Assuming that the PDGA were to move to a strictly ratings based four division structure:
950+
949-900
899-850
849 and under
what do you think each group should be playing for? Keep in mind that the terms Pro and Am would be obsolete as this is a professional association and they could simply be called something like:
Premier Divison
Second Division
Third Division
Fourth Division

Also what should the entry fees be?

Cash for top one division.

Good divisional names might be the following:

Open
Expert
Advanced
intermediate
Recreational
Novice

Just a thought. I like the dropping of the Am/Pro classification. It sounds oddly familiar....

I'd like, most of all, to see a set of requirements that have to be met before you can call yourself, or be recognized as, a "pro"; or if it's not called "pro," to enter into competition in the top PDGA division.

This seems like something we have backwards, we limit how low people can play, but don't give them a challenge to shoot for in order to play in upper divisions.

What if we reversed the player ratings system, somewhat, and said that if you are under a 975 rating then you may not play in the top division.

It seems to me that a lot of people would be highly motivated to get better, as opposed to now: Anyone can decide to be a "pro" and tell all their friends and acquaintances that they are a "pro" player.

Cash for top one division.

Good divisional names might be the following:

Open
Expert
Advanced
intermediate
Recreational
Novice

Just a thought. I like the dropping of the Am/Pro classification. It sounds oddly familiar....



I agree, I had at one point thought to have it top cash, second merch and everything below as trophy. You can play up or down (except that Pros can't play merch). alternatively, add a trophy option to the two top division and only let people play up.

good point Terry... applied to NT events it could work. perhaps 985 and up can pre-register tuil 3 weeks out, then after that point anyone can pay to take their chance with the big boys. not as refined as the PGA, but hey, we're working with what we got.

I don't get it. Is this supposed to be an improvement for the PDGA?

Why would a 951 rated Am want to play with Kenny, Barry or the other 1030+ rated Pro players?

Why would the PDGA want to force these 951 rated players to play against the top players?

Discussing entry fees seems way out of line at this point in time.

If there was big money on the line, everyone would line up to play in the top division. Until then, what is the point?

For some reason Hawk is fixated on the idea that the top division should be 90 points wide and the others 50.

I don't get it. Is this supposed to be an improvement for the PDGA?

Why would a 951 rated Am want to play with Kenny, Barry or the other 1030+ rated Pro players?

Why would the PDGA want to force these 951 rated players to play against the top players?

Discussing entry fees seems way out of line at this point in time.

If there was big money on the line, everyone would line up to play in the top division. Until then, what is the point?



One aspect of the concept that Craig presented is a metered entry fee based on your rating. A 950 rated player would essentially lower his/her risk by paying less than Barry.

BTW - Chuck first proposed the idea a year or so ago but it never caught on then and now he seems less interested.

Yikes! I'm not sure the intent of the discussion is necessarily a 90 point spread for that top division as much as a simpler divisional structure per say.

For some reason Hawk is fixated on the idea that the top division should be 90 points wide and the others 50.



Bruce,

I'm fixated on many things but that's not one of them. The reality is that in most events the top rated player is around 1000. Here that would be Gangloff, Pitts, The Talented Myers, and a couple of old timers in the high 900's Pfeiffer, Zink etc. So in the vast majority of tourneys it's only 50 points. I might see Schweb or Feldberg once a year so those guys are abberations vs. who normally competes in our "pro" division.

I don't get it. Is this supposed to be an improvement for the PDGA?

Why would a 951 rated Am want to play with Kenny, Barry or the other 1030+ rated Pro players? <font color="red">Competition and experience. </font>

Why would the PDGA want to force these 951 rated players to play against the top players? <font color="red">The PDGA shouldn't but the merch incentive in the AM divisions should be reduced. </font>

Discussing entry fees seems way out of line at this point in time. <font color="red"> Agreed </font>

If there was big money on the line, everyone would line up to play in the top division. Until then, what is the point?<font color="red">Experience and being on a more competitive than casual card. Then again Pros are the best smack talkers. :D</font>

I think if this continues it helps prove(although not scientific) that the majority want a payout of some kind in all divisions. 75% thinks that everyone should get some sort of payout. Because it is fun, it doesn't hurt anything, and getting rid of it will NOT cause a drastic increase in people playing pro. That has been proven with stats time and time again.

