Why don't Tournament Directors get paid?

[DavidSauls]

If you want growth in this sport, then we need change in the pDGA.

I believe the "growth" you're talking about is only growth at the top---top pros making a living, and national media coverage.

In broader terms, the sport has grown, and tremendously, without these changes. Every year since I began, with the current PDGA system, I've seen growth in virtually every aspect of the sport, other than the very top.

 

[smyith]

I believe the "growth" you're talking about is only growth at the top---top pros making a living, and national media coverage.

In broader terms, the sport has grown, and tremendously, without these changes. Every year since I began, with the current PDGA system, I've seen growth in virtually every aspect of the sport, other than the very top.

i think it varies on area. i see alot of people come and go here. they still play in leagues and local un-sanctioned. but i see less and less people at events every year. It used to be common for 200+ players in a weekend at a C tier, now maybe 100.
the growth isn't the top, its competitive side. The current model and standards do not sport further growth in the competitive side of DG. Sure the sport has been exposed to more people and courses are going in like crazy, but the competitive side is falling way behind that growth.

 

[DavidSauls]

Admittedly, there could be regional differences.

Around here it's not just courses going in and crowds of casual players. The number of B- and C-tiers has exploded, creating problems on the calendars. The number of tournament players has grown greatly. Though the tournament growth has exceeded the tournament player growth---it seems every new course wants to host 2 or 3 events a year---so that the number of players at each event has thinned out a bit.

Likewise, the number of players at local league/mini/doubles events hasn't grown, but the number of those events have.

Other competitive aspects have grown. Collegiate golf and youth events have mushroomed recently. Hopefully high school competitions will follow.

I think the PDGA statistics on total competitive events, player entries, payouts, and members have all shown a substantial growth, on average across the country. Perhaps not everywhere.

It seems its only cash at the top, and national media coverage, that isn't booming under the status quo.

 

[Bart]

It would be nice if incidental TD expenses at least were covered....

 

[mashnut]

I believe the "growth" you're talking about is only growth at the top---top pros making a living, and national media coverage.

In broader terms, the sport has grown, and tremendously, without these changes. Every year since I began, with the current PDGA system, I've seen growth in virtually every aspect of the sport, other than the very top.

The funny thing is, if we really want to try to be a spectator sport it's that bottom up growth that needs to continue so we can build a base of people who just might be interested in watching.

i think it varies on area. i see alot of people come and go here. they still play in leagues and local un-sanctioned. but i see less and less people at events every year. It used to be common for 200+ players in a weekend at a C tier, now maybe 100.
the growth isn't the top, its competitive side. The current model and standards do not sport further growth in the competitive side of DG. Sure the sport has been exposed to more people and courses are going in like crazy, but the competitive side is falling way behind that growth.

When I was in the Chicago area playing tournaments, the overall turnout seemed pretty constant it was just getting spread over more events. The biggest ones still filled but the smaller ones seemed to be pretty saturated so they were having to fight over the people who only come out to a couple events.

I think building that big casual player base is a whole lot easier way to grow the tournament scene than trying to figure out how to increase the percentage of that base that plays competitively. It also makes it easier to continue talking parks departments into new courses when you can show them the current courses packed with players, they couldn't care less about our events since they get nothing out of them other than full trash cans.

 

[Dan Ensor]

(1) Where do you plan this money increase to come from?
(2) How does paying Pros more money help improve course quality? How often do Pros, especially touring, give back to the local course scene?
(3) How do B & C tiers harm the sport? I think it helps the sport by being a less pressure more affordable way for people to get the tournament experience. You would definitely see a drastic drop in overall participation in tournaments.

I cut out a lot of your post, but in general, to what I've left out of the quote, I'd say that I'm not saying we should give money to them without expecting more. And I'm not sure what we could do to make sure they'd use it wisely. But like you said, it's got to be more like golf, and that means more money than we can reasonably expect 1 person to give.

Ok:
1) Wherever the money we're talking about is coming from. If we can do one thing with it, we can do another.
2) I'm actually proposing giving the money we're talking about (which comes from somewhere I don't know) should go to the course first. Pros would be 3rd on that list probably.
3) I didn't say they harm the sport. I say they help a lot less than A-tiers. I think the following quote shows why.

Poker offers instant highs and lows, and is far more editable for TV, and offers FAR more spectator appeal than (what most people think of DG) some stoned hippies throwing frisbees.

I found out what people think of disc golf a couple weeks ago, when I opened the trunk of my Buick Verano and a co-worker (from an office setting) saw my bag o' discs and promptly said "I didn't know you were a dirty hippy". That, to me, is why disc golf will never have mass spectator appeal.

