Idea about sanctioned play that I have had kicking around for a bit. (long post)

[Timeetyo]

I like the idea of the payout going towards membership, but this only works if the payout > membership and won't in small divisions....and also may be counter productive on the whole as if someone does manage to barely cash in their 1st tourney they may see the payout get eaten and not get bitten by that bug that drives them towards more future tourneys.

So what if for those B/C tiers if someone is not a member (never had one):
- you still pay that $10 fee
- you are assigned, for lack of better terms a "non-member number"
- your rounds & rating are tied to this for future tourneys
- your rating is ONLY given to TDs - so you can't know it - keeping intact that member benefit.
- if you do join down the line - all these rounds can then be tied to your #


So what does this do?
- no extra cost for your "normal" casual tourney player who plays 1-3 tourneys a year
- built in protection for bagging
- a little extra admin work (not sure how much this would be)

 

[JC17393]

I like the idea of the payout going towards membership, but this only works if the payout > membership and won't in small divisions....and also may be counter productive on the whole as if someone does manage to barely cash in their 1st tourney they may see the payout get eaten and not get bitten by that bug that drives them towards more future tourneys.

So what if for those B/C tiers if someone is not a member (never had one):
- you still pay that $10 fee
- you are assigned, for lack of better terms a "non-member number"
- your rounds & rating are tied to this for future tourneys
- your rating is ONLY given to TDs - so you can't know it - keeping intact that member benefit.
- if you do join down the line - all these rounds can then be tied to your #


So what does this do?
- no extra cost for your "normal" casual tourney player who plays 1-3 tourneys a year
- built in protection for bagging
- a little extra admin work (not sure how much this would be)

The admin work would probably be a lot, I would think. Even if you assume the ratio of members to non-members at B/C tiers is 50/50, that's double the amount of players to keep track of (enter into the system, etc). My bet is that the ratio is probably more like 65/35 or even 70/30 in favor of non-members to members, since you're more likely to get repeat business from the members than the nons.

But to address the bolded...is it the prizes that is the allure that brings players back to tournaments? If we're talking a first time or part time tournament player, I would think the mere experience of success in the tournament would be paramount to them coming back. Once the novelty of winning wears off, then the focus becomes about winning "stuff". And in that respect, if winning a membership means the potential value is better at the next event ($10 less on entry + getting 100% of their prize value in "stuff"), perhaps they're more inclined to play.

 

[jeverett]

The admin work would probably be a lot, I would think. Even if you assume the ratio of members to non-members at B/C tiers is 50/50, that's double the amount of players to keep track of (enter into the system, etc). My bet is that the ratio is probably more like 65/35 or even 70/30 in favor of non-members to members, since you're more likely to get repeat business from the members than the nons.

I had actually thought that the PDGA started doing exactly this a few years ago.. Chuck answered previously, though: the problem was that many of these players never give enough information about themselves (e.g. their address) to be entered into the PDGA system even as non-members for tracking purposes.

So it could definitely be done, but the registration process for non-members would need some cleaning up/refining to enable the PDGA to efficiently/effectively match up non-member records even without a PDGA number.

 

[JC17393]

I had actually thought that the PDGA started doing exactly this a few years ago.. Chuck answered previously, though: the problem was that many of these players never give enough information about themselves (e.g. their address) to be entered into the PDGA system even as non-members for tracking purposes.

So it could definitely be done, but the registration process for non-members would need some cleaning up/refining to enable the PDGA to efficiently/effectively match up non-member records even without a PDGA number.

That's what I was getting at with the admin being more...they've tried it and it mostly has failed because it relies on a lot more work/effort from the TDs. TDs have to collect info they might not otherwise be bothered with and then enter it into a report for the PDGA (a lot of TDs have enough trouble filling out the scores portion of the report, let alone names, addresses, contact info, etc for every player).

And on the other end of things, they're going to have to take whatever non-member lists they're given access to and cross-check their non-member registrations against it. For tournaments with a good deal of day-of walk up attendance, that adds a ton of time-consuming efforts that would need to be done before the first round starts.

I mean, the list of members (current and not) that the PDGA sends to me the week of my events is 45 pages long when printed, and that's just for my "region" (10 states). I can't imagine what I'd be looking at if they sent a similar list of recorded non-members in the same area.

