We all agree that the 940-990 rated players in the current system are getting hosed, the current divisional structure is broken for these players

The Expert AM Division is Disc Golf Cancer. It will be a slow painful disease that will ultimately kill the Open division.

If the Advanced division wasn�t enough of a road block for players to graduate into the Open division, Expert will be the ultimate dead end, that there will be no turning back from. Open divisions are already hurting at most events. Asking an Advanced Am player to pay twice the entry fee and move up to the Open division just to donate to the Super Pro�s is not a good practice. We must find a spot for these players. Expert AM is NOT the solution.

If the Expert AM division is created it will just move the rating level up to the players that begin to lose interest and leave the game. Right now it�s the 940-990 rated golfers that loses interest in donating and eventually leaves the game. If Expert AM is instituted the 960-1000 rated golfer will be the ones left out of the equation. Why would we install another division that won�t solve the problem just move it to another level of golfers?

Most of the players in this ratings range 940-990 play for cash at all their local mini events and non-sanctioned events. Sure it�s easier for them to jump into Pro divisions at their local mini�s because they can compete at their home tracks with other local pro�s. But when the tour rolls into town and there is going to be 10-15 1000+ rated golfers in town, why would they fork over $100+ just to get destroyed? They shouldn�t and they aren�t which is totally understood.

I am proposing that we take a good look at Semi-Pro division for these players. Semi-Pro would be a pro division, that would coincide with the Open division but Semi-Pro�s are only playing against other Semi-Pro�s. They will be put into the tournament structure with the Open players determined by score from round to round. At the end of the tourney they will be paid out accordingly to other Semi-Pro�s. Mixing the Semi-Pro�s in with the Open players lets these players interact with the better players, learn from the better players, and give these players a fair assessment of where they belong in the whole scheme of things in the Pro division, instead of just asking them to pay their $100+ dollars just to be eaten up by all the 1000+ rated wolves.

Semi-Pro players would be paying lower entry fees (about the same as Adv entry fees at the event). They wouldn�t be playing for the added cash, because that is the incentive to play in the Open division. When these Semi-Pro�s are in the tournament structure with Open players they can see how they would finish compared to the Open players. Once these Semi-Pro players see that they can compete with the Open players, they will be more likely to fork over the extra cash to play Open for the added cash.

Everyone that has had any goal to get better at disc golf has realized that playing with better players makes yourself better. Mixing these players in with the Open crowd makes stronger players, which makes stronger competition. The Expert AM division is not helping any of these players get better so they will still have that learning curve when and IF they ever decide to move up. They will back in the same situation of a year, two maybe never learning what it takes to be a good pro, while forking over $100+ entry fee to learn these lessons, and they will eventually fall to the waste side.

PLEASE speak up against Expert division because cancer is a VERY HORRIBLE thing and we don�t want to voluntarily inject the game we love with a cancer that will ultimately kill our game.

K_Mack, how do you really feel about the X-spurt AM division?

:mad:

Comparing any issue in Disc Golf to Cancer is sick.

Disc Golf is a freakin' game.
Cancer is a serious disease.

Save your hyperbole for the Cubs...

Edit: In case I seem a little too serious...I understand the point, but I feel very strongly about Cancer. I have a long list of friends and family who have suffered. Some who fought and won, others weren't so lucky. Disc Golf has nothing that is remotely comparable.

Agrees, bad comaprision.

Forgive me for being retarded, but I have a question.....let me see if I have this right. With this new Semi-Pro, there are 2 cash divisions: semi-pro and open. Open entry fees remain unchanged, Semi-Pro entry fees are roughly 2/3 of Open entry fees. Open competes against only open players for other open entry fees + added cash. Semi-pro competes against only semi-pro players for other semi-pro entry fees. But, for grouping purposes, they are carded according to score, and not by division. Do I have this correct Kevin?

Cancer is a VERY SERIOUS thing, everyone has been or knows someone with Cancer and yes it sucks like no other. I am not trying to be funny about this or cancer. Cancer has taken the lives of 4 of my relatives, and my favorite aunt is suffering from lung cancer as we speak.

I feel this strongly about Expert Am killing the Open division to make the comparison because ultimately another Am division will destroy the game we love.

forgive me if this has been thrashed thru before, but how does the TD get paid in this structure? (info request, not a challenge)

Semi-Pro's and Open players would be grouped according to score.

This would be very easy to institute. Different colored cards for Open and Semi pro's.

I've posted this before...

I'm 975 and live and play in NC. Cashing here, even for a 990 golfer is tough. At the 975 level, cashing to me is an honor.

I don't play for the money though. I play b/c I enjoy the tournament atmosphere and I enjoy getting and playing different courses. This is my main hobby - most of my disposable income goes towards this game. If I cash, I consider it a bonus. So much of a bonus, that this money usually goes towards my car payment or directly into a savings account rather than into my checking account.

The expert division is BULL!!!!!!!!!!! This coming from someone who everyone would think would be completly in support of it. A 975 golfer in a very tough region who when he does cash, is rarely enough to cover the expense of the weekend. If I were to play expert, I would probably be one of the favorites to win and doubt that I would have any trouble cashing if all players in that ratings range were to play the same division.

I believe it is simple. The problem is people are being forced to move up to quickly. An advanced golfer with a rating in the 940 area has a hot weekend in advanced and would have cashed in open. Now all these thoughts run through his head about how he can do this every weekend.

Then he accepts cash in a one day event with 37 players that pays over half the field and his rating, due to playing with open players and b/c he is better, is 956. Now he is pro for good. No looking back. He then heads to a supertour and get whipped. Heads to a local B tier and just struggling to stay off the last card.

Also, I think a lot of the problem is people have waaaaaaaay to high of expectations. Every tournament I go to I compete against Schweb, JJ, LL, Hofmann, C Lee just to name a few. With that type of field, I feel I can realistically beat one of them, but not all of them. Golfers get this fantasy that they will win. Don't get me wrong, I Want to win as much as everyone, however I don't set that as my goal. I would much rather play good and get 5th rather than play bad and win. If you set your goals based on your play and realize you have no control on what the rest of the field does then I feel your mental state will be much better.

These are the things that are driving these mid 960 970 players out of the game! Don't add a division, make them learn!

forgive me if this has been thrashed thru before, but how does the TD get paid in this structure? (info request, not a challenge)



This may be a sticking point with semi-pro.

This is a hypothetical situation

Open Entry Fee = $110
Semi-Pro = $60
Adv = $50

The Open entry fee is $110 which is really $100 into the purse the rest of the $10 pays for (PDGA dues, Series dues, etc.)

The Semi-Pro entry fee would be $60 which $50 would go into the purse the rest of the $10 pays for (PDGA dues, Series Dues, and a $5 per player goes into the TD) The TD should ALWAYS be able to take a cut from each player for his/her services.

Even if you had to add a $10 sur charge to Semi-Pro's to take care of tournament expenses, I still feel like they would choose to do so to play for a little gas money on the way home.

Cancer is a VERY SERIOUS thing, everyone has been or knows someone with Cancer and yes it sucks like no other. I am not trying to be funny about this or cancer. Cancer has taken the lives of 4 of my relatives.

I feel this strongly about Expert Am killing the Open division to make the comparison because ultimately another Am division will destroy the game we love.



Please. Disc Golf will continue on. No one will die or be forced to undergo serious treatments because of an Expert division.

Your over-exaggeration of the problem with this comparison has hurt the issue, IMO.

At bigger events, this sounds like it would turn a 990-1000 rated golfer from last cash to last place.

_Mtl_ ,

Semi-Pro offers you a chance to learn without losing all that money every single week...once they do learn it's easier for them to fork over the added cash to play in Open for the added cash.