I'd equate DG more to slow-pitch softball. A LOT of people love to play, there's tournies every weekend, family and friends will come see the games, and TD's are generally paid nothing. Oh, and there's a fringe pro league. Sounds a LOT like DG.

Which is why we need to support the pros that people would never say are "some stoned hippies throwing frisbees". Get some commentators talking about the countless hours of work they've put in to be as good as they are, and some serious competition on tv, and people will realize it can be as mainstream as any other sport, and in my opinion, it's a better sport than any other. Better for the body because of the variety of motions necessary, and as competitive as any other.

In case my point was not made, B and C tiers are closer to some stoned hippies throwing frisbees than the most competitive sport on the planet.

One last point, "TDs" (umpires, right?) are paid in my local slow-pitch league. By the league, though.

 

[Stardoggy]

One last point, "TDs" (umpires, right?) are paid in my local slow-pitch league. By the league, though.

I wouldn't equate TD's to umpires. I'm thinking more of the guy that sets up all the brackets, contacts sponsors, interacts with team managers, etc. My neighbor did it for two years in Sheboygan (the self-proclaimed slow pitch softball capital of the world) as a volunteer, for some rather large tournaments. I'd think that's a more fair analogy.

 

[Stardoggy]

Which is why we need to support the pros that people would never say are "some stoned hippies throwing frisbees". Get some commentators talking about the countless hours of work they've put in to be as good as they are, and some serious competition on tv, and people will realize it can be as mainstream as any other sport, and in my opinion, it's a better sport than any other. Better for the body because of the variety of motions necessary, and as competitive as any other.

In case my point was not made, B and C tiers are closer to some stoned hippies throwing frisbees than the most competitive sport on the planet.

I totally get where you're coming from with this, I just don't know that DG will ever have the popularity to secure the financial backing you speak of. What makes the "big" sports popular is the fact that a large percentage of fans have played them in some competitive form, even if it was something like Little League baseball.

The one thing I DO think DG has going for it, is the fact that it's non-contact. As a parent of two soon-to-be teenagers, I don't love them playing sports with high chances of devastating injury (even though I played them all as a kid...how hypocritical is that?). Schools have started using DG as a form of PE, so it is getting introduced earlier.

To me, the popularity of a sport has to be bottom-up, to build an inherent fan base.

 

[Dave242]

It also makes it easier to continue talking parks departments into new courses when you can show them the current courses packed with players, they couldn't care less about our events since they get nothing out of them other than full trash cans.

Not true in all cases. Recreation Directors are often evaluated by participants at organized events in their facilities. I used to regularly report attendance at club and PDGA events in Charlotte.

 

[smyith]

To me, the popularity of a sport has to be bottom-up, to build an inherent fan base.

bottom-up i think is a slower path then supporting the EDGE type programs. the more youth we can get playing the more reason advertisers will be drawn. the bottom-up (am-up) approach is what we have been doing for years. if you are looking at creating a solid base for the sport to be something in a decade+, then programs like EDGE need alot! more funding and pros participating.

 

[chris deitzel]

PDga rules state that tournament directors may keep a small amount of the entry fees to help cover expenses. Though it is rarely done and when it is, the players get mad.

 

[AdamE]

I've never spent a dime of my own money running a tournament and I've never made a dime. I have compensated myself with a few pieces of plastic or a shirt for all the time I put into a tournament, but that's it.

I started running tournaments as a way to help out the local scene, but I have to say the work that goes into running tournaments is getting old. I am blessed that there are very few, if any, complainers I have to deal with. Some of my predecessors have not been as lucky. I doubt I would have lasted this long running tournaments if I has the same people to deal with as they did.

Considering the amount of money the PDGA gets from the events TDs run, it would be a nice gesture of them to give a free PDGA membership to TDs who make them x amount of money, run more than one event, or something like that.

Chris is absolutely right, when TDs start taking money people tend to get mad, so maybe it's time for the PDGA to find another way to compensate TDs.

On the other hand the number of PDGA events keeps getting bigger and bigger, so there doesn't seem to be any shortage of TD.

 

[Stardoggy]

bottom-up i think is a slower path then supporting the EDGE type programs. the more youth we can get playing the more reason advertisers will be drawn. the bottom-up (am-up) approach is what we have been doing for years. if you are looking at creating a solid base for the sport to be something in a decade+, then programs like EDGE need alot! more funding and pros participating.

I'm referring more to youth leagues and such. No matter what road you take, it's a tough hill to climb.

