WORLD FIASCO

[Three Putt]

I'm sure as time goes on if there is a feeling that an Open-only championship can stand alone the event will evolve into that. The issue now is that we are in-between; it has outgrown it's ability to be the event for everyone but Open participation and numbers of spectators is not yet felt to be at a place where it can be split off and have a successful event. What to do in this in-between stage is the issue. Do you leave it first come-first serve or do you do something to accommodate the elite players?

 

[teemkey]

Does seem like regional qualifiers would give everyone a chance, yet limit the size of the world event itself while enabling currently small divisions to expand.

 

[Chines]

A point system that is based on how you do in tournaments throughout the year. You could do a minimum number of events to qualify. Say 10 tourneys. (I don't know what would be a realistic number cause they only have like 6 tourneys all year within 12 hours of me.) Take the total points divided by the number of events and take that average and turn it into a ranking system. Invites go down the line from 1st all the way down to however many people they take in each division. If someone can't make it then their spot goes to the next guy down the line. I feel like this way your getting guys that have played the best throughout the year and your giving them a shot to compete for the title.

 

[MountainGoat]

After reading all of that I have a solution proposal.

PDGA sets a cap based on metrics from past and current events. When the cap fills, no more player are allowed in up to a certain point but can still register as though they would like to attend. When a number of players that is a factor of the original cap make it known that they would like to participate, the cap is raised and that many more players are allowed in. This would make so that a cap of 8 would be functional, but if 100 more women wanted to sign up, the cap would be raised. Not to 100, but to some number based on the demand.

I see the benefit of limiting the number of players allowed, but if the field is limited to say, 10 players, and there is a clear demand coming from 300, something is definitely wrong. You want players to feel like they have a chance to get into events, and if you limit it sharply, you may actually deter people from trying to work towards competing at your event. I think a flexible cap is a functional solution.

 

[MountainGoat]

Why not have a US Open Championship where there is only two divisions; Open Men and Open Women. The numbers are capped for each and the only way to get a spot is to qualify through a State Open Championship. The only way to get into a State Open Championship is to be from that state and have a PDGA number. Qualifiers are taken from the top 8 of each state making 400 slots for each division. If there are less than 8 players in the state event, everyone advances.

This would allow us to sort out who is the best and still have PDGA's free-for-allwhosignupsuperfast event.

 

[scarpfish]

Does seem like regional qualifiers would give everyone a chance, yet limit the size of the world event itself while enabling currently small divisions to expand.

Why not have a US Open Championship where there is only two divisions; Open Men and Open Women. The numbers are capped for each and the only way to get a spot is to qualify through a State Open Championship. The only way to get into a State Open Championship is to be from that state and have a PDGA number. Qualifiers are taken from the top 8 of each state making 400 slots for each division. If there are less than 8 players in the state event, everyone advances.

This would allow us to sort out who is the best and still have PDGA's free-for-allwhosignupsuperfast event.

What you guys aren't realizing is that such ideas that look good on paper, crumble pretty quickly when you consider the financial realities of most disc golfers including many of our so called "pros". It costs a lot of money to travel long distances for tournaments, even when sharing rides and rooms. Throw more ancillary expenses on top of going to Worlds this with a qualifying tournament just to get into it and we'll be back to having plenty of space at Worlds again, because a lot of people can't afford to do both.

 

[grodney]

There are 72 players per course with two rounds per day per course and everyone gets six rounds in the prelims over the four days. That's going to remain a set format no matter how big the sport gets.

In Des Moines 2004, there were 72 players per course, with three rounds per day per course, and everyone played eight rounds in the prelims over five days.

That was wild.

3 rounds per course were at 7:30a, 11:30a, 3:30p. Nobody ever had to play in back-to-back time slots.

 

[DavidSauls]

I'm sure as time goes on if there is a feeling that an Open-only championship can stand alone the event will evolve into that. The issue now is that we are in-between; it has outgrown it's ability to be the event for everyone but Open participation and numbers of spectators is not yet felt to be at a place where it can be split off and have a successful event. What to do in this in-between stage is the issue. Do you leave it first come-first serve or do you do something to accommodate the elite players?

Yep.

 

[DavidSauls]

Why not have a US Open Championship where there is only two divisions; Open Men and Open Women. The numbers are capped for each and the only way to get a spot is to qualify through a State Open Championship. The only way to get into a State Open Championship is to be from that state and have a PDGA number. Qualifiers are taken from the top 8 of each state making 400 slots for each division. If there are less than 8 players in the state event, everyone advances.

This would allow us to sort out who is the best and still have PDGA's free-for-allwhosignupsuperfast event.

