2022 PDGA Champions Cup - 4th Pro Major

[ToddL]

And I enjoy it as long as it is not the crazy College World series with double elimination.

Double elimination, then one-vs-one, then double elimination again, then one-vs-one again.

 

[_MTL_]

So 5th thru 8th place will all be eliminated at the same time and award the amount, since this is match play correct? I can't see a fair way of seeding those places without additional play.

Thank you for the clarification, i'am just geek out over match play seeded. Too much March madness as a kid.

5th through 112th will be eliminated the same time.

All 112 players will play 4 rounds. After four rounds, three things will happen.

- the top four players will be decided. If this involves playoffs, etc, that will happen.
- 5th through 112 will no longer play.
- 5th through whatever last cashing spot is will receive payout aligned with PDGA standards.

Then the match play bracket occurs with 1 playing 4 and 2 playing 3 (seeding tiebreaker procedures TBD). The two winners will play in the afternoon for the title. The winner of that match finishes first. The loser finishes second. The two losers will also play. The winner of that match finishes third. The loser finishes fourth

 

[Horsman]

That's fair, but I think it'd be better for the conversation for you to say why your interactions with him have been negative and then state that those interactions are influencing your guess about the money. Not that you're required to say everything you're thinking all the time; I simply think it's more authentic for you to say it that way, and more convincing for others.

Understandable. I played ledgestone once and the one time I played he verbally attacked me online and in person for asking him questions related to the tournament that were not posted. He has cussed me out for calling out his shady business practices in the past, nothing recent. I made him and others aware of his illegal online raffle practices on facebook and he did not like it. He abused his power and influence to get me kicked out of facebook groups where I was informing people and having good conversations of his and others illegal practices. He basically abused his power to silence me and as you can imagine I do not agree with that. I believe he can and will do the same thing to the PDGA. I also believe that him and others on the PDGA Board have too many conflicts of interest to be able to serve the PDGA and all of its members properly.

 

[_MTL_]

Pool play is the fairest way to make sure everyone get in a minimum amount of play. It used often in many other national championships.

And I enjoy it as long as it is not the crazy College World series with double elimination.

Pool play is very fair. The College world series is my favorite playoff format in sports.

Saying that as I alluded to, its 6 days of golf (and people are thinking 5 is too much), seeding becomes hard, who the 64 are is hard and then what happens to the 75% that don't make it through. We have to pay 40% per PDGA rules.

So how do we determine who is 17th and who is 26th? you can't compare records, holes won etc. You could, I suppose make a 48 man bracket of losers with some sort of byes / play ins. But how do you seed those 48 after three rounds of pool play?

It's just not numbers and scenarios that didn't make any sense. My head hurts.

Even if w

 

[_MTL_]

I believe he can and will do the same thing to the PDGA. I also believe that him and others on the PDGA Board have too many conflicts of interest to be able to serve the PDGA and all of its members properly.

If you are worried about conflicts of interest, disc golf is not the sport for you. They are everywhere.

 

[Horsman]

If you are worried about conflicts of interest, disc golf is not the sport for you. They are everywhere.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Horsman]

The only player who will have ANY reason to complain about this format is whoever is in 1st place after 4 rounds. They win in a traditional format. Here, they have to win one more round, but without the benefit of whatever lead (if any) they built up through 4 rounds. As mentioned, it is a reset.

Players 5 through 100 (or whatever the cap is) get exactly what they otherwise would have received. No issues for them.

Players 2 through 4 now have a chance at winning. They are ecstatic at the opportunity.

If one player has dominated, yes this may be slightly unfair to them, but it seems like we are truly heading toward more really great players at the top, and thus less likelihood of a Climo type domination of a championship. Even 4 of 5 of McBeth's world championships have been quite close--usually with Ricky.

I am looking forward to the format, but alas I am not one of the ones playing...

Without a reset in score then the match play format wont work. And its easiest just to think of the first four rounds as a qualifier to the finals.

 

[BuiltTooLong]

If you are worried about conflicts of interest, disc golf is not the sport for you. They are everywhere.

I guess all conflicts of interest are created equal??

And if you question a conflict of interest, disc golf is not for you??? :gross:

 

[_MTL_]

I guess all conflicts of interest are created equal??

And if you question a conflict of interest, disc golf is not for you??? :gross:

It was a joke referring to how small our sport is and how so many people are involved in so many avenues. I def. did not explain it well (or even at all)

 

[Steve West]

It was a joke referring to how small our sport is and how so many people are involved in so many avenues. I def. did not explain it well (or even at all)

Many don't realize that there is such a thing as a confluence of interests: when someone has authority in two areas, but the interests of those two areas are aligned.