OPEN will always be there. OPEN is just what it is, Open to anyone that wants to fork over the cash.

If you happen to fall in this 940-990 rated gap, wouldn't you like to see how you would fare at your home track against the top dogs like Avery, Feldberg, Climo, Schultz?

Would you pay $100+ to see how you would do?

If you were going to pay $60 for advanced wouldn't you just pay the same and play for the cash and see how you would really do against these #1 Stunners?

The 940-990 rated golfer already will pay $5-$40 to play pro at their local non-sanctioned events. Even though you would forfeit your AM status, I guarantee they would substitute playing for cash every weekend for 1 week at Am Worlds.

Everyone that has had any goal to get better at disc golf has realized that playing with better players makes yourself better. Mixing these players in with the Open crowd makes stronger players, which makes stronger competition. The Expert AM division is not helping any of these players get better so they will still have that learning curve when and IF they ever decide to move up. They will back in the same situation of a year, two maybe never learning what it takes to be a good pro, while forking over $100+ entry fee to learn these lessons, and they will eventually fall to the waste side.



This is a misleading argument for several reasons:

1) In the semi-Pro idea, 960-990 will almost always be playing along side similarly rated players for all but the first round. Same can be said about Expert except that it is for 4 rounds instead of 3.

2) Stepping up from Advanced to Expert, players will be playing with better players and therefore (by your reason) be getting better.

3) They are already playing the same courses at the same time and can therefore easily see where they stack up against the top rated players.

4) There is very little that can be learned by the 985 player who has been playing for 4 years from the 1010 player who has been playing 4 years. It is not the the 985 guy who has been playing 1-2 years that either Expert or Semi-Pro is targetting. I do not think this "learning from the Pros" dynamic you are pushing carries much weight.

The Semi-Pro concept removes the roadblock of paying higher dues with no realistic chance of recouping. It does not however remove the unacceptable roadblock of forcing a player to accept and turn Pro (by the PDGA's definition).

The Expert division addresses both of these roadblocks. In your arguments, you conveniently neglect to acknowledge that Expert players can accept merch or cash as their payout.

Bottom line, both ideas have merit and they are very similar to eachother both in purpose and in the tournament experience that the target players will have. Both address a very needed hole that is in the current competitive system. Both approach the problem by use of a hybrid solution.

Bottom line: If one is a cancer....so is the other.

I like this idea on first glance.

I have an idea that would solve the entire problem, but it is too obvious and would ruffle too many old feathers. Here it is anyway, use the rating system for everyone, not just am's. If I am not mistaken here doesn't everyone get a rating based on their performance? Then you should play in your rated division, and age has nothing to do with it.

That is right age has nothing to do with it, if you are a 43 year old 1010 rated player, why do you need shelter from a 1010 rated 33 year old player???? I am masters age and I can see that it is not the age but the performance that gives you your rating. if you are 970 and you are 51, you should be playing with 970 rated 27 year olds. I don't care about your morning routine or the number of pills you take to keep your day straight if you are rated at 1000 and over 40 you need to play with 1000 rated players because you earned your rating, right?

I have yet to hear a good explanation for having a rule that is the standard for the am's and means nearly nothing when it comes to pro's. If you have players that are in the 940 to 990 range that are over and under 40 than they should be competitive. Why does the player that is 41 with a 975 rating need shelter from a player that is 28 or 17 or what ever age that has the same 975 rating?? If there was a system and it worked than the 17 year old would be moved up to the 990 and up division as soon as he got to 990 and there is the shelter the 41 year old 975 payer is (or should be) looking for and deserves.

I agree with the basics of what Kevin is suggesting, I agree that we don't need to dilute the divisions, but we do need to solve the problem. I think the solution is so simple and it is right in from of us.The way it is going right now with the "no action, it is fine leave it alone" stance that is currently being taken is absolutely not right. If it is good for the goose then it must be good for the gander.

You confused me Brian, How are payouts handled if there is only one scale based on ratings and no Pros or Ams ?

You confuse me, Brian. If I'm still throwing at age 60 and my rating drops under 875, where do you have me throwing?

You see, most of us old guys aren't rated 975. Are you going to throw us in the rec division with the newbies just to satisfy your issue with the few exceptions?

Everyone that has had any goal to get better at disc golf has realized that playing with better players makes yourself better. Mixing these players in with the Open crowd makes stronger players, which makes stronger competition. The Expert AM division is not helping any of these players get better so they will still have that learning curve when and IF they ever decide to move up. They will back in the same situation of a year, two maybe never learning what it takes to be a good pro, while forking over $100+ entry fee to learn these lessons, and they will eventually fall to the waste side.



This is a misleading argument for several reasons:

1) In the semi-Pro idea, 960-990 will almost always be playing along side similarly rated players for all but the first round. Same can be said about Expert except that it is for 4 rounds instead of 3.<font color="red"> your not taking in account the players that are getting stronger and getting up into the mix of things </font>

2) Stepping up from Advanced to Expert, players will be playing with better players and therefore (by your reason) be getting better.
<font color="red">If you played with Schebby every day you would be alot better golfer than if you played with _MTL_ everyday...no offense Robert just making a point ;) </font>


3) They are already playing the same courses at the same time and can therefore easily see where they stack up against the top rated players. <font color="red"> You can't accurately determine how you would factor unless your in the same division (psuedo style) </font>

4) There is very little that can be learned by the 985 player who has been playing for 4 years from the 1010 player who has been playing 4 years. It is not the the 985 guy who has been playing 1-2 years that either Expert or Semi-Pro is targetting. I do not think this "learning from the Pros" dynamic you are pushing carries much weight.<font color="red">The 985 golfer is a good golfer just need to be polished...playing with the likes of McCree, JJ, Walt will polish your skills </font>

The Semi-Pro concept removes the roadblock of paying higher dues with no realistic chance of recouping. It does not however remove the unacceptable roadblock of forcing a player to accept and turn Pro (by the PDGA's definition).

The Expert division addresses both of these roadblocks. In your arguments, you conveniently neglect to acknowledge that Expert players can accept merch or cash as their payout.

Bottom line, both ideas have merit and they are very similar to eachother both in purpose and in the tournament experience that the target players will have. Both address a very needed hole that is in the current competitive system. Both approach the problem by use of a hybrid solution.

Bottom line: If one is a cancer....so is the other.

<font color="red"> </font>

I am not saying any idea is perfect, especially anything I am trying to put upon you guys, I just think that Expert just pushes the problem to another ratings gap, semi pro will always offer an alternative.

I am willing to hear every single reason why Semi-Pro won't work, cuz no invention or creation worked perfectly the first time through, so give me all of your criticisms

Ratings are somewhat bias.

I am only 1016, but when I go to a major my interest is a little higher than when I am having a good time with my friends at a C-Tier. I am more focused at Worlds or USDGC than The Big Show at Cedar Hills, not saying your event is bad, it's just more of having fun with my friends than being focused to the max. My rating puts me around 40-50 th highest rated player but when I'm at USDGC I'm a different player.

My rating will do nothing but go down at smaller events because ratings are based on what other people in the tournament are shooting according to their ratings.

I'm not sure that it is fair to say expert division is killing the open division. The expert division is just a logical continuation of a philosophy, and that philosophy has stunted the growth of very good players, which has resulted in the stagnation in open field growth.

The expert division is Chuck's latest attempt to bridge a gap that is wide and difficult to cross. Most don't even try to cross, and out of the ones that do, many won't make it and disappear forever.

