2015 Worlds qualification criteria

[JC17393]

I'm interested how you can manipulate ratings in the upward direction if minimum ratings were included in the criteria? Certainly there wouldn't be a reason to bag your rating.

Isn't the most common "manipulation" of ratings to quit a round so it won't be counted (prompting the 888 code)? My understanding of why people quit to "save" their rating is so it will move or remain higher than perhaps it should be. Needing a minimum rating to play Worlds might lead to more 888-worthy DNFs.

Frankly I don't see how or why minimum ratings will ever be a necessity for Am Worlds at least. It's not really in the best interests of the organization to make any change to Worlds qualification criteria other than raise the minimum points. If players need more points for Worlds, they'll play more events. More player means more player fees taken in which means more income for the PDGA budget. I would think ratings minimums would have the opposite effect...players attain required rating and sit on it until Worlds rolls around.

 

[The Shide]

I hope you get an invite to MG1. When I turned 50 they did not give me one but I did get one for MM1. I don't think the PDGA takes the age change into consideration. I think since you didn't earn points in MG1= no invite.

Not so. All AM points count. And in the year you turn 50 you are eligible regardless of which division points are earned.

Last year I only had 67 points, accumulated in AM3 & MM1. Earlier this year I received an email stating I had a invitation for Worlds in MG1 (I turned 50 this year).

 

[araytx]

I'm interested how you can manipulate ratings in the upward direction if minimum ratings were included in the criteria? Certainly there wouldn't be a reason to bag your rating.

Isn't the most common "manipulation" of ratings to quit a round so it won't be counted (prompting the 888 code)? My understanding of why people quit to "save" their rating is so it will move or remain higher than perhaps it should be. Needing a minimum rating to play Worlds might lead to more 888-worthy DNFs.

Frankly I don't see how or why minimum ratings will ever be a necessity for Am Worlds at least. It's not really in the best interests of the organization to make any change to Worlds qualification criteria other than raise the minimum points. If players need more points for Worlds, they'll play more events. More player means more player fees taken in which means more income for the PDGA budget. I would think ratings minimums would have the opposite effect...players attain required rating and sit on it until Worlds rolls around.

Yes. There might be the incentive to protect higher ratings, if, for example, the Am Worlds invites get "sorted" by ratings if more than the available spots apply as one writer proposed. And even with the 888 provision, a player with a high one can be sure their rating is protected without quitting if they want to. A really good putter can three-putt every hole and look like he's trying.

 

[TalbotTrojan]

I would think ratings minimums would have the opposite effect...players attain required rating and sit on it until Worlds rolls around.

There was a Colorado guy who basically did this to get into Am Nationals in 2013. He finished darn near last that year and his rating dropped enough that he was not able to qualify for this years Am Nationals.

If worlds, Pro or Am, were based on ratings, I think it would allow this to happen, even with a minimum number of points. Plus, you still want to reward people for being committed to the sport, not just the best at the sport who will already be rewarded. I think people need to stop complaining about not getting in as one of the best players and sign up earlier. I think you can raise the points needed, but you also have to be generous enough so good players who just got into the tournament scene half way through a year still have a chance to qualify.

In the event that ratings become a factor, it would be wise to make sure there are about twice as many spots available as there are now in any and every division. This would mean separating out events and holding more World Championship events. This becomes a possibility when the number of places that could host such events increases. But that requires good TD's and good disc golf communities that have the support of local parks and rec departments.

 

[teemkey]

The simplest solution for Ams is to invite the top points accumulators (say 150% of the number of openings) initially. Wait a week, then the next lower points accumulators (again 150% of the remaining openings),and so on until the event is filled.

Am Worlds is the pdga's premier non-cash event, so rewarding points through many mid-level finishes makes sense as a reward for their participation. It's for those dedicated enough to spend thousands of dollars to maybe win a trophy.

 

[1978]

The simplest solution for Ams is to invite the top points accumulators (say 150% of the number of openings) initially. Wait a week, then the next lower points accumulators (again 150% of the remaining openings),and so on until the event is filled.

Am Worlds is the pdga's premier non-cash event, so rewarding points through many mid-level finishes makes sense as a reward for their participation. It's for those dedicated enough to spend thousands of dollars to maybe win a trophy.

This process is flawed. I tried to win points championships a few years. In 2012 it was won by someone who was able to play 30 tournaments, I dont think he finished anywhere near me at Worlds, Bowling Green, Am Nats that year. Just because you have more money or free time shouldn't mean you have priority over a better player. Perhaps a rating scale that takes into account #of events, points, rating, etc. Additionally, in 2013 the "highest rated Am" was rated 1024. He played 1 event on his home course in a league. Probably a 930-940 level golfer yet he was invited to Am Nats! Both systems are flawed, but I do agree that Worlds should be a bit harder to get in to, like Am Nats is.

 

[Steve West]

This process is flawed. I tried to win points championships a few years. In 2012 it was won by someone who was able to play 30 tournaments, I dont think he finished anywhere near me at Worlds, Bowling Green, Am Nats that year. Just because you have more money or free time shouldn't mean you have priority over a better player...

It's not flawed if the actual purpose is to maximize the participation in sanctioned events. Which is a noble goal.