to James:

You said, "A local club makes their own decisions, using their own processes."

Local clubs don't exactly "decide" to run NT's -- they are coerced. The PDGA has to bribe them to get them to do it. This year the bribe is $1250 plus assorted perks. The club must agree to exclude 3/4 of the membership, add $4000 to the total purse, and adhere to the "triple-shares-to-Open" protocol. No club would do this without the bribe.

Next year the NT Committee wants clubs to exclude 7/8 of the membership and add $8000 to the purse. How big must the bribe be to get a club to do that? The Committee doesn't say. Either it does not know or it does not want to tell us.

The NT Committee does say that the Board will decide. Given recent history, it is far more likely that the Committee will just post the number and the Board will rubber stamp it after the fact.

PS to Craig: MPM players make up about 1/16 of the membership. Even if we all agreed with you that half of them should be forced to play Open, that would be an extra 1/32. There isn't much difference between 1/8 and 5/32. Your contention that some amateurs should be forced to play Open is one good illustration why the PDGA should split into separate administrative (and financial) units for amateur and professional players.

"Your contention that some amateurs should be forced to play Open is one good illustration why the PDGA should split into separate administrative (and financial) units for amateur and professional players. "

ya know, on this i am in complete agreement with you, Peter. three units would be awesome - GOTS, Pros, Ams.


"Local clubs don't exactly "decide" to run NT's -- they are coerced. The PDGA has to bribe them to get them to do it. This year the bribe is $1250 plus assorted perks. The club must agree to exclude 3/4 of the membership, add $4000 to the total purse, and adhere to the "triple-shares-to-Open" protocol. No club would do this without the bribe."

this is a horribly blanket statement and, like much hyperbole, is not true. The Vibram came to the PDGA and asked to be an NT. remember, we almost said no? i am expecting that as we elevate the stature - and expectations - the NT, we will have a number of producers step up.

you seem to be the only one so upset about the ProDGA's National Tour spending money on Pro players (who are all Members). that seems odd.

PS to Craig: MPM players make up about 1/16 of the membership. Even if we all agreed with you that half of them should be forced to play Open, that would be an extra 1/32. There isn't much difference between 1/8 and 5/32. Your contention that some amateurs should be forced to play Open is one good illustration why the PDGA should split into separate administrative (and financial) units for amateur and professional players.



Yup - us and them - a wonderful approach to overall development - divide divide divide. Why is this always the first choice of people in protected divisions? "You can't force me to do something", "I should have total choice", "If you say I have to play against that guy, I'm gonna take my frisbee and go home".

Why is it so hard to grasp the concept that the top 1/8 of the membership is just that. Why do we need so many first place finishers? Why can't protected players come to grips that it should be difficult to win in a contest of skill? Why isn't it OK to be 3rd or 8th, or 15th out of 90 players instead of 1st or 2nd out of 15?

I don't buy into your characterization. Every club member, even the 7/8s you speak of, knows the terms: "we raise money, they add some and it goes to open players." I don't see coercion. I don't see bribery. I just see straightforward terms of the deal.

If it indeed was coercion, or bribery, we presumably would be seeing many clubs rushing to host NTs. We haven't under the old terms and we won't under the new terms.

Given the status quo - that allows players that by all accounts should be playing in the open division (and by that I mean more than 1/2 of the MPM division, and every MA1 player rated over about 930) to enjoy a protected status - and to continually reap rewards inequitably in relation to MPO players who shoot the exact same scores (week in and week out)



Craig,

I usually agree with you but this time not so much.

I am a great example. Over the past 5 years my player rating has gone from 979 to 952. During those same 5 years I have only cashed 29% of the time when I play Open. It isn't much fun competing when you know it is very unlikely (71% unlikely) that you are going to cash. However, during that same time period in the Masters division I have cashed 69% of the time.

If I were forced to play in a division that I had very little chance to be competitive I would very likely no longer be playing sanctioned events. Which would very likely mean that I would not: run multiple PDGA events every year, supply drinking water for more events than I run every year, work on courses, participate in Park & Rec meetings, volunteer to be on the PDGA BOD, volunteer to be the NC State Coordinator, etc.

Kirk

i'm sure this has been said but in response to Shive...

short version - 'Its the PROfessional Disc Golf Association'

a little more - I'm an 'am' in the 'pro' dga ... i'm fine with that. I actually like supported 'the greater good' and would be fine if almost all of my money went to the pro side. I get a magazine, a card, 'discounts' at events, msg board, am worlds and other events... i'm cool with that. Go join another professional organization and complain that enough of your money isn't going to amateurs ... silly isn't it?

down with protected divisions!... up with skill based divisions!

Don't fall into the bad math trap Kirk. If you take a single player and insert them into the current (usually tiny) MPO division - of course the chances of cashing are diminished.

But consider the implication of a division that was more all inclusive, and your percentages change dramatically. This is why "total player choice" and a plethera of divisions is so detrimental - establishing a myriad of niches neither promotes growth, nor real competition.

If I were forced to play in a division that I had very little chance to be competitive I would very likely no longer be playing sanctioned events. Which would very likely mean that I would not: run multiple PDGA events every year, supply drinking water for more events than I run every year, work on courses, participate in Park & Rec meetings, volunteer to be on the PDGA BOD, volunteer to be the NC State Coordinator, etc.




This is EXACTLY what I've been doing for the past four years!

However, if I could pay half the standard entry fee because of my low rating such as the format Craig has in place for the upcoming Seneca Soiree, I'd likely play in a sanctioned event every single weekend.

And I certainly wouldn't cry foul about 10-12 NT events each year excluding age-protected divisions or amateurs when there are literally hundreds of SuperTour and other events each year which offer those divisions.

The club must agree to exclude 3/4 of the membership

Next year the NT Committee wants clubs to exclude 7/8 of the membership


These are just patently false, misleading statements. NO member is or will be "excluded" from NT events under the current or proposed systems. I am a 886-rated player (and will be a masters-aged 900-ish rated player come 1/1/2009) & played my first NT this year, in the MPO division. I was neither statutorily excluded nor psychologically dissuaded from entering, despite the lack of amateur divisions (or, in the case of the event I played, the lack of a masters division).

BTW - I also LOVED it & intend on entering at least one NT event in the MPO division again in 2009! :D

Craig,

You are correct about making the divisions larger and increasing my chances of cashing. However, the reality is that in events where my only choice was to play Open my cashing percentage drops to almost zero.

I do agree with you that there are a fairly large percentage of players that compete in Masters that could or would cash in Open. I actually like the idea of playing in a division based on your player rating not by age.

There is another side to playing in Masters that is way better than playing in Open. Most of the Masters players (at least here in NC) are more fun to hang out with than the young, attitude challenged Open players.

Kirk

Peter, I think your concern may be misplaced here. This doesn't look like more PDGA resources but potentially less being applied to the NT since no support amount is indicated yet. Is the marshal program also still funded or will money from that either be saved or go for NT cash support? I'm assuming the new Board will have to address that for the upcoming budget Summit.

There's no way $1250 is a bribe for clubs to run an NT when they are expected to find $8000 in added cash. If anything, this will either kill the NT because not enough clubs can either find or are willing to raise $8K in sponsorship, or perhaps show that clubs and sponsors are still willing to underwrite Open play even with insufficient spectatorship and return on their investment. Either way, I don't see how this will negatively affect non-Open members and in fact puts Open on the hotseat to demonstrate financial viability.

I don't see how this will negatively affect non-Open members


OK, I agree with this.


in fact puts Open on the hotseat to demonstrate financial viability.


I kind of understand what you mean, but can you clarify a bit please?

It seems to me that only the host club stands to lose money. The Pro players must show up, sponsors pay their entry fee, players either win money or don't. What do they stand to lose? Perhaps an NT stop in 2010?

Who is REALLY going to benefit/suffer from potential insufficient funding?

And seriously, what's with Pro Player Packs? That's just money not going into the purse.

in fact puts Open on the hotseat to demonstrate financial viability.


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


I kind of understand what you mean, but can you clarify a bit please?