I think if this continues it helps prove(although not scientific) that the majority want a payout of some kind in all divisions. 75% thinks that everyone should get some sort of payout. Because it is fun, it doesn't hurt anything, and getting rid of it will NOT cause a drastic increase in people playing pro. That has been proven with stats time and time again.

PDGA members say one thing and do another on this topic. Consider Bowling Green Ams. Big player packs, small payouts, huge attendance. Polls say one thing, tournament attendance says something else entirely.

very true it is all about value. I never win so I had much rather have a good players pack and small payout than vice versa. But I don't think anyone wants to pay $40 and get a T-shirt players pack and a trophy to the top 3 finishers. I also don't think that the majority of people would be willing to spend $75 very often just for the honor of finishing last in pro. I do in ams because I spend $25-$30 and usually get close to or more than I pay back in players pack. Not very good value in either there and I plan on playing at least 10 tournies this year if it was like those I would go from 10-15 tournies to only the 2 or 3 that are very local. Of course I can only speak for myself maybe there are some out there willing to dish out $75 to finish out of the money 12 times and get nothing in return.

Of course, if you pretend you're playing ball golf, spending $75 for greens fees and not getting anything back beyond playing the course is par for the course, about like entering Open at an A-tier with a 935 rating.

Of course, if you pretend you're playing ball golf, spending $75 for greens fees and not getting anything back beyond playing the course is par for the course, about like entering Open at an A-tier with a 935 rating.

Wait. Are you proposing a new definition for "par"? Better get Lowe in here.

That is the way that I justify spending the money for the tournies that I play and that is what I actually tell my wife and coworkers that play ball golf. But as I said I have almost as much fun at league nights for a couple of bucks as I do playing tournies for $30 bucks. If I wasn't getting some kind of value for my tourny money then I wouldn't play in as many yeah I would still play 3 or 4. But as of this moment I have already pre-registered for 4 between now and the end of April. And as I stated I can't speak for everyone.

Of course, if you pretend you're playing ball golf, spending $75 for greens fees and not getting anything back beyond playing the course is par for the course, about like entering Open at an A-tier with a 935 rating.



That is exactly why I don't play both ball golf nor A-tiers.

I'd like, most of all, to see a set of requirements that have to be met before you can call yourself, or be recognized as, a "pro"; or if it's not called "pro," to enter into competition in the top PDGA division.

This seems like something we have backwards, we limit how low people can play, but don't give them a challenge to shoot for in order to play in upper divisions.

What if we reversed the player ratings system, somewhat, and said that if you are under a 975 rating then you may not play in the top division.

It seems to me that a lot of people would be highly motivated to get better, as opposed to now: Anyone can decide to be a "pro" and tell all their friends and acquaintances that they are a "pro" player.



It boils down to whether you want a model based on inclusivity or exclusivity. I would argue that until the sport grows more from the top down (long-term sponsors) you need a model based on inclusivity that allows us marginal players to puff out our chests, reach into our wallets and give our money to the top players.

Without that top down growth in place, the only thing propping up the system and allowing the top players to tour is the trickle up money from the wannabes.

I agree that restrictions/qualifications to play in the pro division is an idea with merit, but I doubt it is idea whose time has yet come ... and while it might incentivize "a lot of people," it may also have the reverse effect on a lot of people.

Cash for top one division.

Good divisional names might be the following:

Open
Expert
Advanced
intermediate
Recreational
Novice

Just a thought. I like the dropping of the Am/Pro classification. It sounds oddly familiar....

I would go for this idea but once again tiers come into play
At an NT or A tier the TOP division should be more quality players and lower tiers could and should include more from the bottom " to get thier feet wet " but once they cash at a little C tier should NOT HAVE TO PLAY FOR CASH at higher events .

I think, and I know there are many that agree, that the plastic payout mania is a problem for our amateur sport.

