Recreational limits for tournaments

[sprintermatt]

Should the recreational division be limited to 1 day tournaments?

Discuss.

 

[Future_Primitive]

Why?

Share.

 

[ohtobediscing]

Why not?

Ignore.

 

[bradharris]

This is where the division name seems to cause problems. If the true intent is to have a division for the casual players who are just out to have fun, then it makes sense to only offer it as a one-day event. The casual player likely is not interested in devoting an entire weekend to tournament play.

However, Rec is often used simply as a skill level determination. There are plenty of players who play in the rec division and are very serious about the game and would gladly play in a two-day event.

Given the current state of things, I say allow rec at any amateur tournament that wants to offer it. And let the tournament decide how many days the rec division will play. Serious rec players will enjoy some two-day tournaments and casual rec players can wait for the single day tournaments where they'll be more comfortable.

 

[Grungedude42]

Let local demand for divisons drive the divisions offered.

 

[_MTL_]

I've seen events not offer intermediate and Rec to try and speed play up.

so what happens?

all the players in intermediate and rec play advanced.

nothing changes.

 

[Dave242]

I voted C-Tier and below. My reason for this is that the vast majority of events are local/league and PDGA C Tiers. So, there are plenty of places to offer a division for lower skilled players.

There should be an increasing level of "prestige" and selectiveness and competitive "purity" as you progress up the Tier levels.

Allowing C-Tiers to provide recreational level players a division of their own allows them to experience the majority of PDGA events in their own division (850-900) where everyone gets a chance (statistically at least) to win (or at least cash).

Higher tier events should be more prestigious/selective and not offer a platform for the highlighting of lesser skill. The players can still compete in B's & A's and above, but would do so much more for a pure amateur motivation - love of competitive play (without expectation for compensation for their performance).

All that said, I see no reason for the PDGA to force the hand of Promoters/TDs into doing this......but I think that taking this approach is best for the direction of the sport (and they are free to do this now if they want).

Edited: In Am-only events, I think Rec is much more acceptable (allowing for 3 skill level divisions). I had Pro/Am events primarily in mind in my statements above.

 

[sisyphus]

I think it's great that we have events scattered throughout the year for casual to novice to rec players anyway (Ace Race, Day Glo, Birdie Bash, Worlds Biggest Disc Golf Weekend, etc.) There are certainly some nice unsanctioned up to C and B tier one day events. But I don't see any reason to limit folks who may never rise out of Rec ( ) to one day events. I've been to BG Ams twice and loved it!

 

[jrawk]

I concur with Dave242

 

[jeverett]

There should be an increasing level of "prestige" and selectiveness and competitive "purity" as you progress up the Tier levels.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with this, but as MTL mentioned, excluding lower divisions from an event typically doesn't serve to eliminate players so much as making them 'play up'. i.e. the result is the event is no more 'selective' than before, and the Advanced division is full of lower-rated players. For example, take a look at the Beaver State Fling. The event is so popular, it includes no division lower than Advanced, and even then uses a lottery system. Does this result in a really strong Advanced field? Nope. The result is, that year after year, the average rating of the MA1 field at the BSF is ~900.

Note: no, I'm not at all bitter for not getting into the lottery two years in a row now.

 

[notroman]

I voted to allow Rec players play in all tiers because I was there and I have friends that still play Rec and are very passionate about the game.

That being said, I wouldn't mind if there were more USADGC style formats which limit attendance by rating. I'm signed up for a tournament this weekend and there is a 269 (!) rated kid signed up and another lady that is not the fastest player in the world. The thought of two of them on the course at the same time as I am is already making me reach for my chair. Would be nice to play a tournament round where there aren't too many long backups or people hacking back and forth across the fairway in front of you. Kinda makes sense why the top open players are somewhat upset about the current USDGC format.

 

[Dave242]

I don't see any reason to limit folks who may never rise out of Rec ( ) to one day events.

I do not believe that anyone is suggesting that there would ever be a ratings cut-off where players below 900 would not be allowed in an event.

All such players would still certainly be able to compete in all events (if they have PDGA membership when required). I believe what is being discussed here is simply not having a division catering to the specific 50 ratings point skill group of Recreational players (850-899) in all events....and also no Novice division (<850) either (I assume).

 

[gdub58]

While I agree with limiting divisions in many cases, I think basing it on the tier level of the tournament is flawed. BG Ams is a good example of this, as are many other larger events.