If clubs either can't raise the money nor wish to do so to the tune of $8K then the proposed NT model isn't viable. I'm not sure we can tell either way what will happen. But it's my understanding that even the big payout Vibram event had few non-player spectators and there appeared to only be a few at Worlds. If anything, $4K of the $8K expected to be provided should be put towards efforts to get many more spectators at each NT event.

4K in beer = spectators, but it would be better putting it towards the purse.

btw, your self-created hurdle of spectators as a measure of success makes little sense, at least in the way I suspect you will use it, and have used it in the past. I do agree that these new terms will really test the viability of the NT concept, but please don't confuse the viability of the NT concept with the need to encourgae the best through our system policies. I suspect that if the NT fails, you will somehow use it to further the idea that the PDGA's role should be as a club/party organizer.

Disc golf is so upside down and backwards compared to normal sports. Yeah, let's pay people to be spectators. :confused:

Thank you, CK.
Have specific goals been laid out for the 2009 NT?
Your comment makes it sound like the amount of spectators might be one way to measure the success of the program AND also a be goal of the program.
Thanks.

Most people have interest in watching a sport cause they participated at some level at some point of life. I enjoy some baseball...played for a while. I enjoy watching football...played it for a while. Is there an expectation that our spectator base will consist of majority of non-players? Seems strange in a small sport. Butt [censored] it...I'll go on tour to bee a spectator if I can get paid. Is Bruce figuring this one out?:-)

in sports its not whether you win or lose, but how drunk you get

in disc golf its not whether you are the best or not. its whether you were able to find a division where your skills are close enough to the top that your feelings of entitlement are met.

in disc golf its not whether you are the best or not. its whether you were able to find a division where your skills are close enough to the top that your feelings of entitlement are met.



NICE!

http://www.tripledisc.com/preview/msdgc/postofthday.jpg

And on the message board it's all about having your feeling hurt. I'm [censored] offended!

The NT (and well, all the PDGA) needs 3 pro divisions

Open
Women
Over 50

Open should receive 60% of the added cash. Women and over 50 should recieve 20% each.

The logic behind eliminating most masters divisions is simple.

1. I've talked crap about people playing masters a lot and I remember one guy said that I should be careful b/c most of the masters could beat me. My response was "exactly my point"

2. If more people played in a division, more people cash. Some people like Kirk have a great chance of cashing with more people. The reason he doesn't cash in open is somewhat b/c there are more talented players playing, but mostly because the numbers are so small. It makes me sick when a tournament has 90 players and I miss cash in open yet would have won every other division. I get 9th out of 18, but also techinically get 9th out of 90.

Am divisions should be :

Mens
Open
<930
<890
<850
Womens
Open
<860
<800
<750

Junior divisions should remain the same.

I think the underlying problem when it comes to specators in disc golf is the fact that our game is very inclusive

why would I go watch a big tournament when I can just go play in it instead?

people go watch football, baseball, and golf among other things because its something they can't do, because they do not qualify to be on the field of play - most of them wish they could be out there playing instead of watching, but they can't, so they become specators (obviously not for everybody, but a large portion)

when disc golf grows enough to where our NTs and such are always full or capped in some way, then I would say you will see more specators - if there were a NT near me, I would go watch it if I was not able to play in it

its also when our top pros become superstar status that people want to go watch them play and get their autograph, etc. - its a simple cause and effect going in circles: fans and specators can't be created by regular people, but at the same time, regular people need fans and spectators to make them famous and to reach that superstar status

I think the underlying problem when it comes to specators in disc golf is the fact that our game is very inclusive

why would I go watch a big tournament when I can just go play in it instead?

people go watch football, baseball, and golf among other things because its something they can't do, because they do not qualify to be on the field of play - most of them wish they could be out there playing instead of watching, but they can't, so they become specators (obviously not for everybody, but a large portion)

when disc golf grows enough to where our NTs and such are always full or capped in some way, then I would say you will see more specators - if there were a NT near me, I would go watch it if I was not able to play in it

its also when our top pros become superstar status that people want to go watch them play and get their autograph, etc. - its a simple cause and effect going in circles: fans and specators can't be created by regular people, but at the same time, regular people need fans and spectators to make them famous and to reach that superstar status



I think you make some good points here, however, I know for a fact when I've showed people me throwing over 400 feet, they are amazed and know they couldnt do that.

but your not famous :P

Take a look at beach volleyball (and I suspect many of you did). That was a made for TV sport right out of the box and they also play it up more than needed to actually perform well. For example, it would seem the men and women in beach volleyball could dress more like disc golfers and show less skin, and likewise, disc golfers could play with as skimpy outfits as beach volleyball, at least on some courses. And they have cheerleaders in skimpy outfits also with music playing in between plays. Why not in disc golf?

Sports attract spectators either in person or on TV because they are interesting to watch and can be presented in a way that's visible and interesting for those watching. I suspect all of us have watched sports we had no interest in playing (BMX, boxing or baseball for me) and won't watch some we might like to play (soccer or water polo for me). So far, disc golf seems to be a great sport to play with little interest in watching. Unfortunately, the sports where watching is popular also bring in the bigger money and sponsorships that justifies paying the pros.

Chuck makes a good point, all female competitors should wear bathing suits while playing and disc golf will become instantly famous and ESPN will be begging to film our tournaments

First things first. We need to recruit more women players. So perhaps the guys going shirtless (well maybe not some of them :eek:) should happen first... :p

beach volleyball was not "made for TV...right out of the box". it may have been DISCOVERED by TV (or Jose Ceurvo, withoutwhose sponsorship the sport might not have really taken off), and then PACKAGED up better for TV, but it was "made" simply by playing v-ball on the beach.

beach volleyball is immensely watchable, and not because the chicks wear skimpy clothes. for me anyway, those clothes dont do much. female bvb players are in shape, but not the stereotypical "hotties" of the Car Show and WingStop variety.

DG barely works as an in-person spectator sport. maybe not enough to even try at this point. it would be better to learn how to create compelling TV and Video from our events. that might open some tv doors. lots of eyeballs in the trees wont do it.

[Ah yes! The "they should be playing there, therefore let's push them there or act like they're there" argument.







No Lyle - this is the argument that says don't use a flawed system as the basis for an argument. Bad math in, bad math out - simple as that.




It has nothing to do with math Craig, it has to do with what people want and where they want to play. I hate pornography and some of the pictures that get posted on this MB, I'm not stupid enough to think I can change male behavior. Those who don't like the system as it is think they are going to change the behavior of those who play this sport by forcing them to play where they don't want to. You have to give them a reason to change their behavior and no one has as of yet.

no one is suggesting that we do away with any protected divisions. we ARE sying we feel that for TOP COMPETITION, there is no need for any but the TOP DIVISIONS. therefore, if you really want to play in these several events, sign up in Open.

it would be better to learn how to create compelling TV and Video from our events. that might open some tv doors. lots of eyeballs in the trees wont do it.



Pat, Disc Golf Monthly is a program which airs in over 3 million homes in 5 states. I've produced many stories, some of which have captured the interest of segment producers at tv stations and a few independent vendors to small market tv stations.

I've created a story on couples that met up on the disc golf course
Couples who met up on the golf course (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipfc_zlCnKk)

I've also created a story on the Reading's
Jay n' Des (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3W-xNzqoY8)

I've also done a story about a young lady who ran a tournament called pawsome doubles, a tournament where the proceeds went to a local animal shelter, it's in the 2nd half of the segment
Pawsome Doubles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOMC_wm14ns)

I have a great many other segments which can be viewed in the 1st clip of each show that I upload on youtube. Youtube is a resourse that I use to be able to share Disc Golf Monthly with anyone who has access to the internet.
The heart of the show is that it is available in over 3 million homes in PA, DE, VA, MD, and NJ on Demand. I am always looking to expand the program to other markets/regions. I'm looking forward to sharing this program with television viewers in the great state of Texas, as well as the rest of the country.

