2018 Competition Rules Changes

[roadtripstuff]

Then how do we change our "weak definition" of what is considered a pro? If that is the case, it seems the only way to change that would be to limit who is considered a pro. If anyone that want to can compete in that field that's what makes it weak.

 

[_MTL_]

Then how do we change our "weak definition" of what is considered a pro? If that is the case, it seems the only way to change that would be to limit who is considered a pro. If anyone that want to can compete in that field that's what makes it weak.

We basically already do limit it based on the "Touring Pros" designation. I earned that one year and as a player, it was my greatest accomplishment. But except for a few random spots held at NT's, it doesn't really mean anything.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Then how do we change our "weak definition" of what is considered a pro? If that is the case, it seems the only way to change that would be to limit who is considered a pro. If anyone that want to can compete in that field that's what makes it weak.

I used to be a junior bowler and a men's league bowler. When I was a junior it was "trophy only". When I moved up to the men's league, we played for cash prizes at the end of the year.

:thmbup:

 

[roadtripstuff]

We basically already do limit it based on the "Touring Pros" designation. I earned that one year and as a player, it was my greatest accomplishment. But except for a few random spots held at NT's, it doesn't really mean anything.

So you are saying it's labeled not limited. You yourself were the one that stated that our definition of Pro is weak, yet don't believe in limiting the pro field? That's where you start to lose me with your logic. I'm not saying my idea is the only idea, but to just call it out, but then say there shouldn't be a limit seems counterproductive. Why call it weak in the first place?

 

[_MTL_]

So you are saying it's labeled not limited. You yourself were the one that stated that our definition of Pro is weak, yet don't believe in limiting the pro field? That's where you start to lose me with your logic. I'm not saying my idea is the only idea, but to just call it out, but then say there shouldn't be a limit seems counterproductive. Why call it weak in the first place?

Fair points. Thanks for allowing me to clarify.

We lump a lot of things together. You win a C tier with 1 open player and it statistically counts in your win total like winning the worlds does. You make $1 in 100 sanctioned events and you get the same title as someone who makes 100K.

We shouldn't limit someone's choice play in a division above their skill level, but we also need to continue to work on retention within the sport. My points about these two items are speaking to why pros are allowed to play am.

The conversation's bigger topic is should pros be allowed to accept merch when playing am when am's can't take merch when playing pro. It's a fair conversation. The reason I brought up all these other things that admittedly, as you point out, don't seem to tie together, is we have to understand why either exists before we say change them.

The former exists due to all the reasons I've stated. Retention and the poor definition of pros. In golf, you can easily lose your tour card and your ability to play PGA and even Web.Com events. We are slowly getting closer to that with ratings based qualifications for worlds. Long and short, the issue isn't that we allow people to play am when they are pros it's that we called them a professional to begin with. No true professional would play amateur and nor would they be allowed to since their rating would be well above 970.

Now the other side of the argument has been debated but the bottom line is accepting merch in a professional division of other sports forfeits amateur status. Combine that with other comments, such as TD's not having the adequate amount of payout, and you get a decent rule change. However this will likely affect traditionally smaller fields and smaller events, as outlined.

I'm ok with both as I believe big picture, they are both the correct decision. I think they are, however, dealing with the same type of player. The 930-970 player that likely dominated advanced but has issues cashing in open. Put me in that category, btw. And our sport hasn't quite identified the best solution. The problem is clear as day. And we are continuing to experiment until we find that solution. This is just the next step.

 

[roadtripstuff]

That makes sense. I think overall, not just in the smaller divisions, the issue is having more quality players not just quantity of players. We are really stuck between a rock and a hard spot on that one though. The difference between other sports and this one is that even if you are a ****ty pro football player you are still making money and are in turn able to pay your bills while honing your craft. Whereas in this sport those players have to keep full-time jobs not allowing the time needed to get good enough to compete at that level. There are only a few players in our sport that have that option either because they are already good enough to tour or have made money elsewhere that provides them the ability to focus on disc golf.

Hopefully, there is a middle ground somewhere that we can all get to that allows both the smaller division to still have competition while not putting pressure on TDs to have thousands of dollars in merch on hand as well. Although I do think, and I know this won't be popular with some folks, that this new rule for competition could have been just enforced in the Open field. I know that sounds like its maybe sexist or picking and choosing, but I feel if one of the main factors is TDs having to carry more merch for those larger payouts that they prob aren't referring to the second place payout for FPO of $80 bucks (just an example) but more towards the MPO field that may receive hundreds of dollars.

Another thought, and again just throwing stuff out there, maybe there should be a different set of standards for A, B, and C tier events from that of NTs, majors, and larger events, like the DGPT. Maybe a tournament standard and a tour standard because as stated most of this only affects those smaller events with smaller turnouts in the non-MPO divisions and like you said someone that cashes at their local C-Tier shouldn't be looked at the same as someone who is cashing on tour.