In my view, the PDGA would be best served by studying this gap and analyzing why it exists, and honestly admitting that the gap is their own creation. I'd argue that the gap exists entirely due to economic forces created by the PDGA. I'll label them the backward pull and the headwind force. The backward pull is the easy (or significantly easier) returns tugging from behind on someone facing the leap through the gap. The headwind force is the probable brutal losses pushing on them from the front.

There is an extreme resistance to change either of these forces. Until we come to grips and confront both these forces, we will always be stuck.

Brian, a pure ratings based plan has no real inherent drawbacks in itself (except as alluded to, many older guys will quit playing), but unless the two forces I described are addressed, it is basically more of the same.

Kevin, what I like about your idea is that it comes from a healthy sporting mindset that wants to help people move forward, not encourage them to stagnate. It also addresses part of the headwind force I described. That makes it far superior to the expert option. However, it still leaves the existing backward forces in place.

So is the Expert Division definately going to happen? From the way Kevin is talking it sounds like its already a done deal.

I really don't understand how you think Expert will kill the Open division and semi-pro will make it prosper. Both will rob the Open division of players and entry fees. Your 980 rated pro who cashes big in semi-pro is never going to say "hey, I'm tired of all this easy money. I think I'll pay more to play Open and have no shot at cashing against the five 1020+ rated guys who are in this tourney."

I didn't think about that.....sandbagging in a cashing division.....wow.

I'm against both semi pro and expert.

All I have to say is look how badly Pro 2 failed - and that was a basically a combination of expert am and semi pro.

To make this work, it will take some compromise in the division in question.

1. If they played AM, they would be playing for 60% of their entry fee. Keep that concept and allow them to play for 60% cash or 100% plastic and retain AM status. In other words, you have to cash as a full Pro to loose Am status.

2. Treat it as a step up from Trophy Only (or trophy only with side bet). For every three in the Semi Pro division, one more virtual MPO is added (with full entry fee) for payout. The same as Trophy Only.

3. It works for all tiers of events.

This post may deserve its own thread, but it fits so well here.

I have a hard time understanding how adding a division is going to solve anything. To me it will just make it worse.

By adding another division...the numbers of participants will stay the same, but the divisions will be smaller.

If you are going to add a division, you must eliminate another to compensate for the lost.

For instance,although I know it would not be a popular concept, but if your going to add a division, why not remove the Masters division in the process. (Advanced Masters as well.) The players that would normally play in Masters could then fill in spots in OPEN or the �NEW� division.

If I had a voice, I would even go a step farther and say eliminate the term �PRO� and �AM� all together. Wipe the slate clean, start over from square one and base EVERYTHING on rating.

The division you play in is solely based on rating and Gender.

For example:

A-tier�s and higher:

Open = 980+
Expert = 940+
Advanced = 900+
Intermediate= 850+


Lower than A-tier events could have:

OPEN 950+
Advanced 900+
Intermediate 850+

Or even have an option to bring back the Masters Division for B and C-tier tournaments.


This would eliminates �sandbagging� because your division is based on your rating, even if it is until the new ratings come out.
It also would eliminate complaints that not enough or to much extra cash is given to the Masters Division Vs Open.
This system would also allow a 950 rated player a real chance at cashing at a-tier events.

However, I know this will never be the �way things work� because it would also mean that everyone would have to stop using the terms �PRO� and �AM�. This would also mean a re-structure on how a PRO-Worlds and AM-Worlds are perceived. They would not exist�Or for a better term, they would need to be heavily modified to embrace the new structure. I don�t think that would go over well.

I welcome comments good and bad.

We all agree that the 940-990 rated players in the current system are getting hosed, the current divisional structure is broken for these players

No, we don't. My rating is 942 and I'm quite content with things as they are. If there is an Expert division offered, I will try it out, so long as doing so will not jeopardize my Am status.

I really don't understand how you think Expert will kill the Open division and semi-pro will make it prosper. Both will rob the Open division of players and entry fees. Your 980 rated pro who cashes big in semi-pro is never going to say "hey, I'm tired of all this easy money. I think I'll pay more to play Open and have no shot at cashing against the five 1020+ rated guys who are in this tourney."



It's my belief that an Expert Am division will absolutely kill Pro participation below 980 rated players in 5 years. My opinion because I have no data to back it up except what I've seen in the Adv division since ratings really took hold. If you raise the "acceptable" max Am rating to 980ish, new players won't go Pro until they pass 1000.

That may be a good thing in the long run (10-15 years), but it will be painful in the short run (3-5 years).

Semi-Pro division has to be a hybrid AM/Pro division treated much the same as Trophy only with Am style payouts to generate added cash to the MPO division because that's where they are playing.


1) In the semi-Pro idea, 960-990 will almost always be playing along side similarly rated players for all but the first round. Same can be said about Expert except that it is for 4 rounds instead of 3.
<font color="blue">There are a lot of Pro Players in that range</font>

2) Stepping up from Advanced to Expert, players will be playing with better players and therefore (by your reason) be getting better.
<font color="blue">Expert players playing against expert players is not playing against better players, it is playing against peers.</font>

3) They are already playing the same courses at the same time and can therefore easily see where they stack up against the top rated players.
</font>There is a big difference in playing on the lead card protecting a 2 stroke lead to playing on a middle high card where players are trying to catch up</font>

4) There is very little that can be learned by the 985 player who has been playing for 4 years from the 1010 player who has been playing 4 years. It is not the the 985 guy who has been playing 1-2 years that either Expert or Semi-Pro is targetting. I do not think this "learning from the Pros" dynamic you are pushing carries much weight.
<font color="blue">Golf is a game of the mind more than a game of physical skill. Most players pick up the basics and if they practice, good physical form and shot control within 6 months. In order to get better, you have to learn how to play the game. When to take risks, how to turn it up a notch when the opportunity presents itself, when to play safe, these are the things players can learn from playing with better players.</font>




JMHO

I'm against both semi pro and expert.

All I have to say is look how badly Pro 2 failed - and that was a basically a combination of expert am and semi pro.



Just look at how poorly Pro2 was implemented.
Before many players and TDs realized it was an option, it was gone.

I hate to say it but there is also kind of a no mans land between rec and intermediate also that you pros never see. There are us hacks who can play good one round then act like we have never thrown a disc before. So we play too good for "True" rec but not good enough to be competive with the inter guys who dont want to go to advance. Maybe adding and breaking a division up a little more would help? I am also for some sort of mentoring program. Having better players take a lower player under their wing for a month or a clinics or something to help them improve to the next level. Maybe it could be even a referral sponsership of some sort to whoevers student improves the most wins something? But it does sound like another division could be added that way the gap between skill levels could even out more. :cool:

I feel your pain, Mutt, but prepare for shock waves. Suggesting another Am division here is like whispering in President Bush's ear that you are worried about your nephew in Iraq.

I really don't understand how you think Expert will kill the Open division and semi-pro will make it prosper. Both will rob the Open division of players and entry fees. Your 980 rated pro who cashes big in semi-pro is never going to say "hey, I'm tired of all this easy money. I think I'll pay more to play Open and have no shot at cashing against the five 1020+ rated guys who are in this tourney."



It's will rarely happen in Semi-Pro that with no added cash and half the entry fee that the winner in Semi-Pro would make more than last place cash in Open, so if someone wants the real money they play Open.

If Expert is going to cause the slow painful death of Open, maybe that's an argument for euthanasia! :D

I like this idea on first glance.

I have an idea that would solve the entire problem, but it is too obvious and would ruffle too many old feathers. Here it is anyway, use the rating system for everyone, not just am's. If I am not mistaken here doesn't everyone get a rating based on their performance? Then you should play in your rated division, and age has nothing to do with it.