I think the requirement to payout 100% is the source of the problem. Amateur tournaments should be played only for trohpies (discs or otherwise), period. TD's should be able to include a per person administrative fee for all participants in the tournament price. (the PDGA could cap the fee for each tier level). TD's should be required to disclose the fee breakdown in advance of the tournament. Amateur tournament fees should be reduced across the board and all amateur divisions should be the same price.

For instance:
Am entry: $45

Player's package: $10 ($20 retail value)
Lunch - 2 days : $10
Charity Fundraiser $3
Local Tour Fees $2
Park fees/ins. $5
Admin Fee $10
Trophies $5

If the "Advanced Baggers" find competing trophy-only not satisfying, then an "Advanced Sidebet Fund" could be established as easy as running an ace fund. ($10,$20, $50,$million, whatever)

The bottom line is that TD's should make some money off running amateur tournaments, but it should be done upfront. They may even end up making more money as players pay cash for plastic that they may not have if they'd won vouchers.

If players see a breakdown of what they're getting for their money they'll decide if it's worth it to them to play the event. If the event doesn't sell right, then the TD may have to repackage the event in the future.

Also, I do agree with Terry that, at the NT/Major level, pros should have to qualify in some manner.

I also agree with Hot Tub that looking at hard caps might be legit only to actually keep certain divisions viable. Right now recreational doesn't exist in actuality at most places, and Intermediate is a ghost town. Of course this gets back to the whole debate about "Why do we have a dozen divisions?"

Denny,

These same thoughts and questions were coming up 7 or 8 years ago and still nobody has shown it will work, except Maine where they do not have the deep history as other places.

Trophy only. Pfft! Show us it will work in an area with many events already happening. Come on! I say we just remove the word amateur and save it for school disc golf. Look at our demographics, it is mostly 30 somethings. Trophy only is not going to currently work. Especially here in MN, if there was an event promoted as trophy only and another event on the same day with the current format and similar amenities, where do you think most people will go?

I'm not a "prize *****" but I know that I would not travel very far for a trophy only event. I would create my own events.

I just want to see the TD's be allowed to take an upfront admin fee and required to disclose the entry fee breakdown. If they want to increase the fee to increase the "trophy fund" then that'd be their choice. The individual markets would determine which formats would work in a given area.

The key is that the TD's would have a choice, given that they would be able to pay themselves upfront. As it stands, either a TD recoups money for their time and expenses through am-payout plastic, sponsors the event themselves, or runs a non-sanctioned event.

Biscoe has run trophy only/discounted entry fee tourneys so he's someone who is qualified to speak about it's validity. John?

I know Rich and I jumped on it when it was offered at Loriella.

Now if there was a tourney where the lower divisions were playing for ca$h we might opt for that, but trophy only vs. someone paying out plastic we'll go trophy only every time. As someone else stated earlier or elsewhere we don't actually sell our plastic (we give it away or abandon it) simply because we're too lazy to EBAY it, but we know we could probably play for free all year if we did sell our plastic.

Hawk, you are the TD for Loriella? LOL...
I believe 4 of us are coming down for that..We are having TTrim also drive up from NC to meet us there... so that should be at least 7 open players.

Frizz,

No that would be Mr. Biscoe. I meant Rich and I signed up to play trophy only.

Denny, why didn't you just say that in the first place instead of using dysphemisms against prize payouts to make your point seem better?

Hawk, so you can show that it can be offered, but I replied to a statement that implied that the whole PDGA should change to trophy only, which would not work. Trophy only options are offered here too.

Personally, I would rather play for cash than plastic, but some people dictate that I am not worthy to play for money, just plastic and maybe not even that. I can see where these arguments stem, but I believe I should not be treated different than any pro or vice versa at an event. I believe we should all be paid out cash, plastic or nothing.

Ams should get plastic, but certainly not cash...If they got cash, there would only be one division....

...the whole PDGA should change to trophy only, which would not work.



Why not? Would all of the am's stop playing altogether? Not likely. Do they give the low Am at the Masters $10,000 worth of golf balls, tees, and cool driver head-covers? Nope, this person gets a green jacket (TROPHY ONLY) and a litte TV face time in the Butler Cabin.