I hope you enjoy the segments that I've listed the links for above,

Kevin McGorry
Producer/Director
Disc Golf Monthly

I've created a story on couples that met up on the disc golf course
Couples who met up on the golf course (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ipfc_zlCnKk)

I've also created a story on the Reading's
Jay n' Des (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3W-xNzqoY8)

I've also done a story about a young lady who ran a tournament called pawsome doubles, a tournament where the proceeds went to a local animal shelter, it's in the 2nd half of the segment
Pawsome Doubles (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOMC_wm14ns)




Fixed the links. Should work now.

One way to attract spectators is to turn most of the field into spectators with a cut to the final round. That may also bring out the hundreds of local golfers who don't compete.
If it is promoted with a start time Sunday afternoon and how much money is up for grabs, it just might work, again.

Lyle,

You say, "Now, in defense of the PDGA, they have a mandate. The membership was polled some years ago and the membership voted that the PDGA should grow the Pro aspect of the game."

Very good point. Personally, I believe that all groups should receive benefits from the PDGA that are roughy proportional to their contributions. But because of that mandate, as a Board member I voted for a 2008 budget in which over 90% of the direct costs for dedicated programs went to one-eighth of the membership.

But there has to be a limit, and that was mine. Ninety percent to one-eighth is plenty -- more than enough. At some point the PDGA needs to stop automatically increasing benefits to the one-eighth at the expense of the seven-eighths.

If the PDGA wants to "grow the Pro aspect of the game", and that means "generate big pro purses" it needs to market the Open players to major corporate sponsors, not soak the rest of the membership.

The PDGA has been unable to attract big money for Open pros from major corporations, so it now concentrates on marketing them to the rest of the PDGA membership instead. It concentrates so hard at this that its concern for the rest of the membership has become almost vestigial. It tends to think of amateurs primarily as financial contributors to Pros and as a potential gallery for big Open events. Its main concern with age-protected divisions is how to make the Masters play Open and how to shift purse money away from the age-protected divisions.

This kind of thinking minimalizes the seven-eighths and is not healthy for the "PDGA family".

Its main concern with age-protected divisions is how to make the Masters play Open and how to shift purse money away from the age-protected divisions.



Purse money which comes from added cash from sponsorship shouldn't go to age-protected divisions. By being a protected division, they waive their rights to this money - it's the price they pay for being a protected division.

If age-protected players in Masters or other divisions are talented enough to want to play for added cash, they should play Open.

Purse money which comes from added cash from sponsorship shouldn't go to age-protected divisions. By being a protected division, they waive their rights to this money - it's the price they pay for being a protected division.


Tell that to the guys playing on the PGA Champions Tour...

Purse money which comes from added cash from sponsorship shouldn't go to age-protected divisions. By being a protected division, they waive their rights to this money - it's the price they pay for being a protected division.


Tell that to the guys playing on the PGA Champions Tour...



when was the last time guys on the champions tour were playing a champions tour event on the same weekend and the same course as the pga tour? compare the champions tour purses to that of the pga as well.

yet another very poor analogy to a sport that doesn't have any problems attracting corporate sponsorships at all levels.

The Champions Tour also is for people over 50, not over 40 like Masters. Also, they have no cuts (100% payout) and are only 3 rounds.

STOP COMPARING US TO GOLF B/C WE ARE NOT GOLF.

All it leads to is frustration. That's what happens when a sport has a 500 year head start on you.

Without spectators, any sponsor money raised is just going to the event more as a contribution or general advertising, not because the top players are drawing eyeballs to watch. Make the case that the added cash should only go to Open when they are doing nothing more than any other player to generate the added money.

Of course, at NTs if only Open men and women are playing next year, there are no age divisions. I'm talking about all other events that include age divisions.

I still have not been notified that i've been placed on probation. As far as i'm concerned the guy on the list with a similar name isn't me.....the last name isn't even spelled correctly. Must not be me.

If that person is supposed to be me, would someone please let me know, and for what reasons?

Make the case that the added cash should only go to Open when they are doing nothing more than any other player to generate the added money.



when there are spectators, which group always has the biggest gallery? open players are competing at the highest level. they consistently make jaw dropping, spectator worthy shots. they distinquish the top level of our sport from average joe flip flop. saying they contribute "nothing more" is once again shortsighted.

Most spectators so far are just the players who attended the event and they've already been exposed to the sponsors' messages whether they're held hostage (delaying am prizes) to watch an Open Final or not.

But because of that mandate, as a Board member I voted for a 2008 budget in which over 90% of the direct costs for dedicated programs went to one-eighth of the membership.



this is a remarkably shortsighted statement. by this reasoning, Members who never go to the IDGC should be complaining about the part of their fees that go to that program. The US and International programs would need to be perfectly balanced. The amount of effort and money spent on youth programs would be limited to the percentage of youth players. your cries would be more substantial if you were equally vocal about the other inequities and disparities.

In addition to context, the statistic could also use some clarification. "90% of direct costs for dedicated programs" means exactly what?

James,

Look at the middle paragraph of my August 22 post. But don't take my word for it. Do your own accounting. Go to the 2008 detailed budget. Add up the budget items that support programs that are exclusively or primarily for Open players. Then do the same for Amateurs, and then for Age-protected Pros.

However you do this, the most important information will come from a comparison with a similar accounting from the 2009 detailed budget, which will come out later this year.

�I am about 30-40 years older than most of you and it will be decades before you will understand what great sport we have to offer, athletic-wise, when you get older.� (Shive)



For the record Peter, I (and I presume many others) are in total agreement with this statement. Where the differences lie with me however are the notions that <ul type="square"> age-protected divisions should be offered at a dozen or so NT events when they are offered at literally hundreds of other sanctioned events each year a proportionate amount of PDGA budget money should be spent on age-protected divisions and programs added cash from sponsorship at tournaments should go to age-protected divisions [/list]

James,

Look at the middle paragraph of my August 22 post. But don't take my word for it. Do your own accounting. Go to the 2008 detailed budget. Add up the budget items that support programs that are exclusively or primarily for Open players. Then do the same for Amateurs, and then for Age-protected Pros.

However you do this, the most important information will come from a comparison with a similar accounting from the 2009 detailed budget, which will come out later this year.



Well, I looked at the 2008 budget. It appears that about 10% of the PDGA's total income went to the PDGA tour. Out of that 10%, it is hard to classify accurately, but I'd estimate about 40% of the total went to pros only (including the age-protected). I included the following budget expenses:

marshall's program
NT events sponsorship
NT points awards
USDGC
Players Cup

And remember, some of these costs benefit age-protected pros. For example, some of the money sent to NT events, marshalling, USDGC, and Players Cup benefitted some older pros. Additionally, the costs of marshalling benefits all members in theory since they often serve more of a PDGA spokesperson role rather than a cop-to-the-pros role.

Anyways, small details aside, approximately 4% of the PDGA's budget went towards subsidizing pros, with something less towards subsidizing open players. Actually, the total subsidy would be less, since I had no way of deducting some of the tourney player's fees from the subsidized tourneys in my quick and dirty analysis.

If we are going to argue equity, we would also have to recognize that pros pay a lot more in dues, probably substantially enough to cover that 4%.

In sum, I see no glaring inequities here.

btw. I don't like to criticize budget matters, but 28K for marshalls? It's time to reconsider, imo.

the marshalls thing shopld be reviewed this year, if the new BoD continues in the same general path the current one began. Marshalls do help, and TDs like them, but we DO need to watch that budget. it has been proposed that Marshalls be hired from a local/regional pool. that would allow more marshalls to help more events, because the big dollars going for airplane rides could be used for the marshalls themselves.


�I am about 30-40 years older than most of you and it will be decades before you will understand what great sport we have to offer, athletic-wise, when you get older.� (Shive)


well, not to detract from the condescension or anything, but you do not need to be really old to understand that. besides, thats not the topic is it? the original issue was how much cash should be used tot und the Open division, and whether or not GMs are currently be treated in an equitable or fair manner.

