2015 Pro Worlds full- Another registration fiasco?

[bwgort]

Well, it would probably be based on the tiered registration that we've been talking about for the past 18 pages or so. Begin with 1000+ or 1020+ or whatever, then 975+, then 940+, and then open to everyone else or something like that. If you want to include points, then I'm sure there's a way to do that, but if this is a World Championship, and as we've mentioned, that's the way this tournament has been marketed and thought of, then priority should be based off of performance, not necessarily participation.

I just don't think that's as easy of a solution as you think it is. Does the guy rated 1030 that has played two local tournaments this year deserve to register before the guy that's 988 but travels to play? What about the two players from New Zealand that after their first tournament are rated top 10 in the world? How can we have a world's without those guys?!?!

The details of who gets to register first is the problem. This year world players were prioritized because they were shut out in the past. Next year if a different group is prioritized there will still be problems.

 

[Timeetyo]

What is the cutoff for pro under your definition? Who should get the priority?

Well, it would probably be based on the tiered registration that we've been talking about for the past 18 pages or so. Begin with 1000+ or 1020+ or whatever, then 975+, then 940+, and then open to everyone else or something like that. If you want to include points, then I'm sure there's a way to do that, but if this is a World Championship, and as we've mentioned, that's the way this tournament has been marketed and thought of, then priority should be based off of performance, not necessarily participation.

Or....use the NT events (or other majors,etc.) as qualifiers. For arguments sake lets say top 5(?) MPO at any NT event is granted a spot (with a decent signup period). This would give those top pros both an incentive to hit up the NT events as well as a clear and defined way to get a spot. Then - let the rest fill up as it does today.

Now 5 may or may not be the right #, that could be tweaked looking at the # of slots, # of qualifiers, etc.

 

[Lewis]

Maybe when paying spectators, bigger sponsors and more international players entering starts becoming more important than equal access participation for members, the model should probably change. But until then, I suspect that most PDGA members like the idea that they at least have a shot at playing in their PDGA Am or Pro Worlds without having to become an elite player to get into the World Championships for PDGA members.

I agree with this latter sentiment of Chuck's: what's the motive to have only the best of the best play, if they're not playing for the entertainment of spectators? Pro athletes get paid to entertain spectators; if there aren't any spectators, then the event exists to serve the PDGA members who want to play in the event.

If we're truly aiming for a "world championship" the next one should be in Europe, right?

I was going ask the same question. If the "World Championship" has never been held outside the USA, how does it merit the title "World Championship"? If it's only ever going to be held in the USA, why not just call it the "PDGA Championship" and leave the "World" out of the name?

 

[bwgort]

Or....use the NT events (or other majors,etc.) as qualifiers. For arguments sake lets say top 5(?) MPO at any NT event is granted a spot (with a decent signup period). This would give those top pros both an incentive to hit up the NT events as well as a clear and defined way to get a spot. Then - let the rest fill up as it does today.

Now 5 may or may not be the right #, that could be tweaked looking at the # of slots, # of qualifiers, etc.

Isn't that the same qualification process for the USDGC?

 

[sjberry2017]

I just don't think that's as easy of a solution as you think it is. Does the guy rated 1030 that has played two local tournaments this year deserve to register before the guy that's 988 but travels to play? What about the two players from New Zealand that after their first tournament are rated top 10 in the world? How can we have a world's without those guys?!?!

The details of who gets to register first is the problem. This year world players were prioritized because they were shut out in the past. Next year if a different group is prioritized there will still be problems.

I agree it's not a perfect solution, but it's a better solution than nothing. Perhaps that is why points should be included, to shut the 1030 guy out who has only played two tournaments. However, why shouldn't a higher rated local get priority over the traveling 988 guy? Yes, he travels and puts in time for the sport, but he isn't going to compete as much, and for a World Championship, you want the best of the best. You may disagree and say the 988 traveler deserves to play more because he travels for the sport. That's reasonable, but I would disagree because of the nature of this tournament.

Maybe the best compromise would be to institute the tiered registration, while maintaining the points based invites. Obviously more players get invites than there are spots, so keeping the invites means that the 988 traveler gets an invite and the 1030 local doesn't. But if there are guys rated higher than the 988 traveler who have also put in the participation to get an invite, then the tiebreaker should definitely be performance.

Why? Because that's the nature of life. The ones who play better do deserve a spot before those who don't play as well. Is that an imperfect system? You bet it is. But is it less imperfect than the current free for all that we have? I would say yes. I don't think we're going to find the perfect system, and we will always have those who feel that the system is too flawed.

But shouldn't we at least try to improve the system so that it's less flawed?