That is right age has nothing to do with it, if you are a 43 year old 1010 rated player, why do you need shelter from a 1010 rated 33 year old player???? I am masters age and I can see that it is not the age but the performance that gives you your rating. if you are 970 and you are 51, you should be playing with 970 rated 27 year olds. I don't care about your morning routine or the number of pills you take to keep your day straight if you are rated at 1000 and over 40 you need to play with 1000 rated players because you earned your rating, right?

I have yet to hear a good explanation for having a rule that is the standard for the am's and means nearly nothing when it comes to pro's. If you have players that are in the 940 to 990 range that are over and under 40 than they should be competitive. Why does the player that is 41 with a 975 rating need shelter from a player that is 28 or 17 or what ever age that has the same 975 rating?? If there was a system and it worked than the 17 year old would be moved up to the 990 and up division as soon as he got to 990 and there is the shelter the 41 year old 975 payer is (or should be) looking for and deserves.

I agree with the basics of what Kevin is suggesting, I agree that we don't need to dilute the divisions, but we do need to solve the problem. I think the solution is so simple and it is right in from of us.The way it is going right now with the "no action, it is fine leave it alone" stance that is currently being taken is absolutely not right. If it is good for the goose then it must be good for the gander.



Hmmm...this sounds strangely familiar (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=OtherPDGATopics&amp;Number=649 433&amp;page=0&amp;view=collapsed&amp;sb=5&amp;o=186&amp;fpart=1) ...

If the Expert division is cancer, you better biopsy my next tournament and start the chemo! :D

I hate to say it but there is also kind of a no mans land between rec and intermediate also that you pros never see. There are us hacks who can play good one round then act like we have never thrown a disc before. So we play too good for "True" rec but not good enough to be competive with the inter guys who dont want to go to advance. Maybe adding and breaking a division up a little more would help? I am also for some sort of mentoring program. Having better players take a lower player under their wing for a month or a clinics or something to help them improve to the next level. Maybe it could be even a referral sponsership of some sort to whoevers student improves the most wins something? But it does sound like another division could be added that way the gap between skill levels could even out more. :cool:



Suzzette has a very good alternative to both that I would be in favor of before Expert AM. Re-Defining the ratings gaps.

A 915 rated golfer doesn't belong in Adv with all those BAGGERS oooooorrrrrr :D975 rated Adv guys, nor does a 955 has much a chance at most A-Tiers

If another division has to be added I would add it down the ranks and adjust the ratings accordingly.

*******side note*******EXPERT the name is a ridiculous. have you ever had to try and explain our CURRENT division structure to someone that doesn't know the game. Trying to explain what Masters means, and Masters sound higher than Pro. Expert? Why not call them Censee' or Wizards. Expert sounds so elitist.

So is the Expert Division definately going to happen? From the way Kevin is talking it sounds like its already a done deal.



Nope, but it's the time of year the PDGA starts making plans for 2008, and if you are passionate about something enough, you better throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. :D

If the numbers are substantial (greater than 10 semi pro players), I would think that the first place semi pro will always make more than the last place pro. Especially if the last place cash pro barely makes their entry fee back (if that), which is the norm around these parts.

As an example, if you have 20 people playing semi pro paying $30 (instead of the $60 pro entry), and your payout to first doesn't exceed $60 (again, the pro entry, or about what last cash makes), you are going to have some unhappy semi pro players. First place semi pro better exceed what the last cash pro makes.

It's will rarely happen in Semi-Pro that with no added cash and half the entry fee that the winner in Semi-Pro would make more than last place cash in Open, so if someone wants the real money they play Open.


Wouldn't the logic for that argument apply equally to Advanced versus Open?

You can look at Advanced versus Open right now to see if that logic is valid. :)

Oh, wait. Doesn't that logic apply equally for Pro Open versus Pro Masters right now, too? You can look at Pro Open versus Pro Masters right now to see if that logic is valid. Also, in the rare case now where the 1000+ rated Pro Master would've won more ca$h in Open with the same score, the Pro Masters continue to play Pro Master. MPM has a lower entry fee and a low lower risk of "not cashing", so it's a sound business decision for them to play MPM even if the top end payout is a little less.

I believe that will be same choice the semi-pros will make, based on looking at current info.

I'm against both semi pro and expert.

All I have to say is look how badly Pro 2 failed - and that was a basically a combination of expert am and semi pro.



Considering you were too concerned about "participation" based awards (Am points race and NC points race), no wonder you believe it failed. I played pro2 at 2 NC events where I was there to compete. I felt I was not good enough for the pro track, but was bored or uninterested in playing in the Advanced field.

I enjoyed it a lot. Good competition, better yet, there was the added factor of "Do I take plastic or cash" which made it all the more enjoyable. Sorta like your last am/first pro tournament, but you don't have to decide and pony up the cash beforehand.

I think Pro2 would have grown had there been a long enough transition to allow it to take hold.

Don't say it failed when you never tried it though, Robert.

I may have more Pro2 experience than just about anyone. 2 tournaments. OK, I'm tied with Dave gray for 2 Pro2 tournaments. I actually liked playing against him in Pro2... that in itself is odd...

I didn't say there were not a few holes, but consider this scenario.

At bigger events there could only be half as many Semi=Pro's than Open players. At 2-1 Open vs Semi-Pro...the Semi-Pro should never make more money than the Open player that cashes. Plus you couldn't keep an Open player out of the tourney who is willing to pay full price, if the tournament is full a Semi-Pro player may get booted out of the tournament if an Open player comes along. holes :(

I think we can come to a compromise, plus I never said anything about eliminating Adv, players could just stay in Adv if it doesn't fit their needs. ;

I think the only people that would have an problem with semi-pro over expert would be the TD's that want to move their merch. I am a 956 rated golfer that has a hard time justifying playing in the open division when I still have never won an advanced tournament because there are always at least a few 975+ rated golfers playing advanced because they don't believe they can compete with 8 to 15 1000+ rated golfers in the open division. I don't think any of them are worried about their AM status, their worried about just throwing their money away with no chance of recovering any of it. Most of the players we're talking about are normal guys that can't afford to just donate their money to a bunch of super pros, so they have no choice but to play advanced. I think all of us/them would much rather play for cash. Most of the players we're taling about have so much plastic they could open their own disc golf store.

It seems like a no brainer to me and most people I have talked to about it, that we "tweeners" would much rather have a semi-pro division where you get to get a taste of playing pro without the risk of losing miserably. And I do believe that alot of the 975+ players would be surprised at how well they actually compete against the big boys and decide to go for the big bucks in the real open division.

I'm against both semi pro and expert.

All I have to say is look how badly Pro 2 failed - and that was a basically a combination of expert am and semi pro.



Considering you were too concerned about "participation" based awards (Am points race and NC points race), no wonder you believe it failed.



Obviously they were not participation awards as I played 34 events that year and finished 4th in national points and EVERY NC series event and finished 2nd.

Here's a radical thought:

Have an Open division, and a Semi-Pro Division. The semi-pro would be open to only pros rated under 990, (or Chuck could pick a better number), or perhaps we don't need a rating ceiling or floor. The reason will become clear.

Here's the radical part. Get rid of the PRO Masters division. (The Advanced Masters would remain...no reason the Pro divisions need to precisely mirror the Am divisions) Most of the Masters players we are talking about will fill into this Semi-Pro Division anyway. We can keep it for Worlds, perhaps, but get rid of it otherwise. The better Masters players will Open for the larger reward. I think the GMs still need that age protection, so we keep that division (and older).

Sample entry fees:

$100 Open (all added cash goes here)
$50 Semi-Pro (no added cash and 85%-90% payback...the rest (10-15% surcharge) goes to Open added cash)
$40 Advanced Amateur

Players that wanted to could still play for cash.

