Not everyone on the board views or posts on the DB, but everyone is invited to participate as time permits.

Some folks have requested that the BoD start a thread / section where folks can ask questions and discuss the direction of the PDGA. This thread is a pilot program to see how well this idea could pan out.

Our goal is to fill this thread with kudos, ideas, and constructive criticisms.

I was talking with Justin Jernigan about this earlier this week.

I (we) feel this sport is growing to the point that we need a players union. If people are making a living off of this game, the PDGA needs some sort of union on the other end to make the players lives easier.

Make DGWN magazine optional ... I would rather send $13.40 a year to the IDGC.

hey Robert... i'm curious as to the kinds of things you see a union doing for the players? my only experience with unions has been with them as representatives of the employees in negotiations with "management".

Somebody please explain to me how unionizing disc golfers will be a benefit?

Make DGWN magazine optional

Make DGWN magazine optional ... I would rather send $13.40 a year to the IDGC.



I agree with this. Some PDGA members live with other PDGA members. Why do they need 2 magazines?

Make DGWN magazine optional ... I would rather send $13.40 a year to the IDGC.




It might actually cost more than $13.40 annually to edit and send a separate B&W newsletter to those who don't take the DGWN. Our Board guys could check and see if a newsletter is a legal requirement for our type of org. Getting a color magazine is a bonus that likely costs less than doing something in house if the true costs are tallied. The PDGA used to do the Disc Golfer B&W newsletter.

hey Robert... i'm curious as to the kinds of things you see a union doing for the players? my only experience with unions has been with them as representatives of the employees in negotiations with "management".



Just in terms of knowing where our money we pay for PDGA membership goes and trying to get the PDGA to put more into purses.

I'm really not any kind of leader in terms of this nor would I want any type of leadership, but I know someone out there would be interested.

JJ brought it up. I'll get him to post his reasons.

In general, players (those who only play) do little to advance the sport and they have no power from a fan base and crowd draw standpoint where a threatened strike would impact the receipts of most course owners, considering play is mostly free. If any group needs a union, it would be our TDs.

research whether offering a lower membership fee would increase membership and future DGWN subscibers.

research whether offering new PDGA members a cheap "introductory" membership option with less bells and whistles (no disc, mini, magazine subscription, etc.) would increase our membership. one sample of the DGWN could be part of the package as well as info on why renewing as a full-blown member would be good for them and the future of our sport. maybe make the intro membership really cheap ($10) and last just six months (expiration date on card).
i know there is a similar program but i would have one specificly for new members only that yields a hard PDGA card, lasts a little longer, and is offered at the PDGA Pro Shop (http://www.pdga.com/pdga_pro_shop.php) rather than only via TD's...

set a goal for 2008 membership to be 100,000.

thx Robert... ask JJ to let us know.

chuck, what would a TD union do for TDs? that idea is just as question-spurring as the players union idea.

I'm not saying a union would do much relative to cost of organizing. But many TDs have more financial stake than any group other than the PDGA in how the sanctioned competition structure operates and any changes that may affect them.

Getting a color magazine is a bonus that likely costs less than doing something in house if the true costs are tallied.

i'd love to see any numbers that either backup or refute the claim that the color mag "likely" costs less than other alternatives. either conclusion is fine... i have no vested interest at all... but lets see some numbers - even if they are estimates - before reaching a conclusion.

I briefly started digging around in the old Disc Golfers from the early 90s to see if costs were shown (as a starting point) but I didn't find the finance issue yet.

Dear Pat & Steve,

Do other professional sports give their members subscriptions to magazines? Do NFL players get a magazine from the NFL? Does the NHL, NBA, PGA, NASCAR (okay those drivers for the most part probably can't read) and MLB shove a magazine down their players throats?

Why do we routinely have at least seven divisions for approximately 50 men to compete in at a typical disc golf event?

Why doesn't the PDGA address the drug issue?

What are your favorite broadway musicals and why?

It might actually cost more than $13.40 annually to edit and send a separate B&W newsletter to those who don't take the DGWN. Our Board guys could check and see if a newsletter is a legal requirement for our type of org. Getting a color magazine is a bonus that likely costs less than doing something in house if the true costs are tallied. The PDGA used to do the Disc Golfer B&W newsletter.



First, I would be surprised if a "newsletter" was a requirement. Perhaps there are some stipulations about communicating with members, but I would think the organization would have final say about whether to use e-newsletter, newsletter, full color glossy mag, smoke signals, semaphore, etc.

Second, if it has to be a newsletter and nothing else will do ( and speaking as a former journalist and editor who has been responsible for producing and distributing everything from a daily with a +40K circulation to a tiny quarterly mag mailed to subscribers), I find it extremely hard to believe that the PDGA couldn't produce a B & W quarterly newsletter for less than $13.40 per.

In fact, I am surprised to hear you characterize the possibility it would be more expensive as "likely" especially since the balance of the posts addressing this issue lead me to believe that if a cost analysis was ever done it certainly isn't springing to hand.

are the players in the Pro Sports you mention -- NFL, NBA, NHL, etc. -- considered members or employees or...? (they don't really join and renew, they get contracts right?)

Make DGWN magazine optional ... I would rather send $13.40 a year to the IDGC.



This is on the table and will be discussed for 2008.

OK, here's an example I found online of the NFL Players Union Magazine (http://www.nflpa.org/pdfs/NewsAndEvents/TheAudible/Oct04Audible.pdf)

Just in terms of knowing where our money we pay for PDGA membership goes and trying to get the PDGA to put more into purses.



I think getting the financials posted (thanks Bob Decker and Brian Hoeniger for making this actually happen - and thanks to some members for pestering us to get it done) is a great start. Hopefully as we as an organization get more comfortable with letting go of some of the strings, more of the details will become available to the members.

research whether offering a lower membership fee would increase membership and future DGWN subscibers.
set a goal for 2008 membership to be 100,000.



I bet it would. And why set the bar so low? I believe that this too will be on the table for 2008. (It might have to be a big table).

If anyone would like to propose a membership schedule that we could openly debate and poke holes in, that would be great. As soon as we get one that doesn't get any holes in it and gets better value for the members, we can take it to the BoD.

Do other professional sports give their members subscriptions to magazines? Do NFL players get a magazine from the NFL? Does the NHL, NBA, PGA, NASCAR (okay those drivers for the most part probably can't read) and MLB shove a magazine down their players throats?

Why do we routinely have at least seven divisions for approximately 50 men to compete in at a typical disc golf event?

Why doesn't the PDGA address the drug issue?

What are your favorite broadway musicals and why?



Hi Hawk! I thought you decided not to renew! :D

The drug issue and divisions. Two great topics with many points of view. Besides taking a stance on whether or not drugs should be legal, what else is there to discuss regarding the drug issue? (do I have my head in the sand on this one?)

Divisions. Woof.

Thanks, Steve.

BTW, Chuck, the player's union has a newsletter (obviously in a PDF downloadable format that would really cut distribution costs), but don't confuse the union with the NFL ... two different animals.

Hi Hawk! I thought you decided not to renew! :D

The drug issue and divisions. Two great topics with many points of view. Besides taking a stance on whether or not drugs should be legal, what else is there to discuss regarding the drug issue? (do I have my head in the sand on this one?)

Divisions. Woof.



1. Bite me. Can I help it if clearly this organization is nothing without me? Apparently the powers that be agree.

2. Discuss bringing the smack down on users during play.

3. Did I vote for you? Jesus.

Why do we routinely have at least seven divisions for approximately 50 men to compete in at a typical disc golf event?




The answer is quite simple. Disc golf has not (and probably will not) transistioned from a rec sport where anyone with a disc can play in the same tournament as the worlds best to a sport where players have to earn thier right to play on the PDGA tour.

The PDGA is starting to getting better at having a more exclussive way of limiting who plays in a tournament (requring PDGA membership at A tiers and higher, the NT's, and invites to certain events), but it still comes down to if you want to play an event, you can. Even the USDGC has a pay your way in (not directly, but if you give me 1250 dollars, I can sponsor the USDGC and then I can send you as my player).

B/c of the recreational atmopshere PDGA events still have, the PDGA wants to make everyone happy. That is why we have recreational, intermediate, advanced and pro. That is why we have senior advanced grandmaster.

Until we can draw the line between a touring pro (meaning more than just a player who tours) and a regular pro like myself (just local events and worlds) the need for more divisions to keep people in the sport will always be there.

This is why need a players union. I'm not sitting here saying that we should abolish the ams that play in PDGA events, but there should be a seperate league for them - the ADGA or something like that. When the PGA mixes thier divisions, it is called a Pro-AM and advertised that way When they don't its just a PGA event. When the PDGA doesn't mix divisions, it is called a Pro Only / Am Only event and is advertised that way. When the PDGA mixes divisions, it is just called a PDGA event. Total opposites there and I think the PGA has it right.

Not confusing it. But the NFLPA union with members is more like the PDGA than the NFL is. I would guess that the magazine is published in hard copy and made available in PDF at a later time. The point is that our members get their PDGA official news wrapped in a nice color magazine.

One of the main reasons members like to see any org publication is to see their names and/or pictures in it. A B&W version of our 4 PDGA pages in DGW would need to expand quite a bit to include results and pictures from the standpoint of member satisfaction. Considering that the value of DGW is probably perceived as higher by members than the actual cost to the PDGA (based on past member surveys ranking DGW one of if not the top membership benefit), the PDGA would be wise to reduce the membership cost only by $5-$8 if DGW was optional and no B&W newsletter replaced it. If the newsletter replaces it, the perceived member benefit would go down and the theoretical internal profit would be reduced, eliminated or turn into a cost depending on how it was done.

You make excellent points, MtL.

It would, however, be a lot more efficient if we renamed the PDGA to the ADGA and let the organization and vast majority of members carry on as they have been, than if we made all of those people jump to the new Am org to continue doing what they're doing.

Either way it leaves the pro minority to fend for themselves without the financial support of the ams.

wow ... slam, dunk ... all the answers, I guess. Maybe.

You mean the DGWN really beat out the mini and the PDGA sticker in terms of perceived value in a member survey? Surely you jest. Where did ratings and the rulebook come in?

if that is the case, then given the small savings members would reap if the DGWN was not part of the renewal bargain -- we should simply make membership fees less while retaining the DGWN as part of the bargain.

lowering the fees would increase membership -- the people not yet members are often put out by the initial cost. a lot of would be members are young and many do not work full time. if we could get them to sign up potential sponsors would see a lot more potential benefits from affiliating themselves with the PDGA and we would have a bigger pool from which to create the Ken Climos and Juliana Korvers of tomorrow.

one last thing: could we please put www.pdga.com (http://www.pdga.com) on the bottom of our logo? (let's get with the times) ;)

wow ... slam, dunk ... all the answers, I guess.



I try ;)

I'm just pointing out that the hard dollar amounts may not be the only part of the equation that needs to be taken into consideration in the optional DGW proposal. There are other types of memberships that might be considered by 2008 that don't include the magazine. But serious discussions on these may wait until after efforts are expended in the PDGA staff transition coming up in the next 6 months (unless there's room on the Summit agenda).

Hey, I have an idea. Create a thread solely about the cost of membership fees and only allow BoD members to post there. Each BoD member, or blocs of members if they so choose, could if they desired explain to the membership why the fees are set the way they are. If they so choose, they could expand on economic considerations such as price elasticity, value, etc. They could also create related threads covering general topics such as the importance of PDGA revenue generation and the different avenues that have been considered. In another thread, they could wax on about our competitive structure, and explain why it is set up the way it is.

Considering that the value of DGW is probably perceived as higher by members than the actual cost to the PDGA (based on past member surveys ranking DGW one of if not the top membership benefit), the PDGA would be wise to reduce the membership cost only by $5-$8 if DGW was optional and no B&W newsletter replaced it



that would have the effect of lowering the value received from a Membership while increasing the cost, wouldnt it? after all, if it has a value of at least $14 (based on cost) shouldnt the membership go down by at least close to that amount?

opinions about any mag are varied. from what i understand it has been on the table for several years. some dont read it, some read it briefly, some wait at their mailbox for it and pour over every word. to each their own. preferably to each their own cost also.

one other approach i think deserves consideration is to make the per event fees slightly higher to help counterbalance an initial decrease in funds that will result from making membership/renewal fees lower.

the former BoD may have seen increasing membership fees as a way to gain budget leverage, but the drawback falls especially on persons of less income and young players not yet fully earning a living. i think it is worthwhile to cast a wide net in order to substantially increase membership. reaching out to those to whom forking over $50 is difficult would pay us back in terms of growth and the resulting increase in our association's attractiveness to sponsors. adding $1 per event cost would be much easier for those on the lower ends of the economic spectrum and would still generate revenue. also, given that there are roughly 10 amateurs for every pro in our association -- we should charge the same renewal fee regardless of division. that will remove one potential disincentive to turning Pro and is only a drop in the bucket given the small amount of Pros presently in our organization.

on the multitude of divisions issue: as long as we are basicly wagering our entry fees most people will need to feel they have a good chance of return in order for them to enter and so having many divisions increases participation while having only one division would greatly decrease it. when we can play for cash and prizes that are not a function of entry fees it will be much easier for the average masters-aged Pro to feel good about entering a tournament in the Open division.

my three cents.

an idea similar to that was discussed and declined. i'm not supposed to discuss the reasons for the declination here. for now we will need to go with this kind of thread.

Why do we routinely have at least seven divisions for approximately 50 men to compete in at a typical disc golf event?



We currently do not have the player base to have a course full of Pro players at most events. Nor Advanced, Nor any other group that each have their own league or competitive level in the other sports you have mentioned.

Thanks MTL for answering the divisions question. I had fish frying and could not take the time to write all that out. That was a good read. And it seemed accurate, to me.

Hawk - Drugs. It sounds like the jist is to encourage enforcement of current rules. How best to do this would be the next question?

The problem with this kind of thread is not that it is not a good idea, but simply that it can be better. Too much clutter and debate. Lots of extraneous noise, no focus. And this is just day one. Just wait till it gets 40 pages long.

The problem with this kind of thread is not that it is not a good idea, but simply that it can be better. Too much clutter and debate. Lots of extraneous noise, no focus. And this is just day one. Just wait till it gets 40 pages long.



I've got to say I agree. If this type of back and forth is wanted by the members, then let us know. Perhaps that will be the nudge we need to create an Ask the BoD section where we can define what each thread is about.

It seems to me that it would be awesome if we had a thread, "Why so many divisions" and MTL's post could be seen there by everyone nice and quick. And perhaps a rebuttal post if one comes up. And I would even go so far as to set that section up such that clutter and noise and drift were deleted. But that approaches to a slippery slope.

The problem with this kind of thread is not that it is not a good idea, but simply that it can be better. Too much clutter and debate. Lots of extraneous noise, no focus. And this is just day one. Just wait till it gets 40 pages long.



otoh, imagine if there had been an "ask the BoD" forum here for a few years -- a lot of the stuff would have already been sorted by topic, answered, and tested out.

i think a lot of us are in shock there is a thread here where we can actually hope someone on the BoD will read it and take it seriously before the plug on it gets yanked :eek: :D

okay -- another topic:

i just searched for a member who doesn't come up because evidently he hasn't (yet?) renewed and came up with:


PDGA Membership Search:
There are 2555 current members.




however, it looks like we have 31000 + people who have a PDGA number. i think joining the PDGA and being granted a PDGA number warrants permanent access to posting privileges on this website.

i also think there should be a sub-section of this DISCussion Board where non-members can post.

Pat -- any statistics on how many daily visits we lost one month after making this site members-only? i know Blake T. noticed a significant increase of hits at www.discgolfreview.com (http://www.discgolfreview.com) just after this message board switched to members only...

Thanks to Steve for creating this thread. I'll be monitoring and participating as much as my work/travel schedule allows. Limited internet access time in some of the out-of-the-way places I find myself won't always allow detailed contributions, but, rest assured, members ideas are always welcomed and considered.

The one thing I do ask is this. If you make a suggestion that could impact the financial health of the organization, please do a bit of research to support your idea. Lots of ideas, such as no-magazine option, inexpensive short term memberships, or equal fees for ams and pros sound real good, but in order to consider them, the numbers have to be run. It would be helpful if the proponents of these ideas would do some homework to assist in the decision making process.