That is why I say get rid of the word "amateur" so this type of argument can stop. I am not an "AM", amateur is for school competition.

JP, your example does not apply, We are not that big.

why could only one division pay cash? why couldn't EVERY divison pay cash? or at least the top 2.

say you have 4 divisons. maybe gold silver bronze and tin
gold - cash only. silver - cash or plastic voucher. bronze - plastic vouchers, nobody who has taken cash in silver can play this division. tin - plastic vouchers.

frizzak, paying out in plastic is like plastic coins. Pro and Am is just a word right now. In the future, the true Am's will be competing in school events and people like me in my age group will still be competing at small events for prizes.

I'd like, most of all, to see a set of requirements that have to be met before you can call yourself, or be recognized as, a "pro"; or if it's not called "pro," to enter into competition in the top PDGA division.

This seems like something we have backwards, we limit how low people can play, but don't give them a challenge to shoot for in order to play in upper divisions.

What if we reversed the player ratings system, somewhat, and said that if you are under a 975 rating then you may not play in the top division.

It seems to me that a lot of people would be highly motivated to get better, as opposed to now: Anyone can decide to be a "pro" and tell all their friends and acquaintances that they are a "pro" player.

why could only one division pay cash? why couldn't EVERY divison pay cash? or at least the top 2.

say you have 4 divisons. maybe gold silver bronze and tin
gold - cash only. silver - cash or plastic voucher. bronze - plastic vouchers, nobody who has taken cash in silver can play this division. tin - plastic vouchers.



Rich,

You're still trapped thinking in terms of the current lame set-up. There is no reason not to have everyone paid in ca$h. If everyone was man enough to play in one big field that is the way it should be, but as you and I have discussed the ratings seem to actually stand the test of time, and we can't hang with the Craig's of the world. To deal with Chuck's fear of everyone bailing once they didn't get paid you use the ratings to create divisions based on skills and therefore everyone competes for ca$h against players within five strokes of themselves on average. It really is that simple. I bet participation would go up in the lower divisions if they could bang for money instead of plastic. How many times do we hear the "am's" around here want to play for bread instead of plastic? Exactly.

i totally think that it should all be cash. but my example was just a step towards that goal.

JP, your example does not apply, We are not that big.



Oh, it applies baby. Take out golf and plug in any other sport, and it's all the same. Pros play for compensation and everyone else plays for the love of the game and competition. How many new footballs did the Florida Gators get for winning the NCAA national champnionship?

...plastic coins...



Not quite.

Exactly why the word "amateur" should be reserved for school sports.

I don't consider myself an AM or pro, they're just words, but I can't see myself or anybody else travelling too far for trophy only. Like I said, I would rather play for cash, but some people think that is wrong, whether you consider me "AM" or not.

...plastic coins...



Not quite.



68% (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=649427&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=7&fpart=1) of the voting public disagree with you JP.

Biscoe has run trophy only/discounted entry fee tourneys so he's someone who is qualified to speak about it's validity. John?


I ran a trophy only/alternate format PDGA C-tier last year. I eliminated all divisions below Advanced with permission from the PDGA and offered all Junior divisons. $25 bucks entry for ams which got them a mini, Star Tee-Rex and Dx Wraith which were the new hot discs at the time. "Golden Bone" trophies were given away to the top three advanced, top Adv lady, top junior.

All gender and age divisions were offered in the 'pro' divisons for $40 with 110% payout. Added cash came from the club.

I thought it was a decent deal to get a players pack that would cost $25 at the only retail shop in town (PIAS). Not to mention helping cover their share of the PDGA fees, insurance and port-a-john.

I also accomplished another goal that I had promised by running the 'world's shortest' awards ceremony!

I was very pleased with the turnout and many of the state's best ams came and played even though many drove 1-3 hours to get here.

The format will be similar this year.

...plastic coins...



Not quite.



68% (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=649427&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=7&fpart=1) of the voting public disagree with you JP.



