PDGA tourney structure

[sidewinder22]

There's discussion on the Md board about changing the buy in structure and divisions of the PDGA tourneys that is quite interesting. The current structure seems to encourage bagging and causes some frustration.

One member suggests changing to a sliding scale where you pick which division to play based on where you want to play and your rating decides how much you pay for that division. I like this idea a lot.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Still thinking about prorating payouts to entice people to play up, based on risk/reward.

Even within divisions, I think costs should be prorated. In the current structure, since I'm allowed to play Advanced - and almost certain to cash at or near the top, I think I should have to pay more to play in advanced than to play pro. My odds are probably 90+% of payout in advanced, and probably <20% in pro.

If players between divisions had the option of paying $60 to play in advanced or $40 to play pro, they'd be WAY more likely to play pro. And this is true of all divisions. If players had to pay more for high odds in whatever division they were in, they'd be way more likely to play up.

So even working with the current ratings breaks, maybe we could structure entry fees somehow... suggested thoughts for MD/VA/DC/PA/DE disc golf:

MPO division:
$60 - 990+ rated
$50 - 970-989
$40 - 950-969
$30 - 930-949
$20 - <930

MA1 division:
$60 - 950+
$50 - 935-949
$40 - 920-934
$30 - 900-919
$20 - <900

MA2 division:
$60 - 920-934
$50 - 900-919
$40 - 880-899
$30 - 860-879
$20 - <860

Really, I think with the system above, MPO/MA1 would be sufficient... having the third division is unnecessary except for really large tournaments. Really, I think if MA2 or MA3 is offered, it should be offered for the experience only. Something like $10-$15/player (or whatever it takes to cover costs), trophy only. Give beginning folks who just want a tourney experience, and cheap costs, a way to compete with very low risk/reward.

Basically, everyone gets about a $20 discount for playing up a division. A 925-rated player can pay $60 to play MA2, where they are almost certain to win. $40 to play MA1, where they have a decent chance of cashing, or $20 to play pro where they will get the experience but have virtually zero chance of cashing.

A 955-rated player can play Pro for $40, where they have a slim chance of cashing, or they can play MA1, for $60, where they are almost certain to win a stack of plastic.

I think in working within the current PDGA system, this would be a great incentive to encourage people to play up -- and it would virtually eliminate bagging. It would also mean that money was never a hindrance to people moving up -- they actually save $ by moving up sooner. The current system, where players go from raking in money (in the form of plastic) for paying less fees is a huge deterrent to moving up a division where they pay more and make nothing. The system discourages people from doing the very thing we want them to do -- move up.

If the system is designed to discourage people from moving up, we should change the entry fee system.
And lower rated players have the option of playing wherever they want to -- donating to whatever division they want to -- without paying more money.

I think in the entry-fee system above, most players above 920 would play MPO -- which would mean a large open division. Most players 880-919 would play MA1, and players below 880 would play MA2. Which is about where I think we would want the breaks to be.

Looking at the Punisher, there would have been 34 people playing in the 920+ category if we used that as a hard break. As it was, some people below that played up to MPO anyway... the only person 920+ playing MA2 was S, who came in 2nd in that division. Only two other people above 900 chose to play in MA2, a 914 who came in tied for 3rd, and a 909 who came in tied for 8th -- both in the payout. It looks like, taking the Punisher as a great example, that a staggered entry fee would probably work well. Offer two divisions == MPO and MA1, and stagger the entry fees as above for both similar to listed above -- people will self-select based on risk/reward, and I think everyone will win. That would truly create -- as R wants -- a division where everyone can be competitive."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Postby t:

D wrote:"why are there different prices for pros than ams?and would most players rather have smaller entry fees or larger prizes? i would suspect the line is spit exactly down the mendoza line. those who regularly cash want bigger prizes, those who rarely or never cash would want lower fees."


Response by t:
"This is what I was talking about with "player satisfaction" -- I'm unsatisfied with myself if I drop $60-$100 on a tourney and don't have a good chance at cashing. Especially when I could pay $40-$60 on the same tourney, play MA1, and take home $100+ in plastic pretty easily. It seems like -- especially for satisfaction -- players should pay LESS to get their asses kicked. Instead of paying LESS to kick other people's asses and get rewarded for it.

The total monetary ROI for me, personally, between playing pro and am is at least $100 difference on average. I can spend more money to donate; I can spend less money to walk away with a huge stack of plastic. That just doesn't make sense. No wonder many players end up unsatisfied.

