USDGC coverage

[_MTL_]

I realize statistically this is not the case...but what is the "argument" for why it would be advantageous? Is it just that the players are likely to be socially comfortable/used to playing with each other? It's an individual sport, I don't really get why it would matter.

Let's say you are McBeth.

You are playing with Wysocki, Lizotte and McMahon.

There's a really good chance one of these three people will be the leader or if not, pretty dang close. If you are shooting what they are shooting, it's confirmation you are ok. If you are way behind, it's confirmation you need to get some work done.

Playing with three 980 guys, you don't get that same sensation. It's a subtle advantage.

 

[onemilemore]

Interestingly enough, next year a super group REQUIRES live coverage and Tour Manager approval.

"First round "Super Groups" for media purposes are NOT allowed unless for live
coverage and previously approved by each player within the group and by the
PDGA Tour Manager"

So if USDGC or any other event wants to do a super group for the first round, live coverage will have to happen.

I could see USDGC having an argument for saying their scoring system with video embeds constitutes live coverage. Also, I think super groups are an important component for growing the media exposure of the sport. Eyeballs are needed, regardless of if it is live or in post-production. Although I am guessing Jomez/CCDG etc. will just head to the card that has Ricky or Paul and hope for fireworks.

 

[JTacoma03]

Interestingly enough, next year a super group REQUIRES live coverage and Tour Manager approval.

"First round "Super Groups" for media purposes are NOT allowed unless for live
coverage and previously approved by each player within the group and by the
PDGA Tour Manager"

So if USDGC or any other event wants to do a super group for the first round, live coverage will have to happen.

LOL. Good luck with that one PDGA. I've been in favor of their rule changes actually, but then I read this...

This is in no way enforceable. What constitutes a "super group" exactly? Who's discretion? What if a randomly generated group has 4 players over 1020? Who then determines if a "super group" was made for media purposes or not? What does "live coverage" constitute?

Maybe we'll just stop filming the first round then...it gets the least amount of views anyway.

 

[JC17393]

I realize statistically this is not the case...but what is the "argument" for why it would be advantageous? Is it just that the players are likely to be socially comfortable/used to playing with each other? It's an individual sport, I don't really get why it would matter.

It's the perception (which also is statistically unproven) that playing with better players makes one a better player. That by playing with better players, people perform above and beyond what they'd otherwise do. Problem is that any "proof" is simple confirmation bias. Top players are going to shoot top scores more often than not regardless of who they play with. So of course if they're grouped together in round 1, they may all end up shooting the hot scores of the day and "confirm" the perception.

LOL. Good luck with that one PDGA. I've been in favor of their rule changes actually, but then I read this...

This is in no way enforceable. What constitutes a "super group" exactly? Who's discretion? What if a randomly generated group has 4 players over 1020? Who then determines if a "super group" was made for media purposes or not? What does "live coverage" constitute?

It isn't just about how the group is selected, but when they play (in a tee time environment). Even if you randomly generate a group of four players rated 1020+, they don't have to tee off at a featured time. Which to me is more of the giveaway than who is in the group.

I think that is the only valid argument against the super group...the tee time. Featured groups tend to go off later in the day, often last as the lead card would. If super groups tend to feature the same players over and over (McBeth, Wysocki, Lizotte, McMahon, Sexton, etc), I could see where some other players would object to them getting the later tee times consistently if they're randomly assigned an 8:30 or 9:00 tee time once in a while.

Sure, randomly group those four 1020+ rated guys, but have them tee off at 9:20 rather than 2:00 and no one is likely to cry about an unfair super card.

 

[_MTL_]

LOL. Good luck with that one PDGA. I've been in favor of their rule changes actually, but then I read this...

This is in no way enforceable. What constitutes a "super group" exactly? Who's discretion? What if a randomly generated group has 4 players over 1020? Who then determines if a "super group" was made for media purposes or not? What does "live coverage" constitute?

Maybe we'll just stop filming the first round then...it gets the least amount of views anyway.

I agree, it's impossible to enforce.

However, I think it's great that a player can say no to playing in it of he or she chooses not to.