No ratings ceiling for Advanced Amateur. People who want to play for plastic (although the bulk of it would be in players packs), can still do so. But this doesn't force an Am to play in a division with Pros.

Ams could test the waters in Semi-Pro, gain some experience, and it doesn't hurt their pocketbook as much.

If you want to force a 4th amateur level (above Advanced), you still can, or you can just redraw the current ratings breaks. Intermediate should probably go back up to at least 925 anyway.

Just brainstorming.

The reason Pro2 failed (and the reason the "renamed" Expert divsion will fail) is that you can't force Ams to play against pros. The idea of Pro2/SemiPro is solid, if you limit it to being a pro division, and get rid of the Masters division.

Chap

Why do we want to add a division when we have about 5 that need to go?

I didn't say anything about you saying anythign about eliminating Advanced. I said to look at MA1 versus MPO: lower entry fee and 1st gets more merch value than last place cash in Open despite the much flatter payout curve in am.

I'm not opposed to change, I'm just pointing out that we seem to have a whole lot of current data that shows that players will not choose to pay more for no chance to cash/merch (which is what you are hoping the semi-pros will eventually do by eventually moving to Open). I just don't see it happening.


The percevied problem is that there are not enough players playing in the MPO division.

The most common proposed solutions always seem to involve trying to figure out some way to force or coerce the ams to move up, move up, and move out of the MPO division. I just don't see any scheme being succenssful that counts on 950-960 rated ams moving up to Open and staying there.

If the perceived problem of not enough players in the MPO problem really is a problem, the solution is actually pretty obvious. There are a lot more legitimate MPO players with ratings of 970-1020 hanging around our tournaments than you will find in the am classes, Kevin. If you were to get all the 975+ rated pros into MPO I think you would probably be pretty happy with the size of the MPO field.

But somehow that never comes up in these "solutions".

There are plenty of pros out there. They are just splintered into a whole lot of divisions. If it's a problem, then let's try and fix it. If it's not problem, then it's not a problem and we should stop trying to scheme the ams into pro before they are ready, which has historically resulted in them quitting tourney play after a relatively short while.

WOW!

A positive endorsement from Chappy means it may be feasible.

MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE!!!

Texas A&amp;M???? is this a Chappy impersonator?

:D

Rhett is right! Get rid of Pro Masters and the problem, if there really is one, is solved.

I'm not really trying to get them into Open until they are ready...I understand a player may never graduate out of Semi-Pro. There are those players that make it to 960-980 and can't get much higher.

But having them playing within the Open division is the best chance of making these players perform better. Playing with higher skilled players makes you a more skilled player.

I know it may be more fun playing with Megan, but if you went out and practiced and played with Wisecup every day wouldn't you think that your game would improve? Maybe your that 980 golfer and over time playing with better players raises your rating 15 points....995 can compete in Open and that person would probably pay the extra $ to play for the extra $. It won't work for all but it will help many.

Semi-pro is dead in the water for the same reason as Pro 2. TDs cannot afford it. The open pros cannot afford it either. It guts the profit leader division and turns them into a non-profit division. Those profits pay for park use fees, insurance, added cash for the pros and everything else TDs pay for.

This is the only way semi-pro could possibly work: You grandfather in all the current pros, regardless of their rating. You then make a rule that current ams can't go semi-pro. You go pro when you cash in Open and semi-pro is a step down for pros with declining skills.

So long as TDs can decline to offer divisions, TDs who need their ams to pay their expenses will decline to offer a cash paid division that just lures more players out of the prize paid divisions.

Why not just jump to the ultimate solution now, instead of inching towards it in little steps?

There should be a division for each member of the PDGA, with specifications tailor-made for that player. Those specifications determine their dues and entry fees. Everybody wins in every event, is a World Champion every year, and takes home cash or plastic, whichever they want.

The answer to that question, of course, is that after you reach a certain level of complexity, you need to freeze the design or simplify it. In my opinion we reached that level of complexity about five years ago, and recent attempts at complication have been, like this one, unnecessary and unsettling.

I think I should be the world champion for the following division : 975 rated players in NC who have more than 5,000 posts.

*putting this next part in caps b/c this is seriously frustrating me*

WHY DO WE NEED ANOTHER FREAKING DIVISION. WE ALREADY HAVE 127897 WORLD CHAMPIONS EVERY YEAR.

This is just getting rediculous....

Disc golf is starting to get to the point where it is so afraid that we might run off what we currently have that we try to make up for it by creating a division where that person can feel special b/c instead of 40th of 50 advanced golfers, they got 3rd out of 7 advanced masters.

Most top players will tell you they are competing against the course not the field. It seems that we are now trying to get away from that. In my opinion, we should have 4 pro divisions.

1. Open
2. Senior - over 50
3. Women
4. Senior Women - over 50 women

All Am divisions should be based on ratings. Have something like...

> 800
> 850
> 900
> 925
> 950
> 975
< 976+

This will get rid of the 980 ams b/c they will have no one to compete against and will naturally move up to where they belong, open.

WOW!

A positive endorsement from Chappy means it may be feasible.

MAYBE MAYBE MAYBE!!!

Texas A&amp;M???? is this a Chappy impersonator?

:D



It's no imposter. Gig 'em Aggies! WHOOP! (TAMU Class of '90) (Beat the hell outta the Beale Street Bombers)

But I digress.

Don't know if it's feasible, and I have NO idea if it's what the masses want. But it's an idea.

Also, remember, I'm not adding any divisions, at least not net divisions. I would add semipro, and remove pro masters. Again, it's just an idea.

Bruce, I believe it's close to revenue neutral (but probably not quite) with the status quo. Semi-pro would only get 85-90% of entry fees back in cash. The rest would go to Open, or to pay expenses, or whatever, just like the difference beteween Am prizes at retail and Am Prizes cost.

Also, semipro would not exist at the Worlds. The status quo would exist there.

Chap

This is just getting rediculous....

Disc golf is starting to get to the point where it is so afraid that we might run off what we currently have that we try to make up for it by creating a division where that person can feel special b/c instead of 40th of 50 advanced golfers, they got 3rd out of 7 advanced masters.

Most top players will tell you they are competing against the course not the field. It seems that we are now trying to get away from that. In my opinion, we should have 4 pro divisions.

1. Open
2. Senior - over 50
3. Women
4. Senior Women - over 50 women

All Am divisions should be based on ratings. Have something like...

> 800
> 850
> 900
> 925
> 950
> 975
< 976+

This will get rid of the 980 ams b/c they will have no one to compete against and will naturally move up to where they belong, open.



The end is very near, people, because MtL just made a whole lotta sense.

It's my belief that an Expert Am division will absolutely kill Pro participation below 980 rated players in 5 years. My opinion because I have no data to back it up except what I've seen in the Adv division since ratings really took hold. If you raise the "acceptable" max Am rating to 980ish, new players won't go Pro until they pass 1000.



I disagree. Isn't the major point of Expert and/or Pro2 and/or Semi-Pro to address the "move up, move up, move out" problem?? There are a lot of 950-970 players I can name that did the PDGA thing for a couple of years and lost interest.....and then stopped playing PDGA events.

If there is an enticing place for those sort of guys to continue competing, they will.....and they will keep on improving. This in turn will produce many more 1000+ rated players.

I can easily see Semi-Pro or Expert taking a chunk out of MPO participation for 5 years (+/-), but then big dividends being paid by a much larger and more competitive MPO field thereafter.

If added cash is disproportionately added to MPO, that will keep many people interested in playing there - even if they are playing above their level, many will want a shot at the larger chunks of cash.