And in turn, if high-rated players play MA1 (anyone above ~950), then it causes dissatisfaction in the lower rated MA1 players who are upset that the "baggers" are taking all the plastic. But why shouldn't they want the plastic? Times are tough, the economy is in the crapper, and $100 +/- in R.O.I. for the weekend is HUGE for players.

As I said, thanks to a good job, I can afford to contribute to MPO. If I lost my job, I'd have to magically improve 20+ ratings points overnight, or quit playing tourneys or start taking stacks of plastic in MA1... those are my only viable options. It's not a matter of which division I want to play -- I want to play MPO. It's a matter of where I can afford to play.

For many folks -- especially all the tweeners -- I think that's a reality of tourney golf. If we're not going to offer sliding fees, I think we should at least standardize "trophy only" options, so that players can get in a weekend of golf for $20. Keep the costs down where money is never a reason to prevent someone from playing golf."

 

[scarpfish]

I know this may not be popular sentiment, but to some degree I see sandbagging as a necessary evil, and an article in the latest FDM agrees with me on this. Tourneys can be an expensive beast to put on, and with not much in the way of outside sponsorship coming in, often the best revenue generator for a TD is the margin between the retail value and wholesale cost of the discs and other schwag that gets turned at a tournament, whether it be in the form of player's packs or payout. Often this revenue can be "moved up" to help boost the pro purse. If you encourage players to play up in exchange for a cheaper entry, you hurt this revenue if they take the bait. Conversely, someone who pays the higher entry to sandbag, is actually helping you out.

I've always thought the best way to get players to move up is not to lessen their punishment for moving up, but to minimize their reward for staying down. I'm all for flatter payouts in the lower Am divisions.

 

[TalbotTrojan]

I think I would start playing in higher divisions just to pay less to play in a tournament so I like that idea but I also understand the arguement made by fish. I also really dislike those who sandbag in the rec division, I mean really? At the same time you are ultimately going to get players who do not have a rating, what do you do for those guys? The future of tournaments is sponsorship, we just need to start convincing people to invest in the sport. Surely we can get big sponsorships, we just need someone armed and ready to go get the dollars.

 

[borndasaur]

Sponsorship money comes from companies when they see a return on their investment. They view this as an advertising expense and will spend more if they see that it is good for their bottom line.

 

[borndasaur]

Back to the point of this thread. Competition is what tournaments are about. The top players prefer to compete against their peers and not against people "playing up" to save a couple bucks. If people want to compete at higher levels to improve their game, they should be willing to pay. Spectators prefer to see competitive fields. More spectators mean more advertising dollars.

 

[t i m]

Back to the point of this thread. Competition is what tournaments are about. The top players prefer to compete against their peers and not against people "playing up" to save a couple bucks. If people want to compete at higher levels to improve their game, they should be willing to pay. Spectators prefer to see competitive fields. More spectators mean more advertising dollars.

Borndasaur,
Competition is what tournaments are about... as well as fun and the experience. And spectators are a moot point right now -- at least for B/C tier tournaments.

I play at the low-level of Pro, and I think most pro players want PAYOUT as much -- or more -- than they do competition. And the thing is that after one round, most tournaments will work themselves out with the top players at the top, and the players playing up at the bottom. And a larger field means that most -- if not all -- of the "true pros" will get a payout.

If 10 pros -- 970+ -- enter a division, then 3-5 will cash, depending on ties in last place. All but the first three will definitely not have a chance at making back their entry fee. Those people will probably have to shoot 990+ golf to have a chance at cashing. One or two mistakes and a pro is out of the running when the field is that tight and highly competitive.

If those same 10 pros are joined by 20 people playing up who don't have to -- folks in the 920-970 range, the it is likely that most -- if not all -- of the pros will cash at least something back, and most of them will get back their entry fee.

It also means for those pros that 1-2 mistakes won't keep them from the cash. Because with a division that size, they can play 970-rated golf and have a chance at cashing.

Competition is a lot more gracious, and attitudes remain more positive, and people have more fun, when they have a chance at cashing. When their risk matches their reward.

I think giving an economic incentive for people to play up helps everyone -- attitudes and player satisfaction will be higher -- and pro divisions will also get a lot more enthusiastic support from the lower-rated pro players who have traditionally donated money instead of bagging plastic in MA1.

