Am Worlds 2013: Only 2 slots in FJx divisions?

[Sadjo]

Our goal for AW2014 is to see if we can develop it to have the largest Junior turnout ever with 8 courses available for everyone.

I'm hoping to bring my two youngest boys to the AM Worlds in 2014. Both will be playing 10 & Under. My main concern is finding enough events this year for them to earn points and get an invite so they're not wait listed.

With it being in my home state and being able to stay at my parents house really makes it something to look forward to in a bigger way than just playing.

 

[Karl]

This is what happens when you have BOTH age'd divisions and "ability'd" divisions at the same time...you get TOO many divisions and not enough in a lot of the divisions for them to be 'legit'. EITHER all divisions' split-outs should be via "ability" or all via age. I vote for the latter.

Karl

 

[Cgkdisc]

Karl, Am Worlds only has age based divisions, none based on ability.

 

[jenb]

It was tough this year. We had to proportionately ramp down the division sizes from Charlotte about 200 players from 705 to 504. We used percentages and historical entries to set the initial caps. But most divisions are going to be stressed with players not getting in either before open registration or by the time the event happens.

Weren't Charlotte's caps based on historical attendance at previous events that weren't capped, and that accommodated lots of uninvited MA1s? Does it make sense to ramp down the caps from numbers that were set based on having extra spots in MA1?

Look at FM1, for example. FM1 is capped at 8 spots. It filled in 4 days. The players registered now are not the highest rated FM1 players in the world.

There are now at least 4 FM1 on the waiting list, including the best FM1 players in the world. If those ladies don't get to play, this championship title needs to come with an asterisk on it.

But one might respond that giving FM1 nearly 2% of the field is generous in view of the fact that there FM1 players only represent about 1.5% of the amateur PDGA membership.

That's one way to look at at it, but another way to look at it is that many of those MA1 and MM1 players have wives and daughters that want to play too. So what happens? There is a whole lot more demand for the womens and juniors spots than one might think just crunching the numbers and looking at the % demographics of the PDGA membership. So those limited spots fill quickly, but not with the best players. Those spots fill with wives and daughters of whichever MA1 and MM1 and MG1 players registered in the first few days.

This is just my opinion, but I think that if the PDGA wants to limit spots, and also wants to preserve the integrity of the contest and the championship title, then either the caps should be set AFTER the invite period has expired, or else the criteria for women, at least, to receive invites needs to be raised, and based at least in part on rating.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Contact the PDGA with your concerns. Nothing will happen from posting here. The flaw in primarily using points for the Worlds invite process was eventually going to be questioned once points actually mattered. The PDGA hasn't really addressed a better way to improve the invite process since points have such a long tradition.

MA1 lost a full pool of 72 from Charlotte down to 216. They have had 288 before so filling four MA1 pools there was not new. As far as asterisks on titles, almost every year some of the highest rated players or defending champions in divisions chose not to play, waited too long to get in or could not play (injury/no time off real job.)

 

[12StonesScott]

From a philosophical standpoint, I think it's been a bonus to have World Championships for kids under 13.

I'd definitely agree with that. Aside from anything else, the knowledge that you can actually compete for a World Championship (even if we know it's against very limited competition) at age 8 or 9 may motivate a few kids to take the sport seriously who wouldn't otherwise. David Wiggins Jr, Nick Duran, Andrew Coggin, et al. have been able to pull down multiple world championships before even being old enough to drive. And it's not like the competition is always weak -- MJ3 in 2010 was possibly the most exciting division in Marion, with a two-hole playoff after the Final 9 clinched by a clutch 35+ foot putt by Daichi Inoue after Triston Covington led most of the week.

So along Biscoe's lines, my thought would be that perhaps we should consider not offering those divisions MFJ34 initially with a minimum age of 14 for MFJ2 and only offer the younger ones if there's room. Of course that complicates things for participating parents not knowing whether they can play or need to caddy. Perhaps we should really be getting enough young players for metro and state championships before offering National and World titles for this age level.

Or, find a way to accommodate the younger golfers without adversely affecting the capacity for the adult field. I'm only too aware of the logistical challenges (scheduling, transportation, on-site TDs and volunteers, communication, etc.) involved in all of this. But I also think that it's likely you'd be able to marshal resources that wouldn't otherwise get involved -- parents, friends, relatives -- if it were essential to make the younger juniors divisions happen. For <=13s of either sex, it's probably possible (for most locations that are likely to host a Worlds -- Emporia this year might be an exception) to use courses that aren't suitable for adults/older juniors and that would alleviate some of the scheduling considerations. Run a round to two for the younger kids when the field events, etc. are going on, on Sunday/Monday, which could also help alleviate some of the possible conflicts for parents who're playing. 4 rounds total should be fine for the younger kids, and have one group each from the boys and girls divisions in the Final 9 (1st and 2nd place in M/FJ3/4). Maybe the first round on Monday before the rest of the older groups start on Tuesday, at whatever the most appropriate/signature course for the location is, when everyone else is playing practice rounds, etc.

At the end of the day though, the specifics matter less than a determination to make it happen. Intending no aspersions on anyone involved in the planning and hosting for this year's event, and freely stipulating that I know nothing at all about the discussions and considerations involved, it does seem as if a better solution would have been possible than a two-player cap for those divisions.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The definition of the best schedule possible when there are constraints is to hopefully have each affected group disappointed roughly the same amount. Some groups just haven't chimed in yet.