Take a look at beach volleyball (and I suspect many of you did). That was a made for TV sport right out of the box and they also play it up more than needed to actually perform well. For example, it would seem the men and women in beach volleyball could dress more like disc golfers and show less skin, and likewise, disc golfers could play with as skimpy outfits as beach volleyball, at least on some courses. And they have cheerleaders in skimpy outfits also with music playing in between plays. Why not in disc golf?

Sports attract spectators either in person or on TV because they are interesting to watch and can be presented in a way that's visible and interesting for those watching. I suspect all of us have watched sports we had no interest in playing (BMX, boxing or baseball for me) and won't watch some we might like to play (soccer or water polo for me). So far, disc golf seems to be a great sport to play with little interest in watching. Unfortunately, the sports where watching is popular also bring in the bigger money and sponsorships that justifies paying the pros.



Chuck, if you're advocating that we wear skimpy outfits while playing, I gots to tell ya, that's a pretty ugly thought unless the people you're playing with are a lot better lookin' than the ones I play with.

People watch Beach Boobyball because it's sex for sale. If that's our vision for disc golf why not cut to the chase and just pay out in tickets to the local pickup joint?

And by the way, I did watch it, but I'm not dumb enough to think I was watching a sport. If I wanted that I switched over and watched the men's team, the real one, win gold over Brazil.

... but I'm not dumb enough to think I was watching a sport. If I wanted that I switched over and watched the men's team, the real one, win gold over Brazil.



That's pretty sexist.

What else do you expect from Lyle?

I honestly don't think I've ever read a post of his that is worth anything.

in disc golf its not whether you are the best or not. its whether you were able to find a division where your skills are close enough to the top that your feelings of entitlement are met.



Wow! you're right on here! I'm amazed! Why did it take you guys so long to get it?

Why in the world is it that when a lesser player doesn't want to pay a better player to play, that's entitlement, but when a better player feels the lesser player should pay for him to pay, that's... altruism?

The lack of understanding of basic human psychology here is amazing. The feeling that people want to go out of their way to throw their money at other players in an entertainment venue is amusing at best. That goes along with the notion that this is a professional organization. Psssst, the fact that the majority of our members are ams should tell you something. If nothing else, it should tell you that a) there's no viable amateur alternative, or b) people belong because of ego or an altruistic desire to help the sport, but in no way participate so they can donate to the top players.

Now, it may be that cosmologically, we should, for the greater benefit of mankind and the universe, step up and pay to play those top players, but I can tell you that in terms of evolution - I know, it doesn't exist in Kansas - animals, i.e. people, don't tend to do things that aren't in their best interests. You can try and force them, but unless you want to switch the Marshal program over to the SS program and break some legs, they won't continue to pay. They'll go back to playing leagues and find non-PDGA venues where they aren't forced to pay $100 for some Pro to take home a nice paycheck while they get that cool T-shirt (yes I know, those top winners are sooooo jealous of those below them!)

As has been said many times here, you can't force people to play where they don't want to, when you try, they quit.

Now, so far I've seen one viable alternative that would move non-Pro players into the Open bracket. And the "Pros" who post here shot it down. Chuck proposed it a couple of years ago. It was a floating scale based on rating. Lesser rated players pay a lower entry fee. This mitigates their risk to play up. Without something like this (and I know it ain't happenin') the notions that those who want entitlements should be forced to play up is a lark.

Now, all of you entitlement hogging slackers, get out there and donate your entertainment dollars to those Pro players before those Pro players have to come out and whip up on ya all... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

... but I'm not dumb enough to think I was watching a sport. If I wanted that I switched over and watched the men's team, the real one, win gold over Brazil.



That's pretty sexist.



Yawn!

P.S. I quite enjoyed the women's indoor team also, even without the cheerleaders and spandex swim gear.

What else do you expect from Lyle?

I honestly don't think I've ever read a post of his that is worth anything.



Awwwww, MTL hurt my feelin's.... /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

And by the way, I did watch it, but I'm not dumb enough to think I was watching a sport. If I wanted that I switched over and watched the men's team, the real one, win gold over Brazil.



Well, you'll get to see Misty May-Treanor in a real "sport" coming up soon - Dancing with the Stars. So far, the athletes have done well in this event.

Sometimes, you scare me, Chuck. ;)

Wow! you're right on here! I'm amazed! Why did it take you guys so long to get it?


we're not as evolved as you, lyle. and at least partly cuz i have to read and decipher your posts.

James,

In your accounting, you left out marketing expenses, the tour program, and the tour poster. The PDGA attitude is that only Open players should be marketed, so those expenses support special programs for Open players.

I show total costs for dedicated Open programs over $90,000, almost 10% of the PDGA budget. I only allocated $21,500 of the $28,000 Marshalls costs to the Open players. I did not include the considerable expenses for Staff members who help run events for Open players in the US, Japan and Europe. I also did not include media production expenses, which are mostly for Open players.

You also did not report the total expenses for programs that are exclusively or primarily for Amateurs, or the total for programs for Age-protected pros. When you do that, you will see the inequity.

Age-protected pros pay the same dues as Open pros.

Each amateur pays 2/3 as much as each Open player, but there are about six times as many of them. The Open pros pay less than 30% as much in dues as the Amateurs.

Wow! you're right on here! I'm amazed! Why did it take you guys so long to get it?


we're not as evolved as you, lyle. and at least partly cuz i have to read and decipher your posts.



Just doing my part to keep you entertained!

By the way Pat,

You're the business guy, it's called market forces, you know, supply and demand. It seems to me that there ain't a whole lot of demand for the "I want to spend $100 to play a tournament so the top guys can take home $1,000 to $3,000 format." On the other hand, there seems to be a rather large supply of said...

So Pat, what is your plan to get those who aren't interested in this "fair" pay to play model, you know, those preferring the whiner entitled model, to step up? My suggestion is beer, lots of beer.

So Pat, what is your plan to get those who aren't interested in this "fair" pay to play model, you know, those preferring the whiner entitled model, to step up? My suggestion is beer, lots of beer.



See threads on the Seneca Creek Soiree, and on the Sliding Scale Entry Fee.

Lyle you have an interesting take on all this considering your frequency of participation in sanctioned events (or lack thereof).

i like the Beer, Lots of Beer model :)

the thing is, we need multiple approaches. The Vibram didnt seem to have any troubles filling, at substantially more than $100. MSDGC didnt in the years before. and a big part of the field had almost no chance of cashing. this model DOES work.

at the same time, it doesnt work for every event. divisions based on tiers and ratings and genders and ages and anything else can make for a fun environment. and it generates event fees, which keeps us going.

so i am all for pitching a big tent. it is fantastic to see events like The Vibram use single division models. it is one step in one of the directions we need to go in.

So Pat, what is your plan to get those who aren't interested in this "fair" pay to play model, you know, those preferring the whiner entitled model, to step up? My suggestion is beer, lots of beer.



See threads on the Seneca Creek Soiree, and on the Sliding Scale Entry Fee.

Lyle you have an interesting take on all this considering your frequency of participation in sanctioned events (or lack thereof).



Darn Kids!

When they're older. Actually, my take is your take, I like the play up in Open model. I would want it to be cheaper but I don't even mind donating. But, the reality is that it doesn't work. It's been done and the guys forced to move up quit. There were cheaper ways to get the same entertainment. I might not mind it, but obviously others do.

i like the Beer, Lots of Beer model :)

the thing is, we need multiple approaches. The Vibram didnt seem to have any troubles filling, at substantially more than $100. MSDGC didnt in the years before. and a big part of the field had almost no chance of cashing. this model DOES work.

at the same time, it doesnt work for every event. divisions based on tiers and ratings and genders and ages and anything else can make for a fun environment. and it generates event fees, which keeps us going.

so i am all for pitching a big tent. it is fantastic to see events like The Vibram use single division models. it is one step in one of the directions we need to go in.



Yep!

