Recreational limits for tournaments

[gdub58]

Asking a random question as the OP did is bound to encourage the sort of wandering responses as seen over the past few pages. Without knowing the goal it's tough to answer such a question.

My primary goal would be to increase the legitimacy of the sport. To do this, I believe we have to focus on creating a more elite tour setup and be more exclusive in who gets to play in the higher level tournaments.

The setup someone mentioned that KC does with an NT, A-tier, and a C-tier included in the tournament weekend is a great concept, but it should go further. I think people should have to earn their way into playing Open in an NT by establishing a minimum rating level to enter. Currently, almost a quarter (7/30) of those signed up for Open have a rating that allows them to play as an Am (<970). Same with the A-tier - over half of those signed up for Advanced are qualified to play Intermediate or lower.

What these threshholds should be is a different debate - my point is merely that I think we are too inclusive with our entry system.

 

[DavidSauls]

We have to be.....at least at this point. It will be interesting when, and if, we cross the threshold from asking people to play Pro, to people asking to play Pro. The closest we have now is the USCDG and Vibram Open.

I don't know how much it matters for A-tiers. They used to be called "Supertour Events", but now they're pretty far down the prestige scale. We have up to a dozen "Majors", a few of which (Worlds, USDGC) are more "major" than the others. So, on the prestige scale, we have these "Super Majors", then the rest of the Majors, then National Tour, then A-tier as effectively the 4th tier.

 

[pnasalberta]

I think there should be no divisions and have a pro and am

 

[jeverett]

We have to be.....at least at this point. It will be interesting when, and if, we cross the threshold from asking people to play Pro, to people asking to play Pro. The closest we have now is the USCDG and Vibram Open.

I agree. At this point, with very few exceptions (e.g. the Beaver State Fling, which fills before any player rated below 970 can register for Open, with an Amateur lottery that results in a ~200 person waiting list still), sanctioned event demand (number of players wanting to play) doesn't greatly exceed event supply, (i.e. number of available spaces) meaning that restricting who can register just reduces event turnout (and thus makes it harder on event TD's trying to not lose money). For events that have demonstrated that they will significantly overfill, regardless of tier I think it does make some sense to implement some kind of ratings-based requirement (event TD's can petition for such), but this should be on an individual event basis, not just a tier thing.

 

[Dave242]

My primary goal would be to increase the legitimacy of the sport. To do this, I believe we have to focus on creating a more elite tour setup and be more exclusive in who gets to play in the higher level tournaments.

This weekend, Disc Golf Hall of Fame Classic - NT at the PDGA HQ/IDGC (65 total)
MPO - 39
FPO - 12
MPM - 5
GPM - 9

Disc Golf Hall of Fame Classic - Amateur A-Tier (128 total)
MA1 - 70 (15 <900 or unrated - Rec level or lower)
FA1 - 1
MM1 - 26
FM1 - 5
GM1 - 24
SM1 - 2
MA2 - not offered
FA2 - not offered
MA3 - not offered
etc...