Am Payouts stifle pro growth?

[JC17393]

If I were buying a fundraiser CryZtal Buzzz I wouldn't care where the money went because that is something I actually wanted and chose to buy. My issue is the entire AM field being taxed for the benefit of the Open payout.
*
If the main value of a tournament is the "experience" then what value do I gain with $10 tacked onto my entry fee with the return of coozie, towel, bottle opener, etc? These are $3 junk items but they have a retail value of much higher. If they were removed and the AM entry was $30 instead instead of $40 would the AM player have less of an experience? However if the AM players pay an extra $10 and the profit is shifted to the Open purses they get a much greater value.
*
I was burnt by this a few years ago. We paid something like a $50 entry in AM2 and were given an absolute garbage player pack. It didn't even have a disc, it was just a bunch of random crap that might have added up to the PDGA guidelines for payout. It was pretty obvious where the added cash in the Open divisions came from. It's a shame because I enjoyed the course, and would love to play an event on them again, but I can't see myself playing it ever again for this reason.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

I can sympathize with you if an event half-assed it on the player pack and prizes, especially for the price you paid. But I disagree with the notion of painting all TDs with such a broad brush because of one tournament. Just because one TD/tournament did a poor job of providing value doesn't mean they all do.

Also, I think there needs to be a differentiation between actual value and perceived value in discussions like this. Just because an item has no value/use to you personally doesn't mean it has no value at all. I'm not going to defend stuffing a player pack with cheap knick-knacks and calling it good, but I've heard the same argument about otherwise quality merch like discs and shirts and other gear and it doesn't work.

Let's say you pay $40 to enter a C-tier and get a player pack comprised of a Lucid EMac Truth (MSRP of $16.99) and a custom printed 32 oz Nalgene bottle (MSRP of $14.99), plus there's a prize purse for the division valued at $10 X the number of players in the division. By my math that's $32 player pack plus a $10 entry to win more prizes plus your PDGA player fee ($2) covered by a $40 entry. Based on your previous posts, you'd rather pay $30 so that the TD doesn't add the $10 retail mark-up margin to the pro purse or use it to buy dinner for his family or buy a six pack for his staff. Even though you objectively got fair value for your money.

That seems an unrealistic point of view to me.

 

[DavidSauls]

Just my $.02 here... I am cool with a TD keeping the $5 difference (or whatever it is) between the wholesale and sticker price of a disc, PROVIDED the overall am price is reasonable. In my area we have a recurring theme of TDs pushing Am (especially Rec and Int) entry prices up into $40/50/60 range instead of the PDGA recommended $25-40 range. I respect TDs greatly for the hard work they put in, but there needs to be a way for them to break even without raising Am prices up to double the PDGA guidelines.

Around here, this price escalation seems to be driven by the players themselves.

Low entry/low payout, and players whine about the payout.

Offer a big players pack or big payout, players think you're great, and will pay to play.

The day players start shunning the high dollar events in favor of low dollar ones, the latter will proliferate.

Or, at least, I hope.

 

[DavidSauls]

That has definitely become my stance- if you don't feel an event provides the value you are looking for please feel free to shop elsewhere. There are only eleventy bazillion events to choose from with almost as many structures/payout formats. Judging by attendance at my events I must be doing OK.

The growth of the sport has definitely opened up the options.

Now, if only the PDGA would offer TDs a no-payout option: No players pack, no prizes, minimal entry just for the experience.

 

[biscoe]

The growth of the sport has definitely opened up the options.

Now, if only the PDGA would offer TDs a no-payout option: No players pack, no prizes, minimal entry just for the experience.

You have that option. Theoretical $10 C Tier at Stoney Hill: $2 for the PDGA, $8 greens fees.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The growth of the sport has definitely opened up the options.

Now, if only the PDGA would offer TDs a no-payout option: No players pack, no prizes, minimal entry just for the experience.

Sanction as a charitable event and players still get ratings

 

[DavidSauls]

You have that option. Theoretical $10 C Tier at Stoney Hill: $2 for the PDGA, $8 greens fees.

I want someone else to run it, so I can play.

And I want enough other people to play, to make it worthwhile.

*

As it is, we come close at Stoney Hill. Our only sanctioned event is an XC-tier charity team-play tournament, $30 entry for 2 days, no players packs, $15 to charity, $15 to modest payouts. (A couple of people will inevitably ask if there's a players pack, and we tell them we gave it to The Children's Heart Foundation).