Steve knows how to run an event. If the perceived entertainment is worth the entry fee, you have no problem. As you pointed out up above, having Steve play a role in structuring NTs is a good thing.

i like the Beer, Lots of Beer model :)

the thing is, we need multiple approaches. The Vibram didnt seem to have any troubles filling, at substantially more than $100. MSDGC didnt in the years before. and a big part of the field had almost no chance of cashing. this model DOES work.

at the same time, it doesnt work for every event. divisions based on tiers and ratings and genders and ages and anything else can make for a fun environment. and it generates event fees, which keeps us going.

so i am all for pitching a big tent. it is fantastic to see events like The Vibram use single division models. it is one step in one of the directions we need to go in.


Right on! The key is to make your event (not necessarily just the tournament) have overall value equal to (or greater than) the entry fee, <u>even for a non-ca$hing player</u>. Non necessarily 100% cash value (such as player's pack, lots of beer, camping, lunch, etc., though all of those things do contribute to overall event value), but other more subjective items of value, such as great course(s), great ancillary events (possibly with potential for increasing ca$h value), presence of top players, presence of lots of ladies (including grandmas), esprit de corps, video coverage (everybody likes to see himself on TV), and a million other little things that seem to gravitate to great TDs (of course, without them doing any work to make that so :D). A nice payout for the disc golf tournament facet of the event is also a value-add for greater players, but really should just be the gravy on the meat of a high-value event.

If the perceived overall event value meets or exceeds the entry fee, even if the latter is astronomical, the players will come.

BTW Pat,

What would be a good mix? That is, if you had absolute power and could tell each region how they were going to structure their events, do you think a structure, a mix of lots of divisions vs. narrower events could be built that would keep players interested and get them to play up in the narrow events?

Obviously I think you could, but I don't have a plan. I would be in support (because I think it might work) of a structure with protected divisions in early (say C tier type events) that progresses towards A tier type events where one has to play up as the year progresses.

if i had absolute power, i think i would set up the structure and ask for TDs/events to declare their interest in the format. no need to dictate it to anyone... just offer it, say "this is where we are steering the NT - if you like it and wanna play, contact us".

i would then let the market work. if we get 3-4 events to take it on, then we've got the makings of a top level NT. if not, then we're not quite ready yet. if we get 10-12 then i'd be thrilled, and optimistic about near term progress in the NT.

Chuck makes a good point, all female competitors should wear bathing suits while playing and disc golf will become instantly famous and ESPN will be begging to film our tournaments



Unless Misty May or Keri Walsh start playing DG, my vote is for the ladies to leave their shirts on :(

Chuck makes a good point, all female competitors should wear bathing suits while playing and disc golf will become instantly famous and ESPN will be begging to film our tournaments



Unless Misty May or Keri Walsh start playing DG, my vote is for the ladies to leave their shirts on :(


Dissing disc golf chicks. Now that's Super Class.

BTW - I'll take bikini-clad Korver, Reading, Tschiggfrie (sp?), King, Peavy, Weidle, DeMar, Ring, Brinster, Teves, and tons of the other beeyooteeful ladies of disc golf over May &amp; Walsh ANY day! :D

Even just having the bikini dancers grooving to rock music on the sidelines might draw a few more spectators and fill in the gaps in-between groups playing the Final hole like at Worlds. Unless the women players wanted to, I'm not sure it's wise to expose any more skin than necessary to handle the wilds of some disc golf courses.

if i had absolute power, i think i would set up the structure and ask for TDs/events ...

I'm so glad if you had absolute power you'd limit yourself to offering laissez faire solutions for disc golf. If I had absolute power, disc golf would be below my radar! :D

I feel for you when the Lolos see this post.

Chuck,

You say, "There's no way $1250 is a bribe for clubs to run an NT when they are expected to find $8000 in added cash." It's $4000 this year, but that's not the key point.

A bribe is "anything given or serving to persuade or induce". The bribe paid to persuade clubs to raise fat purses for Open players includes all the money the PDGA pays to run the NT program. The $1250 event subsidy is only a small part of the total bribe. All the other perks are also part of the inducement.

In 2008 it will cost the PDGA between $40,000 and $50,000 to support eight NT events. So the PDGA is paying an average of more than $5,000 to induce an event to raise $4,000 for Open players. We would all be better off if the PDGA just gave the bribe money straight to the Open players! I voted for golden eggs for Open players that cost more than they are worth. But I draw the line at this point.

The problem is that there's no limit. The PDGA can persuade clubs to provide any conceivable benefit to Open players, as long as it willing to pay a big enough bribe. Next year the PDGA is going to bribe clubs to raise $8000 for Open players. How big will the bribe have to be to get them to do that? The NT Committee hasn't told us yet. Hang on to your hats.

And this doesn't even include the costs for dedicated on-site support by PDGA Staff members. Nor does it include a full analysis of the other big Open-only events. I can't research the total bribes paid to run them because I've never seen any of their contracts. Even if I had I couldn't report to you because those contracts are considered confidential.

had there been an oversight director, he probably could have gotten those docs for you.

Peter, seems to me that we looked at the amount spent specifically on all pro members at the Summit and it was pretty close to the difference in their dues compared to ams. The Board didn't seem amenable to going beyond that amount and essentially put the challenge back on the NT Committee/group to find funding for what they were looking for. Not sure what has changed since that meeting but it didn't sound like handouts were on the way. If you feel the allocation of those amounts was biased toward Open players only, I can understand your concern. But if the money for NTs is mostly coming from the clubs/hosts, then it's their call if they wish to support the Open only format with the money raised.

He wouldn't be whining if he got $2000 from that pot for the 6 SGM players.

Peter,

Can you please fill us in on what your experiences are in trying to promote and deliver a high level tournament for your local club/course or town?






You missed an easy one here Peter.

I'm just curious about your efforts to host a large event at your home course, and what the other local players think about your push to spend more on protected division players. Are they asking you to help draw in more lower division players? More Women players? More Masters, GM, or SGM players? If that's the case, it seems different than here or any other areas that I've played in. In my experience, the majority of serious players want to see the OPEN players, the best of the best. Do whatever it takes to get the best players to come to our town, please. I don't know that I've ever heard anyone ask about John Kirkland, Jim Palmeri, Tom Monroe, or any of those other past Champions (even though they definately deserve the recognition). No, it seems like the majority of players want to see Barry, Kenny, Avery, Dave F., and the other top players. If that's the local vibe, why should the PDGA not realize where the priority lies?

Chuck,

You say, "if the money for NTs is mostly coming from the clubs/hosts, then it's their call if they wish to support the Open only format with the money raised."

I have no problem with any club running an Open-only event and raising $8000 or more for the players, if it were a free choice. My problem is that it is not a free choice. Clubs don't "wish" to do it. The PDGA has to pay them too much money to coerce them into doing it.

I will reiterate what I said before - you have slipped into a reality without legitimate foundation. You are occupying the twilight zone.

No club would choose to run an NT event for a paltry $1000 or $1500 bucks stipend from the PDGA. Your characterization of bribery is insulting to all the good folks who take on the selfless act of promoting the top end of our sport for basically nothing in return. Your accusations are unfounded and shameful.

Just since you're all kind of on topic here, I really don't want people to come to the Illinois Open confused about their expectations. At our A-tier next week almost all of the added cash is going to the Open Pro Division. For the gender and age protected divisions, we are not deducting anything for PDGA fees, park use fees, sanctioning, insurance, trophies. But we're not adding anything either. For every one of those players, we're deducting $4 from the pool of added cash to pay their PDGA fees.

This is not a hate-on-the-protected-divisions thing. We all love Barrett and Elliot and the other pro women and pro masters. We're raising the added cash through Innova's very generous CFR program through the efforts of a very small number of people, and they want to load it up on the best players so it will have a greater impact. It's not a lot of money; it's not subsidized by the PDGA. It's our money and this is what we decided to do with it. We're also spending added cash on subsidized lunches for everyone. The amateur player packs and prizes will be close to twice what we normally do.

I don't really care to defend that decision. I just want everyone to know so they can plan accordingly.

I recently had 2200 added for my tournament.

I put 1800 in open (20 players), 375 in masters (11 players) and 25 in women (1 player)

My philosphy was simple. My tournament and I'm the guy who pretty much collected all the money and I'm putting where I want it to be.