____________________________________________

And for the record, we're talking about more than "a couple bucks." If you're a 960-rated player, and MA1 costs $40, and pro costs $60, then it's more than just the $20 difference. You're also foregoing the $100+ in plastic you will likely win (or the $300+ basket at some tourneys). If it's $40 cost, plus $100 gain in plastic, that's a net increase of $60, instead of losing $60 in pro ($120 difference).

If the cost for a 960-rated player is $60 for MA1 and $40 for MPO, then they're giving up $100 in plastic, but $100 in plastic for a $60 entry fee is only a $40 increase, instead of a $40 contribution to pro ($80 difference). So we're initially talking about a $40 economic difference per event, which is a lot when you're talking about 5-10 tournaments a year.

But the other factors that come into play are that if you encourage more of MA1 to MPO, then the payouts in MA1 get smaller, and the depth of payout in MPO becomes larger, so the 960-rated player has less incentive to play down because the ROI is less than it would have been under the other system... and his odds of cashing as a 960-rated player are much higher than they were because the payout goes deeper in pro. So the economic incentive between bagging MA1 and occasionally cashing in MPO becomes much smaller than in the current theoretical scenario.

If the cost is $60 to play MA1 to win $80 in plastic, vs. $40 to play MPO and win back some money every few tournaments (let's say it averages back to $20/tourney for a while). Then that's down to only a $40-difference in total ROI... and a much better and more fulfilling experience playing with the pros than bagging with MA1.

 

[borndasaur]

The "couple of bucks" refers to entry fees, which are (currently) the same for everyone in a particular division. The prize money/merch is a bonus.

The sliding scale entry fee system depends on players willing to forgo amateur (merch) payouts in favor of donating to the pro field.

I don't see bagging as a necessary evil. Players with ratings should be required to play in the highest division their rating will allow. First timers will get away with bagging once. After that, their rating will determine their division. If you are looking for ways for players to get the chance to play in higher divisions, I suggest sponsored exemptions.

If a player is a bagger, he/she isn't going to play up regardless of the chance of an increased payout
at the expense of the sure thing.

 

[pokamitch]

Sandbagger DO NOT HELP TOURNEYS!!!

I know this may not be popular sentiment, but to some degree I see sandbagging as a necessary evil, and an article in the latest FDM agrees with me on this. Tourneys can be an expensive beast to put on, and with not much in the way of outside sponsorship coming in, often the best revenue generator for a TD is the margin between the retail value and wholesale cost of the discs and other schwag that gets turned at a tournament, whether it be in the form of player's packs or payout. Often this revenue can be "moved up" to help boost the pro purse. If you encourage players to play up in exchange for a cheaper entry, you hurt this revenue if they take the bait. Conversely, someone who pays the higher entry to sandbag, is actually helping you out.

I've always thought the best way to get players to move up is not to lessen their punishment for moving up, but to minimize their reward for staying down. I'm all for flatter payouts in the lower Am divisions.

Sandbagging is the reason I have yet to enter a tourney in the 20+ yrs I have played this game (I won't "donate" my hard earned $$ to a cheater in the wrong divison). And it will continue to ruin and hinder tournaments until it is fixed. How you rationalize that it is good for the game is testament of a lack of common sense....

Eliminate baggers and I (as well as many others) will participate in tourneys. That helps the purse to be larger by the shear volume of player (more entrants= more $$). More entrants means more eyes on the DG course, which will bring more sponsorships. It is pretty simple math. If it were fixed, volume in every aspect would go up (participants, purses, exposure of the sport and sponsorship)

 

[Dave242]

Players with ratings should be required to play in the highest division their rating will allow.

Can you clarify as this makes no sense. The Open division is named as such since it is open to all no matter how high (or low) one is rated. So, are you saying everyone should be required to play in the Open division?

 

[biscoe]

i have played and run hundreds of tournaments over the past 14 years- systemic sandbagging simply does not exist, at least in the mid-atlantic area. there are players who have been good advanced players over a period of years and won multiple events but that is simply what they are- good advanced players. the ones who remain there for years don't have the "right stuff" to do anything in the pro field but donate- they finish way down in advanced events as often as at or near the top.

 

[DavidSauls]

Sandbagging is the reason I have yet to enter a tourney in the 20+ yrs I have played this game (I won't "donate" my hard earned $$ to a cheater in the wrong divison). And it will continue to ruin and hinder tournaments until it is fixed. How you rationalize that it is good for the game is testament of a lack of common sense....