And one other thing. Remember to be civil. Nothing buries an idea faster than disrespecting those whose minds you wish to change. The Board of Directors and staff of the PDGA, as well as all the volunteers that make the committees work have valuable ideas and concerns, too. And for every person that contributes to this message board, there are half a dozen other members that never come here. These members are our constituents, too, and we encourage them to communicate with us through other means.

Thanks for everyone that contributes to the sport, and thanks to everyone that plays.

Happy New Year!

Why do we routinely have at least seven divisions for approximately 50 men to compete in at a typical disc golf event?



We currently do not have the player base to have a course full of Pro players at most events. Nor Advanced, Nor any other group that each have their own league or competitive level in the other sports you have mentioned.



If we don't have the player base, why does Sweden? They offer 3 divisions and get huge fields. We can do that too. But we are handicapped by the current dissection of the players. It's hard to put a frog back together once you've cut it apart, ehh?

I think they have the player base because they don't do it any other way. Everyone is dying to get into Marshall Street not because they think they can win, but because they want to be there and play. If all events had similar divisional structure (Men, Women, Juniors), Players would suck it up and play. Tournament fees would be flat across the board for men. You couldn't hide out in Am and get merch for moderate success.

I'm not painting a picture of the future, I am painting a picture of the present and the past. We in America have overdivisionalized disc golf. I think that Marshall Street has some of the best ideas in the sport. Open, Womens, and Grandmasters. I think that worlds can have more breakout since it's a larger tournament with much larger fields, but for everyday tournaments, I feel less divisionalizing is better.

If we don't have the player base, why does Sweden? They offer 3 divisions and get huge fields.



Interesting you mention this because I brought it up today while working on the International TD report. The U.S. did not have Ams in the beginning either. However, would anyone argue that the addition of amateurs was not the right thing to do and has helped the sport and pro purses in the process? I believe there is large untapped amateur potential in those countries whenever they are ready to address it.

You need to have courses in place to spur amateur growth. Continental Europe may not be ready. But the number of courses in Scandanavia and Japan would likely support competitive growth in amateur divisions.

Hawk - Drugs. It sounds like the jist is to encourage enforcement of current rules. How best to do this would be the next question?



Players are going to have to man up. It's tough to be the narc and rat out competitors who are for the most part your friends. Obviously the sport can't afford to have independent officials at every event, so since we're forced to be our own police force people have to be willing to do it. Rich and I have vowed to be those a-holes this year. This should make us extremely popular around here. The bigger problem is the culture that surrounds the sport and players not being able to separate recreational play with competitive play.

i just searched for a member who doesn't come up because evidently he hasn't (yet?) renewed and came up with:



I did this too. And then I called Gentry and he did the same search with the PDGA number and the player's info did come up. Soooo, there is a bug causing the player name feature to not work on non-renewed members, but you can search via PDGA number. And you can find their PDGA number via the "all members" search.

It is broken, and there is a work around.

however, it looks like we have 31000 + people who have a PDGA number. i think joining the PDGA and being granted a PDGA number warrants permanent access to posting privileges on this website.

i also think there should be a sub-section of this DISCussion Board where non-members can post.



I like this idea. Anyone else on the Board want to comment? I'd love to vote on this next month.

Players are going to have to man up. It's tough to be the narc and rat out competitors who are for the most part your friends. Obviously the sport can't afford to have independent officials at every event, so since we're forced to be our own police force people have to be willing to do it. Rich and I have vowed to be those a-holes this year. This should make us extremely popular around here. The bigger problem is the culture that surrounds the sport and players not being able to separate recreational play with competitive play.



Great post Hawk. I will be doing the same. Glad to see others stepping up for the betterment of the sport.

which idea? that joining means permanent access.. or a non-Members section?

i'm not initially optimistic about granting permanent rights to post for a single onetime membership fee. if posting is a benefit, then it is part of the yearly dues.

as far as a non-Member area, i support it in principle, but want to hear about any technical hurdles and whether or not it would involve anonymous posters,

OK, I have brought this up in the past, but I figured this is the thread to post it to those that matter.

Achievement pins.

Not the lame ones that are given for showing up at an event. I am thinking achievements that are worth recognition.

Here's a short list.

First Pro Win
Over 30 tournaments in a year
1000 Rating
5 year member 10, 15, 20, 25, 30..... (this only counts paid years, not years since first paid year)
1st Tournament ace (or merely, a tournament ace pin)
1st 1000 rated round
$5000 in a year - 10,000, 20,000, 40,000
Over 100 tournaments - Over 500 tournaments
Tournament Director
World Champion


While these may seem an expensive investment, they do reward players with something that is more than cash. Cool stuff and some

body forgot to finish their thought....

The only "permanent benefit" should be their PDGA number. Nonmembers already benefit from many things the PDGA does that are available to the public including looking at this message board.

Do other professional sports give their members subscriptions to magazines? Do NFL players get a magazine from the NFL? Does the NHL, NBA, PGA, NASCAR (okay those drivers for the most part probably can't read) and MLB shove a magazine down their players throats?

honestly, i have no idea if NFL players get magazines from the NFL office or affiliated magazine publisher. but i am also not sure if what those sports do has anything to do with us. over here the magazine has been an issue for some time apparently.


Why do we routinely have at least seven divisions for approximately 50 men to compete in at a typical disc golf event?

i guess because the players keep paying dollars to play in those events? i would LOVE to see more one division events, ratings based events and events that do not encourage gender bias. i would also love to see the divisional structure continue. it should quickly become clear if most players prefer one structure over the others. i see no reason why serious, competitive-minded players (regardless of rating) cannot have single division events while those more interested in playing with their friends who are of similar age and gender continue in their divisional system. i believe it is possible for the pdga to effectively encourage both approaches.


Why doesn't the PDGA address the drug issue?

not sure they dont. first of all, there is the law - the thin blue line kind. then there is the pdga rules of play. then there is the tournament agreement and guidance for dealing with infractions. short of installing webcams on every teepad and basket (and hidden clearing in the trees) what other actions do you suggest? the rules are already there, guidance has already been given to TDs... is it not up to the players and TDs at this point? (honest question... not trying to be argumentative)


What are your favorite broadway musicals and why?

i would have to say that my favorite broadway musical that i have seen in person is The Wiz. saw it in NYC in 77 or 78, i forget exactly. but how can you go wrong with The Wiz? an all-black cast in a motown adaptation of The Wizard of Oz... a jubliant live rendition of "Ease on Down the Road" as they cruise down the yellow brick road towards Oz... i mean, who's gonna mess with Oz when the Wiz is one bad dude (http://www.playbill.com/images/photos/deshields1_1084804351.jpg)

my other favorite is Hair, The American Tribal Love/Rock Musical. i never saw it on broadway, but it was the very first album my parents ever bought me. in addition to the full on stage nudity and flag burning, there is one song of just 23 words. six of those words would get you banned here:

&*&%$
%*$*%^^
%*^&^@#
$^%^%$

father, why do these words sound so nasty?

&^$#^%^$%#^$%^#$%^$%
can be fun
join the holy &%^*
Kama Sutra
everyone!

absolutely lovely!

besides, where else could you have females sing such clear and concise reasons for their preferences?

Black boys are delicious
Chocolate flavored love
Licorice lips like candy
Keep my cocoa handy
I have such a sweet tooth
When it comes to love


and

My brother calls 'em rubble
That's my kind of trouble
My daddy warns me "no no no"
But I say "White boys go go go"

White boys are so lovely
Beautiful as girls
I love to run my fingers
And toes through all their curls

Give me a tall
A lean
A sexy
A sweet
A pretty
A juicy
White boy

Black boys!
White boys!
Black boys!
White boys!

Mixed media!


as a participant in a mixed race marraige, and with a sister who has four mixed race kids, this musical made public the feelings that ultimately led the way for my wife and me, and my sis and her family, to walk freely and safely in this great country.

then there is the timelessness of the muscial's overall message, as evidenced in one of my all time favorite songs, Three-Five-Zero-Zero:

Ripped open by metal explosion
Caught in barbed wire
Fireball
Bullet shock
Bayonet
Electricity
Shrapnel
Throbbing meat
Electronic data processing
Black uniforms
Bare feet, carbines
Mail-order rifles
Shoot the muscles
256 Viet Cong captured
256 Viet Cong captured

Prisoners in N-----town
It's a dirty little war
Three Five Zero Zero
Take weapons up and begin to kill
Watch the long long armies drifting home


and if thats too serious for some, the inclusive nature of the work is sure to offer something less intense:

Gliddy glub gloopy
Nibby nabby noopy
La la la lo lo
Sabba sibby sabba
Nooby abba nabba
Le le lo lo
Tooby ooby walla
Nooby abba naba
Early morning singing song


geez, what a GREAT piece of american literature! (not counting Shakespeare's "What a Piece of Work is Man", which is a significant part of the musical.) it took a lot of courage and trust (not too mention faith in themselves!) for my parents to buy this album for a pre-teen. thanks for reminding me!

Hair was like rap is today... a true to life street level view of humanity's condition (well, at least humanity in the US). it's message still resonates today. is the following lyric not still a common sentiment?

Yes, I's finished on y'all farm land with yo' boll weevils and all,
and pluckin' y'all's chickens, fryin' mother's oats in grease. I's
free now, thanks to yo', Massa Lincoln, emancipator of the slaves.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, emanci-mother-$^%^$&-pator of the slaves.

Four score
I said four score and seven years ago
Oh sock it to 'em baby, you're sounding better all the time!
Our forefathers, I mean all our forefathers
Brought forth upon this here continent a new nation
Concieved, conceived like we all was
In liberty, and dedicated to the one I love
I mean dedicated to the proposition
That all men, honey, I tell you all men
Are created equal

Happy birthday, Abie baby,
Happy birthday to you
Happy birthday, Abie baby,
Happy birthday to you
Bang!
Bang? Ha ha. ^*&*%, I'm not dying for no white man.
(Tell it like it is, baby.)

Why doesn't the PDGA address the drug issue?

not sure they dont. first of all, there is the law - the thin blue line kind. then there is the pdga rules of play. then there is the tournament agreement and guidance for dealing with infractions. short of installing webcams on every teepad and basket (and hidden clearing in the trees) what other actions do you suggest? the rules are already there, guidance has already been given to TDs... is it not up to the players and TDs at this point? (honest question... not trying to be argumentative)



I'd like to see the PDGA be more proactive in encouraging players and TDs to makes these calls. I'd also like to see stiffer penalties - disqualification from a tournament is one thing, but probation and suspension from the PDGA Tour and the PDGA might carry a little more weight.

Here's a short list.

First Pro Win
Over 30 tournaments in a year
1000 Rating
5 year member 10, 15, 20, 25, 30..... (this only counts paid years, not years since first paid year)
1st Tournament ace (or merely, a tournament ace pin)
1st 1000 rated round
$5000 in a year - 10,000, 20,000, 40,000
Over 100 tournaments - Over 500 tournaments
Tournament Director
World Champion




Very cool idea.

In response to the 30 tournament pins, they give a touring player pin to any member who plays over 25 events, has a certain ammount in winnings or points.

Soon to be 3 year recipient :D

One more pin for accomplishment.

NARC

brainstorm only: not necessarily my opinion, and quite possibly a hair-brained idea:

why not mandate at least a rent-a-cop at A-tiers, NTs and Majors? it would probably be cheaper than the Marshalls program.

i've had TDs at *significant* events tell our card that if we wanted to do anything illegal, to "either take it deep into the woods or share". the organizational message is one thing. the application in the field is entirely another. i guess thats one of the challenges of federalism... the center cannot alsways effectively enforce its rules out in the field.

OK, I have brought this up in the past, but I figured this is the thread to post it to those that matter.

Achievement pins.

Not the lame ones that are given for showing up at an event. I am thinking achievements that are worth recognition.

Here's a short list.

First Pro Win
Over 30 tournaments in a year
1000 Rating
5 year member 10, 15, 20, 25, 30..... (this only counts paid years, not years since first paid year)
1st Tournament ace (or merely, a tournament ace pin)
1st 1000 rated round
$5000 in a year - 10,000, 20,000, 40,000
Over 100 tournaments - Over 500 tournaments
Tournament Director
World Champion


While these may seem an expensive investment, they do reward players with something that is more than cash. Cool stuff and some

wow, cool.... kinda like merit badges in boy scouts :D

seriously, though, some of those are already being done. good list though. those items dont need to be expensive, and many people really appreciate them.

I got a beter idea, why not rent a cop to patrol the rec divisions to teach them will they are still impressionable to the ways of PDGA tournies.

Personally, although I know/suspect many people probably do what they wish on their own time, I rarely see anyone lighting up in the pro divisions on the course during a tourney.

I haven't personally seen anyone even try to use illegal drugs or alcohol, or if underage, tobacco, during a sanctioned round in more than three years. Maybe it happens elsewhere, but it's easy enough to stop it even before it starts with at least the players on your own card.

As for harsher penalties, the harsher the penalties get the more need for some kind of due process and evidentiary rules: Very hard to do with easily hidden, ingestable substances and perhaps hours before a TD can be gotten to personally pay attention.

Individual players just need to grow some cojones and tell the folks on their card who want to, or who start to, not to. And remember: underage tobacco use is within the same rule.

me too James. 8-9 years ago when i started playing it was different. sanctioned play has cleaned up significantly since then.

OK, I have brought this up in the past, but I figured this is the thread to post it to those that matter.

Achievement pins.

Not the lame ones that are given for showing up at an event. I am thinking achievements that are worth recognition.

Here's a short list.

First Pro Win
Over 30 tournaments in a year
1000 Rating
5 year member 10, 15, 20, 25, 30..... (this only counts paid years, not years since first paid year)
1st Tournament ace (or merely, a tournament ace pin)
1st 1000 rated round
$5000 in a year - 10,000, 20,000, 40,000
Over 100 tournaments - Over 500 tournaments
Tournament Director
World Champion


While these may seem an expensive investment, they do reward players with something that is more than cash. Cool stuff and some



This is a great idea. Do you have any recommended sources from past experience? A Google search on recognition pins gets a whole lot of hits. Some must be better than others.

I haven't personally seen anyone even try to use illegal drugs or alcohol, or if underage, tobacco, during a sanctioned round in more than three years. Maybe it happens elsewhere, but it's easy enough to stop it even before it starts with at least the players on your own card.




That's part of the problem: that it's tacitly allowed during halftime. I've seen it during back-ups in sanctioned tourneys, and it's often like a Dead concert during the break.

I wasn't clear on the new ruling in the tour standards based on drugs / alcohol after the rounds. I emailed Carlton Howard, Rules chair, and he said that if you are on property that does not allow alcohol, you can be DQed for use after / before a round. The same goes for illegal substances at any time or underage drinking / smoking at any time.

on "Merit Pins":

I can gather info from my wife's Flyball organization where they get their pins from. they are nice pins. We've got a bunch for our dogs, I can take a photo and display em.

Oh yeah, the NARC one was a joke. ^Somebody^ wasn't amused...

I thought that was a pin for best North American Regional Coordinator...

The only "permanent benefit" should be their PDGA number. Nonmembers already benefit from many things the PDGA does that are available to the public including looking at this message board.



yeah /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif and not being enabled to participate here means they are less likely to come back and get interested in joining our association. /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

i'd love to see numbers revealing the decline in hits that happened 30 days after the message board went members-only. we should want non-members here and quit acting so above talking with non-members who don't pay to join our exclusive club. our local message board allows anyone to post -- though you do have to register. on rare occasions those of us who moderate have to delete a post or two. no big whoop and it lets interested new-comers wet their whistles. :cool:

if you really like exclusivity why don't we make the message board Pros only? :D yeah we'd exclude a majority of the BoD but they can always opt to join our association as Pros...

The problem with non members posting is the unability to identify the poster if there is a need. With a PDGA number, at least we can see who says something and could discipline that person.

Without PDGA memberships, there is no way to find out who says something against policy. We could just ban that account, then the person can just create a new one.

I have seen a tremondous decrease in things like Grunion did on here. Of course, we were illimanting great posters like Felix, but overall, its a better and welcome change in my mind.