Didn't hear a single word from a single person about it. I was very surprised.

I have no problem with any club running an Open-only event and raising $8000 or more for the players, if it were a free choice. My problem is that it is not a free choice. Clubs don't "wish" to do it. The PDGA has to pay them too much money to coerce them into doing it.



Pretty much what Craig said. Since we don't know what kind of stipend the PDGA may provide, none of us can judge for sure. I get the impression that the $8K is what the NT Committee would like to see added per event. PDGA admin perhaps has a "let's see if any clubs will bite" stance now that it's a free choice bid process. I would think the total stipend amount available is fixed by the budget and will just get allocated equally among the events whose bids get accepted. I could see your concern if the total amount budgeted for the stipend allocated only to Open seems too much of the overall amount budgeted for pros.

My philosphy was simple. My tournament and I'm the guy who pretty much collected all the money and I'm putting where I want it to be.





...as it should be.

Craig and Chuck,

The $1250 is only a small part of the bribe. The bribe includes all of the perks, not just the event stipend. This year the PDGA is spending over $5000 per NT event, to get the clubs to raise $4000 added cash. A layout of $5000 per NT event is not paltry.

Next year the clubs have to raise $8000, so the bribe will have to be even higher. It is too much.

Craig, I have no problem with any TD or club doing whatever it wants, and I revere TD's and those who help run events. My problem is entirely with the NT Committee and the PDGA.

I know what the problem is here, the PDGA is bribing the wrong people! They need to bribe me! $10s and $20s, unmarked. At least if they did that, UPM would have a legitimate beef! :)

Bruce,

I applaud your announcement. Very few TD's supply this kind of information in advance. At many events nothing is known about the payout philosophy until the payout sheets are posted, and as a result many players can be disappointed. Candor like yours is particularly important for players who might travel a considerable distance to attend an important tournament. I wish that every TD would comment briefly about his/her payout philosophy in advance -- it would avoid much misunderstanding and hard feelings.

Nothing I have said recently on this thread applies to A-Tiers. As you note, A-Tiers are not supported by the PDGA and are thus under no compulsions. They are free to respond to their own natural inclinations, as you have, and there is nothing to defend.

Well, I know players don't really want to have to ask. I know I was shocked earlier this year when I played Pro Master where they were advertising a decent amount of added cash and the Pro Master division got 80% of their entry fees back. What we're doing will feel like 100% but it could be 110 or 120 by PDGA math where you account for the $4 fees and trophy.

Not everyone is applauding me announcing this. I appreciate your applause. Some pro masters think I'm trying to suppress their division or browbeat them into playing Open. I just don't want to spoil anyone's weekend if they are figuring, "Oh, pro masters are 10% of the field so we get 10% of the added cash."

Next year the clubs have to raise $8000, so the bribe will have to be even higher. It is too much.



That's part I'm not sure about. I'm not sure there's a linear connection. I figured the PDGA has no more than X amount total for stipends and each of the N events selected by bid will get X/N dollars. But maybe I'm wrong on that?

JohnRoc makes a point for me. I have advocated a Seniors only Worlds. Nobody cares about watching us, so let's just do it on our own. Personally, I don't want to go to a giant Pro/Am Worlds again. We are all lost in the shuffel. Masters and up could fill 3-4 courses over 3-5 days. Let the open players do it on their own. They don't care abut us, and why should they? Our "Frisbee Family is way to big now. It's just not the same anymore

2008 United States Masters Disc Golf Championships (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=856200&amp;an=0&amp;page=0#Post8 56200)
http://www.usmastersdiscgolf.com/

JohnRoc makes a point for me.

It's ROCK. The name came around long before the Roc came out (I didn't even like the Roc very much at first, but now....). :D

Other than the SoCal group (where I'm pretty sure there is a large number of long-time players that make up a big portion of the Masters Cup event), what areas in the country want to host the older crowd? Not that there's anything wrong with them, and for the most part they play stellar golf, but Disc Golfers want the Big Boys (the current top 10) to come to their town/event.

Neal Dambra should be talked to about a Masters Event here in Houston. He has expressed an interest. I should mention that TS sounds like it wiped him out this year but prior to that he was interested. Anyone who doesn't think they could put a good Masters event together in any state in the Union doesn't know enough about our demographics, or who runs our events and raises the money, on average.

John's not saying that people couldn't put on a good masters event, or that the event would not attract a lot of players, he's simply pointing out that not many people are interested in watching a master's event. No dissing to the top masters or grandmasters players because they are exceptional players, but there is no buzz following them like there is following the top open guys.

Go to a world's final nine and watch the crowds following the masters, grandmasters, or senior grandmasters, then compare that to the crowd following the open guys. That is the heart of this debate: the NT folks, as should the PDGA, want to showcase the sport's best. That's not inequity, it's smart policy.

Let's do it Houston!

If we only had spectators not just players watching the event. If you had an event where the top four Open players in the World were featured versus a Master and older event featuring the top four Master players, the spectator turnout among non-players would likely be the same.

Maybe for the first holes, then they would notice that the younger guys are more athletic and throw farther. Newbies will naturally gravitate that way. Bottom line is that the PDGA should try to highlight its best and that is the plan. A no-brainer one, imo.

spectators want to watch the best players. they wont care so much about the age, as long as they are watching the lowest scores. spectators are smart enough to know that the best scores are in Open.

masters galleries are made possible by the incredible success of the Open division - in any sport. until we have that incredible success most masters divisions are not gonna attract sufficient attention to make it worthwhile to promote

Bruce,

The Pro Masters (and the "over 50's") may not applaud your doing it, but they must applaud your announcing it beforehand. It is always preferable when you can make an informed choice. This way no one will have unwarranted expectations.

You have always been absolutely up-front about your "TD philosophies", in this and in many other ways. I have great admiration for your style as a TD. I might wish some of the philosophies were different, but you are still one of my favorite TD's.

Bruce, this Pro Master applauds both your announcing it, and what you are doing. if we (Pro Masters) want to play for the gold ring, we will play in the gold ring division.

Johnrock,

Clubs put on NT and other events for Open players because the PDGA lays out close to $100,000 to support them. Clubs don't put on Masters-type events because, except for the Masters Cup, the PDGA lays out $0.00 to support them.

With a little support, plenty of clubs would be delighted to run such events. Fred Salas ran one this season with $0.00 PDGA support. John Bird is already talking about running a premiere four-day Pro-Am event in Colorado for older players.

This is my only real complaint. The inequity has become ridiculous. I wouldn't mind the PDGA spending $100K on the Open players if it would spend just $20K on programs for the other pro divisions, and also do more for the amateurs than it does.

I think Peter and John are both wrong. No matter how the PDGA spends its money, there will be membership segments complaining that they are not getting their fair share of the cherry jam. A better solution would be for the PDGA to take less, spend less and focus its spending on those services that benefit everyone more or less equally.

Points, ratings, rankings, stats, tournament records, the course directory, the tournament directory -- we all benefit from this. Some pros will argue that stats and ratings don't benefit them at all but that's just dumb. Every sport fan wants stats and ratings. And unless you give the fans what they want and create a fan base, you'll never have big time pro sponsorship. Sponsors don't care about the pros. They care about how many fans they reach with their logos and advertising.

I think the PDGA should entirely abandon the practice of subsidizing some tournaments at the expense of others. Marshal Street and Southern Nationals have run great events without any PDGA subsidies whatsoever. And I have been to Worlds and NTs that sucked.* The support and value the PDGA adds to one tournament it should add to every tournament. I like the recently added PDGA supported on-line registration for that reason. Any TD can use that if it works for him. Another nice thing the PDGA could do would be to give every tournament a web page on PDGA.com where we could promote the tournament with more information, a page that was as easy for a no-nothing like me to design as are the discgolfersr.us pages.

