Big Points Requirement Jump for Am Worlds 2017

[Improbably]

Wait, are we talking taxes? I don't want to pay my taxes, but I want the governmint to do lots for me.... It's America after all! I know that isn't what you are saying so pardon my tounge in cheek. Why do you want or feel that the PDGA should give you something out of their pockets? What do you think they're doing with that money such that it would be better going to you? Just curious.

The PDGA isn't doing anything for me. The things I have already done for the PDGA aside; I'm fine not doing anything for them and them not compensating me for it.

I'm just saying I would not run a PDGA event unless the PDGA paid me to do so. It's generally accepted as reasonable the PGDA charges $50 up front and $2 per head for a Ctier. I think it's perfectly reasonable to charge them the same. And I'll reiterate very very unlikely to ever happen.

 

[lyleoross]

Not sure what the Pro game has to do with AM World's Invite system. I also don't give a crap whatever the point threshold is set at, my only concern is that whatever point level they want to implement be set at the beginning of the year. Set it at 3,000 pts for all I care, but do it so every paying member of the PDGA knows exactly what point level they need to hit if their goal is to play in AM Worlds.

Telling players that the point threshold is 250 pts for 6 months or half the PDGA season, then changing it in July to 750 pts is not serving anybody. This is piss poor leadership, pick a number and live with it for the season. When Worlds is over in July review how many invites were sent, how many got it and then come up with the new number for the 2017 season. Messing this up twice in 3 years is an epic failure on the PDGA's part.

So it's strictly a matter of timing? If they had rolled this requirement out, say after Worlds or USDGC, or in the Winter break, then it'd okay? Is it your feeling that a number of players have committed to the 250 points, set tournaments to play to get them there, and now have to scramble to make it to 750?

While I agree that the PDGA could have gone about it better, I would suspect they felt caught out by the number of takers on Ams, and the subsequent whining about not getting in. Rather than let it play out again next year, they are upping the limit now so that they cut down the number of invites for 2017, and do so with six months so those who are serious about going have time to get the points they need. I'd be curious to know how many players that is, how it would have impact those invited this year, and whether there is a true impact per say. As for the "messing it up" part, I'd call it messing up if there was a huge hitch at the event, or they had to cancel, or they cut out a bunch of players who had accepted. This seems a lot less of a mess up than an adjustment. Perhaps not politically smart, but not that big of a deal.

 

[krupicka]

It's too bad they didn't just leave it as is and add a priority registration for the top point earners and top rated players who qualified in each division. Allow 50% to be filled by priority reg.

For example if there is a field of 72. Give priority reg to top 36 rated for that field and then top 36 point earners for that field. Give em a week and then open the floodgates.

 

[lyleoross]

The PDGA isn't doing anything for me. The things I have already done for the PDGA aside; I'm fine not doing anything for them and them not compensating me for it.

I'm just saying I would not run a PDGA event unless the PDGA paid me to do so. It's generally accepted as reasonable the PGDA charges $50 up front and $2 per head for a Ctier. I think it's perfectly reasonable to charge them the same. And I'll reiterate very very unlikely to ever happen.

I wouldn't say it is unlikely, I'd say it is impossible. The PDGA offers a service, for that service they charge. Last I checked they don't twist anyone's arm to provide help or volunteer, although they are pretty pleasant to their volunteers and take care of them, by my own experience.

Over twenty years I've heard lots of kavitching about the PDGA, what they do, and how almost anyone could do it better. I've watched at least two attempts at that, the Southern Nationals, and now Falient. I've worked in small business all my life and organizing and running something like this is hard. My impression is that the PDGA does pretty good job, is more open than most, and would be considered a model organization by many. I'd be happy to support any organization that does it better, as soon as they do it better.

 

[lyleoross]

It's too bad they didn't just leave it as is and add a priority registration for the top point earners and top rated players who qualified in each division. Allow 50% to be filled by priority reg.

For example if there is a field of 72. Give priority reg to top 36 rated for that field and then top 36 point earners for that field. Give em a week and then open the floodgates.

I think that would have been a good idea, but I suspect they'd have gotten equal grief. Anyone below the top guys would have felt they were excluded. What the PDGA has done, right wrong, timing bad etc. is gone with the model they've always worked at, for as long as I've been watching. They went based on points earned in events. They are rewarding participation in PDGA sanctioned events.

If their goal is to push participation, and reward those who suport by participation, the goal of any organization, then I'd say they've done what they should do. In theory, they are supporting the companies that support their events, and the TDs that run them. They are pushing players to play more events to receive invites to the pretigious events. The way they handled may be less ideal for some, but it is consistent with the model they've always pursued.