 

[bwgort]

I agree it's not a perfect solution, but it's a better solution than nothing. Perhaps that is why points should be included, to shut the 1030 guy out who has only played two tournaments. However, why shouldn't a higher rated local get priority over the traveling 988 guy? Yes, he travels and puts in time for the sport, but he isn't going to compete as much, and for a World Championship, you want the best of the best. You may disagree and say the 988 traveler deserves to play more because he travels for the sport. That's reasonable, but I would disagree because of the nature of this tournament.

Maybe the best compromise would be to institute the tiered registration, while maintaining the points based invites. Obviously more players get invites than there are spots, so keeping the invites means that the 988 traveler gets an invite and the 1030 local doesn't. But if there are guys rated higher than the 988 traveler who have also put in the participation to get an invite, then the tiebreaker should definitely be performance.

Why? Because that's the nature of life. The ones who play better do deserve a spot before those who don't play as well. Is that an imperfect system? You bet it is. But is it less imperfect than the current free for all that we have? I would say yes. I don't think we're going to find the perfect system, and we will always have those who feel that the system is too flawed.

But shouldn't we at least try to improve the system so that it's less flawed?

Is a 1000 rated player that stays local to protect his rating by playing only courses he knows a better player than a 988 player who is willing to travel and compete on courses he's not familiar with?

I think if they upped the needed points to 3000 or so, the invite list would only be professionals that play a lot of tournaments and deserve the chance to compete on a world stage. Someone that is 1000 rated but only plays 5 tournaments a year cannot possibly get 3000 points unless they only play national tour events and play well in them.

 

[Lewis]

Is a 1000 rated player that stays local to protect his rating by playing only courses he knows a better player than a 988 player who is willing to travel and compete on courses he's not familiar with?

How many rating points do you think the local advantage is worth?

 

[optidiscic]

I agree it's not a perfect solution, but it's a better solution than nothing. Perhaps that is why points should be included, to shut the 1030 guy out who has only played two tournaments. However, why shouldn't a higher rated local get priority over the traveling 988 guy? Yes, he travels and puts in time for the sport, but he isn't going to compete as much, and for a World Championship, you want the best of the best. You may disagree and say the 988 traveler deserves to play more because he travels for the sport. That's reasonable, but I would disagree because of the nature of this tournament.

Maybe the best compromise would be to institute the tiered registration, while maintaining the points based invites. Obviously more players get invites than there are spots, so keeping the invites means that the 988 traveler gets an invite and the 1030 local doesn't. But if there are guys rated higher than the 988 traveler who have also put in the participation to get an invite, then the tiebreaker should definitely be performance.

Why? Because that's the nature of life. The ones who play better do deserve a spot before those who don't play as well. Is that an imperfect system? You bet it is. But is it less imperfect than the current free for all that we have? I would say yes. I don't think we're going to find the perfect system, and we will always have those who feel that the system is too flawed.

But shouldn't we at least try to improve the system so that it's less flawed?

this is on point and correct in so many ways

reasons why the pdga wont implement make no sense to me

curmudgeonness

apathy

conspiracy

Lol give me a sound reason why this cannot happen

I give chuck props for at least showing up and giving feedback I just dont get why we are on this ship heading for the rocks and so many are just glad to be on the cruise

 

[bwgort]

How many rating points do you think the local advantage is worth?

depends on a lot of factors which is why I am not in favor of making it ratings based. I have yet to see a reason why increasing the points threshold doesn't fix this problem.

 

[sjberry2017]

I agree with this latter sentiment of Chuck's: what's the motive to have only the best of the best play, if they're not playing for the entertainment of spectators? Pro athletes get paid to entertain spectators; if there aren't any spectators, then the event exists to serve the PDGA members who want to play in the event.



I was going ask the same question. If the "World Championship" has never been held outside the USA, how does it merit the title "World Championship"? If it's only ever going to be held in the USA, why not just call it the "PDGA Championship" and leave the "World" out of the name?

If we actually want the sport to grow, then we should have the best of the best play. Also, there are plenty of spectators second-hand online; I'm not sure exactly how many people watched Worlds live last year, nor do I know how to find that information, but wasn't it several thousand or something? And then you have the second hand videos on YouTube. CCDG, SpinTV, McFly, and Jomez all have sponsorship deals with disc companies and other disc golf related companies (Udisc for example). Also, as we've been repeatedly saying, Worlds is both marketed and generally viewed as the best of the best. Yes, the USDGC might be more prestigious, but Worlds is the more well-known event, and carries the weight of a World title.