You know how I roll. :cool:

I ran a trophy only/alternate format PDGA C-tier last year.



V-Dub! I was wondering when you were going to weigh in. That was alot of typing for someone with a broken right hand. :D

Was there any sanctioned tournys that same day near you for people to make a choice?

does it matter? whatever the format, people will come if that is the way things are. some may drop out, but more may come for the fairer divisional structure. you gotta give vw props for giving it a shot.

Sigh... It works in Maine (from what I understand). It worked here. It can work. It did work. That's been proven with my own eyes. You can't argue with fact. Don't give me no lines and keep your hypotheticals to yourself.

you gotta give vw props for giving it a shot.


In the house. Representing Deutschland.

I never noticed that Rocky Mount had RoMo in it!

Relax, don't act like I am against you.

I do applaude him for trying something new, but my point is that, I believe if we tryed it here in MN on the same weekend as another evenet with similar amenities that more people would gravitate towards the payout format over the tropy only format.

So, was there another tournament nearby for people to have to make a choice? If there was and you still had a good turnout than you ARE living proof that it can be done. If there was not another tourny nearby than you didn't prove anything, just that it can attract some people.

MN and MI are the exeptions not the rule. You must realize this.

There are no PDGAs run on the same weekend in the state of VA. I don't even think the great state of NC has any multi-tournament weekends.

Exactly.

And I'm glad the Trophy Only format works some places. Just because it works someplaces isn't a reason to rigidly require it to be the only format for everyone nationally. It's available and TDs are using it. That's the purpose of a flexible competition system with appropriate choices for the variety disc golf environments found in the country and the world.

There are approximately 148 tournaments on the 2007 Michigan schedule right now. :eek:

For the record I'm not a trophy only person like NK. I think a more reasonable system for all am divisons would be--no more than 50% of net purse should be paid out and no less than 50% should be put into players's packs.

Posters only argue black and white on this board. People don't seem to see a common ground between the current "prize *****/heavy payout" system and the "trophy-only" system. These are the extremes folks!

I personally disagree with both of these extreme systems.

I agree, but think the percentages of Player pack/payout should slide by division/rating.

Recreational would be 66/33 player pack to payout.
Intermediate would be 50/50 player pack to payout.
Advanced would be 40/60 player pack to payout.
Pro divisions would be 0/100 p;ayer pack to payout.

The interesting thing is that the same player pack could be used for all of the am divisions.

$20 player pack

Rec $20+$10 = $30 entry
Int $20+$20 = $40 entry
Adv $20+$30 = $50 entry

But that seems too familiar.

Denny, why didn't you just say that in the first place instead of using dysphemisms against prize payouts to make your point seem better?



Sorry for the delay, I had to find and dust off my dictionary to look up �dysphemism�. If anyone else is interested, it means �a substitution of a harsh, disparaging, or unpleasant expression for a more neutral one.�

It appears that the expression �plastic payout mania� is considered harsh. Would �positive plastic reinforcement therapy� be more pleasant?

Actually, now that I know the word I�ll be sure to use it the next time Hos uses the expression �polishing a turd� to describe the obligatory mediocre transitional hole.


I'm not a "prize *****" . . . I am not an "AM", amateur is for school competition . . . I don't consider myself an AM or pro, they're just words




How 'bout the words semi-pro, minor-leaguer, or wannabee?
;)

Seriously, though, I think TD's should be given more discretion in how they structure their payouts, but need to disclose everything upfront. Personally, I like lower entry fees and much flatter payouts for amateurs, but also believe that the tournament "marketplace" will adjust to give players what they want if TD's hands aren't tied.


I think a more reasonable system for all am divisons would be--no more than 50% of net purse should be paid out and no less than 50% should be put into players's packs.

If the PDGA's goals include maximizing participation at tournaments so as to maximize player fees,

we're having good success in drawing lower divisions with a player pack/payout/CTP/trophy cost ratio of about 45/45/5/5 on a $25 entry fee where the whole package would have a normal retail value of about $35. We make $1 to $3 per player on that formula depending on park use fees which is very close to the 10% recommended in the PDGA documents.