For example, both a Board member of the PDGA and someone who runs a large tournament want better ways to run large tournaments. That is a confluence of interests, so having the same person in both positions is good.

However, someone who runs a large tournament also wants to maximize their share of PDGA resources at the expense of other large tournaments, while a Board member for the PDGA is supposed to allocate resources in a way that best promotes the sustainable growth of disc golf. That is a conflict of interests, so having the same person in both positions is bad.

There aren't enough people involved so that we have the luxury of throwing out the "baby" of confluences of interests to get rid of the "bathwater" of conflicts of interest. We can and should suspend authority in specific cases where there is a conflict.

 

[esdubya]

Hey! I'm thrilled that the PDGA put in all this work to deliver a 4th major to the fans! Love the time of year chosen as well as there hasn't been a spring major and this Champions Cup will have the advantage of being anticipated during the entire offseason. Basically, as soon as the USDGC champ is crowned the season before we will all start looking forward to this one (over time as it grows in prestige).

All that stuff is great, my only concern is on the format, and from what it appears the lack of coordination with the elite level players in finalizing and announcing the format. There's plenty of time to make minor adjustments in that regard, but overall I'm excited that this has become a real thing, and thanks to MTL and Heinold for doing what you do!

 

[_MTL_]

All that stuff is great, my only concern is on the format, and from what it appears the lack of coordination with the elite level players in finalizing and announcing the format. There's plenty of time to make minor adjustments in that regard, but overall I'm excited that this has become a real thing, and thanks to MTL and Heinold for doing what you do!

I'm not going to comment in detail on the pro tour committee and the Ulibarri comments about the such. As always, it's not as straight forward as it appears. What he said is true, but there's way more context involved. Not the time and place.

There are more details about the format being discussed (and have been well before the announcement) but at this time I see almost no scenario where we don't go with this as the baseline format for 2022.

On my facebook page, Elaine King commented something very interesting regarding the format. Elaine is an incredibly important voice in our sport.

If you want to hear from someone who has been around the sport a while, few have longer than her. If you are concerned about how women / age protected divisions are represented, not only is she a female, she's over the age of 50 and is married to a player who is over 60. She's also the winningest player of all time and is still winning majors. Oh and she also is on the board of directors.

Copying and pasting to make sure it was exactly right:

"It's like a new vegetable on your dinner plate. I'm tired of only serving corn. Don't tell me you don't like it if you haven't tried it.
Once everyone tries it, if most people hate it we will go back to corn."

 

[ru4por]

So....is this a tour championship? If so, we are discussion the development of a PDGA major that is the culmination of a privately held, PDGA sanctioned, tour? I think that pro players might thing about this. Are their interests, outside being used for the purpose of the tour making money, being served. Might a player owned/driven organization be the best path for the players themselves?

 

[esdubya]

So....is this a tour championship? If so, we are discussion the development of a PDGA major that is the culmination of a privately held, PDGA sanctioned, tour? I think that pro players might thing about this. Are their interests, outside being used for the purpose of the tour making money, being served. Might a player owned/driven organization be the best path for the players themselves?

A rising tide lifts all boats, Dwayne. And also - the PDGA does have resources to focus on both the elite pro game AND the amateurs: because there are benefits to be gained from both ends of the spectrum. PDGA doesn't have to chose between. That's a false dichotomy I see too often used.

Edit: No this is not a tour championship from what I've seen. It's simply the introduction of a new, annual springtime major to help flesh out the yearly schedule and align more with established sports like golf and tennis. I think it is not yet announced what the qualification process will be to get into the Champions Cup.

 

[_MTL_]

So....is this a tour championship? If so, we are discussion the development of a PDGA major that is the culmination of a privately held, PDGA sanctioned, tour? I think that pro players might thing about this. Are their interests, outside being used for the purpose of the tour making money, being served. Might a player owned/driven organization be the best path for the players themselves?

No, not a tour championship of any method.

The discussion was had that it would be similar to the DGPT model of qualification for a finale event using NT's and Majors instead of DGPT. It was discussed that geographically it would make sense in Appling for this. USDGC (SC), DGPT Finale (Charlotte) and then PDGA Tour Finale (Appling). That makes sense if the event is always in Appling (which isn't the plan). Literally almost anywhere else and this idea is thrown out. Plus as so many people have pointed out, a spring major is good - the spring needs a highlight event.

So we could still do it in the spring and call it the championship from previous year. Masters does this - its top 50 in the world and then previous year PGA tour winners plus some randoms. We could easily do that, but that concern for 2022 was address in my lengthy post.

IMHO, i could see that being the end result moving forward and support the idea. But 2022 wasn't the time for that.

 

[_MTL_]

I think it is not yet announced what the qualification process will be to get into the Champions Cup.