 

[DanJon]

They do a pretty good job because they have a couple more years (and paying members) than those other organizations.

I for one will never be a PDGA member unless there are some significant changes in leadership.

Considering Mr. Graham will never leave his cush job, I don't see that happening.

Or they could just pay the thousands of dollars they owe me, but that's a whole separate issue.

 

[araytx]

It's too bad they didn't just leave it as is and add a priority registration for the top point earners and top rated players who qualified in each division. Allow 50% to be filled by priority reg.

For example if there is a field of 72. Give priority reg to top 36 rated for that field and then top 36 point earners for that field. Give em a week and then open the floodgate.

FTFY. Because after those 72 have a week to register, we'd be lucky to have one spot left for the rest of the membership.

So it's strictly a matter of timing? If they had rolled this requirement out, say after Worlds or USDGC, or in the Winter break, then it'd okay? Is it your feeling that a number of players have committed to the 250 points, set tournaments to play to get them there, and now have to scramble to make it to 750?

While I agree that the PDGA could have gone about it better, I would suspect they felt caught out by the number of takers on Ams, and the subsequent whining about not getting in. Rather than let it play out again next year, they are upping the limit now so that they cut down the number of invites for 2017, and do so with six months so those who are serious about going have time to get the points they need. I'd be curious to know how many players that is, how it would have impact those invited this year, and whether there is a true impact per say. As for the "messing it up" part, I'd call it messing up if there was a huge hitch at the event, or they had to cancel, or they cut out a bunch of players who had accepted. This seems a lot less of a mess up than an adjustment. Perhaps not politically smart, but not that big of a deal.

I would agree. The timing absolutely sucks, but I don't see how they had a better choice. This all goes back to the each person's individual definition of "fair." Equal for all??? Equal access for all? Rewarding those who work the hardest? Rewarding those who actually play in the to divisions, or play the most events?? What's fair?

After seeing how 2016 Am Worlds registration went down, their options were :
a) do nothing
This would mean allowing the same issues that occurred his year and hearing the same complaints
b) leave it like it is and Implement new points thresholds for 2018 Am Worlds
This would also mean allowing the same issues that occurred his year and hearing the same complaints
c) propose new thresholds and wait to hear from membership
This would likely be a costly wait for something wherein they could probably guess the outcome of now. Players would then have even LESS than 6 months to adjust their playing/point-getting schedule.

Does someone see something that I don't?

 

[Stardoggy]

b)

Is the correct answer.

 

[BionicRib]

b)

Is the correct answer.

I have to agree here, although I think there is some merit to krupickas suggestion.

 

[1978]

It's too bad they didn't just leave it as is and add a priority registration for the top point earners and top rated players who qualified in each division. Allow 50% to be filled by priority reg.

For example if there is a field of 72. Give priority reg to top 36 rated for that field and then top 36 point earners for that field. Give em a week and then open the floodgates.

Good performance in major events or consistency, IMO, is a better indicator of skill level than rating. We have a player in Charlotte, AM was rated around 930. Played a 1 round PDGA singles event on his home course and shot a 1024 rated round. When he pays dues he is one of the top 20 rated players in the world because of that one round. 1500 pts almost requires you to play a major. You would have to play 25 b and c tiers to get that many points in most areas.

The ripple affect that the (appearingly) short sighted PDGA has made, is that other larger events will have the SAME "Charlie in the Chocolate factory lottery tickect I got lucky to make it in" issue. They pushed the issue down the road to BG, KCWO, Ledgestone, AmNats, who now will have more push by lower skilled players to get those more valuable points.

The 5th best player in Rec at Bowling Green this year would qualify for 2017 Am worlds. The 14th best player in Advanced would not. That seems a bit flawed.

Also agree timing is terrible there is no time to make up points unless you are signed up for Worlds, if your target was 750.

 

[1978]

FTFY. Because after those 72 have a week to register, we'd be lucky to have one spot left for the rest of the membership.



I would agree. The timing absolutely sucks, but I don't see how they had a better choice. This all goes back to the each person's individual definition of "fair." Equal for all??? Equal access for all? Rewarding those who work the hardest? Rewarding those who actually play in the to divisions, or play the most events?? What's fair?

After seeing how 2016 Am Worlds registration went down, their options were :
a) do nothing
This would mean allowing the same issues that occurred his year and hearing the same complaints
b) leave it like it is and Implement new points thresholds for 2018 Am Worlds
This would also mean allowing the same issues that occurred his year and hearing the same complaints
c) propose new thresholds and wait to hear from membership
This would likely be a costly wait for something wherein they could probably guess the outcome of now. Players would then have even LESS than 6 months to adjust their playing/point-getting schedule.

