(More) League Advice Needed

[Nemmers]

Had our first event on Monday and, with 16 players, the turn out was better than expected. Next event is scheduled for January 31st and on our Facebook page we already have 19 who "say" they're going, so I'm excited. Baby steps.

For those who've run leagues before in a location that has a relatively high number of disc golfers, how big of a deal was it to pay Amateurs cash to the pros? Specifically I'm talking about $1 for every Am entry going to the pro/open purse?

I've never been one who subscribed to the notion that amateurs should bear the burden of underwriting the better players, but I've gotten to the point where I appreciate the notion. On one hand amateurs paid their way just like everyone else....why should they fund the open division just because there's fewer of them? On the other hand, why reward poorer play with more money just because there's a plethora of inconsistent players who can't putt or find a fairway in broad daylight? (I include myself in that last.)

I'm curious as to what format you came up with that worked. I realize that I'm not going to please everybody and I'm totally okay with that, but I want to make my league as attractive to pros as it is to amateurs whilst making it as fair as possible.

Thoughts?

 

[DavidSauls]

I wouldn't. I don't think the local Ams owe anything to the local Pros.

I don't have any problem with the Ams winning more cash because there are more of them. But if you do, you could try a lower entry fee for them.

 

[Nemmers]

I wouldn't. I don't think the local Ams owe anything to the local Pros.

I don't either, but in a way I sort of look at it as -- get ready! -- growing the sport by way of giving people an incentive to get better, move up, and play for more cash. Maybe that's misguided, but I started this in the hopes of getting people excited about the sport and, by extension, getting better at it. Of course, the thrill of beating your best score at a course is a HUGE incentive, but once you're doing that consistently the added money to the open purse adds another bit of draw to throwing your hat in the ring and running with the big dogs.

But I could be completely wrong.

I don't have any problem with the Ams winning more cash because there are more of them. But if you do, you could try a lower entry fee for them.

True, and that's an option. For the first round I charged everybody $5.00. Fifty-cents goes to the PDGA for rating fees, fifty-cents goes to the local club who maintains the course, a dollar goes to me for league maintenance, and $3 goes to the prize fund.

It just seemed really odd to me that I paid the Am 2nd place more than I paid the Open winner. I want to encourage participation by giving incentives for good play -- regardless (but mindful) of division -- while making it as FAIR as possible. Maybe higher entries for pros, lower entries for amateurs, and not giving anything to the club(s) is the way to go.

(I know that sounds a little selfish taking $1 from each entry for myself since I'm claiming to want to "grow the sport," but I'm paying the sanctioning fees, buying end-of-season prizes, and doing all the legwork so I don't feel very bad about it.)

 

[DavidSauls]

I understand the sentiment, but I don't think local league play is the place to do it. Rewarding players for playing better as an incentive to improve---financially rewarding players---can be done at full tournaments, where the entry fees for pros are usually higher, and where the Ams get paid in merchandise which they may or may not convert to cash, with some effort.

At any rate, with $3 going to the prize pool you're talking small money. So the winning Pro gets $8 and the winning Intermediate gets $14? I think that's easier to swallow than taking money from the Intermediate and giving to the Pro.

Your biggest problem might be sandbagging. And I mean, actual sandbagging. Players without ratings playing in lower divisions because they can make a little bit of cash. You, as TD, will have to deal with this until they get rated.

 

[biscoe]

I'm with David- I would not pay out am money to pros period- regardless of level of event.

 

[Grayson]

On a local level where you're just starting league play I think you should be more interested in total participation rather than number of Pro players. Start subsidizing the pro field from lower divisions and you'll likely see a decline in overall participation.

If your objective is to increase the pro field, then go out and get some advertisers or sponsors to get the added cash. One of the hardest questions a TD/Promoter of the sport can field from an Am player is "Why their cash goes to Pro?" There's really no good answer that the Am player will agree.

 

[Timeetyo]

On a local level where you're just starting league play I think you should be more interested in total participation rather than number of Pro players. Start subsidizing the pro field from lower divisions and you'll likely see a decline in overall participation.

If your objective is to increase the pro field, then go out and get some advertisers or sponsors to get the added cash. One of the hardest questions a TD/Promoter of the sport can field from an Am player is "Why their cash goes to Pro?" There's really no good answer that the Am player will agree.

^^ This.

 

[snappyfingers]

DO NOT GIVE THE PROS ANY AM MONEY

 

[DatRedDude]

As an AM, how is you giving my money to a pro incentive for me to get better? You are assuming that every AM that plays in this weekly wants to be pro. I think there is too much of that, not everyone that plays this game and plays in tournament has illusions of grandeur. I play for competition and if i knew some of my money was going to the pro side i would stop showing up. We really need to stop with the if pro's made more it would grow the sport thinking.

As far as you getting 1$ off the top i have no issues with TD's doing this and think more should.

 

[BgWvDave]

I think the real question is should Am's be winning cash at league play?