Nonmembers still can see all of the posts and I can attest that my steady stream of email from nonmembers including park personnel asking me questions about ratings and course design via the PDGA Contact page does not seem to be diminished. If anything, it's much easier for me to make sure their questions are not missed and get answered.

The problem with non members posting is the unability to identify the poster if there is a need. With a PDGA number, at least we can see who says something and could discipline that person.

Without PDGA memberships, there is no way to find out who says something against policy. We could just ban that account, then the person can just create a new one.

I have seen a tremondous decrease in things like Grunion did on here. Of course, we were illimanting great posters like Felix, but overall, its a better and welcome change in my mind.



our local forum links an email address and an IP address with each user id. it is good to hear non-members still click on Chuck's name and contact him via email, but there is no way of knowing how many people are turned away who might otherwise have become interested were it not for our message board being exclusive. does ANYONE join the PDGA for the posting privileges :confused: that would be crazy!

does ANYONE join the PDGA for the posting privileges? that would be crazy!



In which case, not having them is no problem, just a bonus for membership...

you don't seem very open-minded here, sir Chuck :D

Some things need to be retained to have as a member benefit. There's no lack of information available to nonmembers. Email is a better way to respond to them via direct answers that are not lost in the mess board. I will consider protesting by not posting at all other than necessary info from my committees and Worlds if the full mess Board is reopened to nonmember posting. I'm OK with a nonmember section if our tech folks decide it can be done well.

i agree there is a lot of info available to non-members here. i am not meaning to imply there isn't. i just think if non-members are enabled to both visit *and* interact here it may actually help recruit new members for our association.

it sounds like common ground is that we both could support a sub-section of DISCussion where non-members could post.

Felix based his decision not to pay for a renewal partly on his profession. i don't go to church, but i can respect that. evidently it was hard for him to justify spending his income to gain posting privileges when he also saw it as working counter to the PDGA's goal of promoting this sport to have DISCussion Board posting enabled for members only.

to repond to chuck's post...

not only is it easily technically possible, our local board already uses member based division of message board rights. if the people working the board can't figure it out on short order, i would see it as further proof of the need to have actual professionals handle the technical aspects of the board. I myself am a longtime IT professional, but that doesn't mean i am an expert at message boards. sure i can fudge it, but computer stuff tends to be highly specialized.

on out state board we have a general area where anyone can post. each club has an area, only visible to members of that club who are logged in. these areas can be uncensored as the general public can't see them. works really well. since i have made all member areas uncensored, i really haven't had to censor anything. it's been really nice. i've suggested this to the pdga numerous times, but i don't think they are listening...

wow, a productive thread

1st off, Hawk, you just gained a TON of respect from me. BUT it is one thing to say you are going to do something and another when you are actually standing right there smelling it. Trust me.

Yes, I played a few tournament that I smelled it between round, before round, after rounds and twice even 25ft from the HQ.

This year I think I will say something directly to the offenders. Because of the past BOD, my hands have been tied to only being able todo something durring the rounds. I personally have not seen this, but then I play with the same guys James plays with and even though some of them smoke, they respect the TD and Disc Golf enough to not do it at a tournament.

_________________________________________________

Yes, I think we should allow non current membership to post using there PDGA account. As long as it can be shut down if they abuse it.

_________________________________________________

I like the pins idea. However they do cost money and without raising fees more, how are you going to pay for it???? (sponsorships from disc makers????)

________________________________________________

There are plenty of other sports that run tournaments with even MORE divisions than we do.

FoosBall and Triathalons both comes to mind off the top of my head.

Shoot, my wife could compete in the 40 to 44 division this year instead of the 35-39.

does ANYONE join the PDGA for the posting privileges? that would be crazy!



The main reason that I continue to renew as a PDGA member is to have access to posting on this message board. It's a valuable way to get information. Since I don't play tournaments this DISCussion Board is the most tangible benefit to me.

and now Lowe dares use this medium to advance his deviant agenda of contributing meaningful discussion of the definition of par :eek: :D

and now Lowe dares use this medium to advance his deviant agenda of contributing meaningful discussion of the definition of par :eek: :D



Sorry ! But I still don't know "What is Par?" (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=Ratings&Number=62882&fpart=1&PHPSESSID=)

does ANYONE join the PDGA for the posting privileges? that would be crazy!



The main reason that I continue to renew as a PDGA member is to have access to posting on this message board. It's a valuable way to get information. Since I don't play tournaments this DISCussion Board is the most tangible benefit to me.



doesn't the DGWN subscription weigh as heavily on your membership benefit scale?

does ANYONE join the PDGA for the posting privileges? that would be crazy!



The main reason that I continue to renew as a PDGA member is to have access to posting on this message board. It's a valuable way to get information. Since I don't play tournaments this DISCussion Board is the most tangible benefit to me.



doesn't the DGWN subscription weigh as heavily on your membership benefit scale?



No. Although I value DGW, there were a couple of years that I didn't renew my membership and just subscribed separately. It is the #2 benefit of membership for me, but I can still get it even if I don't renew.

does ANYONE join the PDGA for the posting privileges? that would be crazy!



The main reason that I continue to renew as a PDGA member is to have access to posting on this message board. It's a valuable way to get information. Since I don't play tournaments this DISCussion Board is the most tangible benefit to me.



doesn't the DGWN subscription weigh as heavily on your membership benefit scale?



No. Although I value DGW, there were a couple of years that I didn't renew my membership and just subscribed separately. It is the #2 benefit of membership for me, but I can still get it even if I don't renew.



okay, then i will hide behind this statement:

the exception proves the rule :D

why not allow you to post for free and if you want to support the PDGA you can send them/us a check? :D

rob, i am not quite following your line of thought. could one acceptable solution be to offer some sort of lower cost member that provided posting priviledges plus some other subset of services?

to me it seems ridiculous that being allowed to post here requires anything more than the interest to do so. i think it should be our privilege as disc golf lovers who support the PDGA by being members to have non-members visit this site and participate in our DISCussions. this is the age of the internet and i can't think of many message boards that require paid membership. go to nfl.com or mlb.com etcm and they want you to visit and post for free. they have stores and sponsors who benefit by people frequenting their sites. maybe ball golf has some message board where only PGA players can post. [ /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif ] but i would think pga.com has a fan message board.

i think we should at least have a subsection of this board where non-members can register an email address to create an account after agreeing to abide by basic DISCussion Board rules. if they abuse the rules their access will be revoked.

i am still waiting for someone to look into how many hits per day we lost by comparing stats from before we went member-only to after we made the switch...

I remember back when anyone could post, and the chaos that often characterized the board. It definitely wasn't a place I would have sent prospective sponsors or park officials to learn about the PDGA. I also remember that there was serious discussion back then to pull the board altogether. Not the best of times, and I wouldn't want to go back.

Agreed.

i think we should at least have a subsection of this board where non-members can register an email address to create an account after agreeing to abide by basic DISCussion Board rules. if they abuse the rules their access will be revoked.




then you run into the problem we had before. Even when the #$*&$! web site first started up, I got banned (or thought I was banned) and started a new screen name several times.

You can easily get several email address. Shoot, even AOL give them out for free now.

it has to be based on PDGA number, so you can ban someone easily.

wow, a productive thread

1st off, Hawk, you just gained a TON of respect from me. BUT it is one thing to say you are going to do something and another when you are actually standing right there smelling it. Trust me.




Thanks Fan. I think Terry's comment again shows how a lot of the leadership of The Association is out of touch with what actually is going on at events. I've documented elsewhere how little the leaders play and his comment shows that isolation.

I actually met Rich during a back-up at a local event where the pipe got busted out. Of course the user politely asks if anyone minds, but who wants to be the jerk that says no? Rich and I moved upwind. We both chickened out on busting another person in 2005 during a sanctioned event who starting using after a particularly bad hole during a meltdown as he's a buddy of ours. We decided after that incident that we'd be the jerks in the future.

I was at another local sanctioned event last year and the door of a van opened up (this is around 0800 but smoking may be more socially acceptable that early unlike drinking) and three guys and a cloud of smoke came pouring out. It looked like a scene out of a Cheech and Chong movie. I had to laugh at the bloodshot eyes etc.

Go to any tourney during halftime and you'll see players huddled around vehicles, or trekking into the woods together, and it's not a mass potty break.

i am still waiting for someone to look into how many hits per day we lost by comparing stats from before we went member-only to after we made the switch...



At the fall summit I was looking for some web hit stats and apparently the stats section of the site was not working - and had not been for quite some time. I believe that there are no stats during the time when the MB went members only.

The stats are up and running now and we can now tell prospective sponsors how many hits / unique hits / page views, etc that we get. Life is good again. But I don't think we are capable of answering this question.

I'll let Pat or Theo correct me if I'm wrong.

Let's try not to get bogged down on one topic. Once positions on both sides are stated, unless there is a additive perspective, let it go - at least here. Some good stuff so far:

Divisions: A good explanation as to why we are where we are, an appeal for less divisions. A board member (Pat?) stating that the PDGA should be able to encourage and support both types of tourneys. TDs can currently request not offering some divisions, but perhaps letting TDs pick either ratings based or standard divisions would be good. I don;t see any extra work for ratings calculations or for staff putting the event results online. Perhaps tabulating Worlds points for Am divisions would be an issue? (or, more likely, perhaps I am missing something much bigger)

Drugs: Perhaps this is the year that a bunch of us stand up and let people know the rules must be followed. I personally disagree with stiffer penalites, because in addition to due process becoming more important, it makes it even tougher to step up and call someone on it.

Pins: Cool idea, what is the cost? Perhaps the PDGA could offset the cost by selling a PDGA Pin display case. ;)

Discussion Board: The following things will be on the agenda at the next BoD teleconference. 1. A non-members thread. 2. A non-moderated, enter at your own risk, thread.

Keep 'em coming. This seems really good so far.

not sure how many out there would agree, but i am more averse to 'pins' than i would be to just a sticker or patch or bagtag. maybe something like the pdga logo with an added bottom section commemorating the milestone...

I want more divisions. When the Int Master division was brought back a few years ago, it was the fastest growing division be the end of that season (when the players learned that it was back). A good sized group of former players were back and playing at events. When the division went away the next year, the players dropped back out of tournament golf.

I like the bagtag idea better. I've got pins, and they sit on a shelf where no one sees them.

The PDGA staff will be responsible for determining who has earned whatever new awards are determined, although I'm sure members who have earned them will remind the PDGA staff. Running this operation may cost more than the actual awards. I also think that ideally, players would like others to know they earned these awards as much as receiving the pins or patches themselves.

Instead of pins or patches, my suggestion would be that the online member stats area be enhanced to showcase the variety of awards a player has earned including finishes in majors. Right now, when you look up a player's rating page, there's a link to a player's current ratings details and their ratings history. This awards area would be anohter link. This would also make it easy to tell media where to locate info on our top players.

Rather than pins, certificates and stickers could be created for each of these awards. These could only be printed out by a player logging in under their membership. People would buy their own computer printer sticker paper to print out their own award stickers. Players who don't want to print or don't have access to one, could order their award stickers for a price from PDGA HQ. Either way, the PDGA doesn't have to mess with inventory of custom and non-custom award items.

Almost forgot, just like ratings and event history, no one could see this award area unless they were current members.

whatever happened to x tiers for ratings based events? gentry said he would lookinto it, but i guess it was quietly done away with at some point?

There's little need for ratings based events under the current structure, primarily because it's already mostly ratings based. If a TD wants to do it, just offer only the Open, Advanced, Intermediate, Rec and maybe Int. Women divisions. TDs are allowed to restrict divisions as long as it's announced in advance. The ratings breaks are already set and both men and women pros under 955 are allowed to enter the appropriate Am divisions based on age/rating.

The only thing I would request from the Competition Director is an exception to allow pros playing in Am to accept prizes as cash at 50% conversion like we did at Mid-Nats as a test. Not even sure that would make it an X-tier. It's not perfect. But the policy introduced a few years ago, that allowed pros to play in Am divisions, is a key reason ratings events as an alternate format were phased out. One improvement would be addition of an Expert division at some point (or even ask for it as an exception) so the Open division wouldn't have such a wide ratings range (despite Gangloff's theories).

Ok this was basically a couple pages back but I do have a response to only having 3 divisions mens, womens, and grandmasters. If you don't want my money as a member and at tourneys then this is a great idea. I guarentee that if you got rid of all the divisions that you are right you wouldn't have 50 players in 7 divisions you would have 25 people in 3 divisions. Yes maybe Sweeden tournaments may fill up but I don't believe that they have near the amount regional tourneys as we do here. So yes the big ones would fill up (they will no matter what and most big tourneys do have fewer divisions anyways). But I truly believe if you did do away with all divisions but 3, most B-tiers and below would significantly drop. I don't even play doubles because I like most low rated players are intimidated and it would be the same with only playing in an open division.

Besides all of you that are wanting only 3 divisions, let me ask you this question. Have you ever seen how some of the low intermediate, and recreation players act during a round. I have and trust me you don't want them on your card. I honestly had to wait to tee off one time while someone answered a cell phone. Most are fine and obey etiquite like I myself do, I don't even carry a cell phone or even a watch during a round but this is just an example of what I am talking about.

Yes there should restricted events and there are. I have no business competing in NT events, and wouldn't have any problem with even A-tiers having reduced # of divisions. But to say that all tourneys should be reduced to only 3 or 4 divisions would really hurt 80% of tourneys.

One other thing comparing Marshall Street to C-tier events is like comparing the attendence of a Yankees game and the cost of tickets to the Attendence and cost of attending your kids little league game. The Yankees sell out charging hundreds of dollars for a seat so lets build a stadium and charge a hundred dollars to watch my kid play baseball. See how full that stadium is and how long that takes to pay off the stadium. :confused: :D

I'm going on a limb here, this kind of ties in several topics.

One main issue seems to be the Pros vs the Amateurs.

Of course, let's define "Pro". In the case of "major" sports, a "Pro" is someone who gets paid for playing the sport, with a couple of exceptions, which will come up in a moment. Baseball, football, hockey, basketball, soccer all have contracted players who earn a set salary each year. In some parts of the world, rugby and other sports are at that same level. With the exception of some of the lowest levels (like Independent league baseball, the CHL, CBA (which may not even exist anymore...) that is the players' full-time job. Even Rookie league baseball players usually do not work another job full time, in season or off.
Tennis, Pro Bowling, and PGA/LPGA and the lesser golf series are different. Those pay for skill as evidenced by performance in an ongoing set of tournaments. .
Duh, right?
So, since disc golf is much more related to PGA/LPGA type play than even tennis (where the best may not play head-to-head), let's stick to that.
Here are some of the PGA requirements for membership (http://careernet.pgalinks.com/helpwanted/empcenter/pgaandyou/pro.cfm?ctc=1682) Members of the PGA, aside from those listed as non-apprentice membership divisions, are ELECTED, not just buy-in members. They must complete the apprenticeship goals in certain time or they are eliminated from the program, with the option of starting all over again from level 1.

Playing members must participate in a certain number of tournaments each year. They also must be certified as worthy of being a member by play-in evaluations, which cost $100 a pop.

And the list goes on.

Is that what we want the PDGA to become? Is that what ANYONE wants the PDGA to become?

As a relative newbie to the sport and the organization, it seems the problem is the name. Since DGA was taken by a previously extant group, which (at least now) is not so much an "organization" at the pure sense as a "corporation" (which still strikes me as strange, but that's beside the point), the term Professional was added. If someone can tell me the genesis of that naming, it would be greatly appreciated.

There are 2 ways of looking at "Professional"---1) a group of people who participate in the group because of its impact on their income (Professional Golf Association, Professional Bowlers Association) or an organization which creates and maintains standards, keeps records, and provides a communications forum for those involved in the activity. While there aren't many amateur dentists, or lawyers, or gynecologists (sorry :eek:) in theory they could be in those groups;

The organizing aspect is what the "Professional" part of PDGA means to me. By nature of the sport, its relative newness, and the fact that there are relatively few players, members or not, who really make a living by participating (aside from equipment manufacturers and dealers, but that's still a relatively small number), the organization is not of "Professionals". It's an organization of PLAYERS (and manufacturers and retailers, most of whom presumably play). I doubt if an organization of purely Professional players could be viable.

