#61  
Old 08-07-2018, 02:47 PM
Dcinmd Dcinmd is offline
Birdie Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Ashburn, VA
Posts: 283
Niced 186 Times in 92 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdschrock1 View Post
That's awesome! Is there a reason that, eventually, the split could just be one weekend of open, one weekend of Competitive Ams and one weekend of Casual Ams?
It already is without changing anything. And due to the flexibility of the current rules players can play on multiple days or any of the days based on their personal schedule. Or when one of the days fills they can sign up for an opening on another day if they so choose. And are not pigeon hole into a specific dates or a specific group. The ""Casual Ams"" typically fills in less than 24 hours.

https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/34744

https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/34745

https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/34746
Sponsored Links

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-07-2018, 02:56 PM
teemkey's Avatar
teemkey teemkey is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Hillsboro, OR
Courses Played: 39
Posts: 2,490
Niced 469 Times in 212 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdschrock1 View Post
...
I simply don't see the need for so many divisions for amateurs. Instead, make larger fields build the competition instead of personalizing for small groups to crown a winner of an arcane Am division.
...
I think PDGA divisions encourage participation because players can actually compete for a win vs. competing not to DFL. At a typical 2-round C-tier where the SSA works out to 10 rating points per throw, a ratings protected division covering 50 points (e.g. MA3 850-900) makes for a 10 throw difference in expected performance. That's a reasonable difference that the even the lowest rated player might hope to overcome with a great day.

While I'm sure there are many reasons why players choose to play a tournament, I don't understand why someone would pay for a two incredibly slow rounds without at least a chance to cash (script).
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-07-2018, 03:10 PM
JC17393 JC17393 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Years Playing: 21.7
Courses Played: 150
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 7,546
Niced 3,256 Times in 1,365 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdschrock1 View Post
TD's can remove divisions currently, but as it stands some players may see their division missing and mistakenly assume the event isn't for them. The idea presented is a re-imagining of the current Amateur side of the PDGA.
And the harm in that is, what, exactly? Not every event needs to be for every player every time. If a player typically plays MA2 and sees a tournament that isn't offering MA2 and fails to recognize he can play the offered MA1 division instead is only limiting themselves. Frankly, I'm not sure that player would be more satisfied if, in your re-imagined structure, his division is "offered" but is no longer one he can be reasonably competitive in because you've lumped what was MA2 in with the old MA1 division in the name of simplicity.

But what if that first tournament, the one without MA2, is complemented by another tournament the same weekend, perhaps in the same town or area or even the same course (one Sat, one Sun), that offers MA2 but not MA1? Doesn't that accomplish everything you want without having to re-structure the whole system?

Tournament X that holds FPO, MA1, FA1, MA3, and FA3 on Saturday, and MPO, MA2, FA2, MA4, FA4 on Sunday seem to me to be a better solution than Tournament Y holding Open, Competitive Am, and Casual Am (male and female of each) over two days. Capacity for more players overall and still allowing for significantly sized divisions across the board.

Niced: (1)
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 08-07-2018, 03:52 PM
Discette's Avatar
Discette Discette is offline
Independent Operator*
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Rancho Cucamonga
Years Playing: 23
Courses Played: 513
Posts: 1,733
Niced 640 Times in 229 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdschrock1 View Post
Hey all, I'm the author of this article. ...


...The general hope of the article is that simplicity could yield better (do you mean bigger?) fields and competition in Amateur play. ...
The article is loaded with assumptions and lacks any facts, data or experience to back up the recommendations.

Several TD's have explained that currently successful events around the country would have LESS players if they were forced to follow your divisional suggestions. Plus, TD's are already welcome to limit divisions for "simplicity" or to yield "bigger divisions".

Did you do any research on the PDGA history of divisional offerings? Did you interview anyone on the PDGA Competition Committee about the current divisional offerings? The PDGA used years of data and trial and error to determine the current ratings breaks? What data did you use to determine your "ideal" rating breaks?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdschrock1 View Post
I have TDed events (around 10) and helped many new players get into tournament play....
Please provide links to the "around 10" PDGA events that you TD'd. I found two:

https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/31691

https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/34024

Niced: (2)
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-07-2018, 04:11 PM
krupicka's Avatar
krupicka krupicka is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Naperville, IL
Years Playing: 18.2
Courses Played: 67
Posts: 1,249
Niced 236 Times in 128 Posts
Default

And those are great example of MA1 consisting of MA2 players, MA2 consisting of MA3 players, MA3 consisting of MA4 players...
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-07-2018, 04:24 PM
tdschrock1's Avatar
tdschrock1 tdschrock1 is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canton, OH
Years Playing: 10.1
Courses Played: 6
Posts: 1,311
Niced 12 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSauls View Post
As I said in an earlier post, I've been around long enough to have played when there were, for all practical purposes, only 2 amateur divisions, with large groups. Even older players remember when there was only 1.....or none.