Just seems like a nightmarish solution for the relatively small problem of non-members "bagging" or taking advantage of their untracked status in amateur divisions.

 

[scarpfish]

How about just awarding PDGA memberships to winners in AM divisions?

I like this idea a lot.

Unless the membership is donated, I don't. Its punishing a local player for winning the only tournament he may play in all year. It also wastes a lot of perfectly good PDGA numbers that in all likelihood will never get renewed.

 

[scarpfish]

What if a player takes 1st or 2nd place against a single card division (a near certainty for women in a lot of places) full of first timer stumblebums? There's quite a difference in difficulty in beating a field of 3-5 versus a field of 10+.

so what?

So a player shouldn't be punished with a worthless prize over a circumstance that was beyond their control, when they would possibly finished third or fourth had a different set of players shown up, or had attendance been higher, and gotten some plastic instead.

 

[JC17393]

Unless the membership is donated, I don't. Its punishing a local player for winning the only tournament he may play in all year. It also wastes a lot of perfectly good PDGA numbers that in all likelihood will never get renewed.

Is there danger of running out of membership numbers that we have to be careful how many get handed out? Given the renewal rate now, a lot of numbers given out to people who willingly signed up seem to be "wasted" because they're never renewed. I don't see this as any different. Besides, the more numbers given out, the more numbers the PDGA has to use as evidence of the sport/organization's growth. Every number given out at least represents someone who knows about the game and has played it. That's far more concrete evidence than the guesswork involved with trying to gauge how many people play the game nationally/globally.

As for "punishing" a player, I don't get that. They're getting something for their money. Is a membership any more or less useful than a stack of random discs the player may or may not ever use? And it's a one-time thing. If it's the only event they play each year, then they're only "punished" once and the benefit is they get to have a rating that ensures they play the proper division every year going forward.

 

[ru4por]

Jared Roan did not repeatedly beat on int or adv year after year, He played int for one season then switched to adv for the following season and open the season after. He took what he thought at the time was the best route for him and his game and it looks like it worked out pretty darn well for him. I'm certainly glad he didn't listen to all the crybabies along the way telling him what he should be doing so it would benefit their game over his. He may not have made it where he is today without doing it like he did.

If he had a PDGA #, after his first(or initial rating period) INT tournament, he would have been forced to move up to ADV per ratings. He would not have been able to play INT for a full season, nor even ADV for that matter, if he was anywhere near as good as he is now.
I like the Michigan State rule described below.

 

[JC17393]

If he had a PDGA #, after his first(or initial rating period) INT tournament, he would have been forced to move up to ADV per ratings. He would not have been able to play INT for a full season, nor even ADV for that matter, if he was anywhere near as good as he is now.
I like the Michigan State rule described below.

There is no limit on Advanced. Jared (or anyone for that matter) can stay in Advanced for life if they want to, PDGA member or not.

Also, I'd love to see evidence of what you're saying (i.e. a link to his first tournament in Int in which he earned ratings that would have forced him up).

 

[ru4por]

There is no limit on Advanced. Jared (or anyone for that matter) can stay in Advanced for life if they want to, PDGA member or not.

Also, I'd love to see evidence of what you're saying (i.e. a link to his first tournament in Int in which he earned ratings that would have forced him up).

JC, not flaming on Jared. Don't know him or the circumstances, nor was I the original post on him. You are correct about ADV. My point is that ratings help protect divisioning, providing a better experience for all skill levels in a tournament. My comment was to the circumstance not a person.

 

[dreadlock86]

So a player shouldn't be punished with a worthless prize over a circumstance that was beyond their control, when they would possibly finished third or fourth had a different set of players shown up, or had attendance been higher, and gotten some plastic instead.

if you don't like the idea altogether then fine. i just don't see the difference in this instance whether there are 5 or 50 people in any given division.

 

[Moose33]

I don't have a PDGA#, I play a few tournaments a year and usually place okay unless there is only one division and some of the local pros like Matt Dollar are there and shoot 12 under most rounds.

would get one if I had time to play more, but I have a family and a job where I travel way too much.
Downside is I miss thing like the OP ironman next weekend I really wanted to play in, but the upside is I do get to play at courses all over the country.(Including Toboggan FTW!)

