Opinion: Pay to Play is Not a Con

[autocrosscrx]

I agree that most don't want to pay to play. Fair enough. But a course should be rated on its 'Return on Investment'. $10 for a course? Fair. BUT, did I get an ROI that made it worth my $10? That's what the course should be rated on.

My home course is a free course. That is my 'baseline' which all other courses are compared against. I played Morley Disc Golf Course in San Diego. It cost me $5, but was it worth $5 compared to my home course? No. But I wouldn't say the cost was a con, just because there was a cost.....I would say the cost was a con, because when compared to my baseline, my experience wasn't worth the $5.

So, using a fee as the only reason for a con....I don't think that's fair. Using a fee as a con because you don't feel you got the value for the cost - that is very fair.

I'm not sure many people will agree with that logic.

Look at the reviews of virtually any top of the line product in any market. Price is always going to be listed as a con, even if the product is highly acclaimed and is deemed to be the best on the market.

 

[elmexdela]

The Disc Golf scene in Madison is such a double-edged sword its maddening. Both the number of and quality of courses is terrific, yet even though it's a P2P there are literally 8 people on every single teepad and likely more waiting.

Throw in the fact that all the main courses close down for several months in the winter and I think I prefer just having my 1 secluded course, rather than the plethora of them 90 min north.

oops i feel like i missed some convo but madison came to mind

theyre p2p that plays like a free public local cesspool (lookin at you acorn in mn)

 

[BillFleming]

To clarify my point.

NO COURSE IS FREE. Period.

Every course costs money. Tee pads, tee signs, baskets (or objects), course maintenance...all cost time and money. The difference is with WHO pays for it.

So called 'Free' courses aren't. Volunteers have donated time and money to set up the course; they continue to donate time and money to keep the course maintained and running. They donate their time and money so that other players don't have to. Some localities/communities build courses using fees collected from other things (taxes, etc). But courses are expensive....when the volunteers no longer can donate their time and money...when the localities/communities have other expenses come up....what happens? The course no longer gets maintained and you end up with damaged/unplayable tee pads or damaged/broken baskets. Or they just decide it isn't worth it anymore. (This is happening at a local 'free' course - it is in a city park, because the city doesn't make money from it, they decided to get rid of it and put in soccer fields instead since they get rented and bring the city money).

Some courses have chosen to become pay to play so they can put off day the course can no longer get maintained - we are paying for the course to be kept clean and in good shape. That is where Return on Investment comes in....you pay $10 to play....did you get your $10 worth - was the course maintained to the quality of your $10 investment? Is the investment being put to good use?

That's why I don't think it is fair to "con" a course just because they charge a fee. All courses charge a fee, we are lucky that a lot of courses have volunteers that 'pay' that fee for us. I've volunteered at a free course to help with maintenance and upgrades...that's a lot of work. I've donated cash to help with the up-keep of a free course - it doesn't go far since costs of tee pads and baskets can be pricey. I'm still willing to pay to play, but I do want to know that the course put the money to good use, which then makes my cost worth it.

 

[elmexdela]

it depends

i would rather p2p for something like mont du lac but paying at the madison/dane county courses is a gd joke

 

[BillFleming]

I'm not sure many people will agree with that logic.

Look at the reviews of virtually any top of the line product in any market. Price is always going to be listed as a con, even if the product is highly acclaimed and is deemed to be the best on the market.

That's true. People will rate based on whatever standard they use. Doesn't make it right though (or fair).

I don't believe my opinions on this subject will change anyone's way of doing ratings. But I can hope. Making a rating based a 'return on investment' is the fairest way to rate when discussing cost....but I won't hold my breath that people will actually do that. A lot of disc golfers want disc golf to be totally free TO THEM. The cost to others rarely matters. ((That is based on conversations I've had with many other disc golfers)).

 

[ThrowBot]

Next time I review a course that's NOT pay-to-play, I'll be sure to list in the Pros section:

"It's free to play here! Cost me zero dollars, woo!!"

 

[Jukeshoe]

Opinion: Other people's Opinions Shouldn't Count As Opinions During Reviews That Express Opinions.

 

[biscoe]

My issue in Milwaukee is that P2P doesnt keep the foot traffic down. All the courses have been packed everyday after work to the point where there are groups of 20+ on some holes. Its getting nuts out there.

Sounds like they should raise the prices...

 

[brentjacobs]

Next time I review a course that's NOT pay-to-play, I'll be sure to list in the Pros section:

"It's free to play here! Cost me zero dollars, woo!!"

Lol. I list "free to play" in my Pros section for all free courses. Even mention I'd like to pay sometimes.

