Board Candidate Announcement

[Dave242]

I'm in the process of planning a non-pdga event that requires current pdga membership to play, has more ratings capped divisions (but no gender or age protected divisions), requires urated players to play open, and pays cash to all divisions. There are a lot of players rated under 900 whom I have talked to and, so far, they all love this idea. It may happen as early as this fall.

I kind of like this idea....but it is self-limiting in its adoption. If players who play a limited number of tournaments chose this format over PDGA events, how will they get ratings?

I ran a similar sort of event in what I call a "Seeded Skins" format - read about it here. It was a 1 day PDGA event followed by a non-sanctioned skins event.

It was a ton of fun and players could play either event or both. Seeding for Skins was done primarily by PDGA ratings (sorta like you are doing) if players only came for Skins - where the "big money" added cash was paid out.

Sorry for contributing to thread drift.

 

[Dave242]

Just out of curiosity, why not sanction it? All of what you're talking about can be done under PDGA sanctioning as long as you advertise ahead of time what divisions are offered.

If I remember Jen's posts in the past, I do not believe that she thinks the ratings breaks as laid out by the PDGA are good for women (and the plethora of male players who are rated <800):

FW1 - 800+ (Advanced)
FW2 - <800 (Intermediate)
FW3 - <750 (Recreational)

MA1 - 935+ (Advanced)
MA2 - <935 (Intermediate)
MA3 - <900 (Recreational)
MA4 - <850 (Novice)

As you see, MA2 (Intermediate Men) has a 35 point range and that is a big demographic. Women do not have that luxury....everyone else has a 50 point range. Well......everyone except women <750 and men <850 -- their range is hundreds of points.

So, Jen I believe wants to set up a ratings divisional structure other than what the PDGA mandates (I am assuming that is the plan).....hence no sanctioning.
-------------------
Also if I remember correctly, Jen has ridiculed the accuracy of ratings so it is interesting that she wants to now tighten up ratings ranges and determine divisions by them.

 

[Dave242]

Sorry for contributing to thread drift.

I take that back. These posts are on topic since Shawn asked these questions:

• Why are there millions of people who play disc golf, yet only a few thousand who play tournaments?

• How can the PDGA get more people to play tournaments?

o How do we get more women to play tournaments?

o Do we need more or less divisions?

 

[iacas]

I'd take the magazine online, as a PDF, that encourages sharing. PDFs will stand the test of time as well as a printed magazine - perhaps better than a printed magazine.

And does it really matter if they're "pirated"? It's really no different than asking members to share their printed magazines.

Going with a PDF lets you add MORE pictures than you can put in a printed magazine, have more advertising, have INTERACTIVE advertising (i.e. you can click on an ad and be taken to a website), etc.

I like the magazine, but I'd read it just the same as a PDF. iPads, iPhones, etc. can read PDFs too, and they also fit in the bathroom.

 

[shawnsinclair]

The subject of an online magazine was discussed at the spring summit. It was pointed out that we already have an online version called pdga.com. Everything that is in the magazine can be put on the website and more. So with that being said what are things you like about the magazine and don't like? What things would you like to see added? I will get the ball rolling.

A new disc review section.
Houck' corner everything course design.
Course reviews
Player interviews am and pro. Written and video.

When you write a feature article for the magazine you will get paid. So I would recommend that continues on the website.

 

[_MTL_]

The subject of an online magazine was discussed at the spring summit. It was pointed out that we already have an online version called pdga.com. Everything that is in the magazine can be put on the website and more. So with that being said what are things you like about the magazine and don't like? What things would you like to see added? I will get the ball rolling.

A new disc review section.
Houck' corner everything course design.
Course reviews
Player interviews am and pro. Written and video.

When you write a feature article for the magazine you will get paid. So I would recommend that continues on the website.

The historical content is interesting.

For example, I would love to see an article about, say, 1999 worlds. The year Kenny's streak ended. Or the 2000 worlds in Houston when Kenny shot the perfect round in the semis to jump into the lead. What about the 2003 USDGC with the 10 hole playoff?

The newer generation of players don't have any historical knowledge of the game and I think an article that remembered classic events would be great.

 

[skippy0420]

First off I would like to say that you have my vote... I like where your head is at sir!

o How do we get more women to play tournaments?

Aside from the PRO women...... Try to keep the tourney costs down and/or assist with women's groups/leagues.