On a side note, if I play baseball in a Seniors league, do I get to participate in anything sponsored for members of the MLBPA? Or, the MLB? By virtue of the size and popularity of the sport, yes, because it's big business. But, the averaged Joe or Jane amateur baseball player can't even get into the guts of the MLBPA website, much less post. Same for all the sports organizations. I'm sort of surprised that the NFLPA magazine was accessible. I have a hunch that there is another publication which is NOT publicly distributed.

What's in a name? It depends on how you interpret the name. Anyone who can shed light on the origins of the "Professional" Disc Golf Association would be appreciated.

OK..off to a movie.

steve

chuck, i'm not sure i get your logic? how exactly re those divisions ratings based? what makes the 970 rated ams play in the pro division? if you could require anyone over 955 to pay pro it might make some sense. the whole idea of ratigs based would be to make people of like ratings play together. currently there is no requirement for ams to "play up" although there is a bottm rating for advanced still, correct?

Like I said, getting an X-tier exception for an Expert division that went from say 950-985 is how I would do a ratings oriented event where anyone in that range would have to enter it or play up in Open.

From a technical standpoint, the PDGA has active division codes for the ratings divisions used at Mid-Nats. However, there are no current event codes established for regular weekend pure ratings events, no method for awarding points since it's unclear whether divisions are Am or Pro, and there's no Excel TD report for sending in results.

chuck, that answer isn't even coherent, much less workable. there isn't even an expert divison!

That's why it's an X-tier. There's nothing about X-tiers that prevents adding divisions or changing ratings breaks. There are more oddball X-tier formats than adding a division such as using mulligans. You would have:
Open
Expert under 985
Advanced under 950
Intermediate under 915
Rec under 875
Int. Women under 800 (limited to Women)

The only folks who have more than the typical challenge in a ratings event would be males under 825 and women from 800-825.

From a technical standpoint, the PDGA has active division codes for the ratings divisions used at Mid-Nats. However, there are no current event codes established for regular weekend pure ratings events, no method for awarding points since it's unclear whether divisions are Am or Pro, and there's no Excel TD report for sending in results.

I'm offering an Expert division at my Michigan tournaments this year and no pro divisions. The only way to sanction these is to run the expert division as an unsanctioned "shadow" division and sanction the rest as an am-only.

These are doubles tournaments where the divisions are based on combined ratings, so Expert is 1910+, Advanced is <1910, Intermediate is <1830 and Rec is <1750.

If any Am 4s want to play <1680 I'll add the division, but they are usually better off pairing up with their husband or boyfriend so he can bag down to a lower division! :D

That's why it's an X-tier. There's nothing about X-tiers that prevents adding divisions or changing ratings breaks. There are more oddball X-tier formats than adding a division such as using mulligans. You would have:
Open
Expert under 985
Advanced under 950
Intermediate under 915
Rec under 875
Int. Women under 800 (limited to Women)

The only folks who have more than the typical challenge in a ratings event would be males under 825 and women from 800-825.



Hi Chuck, just a quick question. What is the advantage of only letting women play in the 800 and below division?

The "expert" division. Freakin ridiculous. All you have done is screwed over the top players. Just keep making the same mistake over and over again.

Has an upcoming date been finalized for us '06 posters to renew by - to retain posting privileges w/o interruption? /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

It's not an advantage, just how the division is defined. Women can enter "men's" divisions but not the reverse. It would be another exception to allow men under 800 to enter that Inter. Women division that would need to be requested for a ratings oriented X-tier. But it may not be possible to grant the exception since males may be rejected from women's divisions in the database.

All you have done is screwed over the top players.



Since when do top players have the inalienable right of "donators" forced to play their division?

The "expert" division. Freakin ridiculous. All you have done is screwed over the top players. Just keep making the same mistake over and over again.



While I don't exactly agree with how this is said, I do agree with the principal behind it.

Once again, disc golf is catering to not making people upset by making them feel better b/c they finished in 3rd rather than 20th rather than promotion of the sport.

This is just more of, for lack of a better term, the "socialist" attitude pervasive in our competitive structure. Like most socialism, it is tyranny of the mediocre, where excellence is punished, ambition is stifled, and the great middle and lower class rejoice and thrive. Meanwhile, the SPORT as a whole suffers as the top players, who SHOULD be favored to a degree that the sport can accomodate, are basically held in contempt and derided by the sport leaders.

Making players feel better is somehow not promoting the sport? Get real. The primary way top players currently get spectators and finances is on the backs of other players. The best advertising and promotion our sport has had was the collaboration with the Augusta media this past Pro Worlds. And yet, the "crowds" at the semis weren't any better than "normal" (partly due to rain).

Top players should be grateful that current (and potential) policies do everything possible to keep lower rated competitive players happy by providing divisions where they are comfortable competing with equivalent skill level players and occasionally cashing.

Our competitive structure is mostly for the Amateur players in the sport. A "socialist" structure is the most appropriate structure for Amateur players. Those players should be in smaller divisions playing for smaller prizes. They know they are not the best players on the course that day and don't care. They are there to have fun and a little protected competition. It's like city league softball, it's no fun if one team is full of ringers and the others can't compete.

All I say is that the financial incentives need to be reduced in the Am divisions and the entries spread out to all of the players more than enormously rewarding the few.

I was mainly refering to the "expert" division and not amatuer divisions.

Sorry for not being clear.

All I say is that the financial incentives need to be reduced in the Am divisions and the entries spread out to all of the players more than enormously rewarding the few.



If they were truly "am" divisions then maybe. However, why shouldn't players at any level who are essentially playing for each others' entry fees not be allowed to compete in events with the high entry fees with the chance to win huge prizes? Our "pros" aren't any more able to afford large entry fees than our "ams" are.

Because (IMHO) it will get you to where we are now and not much farther. We are now at a point of course saturation that we can leap ahead in player participation if the recreational players see a benefit in playing sanctioned events.

Yes, there should be big B-Tiers, A-Tiers, and Majors that pay out large amounts. It's kind of hard to avoid just because of the number of entrants, but most B-Tiers and below should be focused on bringing in new players to the sport and seeing that they enjoy the experience. Give them a reason to attend the next event and bring a friend.

The future is not in the hands of the few cashing semi-pros we have now, but in the numbers of non-cashing supporters we need to attract and retain.

If they were truly "am" divisions then maybe. However, why shouldn't players at any level who are essentially playing for each others' entry fees not be allowed to compete in events with the high entry fees with the chance to win huge prizes? Our "pros" aren't any more able to afford large entry fees than our "ams" are.



Why? Well, from my point of view, I am sick of watching the sport I love become a freakin pansie fest. Instead of catering to the right kind of sportsman (one who realizes that those who are better deserve more), we cater to just the opposite. And not surprisingly, we got what we desired in that respect: ams demanding their payouts.

And as an appeasement to the top players (probably motivated by the fact deep down, all of us realize that the best deserve more), we have the schizophrenic alter ego of the PDGA structure: a desire to create individuals who make a living off purses.

Neither aspect of our competitive philosophy is working and we are left with the hope that big money will fall into our lap and restore some natural order to the sport.

i'm with James on this one. you all know i would like to see the divisional structure exist - for those who want and/or need it. its great for beginners and casual competitors. how adding divisions is a benefit escapes me, because if you cannot find one already then you aint really looking.

obviously there is no way to eliminate the divisional structure at this point. but there are ways to encourage one division events. that would be a worthwhile effort.

but there are ways to encourage one division events. that would be a worthwhile effort.




I don't disagree. That's was what the NT was intended to be and should be. Don't be surprised if the turnout is underwhelming though unless the added cash is high and the payout goes deep (50%) like ball golf.

Money is the big factor for all of these discussions. The PDGA doesn't have it nor controls it. The players have the cash. So, we create structures that cater to that economic reality. If you have lots of added cash, then players will willingly make divisional choices different from what they do now.

New PDGA member cards are cool this year.

thnks schwebb

Thanks Fan. I think Terry's comment again shows how a lot of the leadership of The Association is out of touch with what actually is going on at events. I've documented elsewhere how little the leaders play and his comment shows that isolation.



You've documented no such thing, Hawk. You simply took sanctioned events for one single year and listed how many each of us played in. For me, that shows only how few *sanctioned* events I *played* last year (4), the least active year in competition I've had since I started playing, and an anomaly.

But even for that one year you ignored how often I was a TD, a marshall, or a regular staff at tournaments. I know that for people who take and don't give, playing is the only way to be there, but I didn't think you were that shallow.

For example, when I marshall an event, I spend a great deal of time walking the course in both obvious and surreptitious ways. I've seen enough to know what to look for and my knowledgeable, initial statement stands.

It's a shortcoming of this DISCussion and of your own arguments that you can put up a tiny piece of incomplete "fact" and then refer to it ever-afterwards as having "documented" something.

All of that vague thinking aside, astute and non-biased observers have frequently noted how much cleaned up substance abuse during play is at sanctioned events.

Once again, disc golf is catering to not making people upset by making them feel better b/c they finished in 3rd rather than 20th rather than promotion of the sport.



That statement depends on the assumption that making them feel better about having competed is not in fact promotion of the sport. Better try to establish that first. Good luck.

Meanwhile, the SPORT as a whole suffers as the top players, who SHOULD be favored to a degree that the sport can accomodate, are basically held in contempt and derided by the sport leaders.



Nice assertion, James. Completely wrong and slanderous.

Show me a "top player" who has been treated by a top leader with "contempt" or has been derided by a "leader" in our sport.

Assertions do not equal truth but they can show biases and ignorance. Show me 10. Show me how we can accept this as a statement of general fact.

actually terry that would be 3 events in 2005 and 2! events in 2006.

and your ASSertion that marshalling or tding is equivalant to playing in terms of staying in touch sounds a little out of touch...

I'll agree that "contempt" and "derision" were too much. However, depending on one's definition of leaders, I have read two prominent member's post on the topic numerous times. They basically feel that pros don't deserve support from the organization, not at the expense of the ams at least. More on point, and related to the discussion at hand, I'd argue that the competitive structure, the invention of our leaders, does treat the pro class as less valuable than the am class. Leadership need not speak directly about something in order to show their hand.

So, while my statement was irresponsible to some degree, I stick by the basic point.

btw, Pat and Steve, when I started on my usual tirade on this topic, I didn't realize this was the "Ask the Director" thread. Sorry for the drift.

edited to include another btw
I have no problem with the opinions of those two people. While I disagree, I respect the fact that they actually speak, and speak honestly.

actually terry that would be 3 events in 2005 and 2! events in 2006.

and your ASSertion that marshalling or tding is equivalant to playing in terms of staying in touch sounds a little out of touch...



Actually, it's something like 50 in the past five years. And that's just sanctioned events. And it is so typical of your postings and says so much about your credibility that - even though I was on the board for 5+ years - you would use the two lowest played-events numbers and ignore the 13, 16, and 13 sanctioned events in the years just prior to these last two as evidence that I am "out of touch" with players. LOL

Over that time it would be those sanctioned events, maybe 75 unsanctioned events, TD for maybe 12 events, marshall at 5-6, and staffer at another 60-70.

Your assertion that those aren't good ways of staying "in touch" with players sounds a little like ignorance to me.

I played a sanctioned event yesterday, my first of 2007, and got second place in Advanced Master with rounds rated 980 and 968, not bad for an almost-60-year-old guy.

I can tell you for certain from tons of experience that if I had been working the tournament or a marshall for it, I would have seen, heard, and spoken to a lot more players than I did. (It was actually quite a treat to have no responsibilities for a change, thanks TADGA!)

Being on the PDGA board, if you do it right, takes a lot of your time. I'm looking forward to playing in closer to 20 sanctioned events this year, now that I am off the board, but I don't expect that will bring me any greater understanding of players than my work the past couple of years did.

I'd argue that the competitive structure, the invention of our leaders, does treat the pro class as less valuable than the am class.



The invention is the reflection of our members' wishes. If it were truly an invention of our leaders, we would have one or two true Am divisions and perhaps a rating structure with six or so divisions from top to bottom. Why would any leadership want more divisions and complexity than is absolutely necessary unless the membership prefers it?

And "members need not speak my name directly in order to show their hand". As TD of Pro Worlds and supporter of top level players via scoring and course design at several PWs including Final 9s, my commitment toward true pros has been demonstrably solid. My support of pseudo pros, that we call pros via our current structure, would be reclassification into another division that plays for each others' entry fees with prizes and/or cash in the payout.

I'll agree that "contempt" and "derision" were too much. However, depending on one's definition of leaders, I have read two prominent member's post on the topic numerous times. They basically feel that pros don't deserve support from the organization, not at the expense of the ams at least. More on point, and related to the discussion at hand, I'd argue that the competitive structure, the invention of our leaders, does treat the pro class as less valuable than the am class. Leadership need not speak directly about something in order to show their hand.

So, while my statement was irresponsible to some degree, I stick by the basic point.



I'm not sure the current competitive structure is any worse for Pros than for Ams. To a great extent, that's an opinion rather than a fact, and I am not inclined to agree.

But, to get at it using a fact, let's "follow the money." When we do, we find out that Pros already get more support "at the expense of the ams," because the PDGA spends way more dollars on Pros, proportionately, than on Ams. Lots more.

pros get more support? Is that akin to that line "With friends like these......."

I have no real desire to pit ams vs pros, or psuedo pros vs. true pros (a convenient out used by Chuck to skirt the issue). To couch this in a topic suitable for this thread: this is a competitive sport, I wish the BoD would try to create a structure that entices people to move forward, while never encouraging them to move backward. You know, treat disc golf like a real sport, not just a weekend activity.

who said "pros get more support"? i would like to see that proof. not saying it doesnt exist... just would like to see it. ya know, all empirical and stuff.

This is partly where we differ: You say we should "create a structure that entices people to move forward, while never encouraging them to move backward."

Your post reads as though you consider that to be the defining characteristic of a "real sport, not just a weekend activity."

I don't think I agree.

I agree that a "real sport" should create venues where you can fine the most skilled players competing. That's not the same as saying that ever player should always be aiming to play in those places.

By the way, Pat Brenner, why did you ask the board to use member's dues to give Hawk, rather than any one of hundreds of particularly needy members, a free 2007 membership?

Every player should be playing where they choose: they can play competitively in true ams divisions, but if they want to play for profit, then there should be only a few places to do that. The PDGA should also facilitate them if they desire to play for profit.

For example, a 920 player should be able to play against a similar skillset in a true am division. If he wants to compete in the for-profit divsion, the PDGA should grease the way by offering more financially appealing options for him. While not a perfect setup, it gives everyone options and does not allow the 920 player, or the 960 player, or the 990 player to reminisce about the good old days when he played worse but the sport was more profitable.

I agree that a "real sport" should create venues where you can fine the most skilled players competing. That's not the same as saying that ever player should always be aiming to play in those places.



I completly agree with everything!!

My problem in it is combining the guys who compete on the highest level and those don't at the same tournament.

The wya the PDGA is structered now would be like having a golf event with PGA golfers, Senior PGA golfers, Nike Tour Golfers, Collegiagate golfers, club champions, amateurs of all handicaps, and a a guy who plays 5-10 times a year.

While the guy who only plays 5-10 times a year all the way up to the guy on the Nike Tour just a stroke or a two a round from the PGA tour all may have the same dream of being a PGA tour golfer at one time, the thought that all these players in one tournament together is just comical. Player's dreams and and ambitions really should have nothing to do with the competitive structure.

I'm all for letting those guys who play 5 - 10 times a year play in PDGA events (that's what grows the sport) in just the same way I am with a guy who swings a club 5 - 10 times a year playing in a local club championship, just not on the same course 2 holes away from a Ken Climo.

That is one of the main reasons USDGC is so popular for spectators. For the most part, you are only going to see the game's finest no matter what time of day you watch the event.

who said "pros get more support"? i would like to see that proof. not saying it doesnt exist... just would like to see it. ya know, all empirical and stuff.

Well, you're a board member, Pat Brenner. Take a look at the budget dollars.

We're something like 80 percent Am in membership and the last time anyone looked, officially, we spent more than 20 percent of the budget on mostly Pro-related stuff.