If there is an economic or psychological justification for NT-type tournaments, TDs will run them without getting preferential treatment from the PDGA. The same is true of National Championships and big regional hooplas like Bowling Green. Am Nats and Bowling Green did not need and do not depend on PDGA subsidies to be the popular tournaments that they are. They may get PDGA subsidies, but they would be doing fine without them, too.

You cannot grow cherries without first spending years tending a tree. And if you try to get cherries off a tree before its mature, you only suppress its growth. I've seen this with the cherry trees I've been planting in my back yard. A healthy sponsor-supported series of pro tournaments will be the fruit on the tree, and it will come naturally when the tree has the roots and limbs to support it. By taxing amateurs and non-touring pros to create an NT bigger and better than this sport can naturally support, we only suppress the growth of the pro side of the sport, by suppressing the growth in the amateur side. Higher dues and tournament fees just mean lower participation.

Next spring, could someone please remind me to nip all the flowers on the smaller trees? I might be talking about the trees in my backyard!

-----------------------------
Larry, Stubbs, your Worlds was definately a great tournament, well above average for Worlds.

Maybe for the first holes, then they would notice that the younger guys are more athletic and throw farther. Newbies will naturally gravitate that way. Bottom line is that the PDGA should try to highlight its best and that is the plan. A no-brainer one, imo.



On this one I'm going to agree with James. The first big tournament I watched was Worlds in Houston. Before that I was a weekend hack (Oh wait, I still am... :o). I walked up to hole one (Tourney) where the Masters were playing and they were good, but way off in the distance on hole 9 on the Willy I could see guys throwing 500 foot S bombs. I cut across the fields as fast as I could and within 10 minutes was watching the lead card. Took me 5 minutes more till I knew I wanted to play like MIKE!

Reread Bruce's post while you're at it. It's hard fighting with Bruce, he so very well understands our sport and human nature.

plus, he makes good points and fashions readable sentences.

plus, he makes good points and fashions readable sentences.



Yes, but if you write readable sentences then people actually read what you write. There are only a handful of people who come here that actually think what they write here is important. Fortunately, I'm not one of them. Of course a persistence in attacking others isn't my forte either.

Thank you for the compliment Lyle. I'm hereby taking you off ignore. I have forgotten why you were on ignore anyway. Please don't remind me.

I try to not let on when I think I'm writing something important and when I think I'm just pulling someone's chain. This annoys the heck out of Brett. But deep in the almost inaccessible recesses my heart, I know it is all for the fun.

It's frisbee golf. Not the Helinski disarmament talks.

Bruce,

You say, "I think the PDGA should entirely abandon the practice of subsidizing some tournaments at the expense of others. Marshal Street and Southern Nationals have run great events without any PDGA subsidies whatsoever. And I have been to Worlds and NTs that sucked.* The support and value the PDGA adds to one tournament it should add to every tournament. I like the recently added PDGA supported on-line registration for that reason. Any TD can use that if it works for him. Another nice thing the PDGA could do would be to give every tournament a web page on PDGA.com where we could promote the tournament with more information, a page that was as easy for a no-nothing like me to design as are the discgolfersr.us pages.

If there is an economic or psychological justification for NT-type tournaments, TDs will run them without getting preferential treatment from the PDGA. The same is true of National Championships and big regional hooplas like Bowling Green. Am Nats and Bowling Green did not need and do not depend on PDGA subsidies to be the popular tournaments that they are. They may get PDGA subsidies, but they would be doing fine without them, too."

Once again you are absolutely right. How I wish that you were on the Board! This would be far and away the best course -- to let the tour market adjust itself.

But it's too late. That ship left the dock several years ago, fueled by the "mandate" to grow the pro program. Once unequal subsidies were created for Open programs, those who advocated them became more influential, and so the trend accelerated. This year the NT Committee was created (with Board members on it, no less!), and they have no concern for any interests other than Open. This Committee is so powerful that it was permitted to institute official PDGA policies without Board approval, and without even informing the Board that it had done so. None of the other major PDGA member categories have that kind of direct representation, so nobody pays any attention to the interests of the seven-eighths.

In that climate, there is no hope of slowing down the Open freight train. The best you can do is to argue for some scraps for the rest of us. I did that all year (as I am doing now), and was blocked at every turn. The Board even voted down a program for age-protected pros that would have been funded externally!

peter, why do you rail on so much about this but not other things? the office also suspended the $10 event fee for "Super Class" events. but the $10 fee was a BoD decision. so shouldnt you be as PO'd and vocal about that move as the NT one?

Peter, we can take back the organization if we care. Because of my health issues and the PDGA's on-going felony issues, I don't think I'll ever be on the board or out in front of the torch-carrying mob. Unless they are chasing me! And, as you indicate, being on the Board is not the path to power in the PDGA. I think I talked two or three people out of running for the Board this year by explaining to them the PDGA path to power.

Pat,
peter, why do you rail on so much about this but not other things? <font color="red"> Because this is by far the most important issue the membership faces. It has the potential to split the PDGA, which I would regret.</font> the office also suspended the $10 event fee for "Super Class" events. but the $10 fee was a BoD decision. so shouldnt you be as PO'd and vocal about that move as the NT one? <font color="red"> Sure I'm PO'd, but in comparison the event fee issue is trivial. </font>

fair enough. i am not sure i disagree with you on that one.

sometimes i think a split is just what we need though. but i'm also one who thinks the mission of the pdga shold be a lot like BB described. less is more.

peter, why do you rail on so much about this but not other things? the office also suspended the $10 event fee for "Super Class" events. but the $10 fee was a BoD decision. so shouldnt you be as PO'd and vocal about that move as the NT one?



Dear Pat,

Another incorrect and inaccurate post! The office has not waived the $10 non-member fees for Super Class events. Why would you purposely mislead Peter and the readers of this message board when I told you and the other BOD members via e-mail just today that the fees were waived for just ONE test event?

I think Peter and John are both wrong. No matter how the PDGA spends its money, there will be membership segments complaining that they are not getting their fair share of the cherry jam. A better solution would be for the PDGA to take less, spend less and focus its spending on those services that benefit everyone more or less equally.

Points, ratings, rankings, stats, tournament records, the course directory, the tournament directory -- we all benefit from this. Some pros will argue that stats and ratings don't benefit them at all but that's just dumb. Every sport fan wants stats and ratings. And unless you give the fans what they want and create a fan base, you'll never have big time pro sponsorship. Sponsors don't care about the pros. They care about how many fans they reach with their logos and advertising.

I think the PDGA should entirely abandon the practice of subsidizing some tournaments at the expense of others. Marshal Street and Southern Nationals have run great events without any PDGA subsidies whatsoever. And I have been to Worlds and NTs that sucked.* The support and value the PDGA adds to one tournament it should add to every tournament. I like the recently added PDGA supported on-line registration for that reason. Any TD can use that if it works for him. Another nice thing the PDGA could do would be to give every tournament a web page on PDGA.com where we could promote the tournament with more information, a page that was as easy for a no-nothing like me to design as are the discgolfersr.us pages.

If there is an economic or psychological justification for NT-type tournaments, TDs will run them without getting preferential treatment from the PDGA. The same is true of National Championships and big regional hooplas like Bowling Green. Am Nats and Bowling Green did not need and do not depend on PDGA subsidies to be the popular tournaments that they are. They may get PDGA subsidies, but they would be doing fine without them, too.

You cannot grow cherries without first spending years tending a tree. And if you try to get cherries off a tree before its mature, you only suppress its growth. I've seen this with the cherry trees I've been planting in my back yard. A healthy sponsor-supported series of pro tournaments will be the fruit on the tree, and it will come naturally when the tree has the roots and limbs to support it. By taxing amateurs and non-touring pros to create an NT bigger and better than this sport can naturally support, we only suppress the growth of the pro side of the sport, by suppressing the growth in the amateur side. Higher dues and tournament fees just mean lower participation.

peter, why do you rail on so much about this but not other things? the office also suspended the $10 event fee for "Super Class" events. but the $10 fee was a BoD decision. so shouldnt you be as PO'd and vocal about that move as the NT one?