I didn't post this to stir up drama or make an argument for why it should be live, just felt interesting considering the timing.

 

[onemilemore]

Sure, randomly group those four 1020+ rated guys, but have them tee off at 9:20 rather than 2:00 and no one is likely to cry about an unfair super card.

This is actual much more favorable for the post-production crews who film a feature card, too. Off the course earlier, not up all night editing.

However, I think it's great that a player can say no to playing in it of he or she chooses not to.

Agree with this. Being able to opt out of the spotlight is just fine. I still wonder why this went so far as to become part of the competition manual, though.

 

[JTacoma03]

It's the perception (which also is statistically unproven) that playing with better players makes one a better player. That by playing with better players, people perform above and beyond what they'd otherwise do. Problem is that any "proof" is simple confirmation bias. Top players are going to shoot top scores more often than not regardless of who they play with. So of course if they're grouped together in round 1, they may all end up shooting the hot scores of the day and "confirm" the perception.



It isn't just about how the group is selected, but when they play (in a tee time environment). Even if you randomly generate a group of four players rated 1020+, they don't have to tee off at a featured time. Which to me is more of the giveaway than who is in the group.

I think that is the only valid argument against the super group...the tee time. Featured groups tend to go off later in the day, often last as the lead card would. If super groups tend to feature the same players over and over (McBeth, Wysocki, Lizotte, McMahon, Sexton, etc), I could see where some other players would object to them getting the later tee times consistently if they're randomly assigned an 8:30 or 9:00 tee time once in a while.

Sure, randomly group those four 1020+ rated guys, but have them tee off at 9:20 rather than 2:00 and no one is likely to cry about an unfair super card.

I would not be opposed to an earlier feature card. Now, I don't think that's the issue that the PDGA is trying (note keyword "trying" lol) to address there, but I'm not against what you're saying at all.

TBH, some of my complaint with this is that if there were these supposed issues with the feature cards (other than maybe 5 pros complaining about 'fairness') why didn't the PDGA approach some media folks and TD's about finding solutions that work for everybody? Legislating without even discussing is amateur hour. None of us knew this was coming. I think this is really knee jerk. In trying to react to a tiny complaint that a couple people had, they're creating much bigger issues.

I agree, it's impossible to enforce.

However, I think it's great that a player can say no to playing in it of he or she chooses not to.

I didn't post this to stir up drama or make an argument for why it should be live, just felt interesting considering the timing.

I appreciate you posting it, it was the first I had seen. I'm already crafting a diplomatic letter to the PDGA explaining logically why this is a horrible idea both in philosophy/big-picture for the sport as well as in its execution.

 

[DG_player]

Interestingly enough, next year a super group REQUIRES live coverage and Tour Manager approval.

"First round "Super Groups" for media purposes are NOT allowed unless for live
coverage and previously approved by each player within the group and by the
PDGA Tour Manager"

So if USDGC or any other event wants to do a super group for the first round, live coverage will have to happen.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Who the heck wants to watch McBeth or Wysocki play with 3 random schmucks?

 

[brutalbrutus]

There isn't much difference between just randomly choosing a "super-card" and setting cards by rating. This is another solution to a problem that doesn't really exist...

 

[slowplastic]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Who the heck wants to watch McBeth or Wysocki play with 3 random schmucks?

Hey my last name is close in the alphabet to Wysocki, next time they're in town I can "turn pro" and play with him on SpinTV for a round!

 

[JTacoma03]

Hey my last name is close in the alphabet to Wysocki, next time they're in town I can "turn pro" and play with him on SpinTV for a round!

I'll be sure to call you ahead of time and make sure it's OK, just so we're compliant.

 

[discgolfer25]

If people want to complain, set the cards by rating and be done with it. You want to play with best, be the best. If you play well you can play with them in rounds 2 and 3. I feel as if super cards are essential to good media coverage both live and post produced. This seems to hurt post produced, which has better numbers, more than live. I think the wording for it having to be "live" coverage is ridiculous. If you don't want super cards at random C tiers, fine. But when there's media present and a chance to grow the sport, super cards are better. I personally like 3 "super card players" and the best local. It seems to get the best of both worlds

 

[DiscJunkie]

Interestingly enough, next year a super group REQUIRES live coverage and Tour Manager approval.