In the past few years I have seen the Milwaukee area go from MAYBE 2-3 women playing in a tourney to at least 10-12, if not more, in most tourneys. There have been TWO major factors in this turn around. The DOLLS group that was started by Mindy Robertson, and DG Guy/Terry Miller.

The DOLL's group is women's only and they are having weekly leagues all over the state of Wisconsin. Besides the $1.00 course fee each week they have successfully created a 'Come out & Have Fun!' league. Those that would like to play for a small payout can kick in the few extra dollars but when all is said and done it is a fun league. There are a few ladies in the MKE area that just started playing a few weeks ago because of this group and they keep coming back to play because these ladies are all out to learn and have fun. Once these ladies are able to meet each other and learn the game with NO PRESSURE it is only natural that the group then talks about maybe playing a tournament in the near future. It promotes the sport yet is does not cost much for someone that is just getting out to hang with the ladies or learning the sport for the first time.

And then there is Mr. Terry Miller... He is taking the 'hit' and charging only $10 for any women (other than pro) that would like to play his tournaments. Even though it is just a trophy only event for the ladies it allows them to all play in a tournament setting and see what it is all about. He loses money on every lady that signs up to his event but he is doing everything he possibly can alongside the DOLL's group to get the women out and playing.

I think the key with the women getting into DG is the NO PRESSURE aspect of what the league brings and having that possibly transfer to the tournaments. I hate to say it but the ladies that I have met in the leagues have a few things to teach the men that I see out on the course. The DGGW event this past weekend opened my eyes to the fact that women that play DG do it for the right reasons. To play their best AND have fun!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/Disc.On.Ladies.League/

 

[jenb]

Just out of curiosity, why not sanction it? All of what you're talking about can be done under PDGA sanctioning as long as you advertise ahead of time what divisions are offered.

No, if I sanction it, I can't prohibit new, unrated or zero rated PDGA members from playing any ratings protected divisions. I also could only offer the PDGA divisions with their ratings caps, but I want to offer more divisions with, say, 25 ratings point breaks. I also would not be allowed to pay all divisions cash.

 

[mashnut]

I think you could put unrated players in the division of your choice, I thought that was something that's at the PDGA's discretion. You're right, you can't break up the divisions like that, I'd be interested to see though if that actually created a better competitive system. Players with lower ratings tend to be very inconsistent, I think you'd see a ton of overlap between adjacent divisions with that small a ratings range. I'm also a little skeptical of getting enough people to have legitimate competition in each division if broken up like that. I didn't see the cash part of your original thread, have you considered doing a really low entry fee, trophy only event and encouraging side bets where people can buy into a cash pot for each division?

 

[onemilemore]

The subject of an online magazine was discussed at the spring summit. It was pointed out that we already have an online version called pdga.com. Everything that is in the magazine can be put on the website and more. So with that being said what are things you like about the magazine and don't like? What things would you like to see added? I will get the ball rolling.

A new disc review section.
Houck' corner everything course design.
Course reviews
Player interviews am and pro. Written and video.

When you write a feature article for the magazine you will get paid. So I would recommend that continues on the website.

So is the only reason a magazine is printed, then, because it always has been? If so, sticking with the status quo like that just seems like a massive waste of money. If it is to cater to the people who don't have Internet, that is still a huge chunk for a small portion of the population.

If you take it solely online, your content can be more timely. I would advise against course reviews, because by and large most people are coming here for that.

I like the idea of getting paid to write content for the site. Where do I sign up?

 

[shawnsinclair]

I like the idea of getting paid to write content for the site. Where do I sign up?

Send an email to [email protected] asking about the guidelines.

 

[jenb]

I think you could put unrated players in the division of your choice, I thought that was something that's at the PDGA's discretion.

Not if they are a PDGA member. If you offer a division, and they are a member, and they qualify for the division, you can't prohibit them from playing the division. That includes new PDGA members who do not yet have ratings, or who have zero ratings.

You're right, you can't break up the divisions like that, I'd be interested to see though if that actually created a better competitive system. Players with lower ratings tend to be very inconsistent, I think you'd see a ton of overlap between adjacent divisions with that small a ratings range.

I think that may be an issue too, but I think the players will tend to clump up in less than all divisions when I enforce the at least two players per division rule. So some people will likely be playing up anyway. But I also want to offer different caps, such as 925 and 950, so people who normally get creamed at PDGA events can have a fighting chance. But another thing I want to do is address the issue of players who have improved and are performing much better than their PDGA ratings, but have a lot of old rounds keeping the rating down. So I plan to have a modified rating that takes the highest of the PDGA rating and a rating based on the most recent 10 rounds. That way, old rounds won't keep a rating down, but it will still be hard to bag your rating down right before the tournament.