Ask the office for that report, it generally works better than to ask DISCussion for such things, even for regular members but especially for board members. :cool:

I am personally in favor of trophy-only competition for Ams. But:

(1) What do you think would happpen to PDGA membership renewals if the PDGA enforced that?

(2) What would TDs do? Would we see an increase or decrease in sanctioned events if we did that?

You'll notice that this was not a change made to the competition structure while I was on the board; nor did I even propose it.

Terry, let's be honest here. I didn't want to challenge the last time you said that but, if you are stating the the promotional campaign, or the marshall program are solely benefitting pros, I think you are being short-sighted. Those expenditures are intended to help the sport as a whole. It is like claiming that student loans only help students, and not society at large.

Additionally, most pros, probably less than 10% benefit from the pro world or NT subsidies.

I'm not sure about the other expenditures you are referring to. Maybe those will support your assertion.

I am personally in favor of trophy-only competition for Ams. But:

(1) What do you think would happpen to PDGA membership renewals if the PDGA enforced that?

(2) What would TDs do? Would we see an increase or decrease in sanctioned events if we did that?




Personally, I feel that this fear is way overstated, Basically, my feeling is "so what", it is the right thing to do, regardless of the short-term consequences. Essentially, a short-term sacrifice for a long-term gain.

Personally, I think there are a majority of ams that would still play in trophy only, or flat payouts. I think if you coupled those divisions with a more favorable for-profit option, many would keep playing. Honestly, the ones we lose are only interested in a free lunch, not true competition. Those are the ones we can most afford to lose. This is easy enough to test, the payouts for ams have been flattened (to the credit of the PDGA). See if the numbers have dwindled. Additionally, I suspect that we lose many ams who get fed up with increasing fees needed to support large am payouts. They might get more active.

As for TDs, they would adapt. TDs aren't making a living off the present system anyway. In my experience with TDs, it appears to more of a labor of love than a financial endevour. Besides, flat payouts in merch are just as profitable to TDs as the present system. At any rate, if lack of incentive for TDs became a problem, the PDGA could rectify by allowing the TDs greater profits.

I am personally in favor of trophy-only competition for Ams. But:

(1) What do you think would happpen to PDGA membership renewals if the PDGA enforced that?

<font color="red"> I doubt they would drop much. Sure, there is always going to be people who play for plastic and to get all kinds of prizes to sell and make money etc., but I truly believe ams play for the hopes of getting better, love of competition, playing different courses, and not for prizes. Shoot, I'm a pro and thats the reason I play. </font>

(2) What would TDs do? Would we see an increase or decrease in sanctioned events if we did that?

<font color="red"> Very interesting point here. Let's face it, tournaments with ams make money. Some TD's do it to make money either for themsevles or thier club. Nothing wrong with that, I actually feel TD's should be compensated. However, would people stop TDing because they would not make as much money. My heart says no, my mind says yes. </font>

[Edited because of personal attack.]

Bruce Brakel, are you out there? What's your experience? Don't you usually offer both Am payouts and trophy-only? What are your real numbers?

Are we back to the Pros need more love topic again? BTW - there's a reason the Pros get more love from the PDGA (despite Pat's protestations). A survey was done some years ago (at least 5) and in that survey the membership was asked to state what they felt the biggest goal of the PDGA should be. That survey came back with the answer that we should better develop the Pro game. Now, I don't know who replied to that survey, i.e. maybe only Pros replied and the Ams took the day off, but my observations are the same as Terry's, the PDGA does more for Pros than it does for Ams. I do feel it is unfair (but then again, I'm an Am) and would love to see the vote taken again.

All you have done is screwed over the top players.



Since when do top players have the inalienable right of "donators" forced to play their division?



Since James and Kevin Mc. started posting on the topic!

The question that never gets settled in these discussions is what is the best way to grow the sport. All too often the consensus seems to be grow the Pro game. I'm not sure that is correct. I like Bruce's model and I would dearly love to do a comparison analysis of his success and structure compared to other TDs.

I stongly suspect a greater emphasis on the am game might be significantly better for the sport in terms of over all growth. In our current structure everyone has to struggle to "maintain" that Pro purse. In an am structure, the effort is significantly decreased. But then there'd be no Barry, No Ken, or at least they'd only be there if the manufacturers paid them.

growing the sport entails getting more people playing disc golf at the recreational and amateur level which in turn will create a larger pool out of which future Pros will grow. it will also increase the number of interested spectators and the number of players sponsors can hope to appeal to.

the P in PDGA though, it seems to me, demands that our oragnization develop competitions for the very best first and foremost, and develop amateur competitions as more of a side-show. But the PDGA seems to be somewhat at the mercy of TD's who like running am tournaments with high entry fees which in turn creates a sub-group of am. players who like winning merchandise which in turn can be turned into cash.

Keeping am. players happy keeps PDGA renewal revenues streaming in and the status quo becomes safe indeed. :p

thnks schwebb

you are quite welcome sir friZZy

OK a couple of points. First trying to make an Am turn Pro, In no sport is an am forced to turn pro, if Tiger Woods would have wanted to continue playing am and would have never accepted a prize he could have regardless of how good he was, same with boxers and other athletes. So if an am wants to continue playing even if he is a 1000 rated even if maybe not right it should still be his choice. Now don't get me wrong call him a bagger every chance you get but their is no precedent of making someone go pro.

Second if entry fees for ams go down to five bucks or a players pack that is 100% of entry fee in things people want discs and so on, not 10% off at Jims tire emporium then I am OK with trophy only events. But if you want people to pay $30-$60 bucks get 1 T shirt and then only be playing for a trophy go ahead and watch attendence at tourneys drop. You need Am players whether you want to admit it or not even the ones that aren't very good. Most tourneys are C-tiers and are composed of a majority ams. If nothing else people are more likely to sponser a full tourney. And sponsorship money from things like that that almost exclusively goes into the pro payout. And a lot of tourneys take a portion of the ams entry and put it in the Pro payout because they can still give a 100% payout to ams because of the markup of plastic. You all are thinking entirely too short term trying to force everyone to play pro and give me a shot at winning their money. Because as someone pointed out a lot of the mid ams are young people with part time jobs and they are not going to pay $30 or more to only win a trophy. As stated they want to win the plastic, sell it and then play the next tourney from the money won on that.

Only 26 people made over $7000 last year playing and only one person made more money playing disc golf than I did teaching last year(and this doesn't include cost of travel, entry fees, and equipment of non sponsered players, although most of these guys I am assuming are to different levels). The only way to get more money in disc golf is to get more people playing so that you can get corporate sponsors even getting more casual players buying discs and bags causes disc companies to be able to support more.

If you are not one of these top 25 or so then you need to quit worrying so much about the money and play for the enjoyment and compitition of the sport, I truly do believe that the money will increase over the next 10 years(hopefully significantly) but I just really don't believe forcing people to turn pro, or taking money from the ams entry fees are going to make a very big difference in the short term pro payouts and will hurt in the long run.

I would like to see the board discuss the creation of a sanctioning tier for otherwise independent tournament series.

While I am unsure about other tournament series, I can speak with some authority about the Southern National Tournament Series. Since its inception 10 years ago the Southern National Tour has seen incredible growth.
The SN season runs from June 1 to May 31. After the completion of the season there are three championship events (Doubles, AM and Pro). Points are earned at each tournament played which qualify the player for the championships.

There were 102 SN tournaments during the 2005-2006 in 10 states and the UK (The British Open). Total prize value for the tour was just over $.25M. 3074 individual players competed in one or more tournaments. 615 of those were in pro divisions and the balance were ams of one stripe or another, including 428 novice (which the SN tour loosely defines as players playing in their first tournament), 124 juniors, 118 Intermediate/Advanced Women, 975 Intermediate Men, 274 Intermediate/Advanced Masters, and 540 Advanced Men.

The majority of the pros (and not a vast majority) are PDGA members. At the most recent pro championships 51 of the 111 participants were NOT PDGA members. The vast majority of the Ams are not PDGA members.

Very few SN tournaments are dual sanctioned as PDGA events. For instance, here in Mobile, AL we held 12 tournaments last year on one or more of our eight course. Only one was PDGA sanctioned. As the TD of the combined Am &amp; Pro Championships hosted in Mobile over Labor Day weekend 2006, I chose to sanction the pro portion of the field but not the ams. The primary reason was the cost of all those extra fees for non-PDGA members. As reported in DGWN, the Pro Championships came in at number #8 on the list of richest tournaments. If you add the 170 Am players and $27,752 Am payout our little tournament would have been ... well, you get the point.

Suffice it to say everything is in place in SN country for continued growth of the tour and continued attraction of a burgeoning player base. The tour charges all participants a flat fee of $2 per tournament. These fees are returned 100% to the TDs of the championship tournaments (i.e. if there were 500 doubles fees collected at doubles tournaments throughout the year $1,000 goes to the TD of the doubles tournament to augment the payout).

That's it. That's as complicated as it gets sanctioning-wise and fee-wise. If a TD in California wants to have his tournament sanctioned as a SN qualifier all he has to do is let the the tour know (by posting at sndg.org which is open to everyone since we have no "members") and then send in $2 a head at the completion of his or her tournament. Done.

As far as the players are concerned, that $2 buys them a ticket to their championship be it Am, Pro or Doubles. Of course, the more tournaments you attend the more points you accumulate. The more points you accumulate the more likely you will get an invite. Like the Worlds until recently, the SN championships have yet to "fill." This last year, though, they came darned close. I project within three years we will be turning players away and the more points you have accumlated during the "regular" season the better your stock will be to make it to the show.

Having tooted the SN horn loudly and longly (sic), let me come to my request for the PDGA BOD:

Make it more attractive, simpler and less expensive for tournament series such as the SN to sanction tournaments as PDGA events.

Let us help the PDGA by exposing our growing (and mostly non-PDGA) players to the organization. At the moment, this is literally a untapped market.

My suggestion is to create a new tier to be used for regional or theme-oriented series that have a proven track record, a requisite number of tournaments and a large, untapped player base. Let's work as partners.

Charge a one-time fee to sanction the tournament (say $50 for starters), allow the tournament to purchase tournament insurance through the PDGA, have no requirement to be a PDGA member to play in the tournament and charge a flat fee of $1 per player (member or not)

Benefits to the tournament series include the ability to purchase insurance, added draw for PDGA players and the ability move under the PDGA "umbrella."

Benefits to the PDGA are huge and include positive organizational exposure to a whole generation of disc players who might otherwise never even know or care that disc golf has an organizing and sanctioning body.

Let's just estimate for a second that 10% of the tournament-playing disc golfers on last year's SN tour were attracted by the idea of growing their ratings, or going to tiered events that did require PDGA memberships or expanding their horizons with a trip to the Am or Pro World Championships. That would be 300+ new members.

For the moment, I will leave it at that and see what kind of nibbles and ripples I get.

I would strongly encourage the PDGA BOD to not consider that proposal about the SN Tour.

You charge $2 a head, but you want to be a PDGA sanctrioned event for $1 a head? What?

Don't think of it as SN gets $2 and the PDGA gets $1. The PDGA also gets a sanctioning fee as well - something the SN has never and will never charge TDs.

And even though we are talking about dollars, it is really apples and oranges. Every dollar of every player fee the SN charges not only goes back to the players it goes back in the player's pockets. In fact, at last year's championships I returned the player fee money at over 220%. For instance, the highest Am entry fee was $50. The player's pack that every am got was worth more than that.The money to the PDGA gets used in myriad ways.

The point is to think of it as investment in the future of the PDGA. There is also the small matter that we can either find some common ground and compromise, with the PDGA coming out ahead both financially and in terms of positive exposure and increased membership, or the SN Tour can continue to grow without the PDGA.

Which do you think is best for the PDGA?

maybe i'm missing something, or just need to better understand the benefits to the parties. overall the idea of working with regional series sounds like a good one.

if this were to happen as you describe, why wouldnt every tournament worldwide become part of the SN tour just to get the reduced players fee rate and create a potentially large revenue loss for the pdga? or is this like those "new customer only" deals? is there some benefit other than exposure to players who might join or play other pdga events?

also, what is the primary benefit to the SN? is there some service the pdga is providing that the SN needs or wants? ratings wont be retained under this scenario since the players are not Members. ditto for DGWN subscriptions and message board posting priviledges :) event insurance is available from a range of sources. so i'm not sure what SN gets out of the deal.

sorry for hte barrage of ???s... just trying to understand enough of the idea.

thanks,

pat

No, sanction just like everyone else. If the players of the SN want ratings and access to this board, then they can become PDGA members.

good questions ...

Let me respond by asking why every tournament in the world isn't already a D Tier?

Also, if you do the math you will see TDs would be sending $2 to the SN and $1 plus a sanctioning fee to the PDGA ... not necessarily cheaper depending on the Tier level.

As to benefit to the SN ... there is none - primarily because the SN doesn't really exist. Sure there is a BOD who set policies and make rules when needed, but the SN is just a tournament series, nothing more, nothing less. The benefit is to the players and the PDGA. The players get exposed to the PDGA and what it has to offer. They can join and get ratings and (oh happy day!) get the magazine and (oh happy, happy day!!) use DISCussion, and become certified officials, etc.

In short it provides an avenue whereby the players can grow in the sport.

<font color="red">[Self-removed intemperate tirade against ignorance and infantile perspective. Wish I knew how to remove a post instead of just edit it.] </font>

Bruce Brakel, are you out there? What's your experience? Don't you usually offer both Am payouts and trophy-only? What are your real numbers?

Jon does the TD reports and has the real numbers. All I could give you would be impressions drawn from offering trophy-only options across five disc golf seasons. I'm not sure what the issue is here so I'll just say this:

Most players at our tournaments do not take the trophy-only option. The few that do, do so when they have a reason to compete in a division where they are not truly competitive. Lower division players play trophy-only and shoot for the ace pool on the upper day. Am 4s play trophy-only because the PDGA can only count to 3. Women play trophy-only in a men's division if they want to ensure that they don't get stuck being the fifth player with the four junior boys. That sort of thing. It is also popular with the occasional broke player who only has three discs to sell cheap. It is not a popular option, otherwise.

I've run tournaments where trophy-only was the format, not merely an option. Those have never been well attended, except when they are run for a loss. I think I've lost money on every trophy-only format tournament I've ever run.

Wait. I did not lose money on the D-tier I ran at your house. I paid a $10 D-tier sanctioning fee for that one. You got in for full and bought a couple of discs. That one I broke even and covered my gas money.

<font color="red">[Self-removed intemperate tirade against ignorance and infantile perspective. Wish I knew how to remove a post instead of just edit it.] </font>


I'm sorry I missed that one. :)

No, sanction just like everyone else. If the players of the SN want ratings and access to this board, then they can become PDGA members.



You do realize that your solution would mean status quo. The SN tour growing at the same rate (or greater) without needing any interaction whatsoever with the PDGA.

What I am hearing is "Screw 'em! If they want to play with us big boys they can join our club. Otherwise, they are just the bush leagues and we will snicker and pat ourselves on the backs because we are the only REAL game in town."

The reality of the situation is it isn't the bush leagues ... not when the entry fees for tournaments are roughly half what they are for a PDGA sanctioned event of similar size and payout. The cash in the envelopes in just as green and plentiful and the stacks of discs are just as high or higher in Mobile and New Orleans and Baton Rouge and Jackson and Memphis and Hattiesburg.
The TDs have been running quality events on quality courses just as long.

The reality of the situation is that there a few people like me who think a marriage of convenience would be a good thing for all parties. Believe me when I tell you that the overwhelming perception among SN TDs is that the drawbacks of sanctioning through the PDGA far outweigh the benefits. The vast majority of the players could really care less. If they show up and there are baskets and scorecards and a modicum of organization on Saturday morning they are happier than a pig in its wallow.

For them ratings and the magazine and the DISCussion board mean next to nothing. They have a crude points system they can track their progress for the year, Disc Golf Magazine is free on the registration table of most SN tournaments and anyone in the world can post on sndg.org.

Tell me again why they would want what the PDGA has to offer?

The overriding point I am trying to make here is that it might be a good idea for the PDGA to find a way to make it EASIER for a standalone tournament series like SN to dual sanction.