Dear Pat,

Another incorrect and inaccurate post! The office has not waived the $10 non-member fees for Super Class events. Why would you purposely mislead Peter and the readers of this message board when I told you and the other BOD members via e-mail just today that the fees were waived for just ONE test event?



you are correct, its for one event. and i see its only for members of the UPA, according to chucks post. i didnt "purposely mislead Peter and the readers of this message board ". good god dude, relax.

Let me mention this while we're talking about spending priorities. Did any of you even watch the Olympics? I caught a little of it after Worlds. We kicked butt, in volleyball, [pun intended, see the soft core porn threads if you don't get it] basketball, track and field, swimming -- what do all these sports have in common? They are in the public schools.

If you want to make money as an athlete in the US what do you play? Basketball, baseball, football, tennis, golf -- what do all these sports have in common? They are in the public schools, the ones I went to anyway. We have to import our hockey players from Canada and Russia because why? Hockey is in the public schools in Canada and publicly funded in Russia. This is the root of most successful professional sports. We play them in the schools and in community based programs as kids growing up.

How much did the PDGA spend on pros at NTs and Majors last year? Peter, Pat, was it really a 100 Grand? Wait, let me rephrase that more broadly with a vicious reality-based twist: How much did we TDs [and TD humorous sidekicks] waste on our petty vanity last year, artificially propping up a nickle and dime "pro tour" so we could suck up to the 1000+ rated players when we could have been watering and fertilizing the root of this sport? I've wasted about $200 and 100 hours of my time. How about you? How many players were added to the sport by that?

At $75 or $80 a basket wholesale and $5 a disc wholesale, how many public schools that are begging for athletic activity equipment could have been supplied nine baskets and 30 discs with that kind of money? Krupicka can you do some 5th grade math for me? 1200 schools? At 200 kids per school we could have introduced a quarter million kids to disc golf? I went to a high school with 1600 kids, so we could do even better if we focussed on the big schools.

100 hours of my time, when I can get the side work, is easily worth 5 grand. If I'm working for guys who pay me on a value added basis, 10 grand. So I've deprived 2,500 kids of a school-based disc golf program for my vanity in being a an A-tier promoter.

We whine and dream of the better day when our pros can be adequately compensated but we refuse to set aside our vanity pro division in favor of the only solution that can cause real growth in this sport. After 16 years I'm convinced that TDs and the PDGA skim from the ams and give to the pros mainly for one reason: our self-esteem sucks and we want the big boys to be our friends. Maybe if we could get over our man-crushes on the 1000+ rated players we could build this sport. :o
-------------------------------------------------

The PDGA: We deprive more kids of a school-based disc golf experience than any other disc golf organization in the world.

ego is part of any sport, no doubt. school programs would, and do, go a long way. its a bit self-flagellatory to count every hour doing something else as deprivinh kids, isnt it?

Bruce stated earlier:"I think I talked two or three people out of running for the Board this year by explaining to them the PDGA path to power."

That is one of the best hooks used on a thread in months.

Your point about $troking the ego$ of the elite few is also dead on.

Splitting the organization, or at least separating it into accountable, FUNCTIONAL, sections, would produce an org with clear purposes, goals and measurable results/standards.

This would be an improvement on the present structure.

steve timm

Bruce,

I'm not sure what you believe the "path to power" to be. I believe that the power right now is vested most in the NT Committee. The ED, the Competition Committee and the Board come next, in no particular order.

Also, I should qualify an earlier remark. I have always believed in the concept of the "PDGA family", and I would go a long way to keep it together. I already have. However, I also believe that current PDGA structure and procedures have destabilized what was already an uneasy situation. If this continues it will make a split inevitable.

If so, I would indeed regret it, but I would not look away from it. Like a tough divorce, the best way is to get it over with and move on. I envision a central PDGA with autonomous units for the three major groups within the membership (Amateur; Age-Protected Pro, which would include Masters; and Open Pro). Each unit would receive a fair proportion of the dues and player fees from its members, the remainder going to support the central body. Most importantly, each unit would have the power to decide how it should allocate funds to most effectively support its own membership. The PDGA would still be a family, with this key difference:

Right now the PDGA is like a family with autocratic parents and all the children at home, one of whom is specially beloved and very favored. The PDGA would become more like a family in which all the children are grown up and on their own, equally responsible.

I don't think its time to break up the PDGA. Too few people trying to do too much already. Dividing will just spread everyone thinner.

Interesting concept, the Open Pro only NT tour. Makes sense in many ways, and it definitely is what the future will be if sponsorship ever comes, along with a separate Women's and Senior's tour. The test is showing whether the sport can truly support an Open only NT tour at this time when the sponsorship may not be there. Will the fields fill sufficiently to have enough purse (i.e. donators)? Will TDs be able to meet the sponsorship requirements without resorting to tactics that just moves other player's money around (feeder tournaments, club fund raisers, sponsor discs, concurrent B Tiers or similar to fill the field with donator non-Open Pros and so on)? Will good TDs step forward and find enough return to be part of the punishm.....errrrrr ..... process, not just once but ongoing?

Perhaps its time to give it a try. Why not? At worst case, we'll learn something for the next time. I'm looking forward to seeing it play out, and give credit for those giving it a go. Some of my dues is going to it, but I'm OK with efforts that may possibly lead towards a true Pro tour. As long as it doesn't reach a point where it severely limits the resources available for other PDGA demographics and initiatives. I'm not interested in being a member of the 'let's all pay dues to finance the top 10 pro's annual salary' association. They may be great people, but I can find more deserving causes.

Right now the PDGA is like a family with autocratic parents and all the children at home, one of whom is specially beloved and very favored. The PDGA would become more like a family in which all the children are grown up and on their own, equally responsible.



You have continued to assert that there is some favoritism, or inequity, yet have demonstrated neither. Show us a detailed speadsheet of expenses versus the extra income paid by the open class in their fees.

Imo, the open division is hardly the preferred class. Like I've said numerous times: "If it is so preferred, why are there so few?" For all the people whining about "stroking their egos," etc, it's an open division, if you actually believe that it is as coddled and subsidized as you claim, I expect to see your names there in the future.

It's embarassing to read the bitterness on this thread towards those that actually take risks and excel.

James,

You say, "You have continued to assert that there is some favoritism, or inequity, yet have demonstrated neither. Show us a detailed speadsheet of expenses versus the extra income paid by the open class in their fees."

The posted NT Agreement has finally been withdrawn because the Board had never approved it. It will be reconsidered at the next Board meeting. Also, I have been arguing at Board level for better treatment for the other seven-eighths. Perhaps the Board will fix this problem in some way. In any case, I owe them the benefit of the doubt. Until they meet and I have seen the results, I cannot be sure that my objections are still valid. I don't know when that will be because I will not be on the Board when it meets -- this is the last day of my term.

If I believe that they are still valid, I will then publish my detailed accounting. In the meantime, some of the income information you request is relatively easy to figure.

INCOME FROM DUES (assuming that we have 11,000 members, and a 1/8-1/8-3/4 distrubution):
Open pros: $103,125
Age-protected pros: $103,125
Amateurs: $412,500

INCOME FROM PLAYER FEES (including temp fees):
I have not seen a breakdown on this. The PDGA office would have to provide these numbers. I am sure that Amateurs provide far more fee income than either of the other two groups. I would guess that Open pros provide slightly more fee income than Age-protected pros.

Finally, please note. I am not bitter toward the Open pros, nor do I begrudge them a bigger slice of the pie. I am only saying that the other seven-eighths are being selectively neglected, and deserve better treatment.

I guess the days of getting added cash for hiding in a protected division and beating your opponents by 20 strokes for shooting 950-rated rounds are over. It's a shame the NT Committee and the PDGA have taken a stand against rewarding mediocrity.

to whom do the Moderators report, today?

I'm guessing there's no one until after tomorrow night.

to whom do the Moderators report, today?




I'm guessing there's no one until after tomorrow night.



Bad guess.

Executive Director Brian Graham is currently handling all PDGA DISCussion Board appeals until a new Communications Director is appointed.