I'm also a little skeptical of getting enough people to have legitimate competition in each division if broken up like that.

I think two people of similar skill is enough. I've been in many two person divisions that were a blast. The key is to have close competition.

I didn't see the cash part of your original thread, have you considered doing a really low entry fee, trophy only event and encouraging side bets where people can buy into a cash pot for each division?

I'm thinking $25 is about right for two rounds. I'm a little wary of doing side bets because I've looked up a few different states' gaming laws and I think it might be borderline risky to do something like that. But I don't know for sure.

 

[bikinjack]

As a member org, the PDGA needs to regularly send some sort of printed media to their membership with org updates because not everyone is on the net yet. So you might as well make it a marketing and sport documentation piece in addition to the member org info updates since no other org or DG mag (none) will record the history of the sport in pictures.

I call BS on this argument. So the PDGA pays a $200,000 per year ransom for the few hundred (if that) members that don't have internet access? I realize that a good portion of that $200,000 would be spent anyway, but what's the cost per Luddite member? $100 annually? $50? It would almost be as inexpensive to just pay for internet access for those few members who don't already have it. Seriously, what percentage of PDGA members actually don't have internet access? 1%? 3%?

 

[Cgkdisc]

It's not just access, it also has to do with members preferred medium for reading. As a membership org versus a 'for profit' business, the org caters to the preferences of the members. I suspect you would find a significant percentage who still prefer getting their info in print even if they have internet access. For instance, I still prefer looking up answers and can find them faster in the printed rulebook versus the rules on the PDGA website even when answering questions online. I only use the online version for copying and pasting passages if that's part of my answer.

 

[bikinjack]

It's not just access, it also has to do with members preferred medium for reading. As a membership org versus a 'for profit' business, the org caters to the preferences of the members. I suspect you would find a significant percentage who still prefer getting their info in print even if they have internet access. For instance, I still prefer looking up answers and can find them faster in the printed rulebook versus the rules on the PDGA website even when answering questions online. I only use the online version for copying and pasting passages if that's part of my answer.

I'm not going to argue against publishing a hard copy rule book. But I still call BS on you're previous argument for the magazine. The org should at least look at the numbers very seriously.

 

[iacas]

For instance, I still prefer looking up answers and can find them faster in the printed rulebook versus the rules on the PDGA website even when answering questions online. I only use the online version for copying and pasting passages if that's part of my answer.

Odd. I use the PDF and the search capability that exists within virtually every app capable of displaying PDFs…

PDFs. They're accessible online, can be printed, stored, searched, indexed… (I'm talking about for the magazine now - printing's downsides are far outweighed by the upsides of going to a PDF.)

 

[Cgkdisc]

The PDGA IT guy would disagree about PDFs being ideal although I find PDFs okay for transportability. He has been systematically eliminating PDFs on the PDGA website and replacing them with an HTML version of each document which are still searchable of course.

 

[scarpfish]

Seriously, what percentage of PDGA members actually don't have internet access? 1%? 3%?

I know those of us who do internet every day seem to think the thing is ubiquitous now, but it was recently estimated by census data that 20% of households in the US have no internet access. Granted most of these folks are the very poor who aren't likely to have money for golf discs in general, much less a PDGA membership.

But I'm sure we've all ran into older guys at our local leagues or tournaments who grew up in a non-internet world, could afford internet access if they wanted it, and just choose not to because its not their thing. Some folks just don't do computer.

 

[bikinjack]

I know those of us who do internet every day seem to think the thing is ubiquitous now, but it was recently estimated by census data that 20% of households in the US have no internet access. Granted most of these folks are the very poor who aren't likely to have money for golf discs in general, much less a PDGA membership.

But I'm sure we've all ran into older guys at our local leagues or tournaments who grew up in a non-internet world, could afford internet access if they wanted it, and just choose not to because its not their thing. Some folks just don't do computer.

I'm well aware of this. I have a 73 year old mother. But seriously does the PDGA even know what percentage of its current membership doesn't have internet access? This is something they should address before continuing to spend $200,000 per year on a print magazine.

 

[Jukeshoe]

Magazines still exist? :|