also have a great way of dealing with baggers. Basically they don't exist in Table Tennis.

Table tennis sounds like the socialist workers' paradise of sports.

Table Tennis is the most popular sport in the world.



Uh, I'm pretty sure that's soccer.

I think there would be a lot of support for ratings-based events although I'm not sure the ladies would like it as much, at least not the am ladies that I know. My wife plays in most of the tournaments I do, but she's primarily motivated by the group she gets to play with. She and her doubles parter were the only ladies team at A-Z doubles a few weeks ago, and they were carded up with some of the Rec Men. While they may have been on a similar skill level, they were not on a similar maturity and tournament-experience level. This made for a less-than-perfect weekend (she still had a good time).

My point is just that strictly ratings-based does have some real merit and I would support any local tournament that chose to go that route. My wife, however, may not. I think it would severely limit her fun factor. I'm also aware that her division is the least populated at every single tournament... so catering to her may not be the PDGA's primary concern. It's worth mentioning that as my wife's tournament schedule diminishes... mine probably will too :).

I wonder if something could be done to keep the ladies together. I know a lot of their fun comes from playing with the same group of ladies on a regular basis. I also think that they feel more comfortable (and therefore more likely to attend an event) when the card is all female. This might not be as true for pro ladies... this is just the feedback I get from the am ladies.

One of the proposals would be to continue to group players in their age and gender groups - if they prefer - during all rounds of a ratings event regardless of cumulative score. There's no indication that playing with your score peers during an event has a strong bearing on your finish position (assuming players in your group are generally at your skill level) since you're playing against the course. If anything, it may be a negative influence being on the top card with the pressure.

With most events being just two rounds, I'd estimate the winner of a division comes from the top card in the second round maybe 2/3 of the time, if that. Maybe half the players you pass or pass you come from other cards than yours. Makes you wonder whether it wouldn't be just as good to continue with random groupings throughout the event, since without real time scoring, you really don't know who you are ahead of or behind outside your group if that even influences your play.

I think there would be a lot of support for ratings-based events although I'm not sure the ladies would like it as much, at least not the am ladies that I know. My wife plays in most of the tournaments I do, but she's primarily motivated by the group she gets to play with. She and her doubles parter were the only ladies team at A-Z doubles a few weeks ago, and they were carded up with some of the Rec Men. While they may have been on a similar skill level, they were not on a similar maturity and tournament-experience level. This made for a less-than-perfect weekend (she still had a good time).

My point is just that strictly ratings-based does have some real merit and I would support any local tournament that chose to go that route. My wife, however, may not. I think it would severely limit her fun factor. I'm also aware that her division is the least populated at every single tournament... so catering to her may not be the PDGA's primary concern. It's worth mentioning that as my wife's tournament schedule diminishes... mine probably will too :).

I wonder if something could be done to keep the ladies together. I know a lot of their fun comes from playing with the same group of ladies on a regular basis. I also think that they feel more comfortable (and therefore more likely to attend an event) when the card is all female. This might not be as true for pro ladies... this is just the feedback I get from the am ladies.



In the past, ratings-based events did not eliminate women's and junior's divisions. They were still preserved.

http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=3483#Silver
http://www.pdga.com/schedule/event.php?TournID=3712
http://www.pdga.com/tournament/tournament_results.php?TournID=4202#Bronze

I don't know what the new competition proposals for ratings-based events look like, but I would imagine that women's and junior's divisions would still be preserved in ratings-based events. I think the point of ratings-based events is to eliminate the multiple &amp; silly overlaps amongst male divisions, not force women to play with men of similar skill level but poor maturity and tournament-experience level. You and your wife can breathe easier. :cool:

Womens and Junior divisons would continue to be optional as they were when ratings events had separate tier categories. TDs weren't required to host them but most chose to.

I may be a bit out of the norm with this, but I do seem to play better when I "play up" above my rating. Something in my subconcious gives me enough confidence to keep up with the card leader... but if the card leader isn't playing well, neither am I. This isn't 100% of the time, but I have noticed that trend in my play. Of course, that's just me and I'm just #20737. I'm not being sarcastic, I'm saying that if there is real data to support that the group doesn't affect the play on a noticeable level... then I support the research.

I do like the idea of grouping based on age and sex, as that does seem to make for a more enjoyable tournament experience. Parting with the norm again, however - I play golf regularly with masters-age players. My club is comprised of young and old, and we all enjoy our time on the course together. That said, sometimes I do get the feeling that the older members wouldn't tolerate us nearly as much if we didn't know them so well :).

Please allow me one obviously ignorant question: In ratings based events, are the divisions broken down strictly, or does each division simply have a maximum allowed rating?

Just max rating allowed. You can always play up just like regular divisions.

so... there isn't much difference from the currently popular method? You'd basically just take away age protection, right?

I can hear the old guys complaining already :D

I held an event in may and the amount of non-pdga current players jumped from 10 or so for all the previous years to 29 this year. would you guys think this is related to the increase in fees? multiple people mentioned they couldn't afford it, or just would rather save money and pay the 5$. any numbers so far regarding non-pdga players per event vs. previous years?

Checking the first two IOS tourneys this year compared to last, they are statistically the same or better.
Percent that are Non-PDGA members
IOS#1 17%(2006) vs 17%(2007)
IOS#2 21%(2006) vs 13%(2007)

Typically when electing new directors for an organization, the board will recommend candidates. Is the PDGA board of directors issuing any recommendations for this election?

good lord, how controversial would that be? :)