I know it's not exactly the same, but we have the U.S. Disc Golf Championship on similar grounds. 1 division, qualifiers around the country.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Grodney - What I posted is the current PDGA policy for both Worlds unless a site loses a course since bidding and can only use five courses like Emporia last year with five courses. In their case, we had two days where one course had three rounds. While shadow groups, three rounds per day per course and fivesomes are all ways to increase field sizes, the only acceptable option these days to increase total field size is for a host to increase the number of courses used.

 

[grodney]

Yeah, "current policy" is the key. It's been done differently in the past, it theoretically could change in the future, as early as next year if it had to. Nothing quite as absolute as "that's going to remain a set format", right?

By the way, I'm certainly not saying it was better, or that it was without risk, or that it worked without any issues, or that the players or staff or PDGA liked it better. I imagine many lessons were learned, some of which probably helped shape the current policy.

 

[sprintermatt]

I think the reason people are faulting Discraft in regards to MJ is the fact that he didn't know if he would have the financial support from them to attend Worlds when registration opened up. It was only later that they kicked him down some signature Comets to fund his trip... at which point the whole thing was filled up.

The issue isn't that somebody wasn't waiting at the computer to hit the "submit" button... The issue was weather or not they would help pay for him to go - which is absurd considering he is one of their most likeable and recognizable pro's and its not like they support a big team anyways.

Carry on...

It's not on your sponsor to fund your trip to Worlds. We are grown ups. If you think you might go, you sign up. You save the money to be ready to register when the time comes. People who were not financially able to register simply failed to plan for this event. If it's that important, MAKE IT A PRIORITY.

Same thing happens EVERY YEAR with USDGC.

I'm often the WORST planner, yet I know that I need to get off my butt to register promptly for tournaments.

 

[JC17393]

It's not on your sponsor to fund your trip to Worlds. We are grown ups. If you think you might go, you sign up. You save the money to be ready to register when the time comes. People who were not financially able to register simply failed to plan for this event. If it's that important, MAKE IT A PRIORITY.

Same thing happens EVERY YEAR with USDGC.

I'm often the WORST planner, yet I know that I need to get off my butt to register promptly for tournaments.

:clap::clap::clap:

 

[sprintermatt]

and if I can't go, or, like in 2009 and 2010, I have other priorities, someone gets my spot. But it's MY SPOT TO GIVE UP.

Do or do not. There is no cry.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Yeah, "current policy" is the key. It's been done differently in the past, it theoretically could change in the future, as early as next year if it had to. Nothing quite as absolute as "that's going to remain a set format", right?

By the way, I'm certainly not saying it was better, or that it was without risk, or that it worked without any issues, or that the players or staff or PDGA liked it better. I imagine many lessons were learned, some of which probably helped shape the current policy.

It's become the current policy because the PDGA is now much more involved in formatting and running Worlds in a standard way so the PDGA team knows what it needs to do and the bidders know what is expected from them.

 

[sprintermatt]

Another thing to point out...

With 8 players and nobody on their waitlist, there was no adjustment to the FPM division when, after a certain amount of registration were received, the divisions were adjusted to accommodate divisions with LOTS of wait listers, while other divisions that did not fill were reduced.

If you don't get on the waitlist, the event organizers can't see your "intent" to go. Just like posting on this message board is not a formal complaint to the PDGA. If you don't at least get on the wait list, you can't complain that they didn't open spots for you... no waitlist, no adjustment.

 

[Anon]

It's not on your sponsor to fund your trip to Worlds.

If you're a 'pro player' in a 'growing sport' on one of the top teams in said sport...

travel/lodging/food are standard expenses for a sponsor to cover. The payback/ROI is their players giving their products exposure right at the heart of their demographic. A sponsor shoud desperately WANT their top players at the best tournaments and do anything in their power to make it happen.

You aren't as visible/high profile as MJ. I wouldn't expect any sponsor you have to fund your trip. But the McBeth's, Wysocki's, Doss's and even MJ's of the world... they should get full travel expenses or some sort of stipend (if they don't already).

Amazing that people are actually defending the lack of support Discraft gives their pro's.

 

[sprintermatt]

still not on them to register you for Worlds. It's your call to initiate the process.

 

[Anon]

still not on them to register you for Worlds. It's your call to initiate the process.

I have never disagreed with this. Much easier to hit the 'submit' button when you know your sponsor is helping with the financials.

I do think that previous Worlds Champs and top pro's should have some sort of priority though... even if its only the top ~20 touring pros who have <insert arbitrary amount> of placings on the tour in a calendar year.

Like Chuck said, maybe an early registration period and then those spots go open after a certain amount of time.

 

[sprintermatt]

and even then, a bunch won't pay attention, and then get shut out when it opens to the larger field.