Fast-Filling Events

[DavidSauls]

Or, should I say, Flash Filling Events?

A few thoughts, without a conclusion --

A tournament near me, with a history of such things, just filled to 100 players in 2:47. As in, 2 minutes and 47 seconds. A tournament I ran filled in about 3 minutes. We're seeing this sort of thing more and more around here, where entry to certain events is based entirely on how fast you can type, and whether you have a fast internet connection.

Is it time for the PDGA to drop it's "first-come" rule for tournament registrations -- or, at least, grant a waiver for events with a history of flash filling?

I surmise that the rule dates back to when tournaments were few and far between, to keep a TD from showing favoritism, since the players not in favor, and not granted entry, wouldn't have any other options for competing, earning points, etc., because there would be no other nearby events as options. Now, at least around here, there are multiple tournaments every weekend close enough for a long commute.

I'm not sure what other systems might be tried. Priority based on club membership or having played the previous year or ratings or finishes in certain qualifying events or a lottery or something else? Anything would be unfair in some way, but would they be more unfair than favoring those who are most adept at registering quickly, and available at the specific moment registration opens?

Just musing. I didn't miss out on the last night's flash-fill, because I wasn't trying, but I've been there before, on the winning and losing sides.

[biscoe]

It is simple. Expand the event with different divisions competing on different days. The "first come" rule is actually pretty new or at least emphasis on it has been increased.

[DavidSauls]

Originally Posted by biscoe

It is simple. Expand the event with different divisions competing on different days. The "first come" rule is actually pretty new or at least emphasis on it has been increased.

That's not always practical, or possible. It certainly helps when it can be applied.

It is, indeed, what we've done with the tournament I co-run at Stoney Hill. In 2020, after the registration, we received permission and ran it again, 2 weeks later. For 2021, we're already scheduling 2 weekends -- but it's a single-division team-play event, so we're not separating divisions, just running it twice and giving players a choice. Whether we can do that every year is unknown.

Sometimes the courses/calendar/volunteers aren't available for 2 weekends. Play is going to be rationed, one way or the other; by fast typing, or some other system.

The Earlewood Classic is the one that spawned this thread. For a few years they did run 2 weekends, but quit. I'm no longer an insider in Columbia and don't know why. I remember that at one point, the parks department declared they would limit the number of events that were allowed there.

[trasf]

72 player fields were problem for year or two, because fastest time for 72 players to fill up was 8 seconds. Now those popular competitions have multiple fields to help with that problem.

[biscoe]

Originally Posted by DavidSauls

That's not always practical, or possible. It certainly helps when it can be applied.

It is, indeed, what we've done with the tournament I co-run at Stoney Hill. In 2020, after the registration, we received permission and ran it again, 2 weeks later. For 2021, we're already scheduling 2 weekends -- but it's a single-division team-play event, so we're not separating divisions, just running it twice and giving players a choice. Whether we can do that every year is unknown.

Sometimes the courses/calendar/volunteers aren't available for 2 weekends. Play is going to be rationed, one way or the other; by fast typing, or some other system.

The Earlewood Classic is the one that spawned this thread. For a few years they did run 2 weekends, but quit. I'm no longer an insider in Columbia and don't know why. I remember that at one point, the parks department declared they would limit the number of events that were allowed there.

We have run Loriella the same weekend as Earlewood for years and have expanded it to 4 different events for the various divisions. The PDGA requirement for distance between events is down to almost nothing (actually is nothing between C tiers). There are plenty of players. Doing it the way they have done it for years simply because that is the way it has been done for years is no longer valid reasoning.

[glassila]

Random draw?
If the limit is 72 players and 200 sign up it wouldn't be too difficult to randomly pick 72.
As long as it's announced that way and spelled out on the website it should work.

[DavidSauls]

Originally Posted by biscoe

We have run Loriella the same weekend as Earlewood for years and have expanded it to 4 different events for the various divisions. The PDGA requirement for distance between events is down to almost nothing (actually is nothing between C tiers). There are plenty of players. Doing it the way they have done it for years simply because that is the way it has been done for years is no longer valid reasoning.

In Earlewood's case, it's not "the way we've always done it." They experimented with multiple weekends for a few years. I'm not sure why they abandoned it, but it could have been logistics or manpower or the parks department.

I think it's a good move that the PDGA has reduced radius restrictions. There are certainly enough players to go around.

[Steve West]

Hot take:

Everybody has plenty of time to sign up, but they bid an entry fee (subject to minimum). Everybody who bid as high as whatever fee results in fewer than 73 players gets in at that fee.

[tallpaul]

^Returning players could get an auto $5 or something; to reward return participation.

[discgolftom]

This is why I jumped into this sport.

Plenty of Players and the Supply can't satisfy the Demand.