I do think most tournaments would be better if they were more limited in terms of the number of divisions offered. Some are already pro-only or am only, so that is already in place, and I have seen listings for tournaments that offer only 3-4 divisions. This could lead to more specialization in the approach taken in payouts. For example, a tournament offering intermediate/rec/novice could be trophy-only with big player's packs.

There seems to be enough tournaments to support this approach, but instead I think the more inclusive approach is taken to ensure bigger fields. This may be counterproductive, as it sometimes creates fields with lots of 1 or 2 card divisions which doesn't contribute a great tournament experience

 

[Dave242]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with this, but as MTL mentioned, excluding lower divisions from an event typically doesn't serve to eliminate players so much as making them 'play up'. i.e. the result is the event is no more 'selective' than before, and the Advanced division is full of lower-rated players.

By "selective" I mean offering a platform to highlight and reward only higher skilled players. I suppose I could have used the word "snobby" or "elitist" instead. :gross:

Increasing "Prestige" as Tiers progress is the main concept....and this is one of the ways that this could be increased, IMO. Entry Fee, added cash, points earned, appearance rules, payouts, and exclusivity radii are all ways currently that support this ramping Prestige concept.

 

[Disc Golf Live]

I think the PDGA should pursue a model based on flighted play, with flights being determined after an initial round unsorted of play. Best practices need to be developed. Golf events have used this format for years so there are standards out there. No longer would players need to chose which Am division to select.

 

[DavidSauls]

Let local demand for divisons drive the divisions offered.

I'll go with this.

Leave TDs as much flexibility as possible. Ideally we'll grow to where players can choose among various events with different structures and formats.

In the meantime, I'd neither restrict divisions by tier, nor certainly not by number of days.

 

[Brokensaint]

What about a more expansive point-based Invitational model? More premier events regionally (meaning closer/more reachable without huge expense) throughout the year that are invitation-only based on points earned (based on your scores versus the field) the prior year through tournament play? Then you utilize the results of these Invitational tournaments as qualifiers to skim the cream from around the world to invite to the X-number of truly BIG invitation-only events (events that might merit TV/web coverage like the Masters).
*disclaimer* The following math is not real, only speculative:
Set up the points based upon how you throw vs the field but calculated based on the division you are playing. An advanced played who throws -10, a 920 rated round, earns X points. An Int player throws the same -10, the same 920 round, but earns a lesser Y points because of the divisional difference. Same for each division. This way, if you want to play in the big leagues, play in these big fancy invitationals, you play up and you play hard.
Don't change or limit the tournaments that we have now, add more ELITE events and make them earned.
Bearing in mind that I am definitely a REC (MAYBE INT on a good day) player, I would have a tough time getting the invite. But I know this about myself. It would be on me to play up and earn my way to these invitationals. But put up a barrier on A-tiers, keep guys like me away from the hallowed tournament experience, and you do the sport a disservice. Elitism as a culture is detrimental. Prestige as a goal is growth.

 

[rd.bittle]

Let local demand for divisons drive the divisions offered.

This.

 

[bradharris]

What about a more expansive point-based Invitational model? More premier events regionally (meaning closer/more reachable without huge expense) throughout the year that are invitation-only based on points earned (based on your scores versus the field) the prior year through tournament play? Then you utilize the results of these Invitational tournaments as qualifiers to skim the cream from around the world to invite to the X-number of truly BIG invitation-only events (events that might merit TV/web coverage like the Masters).
*disclaimer* The following math is not real, only speculative:
Set up the points based upon how you throw vs the field but calculated based on the division you are playing. An advanced played who throws -10, a 920 rated round, earns X points. An Int player throws the same -10, the same 920 round, but earns a lesser Y points because of the divisional difference. Same for each division. This way, if you want to play in the big leagues, play in these big fancy invitationals, you play up and you play hard.
Don't change or limit the tournaments that we have now, add more ELITE events and make them earned.
Bearing in mind that I am definitely a REC (MAYBE INT on a good day) player, I would have a tough time getting the invite. But I know this about myself. It would be on me to play up and earn my way to these invitationals. But put up a barrier on A-tiers, keep guys like me away from the hallowed tournament experience, and you do the sport a disservice. Elitism as a culture is detrimental. Prestige as a goal is growth.

There's nothing stopping anyone from having elite invitation based events. In fact some of those exist in the form of Worlds, USDGC and USADGC.

If you want more of these, you've gotta find someone willing to invest significant time and money to making it happen.

 

[sprintermatt]

OK, I wasn't sure how many choices to make in my poll... but I would probably split A-Tiers into Pro/Am A-Tiers and Am only A-Tiers.

I'm just interested in the discussion.