 

[roadtripstuff]

I guess what I mean by that is the NTs, Majors, and Tour events are what keep AMs in AM. Maybe that is what they need to change. So that if you do cash in a C-Tier locally that doesn't prevent you from playing AM in those events. Most people I know that play up locally that take merch do so to keep AM status for those events and those events only. They would play MPO, FPO, MPM etc at anything other than those events. So, go back to the "Touring Pro" label. Maybe until you are labeled a touring pro, by cashing at one of those events you could still play AM (under a certain rating as well) at those larger event.

 

[krupicka]

Ams also stay Am because they don't have the time/drive to stay at a pro level, they might be concerned about NCAA eligibility, or a host of other reasons than just the chance to play Am Nats or Am Worlds.

 

[araytx]

That is regional. MPO and MA1 each average only 10% of the field at our events. 80% play in other divisions.

Agreed. My main point, Mr Krupicka, was that these two divisions (along with MA2) are the ones that rarely have trouble making a division consistently across all regions.

Guess I don't see the desirability of players not skilled enough to compete in a pro division being compelled or outright bribed to play there. If a local area doesn't have enough players to field a sufficient FPO (or MPM or MPG), the answer isn't to incentivize players who don't belong (or don't want to turn pro) to play "up".

And if it's a matter of the amateurs wanting to play for the experience but not wanting to pay full price to get no reward, that's where the trophy-only entry fee comes into play. Pay 1/3 to 1/2 the price to get the experience they seek. If they want to win something, they can play amateur or make the plunge and turn pro.

When you say "you don't see the desirability...," are you saying YOU specifically, or ANYONE in general. And are you considering why from all perspectives -- Ams, Women, Age-protected, etc.

I don't understand this trophy only mentality. True amateurism hardly exists in the world outside of youth organizations and the NCAA and even the college athletes receive compensation...

C'mon. It's very prevalent. I've played adult league softball, basketball, bowling, darts, baseball, and tennis. In all except darts I have won either an entire league or tournament. Didn't get paid in any if em. I don't know if the darts winner got paid. So True Amateur is an attempt to align with other such sports.

I guess what I mean by that is the NTs, Majors, and Tour events are what keep AMs in AM. Maybe that is what they need to change. So that if you do cash in a C-Tier locally that doesn't prevent you from playing AM in those events. Most people I know that play up locally that take merch do so to keep AM status for those events and those events only. They would play MPO, FPO, MPM etc at anything other than those events. So, go back to the "Touring Pro" label. Maybe until you are labeled a touring pro, by cashing at one of those events you could still play AM (under a certain rating as well) at those larger event.

Well that's absolutely it. Hopefully the CC & BOD will see that. My rating is within the tcompetitive range of my local, even regional pro grandmaster s, within 30 of the highest level of player. It's pretty simple. If offered, I play MPG at all local and regional events; I only play MG1 at Worlds and 1 other major. I don't think that is too much to ask for for a guy That's been a dues-paying PDGA member for years. Look at the Page's explanation. It was primarily about mon-members and it appears to me that the long time sure paying PDGA Am members got "thrown in" with the non members. Just doesn't seem sensible to me. Seemed like solving a problem that wasn't there. And see my reply to Suzette below.

 

[araytx]

• Tournament Director complaints about having to come up with large quantities of merchandise to payout Amateurs in Pro divisions.


For many event directors, it is not as easy as pressing button A or B. In my area, several events run an Am weekend, followed by a Pro Weekend. At the Pro Weekend there are generally no vendors and no extra merchandise laying around. It is not easy for these TD's to merch out an Am, when there is no merch on site.



True example: Up and coming Am player cashes at Pro Weekend. And big cash, like almost $200.00. When player declined the cash, the TD moved the cash down to the next Pro on the list. End of story. Two weeks later the Am player complains to PDGA that they didn't get any merchandise when they declined the cash. So, three weeks after the event, the TD is now "forced" to give this player nearly $200.00 in merchandise they didn't have to begin with!! Now this TD is out of pocket close to $200.00 because they were not a vendor and they did not have any merchandise sitting around three weeks after the event.



So please explain again how "EASY" it is for a TD to give merchandise instead of cash? Explain how TD's "ALWAYS" make money if an Am declines cash?


Just ONE side of the story.

Suzette, I agree with you that is unfair to the TD. If it was a pro-only event that Am shouldn't expect to get paid in merch at all. In fact, I'd be fine with the Am playing pro and desiring merch has to declare in advance, and the TD can let him know if It's gonna be available, perhaps with the online registration. But that TD got treated unfairly for following the rules.

I'd also say, that I believe that type of scenario isn't just rare, It's extremely rare. And we should not be using extremely rare situations as justification for such a large encompassing rule.

 

[DavidSauls]

Then how do we change our "weak definition" of what is considered a pro? If that is the case, it seems the only way to change that would be to limit who is considered a pro. If anyone that want to can compete in that field that's what makes it weak.