In the end it doesn't really matter and where this league is being run there is only 1 real "Pro". There are a few old farts like myself that can compete in Pro Masters so the "Pro" feild is always going to be smaller than the Am field. Which means the Am winner is always going to take home more money than the Pro winner...for now. But like David said it is such small money that it really shouldn't be a big deal. it just looks really weird when you see it on paper.

 

[discgman]

We run a handicap league so anyone who gets top 1/3 gets cash. We have a 3$ side pot split between am and pros and women, winner (raw score) takes all.

 

[WhiteyBear]

Are you paying AMs cash? If so, there's your first problem. "Pay" AMs in plastic, and you can use that extra money to help fund a pro purse. There is zero wrong with that, and it will help promote a better event for Pros. You can also use that AM money to purchase players packs, awards/trophies etc etc.

Whatever you choose to do, DO IT, and stick with your decision. Players can't stand a flaky TD, it's a hard lesson to learn, as most of us know.

 

[DavidSauls]

Are you paying AMs cash? If so, there's your first problem. "Pay" AMs in plastic, and you can use that extra money to help fund a pro purse. There is zero wrong with that, and it will help promote a better event for Pros. You can also use that AM money to purchase players packs, awards/trophies etc etc.

Whatever you choose to do, DO IT, and stick with your decision. Players can't stand a flaky TD, it's a hard lesson to learn, as most of us know.

The one thing that's wrong with it is that it's a PITA to handle the plastic. Especially since, with low entries and payouts, you've got people winning $4 or $7 or whatever.

At league level, "Pro" and "Am" are just division names.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Maybe hosting Gold, Blue, White and Red divisions would get away from Pro and Am names. And you're allowed to pay cash prizes in leagues if you wish without Ams losing their PDGA eligibility.

 

[BgWvDave]

And you're allowed to pay cash prizes in leagues if you wish without Ams losing their PDGA eligibility.

here is the problem. haha I am just joking Chuck and thanks for weighing in!

 

[aggreen]

I am the person that suggested to the OP to fund the Open division ($1/person) with all participants. I actually did this in 2014 with our PDGA league in the Triangle (Raleigh, NC). The reasoning was to deter sandbagging, not necessarily fund Open. I am not an Open player, by a long shot, but I still believe it should be the division with the biggest purse at any event.

To the point that you would see a decline in AMs, the opposite occurred...more players attended and more players were willing to play in a higher division to get that higher purse. At the conclusion of the season, I sent a sat survey to every participant to garner feedback on their thoughts & suggestions...out 64 responses, 1 questioned/referenced other divisions supporting Open. That said, I did have many sponsors, numerous prizes at each event - in addition to the payouts - so there were many opportunities for players of all skill levels to win something.

This isn't an exact science, but the format worked to keep players in their appropriate divisions. With Nemmers set-up, both divisions pay-out in cash the same way. There is no incentive for a participant to play up - other than lively competition - if they are on the cusp of playing Open.

 

[mashnut]

You don't need incentives for people to play up if the league director keeps track of scores over time. It's not that hard to take someone who's consistently winning and tell them they're now only allowed to play the higher division. IMO that's a pretty low bar for a league director, it's not at all hard to keep a spreadsheet with scores from each week.

My experience with leagues is that there is usually a pretty small group of players (often just 1 or 2) who really have a chance every week to come in with the best raw score. All you're doing by moving money from the ams is paying that player to come out every week. To me that's not the point of the league, it's a friendly low key competitive opportunity not a place to make a living. When I played advanced in a league that offered intermediate, I was happy to see that enough people came out for the lowest division to make it the biggest prize pool by far.

 

[aggreen]

Actually, there are very detailed statistical records kept. In addition to the PDGA aspect, there was a on-going points league with the top 3 players in each division winning prizes at the end - so movement between divisions would hurt a player's opportunity to win those divisional awards at the conclusion of the season.

 

[mashnut]

Actually, there are very detailed statistical records kept. In addition to the PDGA aspect, there was a on-going points league with the top 3 players in each division winning prizes at the end - so movement between divisions would hurt a player's opportunity to win those divisional awards at the conclusion of the season.

That's great that you have a system that worked well for your league. I think it's worth considering that what works for a large and well-established sanctioned league might not necessarily be what works to grow an unsanctioned league from scratch.

 

[davetherocketguy]

If you want people to play better then a handicap league is the way to go IMHO. We did that at Flaherty Park last year and while I won't say it was a resounding success I will say it sure motivated ME to play better. Without getting into the math (which isn't that hard) the concept is, whoever beats the average of their last three scores the best in terms of percentage is the winner. Sure people could have losing streaks to pad their average and then on the fourth round go crazy but that did not happen as far as I can tell. On any given night you never know who is going to have the hot round so it made sense to always try to play the best you can regardless of how good or bad the current average is.

The beauty of this set up was that a newbie could be competitive with the seasoned vet. It leveled the playing field nicely. In fact, I think it was slightly harder for the good players to win but a few of them did. The spread of who won was fairly evenly distributed among players of all levels. I'm hoping everyone is willing to go with that set up again this year.