Does the expression "cutting off one's nose to spite one's face." How 'bout "Throw out the baby with the bathwater."

The SN will do just fine without the PDGA. The PDGA will likely do just fine without the SN ... but for pity's sakes, Why? ... when the tangible and intangible benefits of growing together make more sense.

There was a point in time where the NFL and the AFL realized they might be stronger together. Turns out they were right. The NBA and the ABA ...

I think the whole history of the SN is that they didn't want to join the PDGA for whatever reasons.

I think that is still the case.

Asking the PDGA to beg them to join when the SN doesn't want to join is silly. The PDGA has goals that go beyond collecting $2 a head and returning it all at the end of the series. The PDGA maintains and provides member services for disc golfers everwhere as long as they want those services.

It's debatable whether or not the PDGA is going about things "the right way", and if the nay-sayers are right then the PDGA will eventually fold. If that happens, the NorCal Series and SoCal Series and MADC and Michigan and Wisconsin and Oregon and Texas and all those local/regional series' will continue, just like the SN Series.

The difference is that none of those other series are asking the PDGA to beg them to join and offer them different terms than everyone else who supports the National/World disc golf organization. It's only you asking the PDGA to beg the SN Series join.

I say "no begging". Let SN support the PDGA if they want to, and let them not if they don't want to.

this is a hypothetical:

if the PDGA is going to "eventually fold" but those series continue, what would the conclusion be? that the players get better "value" from the series/event than from the PDGA? or that the current prospects for the sport are better in local hands rather than being centrally-planned?

if it doesnt fold, is the opposite true?

The SN tour offer to work with the PDGA sounds more like the SN tour thinks you all are providing something to the PDGA instead of the the other way around. If the SN Tour events don't see the value of becoming PDGA sanctioned, then nothing we write here will change your mind.

The reason the 14+ So Cal Series events are PDGA sanctioned is to set them apart from the 400+ monthly tournaments that are run at local courses every single weekend of the year. Like the SN tour, the So Cal Series also charges $2.00 a head with 100% of that money going directly into our Championships. Some of our players want to earn PDGA points and have player ratings. Some want to get invites to Pro and Am Worlds. Some like to view tournament information and results at PDGA as well as use our message board forum.

Why would the PDGA offer SN events a break on PDGA fees, but not to other, longer running series or tours? Is the SN Tour more deserving than the So Cal Series, the Minnesota Tour or the MADC Series?

Again, either SN Tour events see the value in becoming PDGA sanctioned or they don't.

I think I could get the powers that be convinced to add the Wisconsin Tour to the line if the PDGA is going to provide cheap sanctioning to tours. Where does the line form? Hey, Minnesota, no skipping!

this is a hypothetical:

if the PDGA is going to "eventually fold" but those series continue, what would the conclusion be?


The conclusion would be that local TDs and series' are the ones who run tournaments, not the PDGA, and that tournaments will continue to be run.

That simple. Local/regional series do not offer the same services that the PDGA does. I myself am a PDGA honk, but I threw that out there for the sake of the nay-sayers. :) It's not a "PDGA vs SN" thing, and the PDGA will never take the place of the SN and run tournaments in the South just like the SN will never take the place of the PDGA and handle National/World issues. Either one can fold without affecting the other.

<font color="red">[Self-removed intemperate tirade against ignorance and infantile perspective. Wish I knew how to remove a post instead of just edit it.] </font>



****, i missed it too.I was hoping for an actual answer instead of another soapbox lecture on "how his way is the right way blah blah blah. I know more than you stupid members, blah blah blah. i make 200$/hour, blah blah blah. organizations must maintain total secrecy from their members, blah blah blah..."

apparently ,Terry all you have to do is talk to OZ. he has connections that can get a thread or post deep sixed permanently beyond recovery. ;)

speaking of recovery, look up rule 62!

Bruce Brakel, are you out there? What's your experience? Don't you usually offer both Am payouts and trophy-only? What are your real numbers?



A question i have is whether you find it preferable to run amateur as opposed to pro PDGA events, and -- if so -- what does that say about the PDGA?

You can't give breaks to one series without giving the same breaks to all tourneys. As soon as you do you have every tourney in the nation crying foul and wondering why they don't get the same benefit and all of them refusing to join unless they get the same benefits.

Bruce Brakel, are you out there? What's your experience? Don't you usually offer both Am payouts and trophy-only? What are your real numbers?



A question i have is whether you find it preferable to run amateur as opposed to pro PDGA events, and -- if so -- what does that say about the PDGA?

I prefer to run prize payout as opposed to cash payout tournaments because I can offer better value to the players with prize payouts. On a $25 entry fee I can do a $15 player pack, $20 to the payout, trophies and a CTP on every hole AND have $4 per player real cash left over for the charity, if I do a prize payout.

This will be unsanctioned because the charity is not the PDGA this time! :D Come play the Byron Ice Bowl at Willow Brook Golf Course!

I like the sound of it, but it undermines the concept of a volunteer organization where we all are trying to build something together. To take an unfair share of the pie would be against that spirit.

It would be like certain events in the SN series saying that they should only have to give $.50 per player rather than $2 or whatever it is, yet still be part of the SN series of events.

I like the idea of encouraging regional organization, but not at the cost of our overall mission.

A question i have is whether you find it preferable to run amateur as opposed to pro PDGA events, and -- if so -- what does that say about the PDGA?

I prefer to run prize payout as opposed to cash payout tournaments because I can offer better value to the players with prize payouts. On a $25 entry fee I can do a $15 player pack, $20 to the payout, trophies and a CTP on every hole AND have $4 per player real cash left over for the charity, if I do a prize payout.

This will be unsanctioned because the charity is not the PDGA this time! :D

(emphasis added)

:eek: :D

but not at the cost of our overall mission.






What is the overall mission? Did I miss it on this board somewhere? Seriously what is it?

"I like the idea of encouraging regional organization, but not at the cost of our overall mission. "

kind of like the madc? i wondewr if disc golf has outgrown the need for regional organizations. it seems there is plenty of work being done at the local organizations, with the pdga to oversee to big picture if they can keep their act together. as someone said, a regioanl organization seems like just another cut out of the pie in terms of volunteer efforts to keep it going as well as financial. at some point the cost of the extra layer of bueracracy is just a drain on our already limited resources. any thoughts on that nick?

Here's a concept.

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

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

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

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

It's worth a shot, right?

OK ... it was a stupid idea.

Regardless, I think we need to find a way to expose SN country to the PDGA. At the moment there are more courses in Alabama and Mississippi and Louisiana than there are active PDGA members.

Somehow, someway, we need to find a way to expose the region to a more national/international disc golf perspective by making it easier for TDs to dual sanction and by making it easier for players to test the PDGA waters without ponying up for a membership.

Even though my idea was stoopid, the issue I was trying to address is real.

Thanks Fan. I think Terry's comment again shows how a lot of the leadership of The Association is out of touch with what actually is going on at events. I've documented elsewhere how little the leaders play and his comment shows that isolation.



You've documented no such thing, Hawk. You simply took sanctioned events for one single year and listed how many each of us played in. For me, that shows only how few *sanctioned* events I *played* last year (4), the least active year in competition I've had since I started playing, and an anomaly.

But even for that one year you ignored how often I was a TD, a marshall, or a regular staff at tournaments. I know that for people who take and don't give, playing is the only way to be there, but I didn't think you were that shallow.

For example, when I marshall an event, I spend a great deal of time walking the course in both obvious and surreptitious ways. I've seen enough to know what to look for and my knowledgeable, initial statement stands.

It's a shortcoming of this DISCussion and of your own arguments that you can put up a tiny piece of incomplete "fact" and then refer to it ever-afterwards as having "documented" something.

All of that vague thinking aside, astute and non-biased observers have frequently noted how much cleaned up substance abuse during play is at sanctioned events.



Terry,

I find it naive that you think hanging out in the tourney tent or slinking around a few holes during play gives you the same intelligence to what is going on during a tourney compared to being on the the third card out of the ca$h/pla$tic in the second round when players realize they don't really have to hang around for the awards ceremony. Things tend to get a little relaxed at that point. The thought of you surreptitiously peering at groups from the treeline is very Inspector Clouseauish.

Best of luck with your dilemma. I applaud your efforts to try to increase PDGA membership in your area. I wish I could offer a solution. Perhaps a few D-tier events may be a low cost way to start exposing players to the PDGA.

A good way to increase the ammount of players in your area is by not sanctioning events. This gives you the freedom to charge only 5 - 10 dollars.

A non PDGA player with only a few months of experience, not matter the player package or incentives, is going to think that paying 30 dollars to play disc golf is insane. By running 2 dollar a head doubles or 5 dollar a heaad monthlies, these players are more likely to come out to the event.

If they enjoy it, they are going to be more inclined to then come to your PDGA event that you are doing and then joining the PDGA then helping out etc etc etc....

Chris,
Low areas of membership is a valid discussion, I hope the kings of DISCcussion don't dismiss this too quickly.

On a similar note -- What happened with the PDGA membership at last weekend's Poison Ivy Open? I noticed only a handfull of active memberships.
* Just awkard timing for re-upping for a Jan tourney?
* The residual effect of a successful, often unsanctioned, regional series (TX10) ???
* A bunch of folks not planning to re-up?

Do other areas with a history of a successful non-sanctioned series have similar loss in overall membership? Thought I would ask.

Thanks,
Ron Pittman

What happened with the PDGA membership at last weekend's Poison Ivy Open? I noticed only a handfull of active memberships.



My guess...



* Just awkard timing for re-upping for a Jan tourney?

A good way to increase the ammount of players in your area is by not sanctioning events. This gives you the freedom to charge only 5 - 10 dollars.




Perhaps I wasn't clear ... we have an incredible number of players ... probably more than 1,000, including casual players, in this county alone. Our usage stats on our eight local courses show more than 100,000 rounds of disc golf being played annually in Mobile County. We have all of that; leagues, tosses, random-draw doubles, dirt cheap local tournaments, charity events, clubs, bagtags, etc.

The issue is specifically how to make it easier for the players to dip their toe in the PDGA waters and decide to go swimming.

I think the best way to introduce people to PDGA and get new players to become PDGA members would be a series like Chris Himing had in which several one day tournaments were non-sanctioned, all of which led to an A-tier (or in his case with Ams B-tier) final. The PDGA was mentioned in a positive manner at each players' meeting. Many people played their first tournament at one of his non-sanctioned events and by the final were already PDGA members.
I think, though, the problem in your case if that the SN started because of some of the people being against PDGA. I'm not sure, and I apologize if I am incorrect. However, it woudl be an obstacle if I am correct to turn that around.

A good way to increase membership is really very simple - give them away as prizes. With all the $$ value being given away at sanctioned/nonsanctioned events alike - giving away memberships of all sorts only makes sense. I started doing this - back in the early 90's - and started suggesting to the PDGA Admin back then - that it would be a good and guaranteed source of new and renewing memberships to give them away as prizes at ALL sanctioned events (as a condition of sanctioning). It would seem to me that if we don't require all players to be members to PLAY in a sanctioned event - that requiring the TD to give away at least ONE membership as part of the prize pool, that we would serve both the organization and the players. At unsanctioned events - it would be a show of support for local clubs to give them away as an alternative to plastic, plastic, and more plastic. Hey - and if they aren't giving away PDGA memberships - a good alternative is to give away local club dues/memberships. An easy way to bring people into the fold and get them interested in participating (or more interested) is to make it inexpensive (or in this case TOTALLY FREE) to do so.

One more alternative (and perhaps cheaper for the TD) is to give away as a prize, copies of the glossy color magazine that comes with membership. I'd be willing to bet you could get a decent rate from Rick Rothstein on a stack of promo copies.

I like it ... would the PDGA be willing to discount memberships to TDs who give them away as prizes? I would expect it would pay for itself in no time especially if you geared the giveaways to the Advanced crowd who are hungry for more competition.

What discounted price would be enough to make it worthwhile for TDs? I'm thinking maybe 70% so it matches some other merchandise markups. I'm thinking maybe it would have to be limited to new memberships, not renewals.

What happened with the PDGA membership at last weekend's Poison Ivy Open? I noticed only a handfull of active memberships.



My guess...



* Just awkard timing for re-upping for a Jan tourney?





I think it's more the case that MaceMan did not get all the PDGA numbers entered in with the stats. I can look down that list and see at least two dozen people who are current members that are not shown as such, so I am sure there are many more than just those.

Here's a concept.

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

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

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

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

It's worth a shot, right?



**cough** BUMP

I find it naive that you think hanging out in the tourney tent or slinking around a few holes during play gives you the same intelligence to what is going on during a tourney compared to being on the the third card out of the ca$h/pla$tic in the second round when players realize they don't really have to hang around for the awards ceremony. Things tend to get a little relaxed at that point. The thought of you surreptitiously peering at groups from the treeline is very Inspector Clouseauish.



Hawk, this all started when you posted some incomplete statistics about the number of PDGA sanctioned events that a handful of PDGA leaders themselves competed in last year.

You asserted that the relatively low numbers for 2006 mean those leaders are out of touch with the players, which is nonsense and creates a "straw man" argument by which you hope to diminish the credibility of PDGA leaders.

I have pointed out, using myself as an example, since I know myself best the following:

(a) Your numbers are misleading due to incompleteness. I played 3 sanctioned events last year and 3 the year before (I've been sick, among other things.) but I played 13, 16, and 13 the three years before that. Since I was on the board for five years, and competed in 48 sanctioned events in the past five years, your incomplete numbers mean nothing with regard to my personal knowledge - and likely the same for others.

(b) Hard working leaders may have to give up some competition in order to get their volunteer work done, but that should not discredit their knowledge because in their volunteer work they gain access to knowledge about facets of disc golf that are important and which those who only compete never know.

(c) There are many other ways of knowing what it's like at a PDGA sanctioned event than competing in one and your figures missed that, too: competing in non-sanctioned events (65 in five years for me), minis and weeklies (too many to count), TD-ing and staffing uncountable tournaments, marshalling sanctioned events, and so forth.

Those who cannot maintain a good argument on the facts try to discredit the source of the facts.

In your effort to discredit valuable and experienced PDGA leaders you have managed only to expose the limitations of your own vision of disc golf.

That such unfair, illogical, faith-based instead of reason-based argumentation is so prevalent is one of the shortcomings of this DISCussion board.

BTW, Pat Brenner, why did you ask the PDGA board of directors to use members' dues to pay for a complimentary membership for Hawk? We're still waiting for an answer. Without a coherent one, I'm going to have to assume it's because you like distracting, unfair argumentation diminishing the value of DISCussion. (Except for entertainment value, which is important, but is not good for governance or understanding realities.)

It should not go unnoticed that tons of notices and DISCussions about non-sanctioned events get posted on DISCussion by PDGA members.

This is one way the PDGA promotes disc golf, overall. In the association world, many organizations have hard and fast rules against such postings - for competitive reasons - and enforce them. My own employer, for example, would never for a moment think of letting another organization use our resources to post information about a planning conference that our members and others might choose to attend instead of one of our own.

Even at the local level, the Ann Arbor Club's PDGA-affiliate section is used to post all sorts of advertisements for other tournaments, including those that could be seen as "competition" such as the Local 101 Club, the TADGA organization, Bruce Brakel's events and others.

How about some props for this item of good will?

Or, maybe some of you think that the PDGA ought to begin enforcing such restrictions?

ok ... naif scratching head ... forgive my innocence ... why is ANY disc golf event "competition?"

I thought:

1.1 Purpose. The purpose for which the Corporation is formed is the promotion and governance of the sport of disc golf. In particular, the purposes of the Corporation include:

1.1.1 To promote the development of disc golf as a means of healthful recreation and physical fitness.

-and-

1.1.3 to foster national and international professional and amateur disc golf tournaments and competitions.

-and-

1.1.4 to communicate event results, opinions and other information beneficial to the sport via electronic and printed media


Now, I may just be a backwoods country boy, but it seems to me that the "good will" is mandated in the bylaws (as it should be).

In fact, it isn't much of a stretch to say that "communicate ... opinions" could easily be interpreted to mean the DISCussion board should be open to any disc golfer with an opinion (subject to reasonable moderation, of course).

