USDGC coverage

[sidewinder22]

I just watched the day 1 wrap up show on the Spin tv channel . Wow!

 

[cheese dog]

Sorry, I should have specified so there would be no confusion. WOW!

 

[JC17393]

Anyone know why the qualifying round scores looked so good. It appeared that a 63 was the minimal for qualifying but I dam well know that those guys are not shooting any where near that at the actual tourney.

Just a guess...weather. Seemed windier during round 1 than it was earlier in the week for qualifying. Wind generally has the most impact on scoring of any weather factor.

There's also what I'd call the reset factor. During qualifying, if you have a poor start or the round goes bad at any point, you can quit and start over. No such luxury once the tournament begins. So qualifying scores may just represent the very best those players can shoot on the course, whereas their round 1 scores might be closer to an average round for them.

Or they just had a bad round and will bounce back today.

 

[grodney]

Just a guess...weather.
.
.
There's also what I'd call the reset factor.
.
.
Or they just had a bad round and will bounce back today.

And they're playing with their buddies and not competitors. Which is more relaxing. And easier to, accidentally of course, mark down the wrong score and/or play a little loose with the OB rules/spots.

 

[rhatton1]

Great wrap up show JT. Very slick, Patrick Brown is a natural on camera as well.

One request, please please get two mics so you two don't look like you're interviewing each other! It's weird!

 

[DinosaurThunder]

Great wrap up show JT. Very slick, Patrick Brown is a natural on camera as well.

One request, please please get two mics so you two don't look like you're interviewing each other! It's weird!

Also when Avery has a mic in hand, please instruct him not to move that hand while speaking. It's very distracting watching a mic bob up and down.

 

[esdubya]

Good wrap up show! I echo the comments about using two mics, Maybe zoom in closer so we don't see the hand waving while talking, it is distracting. Good job though. Nice to see a quick wrap-up with interviews. :clap::clap::clap:

 

[discgman]

So in short, USDGC live coverage is lowered down to a wrap up show and pretty pictures on DGWT unless you can afford to fly out there and attend in person. Maybe next year we can send out a newsletter and order dvds. All this for the hope catching the eye of big sponsorship and Major media coverage in the US which will never really happen. Way too much competition, which is fine by me. Old media is dying off. Looking into the future, alternate media will be taking over. Youtube (yes the one with the crappy compression right?) and other web based video services will be taking over. Streaming video will be in high demand. People are cutting the cable cords every day and trying to pander to a sports media that is losing audience is not a vision for the future. Being on the cutting edge of new media is a winning format and could lead to something more promising. Ill continue to support the dgguy and all the other new media producers as they know how to get our sport into the main stream (Seen any SCTop10 lately). Good luck to all the great competitors playing in the USDGC, wish we could watch it live and cheer you on. Ill just give you a like on facebook instead.

 

[Maynard]

Anyone else notice they have the hole handicaps backwards on the live scoring page?

http://www.discgolfworldtour.com/live/?v=1475765940000

They have it as 1 being the easiest and 18 toughest rating. It should be the opposite. According to them hole 17 is the 2nd easiest hole on the course. Smooth...

 

[Discslinger12]

Innova owns the U.S. event, not the sport/PDGA.

That's not the deal made with Harold on behalf of the PDGA 14 years ago. In the late 1990's the USDGC was a new PDGA event which Harold bid on (along with others). The then Commissioner, Jim Challas, understood Harold was planning to run it repeatedly on an annual basis but also anticipated he would renew his bid with the PDGA every year (or something similar). Harold believed otherwise - that he owned the USDGC. PDGA record keeping was not thorough in those days so it boiled down to one's word against the other. During my entire tenure as a board member, the negotiation regarding the USDGC went back and forth, sometimes tenuously. We finally agreed that the event would be Harold's (not Innova's) to run continuously, however, when he was done with it - it would revert back to the PDGA.

It was in the wake of that experience all majors (outside of USDGC) became, by definition developed and approved by the board, PDGA wholly-owned events. Agreements with hosts were put in place to that effect. Overtime, however, the PDGA became complacent in maintaining its role and grew lax on the agreements. Now Discraft believes it owns the USADGC and new Majors are not PDGA owned. The members have been slowly screwed out of these valuable properties by general leadership inexperience and lack of diligence.

If the deal with Harold was subsequently changed after literally years of effort to reach and Chuck's statement is correct. I guess we fully lost that one too. Awesome.

Pat Govang #13902
PDGA Board Member and Commissioner 2000-2003

 

[DanJon]

Honestly how can the PDGA say they own any event, when they aren't the ones doing the majority of funding for them?