Bring in so much outside money that the better pros don't have to rely on filling the division with weaker pros, or semi-pros, or moving-up-too-early Ams, to win money.

I don't see it happening.

But that's one of the big hurdles, and what makes comparisons with spectator sports---where you have to qualify to play pro, instead of be willing to pay to, is the standard---inapplicable to us.

That, or we could ditch the "Pro" and "Amateur" names, but I don't see that happening, either.

 

[Karl]

Go for the last thing, go for the last thing, go for the last thing!

But our sport continues to call something that doesn't walk like a duck and doesn't sound like a duck a duck....

 

[krupicka]

Agreed. My main point, Mr Krupicka, was that these two divisions (along with MA2) are the ones that rarely have trouble making a division consistently across all regions.

I never have to worry about players signing up for MA3 and MA4. At my last C-tier I had more than 50 in those two divisions. Only had 3 MPO. A couple days before the event, I was trying to figure out how to run the division with only 1 MPO signed up. Truth is I had more MA4 players than MPO/MA1/MA2 combined.

You paint your brush to broadly.

 

[DavidSauls]

Go for the last thing, go for the last thing, go for the last thing!

But our sport continues to call something that doesn't walk like a duck and doesn't sound like a duck a duck....

Well, we do get some side benefits out of it. "Pro" and "Am" are marvelously short words, and there's no doubt which is the top one.

Not to mention the ego benefits......

 

[Karl]

Stated with much chagrin: Heavy on the 'ego' part.

 

[teemkey]

Stated with much chagrin: Heavy on the 'ego' part.

Are you a serious player? Then prove it: you can be a pro for only $25!

(new PDGA recruitment ad)

 

[sjberry2017]

Another thought, and again just throwing stuff out there, maybe there should be a different set of standards for A, B, and C tier events from that of NTs, majors, and larger events, like the DGPT. Maybe a tournament standard and a tour standard because as stated most of this only affects those smaller events with smaller turnouts in the non-MPO divisions and like you said someone that cashes at their local C-Tier shouldn't be looked at the same as someone who is cashing on tour.

I'd leave A-tiers in the same classification as the tours, but otherwise I agree wholeheartedly. There's a major difference between cashing as an am in a pro-only or pro-heavy field and getting a couple thousand dollars for merch, and cashing at your local C-tier where you probably get paid out less than the top 2 or 3 in MA1. And I think this speaks to the two diverging roads that disc golf and the PDGA are on right now: the grassroots tournaments which a community itself is holding and a few people might travel to and the big tours where a true professional spectator sport is trying to be built.

Ams also stay Am because they don't have the time/drive to stay at a pro level, they might be concerned about NCAA eligibility, or a host of other reasons than just the chance to play Am Nats or Am Worlds.

No NCAA involvement in collegiate disc golf whatsoever, that's all done through College Disc Golf. Looking over the website, the only requirements are:

A) Either taking 6 credit hours currently OR taking 3 credit hours with 12 already credited to you

B) You haven't competed in the NCDGC six times

C) You did NOT achieve that status of "touring professional" as the PDGA defines it

D) You are a member of the PDGA.

So it really doesn't even matter if you're a PDGA "pro" or have accepted cash, it only matters whether or not you have achieved touring pro status with the PDGA.

Now if you're talking about the NCAA itself for other events, they have to complete forms and everything even if they're getting paid out in merch. There was a guy I played on the same card as a couple rounds at the last Upstate Classic I played in and his girlfriend, who plays softball for Southern Wesleyan University, was walking along with us. We found out she played disc golf (and apparently was pretty good) and when we asked her why she didn't play tournaments, she said there's a whole bunch of paperwork involved for anything where she could potentially win anything, even if it's not cash.

 

[araytx]

I never have to worry about players signing up for MA3 and MA4. At my last C-tier I had more than 50 in those two divisions. Only had 3 MPO. A couple days before the event, I was trying to figure out how to run the division with only 1 MPO signed up. Truth is I had more MA4 players than MPO/MA1/MA2 combined.

You paint your brush to broadly.

Mike, thanks. Point made. I was a bit broad with that brush. Maybe it's just the south, but even when I've played in Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, there were no problems with Advanced & Intermediate. Perhaps it is just regional. But the fact that your experience as a TD has situations like you trying to figure out how to run an event with only 1 MPO begs the whole point of you starting this thread.

Plus we rarely have have a novice field at all around here; maybe the majority of players are "playing up."

 

[krupicka]

Admittedly the weather was really lousy that week, but it didn't stop the MA3/MA4 players from coming out. Like I said typical is 10% MPO, 10% MA1 out of 190 or so for a weekend (split day events). Of that MPO field, 28%-50% are registered Ams. Most players around here play in their appropriate division.

 

[brutalbrutus]

^36 in novice? That's nutz. We rarely have novice divisions around here and when we do its usually 10 or less(more often than not its 4 or 5). Not really sure why, though. Even when we have a novice division most of them still sign up for rec... maybe its an ego thing and they don't want to be called novices?