Does someone see something that I don't?

D. Tiered registration for worlds.
(example)
Date 1 - Top 10-20% of players in 10 nationwide events from the prior year including the top 10% from last years worlds. (BG, AM Nats, KCWO, etc. Events bid/register to be a qualifying event) This allows the PDGA to have a small amount control over condition of qualifying events, thus improving the quality of large events. BG was very low quality this year in OB/mando marking, rules, and course conditions for the wooded courses for example.
It also helps future Am World's bidding communities hammer out issues and get up to speed by hosting a qualifying event. for example...Madison could have had a qualifying A tier last year. Sort of like the 2011 Charlotte Amateur Championship was a precurser to the 2012 Am Worlds.

Date 2 - Points or ratings tiered top 10% PDGA certified official members
Date 3 - Points or ratings tiered top 20% PDGA certified official members
and then open registration.

 

[biscoe]

After seeing how 2016 Am Worlds registration went down, their options were :
a) do nothing
This would mean allowing the same issues that occurred his year and hearing the same complaints
b) leave it like it is and Implement new points thresholds for 2018 Am Worlds
This would also mean allowing the same issues that occurred his year and hearing the same complaints
c) propose new thresholds and wait to hear from membership
This would likely be a costly wait for something wherein they could probably guess the outcome of now. Players would then have even LESS than 6 months to adjust their playing/point-getting schedule.

Does someone see something that I don't?

The answer is B amended with tiering the registration system.

 

[krupicka]

It's too bad they didn't just leave it as is and add a priority registration for the top point earners and top rated players who qualified in each division. Allow 50% to be filled by priority reg.

For example if there is a field of 72. Give priority reg to top 36 rated for that field and the top 36 point earners for that field. Give em a week and then open the floodgates.

FTFY. Because after those 72 have a week to register, we'd be lucky to have one spot left for the rest of the membership.

I miswrote that. What I meant was

For example if there is a field of 72. Give priority reg to top 18 rated for that field and the top 18 point earners for that field. Give em a week and then open the floodgates.

 

[krupicka]

Anyone know using the 2017 criteria how many invites would have gone out for 2016?

 

[Rockwell]

Looks like there were 967 Am men who met the 1500 pts requirement to play MA1 during the 2015 season

 

[JamesM]

207 Adv Grandmasters would have enough 2015 points to qualify instead of 800.

 

[lyleoross]

D. Tiered registration for worlds.
(example)
Date 1 - Top 10-20% of players in 10 nationwide events from the prior year including the top 10% from last years worlds. (BG, AM Nats, KCWO, etc. Events bid/register to be a qualifying event) This allows the PDGA to have a small amount control over condition of qualifying events, thus improving the quality of large events. BG was very low quality this year in OB/mando marking, rules, and course conditions for the wooded courses for example.
It also helps future Am World's bidding communities hammer out issues and get up to speed by hosting a qualifying event. for example...Madison could have had a qualifying A tier last year. Sort of like the 2011 Charlotte Amateur Championship was a precurser to the 2012 Am Worlds.

Date 2 - Points or ratings tiered top 10% PDGA certified official members
Date 3 - Points or ratings tiered top 20% PDGA certified official members
and then open registration.

Except they're never going to do this, it is antithetical to the structure of the event. They don't want it to be a merit based entry. I admit that is subjective, they are making it merit based, but the merit is based on participation, did you play enough events. Those Ams who want something merit based are either going to have to start something on their own, run for office on the Board and change the structure, or find some other method to get a merit based top tier Am event. I can't see the PDGA doing this, it isn't in the best interest of what their members have asked them to do.

 

[BionicRib]

Anyone know using the 2017 criteria how many invites would have gone out for 2016?

Did the best I could using the pdga site for points earned in 2015


968 players classified as ams(all divisions are included because it wouldn't let me take out the age protected players so there would be less invited for just ma1) had more than 1500 pts last year.

273 am master players had more than 750pts last year

207 grandmaster players had more than 500 pts last year

260 am women had more than 90pts last year

Unless somebody has the exact numbers I would say with all the other divisions, I doubt it would be more than 2000 invites total

.....disclaimer.....
I am not 100% certain about these numbers

 

[BionicRib]

As of today 508 ams have more than 1500 pts in 2016.

 

[DavidSauls]

As of today 508 ams have more than 1500 pts in 2016.

491 of whom played in Bowling Green.

(Or have they closed that loophole yet?)