#61  
Old 03-23-2013, 04:21 PM
GordEzo GordEzo is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Whistler , 2010 Winter Olympics
Years Playing: 4.3
Courses Played: 35
Throwing Style: RHFH
Posts: 244
Dammit , looks like I picked a terrible time to get addicted to a new sport !
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 03-23-2013, 04:44 PM
archmage archmage is offline
Par Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Oulu, Finland
Posts: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
Not quite right. The high entry fees are needed to have a richer payout. You could pay out half the field, regardless of the amount of entry. But payouts are definitely the tail that wags the entry fee dog.

It's hard to measure how many people declined to ever start playing tournaments because of the amount of entries, against how many continued playing tournaments because they won something.

Certainly places where tournaments fill weren't always so, and got there under this system.
Well, if the entry fee only covered the cost of organizing the tournament, there wouldn't be anything left for the payout, would there?

But I do see your point, and while the current system is not quite to my preference, I can see why many people prefer it. And it's always hard to change the status quo.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 03-23-2013, 05:17 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 19.2
Courses Played: 115
Posts: 7,547
To clarify what I meant---

You can charge $20 per player. If you have 10 players in a division, that's $200. You can pay it back to the top 5 on a sliding scale. The winner might get $40.

Or you can charge $50 per player. Same 10 players, $500 total. You can pay to top 5; the winner might get $100.

Very much oversimplified, of course; there's a lot more that goes into financials, including players packs. But I've done both, and my impression is that more players will come to the $50 setup, and fewer will complain about the meager payouts.

*

I should say that I see about 4 variations of Am payouts:

---High entry, mostly going to high prize payouts to the top 50%.
---High entry, mostly going to big players packs to everyone.
---High entry, a hybrid where part goes to players packs, the rest goes to prizes. This is the predominant model around here.
---Low entry, no players pack, trophy only.

The TD comes out about the same, in any of these.

My preference would be the last one, but personally I don't seen any evil in any of these formulas. TDs are free to try the first 3, probably the 4th too, and players free to vote with their entries.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 03-23-2013, 05:21 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 19.2
Courses Played: 115
Posts: 7,547
I will add, for what it's worth, that I can think of 3 longstanding events in my area that were, at one time, low-entry, trophy-only events, but over time changed to the standard model. It's what most players want---or what those TDs think most players want.

I've also seen a few successful low-entry events, so it's not impossible. It would be nice if more TDs would try it, and give players a wider choice. Especially for events with larger MA3 & MA4 divisions.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 03-23-2013, 06:09 PM
Sadjo's Avatar
Sadjo Sadjo is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: South Carolina
Years Playing: 34.5
Courses Played: 101
Posts: 2,095
My kids ran in a race this morning. Everyone that raced got a shirt. All kids that participated also got a participation medal. Only only child, per age division, got a trophy. My son Parker happened to win his age division and was very happy and excited about his win. My other son finished 2nd to last and was disappointed. That's the way it works.

As a long time TD, I've tried other payout options....one time running a Winner Takes All non sanctioned event. I promoed the event hard, had flyers everywhere and ended up with a dozen players. When I asked other why they didnt play, it was because no one wanted to invest, play well but not win and walk away with nothing. That was enough to decide to not do that again.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 03-23-2013, 06:18 PM
BigSky's Avatar
BigSky BigSky is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Years Playing: 3.4
Courses Played: 1
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 6,682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sadjo View Post
As a long time TD, I've tried other payout options....one time running a Winner Takes All non sanctioned event. I promoed the event hard, had flyers everywhere and ended up with a dozen players. When I asked other why they didnt play, it was because no one wanted to invest, play well but not win and walk away with nothing. That was enough to decide to not do that again.
I bet the winner was happy.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 03-25-2013, 06:39 PM
smyith's Avatar
smyith smyith is offline
Suffers from Delusions of Grandeur
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Crystal Lake, IL
Years Playing: 13
Courses Played: 134
Throwing Style: RHBH
Posts: 3,912
Top 20% paid out 80%. Other 20% is fees and TDs choosing. Smaller value players packs requirements. Less investment for TD with greater return. Mediocrity is not rewarded (paying out to 40%).

Theres also the thought Peter Shrive brought up when running for Board last time. Splitting the PDGA into a For-Profit Pro and a Non-For-Profit Am. Ultimately AMs and Pros (and those aspiring) want different things. Keep the rules and community tied together though. A For-Profit would be able to build a Tour much easier.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 03-25-2013, 06:42 PM
sidewinder22's Avatar
sidewinder22 sidewinder22 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Creeping Creek DGC
Years Playing: 8.1
Courses Played: 106
Posts: 6,299
One thing is for sure, NCAA basketball is 100x better than the NBA.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 03-25-2013, 06:50 PM
biscoe biscoe is online now
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: spotsylvania, va
Years Playing: 19.3
Courses Played: 78
Posts: 4,070
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
I'm a non-partisan. I'm neither offended by our blasphemous use of the word "amateur", nor convinced of the sanctity of Am payouts.

But I'm not convinced that a different financial model for our lower divisions would significantly change disc golf's growth, either. The only benchmark we have is the system that's been prominent, and our historic growth rates. And the appearance that an awful lot of players who are involved now, like the current system. But who's to say that, over time, a low-entry, no-payout system would produce greater growth? Or less?
i agree 100% - imo the number of new players coming into the game is doing just fine, it is retaining the ones already there that is more of a problem for the ORG.
Reply With Quote
 

  #70  
Old 03-25-2013, 07:06 PM
sidewinder22's Avatar
sidewinder22 sidewinder22 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Creeping Creek DGC
Years Playing: 8.1
Courses Played: 106
Posts: 6,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by biscoe View Post
i agree 100% - imo the number of new players coming into the game is doing just fine, it is retaining the ones already there that is more of a problem for the ORG.
QFT.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.