I'd love to get a number but it's just not super practical for me to so that right now. Maybe next year.

 

[redrum]

Jared Roan did not repeatedly beat on int or adv year after year, He played int for one season then switched to adv for the following season and open the season after. He took what he thought at the time was the best route for him and his game and it looks like it worked out pretty darn well for him. I'm certainly glad he didn't listen to all the crybabies along the way telling him what he should be doing so it would benefit their game over his. He may not have made it where he is today without doing it like he did.

I should have prolly mentioned that I call him a bagger out of love. He beat me quite a few times and I just couldn't get over the fact that I knew he could really compete against some top guys. I always thought he deserved to play against those guys. I respect him as a player and he will always be a Detroit guy. He did right by his game, and I'm happy to see him on tour. I never said year after year...but those were long seasons trying to go up against him lol

 

[Darth Anovin]

Good discussion here with some valid points for both sides. However, making a player play advanced or even open if they don't have a PDGA # or valid membership is down right silly. Now, I'm all for seeing the PDGA grow as an organization. I thinks it great for the sport. But what if you have someone that's only been throwing for 6 months playing in his/her first tournament? You really want to put them in open or advanced? First, that's gonna piss open or advanced players off due to the new guy slowing them down. But that isn't my main concern. My main concern is the new guy getting smashed by 40 throws and saying "screw this. I'll stick to casual rounds with my buddies." Not exactly growing the sport IMO.

 

[bradharris]

Make am divisions trophy only. Problem (if there even is one) solved.

 

[Tfire25]

In Texas I have never seen novice offered. IMO they should offer novice as trophy only and if you don't have a pdga membership you have to play in novice or advanced.

If you have played in a tournament before you are bumped to advanced. If you haven't, you play novice. It's not that hard to check unless they have used an alias.

Winner of novice gets a trophy and a membership. Maybe even second place. We have to start looking towards the future of the tournament side of our sport. Eventually everyone will have to have a membership to participate in a pdga event. My idea would be a good way to start the process.

 

[Brodysseus]

We have to start looking towards the future of the tournament side of our sport.

Why?

 

[Tfire25]

Why?

I believe that in the future we will have enough people playing to warrant membership requirements for pdga tournament play. Why not start taking a step in that direction? I also foresee trophy only.

While I don't agree with either I know it's coming. It would be better to implement it slowly. If both were dropped on us today the pdga would cease to exist.

Just to get it out of the way, both options will hamper growth for a while. Non sanctioned tournaments will explode, which will increase the sand bagging/td problems, which will lead to acceptance of the rules in sanctioned events.

I know that we are a small growing sport full of a screw the man mentality, but we need to support the pdga so that we grow in the right direction. Without some kind of rules or governing body the tournament side of the sport will spiral into chaos.

 

[dreadlock86]

I believe that in the future we will have enough people playing to warrant membership requirements for pdga tournament play. Why not start taking a step in that direction? I also foresee trophy only.

that could be done but it's not necessary

Just to get it out of the way, both options will hamper growth for a while. Non sanctioned tournaments will explode, which will increase the sand bagging/td problems, which will lead to acceptance of the rules in sanctioned events.

i'm not following this logic

I know that we are a small growing sport full of a screw the man mentality, but we need to support the pdga so that we grow in the right direction. Without some kind of rules or governing body the tournament side of the sport will spiral into chaos.

bull$hit. there is no evidence either assertion nor can i think of a valid argument for them.

 

[numbernine]

Good discussion here with some valid points for both sides. However, making a player play advanced or even open if they don't have a PDGA # or valid membership is down right silly. Now, I'm all for seeing the PDGA grow as an organization. I thinks it great for the sport. But what if you have someone that's only been throwing for 6 months playing in his/her first tournament? You really want to put them in open or advanced? First, that's gonna piss open or advanced players off due to the new guy slowing them down. But that isn't my main concern. My main concern is the new guy getting smashed by 40 throws and saying "screw this. I'll stick to casual rounds with my buddies." Not exactly growing the sport IMO.

how do you feel about people without a PDGA # going into their own division with a lower buy in and lower payout?