Soccer is the most popular sport in the world, and it doesn't succeed (on a huge level) in the US. Hockey's popularity has taken a large turn for the worse in the last 30 years. Even billiards, which was on TV a LOT as recently as ten years ago, has tumbled in TV popularity. With so much saturation in the sporting market (especially among the "big three" sports), I'd have serious concerns that DG could ever get a large enough foothold with sponsors to be considered more than a niche sport. Relegated to "The Ocho". I can't recall EVER seeing anything on TV about DG.

Then again, if you could get some really marketable, dominant personalities out there (think Tiger Woods), you may be able to get something going faster. Olympic sport status would be a great start. Basically any way to get DG on TV.

 

[Dan Ensor]

Exactly. Nobody cared about swimming until Phelps came around.

 

[JC17393]

Exactly. Nobody cared about swimming until Phelps came around.

I get where you're going with that, but swimming is one of those sports that has always garnered attention every four years with the Olympics...and more so if there's a swimmer or two that can garner attention. Maybe you're too young (hell, I'm too young) to remember Mark Spitz. He was Phelps before Phelps was Phelps.

I think the ideal example of a breakthrough athlete that took his sport from obscurity (at least from a competitive standpoint) to unprecedented heights and popularity is Tony Hawk. When we find the disc golfer that becomes a household name like Tony Hawk, we'll know we've "arrived".

 

[smyith]

Then again, if you could get some really marketable, dominant personalities out there (think Tiger Woods), you may be able to get something going faster. Olympic sport status would be a great start. Basically any way to get DG on TV.

Olympics already said NO cause putting is too easy in DG (I am sure if you scour this forum you will find the discussion about that...its like from 2+ yrs ago fyi). Hence the need for equipment standards change (mentioned earlier). Targets as they are now are designed for Super-class discs, they need to be redesigned for current popular molds.
This fixes more than just making putting more challenging, it also makes the way the pDGA factors Par more legit. There is NO reason that after a 3 round tournament a Pro should have a negative 30 something score, if that happened in Ball golf it would be all that is talked about for a week. i have shown numerous people, who don't play, tournament scores and they scoff at the overall score and think the sport is more of a joke then what they did beforehand.
You guys are going to have to face a simple fact, as it is this sport does not have TV appeal. And although the pDGA has been told what to do to change that, they have made no moves to make it happen. Instead they go after getting on a fringe network that 90% or more of America will never see (i think i am being VERY friendly with the 90%).

 

[Royal Hill]

But if there was a tv contract in place, then tournament directors could get paid, right?

 

[JC17393]

Olympics already said NO cause putting is too easy in DG

The Olympics have never given any kind of response to DG (certainly not detailed enough to address our targets) because they've never formally been asked. But on that subject, disc golf is a long way away because the first thing needed is for the IOC to recognize the governing body of the sport. They've recognized WFDF, but is that enough to get disc golf in the door? I don't believe it is. Until the PDGA falls in line with WFDF in terms of implementing an anti-doping policy, particularly one that is in line with WADA standards, the IOC is not going to give disc golf the time of day. And that's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of getting disc golf into the Olympics. Our equipment and our scoring is the least of their concerns.

Since this isn't really the thread for this discussion, I'll just stop there.

 

[smyith]

The Olympics have never given any kind of response to DG (certainly not detailed enough to address our targets) because they've never formally been asked. But on that subject, disc golf is a long way away because the first thing needed is for the IOC to recognize the governing body of the sport. They've recognized WFDF, but is that enough to get disc golf in the door? I don't believe it is. Until the PDGA falls in line with WFDF in terms of implementing an anti-doping policy, particularly one that is in line with WADA standards, the IOC is not going to give disc golf the time of day. And that's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of getting disc golf into the Olympics. Our equipment and our scoring is the least of their concerns.

Since this isn't really the thread for this discussion, I'll just stop there.

last time there was an olympics in Canada, they had a course set-up in/by Olympic Village. After the powers that be played it they were asked their thoughts. The ease of putting was a major topic.
But you a certainly correct about the doping policies amongst other things that come before equipment. however, equipment is not to be taken lightly whatsoever. and i hope that any doping policy implemented never trickles down to the AMs.

but yes, this has been beaten to death in many threads on here.

/end thread jack

 

[tallpaul]

Except for majors bolf scores can be quite low. The reason bolf scores are so close to par in majors is based on the rough and crazy greens. Stan designs some greens that are like that; and has received some heated pro response. There is often some heated response from bolf pros regarding some of the green set ups at majors as well. This year's bolf U.S. open did not feature many longer made putts; but, was rather a survival style lay out; where almost every green had a scary four foot putt... We could put that in place for disc golf majors; but there would be a lot of clamoring about severe role away greens and elevated baskets and pins within feet of water. Artificial o.b. and/or very tight wooded fairways also receive general negative feedback; but, would simulate the rough situation at bolf majors.