MarkDSM
Double Eagle Member
That is painful.
-
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)
Big Points Requirement Jump for Am Worlds 2017
- Thread starter kmelton
- Start date
That is painful.
krupicka
Double Eagle Member
If players missed out on BG Ams in 2016, they very well could be missing Am Worlds 2017.
teemkey
* Ace Member *
Does get rid of the riffraff that doesn't have the time and/or money to attend the big am events.
Allurex
* Ace Member *
GBO also gave out tons of points. Middle of the pack in AM1 was worth almost 1000 points.
dontBLAMEtheDISC
Birdie Member
The best points available was from collegiate nations.
I really think they should have a certain number of invites like what the usadgc does.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk
I really think they should have a certain number of invites like what the usadgc does.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337Z using Tapatalk
Yeah that darn riffraff, paying their PDGA membership dues and supporting local tournaments.
But not having enough time and/or money to take off from work and pay thousands in travel expenses/tourney fees.
Or just not being able to play BG Ams, considering that covers most people.
Two things -
A). This is not the same as how tiered registration works for pros. Dates 2 & 3 don't matter. All spots for Am Worlds would be gone during the Date 1 registration period.
B). Interesting that people are now voting for "let's go through the same registration crap we didn't like just a few weeks ago, again next year, I assume, because they think it is 'fairer.' "
top 29 at Am nats makes it in too. Thats like 25% of the field.
1. I just threw out percentages it could be top 5% or 7 events whatever. Whatever gets you to there are still spots open after the first day, but on the first day people who earned entry get a reasonable chance to register.
2. No what happened a few weeks ago was whomever didnt have a job that was third shift, or an exam to study for, or had the quickest internet connection, got paid the day before the open entry, made it in to worlds. Nothing had to do (except a minimal amount of points) with whether you even play disc golf or to what level you do.
To someone elses merit points. They dedicate 2 whole disc golfer magazines to Am/Pro worlds basically. Previewing the courses, then, later, the players who win. Then they act like it is unimportant? They also pay a boat load of money to the hosting city to help run the event.
It's a 3-part argument:
(1) Is the points system the right way to determine who gets AmWorlds invites? Should it be kept, modified, or replaced by a different system?
(2) Assuming the points system is used, what should the threshold be?
(3) Shouldn't the PDGA have changed the threshold back in January? Or, having not done do, and now looking at 2016 registration and realizing they should have, should they do it now, better-late-than-never, or continue with the old system 1 more year?
With a footnote that there is a distinction between Worlds Invites, and Worlds participation, depending on the demand (and location), as well as the number of invites issued.
(1) Is the points system the right way to determine who gets AmWorlds invites? Should it be kept, modified, or replaced by a different system?
(2) Assuming the points system is used, what should the threshold be?
(3) Shouldn't the PDGA have changed the threshold back in January? Or, having not done do, and now looking at 2016 registration and realizing they should have, should they do it now, better-late-than-never, or continue with the old system 1 more year?
With a footnote that there is a distinction between Worlds Invites, and Worlds participation, depending on the demand (and location), as well as the number of invites issued.
I'm not against raising the needed points. I'm just against changing the rules in the middle of the game. I had to plan out my tourney schedule early last year to make sure I was able to get enough points to play this year.
It just seems very weird to me to change the rules after people have already started participating in tournaments. Many people would make different choices about what they play, depending on what the qualifications for Am Worlds are.
Was the registration this year a bit crazy? Yep. But "solving" a problem by creating a different one isn't a great solution, either. This wasn't a new problem...they should have had the foresight to fix this at the beginning of the year.
I'm pretty sure this is the PDGA's M.O.
They just create problems down the line for others.
filobedo
Double Eagle Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2008
- Messages
- 1,205
I like the new points requirements but if the PDGA would have kept the prior points requirements, they should have given priority to long standing PDGA members. I always felt registration should have been done in Corrals such as all current member qualifiers with PDGA #s 1-15000 sign up first, 15000 - 30000 are next, etc.
allinpflop
Eagle Member
Even with raising the number of points there will still be many more players qualified than spots...you guys are looking at this the wrong way....in order to increase your chance of getting spots in prestigious events you need to do everything you can to prevent people from joining the pdga.....run unsanctioned events if you must but outright discouraging play from new players or working to get courses pulled would be even more beneficial. In more established areas with large groups of players getting most courses pulled is really the only way to limit competition for spots. If you cant get the course pulled just steal the baskets and im sure after only once or twice the course will be shut down. Only some of you will be able to tell if I'm serious or not.
hellbound
Eagle Member
As points requirements go up more and more the people that are playing the top events like B.G- glass blown and such will be the only ones that can get in. A better model would be 1st. top 5 of each div from previous year. 2nd Top player in each states div gets bid window. 3rd open it to rating based with xyz number of rounds for the year- say 20 rounds. Dropping the rating number lower and lower till it fills. Heck even give the hosting state so many of births so they can host events so locals and semi local players numbers increase as an incentive to hosting.
ScottyLove
Double Eagle Member
I've not re-read the requirements document yet, but I was told that there is a clause that says the top 10% from each state in points get an invite even if they do not meet the new threshold. That seems fair for those not near the larger tournaments the rest of the year.
Then you & I agree on that completely.
Two things:
1) Technically that is correct, but obviously it applies only to states who don't have 10% qualify. See invite criteria #4 (1-3 are status and number of points)
4. Additional US State Invites:
Any US State that did not have at least 10% of it's [sic] resident amateur 2016 Tour participants qualify through criteria 1-3 above, will have additional invites provided to the top overall points earners in order to reach 10%.
2) I told you to set your goals higher. Remember when I said, "Whipping my butt might only be good for about 25th place..."
DirtyMeathook
Birdie Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2013
- Messages
- 421
Are you serious? Good thing for you that the ability to form a coherent sentence isn't an Am Worlds requirement.
This
I have never been more disappointed in the PDGA.
joshmo65
Eagle Member
In Pennsylvania last year, there was only 10 players who earned enough points. Using the 10% criteria, there were 406 registered Ams which would mean that the top 40 would get an invite. This would put the limit at 578 points which is actually lower than the current requirement.
I think that was the idea. To not make the points requirement absolute, therefore a little bit more inclusive. Basically it becomes top 10% in your state OR the new points requirement threshold for your home division.
If I am reading that part of the new requirements correctly, then every state needs to count the the registered Ams in 2017 by age division. So, while there may be 408 registered active Ams in PA, perhaps only 325 of those are actually still have MA1 as their home division. Then it would be minimum 32 invites for MA1, and then of the 22 who are MM1, only 2 minimum for that division, ... and so on -- IF I am reading it correctly.
