View Single Post
  #17  
Old 11-15-2012, 11:01 PM
Three Putt's Avatar
Three Putt Three Putt is offline
*Super Moderator*
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rolla, MO.
Years Playing: 19.6
Courses Played: 137
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 6,365
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
Now, I'm one who has often posted that Ams should pay smaller fees for tournaments, but not receive anything back other than trophies for 1st.

But the PDGA-bashing is a little excessive. A few years ago they tried to put caps on Am entry fees, but that only lasted a few months as TDs didn't stick to the caps. The PDGA is a member-run organization, and it's not outlandish that it sometimes does what members want.

As a TD you can run a high-entry, high-payout event. Or a low-entry, low-payout event (100%, just 100% of a smaller pool of money). Or a low-entry, trophy-only event. Many of us have found that the higher-stakes events draw a lot more Ams. Not always, but usually. So TDs tend to do what the players like, and the PDGA tends to do what the TDs and players like.

In the meantime, the wholesale/retail margin financially supports the tournament structure, and at higher fees and payouts, supports it better.

I wish we'd evolved a different structure, where people paid $20-$25 with no expectation of a return. But players are acclimated to the current system, and it's not that easy to wean them. The PDGA's police powers are weak; if they compel a system players don't want, players or TDs can go non-sanctioned.
The "pay the AMs to play" system came from the PDGA. They got us in this mess. The least they could do is take some leadership in trying to get us out.
Reply With Quote