Ah screw it...let's just all play flip doubles at all the events :D

A 60% cash (with the 33% going to the MPO payout and 7% going to the TD) or 100% merch payout system answers just about all of those last few concerns.

The payout will be the same as an expert Am division. The TD does not lose money on them, and they are treated like trophy only as far as MPO payout is concerned.

I like MTLs post too. The general idea is good and has potential.

Clairification question. If you have played and cashed in PRO but your skills go downhill (for whatever reason) can you go back to AM status?

-MADMAX

The reason people get drawn out of the game in pro is b/c they dont cash.

Well I personally would never quit playing b/c I am not winning anything,but that's just me. I play for different reasons.

However, when I go to a C Tier and see anything but a 50% payout in all divisions, I get a little upset.

In my opinion heres what the payouts should be.....

C Tier - 50%
B Tier - 45%
A Tier - 45%
NT, Majors - 40%

It's a simple formula.

The higher the tier means the higher the entry, the higher amount of high rated players, the higher amounts of added cash.

If someone who probably will not cash or if they do cash will cash near the end of the winners wants to play in an NT or major, they need to accept the fact that there are golfers at the tournament doing this for a living. Therefore, the payout should reflect them.

If someone is very high rated attends a C Tier, they need to accept that this is lower scale end event and should not expect a large payout for thier probable win.

Paying out deeper in smaller events and smaller in bigger events to me is kinda like the great compromise.

Top players want top heavy prizes b/c it benefits them. Well where is going to benefit them the most? When entry fees, field sizes and added cash is higher.

Middle pros who struggle to cash want deep payouts b/c it benefits them. They have the option to pay a lesser entry fee, more than likely not play against the stiff competition, and increase thier chances of winning something.

sure. people do it all the time, even without amnesty. i think a couple of last years Am World Champions were former caching Pros.

note to all: regardless of any revisionist history you might read online, one only needs to read the minutes and the announcement of the amnesty to understand that the dues increase was in fact a, if not The, driver behind amnesty.

I think any discussion tonight at the Competition Committee meeting regarding Expert / Semi-pro will be shelved for a week while Dave completes work on a potentially more elegant solution to the contending ideas presented here that we brainstormed a month ago. It's fewer divisions and still allows women and older players to play together. I think even Hawk will like it. BTW, 'Thanks' to Rick Rothstein for several years of service on the Competition Committee as he passes the torch to Gary Duke and Discette who are new members this week.

Any thoughts about eliminating the Pro Master division should be tempered by the fact that its pretty much like increasing the Master age by 10 years instead of when it was raised by just 5 years and significantly reduced PDGA renewals and every older division for 3-4 years.

If there is an enticing place for those sort of guys to continue competing, they will.....and they will keep on improving. This in turn will produce many more 1000+ rated players.



If the ratings break is 990, the system will create a lot of high 980 golfers.


I can easily see Semi-Pro or Expert taking a chunk out of MPO participation for 5 years (+/-), but then big dividends being paid by a much larger and more competitive MPO field thereafter.



No it won't. Most of the guys that reach 990 will start to play a lot less and drop out as they are faced with beating 2/3s of higher rated players. It merely changes where the gap is at.

One might also consider the sheer excitement of expecting a six person field at many events, which will futher reduce their participation.

Semi-pro might potentially suffer the same fate, but it will create a more inclusive atmosphere where all players of that range eventually play together.

I think any discussion tonight at the Competition Committee meeting regarding Expert / Semi-pro will be shelved for a week while Dave completes work on a potentially more elegant solution to the contending ideas presented here that we brainstormed a month ago. It's fewer divisions and still allows women and older players to play together. I think even Hawk will like it. BTW, 'Thanks' to Rick Rothstein for several years of service on the Competition Committee as he passes the torch to Gary Duke and Discette who are new members this week.



Chuck, that's the first I've heard of it. Dave didn't mention anything about it this morning. Hopefully you're wrong...or at least Dave will reveal some of what you're talking about, instead of saving it for a week.


Any thoughts about eliminating the Pro Master division should be tempered by the fact that its pretty much like increasing the Master age by 10 years instead of when it was raised by just 5 years and significantly reduced PDGA renewals and every older division for 3-4 years.



On the pro side? That's sort of correct, except that it forced people back into the Open/Advanced divisions back then in 2000). With SemiPro, the current Masters division would simply be augmented by players of similar skill level. Which I think is something you'd want.

And I become masters eligible next year under the status quo, and I'm fine with the change.

Chap

getting rid of age divisions will make it very difficult for players in the future to make a living off the sport because as golfers pass their prime athleticism they may no longer be able to cash in one open field. then they need too find another job. hopefully golfers will be able to live off only golf in the future.

I am a 964 rated player who just startded playing pro this year.

I enjoy playing with the better rated players..it makes me play better.
if i wanted to play w/ am's i would still play advanced.
If you must add another div. it should be a SIMI-PRO div. We all ready have to many div.'s. :confused:

Looking at the list of topics for tonight, there's probably more than enough for two meetings so he decided to break it up this afternoon. The idea he's developing is worth it for us to wait for him to pull it together for a followup meeting.

If there is an enticing place for those sort of guys to continue competing, they will.....and they will keep on improving. This in turn will produce many more 1000+ rated players.



If the ratings break is 990, the system will create a lot of high 980 golfers.


I can easily see Semi-Pro or Expert taking a chunk out of MPO participation for 5 years (+/-), but then big dividends being paid by a much larger and more competitive MPO field thereafter.



No it won't. Most of the guys that reach 990 will start to play a lot less and drop out as they are faced with beating 2/3s of higher rated players. It merely changes where the gap is at.



You are probably right about that if there is a ratings cap on either Expert of Semi-Pro. Notice that I did not advocate a ratings cap.

Shortly after Kevin's introductory post on Semi-Pro, I challenged the need for a top end rating cutoff for Expert and Semi-Pro. IMO, there is no need. If added cash is there for MPO only, people will move over to chase that when they are ready. They will also move on to MPO to escape the stigma of playing JV.

Ok heres my soap box turn and i have missed a few pages so it may have been covered. I have heard complaints of why enter if I am not winning anything and just paying out. so how does this sound
>895 Rec
896-925 inter
926-950 adv
950+ adv/pro (maybe throw in masters) with cash or other payout option if you want to keep am status
Open (anyone who wants to pay)
If you win 2 tournaments or place 2nd 4 times in a year move up to the next division for one year from last placing. Oh and you could add doubles with one pro and one am playing together with the pro getting cash and am prizes or even mix it in the open for some tournaments if needed??

This is just getting rediculous....

Disc golf is starting to get to the point where it is so afraid that we might run off what we currently have that we try to make up for it by creating a division where that person can feel special b/c instead of 40th of 50 advanced golfers, they got 3rd out of 7 advanced masters.

Most top players will tell you they are competing against the course not the field. It seems that we are now trying to get away from that. In my opinion, we should have 4 pro divisions.

1. Open
2. Senior - over 50
3. Women
4. Senior Women - over 50 women

All Am divisions should be based on ratings. Have something like...

> 800
> 850
> 900
> 925
> 950
> 975
< 976+

This will get rid of the 980 ams b/c they will have no one to compete against and will naturally move up to where they belong, open.



The end is very near, people, because MtL just made a whole lotta sense.



Yep, I am actually on board with that. the 976+ part is genius I tell you, GENIUS!

Really, this does a whole lot for simplifying everything.

It's fewer divisions and still allows women and older players to play together. I think even Hawk will like it.