"First round "Super Groups" for media purposes are NOT allowed unless for live
coverage and previously approved by each player within the group and by the
PDGA Tour Manager"

So if USDGC or any other event wants to do a super group for the first round, live coverage will have to happen.

OK, I can understand why the super groups get some complaints, but...

A little circumspection might be in order here.

Super Groups, in my experience, are for media coverage.
"Grow the Sport" and all that.
Eyes are money and all that.
Just seems to inexplicably short-sighted.
"Inconceivable!" (Princess Bride)

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Who the heck wants to watch McBeth or Wysocki play with 3 random schmucks?

Well said.

 

[Zanguini]

Out of curiosity how does ball golf set their cards?

Sent from my SM-S978L using Tapatalk

 

[biscoe]

From a competition standpoint i have always disliked the supergroups. From a perspective of attempting to grow the sport I can see their usefulness however. What I really don't get is why the presence/absence of them is tied to live coverage as opposed to anything else in this ruling. Seems like a smack in the face of all the post-production guys who imo are creating more marketable product than the live stuff.

 

[_MTL_]

This is the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Who the heck wants to watch McBeth or Wysocki play with 3 random schmucks?

This rule was not made for NT's and Majors, where live coverage typically happens. The average disc golf fan will still see the guys the want.

This was made for the random B Tiers where John's disc golf video company is filming for their 80 subscriber you tube channel and picks the four best players who are 960, 980, 990 and 1000 from the field.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Out of curiosity how does ball golf set their cards?

Sent from my SM-S978L using Tapatalk

Depends on the tourney. The US Open used to have the defending champion, the US Amateur champ, and I think the British Open champ as the last group to tee off on Thursday. Not sure if they still do that or not.

 

[_MTL_]

PGA Championship does the three major winners from the current year.

The tour playoffs tee in order of seeding (1, 2, 3 in group 1. 4, 5, 6 group 2, etc)

 

[brutalbrutus]

The Masters is a little secretive about its groupings...

Augusta National Golf Club has a committee of members who meet and determine which players are grouped together in Rounds 1 and 2, and what those groupings' tee times will be.

Those committee members exercise full authority, and have complete discretion to group players as they see fit.
Otherwise, Augusta National does not divulge any trade secrets about the process; they don't discuss it at all. But it's definitely not a random draw. The pairings and times are the result of consultation among the club's tournament committee members.

The One Traditional Pairing

There is one Masters pairing that is the same every year: The reigning U.S. Amateur champion (if he's still an amateur) plays Rounds 1 and 2 with the defending champion of The Masters. (If the reigning U.S. Amateur winner turns pro prior to The Masters, he forgoes his spot in the tournament.)

The Pairings Process Also Considers Fans, TV Networks

The pairings and tee times at The Masters also take into account the needs of television broadcasters and of fans.

For example, the two biggest stars in the field are likely to play at opposite ends of the draw.

Let's use Phil Mickelson and Tiger Woods as examples. Most likely, one will play in the morning tee times and the other will play in the afternoon. This guarantees that one of the two biggest stars, either Mickelson or Woods in this example, will be playing during television coverage.

Those are the kinds of things the Augusta competition committee will think about when making the pairings.

They also aren't immune to having a little fun in the first two rounds with "theme" groups. For example, in 2009 one of the early round groups was comprised of three young hotshots, Anthony Kim, Rory McIlroy and Ryo Ishikawa. Nothing random about that kind of grouping. It's a group that fans and the TV network will be happy with.

The committee might group three former champions together, or three winners of other majors, or three golfers of the same nationality. But most of the tee times won't have such a clear connection between the golfers within them.

 

[onemilemore]

This rule was not made for NT's and Majors, where live coverage typically happens. The average disc golf fan will still see the guys the want.

This was made for the random B Tiers where John's disc golf video company is filming for their 80 subscriber you tube channel and picks the four best players who are 960, 980, 990 and 1000 from the field.

Then they should state that in the manual. Otherwise, we get the debate we are having now.