• Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
    It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)

Top Pros Registering for NTs

The issue with increasing supply is you get to a point when you run out of quality courses in an area to allow you to expand in a reasonable manner.

The way you increase the supply is by eliminating other divisions, not by adding courses/rounds. Remove the Am side completely and you have twice the capacity on the Pro side. Remove the Masters/Grandmasters divisions and you can have even more room. At Memorial, you do two flights...one at Fountain Hills, one at Vista Del Camino. Each flight plays each course once. After the two rounds you shuffle and cut half the field. Then play two more rounds (1 on each course) with the half that makes the cut.

Take USDGC for example. I don't know the exact numbers but it must be a good 200-300 people playing that course per event day.

USDGC maxed out at something like 190 players and had groups (mostly foursomes) teeing from 7:00 (just at sunrise) to about 2:30-3:00. That was riding on the edge of foolish because the people starting first were essentially playing the first few holes in semi-darkness and the last groups were racing sunset at the end of the day. Now, they max at out 144 (72 per flight). With the cut before the final round, they give themselves tons of wiggle room to have daylight for playoffs and distance displays and awards.
 
Course capacity is not increased with tee times. Tee times only allows for a division larger than what can fit on the course at one time without using pools.

The Math.
Using 5somes at 10minutes/hole as it simplifies the numbers. 180 players.

Two rounds:
10 minutes/ hole * 18 + 60 minute break + 10minute/hole *18 for Second pool = 420 minutes
Tee Times
10 minutes/hole * 35 (=start time of last card) + 10minutes/hole *18 to finish = 530 minutes
 
The folly with raising the price in order to price out the lesser players is that purses at these big events still rely on the filler players to bolster the purse, just the same as any event.

Before we can create elite events that only feature the very best players, there has to be a reliable way to replace the money that the "donators" contribute. Raising the entries might make the totals the same, but relatively speaking, the payouts are still going to be rather weak. Paying $500 to win $800 isn't really a sustainable way for players to survive on tour. Not when right now, they're paying $200 (or often less) to win the same $800 and there are few players able to get by on that.

The field will still fill, this one sold out in 2 hours! So instead of say 5 grand for 1st now it's 10 grand. Pro's are very happy in that scenario.
 
I saw this on facebook.

Events like Vibram and the USDGC hold spots and give deadlines of at least a month and player still can't register on time.

If that's the case, then these guys haven't earned the right to complain.
 
The way you increase the supply is by eliminating other divisions, not by adding courses/rounds. Remove the Am side completely and you have twice the capacity on the Pro side. Remove the Masters/Grandmasters divisions and you can have even more room.

I do think that this is probably the way to go, but I'm not sure the economics of these tournaments allows for it to go in that direction and keep enough money in the payout pool. It seems to me at least right now (though I'm far from an expert) that these NT events are pretty reliant on the cash generated from the lower divisions to keep the payouts high enough to the touring pros. When I was talking about "Increasing the supply" I was thinking something along the lines of a secondary tour targeted more towards Ams/ non touring open level players that would be huge in its own right and used to support the exclusive events for the top pros. But I'm just spitballing here.

The problem I see with increasing the entry fees is that you're perpetuating a zero sum proposition. Sure their is more money going to the top whatever % of guys, but the bottom whatever % is loosing that much more, so at the end of the day its a wash. The way to increase payouts is to get more money coming in from outside the players, not making the players fight over more of each others money.
 
I do think that this is probably the way to go, but I'm not sure the economics of these tournaments allows for it to go in that direction and keep enough money in the payout pool. It seems to me at least right now (though I'm far from an expert) that these NT events are pretty reliant on the cash generated from the lower divisions to keep the payouts high enough to the touring pros. When I was talking about "Increasing the supply" I was thinking something along the lines of a secondary tour targeted more towards Ams/ non touring open level players that would be huge in its own right and used to support the exclusive events for the top pros. But I'm just spitballing here.

Well, that's essentially what they're doing now by running the concurrent Am field. Those divisons are funding, at least in part, the added cash on the Pro side. It's no different than any other event...the profit margins on the am prizes (and/or player packs) is used to defray event expenses and the rest gets funneled into the pro purses.

There's no reason not to continue to do that, only run the ams (and the age-protected pros) on a separate weekend (weekend before, maybe?). That would theoretically increase the capacity on that side in the same way capacity is increased on the pro side. More capacity, more player packs and prizes "sold", more money to spend on the pro side.