Such an isolationist, "us vs. them" attitude seems to me counter-productive and sorta beside the point to boot.

<font color="purple">The PDGA is the governing body of the sport. There is no "competition." </font>

Terry,

My point was that much of what I hear coming for the Association's leadership seems to be out of touch with my disc golf experiences here in the scenic mid-Atlantic region. Upon reviewing the sanctioned event participation of several of you I came to the logical conclusion that if you guys aren't out there discing it with the rest of us as much during sanctioned rounds perhaps you are out of touch with the reality of the hole 13 back-up vs. tourney HQ. I understand how you may not like the discussion of drug use by members during events, but your reality and my experiences differ dramatically.

You counter with your extensive z-tier experiences as basis for your positions, and I would state that conduct at my local z-tiers is even worse and most comparable to what I would expect at a biker rally without the hot chicks.

As for your query regarding Sandal's solicitation of the B.O.D. to renew me when I had stated I wasn't going to renew: I can only offer the fact that I have in my possession several photos of Pat involving people and things that he really wouldn't want made public, and while I have reassured him several times that I am keeping these for only my own personal amusement, perhaps he thought a membership to an organization I have minimal respect for would be a sufficient quid pro quo. FYI I haven't actually paid for a disc the past two years, so you may want to ask Mr. Dodge why that is.

Chris,
Low areas of membership is a valid discussion, I hope the kings of DISCcussion don't dismiss this too quickly.

On a similar note -- What happened with the PDGA membership at last weekend's Poison Ivy Open? I noticed only a handfull of active memberships. <font color="red"> MaceMan did not get players PDGA number entered into his scores update. I know, mine is one of them. </font>
* Just awkard timing for re-upping for a Jan tourney? <font color="red"> <font color="red"> Yes, that is a problem for early year tournaments. Marshal Ray Murry was on hand to take care of updates. However there were a few players who opted to just pay the $5 instead of renewing right then. </font> </font>
* The residual effect of a successful, often unsanctioned, regional series (TX10) ??? <font color="red"> Nothing could be further from the truth. The Texas 10 series actually increased the number of PDGA tournament players in Texas. There is NO question about that. Also, the Texas 10 Finals was an A-Tier, you have to be a memeber to even play on Sunday (Pro/Adv) Saturdays B-tier (Rec,Int, Adv) was a B-tier. </font>
* A bunch of folks not planning to re-up? <font color="red"> That remains to be seen. It is not even the 15th of January. </font>

Do other areas with a history of a successful non-sanctioned series have similar loss in overall membership? Thought I would ask.

Thanks,
Ron Pittman


There are PDGA tournaments in SN country, however they are fewer and further between. I personally would not know because I consider them local non PDGA events and would never consider traveling to them. (I realise that some TD's actually put some work in and have lots of added money)

One thing to remember, when the PDGA raised the Masters age from 35 to 40, the SN did not follow suit. That left a problem for any SN/PDGA tournament, those 35 to 39 aged players could not play Masters if the tournament was PDGA santioned. You saw most of the SN/PDGA tournaments not be PDGA santioned till the SN bumped the age up to 40 to be in line with the PDGA.

The Souther Nationals tournament are just qualifiers for the finals. The Finals are usually PDGA santioned and usually has LOTS of added money because of all the $2 collections from all the other tournaments.

there are NO requirements to be a SN qualifier other than giving them $2 per head from each player. No ratings based division, no SN rules, no standards to abide by. You could go to one SN tournament that has ZERO added money and then next week play in one with Thousands added. Even then, there is no requirement to acutally add that money.

At least in a PDGA event, you know there will be a minimum % payout for each tier.

Please so not consider the SN as a governing body of tournaments. They are NOT compitition to the PDGA, they use PDGA rules and benifit from the PDGA.

[QUOTE]
<font color="purple">The PDGA is the governing body of the sport. There is no "competition." </font>

You will notice that I used "competition" in quotes.

For the PDGA to accomplish its goals, it needs to be a sustainable organization, including fiscally robust. I don't think the perspective that at least some other events could be seen as "competition" for PDGA events is outrageous.

Especially for the TDs of the PDGA events, since we already have the regularly-recurring argument about the "exclusion" rule for geographically close tournaments - which means those TDs see each other as "competition" even within the PDGA.

good answer, Bryan.

Hawk are you saying Terry is out of touch because players in his area have enough sense not to light up or crack open a brewskie in front of a PDGA(former) BOD member and marshal?

I think the biggest problem with drugs an alcohol at PDGA events is when use is openly blatant and in view of the public. Apparently when there are marshals or PDGA BOD members at events, usage is non-existent or at least so discreet that the public and other players are not aware of it.

Suzette,

I too considered the fact that when Terry is strolling around people might behave differently during tourneys than the do when playing with the rest of the herd. Terry apparently hasn't actively considered that. While it's true that most players (until he started using his glamour shot as an avatar) couldn't have picked him out of a line-up, any player could recognize him,


Here comes that dude who's running this thing.



I was at a tourney two years ago where the player leading the field almost got busted by the park police for an open container at halftime. Terry seems to want to discount the reality of my experiences as being reflective of what really goes on at tourneys. Again this was at a sanctioned event. I'm not even going to z-tier stories for the purposes of this discussion.

I was at a tourney two years ago where the player leading the field almost got busted by the park police for an open container at halftime. Terry seems to want to discount the reality of my experiences as being reflective of what really goes on at tourneys. Again this was at a sanctioned event. I'm not even going to z-tier stories for the purposes of this discussion.



It is a cool picture, eh? What do you think: Sean Connery or Ernest Hemingway?

My statements are about abuse "during play." Which is what the PDGA chose some time ago to focus on and which I think is the most important focus for the PDGA: For example, the generic drinking ban at sanctioned events does NOT apply to "half-time."

I do not believe that it is a wise use of PDGA resources or a TD's time (Think about "proof" issues when someone comes in and tells a TD a player is drinking beer in his car but then the TD takes the time to walk out and it is then hidden!) to focus on policing players in their cars, elsewhere in the park, or even at tournament hotels in the evenings - although others have differing opinions.

The park officials I have spoken to, many times, about this, tell me that disc golfers are, in their eyes, no worse about this as a population than are the other park users.

Probably more Connery.

I don't think the conduct of players competing in an organized professional sporting event should be compared to some guy spending time with a single mom and her kid to score points some Sunday afternoon at the lake as the same thing.

Weed gets smoked all the time during rounds down off the top cards. Actually I've seen more weed smoked during PDGA rounds than beer consumed as weed doesn't clank in your bag hole after hole whereas you can take a quick hit or two during a back-up. Only some of our local course contacts could actually down a whole bottle at one stop. I've learned so much discing!

It doesn't happen on a card I am on. Ever.

If we all could make that stand, it would make a difference.

I don't see how the PDGA can have a presence watching each card unless it is us.

BTW, Pat Brenner, why did you ask the PDGA board of directors to use members' dues to pay for a complimentary membership for Hawk? We're still waiting for an answer. Without a coherent one, I'm going to have to assume it's because you like distracting, unfair argumentation diminishing the value of DISCussion. (Except for entertainment value, which is important, but is not good for governance or understanding realities.)



Terry, can we rest assured that you also have asked Theo why he helped pay Hawk's renewal (Pat did not)?

or even at tournament hotels in the evenings



Leave that to the DEA convention next door right?

Terry,

My point was that much of what I hear coming for the Association's leadership seems to be out of touch with my disc golf experiences here in the scenic mid-Atlantic region. Upon reviewing the sanctioned event participation of several of you I came to the logical conclusion that if you guys aren't out there discing it with the rest of us as much during sanctioned rounds perhaps you are out of touch with the reality of the hole 13 back-up vs. tourney HQ. I understand how you may not like the discussion of drug use by members during events, but your reality and my experiences differ dramatically.

You counter with your extensive z-tier experiences as basis for your positions, and I would state that conduct at my local z-tiers is even worse and most comparable to what I would expect at a biker rally without the hot chicks.

As for your query regarding Sandal's solicitation of the B.O.D. to renew me when I had stated I wasn't going to renew: I can only offer the fact that I have in my possession several photos of Pat involving people and things that he really wouldn't want made public, and while I have reassured him several times that I am keeping these for only my own personal amusement, perhaps he thought a membership to an organization I have minimal respect for would be a sufficient quid pro quo. FYI I haven't actually paid for a disc the past two years, so you may want to ask Mr. Dodge why that is.



Hawk's bribing the BoD? Huh?

WTF's going on here? Genuine question: Is Hawk worth listening to?

Nope, I havent asked Theo why he offered to personally contribute. I am very interested in why Pat Brenner officially wanted PDGA dues to pay for Hawk's dues, though.

You know, "personal" as opposed to "official": In the interest of transparency in governance, of course. This is the appropriate forum, is it not? :D

Bryan,

Thanks for the clarifcation. My memory of the TX10 was just the same as you described. I was hoping that hadn't changed.

Soo.... if an area has a successful regional series AND is PDGA-friendly .... memberships can actually increase -- even if some of the series is local and unsanctioned. Not a surprise, I was just hoping nothing goofy was happening in dear old Tejas.

And, at the risk of ire from any SN amigos ---- your take on SN seems to be spot on. It's not actually a tournament series nor is it a governing body of any kind. It is what it is, and I don't expect much to change to move it in either direction.

BTW, your are still my 804.05 (4) hero. Better nose than Bill Burns.

Ron Pittman

If we are going to have another one of those threads, I haven't seen anyone light up during a sanctioned round in several years. I did see some paraphernalia during one break, but it was not in active use.

Nope, I havent asked Theo why he offered to personally contribute. I am very interested in why Pat Brenner officially wanted PDGA dues to pay for Hawk's dues, though.

You know, "personal" as opposed to "official": In the interest of transparency in governance, of course. This is the appropriate forum, is it not? :D



Yes Terry, if you want to make Hawk the main subject feel free. He is already a celebrity here so i doubt he'll be embarassed. not that you care, but i too wondered why Pat requested the Board consider renewing Hawk. but given your attitude here, i think Hawk serves an important function. He asks questions -- uncomfortable ones perhaps, but ones i think we are better off considering. and he also has a funny way of making points though i know Mikey's banning over his over-the-top comparison of the PDGA leadership to the third reich shows some people don't have a very pliable sense of humor. the fact remains however that Hawk is the PDGA -- at least that part of it that doesn't like pot being smoked at frolf events...

If we are going to have another one of those threads, I haven't seen anyone light up during a sanctioned round in several years. I did see some paraphernalia during one break, but it was not in active use.



ah, but have you not seen someone light up the moment their last round was over? (i really don't care if people smoke pot -- i think it is less harmful than alcohol -- but i do think they should do so discretely and not in a public park where our sport is being showcased via a sanctioned, competitive event)

Personally, I have not.

But, I have not made any secret of my position on the topic, nor of my willingness to report the trangression.

Nope, I havent asked Theo why he offered to personally contribute. I am very interested in why Pat Brenner officially wanted PDGA dues to pay for Hawk's dues, though.

You know, "personal" as opposed to "official": In the interest of transparency in governance, of course. This is the appropriate forum, is it not? :D



Yes Terry, if you want to make Hawk the main subject feel free. He is already a celebrity here so i doubt he'll be embarassed. not that you care, but i too wondered why Pat requested the Board consider renewing Hawk. but given your attitude here, i think Hawk serves an important function. He asks questions -- uncomfortable ones perhaps, but ones i think we are better off considering. and he also has a funny way of making points though i know Mikey's banning over his over-the-top comparison of the PDGA leadership to the third reich shows some people don't have a very pliable sense of humor. the fact remains however that Hawk is the PDGA -- at least that part of it that doesn't like pot being smoked at frolf events...



Terry's not being beligerant, that is any more than Pat has been in the past. Shouldn't this question be answered? This is after all Pat's purview, openess and clear communication. There needs to be a process to keep these kind of inappropriate issues out of Board meetings. And there is no question this "request" was inappropriate. The use of my fees to satisfy Pat's personal perks with no benefit to the PDGA, that is me, is not something I want to see voted on.

BTW - your notion that some people don't have a sense of humor, or a thick skin, needs to be cross applied. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

BTW - what's your definition of a celebrity? Hawk is a celebrity? Now, I'll buy that Ken is, or Barry (at least in our limited circle) but Hawk is a sad case of I need attention. Do you read his supposed questions? Every time one comes up it's obvious that he hasn't thought or taken the time to even read what's commonly available.

Rob, it feels like you think questioning is good, but only when it's questioning of the ED and Board with the exception of Pat and Steve. It doesn't even matter if the questions are good or relevant it's just good to question; oh yeah, except for Pat.

I agree with you that questioning is good, but shouldn't the leadership be able to use some common sense in what is a good question or not, or do they have to answer my questions about knitting too?

Lyle, if you want to debate for debate's sake -- i suggest we pm each other on this. otherwise here are a few comments to mull over.

i said Hawk is a celebrity here -- 'here' meaning on DISCussion Board. there was even an "ask Hawk" thread. i personally am not a big fan of Hawk's ever since he predicted my rating wouldn't go up a long time ago (LOL) -- and i enjoyed seeing Rich win the Hawk vs. Dr. Evil bet last year.

i don't mind Terry asking Pat why he proposed the Board pay Hawk's renewal but i would like to see Terry be more balanced and subject Theo et al to the same sort of inquiries if he is going ot do it with Pat. i mean yeah Theo used his own money but if he really thought Pat's suggestion was ridiculous the proper thing to have done would have been not to pay a dime of Hawk's renewal. did the BoD approve minutes which showed they indeed did pay for Hawk's renewal out of their own pockets? anywhew -- don't confuse my pointing out that question of balance (Moody Blues reference intended) regarding who Terry does and does not question with my thinking Pat should not be questioned. did you miss the 2 meter wars Pat and i had back before my old user name (and the respective posts) "Rob J" was lost in a message board crash? i am all for questioning Pat. besides -- he can't be all good because he lives in Texas and throws discs from the Dark side (half joking here).

i am not sure who you are referring to as the leadership? Pat? persons on the BoD besides Pat? i guess you aren't refering to Terry? isn't he just another member like you or i?

btw, what are your questions about knitting? i might be able to help you out with the help of google. ;)

I wonder how many pages ago there was actually a question for the BODs? :confused: :D :confused:

BTW, your are still my 804.05 (4) hero. Better nose than Bill Burns.


Now that is funny :D

Ok, Question for the BOD (an on the topic we are discussing.

Can we toughen up the 804.05 rule to include at the park between rounds. I don't care about away from the course, I don't really care at a non host motel/hotel, but it drives me crazy when people light up at the course before a round starts or at "Halftime"

It has been a long time sense I smelled anything durring a round (from a compeditor), however between round I have seen it many times. To a point that I will not even attend some events.

I have no problem with what people do in the privacy of the home or away from the Disc Golf course, but I personally don't want to be around it AND I don't want to call the Police (the PDGA option given between rounds)

Take a look at the old 1992 Red PDGA rules book. It states that if you are smoking from the time the tournamnt starts till the time the awards are over, this includes offical activities for the tournament and host hotel/motel.

Why did we ever change that rule?????

A good way to increase the ammount of players in your area is by not sanctioning events. This gives you the freedom to charge only 5 - 10 dollars.

A non PDGA player with only a few months of experience, not matter the player package or incentives, is going to think that paying 30 dollars to play disc golf is insane. By running 2 dollar a head doubles or 5 dollar a heaad monthlies, these players are more likely to come out to the event.

If they enjoy it, they are going to be more inclined to then come to your PDGA event that you are doing and then joining the PDGA then helping out etc etc etc....

what if the fee was a slidingscale... like entries from $0 to $10 is a $1 fee, $11-$20 is $2... up to the max fee. is that the same as the tier system just without the labels?

disque, what about simply offering to rent, or even share, your email addresses? it could be of value to any organization wishing to introduce themselves and gauge the level of interest in the region. a joint message might be powerful.

what if the fee was a slidingscale... like entries from $0 to $10 is a $1 fee, $11-$20 is $2... up to the max fee. is that the same as the tier system just without the labels?

A smart TD would game the system by running a la carte tournaments.

Pizza God, I hear your anguish about illegal stuff (marijuana, alcohol, underage tobacco) in public around disc golf tournaments, but the question to me is one of priorities.

