How I Would Change the PDGA

[shive]

I am beginning my campaign for reelection to the PDGA Board of Directors. I serve at the pleasure of the membership, and I want to present a very clear and detailed statement so members can easily judge whether they would like to vote for me or not.

I want to change the PDGA. I believe that the "little people" in our organization have been left far behind. I'm talking about people who pay too much and about people who serve without meaningful compensation. This includes about 90% of our membership, 97% of our Tournament Directors and all of our State Coordinators.

We (the PDGA) have become like a giant vacuum cleaner that sucks enormous amounts of money (over half a million dollars in fees in 2013) from local clubs and communities, and spends more than $300,000 on a few "PDGA-owned" events that are attended by about 10% of the membership. Thus the balance between "top down" and "bottom up" is all out of whack.

The next post in this thread presents a list of items that I hope someday to help implement. This would at least in part correct the imbalances noted above, and also addresses some peripheral issues. I will entertain questions and comments about any of these.

 

[shive]

Platform Items

How I Would Change the PDGA

1) The PDGA would provide meaningful benefits for tournament directors, and for state coordinators.
2) A substantial portion (at least 50%) of the income (sanctioning fees, player fees and nonmember fees) from PDGA events would be left with the local communities and clubs.
3) There would be an Amateur Tour (a tour for Amateurs – not one in which Amateurs are manipulated to provide galleries and financial support for Open Pros).
4) There would be a Tour for older Pros.
5) The PDGA would make a serious effort to provide good value for recreational players.
6) Members would be told which delinquent TD's are still being allowed to run events (ie, have not been suspended for nonpayment of fees).
7) There would be POY awards for all Pro divisions, and for major Amateur divisions.
8) There would be a mission effort (let's call it "Marco Polo 2") to the PDGA's third world – our A, B, and C-Tier events.
9) International competition would include a "Culture Clash" component.
10) We would give away any grass-roots program that has as much potential to generate new members as the new League program.
11) No more "Vanity TV", paid for by the entire membership. The rights to broadcast PDGA events would not be considered worthless. Independent producers would be encouraged.
12) Board members and officers would not be permitted to hide potential conflicts of interest from the members. Board members with conflict of interest issues would not be allowed to lobby the Board on their own behalf. And Board members whose terms expire would have to run for reelection, even if they had been appointed (especially if they had been appointed).
13) Tournament directors would no longer be required to pay exorbitant amounts of added cash to Pros in low-registration tournaments.
14) Hotel group commissions would revert to the PDGA members who stayed in the hotels, and not be pocketed by the PDGA.
15) Changing the Bylaws to allow appointed Board members was a bad idea, and should be undone.

 

[kutz167]

Lots of good ideas, Mr. Shive! We need more people that understand a sport is grown from the bottom up and not the other way around. Get enough of the public interested and people will take notice.

Do you have any solutions to the dated standards that are in need of revision? I'm thinking possibly something with the equipment standards which have been so controversial over the last few months.

 

[onemilemore]

:clap: I can confidently say that, if I were a PDGA member, you'd be getting my vote. I'm glad to see that someone relatively inside the bubble can see that it needs to be popped and rebuilt. Good luck!

 

[Sadjo]

I think the PDGA needs to stop using and listening to the same consultants year after year. Get some new blood and ideas.

 

[Brodysseus]

How I Would Change the PDGA

1) The PDGA would provide meaningful benefits for tournament directors, and for state coordinators.
2) A substantial portion (at least 50%) of the income (sanctioning fees, player fees and nonmember fees) from PDGA events would be left with the local communities and clubs.
3) There would be an Amateur Tour (a tour for Amateurs – not one in which Amateurs are manipulated to provide galleries and financial support for Open Pros).
5) The PDGA would make a serious effort to provide good value for recreational players.
13) Tournament directors would no longer be required to pay exorbitant amounts of added cash to Pros in low-registration tournaments.

Those five points are awesome, especially number 3. As an amateur, I should not be raked over the coals to provide money for pros (and TDs shouldn't be either, like you say in 13). I do have a little addition to point 5. We do not necessarily need "added value" but the "same value" we are receiving now, with less out of our pockets. That's an odd way to word that since value is relative, but I imagine you all know what I mean.

I am rather disillusioned with the PDGA right now and probably won't be renewing this year. However, if these changes (and more changes that stop entitling pros at the expense of everyone else) go into effect, work, and stay in effect, I would definitely sign back up.

