2020 Majors

[Hampstead]

what are you even talking about

when did i assume responsibility for that

if thats that you can pick out from all that ive said lololol youre off your game tonight

Sorry that I used your words.


What was I thinking?

 

[elmexdela]

Sorry that I used your words.


What was I thinking?

you didnt tho

and i in no way put myself in that box unless you assumed i did

lolol youre off tonight get some sleep

 

[Hampstead]

you didnt tho

and i in no way put myself in that box unless you assumed i did

lolol youre off tonight get some sleep

Team capitalization lost tonight.

team indifferent was the winner


f uck nuts

 

[elmexdela]

Team capitalization lost tonight.

team indifferent was the winner


f uck nuts

lol k

 

[disco40]

After watching the Fort coverage from the Utah Open, it looks like they really need to take some of the luck out of that course. Maybe with enough hard work it will be good, but it just doesn't feel suitable for Worlds, especially when combined with the meh viewing of Mulligan's. But glad to see my old hometown is getting some major disc golf love. I'll try to get back there to watch.

 

[jakebake91]

Sure. If we're all just going to be watching from home, play every Worlds at Brewster. But having spectated at Brewster, it was a significantly worse experience than spectating at Fox Run.


I don't think a sporting organization should be knowingly limiting the in-person fan experience unless the organization has decided purposefully to keep the sport "small."

Serious question....did more people watch the coverage online or in person? How many more? I'm betting the online viewing was exponentially greater than the people there live.

What brings in more money? Live spectators, or revenue from online ad dollars and the like?

 

[Chains Bailey]

The more potential spectators the better. YouTube may get more views, but the PDGA needs to consider live spectators over after the fact eyeballs if it wants to grow.

This is just flat wrong.

Live spectators are a non-factor in ALL sports when it comes to growth.

 

[Chains Bailey]

This is just flat wrong.

Live spectators are a very very small factor in ALL sports when it comes to growth.

Fixed it for myself.

 

[Hampstead]

Cool

 

[Finny]

This is just flat wrong.

Live spectators are a very very small factor in ALL sports when it comes to growth.

I get what you're saying, but are there sports that generate lots of revenue where no one watches in person? E-sports, I guess, but are those "sports"? Bowling? Billiards?

For most sports, the in-person audience grew first. Maybe it doesn't have to be that way for disc golf. But I'm struggling to believe that a huge online audience will develop while no one shows up to watch live.

 

[Casey 1988]

I get what you're saying, but are there sports that generate lots of revenue where no one watches in person? E-sports, I guess, but are those "sports"? Bowling? Billiards?

For most sports, the in-person audience grew first. Maybe it doesn't have to be that way for disc golf. But I'm struggling to believe that a huge online audience will develop while no one shows up to watch live.

You need live just not as much as other sports excluding Bowling where they started a livable pro tour in the TV era and bowling places were not really made for spectating. Even with darts you see people on the sides though most of them are tired of seeing the 501 where he person gets it in 3 darts by hitting the inner bulls-eye every single dart with modern darts that are 3 part darts, the dart tip, the middle, and the end that is the plastic with the fletching that generally comes off the plastic part they are not using those they have the darts that are 2 part darts that the tip is on permanent to the middle weighted part with the plastic end and fletching that comes off.

 

[Armus Patheticus]

You need live just not as much as other sports excluding Bowling where they started a livable pro tour in the TV era and bowling places were not really made for spectating. Even with darts you see people on the sides though most of them are tired of seeing the 501 where he person gets it in 3 darts by hitting the inner bulls-eye every single dart with modern darts that are 3 part darts, the dart tip, the middle, and the end that is the plastic with the fletching that generally comes off the plastic part they are not using those they have the darts that are 2 part darts that the tip is on permanent to the middle weighted part with the plastic end and fletching that comes off.

The inner bull is worth 50 points, not 167.

 

[Casey 1988]

The inner bull is worth 50 points, not 167.

my bad, I do not play much but I thought if you got 3 throws in a row to the inner bull it was automatic 501. So I guess then in 10-11 throws so whoever gets to go first wins and it is very boring to watch as you know the first guy to go up will win 95% of the time. I only know due to my brother the darts parts him showing me his darts.

Pro Bowling has a bit more to it so splits and other things happen in the game as well as different balls and weights for different situations according to what players want the ball to do.