How do you, where do you find the resources, to enforce fairly?

It's tough enough inside a tournament and during play. I recall a time at the Golden State Classic where some players who had finished their round went out on the course and were alleged to have lit up while they watched others play. The "evidence" application for that was so insane that not much could happen. "He said, she said," etc. (I have more than one friend who rolls his own tobacco cigarettes (Yuck!) to save money and get better taste. I can't tell from 15 feet away what they are smoking.)

We're in a sport where, I think, 90 percent or more of "jump putts" are in violation of the rules.(You try videotaping and see if you can "jump putt" and release the disc while you still have a supporting point on the tee pad.)

Now, think about the evidentiary rules to enforce rules against people who are doing things that are civilly illegal to the larger population.

Even during play it's tough. Even if you're the marshall.

Scenario: You're the TD. I'm the marshall. I spot a couple of players hiding under a cedar tree and lighting up during play. I approach them and DQ them from the tournament. I would do that in a flash.

A month later, the PDGA, the TD, and I are named in a lawsuit because one of the players has been fired from his job when his boss learned that he was DQ'd for smoking pot. The boss read it on DISCussion.

What is the chain of evidence? Where was the due process? How do we defend? How do we prove?

Now, imagine that the tournament was at Firefighters Park in Detroit. I am a staffer for the tournament. I saw them lighting up in their car outside Subway while they ate lunch.

For goodness sake, I think back to Des Moines Worlds. In the tournament hotel there was a group of totally stupid players on the ground floor who were busted by the police (DEA, actually, there was a DEA convention next door.) the night before play began because they were smoking dope in their hotel room - which just happened to be near the primary hotel entrance and the stairs to the rest of the floors in the hotel.

The cops let them out them next morning specifically in time so that they could make it to their first rounds.

What should the PDGA do? If we do it, how can we defend ourselves and prove it later when we get sued? Should we have called the police? Even after the police let them out, so they could play, should we have stopped them from playing? If they sued us for that, how could we defend ourselves?

Where would the TD and her staff have found the time to deal with this?

And, why drugs only? I know a top, award-winning TD who was busted on the day of a tournament for driving a car in the park that had too much tinting in the car windows. Seriously.

Should he be DQ'd? Should the PDGA care that players drive cars with heavily tinted windows? That players drive through stop signs on their way to the course?

I think we care - a lot - and invest in enforcement regarding behavior during play but that we have a lot of our own house to get in order regarding "during play" before we step into the world outside the competition itself.

I think the "getting sued for libel" argument is pretty thin. Lawyers don't take many libel cases. Dope smokers don't sue people when they are accused of being dope smokers. It is easy for the PDGA and any tournament director to conduct themselves in such a way that they would never be liable for libel: don't talk about it in public.

If someone were to claim I libelled him by calling him a dope smoker, I'd just subpoena a urine sample. End of lawsuit. :D

The rest of the argument I agree with. I've never received a field test kit or PBT in my envelope of PDGA stuff. I have no resources for enforcing that rule unless the offender is going to admit his guilt.

If someone were to complain to me about someone else's behavior, I'd do what I have to do as a TD. Otherwise, it's none of my business.

Here's a concept.

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

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

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

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

It's worth a shot, right?



Last bump, then I give up. I keep getting buried by Terry and the debaters.

Lawyers don't take many libel cases.



Took media law in college and we studied libel for 80% of the time.

Libel cases are def. difficult, however, in a situation like this, is much more likely. Most libel cases that are not taken on involve public figures b/c there is a different set of standards for what constitutes libel with them. With public figures, you have to proof the desire for malicious intent, which is almost nearly impossible.

Maybe the best case where a libel suit was actually won was by Cato Cailin.

A headline in somehting like Star said "Cato did it" obviously referring to the OJ SImpson murders. In the article, it explains that they were actually referring to drove the white bronco. However, they were able to prove the malicious intent b/c of what was logically assumed by the headline.

Just a sidebar :D

That was a good answer Terry. Those are good arguments.

At a recent tournament, I choose not to try to kick a player out of the tournament for drinking a beer. I told him he should not drink durring the round. I also got on him about marking his lie around the basket (he was picking up his disc and tossing it into the basket or slapping the chains)

He told me to DQ him. For the Beer and marking infractions, I did not want to press this matter. It was a wierd round to say the least. In my opinion, he had ZERO respect for the TD who stated that beer was not permitted in the park. He was treating the PDGA tournament like a mini or casual round. I lost all respect for this guy and and I sure he does not care.

However I did say something to the guys following the Pro's around who were smoking out. They left shortly after I said something to them. (I think they were casual golfers and did not know there was a tournament going on)

And so we have the same ole-same ole and always will.

At PAW2000 I asked some morons to at least get inside their car whilst they smoked away at their six-foot bong. They were in the parking lot closest to the huge tourney central tents, sitting on the hood puffing with a bong-so-long a different guy had to light it.

At Des Moines you had the bust.

At Flagstaff 2005 the hallways of that totally sweet Little America hi-dollar resort hotel were constantly so thick with the smell of pot that I thought for sure I would fail a drug test when I got back to work. I only imagine what the non-PDGA-Worlds patrons of the hotel that week thought.

It makes our sport a joke. I've seen players with pipes cradled in their laps in a car literally right in front of the club house at USDGC. No lie.

We is what we is, and I don't believe we'll ever get beyond where we is as long as we are such a dope smoker culture. It's so bad I've given up hope of it ever changing, and I'm just trying to enjoy flinging plastic again. I laugh and turn to whoever I'm with and call out "It smells like DISC GOLF!" whenever I'm choked out by the wacky tobacky anymore.

It makes our sport a joke.



Probably the best summary of drug use I've ever heard.

I agree. However, IMO even worse - because it happens right out in public, no one bothers to hide it - is smoking cigarettes during play.

I know, or at least I have been told, that you can sometimes get a glimpse of PGA folks smoking on TV.

Doesn't matter to me if that's true or not.

IMO, it's a joke to call something that people do while they are smoking a cigarette a competitive sport. A competitive game, perhaps, but not a sport.

Athletics are, in general, supposed to be about, among other things, healthy activities and smoking is not only slow death but it's as close to a fact as you can get that a smoker would inherently have greater athletic ability if he didn't smoke: Thus, de facto, we are not seeing him play at his best.

And we probably won't be seeing him at all when he's a Legend.

There was a time when I lacked only a single vote on the board to get that ban put into place. <Sigh.>

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

This statement has been made and it's the way it is (and I don't somke)

There is nothing wrong with smoking cigerettes on the course as long as
1. The person doing it is 18 years or older
2. It is legal to smoke outside where the person smoking is
3. The person does not litter with his cigerette butt
4. The person is curteous of thise in his group who do not smoke.

Rarely do I have an issue with anyone who smokes in PDGA play.

i dont completely follow the "ownership" thing, but the idea of a temp membership is worth further discussion. when it has come up in the past some of the challenges are the management of hte membership (new type, tracking, etc) and the costs of any fulfillment required. narrowing the services available during the temp period would minimize direct costs and still make the discussion board, ratings and membership emails available.

I haven't yet received my 2007 PDGA card even though i renewed in November. Are they not out yet or do i need to contact the Office?

anyone else out there get theirs?

I still havent even shown up as current.

Probably not good considering I am TDing an event next weekend.

I would like to know the 'upcoming' date when us folks who've NOT re-upped for '07 will be denied posting privileges until we're current/dues-paid?

The policy has been not to cut prior members off until a week or two after the yearend final points have been posted, which is usually in mid-Feb.

Thank you, Chuck.

Assuming Terry's points are representative of the B.O.D.'s views on how to deal with the weed issue, then we as members have to accept it is what it is and can't get upset or embarassed when the rest of the public continues to view this as a stoner's game and mock it.

how could they be when T is not on the BoD?

It is probably at least as sticky an issue if you ask what stance the disc-making sponsors take regarding their players and pot use.

one major difficulty is that it is really a police issue and our system of justice is supposed to allow for a trial and for one being innocent till proven guilty. if pot-smokers are one of our niches, then maybe we should just appeal to them to do it discretely. as long as they do that, who is harmed by it?

i heard a funny story where a guy who was a bit too gung-ho with every rule in the book was driving a card nuts so they decided that they would have a little fun with him. one guy ran ahead to his lie, pulled out a pipe and started looking around as if to make sure noone was looking. then he cupped the pipe and lit it taking deep hits and holding them in. when the gung-ho guy ran up, he quickly zipped the pipe into his bag and acted like nothing had just went down.

the guy asked what it was, and the reply was just some herbal tobacco (it was regular pipe tobacco actually). i forget the rest of the story but i have to admit that sounded pretty funny. :D

now imagine if this guy had pushed the TD's hand and demanded a DQ and the TD asked the party involved and the guy simply denied any pot use and refused to comment further.

This statement has been made and it's the way it is (and I don't somke)

There is nothing wrong with smoking cigerettes on the course as long as
1. The person doing it is 18 years or older
2. It is legal to smoke outside where the person smoking is
3. The person does not litter with his cigerette butt
4. The person is curteous of thise in his group who do not smoke.

Rarely do I have an issue with anyone who smokes in PDGA play.



OK, playing devil's advocate here: :D I've replaced a couple of words.

There is nothing wrong with drinking beer on the course as long as
1. The person doing it is 21 years or older
2. It is legal to drink outside where the person drinking is
3. The person does not litter with his beer can/bottle
4. The person is courteous of those in his group who do not drink.

If the issue is that alcohol gives someone an advantage (performance-enhancing), then someone using nicotine is just as guilty. Just food for thought.

Chap

Chap, the only problems with that is I've never heard anyone described as an "angry smoker" and never seen anyone smoking not be able to understand they're acting discourteously.

Otherwise, I do agree completely with the comparison.

This statement has been made and it's the way it is (and I don't somke)

There is nothing wrong with smoking cigerettes on the course as long as
1. The person doing it is 18 years or older
2. It is legal to smoke outside where the person smoking is
3. The person does not litter with his cigerette butt
4. The person is curteous of thise in his group who do not smoke.

Rarely do I have an issue with anyone who smokes in PDGA play.



OK, playing devil's advocate here: :D I've replaced a couple of words.

There is nothing wrong with drinking beer on the course as long as
1. The person doing it is 21 years or older
2. It is legal to drink outside where the person drinking is
3. The person does not litter with his beer can/bottle
4. The person is courteous of those in his group who do not drink.

If the issue is that alcohol gives someone an advantage (performance-enhancing), then someone using nicotine is just as guilty. Just food for thought.

Chap



The main and obvious difference is the effect of alcohol (either positive or negative) is much much different than the effect of cigerettes.

Chap, the only problems with that is I've never heard anyone described as an "angry smoker" and never seen anyone smoking not be able to understand they're acting discourteously.




#4 in my analogy says the guy is acting courteously. Besides, we already have rules that deal with discourteous behavior, when called and seconded.

Chap

The main and obvious difference is the effect of alcohol (either positive or negative) is much much different than the effect of cigerettes.



How so? Mind you, we're not talking about someone drinking to excess here. Remember, my analogy said the person was otherwise courteous.

I'll bet if you take someone's cigarettes away during the round, and take another person's alcohol away during the round, the drinker will suffer fewer ill effects over a 4 hour period than the smoker.

Also, the second hand smoke will affect other players more than the drinker will.

Chap

You do bring up good points Chap..

My only response to is someone would find a loop hole. Rules have to be black and white. Either everyone can drink as much as they want or no one can drink anything,

How about we stick to the bottom line and skip all the interpretive stuff?

Smoking pot in a public park in the USA is always illegal. (Even though the San Francisco city council called the SFPD in and told them to make pot enforcement their lowest priority task, it is still illegal.)

Drinking alcohol in a public park is sometimes illegal and sometimes not, depending on the park.

Smoking cigarettes in a public park is almost always legal for now, except for a few very rare (but increasing number) of places.


Basketball players are notorious pot smokers, but you don't see them smoking during NBA, CBA, NCAA, or high school games. What they do on their own time is no big deal unless the NBA drug tests them.

You want to know what's funny, though? If you were to get pot legalized for smoking in a public park and then held a PDGA tourney there, per the currrent PDGA rules you would be able to smoke pot during the round but not have a beer!


Okay, I'm done here. We should resurrect the "DROT is a good/bad shot" arguments now...

How about we stick to the bottom line and skip all the interpretive stuff?

Smoking pot in a public park in the USA is always illegal. (Even though the San Francisco city council called the SFPD in and told them to make pot enforcement their lowest priority task, it is still illegal.)

Drinking alcohol in a public park is sometimes illegal and sometimes not, depending on the park.

Smoking cigarettes in a public park is almost always legal for now, except for a few very rare (but increasing number) of places.


Basketball players are notorious pot smokers, but you don't see them smoking during NBA, CBA, NCAA, or high school games. What they do on their own time is no big deal unless the NBA drug tests them.

You want to know what's funny, though? If you were to get pot legalized for smoking in a public park and then held a PDGA tourney there, per the currrent PDGA rules you would be able to smoke pot during the round but not have a beer!


Okay, I'm done here. We should resurrect the "DROT is a good/bad shot" arguments now...



I'm fine with the legal/illegal argument. And I'm not saying we should make beer drinking ok, except for perhaps in C-Tiers where the TD agrees to a certain number of special conditions (beer is legal in park, drinkers are to be of age....yada yada yada). Of course, the BoD shot me down on that last year (one in a number of 6-1 votes I was on the short side of). But I think cigarettes are a lot more insidious than beer, and although most smokers try to be courteous on the course with their smoke/butts, I'll get multiple whiffs of second hand smoke per round. That's fine if we're in a bar and I know there's going to be smoke there, but no so fine in the great outdoors, where I don't expect there to be smoke.

However, if you're banning beer because of the performance enhancing effects, you'd better ban nicotine, too, because it's probably a greater performance enhancer.

rant off

Chap

However, if you're banning beer because of the performance enhancing effects...


Not me. I'm a big proponent of "if it's legal in the park it should be allowed during the round."

However, if you're banning beer because of the performance enhancing effects...


Not me. I'm a big proponent of "if it's legal in the park it should be allowed during the round."

However, if you're banning beer because of the performance enhancing effects...


Not me. I'm a big proponent of "if it's legal in the park it should be allowed during the round."



Agreed.

Tastes great...

Chap

However, if you're banning beer because of the performance enhancing effects...


Not me. I'm a big proponent of "if it's legal in the park it should be allowed during the round."



Agreed.

Tastes great...

Chap



Maybe we should consider holding Worlds in Amsterdam ;) :D

Maybe we should consider holding Worlds in Amsterdam ;) :D



Nah. No good beer in Holland. :cool:

Chap

Maybe we should consider holding Worlds in Amsterdam ;) :D



Nah. No good beer in Holland. :cool:

Chap



You've obviously never been there. I honeymooned there last year and there was delicious Belgian beer on tap in many bars, and Amstel, Heineken & Grolsch on tap in nearly all of them. And the Heineken & Amstel is much better than the crap they export over to the United States.

i believe that was dry humor from Chap, not ignorance ;)

Maybe we should consider holding Worlds in Amsterdam ;) :D



Nah. No good beer in Holland. :cool:

Chap



You've obviously never been there. I honeymooned there last year and there was delicious Belgian beer on tap in many bars, and Amstel, Heineken & Grolsch on tap in nearly all of them. And the Heineken & Amstel is much better than the crap they export over to the United States.



You're right...you probably can get good beer imported into Holland, especially since Belgium, Great Britain, and Germany are so close.

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

Thread drift off.

Chap

did you say "dry" humor?

I haven't yet received my 2007 PDGA card even though i renewed in November. Are they not out yet or do i need to contact the Office?

anyone else out there get theirs?



i just received my 2007 PDGA card in the mail :eek: -- who says the DISCussion Board is not the place to get things done? :D

unfortunately, my card has my September 2006 not my December 2006 rating on it... :mad:

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

Maybe we should consider holding Worlds in Amsterdam ;) :D



Nah. No good beer in Holland. :cool:

Chap



You've obviously never been there. I honeymooned there last year and there was delicious Belgian beer on tap in many bars,



Thanks fan.