We have the advantage of having a course people like, and format people like, enough that even if they don't like the payouts, they'll forgive us.

 

[Karl]

Getting back to the OP...
'Am payouts stifle Pro growth'
...the short answer (if in fact you're stating a question) is "yes". But so what (if it does)?
The best players of any sport (there may be the RARE exception or two) will always "go pro", but their numbers mean very little to the overall "growth" of the sport in general. The true "pros" of any sport is more of a percentile thing...and not gross numbers.

 

[Karl]

The majority of pro players (those who do not cash) get way LESS value out of an event than the am players, particularly if you feel all the value in events lies in money and trinkets.

Can't argue with you there John BUT they (the "pros" in general) made their bed, they now have to sleep in it.
Would LOVE if all this sham-pro / sham-am stuff would go away and have ALL players of a certain division (age, etc.) play in 'one, big, happy group'...and if you want to have "side bets" knock yourselves out.

 

[d11rok]

I hear reasonable arguments on both sides of the issue. Blame is likely to be split on multiple parties, including regulations, bad TD's, whiny players who want participation trophies, etc.

In the end, the market should dictate what happens to the prices. Seems like until amateurs stop playing in tournaments with high fees, the high fees will continue to exist. When players are fine playing for only the experience plus perhaps a small token of achievement if they place, the fees will decrease.

I do not see an option of having a player whine about high prices, yet still play in the tournament. They're simply enabling the high prices- which in my opinion are indeed way to high. I can play in a ball golf tournament with a cart, breakfast beforehand and a catered lunch with unlimited brews after the round for the same price as a majority of the DG tournaments.

 

[DavidSauls]

Getting back to the OP...
'Am payouts stifle Pro growth'
...the short answer (if in fact you're stating a question) is "yes". But so what (if it does)?

I still think the short answer is, "It depends"

Specifically, on what else changes. Or doesn't.

For example, if you cut out the Am payouts but kept the entry fees unchanged, some of those players might move to open.....some might just quit.

If Am divisions all went to low-entry/low payout, a few players might decide to pay twice or three times as much to play Open, but I'm not sure how many, inasmuch as most would not be cashing in open.

If whatever magic wand we wave reduces the number of Advanced players, then we might get a small short-term boost in Open, but a reduced feeder system for the future.

How many Advanced players would likely cash in open, but choose to remain in Advanced (other than those hanging out for one final run at AmWorlds)? I doubt it's enough to make much difference.

How many Advanced players who are unlikely to cash in open, would move up?

 

[riltim]

Let's say you pay $40 to enter a C-tier and get a player pack comprised of a Lucid EMac Truth (MSRP of $16.99) and a custom printed 32 oz Nalgene bottle (MSRP of $14.99), plus there's a prize purse for the division valued at $10 X the number of players in the division. By my math that's $32 player pack plus a $10 entry to win more prizes plus your PDGA player fee ($2) covered by a $40 entry. Based on your previous posts, you'd rather pay $30 so that the TD doesn't add the $10 retail mark-up margin to the pro purse or use it to buy dinner for his family or buy a six pack for his staff. Even though you objectively got fair value for your money.

That seems an unrealistic point of view to me.

First and foremost I have no issue with a TD making money, even though it's not something I could see myself doing personally. They can also take that money and use it however they see fit. However if they are taking the retail markup from the Ams and distributing it to the open players I am not going to agree. Keep it, buy some suds for the staff, or whatever. If you feel like investing back into the tournament to entice players to play then buy some pizzas or something that every tournament player can benefit from and not just a subset.

My comments about actual cost and retail costs were more so on how easy to manipulate the AM player buy in VS payout. Your example was solid and I would have no issue paying that for the said disc and Nalgene. While I don't need either those are high end products that I wouldn't mind receiving. Unfortunately I could take your example and turn it into a justifiable $50 buy in buy adding a laminated scorecard and a towel. It's a $3-4 expense but across the whole AM field but it has the potential to be an additional $300 into the pot. Most Ams don't need either but they'll pay the $10 tax if the event is something their really interested in playing.

 

[riltim]

I still think the short answer is, "It depends"

Specifically, on what else changes. Or doesn't.

For example, if you cut out the Am payouts but kept the entry fees unchanged, some of those players might move to open.....some might just quit.