 

[12StonesScott]

Points have their problems as a mechanism for qualifying, but so would any other system. And right now they're irrelevant for <=13 divisions; the PDGA recognizes that it's difficult for players in those divisions to collect any points at regular events, since they're either in a division with only one or two other players or they're playing up in an adult division, where they're likely to finish at or near the bottom, so anyone under 13 who plays at least one sanctioned event gets an automatic invitation to Worlds the next year.

However -- the majority of the invited players in FJ3, for example, would easily have qualified for the FJ1/2 divisions on points, and a few would have qualified for FW1 (6 and 15 points respectively). Even if you're in a division by yourself, you get at least one point for it, so several of the girls racked up 10-20 points just by playing a handful of tourneys with no competition and one or two in a larger division. So I'd actually be in favor of eliminating the automatic invite just for playing one tournament, and requiring some demonstrated ongoing commitment by playing enough to collect at least the 6 points required for the older FJ divisions (for example).

I'm not arguing that there should be spots reserved in Worlds for any random kid who wants to play. I am arguing that kids who have played regularly and well for their age ought to at least have a fighting chance of getting in and not be shut out by a process that implies a certain amount of time to register and does not disclose that only 2 spots are available.

Set the initial field size for each division during the invite period at the number who qualify on points, or a minimum of 4. Those spots are reserved *only* until the date when registration opens for invited players to register for other divisions they're eligible but not invited in. After that, the slots can be reallocated to other divisions based on demand/logistics. There were 14 invited FJ3 players this year for 2 spots. I get that a lot more players were invited in other divisions than can play, but I doubt there's 7 times as many in any other division.

 

[jenb]

Contact the PDGA with your concerns. Nothing will happen from posting here.

Let's be honest. Nothing will happen from contacting the PDGA with my concerns, either.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Well, less than nothing might happen from posting on this topic here.

 

[12StonesScott]

Well, less than nothing might happen from posting on this topic here.

So, what would be the appropriate venue for addressing the topic with the PDGA? E-mail Andrew Sweeton? Competition Commitee? Youth and Education Committee? How much is PDGA and how much is the local hosting organization?

I raised the issue here mainly for discussion purposes, as I wasn't certain whether I understood the situation correctly and I was curious what the opinions of others would be. I'm not sure how much of a crusade I'm up for, and it doesn't really affect me personally, but from a "future and health of the sport" perspective it does concern me.

 

[12StonesScott]

I'm hoping to bring my two youngest boys to the AM Worlds in 2014. Both will be playing 10 & Under. My main concern is finding enough events this year for them to earn points and get an invite so they're not wait listed.

With it being in my home state and being able to stay at my parents house really makes it something to look forward to in a bigger way than just playing.

Note that this year and for the last several, at least, any players who are eligible for the Junior 3 or Junior 4 divisions (13 and under and 10 and under), who are members in good standing on 12/31 and who completed at least one sanctioned event during the year automatically receive invitations for Junior Worlds for the following year. However, that does NOT mean they won't be waitlisted, as 12 of the 14 girls invited in FJ3 are finding out this year.

 

[jenb]

Well, less than nothing might happen from posting on this topic here.

What does "less than nothing" mean?

 

[Cgkdisc]

I would address your concerns and suggestions to both Brian Graham and Mike Downes: bgraham and mdownes at pdga.com. The local host in this case was given flexibilty in making the call on three proposed schedules for five courses, some that would have allowed more or even less total players than the fourth option that was chosen in-between the extremes. The PDGA can establish minimum bid requirements but is still subject to the constraints that may be involved with the bids it receives.

There's no guarantee that the choice for capping some fields at two players would not happen again. On the other hand, if people feel fields should either be four minimum or none at all, that might be an alternate option that could be incorporated if enough people agree. In addition, maybe this will spur some discussion on the invite process so higher rated players and defending champs in a division might have an earlier reg option.

 

[Cgkdisc]

What does "less than nothing" mean?

In math and here it could be negative.

 

[12StonesScott]

There's no guarantee that the choice for capping some fields at two players would not happen again. On the other hand, if people feel fields should either be four minimum or none at all, that might be an alternate option that could be incorporated if enough people agree. In addition, maybe this will spur some discussion on the invite process so higher rated players and defending champs in a division might have an earlier reg option.

I could definitely support the ideas in that last sentence -- make invitations for all divisions points-based, reduce the number of invitations in the smallest divisions to ensure that more of the "top" players have a fair shot at registering, and hold a slot for the defending champion if they're still age-eligible for the division (or in the next higher division, if not).

 

[jenb]

In math and here it could be negative.

Are you seriously threatening retaliation against the FM1 women on the waitlist if I don't stop trying to raise public awareness of these issues?

 

[JC17393]

Are you seriously threatening retaliation against the FM1 women on the waitlist if I don't stop trying to raise public awareness of these issues?

Chuck couldn't do anything to them if he wanted to, so why would he threaten anyone?

I think his point is that by posting complaints here, where they will most definitely go unseen/unheard by PDGA officials, accomplishes nothing and risks having a negative impact on the event. Imagine if people here read the complaints as "Worlds has no room for me" or "Worlds doesn't want me" (after all, there's no official refutation of claims of bias against female and junior divisions) and don't bother registering even for a waitlist. That seems like a worse-than-nothing result.

 

[Rob Martin]

edit

 

[jcrab66]

edit

+1..