We haven't had these discussion, but the likely outcome will be first come first serve based on a staggered entry based on ratings. This is exactly what happens with the worlds each year, it's just that pool comes from a qualification method. This would be the same procedure of registration, just would be open to all PDGA members.

I could maybe see a first tier added of top 50 players in the world before ratings, etc. Not sure.

Stressing speculation, but that's my educated thought of what it will be like.

 

[Steve West]

I set up a simulation to see how the format would affect things. I used the distribution of ratings from the 2020 USGDC with the scores from the HOFC.

The following tables show the probability that a player in one of the top four positions (rows) will end up in the position indicated by the columns.
_______________________

First, what would happen if the tournament was six regular rounds of medal play (total throws).
Each row represents the player who was in that place after four rounds

Six Full Rounds 
     Finish in: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
1st after four: 51% 19% 10%  6%
2nd after four: 19% 24% 16% 10%
3rd after four: 10% 16% 16% 12%
4th after four:  6% 11% 13% 12%

So, about half the time the player who was in first place after four rounds would still be in first place after two more rounds. There is a 19% chance that player will fall to second, 10% chance of ending in third, and 6% chance of finishing in fourth. Note that these don't add up to 100% because there is a 14% chance the player who was in first after four rounds would be in fifth place or worse after six rounds.
_______________________

One aspect of this new format is that the top four players cannot fall out of fourth place. This is accomplished by the cut. The total scores from all six rounds would still determine the winner, but no one could fall below fourth place.
Here is what would happen.

Cut After Four Rounds 
     Finish in: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
1st after four: 56% 24% 13%  7%
2nd after four: 23% 34% 25% 18%
3rd after four: 13% 24% 33% 30%
4th after four:  8% 18% 30% 44%

The positions after four rounds would be more locked in, because none of the players who were in 5th through last place after four rounds would be able to move up to usurp the players who were top four after four rounds.
_______________________

The most impactful aspect of the format is the resetting of scores: the scores from the first four rounds are thrown out. After the cut to four players, if the remaining two rounds were scored by total throws, here is what would happen:

Reset Scores After Four Rounds 
     Finish in: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
1st after four: 31% 27% 23% 19%
2nd after four: 26% 25% 25% 24%
3rd after four: 22% 24% 26% 27%
4th after four: 21% 24% 26% 29%

Naturally, the player who was in first place has a smaller chance of staying in first place if they lose the advantage of any lead they had after four rounds. Similarly, the chances of any player staying in the same place are smaller.
_______________________

Another new aspect is that the final four will be playing head-to-head in a bracket. If the winners of the head-to-head matches were determined by total score for each round, here is what would happen:

Bracket Play Last Two Rounds
     Finish in: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
1st after four: 29% 26% 23% 22%
2nd after four: 26% 26% 25% 22%
3rd after four: 24% 23% 25% 27%
4th after four: 20% 25% 27% 29%

Using head-to-head competition further reduces the chance that the player in first place after four rounds will still be in first place at the end.
_______________________

Finally, the head-to-head competition will be scored by match play rules. (Caveat: I was not able to simulate how players may play a different strategy in math play, so these are based on simply comparing the scores they would get using the same strategy as for medal play.) With the bracket winners determined by match play, here is what would happen:

Match Play Last Two Rounds
     Finish in: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th
1st after four: 29% 26% 23% 21%
2nd after four: 26% 26% 25% 23%
3rd after four: 24% 24% 25% 27%
4th after four: 20% 24% 27% 29%

What we see is that using Match Play may be the least disruptive aspect of this format. The cut after four rounds, resetting the scores after four rounds, and using head-to-head play to determine the winners are what really make this format different than six full rounds.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Not sure if this model above or the actual event have considered what would happen in terms of seeding the top 4 if there are any ties among the top 4 after four rounds, or even trickier, a fair way to break 4th place ties to determine who makes it into the final 4?

 

[Lazerface]

I know for sure the final match play rounds are going to be entertaining and I'm excited about it as a fan.

I don't like the format for a major. I'm a purest. Majors are about prestige plain and simple. Prestige is born from the perception of both the competitors and the fans. This format will most certainly lead to a considerable amount of fans/players holding the perception of, "he/she is a major champion, but...". That dilutes the prestige, and therefore, dilutes the major.

 

[Steve West]

Not sure if this model above or the actual event have considered what would happen in terms of seeding the top 4 if there are any ties among the top 4 after four rounds, or even trickier, a fair way to break 4th place ties to determine who makes it into the final 4?

Doesn't matter. As we've seen from other work, after playing four rounds to a tie it has basically been proven that the players are equal. So any tie-breaker will be essentially a coin flip. Which is what the simulation uses.