How to Choose a Senior-Friendly Pro Event

[shive]

A senior-friendly event is one in which your division is not treated worse than any other Pro division. Here are some simple tests:

1) Look at the entry fees for the different Pro divisions. Are they all the same, or are they tiered, with the Open players paying more? If they are tiered, it is not a senior-friendly event. The PDGA may tell you that the reason for tiered entry fees is humanitarian -- to give a needed financial break to older players. This is a specious reason, because older players have on the average a higher disposable income than younger ones, so on that basis the Open players should pay less, not more. The real reason is to justify allocating a lower percentage (or none) of the added cash to older players.

2) Even if the entry fees are the same, does the TD allocate added cash to all pro divisions on a "per capita" basis? If not, the event is not senior-friendly.

3) Does the event have other financial commitments that would not be shared with older divisions? If so, the event is not senior-friendly. For example, some events run associated skins games, or pay travel expenses for qualifying NT players, which can divert a considerable amount of cash away from older divisions.

4) If the event has a final 9, does your division participate? Does your division even get to vote if it would like to have a final 9? If not, the event is not senior-friendly.

5) If the event has tee-times, is your division always starting first, or last? If so, do you care? This is tricky. For example, starting first can be a negative. You might be starting in the dark, or in the cold, and you will have to wait half of forever for the awards ceremony. On the other hand, you might like to avoid the heat of the day (or afternoon thunderstorms), and if you don't care about the awards ceremony you can get a leg up on getting home early. Starting last can mean that you will finish in the dark and might miss evening activities. It is rarely a benefit unless you partied so heavily the night before that you are wasted in the morning.

6) Try to get a feeling for the scheduling. Does it seem as though you will have an excessive amount of spare time during which you are expected to stand around watching other people play? And when you are playing, do you believe that you will be playing a challenging or comparatively boring format?

7) Does the event refuse to offer all older divisions, or does it cap them preferentially. If so, it is not senior-friendly.

Item #1 is (typically) the only one that you can easily check without contacting the TD. Still, I have found that it is a very good filter on its own. If you do contact the TD, #2 is the most critical. Even if TD's charge the same entry fees for all Pro divisions, they can still give all the added cash to Open players. Unless you ask up front, you wouldn't find this out until they posted the payouts, by which time it is too late.

 

[DavidSauls]

Funny, our lowly C-tier seems to be very Senior-Pro friendly. Perhaps the lack of added cash helps make it so.

About the only test we didn't pass is, for 2 years we had a "Final 6", and in one of those years we limited it to Open and Advanced. Otherwise, adding up the years, we've been about 98% compliant.

By the way, there's another option to get around the long wait, during final-9s or for those with early tee times. That is to do away with awards ceremonies, pay the players as their division finishes are determined, and let them hit the road, or watch the rest, as they desire.

 

[biscoe]

I am curious as to whether the OP came up with all this himself or if it comes through some percolation in his email group.

 

[timj5304]

The op is peter shive, legends world champion. I understand his struggles as it's hard to find groups to play in his division.

 

[biscoe]

I am well aware of who the OP is.

 

[shive]

to biscoe:

A combination of both. Some of the "money" items come from the personal experience of giving money to events over the years with the proviso that it be shared equally on a per capita basis by all pro divisions, and then checking later to see how the money was actually allocated. Some come from general complaints of newsgroup members about unpleasant surprises when payouts are posted. Most of the "non-money" items percolated up from newsgroup members.

 

[JC17393]

Guess my events aren't senior friendly. I charge a lower entry fee for all the pro divisions outside Open (typically between a $5 and $15 difference depending on the level of event). I also put little to none of the added cash into senior divisions at those events, with the "little" typically being enough to bring the payout up to 100% of gross entries rather than net. Unless a sponsor directly specifies, I put added money into the divisions where anyone of the appropriate gender can enter and play for it (Open and Women). If seniors want a crack at big money, they can enter Open if they desire but the door doesn't swing the other way for the young'ins, so I don't put anything on that side of the door.

My view, and it's essentially the view inherited from the previous TD who himself has been a senior player since he picked up the game, is that age divisions exist to give the older guys a respite from the youngsters, not to give them an easier chance at free money.

Now if I were to run a senior-only event, then I'd be all for adding cash into a senior division...the Masters division (male and female). Same principle exists...a 60 year old can play Masters if he wants more money, but a 45 year old can't play Senior Grand. Put the added money where the largest percentage of the field can play for it if they choose to.

 

[biscoe]

Dispensation of added cash seems to me to be of concern only to those likely to place at or near the top of a given division. There are any number of other metrics which better define the quality of an event for the rest of the field.

In my experience the only gripe I have ever had with being a non-open player is playing a course setup I did not prefer AND not being told about it well in advance so that I would have had the option of playing in a different division.

 

[Cgkdisc]

In theory, if added cash is coming from sponsors (and spectator income which is still rare) who have the expectation that their contribution will be going toward the division(s) that people want to watch, then it makes sense to add it to the feature divisions, Open and Open Women. However, this is rarely the case in lower tier events. In which case, there's more justification for allocating any added cash proportionately among pro divisions which is the expected default procedure for PDGA events unless TDs specifically state all added cash to the top in the tournament flyer.

 

[biscoe]

BY these definitions my events are not senior friendly either. While I add some money to older divisions I do not add it proportionally to open. Pro women get an even larger cut proportionally. My formula is one share added cash per player in non-open divisions, 2 shares per player in MPO, 3 shares per player in FPO.

I am involved in one event which has a final 9- that final 9 is for one group of MPO only- presumably the best of the best who are there that weekend. We are fortunate enough to have a course which is very spectator friendly and are attempting to provide a showcase for the talents of the best rather than a reward for a varied group of folks who have outplayed their age group peers.