 

[Steve West]

...I'm betting the online viewing was exponentially greater than the people there live. ...

(Apologies to all for this post. Just ignore it if you want to.)

Exponentially does not mean "a lot". It means the bigger something is, the faster it is getting bigger.

The number of on-line viewers could be growing exponentially. For example, there could be twice as many each year.

The number of in-person viewers could also be exponentially greater each year.

But, you cannot compare two different things (in-person vs. on-line viewers) using the expression "exponentially greater".

 

[jakebake91]

(Apologies to all for this post. Just ignore it if you want to.)

Exponentially does not mean "a lot". It means the bigger something is, the faster it is getting bigger.

The number of on-line viewers could be growing exponentially. For example, there could be twice as many each year.

The number of in-person viewers could also be exponentially greater each year.

But, you cannot compare two different things (in-person vs. on-line viewers) using the expression "exponentially greater".

Okay. Would "substantially greater" have been better? Sorry my word choice rendered my post incomprehensible.

 

[Chains Bailey]

I get what you're saying, but are there sports that generate lots of revenue where no one watches in person? E-sports, I guess, but are those "sports"? Bowling? Billiards?

Yes - almost all sports do not rely on live spectators. Even something as huge as the NFL - the in person tickets, concessions etc...go only to the teams themselves and much of that is paid to the players. None goes to the NFL (PDGA / Media companies). AD revenue is the largest factor for a sport to grow. In financial terms - No AD revenue = no media = no sport.

For most sports, the in-person audience grew first. Maybe it doesn't have to be that way for disc golf. But I'm struggling to believe that a huge online audience will develop while no one shows up to watch live.

I agree that sports draw in live audiences and that is important to a small degree, but even in the past, T.V. was the catalyst for any sports growth. Fortunately or unfortunately, I believe we are at a place where live spectators are a non-factor in a sports growth. My guess is that in this day and age it is the huge online audience that will attract other media (ESPN/Cable stations?) and be the model for disc golf to break into the mainstream.

I would defer the subject to Jomez/CCDG/SpinTV and the like for inside knowledge on the subject.

I like the idea of live spectators and it provides good aesthetics. I would assume that any large sponsor would prefer to see people there watching verse not, but if the online presence is huge and they can make money off of the product, then spectators become irrelevant.

 

[wolfmandragon]

(Apologies to all for this post. Just ignore it if you want to.)

....

The number of on-line viewers could be growing exponentially. For example, there could be twice as many each year.

...

Nerd alert:

This might be somewhat pedantic, but that is not exponential growth, that is geometric growth.

This is oversimplified but close enough.
Where N is the current number and X is the growth rate:

Linear growth is N times X.
Geometric growth is N to the X power.
Exponential growth is 2 to the N power (no X is used here).

There is also quadratic growth but it is messy and not useful for this discussion. I include this comment in case someone wants to do a deep dive.

All growths can be modeled as one of the above 4. X and N are always real numbers as changing a decimal place does not change the shape of the curve. Yes, in the real world, a decimal place will change the outcome of the final number, but not the domain that it is in.

 

[Steve West]

Nerd alert:

This might be somewhat pedantic, but that is not exponential growth, that is geometric growth.

....

From https://stats.oecd.org/glossary

Geometric growth refers to the situation where successive changes in a population differ by a constant ratio (as distinct from a constant amount for arithmetic change).


Exponential growth refers to the situation where growth compounds continuously at every instant of time.

Because compounding takes place at intervals much longer than an instant, a geometric growth is a "special case" of exponential growth.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Nerd alert:

This might be somewhat pedantic, but that is not exponential growth, that is geometric growth.

This is oversimplified but close enough.
Where N is the current number and X is the growth rate:

Linear growth is N times X.
Geometric growth is N to the X power.
Exponential growth is 2 to the N power (no X is used here).

There is also quadratic growth but it is messy and not useful for this discussion. I include this comment in case someone wants to do a deep dive.

All growths can be modeled as one of the above 4. X and N are always real numbers as changing a decimal place does not change the shape of the curve. Yes, in the real world, a decimal place will change the outcome of the final number, but not the domain that it is in.

Must be winter where the stats mavens reside.

 

[wolfmandragon]

Must be winter where the stats mavens reside.

I am not good enough at stats to be a maven, but growth rates are very important to programmers building algorithms...

Yes, it's winter.