If Am divisions all went to low-entry/low payout, a few players might decide to pay twice or three times as much to play Open, but I'm not sure how many, inasmuch as most would not be cashing in open.

If whatever magic wand we wave reduces the number of Advanced players, then we might get a small short-term boost in Open, but a reduced feeder system for the future.

How many Advanced players would likely cash in open, but choose to remain in Advanced (other than those hanging out for one final run at AmWorlds)? I doubt it's enough to make much difference.

How many Advanced players who are unlikely to cash in open, would move up?

There are only two types of people who care about players changing divisions. The high level players looking for some easy prey or the lower level players sour about someone beating them.

 

[DiscFifty]

How many Advanced players who are unlikely to cash in open, would move up?

If we took away am payouts (merch, prizes, player packs, etc) I think it's more like, "How many Advanced players who are unlikely to cash in open, would take the time to practice harder to be a better player so they can move up? Sure a few might stop playing in PDGA tournaments, but that type wasn't going to go pro anyway and just probably enjoyed being a bagger and picking on the ams to win plastic.

Pros play for cash, AMs play for prizes. IMHO no AM should be paid for playing in a sanctioned event as an AM. :|

100% agree.

I fully support TDs making as money as possible. Let them bring their vans, trucks full of merch to sell during the tournament! But..I am a bit concerned with TDs raising the price of the event registration fee and in return players getting a player pack, as obviously there is a profit trail somewhere on that which seems a bit forced to the am player. I have zero problems with the TD profiting from these player packs, but I would like the option to opt out in return for lower entry fees.

 

[riltim]

but I would like the option to opt out in return for lower entry fees.

Good luck. If the Ams could opt out of their player pack you'd probably never see another C Tier again.

 

[Improbably]

Pros play for cash, AMs play for prizes.

IMHO no AM should be paid for playing in a sanctioned event as an AM. :|

I often hear/read this expressed axiomatically without much explanation.

Why shouldn't AMs be able to play for cash?

 

[DavidSauls]

I often hear/read this expressed axiomatically without much explanation.

Why shouldn't AMs be able to play for cash?

We're trapped by the artificial labels, both of which are misnomers.

If our divisions were named Gold-Blue-White-Red, or AAAA-AAA-AA-A, or something, I doubt we'd suffer any such restrictions or beliefs.

 

[DavidSauls]

If we took away am payouts (merch, prizes, player packs, etc) I think it's more like, "How many Advanced players who are unlikely to cash in open, would take the time to practice harder to be a better player so they can move up? Sure a few might stop playing in PDGA tournaments, but that type wasn't going to go pro anyway and just probably enjoyed being a bagger and picking on the ams to win plastic.

.

It's an easy solution if you can ascribe motives to all the players.

 

[Three Putt]

Players packs are the work of the Devil. :|

Actually not, but they really complicate running an event. Basically it's your guaranteed winnings and it's hugely popular with players. You can't walk away with nothing for your $50 if there is a players pack.

Scale that fee back to $25 with no players and the event is much easier to run on the TD and cheaper for the players, but people won't sign up. They will demand to know where their players pack is. People don't want to risk paying money and walking away with nothing if they don't cash. That they have to pay more to enter that kind of event doesn't seem to bother the modern disc golfer.

I know there are people in this thread saying they would prefer a cheaper event with no players pack. I don't disbelieve them since I would prefer that as well. The fact is that we are a minority; the vast amount of Am players want the players pack and are willing to pay what it takes to get them.

 

[Improbably]

You can't walk away with nothing for your $50 if there is a players pack.

Scale that fee back to $25...

Your hypothetical illustrates what I consider a common misconception. Eliminating a player's pack will not lead to a savings on entry equal to the "value" of the players pack. At best elimination of the player's pack will save the wholesale of the player's pack.

 

[Three Putt]

Your hypothetical illustrates what I consider a common misconception. Eliminating a player's pack will not lead to a savings on entry equal to the "value" of the players pack. At best elimination of the player's pack will save the wholesale of the player's pack.

I don't think I said it would be a saving equal to the value, I was just throwing around hypothetical numbers with no basis in fact. I mean, this is the Internet, after all. :| $50/$25 were just numbers pulled out of thin air, so nobody yell at a TD that you want to pay $25 and he can shove his players pack and blame me for it.