These events (Memorial, BSF, USDGC, World's, etc) would cease to exist if the manufacturers and local clubs stopped doing the work and fundraising.

I realize the PDGA provides support and some funding, but the bulk of the work and money doesn't come from them.

 

[jvphobic]

Honestly how can the PDGA say they own any event, when they aren't the ones doing the majority of funding for them?

These events (Memorial, BSF, USDGC, World's, etc) would cease to exist if the manufacturers and local clubs stopped doing the work and fundraising.

I realize the PDGA provides support and some funding, but the bulk of the work and money doesn't come from them.

PDGA would own the rights to the naming and tier. I can't run an event and call it "Worlds". That is what the discussion is. I think the argument was the naming of the "United States Disc Golf Championships". Innova could run another event just as great under a different name. But it sounds like there WAS contention over who actually owns the event name. IF Innova ran the event into the ground (they never would), could another org pick up the USDGC?

There are events that the PDGA should be in control of, and bid out for. Just like Worlds.

Ultimately the PDGA could very easily just pull the "Major" status from the event at any year. I don't think it would hurt the event if Innova and DGWT continue to run a top notch event.

 

[Discslinger12]

Honestly how can the PDGA say they own any event, when they aren't the ones doing the majority of funding for them?

These events (Memorial, BSF, USDGC, World's, etc) would cease to exist if the manufacturers and local clubs stopped doing the work and fundraising.

I realize the PDGA provides support and some funding, but the bulk of the work and money doesn't come from them.

The PDGA invests roughly 20%+ of its annual $2.5M budget in Majors and NT's.

The question of event ownership was one of strategic significance back in the day. No argument, however, that there are mutually beneficial reasons many companies and volunteers are involved in developing great events. It was more about the PDGA owning a handful of elite events that would add value and greater legitimacy to the voice of the players over time. This was important for a number of reasons but largely driven by the then #1 request from the membership for the PDGA to bring in national-level sponsors. To do that we needed to have the appropriate rights so the org could could represent and deliver on such a national-level sponsorship. This drove the plan that majors would be wholly owned and NT's would be shared partnerships between the organizers and the PDGA (as opposed to a sanctioning relationship). For whatever reason, I believe this approach has been abandoned... fine when times are good... not so much for PDGA members when they aren't....

 

[grodney]

This was important for a number of reasons but largely driven by the then #1 request from the membership for the PDGA to bring in national-level sponsors.

Ahhhhh,#TBT to the (in)famous Player Survey. How I wished that the Board would rise above the starry-eyed fantasies of the frisbee golfing dreamers, and actually do what was best for the game. Good times.

 

[grodney]

This was important for a number of reasons but largely driven by the then #1 request from the membership for the PDGA to bring in national-level sponsors.

Ahhhhh,#TBT to the (in)famous Player Survey. How I wished that the Board would rise above the starry-eyed fantasies of the frisbee golfing dreamers, and actually do what was best for the game. But it wasn't meant to be. Good times.

 

[lyleoross]

Ahhhhh,#TBT to the (in)famous Player Survey. How I wished that the Board would rise above the starry-eyed fantasies of the frisbee golfing dreamers, and actually do what was best for the game. But it wasn't meant to be. Good times.

I'll bite, what's best for the game? Just curious.

Also, what is the game? That is, doing what's best for what? Is the goal the am game, growing the pro game, getting more money?

BTW - those things were asked in the (in)famous Player Survey. The PDGA sort of follows those things. Are you saying they shouldn't?

 

[Discslinger12]

I'll bite, what's best for the game? Just curious.

Also, what is the game? That is, doing what's best for what? Is the goal the am game, growing the pro game, getting more money?

BTW - those things were asked in the (in)famous Player Survey. The PDGA sort of follows those things. Are you saying they shouldn't?

The charter of most any member-run not-for-profit organization essentially states they exist to serve the needs of the members. You can argue how the org goes about identifying and addressing those needs within the bounds of fiduciary responsibility. It's the nature of the beast, however, and - back then - the member survey served to identify those priorities.

 

[lyleoross]

The charter of most any member-run not-for-profit organization essentially states they exist to serve the needs of the members. You can argue how the org goes about identifying and addressing those needs within the bounds of fiduciary responsibility. It's the nature of the beast, however, and - back then - the member survey served to identify those priorities.