This is essentially how and why Bowling Green Ams came to be what it is. It was a huge am event that in turn provided huge financial support to their huge Pro event. I'm not even sure if the Pro event happens anymore, so that huge Am event probably just feeds into itself now and has become bigger every year.

The problem I see with increasing the entry fees is that you're perpetuating a zero sum proposition. Sure their is more money going to the top whatever % of guys, but the bottom whatever % is loosing that much more, so at the end of the day its a wash. The way to increase payouts is to get more money coming in from outside the players, not making the players fight over more of each others money.

Agree with this 100%. Increasing the entry fees to a point where your average Joe local pro type is saying "no thanks" just to ensure the "big gun" touring pros get in means you are more reliant than ever on securing outside money to make the tournament model sustainable. It's a great end goal...a tour with a lot of outside financial support. But we're not there yet. It's putting the cart before the horse to try to price out anybody.
 
How many people are priced out at $200?

How many more people are priced out at $250?

This isn't a feel good introductory tournament. The Memorial is as close to a professional tournament a disc golfers can play in. It's about economics and finding where the price point of your product is. If people are willing to donate $200 for a disc golf experience (vacation) why not $250? Why not $300? People will get upset that they can't afford to play in a "prestigious" event? Besides making another layer of volunteer ran events to qualify (more hand-outs), how else do you make an event "prestigious".
 
Last edited:
How many people are priced out at $200?

How many more people are priced out at $250?

This isn't a feel good introductory tournament. The Memorial is as close to a professional tournament a disc golfers can play in. It's about economics and finding where the price point of your product is. If people are willing to donate $200 for a disc golf experience (vacation) why not $250? Why not $300? People will get upset that they can't afford to play in a "prestigious" event? Besides making another layer of volunteer ran events to qualify (more hand-outs), how else do you make an event "prestigious".

I dunno. I think an event is more prestigious if the players got in based on accomplishments, rather than wallets.

Qualifiers don't require any extra volunteer effort---just designated existing events---but a higher standard for entry could be based on ratings, rankings, wins, prior finishes at the subject tournament, or any other criteria.
 
I dunno. I think an event is more prestigious if the players got in based on accomplishments, rather than wallets.

Qualifiers don't require any extra volunteer effort---just designated existing events---but a higher standard for entry could be based on ratings, rankings, wins, prior finishes at the subject tournament, or any other criteria.

One side benefit to the qualifiers is that it gives those tournies an extra bump as well. Not that it is pertinent to the problem, but IMO it helps the entire system.
 
One side benefit to the qualifiers is that it gives those tournies an extra bump as well. Not that it is pertinent to the problem, but IMO it helps the entire system.

That's true. We've run qualifiers for USDGC and Vibram Open, and were honored to do so.

I was just saying that there are other ways to make an NT more exclusive, besides raising prices to the threshold; and if you don't want to do qualifiers, there are alternatives.
 
I believe this discussion is total BS. So what if a few pros didn't get in. It's your own fault if you miss out on registration.

I'm pretty much tired of pros crying when they screw up and wanting the PDGA to come up with a fix.

Maybe if you miss out the next time you will be ready....
 
Finding a way not to raise entry fees for a tournament that has an abundance of demand is a mistake. If a tournament could actually pay a staff, other people/parks departments might be interested in running tournaments. This is the type of scenario that the Disc Golfer would actually pay close to the value they have been receiving from volunteers since forever. Allow the business of Disc Golf to make more money.
 
Finding a way not to raise entry fees for a tournament that has an abundance of demand is a mistake. If a tournament could actually pay a staff, other people/parks departments might be interested in running tournaments. This is the type of scenario that the Disc Golfer would actually pay close to the value they have been receiving from volunteers since forever. Allow the business of Disc Golf to make more money.

The current expectation of players is that if you raise entry fees then that money will be paid out to the players.

To allow tournament more funds from entry fees to pay staff requires a mindset change from the players and the PDGA. That's a completely different derailment.
 
Raising entry will not solve the problem
Qualifiers Will

Raising entry fees will be detrimental to disc golf in general.

PDGA needs to create an actual "Pro" rank. Right now being a pro is pretty meaningless. Hey I paid an extra 25 bucks to call myself a pro..... Once they do that then your NT's should be pro only tournaments. A-tiers etc then can be a combination of pro's and the locals to give them money for getting the chance to play with them...
 
Top