I liked the large groups.

But it wasn't necessarily better, as evidenced by the fact that players aren't being divided into small groups, they're being offered and dividing themselves.
Interesting. I would say that the current system encourages players to divide themselves. I'd like a system that operates much closer to the 'old' way. I think a very large portion of players competing today (myself included) would have a better and more robust, healthy tournament experience with larger pools.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-07-2018, 04:26 PM
tdschrock1's Avatar
tdschrock1 tdschrock1 is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canton, OH
Years Playing: 10.1
Courses Played: 6
Posts: 1,311
Niced 12 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teemkey View Post
I think PDGA divisions encourage participation because players can actually compete for a win vs. competing not to DFL.
Lets agree that there is a big difference in the two extremes you mentioned. In reality, players in a division should have a realisitc possibility of placing (in the top 40%).
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-07-2018, 04:33 PM
DavidSauls's Avatar
DavidSauls DavidSauls is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newberry, SC
Years Playing: 24.2
Courses Played: 125
Posts: 14,928
Niced 3,038 Times in 1,366 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdschrock1 View Post
Interesting. I would say that the current system encourages players to divide themselves. I'd like a system that operates much closer to the 'old' way. I think a very large portion of players competing today (myself included) would have a better and more robust, healthy tournament experience with larger pools.
They just don't know what they want?
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 08-07-2018, 04:38 PM
tdschrock1's Avatar
tdschrock1 tdschrock1 is offline
Double Eagle Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canton, OH
Years Playing: 10.1
Courses Played: 6
Posts: 1,311
Niced 12 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Discette View Post
The article is loaded with assumptions and lacks any facts, data or experience to back up the recommendations.

Several TD's have explained that currently successful events around the country would have LESS players if they were forced to follow your divisional suggestions. Plus, TD's are already welcome to limit divisions for "simplicity" or to yield "bigger divisions".

Did you do any research on the PDGA history of divisional offerings? Did you interview anyone on the PDGA Competition Committee about the current divisional offerings? The PDGA used years of data and trial and error to determine the current ratings breaks? What data did you use to determine your "ideal" rating breaks?



Please provide links to the "around 10" PDGA events that you TD'd. I found two:

https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/31691

https://www.pdga.com/tour/event/34024
Hello! It seems that you have foundational disagreements with the ideas presented and possibly me as a person.

I respect the history and experience of those that have been in the sport for longer than I've been alive and appreciate the amount of work that has gone into events. This article is not a slap in the face to anyone, it is simply a different outlook on the amateur disc golf divisions. It is not a scientifically backed, data driven piece, instead its simply an opinion/editorial.

The items linked in the article itself come straight from the PDGA. My writing is imperfect - I was only attempting to share an idea. The numbers (if implemented) would and should be considered closely by the PDGA who has much easier access to the troves of data that should be considered.

On the other side of things, feel free to disagree - I'll continue to raise questions and express my opinions! Thanks for looking into this topic - I think its well worth the conversation.

HERE is a link to the events that I have run. Many of them are unsanctioned. I have assisted with others at more locations as well, but that is a mostly complete list.
Reply With Quote
 

  #70  
Old 08-07-2018, 04:39 PM
JC17393 JC17393 is offline
* Ace Member *
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Years Playing: 21.7
Courses Played: 150
Throwing Style: LHBH
Posts: 7,546
Niced 3,256 Times in 1,365 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdschrock1 View Post
Lets agree that there is a big difference in the two extremes you mentioned. In reality, players in a division should have a realisitc possibility of placing (in the top 40%).
Right. And how does expanding the ratings range of a division increase that possibility? You're proposing a 75 point ratings range for your Competitive Am division. Do you have data that suggests a player at the lower end of that range has a "realistic possibility of placing in the top 40%", assuming a big enough field with a reasonably even distribution of skill (ratings) within it?

As has been posted already, the PDGA has lots of data that has guided their decisions on the range of ratings for each division and keeping them competitive. Curious if you have something to counter it?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Great article on Disc Golf Annakin SkyHyzer General Disc Golf Chat 2 02-27-2015 07:40 AM
Another great article about Disc Golf discgman General Disc Golf Chat 6 10-16-2014 12:50 PM
Great DG article Chiefstang General Disc Golf Chat 0 05-14-2012 04:11 PM
APE WRAITH KATANA XTREME TL DESTROYER Great Discs, Great prices! :::LSWT::: The Marketplace 6 07-13-2011 12:09 AM
Great Discs, Great Selection: Black Yeti (2), Lat 64, Katana, more! :::LSWT::: The Marketplace 5 05-16-2011 10:03 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.