Eliminate baggers and I (as well as many others) will participate in tourneys. That helps the purse to be larger by the shear volume of player (more entrants= more $$). More entrants means more eyes on the DG course, which will bring more sponsorships. It is pretty simple math. If it were fixed, volume in every aspect would go up (participants, purses, exposure of the sport and sponsorship)

How are you defining "baggers"? 930-rated players in the Intermediate division? 895-rated players in the Rec division? 965-rated players still playing Am?

Where I play, bagging is not an issue. Most 940+ rated players play Open, most 900-940 play Advanced, most 870-900 play Intermediate....all a level above their rating. So how much of a problem are baggers, really?

Nevertheless, anyone is free to run a tournament and offer divisions pretty much as he or she pleases, and demonstrate that more people will play. I've run events with no age divisions.....with just an Open and Am division....with no divisions below Advanced....and I've yet to see proof that this results in more players.

 

[gvan]

In the proposed system, it seems everyone would need to have a rating. What about new players or those that only do the tourney on their local course each year. What do you charge them?

There are few (or no) real sandbaggers in the Atlanta area as far as I've seen. More complaining about people that might be, than people that actually are.

 

[scarpfish]

Sandbagging is the reason I have yet to enter a tourney in the 20+ yrs I have played this game (I won't "donate" my hard earned $$ to a cheater in the wrong divison). And it will continue to ruin and hinder tournaments until it is fixed. How you rationalize that it is good for the game is testament of a lack of common sense....

I didn't say it was good. (What part of necessary evil do you not understand?) I'm simply acknowledging the fact that as long as there's someone new playing in tournaments, there's always going to be a new bagger in town. Get rid of one and another simply comes along. This is a risk we all take in those lower divisions. Trust me, there's at least one at every tourney I've been in.

Eliminate baggers and I (as well as many others) will participate in tourneys.

Okay so what's your magic solution to eliminate them, because obviously the PDGA's rating system (probably the best solution known) isn't lockproof enough.

How are you going to stop new players/non-PDGA players who may have advanced level skills from entering lower divisions when you have no quantifiable proof that they don't belong down there.

That helps the purse to be larger by the shear volume of player (more entrants= more $$). More entrants means more eyes on the DG course, which will bring more sponsorships. It is pretty simple math. If it were fixed, volume in every aspect would go up (participants, purses, exposure of the sport and sponsorship)

Pie in the sky, pie in the sky, my friend. For all of the carping I hear about sandbagging, I don't see it hurting tournament attendance any. The volume is already there, and when it isn't, its usually bad weather, lack of promotion, remote location with lack of amenities, or a schedule conflict with another tournament that is causing it. There's another little problem with your volume theory. There's only so much room available in the field before the TD has to cap it.

 

[DeafDiscGolfer]

What about those players that does not have players' ratings because they haven't pay or joined PDGA memberships? And they happen to be good and can they be called sandbaggers?

I haven't joined PDGA when I started back in 1996 but have been paying $5-$10 extra for non-member fee at tournaments over the years. I only mostly play at IM or AM divisions until I win 1st places couple times before moving up to cash prizes which I doubt that I will ever get it at my age.

So...

 

[borndasaur]

Can you clarify as this makes no sense. The Open division is named as such since it is open to all no matter how high (or low) one is rated. So, are you saying everyone should be required to play in the Open division?

I was referring to the suggested minimum ratings used by the PDGA. In the case of the Open Div (MPO) that would be any player with a rating greater than or equal to 970. Advanced (MA1) would be 935-969, Intermediate (MA2) would be 900-934, Rec (MA3) would be 850-899 and Novice would be under 850.
In the case of a player without a PDGA rating, honesty is necessary. Most courses used in tournaments have a course rating and knowing what you normally shoot at one (or more) courses can be used to get a rough estimate of your rating.
In our area, I've only seen 1 real "bagger". When asked about his usual scores, he was very vague and ultimately shot what would be an advanced score. He got his prize for winning the division. Now that we know who he is, he won't be playing in the lower divisions anymore.

 

[Three Putt]

Bagging is a made-up problem.

Basically, AM's are inconsistent. A guy might show up playing MA2 at smoke the field with two 970 + rated rounds one weekend and everyone will get in a tizzy and scream bagger. They won't be around when he throws the 870 rated round in his next event that keeps his rating in the MA2 range.