Golly Chuck I'm all tingly with anticipation. What's the over under that you boys slink back with a story about your great idea, that the evil competition committee shot down, but golly everyone we tried for you? Hmmm...

This is just getting rediculous....

Disc golf is starting to get to the point where it is so afraid that we might run off what we currently have that we try to make up for it by creating a division where that person can feel special b/c instead of 40th of 50 advanced golfers, they got 3rd out of 7 advanced masters.

Most top players will tell you they are competing against the course not the field. It seems that we are now trying to get away from that. In my opinion, we should have 4 pro divisions.

1. Open
2. Senior - over 50
3. Women
4. Senior Women - over 50 women

All Am divisions should be based on ratings. Have something like...

> 800
> 850
> 900
> 925
> 950
> 975
< 976+

This will get rid of the 980 ams b/c they will have no one to compete against and will naturally move up to where they belong, open.




Hey MTL shouldn't your >'s be <'s? If not I guess players under 800 aren't allowed to play. :D

All Am divisions should be based on ratings. Have something like...

> 800
> 850
> 900
> 925
> 950
> 975
< 976+

This will get rid of the 980 ams b/c they will have no one to compete against and will naturally move up to where they belong, open.



The end is very near, people, because MtL just made a whole lotta sense.



Yep, I am actually on board with that. the 976+ part is genius I tell you, GENIUS!

Really, this does a whole lot for simplifying everything.



Not sure if Rhett and Matt are serious or sarcastic, but this makes little sense to me. Let me rephrase what I am reading:

Have a division for everyone with a rating greater than 800
Have a division for everyone with a rating greater than 850
Have a division for everyone with a rating greater than 900
Have a division for everyone with a rating greater than 925
Have a division for everyone with a rating greater than 950
Have a division for everyone with a rating greater than 975
Have a division for everyone with a rating less than anything greater than 976.

Basically this is saying that everyone can play anywhere they want....except if your rating is lower than 801 - then you have no choice but to play in the last division listed.

:confused:

good catch. I had to look that one up. I forgot which number the alligator eats.

flip the > symbols around and it works for me. I understood what he meant. Dang, now we have to correct MTL's mathematical equations AND his rediculous spelling? (note I caught that he spelled ridiculous wrong)

Anyway, this makes sense to me. The only thing that is up for grabs is new players. But where were they before this anyway?

.....and what is up for grabs is players without ratings.
Or players who play so infrequently their ratings are wildly inaccurate.

On a related note, I find it ironic that MTL suggests a ratings based system with thin little 25 point ratings ranges since he is one of the most outspoken critics of ratings. He has claimed multiple times that ratings are wildly inaccurate.

what makes me laugh is this.

Ratings divisions based on 976+
What is MTL's rating?

On a related note, I find it ironic that MTL suggests a ratings based system with thin little 25 point ratings ranges since he is one of the most outspoken critics of ratings. He has claimed multiple times that ratings are wildly inaccurate.



Yes, but its the closest thing we have to a handicapping system at this point.

Also, ratings are MUCH more accurate as of late. If you go back a few years and see old tournaments is laughable some of the round ratings and how much different they are from now.

At the IOSeries we calculate ratings for non-members who play our tournaments and let them know what divisions they are not allowed to play. It is a very popular service with the members, and since we cannot restrict a member on where he can play, it also encourages non-members to join. :cool:

There really is not that much bagging going on anyway.

what makes me laugh is this.

Ratings divisions based on 976+
What is MTL's rating?



my rating is 975.

please take note that I would NOT be eledgeable for the ratings based divisons since I am a pro.

My proposal was all ratings based divisions be for ams.

Pros would have open and over 50.

All Am divisions should be based on ratings. Have something like...

> 800
> 850
> 900
> 925
> 950
> 975
< 976+

This will get rid of the 980 ams b/c they will have no one to compete against and will naturally move up to where they belong, open.



The end is very near, people, because MtL just made a whole lotta sense.



Yep, I am actually on board with that. the 976+ part is genius I tell you, GENIUS!

Really, this does a whole lot for simplifying everything.



Not sure if Rhett and Matt are serious or sarcastic, but this makes little sense to me. Let me rephrase what I am reading:

Have a division for everyone with a rating greater than 800
Have a division for everyone with a rating greater than 850
Have a division for everyone with a rating greater than 900
Have a division for everyone with a rating greater than 925
Have a division for everyone with a rating greater than 950
Have a division for everyone with a rating greater than 975
Have a division for everyone with a rating less than anything greater than 976.

Basically this is saying that everyone can play anywhere they want....except if your rating is lower than 801 - then you have no choice but to play in the last division listed.

:confused:




Wow you are going to feel really dumb when you figure this out! Ex: 850>800 means 850 is greater so >800 would mean players higher than 800 not lower. Wow the aligator's mouth "<" always opens to the bigger number. Its 1st grade stuff. :D

I actually felt very smart that day in first grade when I figured that out. :p I remember that day like it was yesterday....or maybe >12,000 days ago. :D Haven't felt nearly that smart since. :o

Forget about alligators mouths. Some alligators go for ducks and poodles. That's too confusing.

This is how you remember. Read the line from left to right like you always do. If you come to the greater side of the thing first it says "greater than" and if you come to the lesser side first it says "lesser than."

Bruce > Jon in every way but humility. See? Very easy to remember.

... I've got to admit : I agree with Kev on this one ...

.....and you're not the first Tulsa guy to do so.

In fact, Kevin has stated that he bases this proposal off talking to locals, so it is not surprising at all that you agree with him. :)

If the locals want to do it, they can do it. Why aren't they?

... I've got to admit : I agree with Kev on this one ...



Pigs must be flying :Dj/k

My personal belief would be for neither Expert or Semi-Pro. Semi-Pro was just a more appealing division for other Pro's and other players in that 940-990 range here in Oklahoma. Both Semi-Pro or Expert would directly affect my wallet negatively. As State Coordinator and one of only 2 Open players representing the competition committee I had to give a better alternative option that would be better for Okies and Open players. Whatever happens will be for the best I believe.

It's all politics!!!

:D;)

there are a lot of regions/states where the top players in the state are only 970-980 rated. these areas foster the 950 pro because they can compete and have a realistic shot at most regional events. however C and small B tiers are not taking disc golf to the next level. it is the big tournaments where these 950 players feel as if they can't compete in Open, yet they do not feel right playing Advanced.

as entry fees for big tournaments continue to increase, we do need something to attract these players to these big events. even if it not about the money, the average player is not going to take off day(s) from work, travel half a day or more, pay for all that travel expense to have a 2% chance of cashing in an A tier.

Especially now as more courses go in around the world, more tournaments will mean more choices- leading to these players choosing a 2 hr drive to play in a C tier where they will cash 50% of the time, and finish in the top 2 say 5% instead of traveling 7+ hrs to a A/NT level tournament where they will cash <5% of the time, and will never have a chance to compete for a top spot....leading to them only winning little more than their entry fee when they do manage to cash.

ok, I am still for a top level am, low level pro division mixed in together. Call it pro/am or whatever. You could put all the 950+ or whatever rated players in it competing together with payouts being lower that the open division. It would put players of the same level in together competing against each other. The only difference is the payouts depending on if your a pro or a am. Then you could realign the rest of the am divisions accordingly. I still think if you win 2 tournaments in one year you should be forced to move up for one years time from the date of the last win. This may also depend on the tier of tournament be it A,B or C. You could also add the masters division in with the pro/am division if needed. It would allow the top tier advance players to move up without going pro and playing against the lower tier pro players. This would also open up the lower tiers for players to develop without getting frustrated about always finishing in the middle of the pack and the lower level pros not having much of a chance to cash. Now that I have added my 2 cents can I get change? :)

Am wins:

OK, let's say you have a few am wins. It would limit your choices for future entry.

