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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[BillFleming]

I have seen a tournament where you can sign up early for an extra $100. And tournaments where you can sign up early if you sponsor a hole.

 

[DavidSauls]

I have seen a tournament where you can sign up early for an extra $100. And tournaments where you can sign up early if you sponsor a hole.

There are limits on this....I believe to 25% of the field, but don't hold me to that.

 

[DavidSauls]

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.

Footnote: They abandoned it because they were running pro/am weekends, and the pro weekend did not draw well. The last time it was split was 2 years ago.

 

[rusch_bag]

I was having a discussion with a local td that hosts 5 or so events a year. He was telling me he doesn't need to host more because there are already events every weekend from other tds. In my head I'm thinking, they all fill up the day registration opens, we need a lot more events. Who cares if there is already another event going on.

 

[DavidSauls]

This is why I jumped into this sport.

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

Why not more of the current Supply; i.e., more tournaments run they way the existing ones are?

If the existing formats and payouts are drawing too many players, why is the solution a different format & payout system?

 

[Jay Dub]

We used to have one New Years day tournament in this area. I think I saw notices for at least 5 this year.

 

[discgolftom]

Why not more of the current Supply; i.e., more tournaments run they way the existing ones are?

If the existing formats and payouts are drawing too many players, why is the solution a different format & payout system?

Not sure what we want to do is a solution, but it seems to be more rewarding for the Players.

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

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.

I like the idea that sign ups are on day X. Whether 72 or 720 players sign up that day, you're all in the pot. Maybe the only guaranteed slots are for last year's winners.

 

[Jay Dub]

Auction off the spots to the 72 highest bidders...?

 

[DiscGolfCraig]

Not sure what we want to do is a solution, but it seems to be more rewarding for the Players.

I've avoided feeding this questionable account until now. Do yourself a favor and read any of the dozens of threads about the issues TDs have faced running tourneys. See some of the issues they've had to face when being forced to make a call where the decision they make is going to change somebody's spot in the tourney. See how some of these TDs have been in the sport for 20, 30, 40 years, and they're still having to deal with new issues, new rules, or new interpretations of rules. And you think you're just going to have it all figured out within a couple months?