Was thinking I should even it out and list free in the cons as well as any course could use some extra cash for upgrades and maintenance.

 

[Jimb]

I've played plenty of pay to play courses. I believe that in every review I've done for them I've listed P2P as a con, noting "some may consider it a con to be P2P." However, I don't believe that MY rating has ever been affected by the P2P aspect.

Now... I just played Tupelo Bay in Myrtle Beach, SC. It was $11 for 9 holes of totally meh play. So if I ever decide to review the course, it might get a -.5 ding for the price. Probably not, though. The rating would already be low enough that I wouldn't want to pile on.

 

[WD09]

I reviewed two pay-to-play courses this past weekend and until I saw this thread, I did not think about the fact that I didn't mention it. The notice that they are pay-to-play is on the "course info" section and it really didn't factor into my reviews. I guess if I payed a lot for a horrible experience, I might feel the need to point it out, but all the pay-to-play courses I have visited have been worth the price to me, so far.

 

[elmexdela]

$2 at a vfw vs free at lakewood

$10 at vq vs $8 vs brp

its all weighed differently

talk all your stuff about being objective

 

[GripEnemy]

I spent $10 to play AGA (Perkasie, PA) yesterday and have no regrets. Probably my 10th or so round there and I'll keep going back. Yes most courses around me are free but I'd never walk away from one due to cost (unless absurd).

I'm not contributing to the discussion but had to throw in the .02

 

[glassila]

This is coming up a lot in the St. Louis area now that a newer course is starting to become available to play, but will be $25 a round. Other than one other course in the area that isn't open to the public anymore, it's the only course in the St. Louis region that I know of that's P2P.

I haven't played the course yet and probably won't get to it for a bit, but if a private owner wants to charge people to play their course, I don't see anything wrong with that. Especially at a course like the new one in the area, Eagles Crossing, where it sounds like the owner dropped significant money on the design and construction. $25 sounds like a lot, and will keep it from being in my regular play short list, but it sounds like the amount is right if the owner wants to recoup money.

$25 doesn't just sound like a lot, it is a lot! I can't imagine there are a lot of takers at $25. I would think the owner would recoup his money a lot quicker by charging $10 and getting 50 people per day then charging $25 and getting 10 people per day.

 

[ThrowBot]

I should even it out and list free in the cons as well as any course could use some extra cash for upgrades and maintenance.

"Cons: Free to play, which lets in The Poors and other undesirables. Too many non-fancy discs flying around, and folks drinking cheap swill."

 

[WD09]

had to throw in the .02

Now THAT would be a good pay-to-play price!

 

[txmxer]

If I were reviewing a course, I'd list pay to play as a con. However, I might list things like upkeep and low foot traffic and a more educated and respectful fellow disc golfer out on course as a plus.

I was going to say it could be both pro and con. Pro because of all the other things you list might benefit from P2P.

 

[Surge5]

I don't think anyone, should have the hubris, to think they should be able to tell others, how to think (or write a review). Reviews are opinions. Why should they all fit into the kp school of thought?

That's why it says "Opinion" in the title. You're allowed to disagree.

 

[ru4por]

That's why it says "Opinion" in the title. You're allowed to disagree.

Maybe you missed my point. A review is an opinion of a course. The strength of DGCR is the collective reviews on a course. As the discerning recipient, it is your job to sift through the opinions and collate the information that is vital to your needs. .

My objection is to suggesting that someone's opinion should be different in any way. Not only is that kind of arrogant, it is detrimental to the power of the reviews and the site.

I guess my opinion is that the review process is here is not broken.

 

[Rastnav]

Maybe you missed my point. A review is an opinion of a course. The strength of DGCR is the collective reviews on a course. As the discerning recipient, it is your job to sift through the opinions and collate the information that is vital to your needs. .

My objection is to suggesting that someone's opinion should be different in any way. Not only is that kind of arrogant, it is detrimental to the power of the reviews and the site.

I guess my opinion is that the review process is here is not broken.

While I agree with most all of this, and I think the OP is off base, I do have one small quibble.

DGCR is better at reviews because there is a certain standard that the reviews are held to. uDisc ratings and reviews are similarly "valid opinions", but they are rightly viewed as less informative than DGCR's. Encouraging a certain kind of review, and care in making that review is part and parcel of what DGCR does.

But, in this case, the idea of P2P as a potential negative is completely consistent with how reviews are done here, and that's born out by how many DGers considering playing at a course would consider it a negative. I'd also say that it's inconsistent to dock points in the rating merely for it being P2P, but YMMV.