Agreed, but sometimes I think we members don't understand that the PDGA actually acts in our best interests. If someone is going to say you're (that's a you, as in you're a past President, you're stuck with it for life, ) doing it wrong, I'd like to hear how they think it should be done. By the by, despite the fact that the PDGA is often a punching bag, I'm impressed at how seriously and carefully the organization takes it fiduciary responsibility. That's based on being an officer in one soccer club, and a volunteer for a second one, working for a family held small business, and watching many other small businesses come and go. There is much ado about the PDGA and their workings, but until you've watched a club pull itself apart while fighting over power, you've not seen anything.


Last, Grodney is a smart guy, I've learned a number of things from him. My questions are simply that, questions.

 

[grodney]

I'll bite, what's best for the game? Just curious.

Also, what is the game? That is, doing what's best for what? Is the goal the am game, growing the pro game, getting more money?

BTW - those things were asked in the (in)famous Player Survey. The PDGA sort of follows those things. Are you saying they shouldn't?

Well, what's best is obviously a matter of opinion. Back then, 15 years ago, I would have argued that it was pretty much anything BUT big tournaments and national sponsors. For me it was things like grassroots growth, education, leagues, club support, schools, designing and building courses suitable (and interesting and appropriately challenging) to wide audiences, etc.

Yes, all those were on the Player Survey. And yes, I'm saying the Leaders should NOT have listened to the membership. It's like the 4th grade teachers listening to my daughter and her classmates about what they want to do in school today. (half-assed analogy)

But with frisbee golfers, it's more a of a big-dreamer mentality in a totally unrealistic way. We've all been there. We were all bitten by the DG bug. We all want to put in Championship Courses!!!! We all want National Sponsorship!!! We all want to be on TV!!!!! That's what we all want, but we're not there yet. It's the cart before the horse.

But those are just my opinions....at least they were at the time....I don't much think about it anymore.

And as Pat points out in the post after yours, listening to (and serving and acting on the wishes of) the membership is the charter of many if not most similar organizations.

p.s. I *love* it when Govang or any of the voices from the past drop in and give their perspective. There were so many smart people back in my heyday (Govang, Houck, Hoeniger, Brakel, Pozzy, just for starters), and having their perspective now 10-20 years later is really interesting.

 

[fasteddy8170]

I tried to think about a dozen different ways to creatively say what I'm going to say but I couldn't come up with the right words. So, I'm just going to list a few points that haven't been mentioned yet in 400-some posts.

1. Everybody seems to have overlooked the filming itself. The people who cover the sport--although they get every single drive, up shot, and putt--have not yet figured out how to make the sport watchable on a screen. Yes, to the hardcore person like myself, I'd probably watch it on a Zoetrope. But I'm in the minority, especially if the sport is trying to market itself to new people. Disc golf is a beautiful sport--watching a disc flying through the air is much more pleasurable than watching a ball. However, the people who cover the sport have not yet captured that magic. My personal opinion is they have to start thinking about getting off the ground and renting a scissor lift once in a while. No sport is filmed from ground level--football, basketball, baseball, NASCAR, ball golf, soccer, ping pong, track and field, etc.

2. Many disc golf holes are not film-able. I realize how everybody went nuts about Dave Feldberg's skip ace a few years ago but really, there should never be a camera on that hole. If the point is to market the sport to new people, AND provide coverage for the hardcore followers, all on a very small budget, then concessions need to be made. Filming should only be done on holes where the sport can look impressive for new people--over water, down hills, on to island greens, AND can provide pleasure to the hardcore watcher. Anything else, or too much in either direction, is a waste. Once again, if funds are limited.

3. Regarding point #2, there is already a template out there and it's still puzzling to me why nobody follows it. The PGA has PGA Tour Live. $5/month. You get to watch selected coverage on certain holes before a tv broadcast begins. The production company sets up cameras on 2 or 3 holes, usually ones where some action might happen. They have a set of announcers watching different screens in a booth and they call the action as each group passes through. The viewer gets to see ALL the golfers, not just a selected pair. The viewer has the possibility of seeing a hole in one or an eagle because the right holes have been selected. It's cost effective because you don't then need 18 cameramen with 18 different announcers for the time when there are no commercials.
I mean, if the issue is truly funds and eyeballs, then cameras should only be set up where interesting things may happen that could help market the sport. Because, once again, going back to point #2, do we really need to see shots on a dinker 250ft. hole with trees on both sides where most players will take pars anyway? When, in replacement of that, we could see EVERY shot with EVERY player at an island green, down a hill, over water, etc.
It kind of feels like everyone has gotten SO caught up in covering every hole, that it's become dogma. Because the announcing, the interviews, the graphics, the stats, etc. get better every year. But the filming is still stuck in the 1990's.