As to if we can call it Worlds, it doesn't seem Europe quite has the player base yet to support a Worlds (although that can be argued). I would say they also don't have the depth in their field of pros that we have in the US. Also, I don't believe they have enough Worlds caliber courses close enough together to host a full Worlds. Jarva and Nokia are certainly World Championship caliber, but are there enough courses close enough together that are of the right caliber for Worlds? I don't think there are, yet, but I would definitely say that a European Worlds is coming, hopefully sometime within the next decade. Especially if Jussi has his say; I think he can grow the kind of courses in Finland to where they could host a Worlds.

 

[optidiscic]

raising criteria through points, rating, prior victories, qualifiers and providing a brief reserved time so that at least half the field is legit and then letting the masses register later really seems very logical

too logical for disc golf perhaps

 

[Aim For The Chains]

I agree with this latter sentiment of Chuck's: what's the motive to have only the best of the best play, if they're not playing for the entertainment of spectators? Pro athletes get paid to entertain spectators; if there aren't any spectators, then the event exists to serve the PDGA members who want to play in the event.

I swear Chuck is the same one talking about how us not having spectators is the biggest problem.. HOW DO WE GET THOSE SPECTATORS AND ATTRACT ANY OUTSIDE INTEREST WITHOUT THE BEST OF THE BEST BEING ON VIDEOS AND PLAYING TOGETHEER FOR THE "WORLD" TO SEE?!

makes no sense to say well we need more spectators and then on the other hand say well the spectators don't even really matter b/c we have none-- DUH!!!!!!!!!!

So would that mean only the 1030+ guys? Only the 1020 guys? What about the people that are 1040 but don't play tournaments?

If we're truly aiming for a "world championship" the next one should be in Europe, right?

I dunno why you want to make it difficult. Basically any players who have played X number events and have a rating of Y get first dibs. then those who have not played as many events and also might have lower ratings get 2nds. everyone else waits at their computer to squeeze in after the REAL players get a spot. I could easily get a PDGA number and be a ratings whore (even heard players talk about doing this as to only play events they basically can win, LOL) again, pretty easy solution like is done in tons of other "events" from sports to conferences.

 

[sjberry2017]

Is a 1000 rated player that stays local to protect his rating by playing only courses he knows a better player than a 988 player who is willing to travel and compete on courses he's not familiar with?

I think if they upped the needed points to 3000 or so, the invite list would only be professionals that play a lot of tournaments and deserve the chance to compete on a world stage. Someone that is 1000 rated but only plays 5 tournaments a year cannot possibly get 3000 points unless they only play national tour events and play well in them.

Good point. That's why I agree we should keep the points system to set invites. Heck, even raise the points.

However, you implement the ratings based registration to insure the best of the best of those who got invites get in first.

depends on a lot of factors which is why I am not in favor of making it ratings based. I have yet to see a reason why increasing the points threshold doesn't fix this problem.

Because then you'll have people start playing more events to get invites, and you will still have the top pros (1000+ or 990+ or however you want to define it) get shut out.

Personally, I believe that if you keep or raise the points invites, and then go to tiered registration, you'll have most of the issues taken care of. Will people whose ratings are in the 940-955 range be disappointed if they don't get to play? Yes, and that does suck for them. However, if you have a field where there are, say, 45 guys or whatever who are 1000+, and then another 100 or so who are 980+ and could catch fire and be in contention, wouldn't that be a better tournament than having a bunch of 940+ guys just there for the experience?

If you say no, it's about the experience etc, then cool, I understand. But we are talking about our World Championships. Maybe the PDGA says that it's about the experience and a reunion, but the tournament is marketed and generally viewed as a prestigious title where the winner is the best of the best, and so the tournament should be centered around that if that is the way we view it.

But at the end of the day, we are all just throwing plastic discs through woods at these weird basket things with chains. :hfive:

 

[DavidSauls]

Or....use the NT events (or other majors,etc.) as qualifiers. For arguments sake lets say top 5(?) MPO at any NT event is granted a spot (with a decent signup period). This would give those top pros both an incentive to hit up the NT events as well as a clear and defined way to get a spot. Then - let the rest fill up as it does today.

Now 5 may or may not be the right #, that could be tweaked looking at the # of slots, # of qualifiers, etc.

This is along the lines of what I would suggest. Not ratings. But I'd make it pretty tight---the previous year's Top 5 finishers, and the Top 10 in NT points, or something like that. Some criteria that would generate no more than two dozen advanced reservation spots.

And I'd give a 24 hour window for advance registration. I think that's plenty.

 

[bwgort]

Good point. That's why I agree we should keep the points system to set invites. Heck, even raise the points.