 

[Brodysseus]

We need more people that understand a sport is grown from the bottom up and not the other way around.

:clap:I'm glad to see that someone relatively inside the bubble can see that it needs to be popped and rebuilt.

I think the PDGA needs to stop using and listening to the same consultants year after year. Get some new blood and ideas.

Sorry, had to repost and highlight some great points from other forum members.

 

[turbosteve]

I have a feeling that a lot of touring pros will not like these proposed changes. I however think that this will put the sport on the right track to future success.

 

[jrawk]

shive, since i think you already are serving as member of the board, can you point to any actions you've already taken to attempt a move toward the goals you've listed here?

 

[mullethead326]

I came to this sport from ultimate, and there's a significant difference between how the governing bodies for each sport promote youth and collegiate play. In ultimate, there are youth leagues or championships in about 40 states and nearly every university has a competitive, traveling club team. USAUltimate works hard to have tournaments organized throughout the fall and spring (with help from regional coordinators) to facilitate a meaningful regular season (e.g. qualifiers to the postseason) and then sectional, regional, and national tournaments. The best way to get more people involved and interested in DG is to sell it to the kids... if they're into it, their parents and friends will follow.

WRT the amateur tour, I would not bother watching career amateur players who just keep their rating at 969 for years (whether by design or actual skill peak). I would, however, love to see young, developing amateurs who are on the brink of moving up--it would be exciting to see the new faces who might be ready to challenge for the top spots in future years.

 

[_MTL_]

15) Changing the Bylaws to allow appointed Board members was a bad idea, and should be undone.

Agreed in theory. But this also has prevented a BOD filled with touring pros who pretty much benefit from the things you listed earlier.

 

[JTacoma03]

Peter,

As a PDGA member I'd like to respectfully voice my disagreement with a couple of agenda items you have:

3) There would be an Amateur Tour (a tour for Amateurs – not one in which Amateurs are manipulated to provide galleries and financial support for Open Pros).
4) There would be a Tour for older Pros.

I personally do not believe these items will advance the sport. In fact it seems, especially with the budget cutting you'd like to also do with the PDGA - that these would detract from the National Tour that already exists.

I'd actually like to see the PDGA go in the opposite way, and become more exclusive and pump more resources into the professional tour. Admittedly I'm in the Steven Dodge camp on this matter in growing the majors in combination with the NT's (though I'm not sure a flat payout is best - but that's another issue entirely).

My biggest concern with the PDGA is I view these changes I've highlighted as methods of "doing good enough" for disc golf. I believe I speak for a large group of my "disc golf generation" in saying that we want more. We want to be respected as a sport, as an organization, and as competitive athletes. It's not enough to just do better than what we've done before, we need to put one singular product forth in the mainstream marketplace, and make it the best we can. In that way we can be an attractive option for new blood - money, players, sponsors, etc.

In my humble opinion putting forth one excellent quality Pro Tour has a much better chance of becoming lucrative than trying to put 3 mediocre-in-execution tours. Should the Pro Tour become lucrative enough with a concerted and nationwide collaborative effort, we could more effectively run Amateur and Masters tours in the future than we ever could at this point.

I should note - that I DO support weaning Pro purses off of AM entries. Am's should not be the piggy banks of the touring pros. We are already the consumer that funds the sponsorships (and even the pros directly!). The money is too cyclical in disc golf. We need more outside income, and we have to break the cycle of Am's wholly funding Pro's in order to do so.

If you've read all of this, thanks for taking the time. Though I've only been around the sport for 4 years now - I have a passion for the game and the community that will carry me through the rest of my life. My hope is that in that time we can continue to grow and display what an awesome experience being a disc golfer is.

James Thomas
#47201

 

[Ripper]

Think that the fees should be dropped to 20 dollars per year. In one Saturday I can count at least 8 - 12 people who say that they don't get enough out of the 50 dollars to warrant sign up. Think if the fee were dropped for people who renew you would get a much bigger influx of revenue and also more people signing up for tourneys and playing.

I don't think an Amateur tour really would work since most are going to be local regional players anyways but a more local point system, and ranking system per state would be awesome. The pro tour will not survive without the ams as they are the ones that pay for tee signs, sponsorships, and spots to play. Think a code of conduct and suspending touring pros who cuss, kick bags, and give a black eye to the sport would be a great addition also. Think arrogant and demeaning behavior by some pros hurts TD's, since ams are less likely to buy tee signs, and support a tournament after having a run in with said pro. I know I won't give a dime, or an ounce of energy to these guys!