Also, disc golf has this long-standing "real men play up" mentality. If you are 930 rated and play MA2 (which is where your rating says you should be) people will tell you that you won't get better bagging down in Intermediate and you should be a man and play up. Most of these guys will curiously be rated 950 and will probably win some of your money if you play up, but why let facts get in the way of a good story? Guys who scream "bagger here" and "bagger there" usually have the ulterior motive of wanting to eliminate divisions and force guys to play up and donate, and they do a really, really good job of keeping the bagger beat going.

People just need to get over it. You cannot create a perfect system. At a recent event a 970 rated Advanced player had the lowest score in the event playing the same tees as an Open field that had Nikko Locastro (fresh off an NT tour win) in it. Does that mean the 970 rated Advanced guy is better than Nikko? Nah, he was just better that weekend. How often will Nikko get beat by a 970-rated guy? Not often, but it happens. Should the 970 rated Advanced guy be forced to play Open now that he beat Nikko? That would be a nice letter to write..."Congratulations on shooting the event of your life. Oh, by the way, you have to play Open now for the rest of your life."

The relatively new PDGA rating breaks are actually doing a good job of sucking the 915-935 rated guys OUT of the Advanced field. The whole point of adding the additional AM division was to knock the bottom out of the huge Advanced fields. By doing that, you make the payouts in Advanced smaller and less attractive to that 970 rated guy who is thinking about playing Open. He now has less incentive to "bag" or whatever becasue the payout is smaller. Yet people can't understand this an complain about the 930 rated guys playing MA2. Hey, if those guys play up, the system does not work. And it IS starting to work. In 2007 under the old system Bowling Green had 333 Advanced players to 249 Intermediate players. This year it was 145 Advanced to 162 Intermediate. Lower field aside (that is more attributable to a two-day event VS a three-day event than anything to do with divisions and bagging) the % of players in Advanced is shrinking. Shrinking that Advanced field and spreading the payout more evenly across the AM field is good for the AM game (more players have a realistic chance to prize out) AND good for the Pro game (the top Am players win less, making turning pro more attractive.)

The PDGA has a system. It eliminates bagging by members, unless you think a 930 rated player playing in a division that allows players rated up to 935 are baggers. If that is the case then you just need to chill out. That leaves this "we have a dude that is really good but not a PDGA member that pays the $10.00 fee and bags" bagging issue. If bagging by non-members is that big of a problem, then the solution is easy...make PDGA events members only. The real question then becomes...is bagging REALLY that big of a problem? Big enough of a problem that we need to ban non-members? Lets weight the pros and the cons of that for a while.

 

[pvkeller]

Definition of sandbagging

Here is what sandbagging looks like:

JM Blakely #30423, current rating 925, signs up for the 2009 Hall of Chains as an Intermediate player.

So far this year, he has won three tournaments as an Intermediate player. He has won by large margins. He has thrown a 1036 rated round.

Last time he played the Hall of Chains was 2007. He finished 3rd in Advanced.

In 2006 he was rated 952.

 

[innova]

DG has more people that whine about alleged bagging... than actual baggers.

I'm unsatisfied with myself if I drop $60-$100 on a tourney and don't have a good chance at cashing.

Whomever has that mentality will lose before even paying an entry fee. Your competitors are attempting to beat you. You just made it easy for them.

People beat themselves often times.

 

[Dave242]

Whomever has that mentality will lose before even paying an entry fee. Your competitors are attempting to beat you. You just made it easy for them.

Prove it.

How do you back that statement up?

 

[craigg]

Part of the thought process that led to MD TD's trying to alter the divisional structure had less to do with players consciously sandbagging - and more to do with acknowledging flaws in the divisional structure that dilutes the spirit of competition.

At some point, we said...... gee, here's 90 players (a full field on an 18 hole course) with 5-6 mens divisions, each having 15 ish players - and when you look at their scores - the top guy in each division is AT LEAST beating half the guys in the next division "up". And frequently, multiple divisions would basically occupy the exact same scoring range.

And if we're supposed to be promoting "COMPETITION" - there's just something a little wrong with that whole scenario.

So while trying to reconcile that scenario - we tried to address the whole cost vs fairness concerns that many players have. Now, there are like 3 TD's in Md that are trying variations on the sliding scale idea, each taking a slightly different bent on divisions offered, and ratings breaks used. Each is getting good support from the local community, with events filling up - even with "other than traditional" divisional formats.