 

[ru4por]

Guess my events aren't senior friendly. I charge a lower entry fee for all the pro divisions outside Open (typically between a $5 and $15 difference depending on the level of event). I also put little to none of the added cash into senior divisions at those events, with the "little" typically being enough to bring the payout up to 100% of gross entries rather than net. Unless a sponsor directly specifies, I put added money into the divisions where anyone of the appropriate gender can enter and play for it (Open and Women). If seniors want a crack at big money, they can enter Open if they desire but the door doesn't swing the other way for the young'ins, so I don't put anything on that side of the door.

My view, and it's essentially the view inherited from the previous TD who himself has been a senior player since he picked up the game, is that age divisions exist to give the older guys a respite from the youngsters, not to give them an easier chance at free money.

Now if I were to run a senior-only event, then I'd be all for adding cash into a senior division...the Masters division (male and female). Same principle exists...a 60 year old can play Masters if he wants more money, but a 45 year old can't play Senior Grand. Put the added money where the largest percentage of the field can play for it if they choose to.

This is assuming all master+ aged players, play in age protected divisions to avoid getting beat. An incorrect assumption.

 

[shive]

to JC17393:

You are actually following PDGA guidelines for "suggested" entry fees, and many TD's (like you) put most or all the added cash into the Open divisions. I have no problem with this, and do not suggest that you change anything. Still, one of our premises is that we would prefer to play in events where we are not treated worse than any other division, so it makes sense that we would recommend events whose TD's had a different attitude.

When I give a cash award to an event I don't restrict it to older players. That cash goes to support purses of all divisions equally (even the Open divisions). Over the years I have donated more cash to Open players than to any other division. I believe that Open players deserve my support. But I'd be cutting my own throat to give a grant to an event that would just give most or all of it to Open players.

 

[Steve West]

It seems you could get everything you want in a Senior friendly tournament by playing in Open.

You have another division you qualify for and would rather play in. Isn't part of that choice being willing to make the trade-offs to play non-Open? Whether that is playing different tees or smaller prizes or whatever?

Or should all tournaments be equally Senior/Female/Junior/Amateur/"Just suck" - friendly and treat everyone as well as the Open players?

 

[DavidSauls]

It seems you could get everything you want in a Senior friendly tournament by playing in Open.

You have another division you qualify for and would rather play in. Isn't part of that choice being willing to make the trade-offs to play non-Open? Whether that is playing different tees or smaller prizes or whatever?

Or should all tournaments be equally Senior/Female/Junior/Amateur/"Just suck" - friendly and treat everyone as well as the Open players?

In other words, the ultimate Senior-friendly event is a single-division, Open-only event. It meets all the criteria.

 

[DavidSauls]

In my experience the only gripe I have ever had with being a non-open player is playing a course setup I did not prefer AND not being told about it well in advance so that I would have had the option of playing in a different division.

This is the one gripe that also applies to older amateurs.

 

[JC17393]

This is assuming all master+ aged players, play in age protected divisions to avoid getting beat. An incorrect assumption.

That's not the assumption I'm making at all. I'm assuming that masters aged players are playing Masters because they prefer to play with like-aged players.

I'm assuming that if their concern is playing for and winning relatively significant money, they'll follow the money and play in the money division. If their concern is competing with other old guys regardless of the compensation, they'll play Masters.

No different, in my opinion, than a 25 year old who wants to play for money playing Open rather than playing MA1 or MA2 and insisting the payouts there be big (or in case rather than merch).

 

[JC17393]

It seems you could get everything you want in a Senior friendly tournament by playing in Open.

You have another division you qualify for and would rather play in. Isn't part of that choice being willing to make the trade-offs to play non-Open? Whether that is playing different tees or smaller prizes or whatever?

Or should all tournaments be equally Senior/Female/Junior/Amateur/"Just suck" - friendly and treat everyone as well as the Open players?

So much more eloquently stated than my attempts. This is bingo.

 

[shive]

to Steve West:

My goodness. Relax. Of course not every tournament. The divisional tour is just a flyspeck on the PDGA calendar. I have never listed more than 15 events, and aren't looking for more than 20. That is less than one percent of the total number of PDGA-sanctioned events.

So you've got 99+% events that can favor the Open players all they want. Still, if 1% might treat us equally it makes sense for us to look for them. I'm only trying to help older players find them if they want to try.

 

[Steve West]

to Steve West:

My goodness. Relax. Of course not every tournament. The divisional tour is just a flyspeck on the PDGA calendar. I have never listed more than 15 events, and aren't looking for more than 20. That is less than one percent of the total number of PDGA-sanctioned events.

So you've got 99+% events that can favor the Open players all they want. Still, if 1% might treat us equally it makes sense for us to look for them. I'm only trying to help older players find them if they want to try.

Ah, I see. So, more like: "if you want to be treated like an Open player, come to these events" than advocating for changing how tournaments are run. Sorry, I took away the wrong impression.

 

[shive]

To DavidSauls:

You say, "In other words, the ultimate Senior-friendly event is a single-division, Open-only event. It meets all the criteria." Indeed it does. However, it has a problem with pragmatics.

There are many who advocate that the PDGA adopt your model. This is always the ultimate put-down for those of us who play in age-protected professional divisions. There are about 3000 of us, comprising about fifteen percent of the PDGA membership. We made the choice to play in age-protected divisions when we joined or renewed our memberships and we paid a premium to do it -- the same premium that Open players pay.

Now suppose that the PDGA went forward with your "single-division, Open-only format". Consider these questions:

1) How many of those over-40 pros would remain in the PDGA?
2) How many Open women would remain in the PDGA?
3) How many of the above would look for a new organization to satisfy their desire to play as professionals?
3) Do you really believe that the PDGA wants to find out the answer to those questions?