People are not renewing, and playing I think is a huge problem with this game. I've played for 3 years and the guys I started out with about 5 - 6 of us. I'm the only one that still plays tournaments. They still play causal and local doubles but tournaments are too costly for them. I think that the cost of tournaments and membership have priced allot of these guys out of giving up a sat and sunday to play.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm a 17-year member, a regular TD, and a lifetime Am player, almost exclusively of lower-tier events. Yet I can't agree with much of this platform. For one specific:


2) A substantial portion (at least 50%) of the income (sanctioning fees, player fees and nonmember fees) from PDGA events would be left with the local communities and clubs.

I'm not sure this makes sense to me. First of all, a substantial portion of the income does stay around here, in the form of retail/wholesale difference on discs. TD's have the option of retaining a portion of the fees, or charging greens fees, or other methods to retain more income, but don't.

If the PDGA only took half of the current fee, TDs would likely just see it as a reduction in fee, not a sharing of it.

It's basically a way of saying the PDGA should cut fees in half, which of course many will applaud. It's not necessarily putting money in the local communities or clubs---or store-owners that run events.

 

[dashiellx]

Think that the fees should be dropped to 20 dollars per year. In one Saturday I can count at least 8 - 12 people who say that they don't get enough out of the 50 dollars to warrant sign up. Think if the fee were dropped for people who renew you would get a much bigger influx of revenue and also more people signing up for tourneys and playing

This is what is keeping me from joining. I would play maybe three tournys a year, I can't justify the $50 for a small discount on entry fees and a bunch of discounts that I'll never use.

 

[bradharris]

In my humble opinion putting forth one excellent quality Pro Tour has a much better chance of becoming lucrative than trying to put 3 mediocre-in-execution tours. Should the Pro Tour become lucrative enough with a concerted and nationwide collaborative effort, we could more effectively run Amateur and Masters tours in the future than we ever could at this point.

This is my viewpoint as well. The PDGA's main focus should be on putting together a strong product that it can sell. A strong pro tour is that product. I appreciate the efforts to improve the experience for ams, but the bulk of money and effort should be spent building something that brings spectators and sponsors.

 

[jeverett]

Hi Peter,

First, I want to say that I've appreciated how open you've been about PDGA decision-making, governance, and structure over the past year. Your thread here on dgcoursereview has been excellent, just as an example.

I'd love to hear a bit more about a number of the items you mention, in particular some justifications. For example, with items #3 and #4, a tour for both Amateurs and Masters, I'm not certain I understand the logic. Steven Dodge has been very vocally against dilution of the PDGA tour, and in general I agree with his logic. Plus, I don't really see how touring as an Amateur can be in any way financially viable. Amateurs already often travel around the state over the course of the season, and I don't really see greater travel distances as being possible for the vast majority of Amateurs.

Numbers 2,5, and 7 all seem to be sort of lumped together for me, and in principle I agree.. I do think a large percentage of non-member players aren't members because they don't see enough direct benefit to joining. Things like player of the year awards for all divisions could help with that, perhaps, but I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on the topic, especially how #2 might translate into more than just Am tourney costs being essentially subsidized by membership fees (more than they are currently). Personally, I'd like to see a percentage of membership fees go toward local communities in the form of grants (for course development, outreach, educational opportunities, K-12 schools athletics programs, etc.).

 

[kutz167]

I believe one of the largest methods to increase the Pro purse without changing a large amount of the entry fees would be to reduce the depth of payout for the MPO division. If I'm not mistaken, the current pro payout is 40% of the division's field. If the payout were trimmed to the top 25%, there would be more money for those players that routinely finish at the top.

 

[bradharris]

I believe one of the largest methods to increase the Pro purse without changing a large amount of the entry fees would be to reduce the depth of payout for the MPO division. If I'm not mistaken, the current pro payout is 40% of the division's field. If the payout were trimmed to the top 25%, there would be more money for those players that routinely finish at the top.

But how many fewer players would be buying into that pro purse with a shallower payout?

 

[kutz167]

But how many fewer players would be buying into that pro purse with a shallower payout?

That would remain to be seen. With a larger payout to those at the top we would see more true athletes pursuing a pro career in disc golf which would push the level of play at that top level even higher. This higher level of play would help to generate even more interest in spectating tournaments.