Win 3 2-day C Tiers or 5 1 day C-D tiers: you can no longer enter a C Tier as an Am. BUT you can enter B and above as an am. (there are a lot of 1 day C Tiers in the certain areas of the country, to treat them the same as a 2-day seems wrong, hence the separate rule.)

Win 3 B Tiers: Same deal, only no B or C tiers for a year.

Win an A Tier: you can keep playing A Tiers. This is the best competition offered, you should not be restricted from competing against top players.

It would get good players to move out of their comfort zone and elevate their game, which will be good for them and the sport.

I am not advocating forced upward movement, but if they want to keep competing locally, they would have to move up. There should always be an option to step up and play on the big stage. Players who win a lot locally should start seeking tougher competition.

I totally disagree with this.

Where you finish in the field is usually a representation of how the field played rather than how you played. IF you play like total crap and so does everyone else then you are more likely to win, even playing like crap.

that's why the numbers are high. maybe they need to be higher. I look at a Middlecamp era 04 situation, preventing that.

Maybe players who get ousted from divisions are allowed to enter higher divisions at the same price as Advanced. If they win money, the difference between the advanced and pro fee gets subtracted from the payout. So if they pay $45 to get into a Pro tournament with a $70 entry, and they win $135, they would actually win $110, to be fair to the other pros.

Getting into a "if you win X number of events you are forced up into any division" is administratively impossible....especially for TDs to know what anyone has done in their prior events.

Sure it would be a good formula but a headache for TD's and the PDGA

yeah, just expanding on others ideas, not really my own.

I understand it would be tough to keep track of it. Maybe something could be could be added into the entry form. Like a line with tournament wins for the calender year 2007. I know locally guys like you kev know whos doing what a little more, but trying to get them to move up might almost make then think you are singling them out. Keeping track of it during entry would be hard to do. Traveling guys would be harder to keep track of. I am just throwing ideas out too, not set guidelines. But I think mixing the top ams with the lower pros might be something worth trying? If the pdga could put a division rating in front of the number that might help. maybe something like AA-32146 then if they have a win for that year entered it would change to AA1-32146. That would be alot of work for them though. I dont know for sure though does anyone have suggestions, just trying to help solve the problem. Also it might only be a 1 year forced move up, that way if they dont do well they could move back down the next year.

The problem with a scheme like that is after you kick out the tiny minority of players that should move up, all you have left are players that 100% belong in the division and then somebody has to win so those guys get kicked out even though they are in the right division.

I don't really care how many wins an 850 rated Am gets in the Rec division, it won't magically make him better or even competitive in the Intermediate division.

This all always comes back to trying to force ams to play pro because fewer people are willing to play MPO for whatever reasons. I think we should focus on why people don't want to play MPO instead of trying to force people to not play Am. I truly believe that if you force people to not play am, the vast majority will continue to not play pro and we'll lose PDGA members withoug doing a damm thing for the size of the MPO division.

If any of you guys ever want to try and make some plans to reduce the MPO entry fees, then I think you might be on to something.

i agree with you rhett, but not with the "it won't magically make him better or even competitive in the Intermediate division" part. learning to play and learning to win are two different things. getting a few (or more) wins in competitive fields will certainly pay dividends one step up. learning to win only matters if thats what you're seeking, but for those who are, a division structure is indespensable.

Ok so dont force anyone to move anywhere. How do we keep a constant middle of the pack player intrested in playing in tournaments when he feels like he is just shelling out money each time? I guess it is a revolving door with players dropping out and new players coming in. But would it be better if we got both playing? The results would be bigger turn outs which would result in better payouts? So how do we accomplish this?

maybe flexibility in rating lines is part of the answer. i'll give you a personal example. i'm 50 this year, 943 rated, playing 10 years. my rating has consistantly risen, but i have no expectations of breaking 1000 or anything like that. i like to win, but i like to learn. i like MM1 when i want to be in contention and get my competitive yayas out. i've got plenty of wins in MM1, i dont need more. i like MPM when i want to gamble on over-achieving for a weekend. i know i cannot be truly competitive against a 985 rated field, let alone the 1000 and 1020 masters that cruise through here for the bigger events. i dont play those events to win, but to particiate in a higher level of play. if i am still getting that reward by the third round i am doing well. i like Open for local weeklies - it only costs $11 and i can cash somewhat regularly and win when the stars align and my biorhythms peak in unison.

ok... four strokes is a lot to give up. if my only choice is to be at 943 in a field from 940-980, i may or may not play. but if the events in my area vary such that i am not always in the same place relative to my division, i'm gonna be a lot more interested for a lot longer.

winning all the time is boring. at least at anything but open. so is losing, especially is you are getting crunched. flexible rating lines woudl do what division hopping does now - and provide all players with different and valuable experiences.

... I've got to admit : I agree with Kev on this one ...

So do I.

Started reading this and just couldn't finish. The idea of more divisions is plainly ludicrous IMO - and has nothing to do with competition, and everything to do with financing the organization.
KMacks idea sounds strangely familiar to me also - as I have been suggesting an entry fee structure based on ratings for about 2 years now. The only difference is that I wouldn't separate the players into extra divisions.

I can sympathize with those up and comers who don't want to shell out $100 entry fees - but have little sympathy for that notion if they actually want to COMPETE in events that cost that much. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the number of $100 events far outweighed by less costly events? Lower tier tournaments are not only widely available, but cater to a wider skill range, and a more local crowd purely because of the cost. If the TD in your area wants to charge $100+ entry fees, either the demand for that level of competition has been deemed desirable by that TD/club/course, or they are trying to create that demand. No one is being forced to play!! If you don't want to pay to play - DON'T!!! It's not that hard. But why we have to cater to increasingly smaller groups within our already minimal group of players - is beyond me. Makes no sense - and I agree with Kmack - adding yet another division between the Advanced and Open divisions will be the death of the Open division.
You guys want to call cancer to strong a word? I think it's right on target. Our divisional structure is a malignant growth on the whole concept of competitive play. Until you cut it out and kill it - healthy competition hasn't got a chance.

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I don't want to do away with divisional ratings breaks. When a Rec player gets an 875 or greater rating, then he moves to the Int division.

I am 100% opposed to the "win x-number of tournaments and move up" proposal. Like I said, so what if an 850 rated player wins 10 tournaments in Rec? He's playing where he should.

I would like to point out that at least around it takes more than 875 rated play to win Rec, so I don't think it's currently possible to win 10 Rec division tournaments and not be moved up due to rating. If you kick people out just for winning, then it could be.

As for Craig's comment about "no one is forced to pay $100 to play": Hey, you are correct! The way so many people complain on here about how critical it is to kick am players out of Advanced and get them donating to the MPO field, it sounds like plenty of people are choosing to not pay to play MPO right now.

So why is this such a problem? :confused:

Getting into a "if you win X number of events you are forced up into any division" is administratively impossible....especially for TDs to know what anyone has done in their prior events.

Sure it would be a good formula but a headache for TD's and the PDGA



this is definently not impossible because the majority of youth wrestling associations across the country do this. You are definently right about it being somewhat of a headache to enforce, and breaking this rule happens often. HOWEVER, while the rule may get broken, it will still force MANY players up from division to division. The ones that break the rule will eventually get caught/turned in by another player and forced up. i think it is a definently something to consider.

the only way i can see it working is if the PDGA had software TD's were *required* to use for entrant registration and scoring. the software would flag and disallow any player from playing in a category they didn't qualify for. maybe a few years away -- but given the exponential advance of using wireless technology it can't be far off...