However, you implement the ratings based registration to insure the best of the best of those who got invites get in first.



Because then you'll have people start playing more events to get invites, and you will still have the top pros (1000+ or 990+ or however you want to define it) get shut out.

Personally, I believe that if you keep or raise the points invites, and then go to tiered registration, you'll have most of the issues taken care of. Will people whose ratings are in the 940-955 range be disappointed if they don't get to play? Yes, and that does suck for them. However, if you have a field where there are, say, 45 guys or whatever who are 1000+, and then another 100 or so who are 980+ and could catch fire and be in contention, wouldn't that be a better tournament than having a bunch of 940+ guys just there for the experience?

If you say no, it's about the experience etc, then cool, I understand. But we are talking about our World Championships. Maybe the PDGA says that it's about the experience and a reunion, but the tournament is marketed and generally viewed as a prestigious title where the winner is the best of the best, and so the tournament should be centered around that if that is the way we view it.

But at the end of the day, we are all just throwing plastic discs through woods at these weird basket things with chains. :hfive:

Here's a separate issue. Payouts at worlds are not enough for you to make your expenses back unless you're in the top 5. Doesn't that make the event basically a vacation that competitors pay for? If so, does it help the field to have lower rated players as added cash?

 

[Lewis]

I swear Chuck is the same one talking about how us not having spectators is the biggest problem.. HOW DO WE GET THOSE SPECTATORS AND ATTRACT ANY OUTSIDE INTEREST WITHOUT THE BEST OF THE BEST BEING ON VIDEOS AND PLAYING TOGETHEER FOR THE "WORLD" TO SEE?!

makes no sense to say well we need more spectators and then on the other hand say well the spectators don't even really matter b/c we have none-- DUH!!!!!!!!!!

He is, and I tend to agree with him, as far as the professional side of the sport is concerned. But maybe Chuck believes that the World Championship tournament is not the place to push his agenda over serving what he believes the members want? I guess he could answer that for himself.

 

[sjberry2017]

This is along the lines of what I would suggest. Not ratings. But I'd make it pretty tight---the previous year's Top 5 finishers, and the Top 10 in NT points, or something like that. Some criteria that would generate no more than two dozen advanced reservation spots.

And I'd give a 24 hour window for advance registration. I think that's plenty.

That's pretty reasonable as well...personally, I think the flaws in a ratings-based system are small enough that it would work well and solve most, if not all, of the perceived issues in Worlds registration. But an NT based qualification would also serve the purpose well, and would leave the atmosphere the PDGA wants. It would still leave most of the registration as a free for all, but at least it would guarantee that some of the field is those players who have shown that they are committed to the sport while also being the best of the best.

 

[sjberry2017]

Here's a separate issue. Payouts at worlds are not enough for you to make your expenses back unless you're in the top 5. Doesn't that make the event basically a vacation that competitors pay for? If so, does it help the field to have lower rated players as added cash?

Well, if we went to a ratings-based registration, the field would still fill, because the 940+ players or whoever wants to play still get in, if there are enough spots left when the registration opens to them. So you're essentially taking a lot of the 940-955 pros and replacing them with better players who will still pay the same amount, so the added cash from the rest of the field is still there.

So the question is, does it matter if we have better players in the field who have still payed the same amount to get to play? Or does it really matter if we change the sign-up so that the better players have a chance to register before the lesser skilled guys? We still end up with the same amount of added cash, and a more competitive field from top to bottom.

 

[bwgort]

This is along the lines of what I would suggest. Not ratings. But I'd make it pretty tight---the previous year's Top 5 finishers, and the Top 10 in NT points, or something like that. Some criteria that would generate no more than two dozen advanced reservation spots.

And I'd give a 24 hour window for advance registration. I think that's plenty.

I like this. I think 12-20 reserved spots is the way to go.

 

[bwgort]

Well, if we went to a ratings-based registration, the field would still fill, because the 940+ players or whoever wants to play still get in, if there are enough spots left when the registration opens to them. So you're essentially taking a lot of the 940-955 pros and replacing them with better players who will still pay the same amount, so the added cash from the rest of the field is still there.

So the question is, does it matter if we have better players in the field who have still payed the same amount to get to play? Or does it really matter if we change the sign-up so that the better players have a chance to register before the lesser skilled guys? We still end up with the same amount of added cash, and a more competitive field from top to bottom.

I guess the reason why I was asking the question was that it makes sense to go to an MPO/FPO only worlds. Then you can increase the field size, allow all the 1000+ guys to get in and potentially have payouts that someone can make some money off of instead of having an expensive vacation.