Recreational limits for tournaments

[turbosteve]

It would be incredibly stupid if the PDGA limited tournaments from having recreational or novice divisions. A good proportion of the PDGA membership is rated below 900. This would also prevent newer players from getting into the tournament scene.

 

[DavidSauls]

It would be incredibly stupid if the PDGA limited tournaments from having recreational or novice divisions. A good proportion of the PDGA membership is rated below 900. This would also prevent newer players from getting into the tournament scene.

Did anyone suggest that? The poll's most severe tier restriction only applies to less than 20% of events.

 

[AcesandChains]

Please don't get rid of the REC/NOV divisions!

As a player who will probably never reach Intermediate level, I would be really upset if the PDGA goes towards a model that does not include Recreational AND Novice divisions. Furthermore, I don't think anyone playing in divisions above those two should have as any say in it, unless their basis for complaint is slow play.

The real problem with baggers is unrated players. That is where the problem lies, and the solution should address that issue, and only that issue. I would have no problem with PDGA sanctioned B-Tiers and up requiring a PDGA membership in order to play. In fact, as a player and a TD, I would applaud it. Let the C-tiers still allow casual players (ie: non-members) to play as a starting point. We don't want to exclude them.

It must also be said that most winners on any given day have their best rounds that they have ever had (if they are a rated player anyway.) This is NOT bagging, as much as it might appear to be from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't know how they play. We must be careful not to assume a problem without the proper facts....which again comes back to having all the players rated.

This post isn't meant to give the final solution to the problem, but to clarify what the talking points should be.

Please don't get rid of the lower divisions. There are plenty of players who love competition that will never reach Intermediate level.

 

[bradharris]

As a player who will probably never reach Intermediate level, I would be really upset if the PDGA goes towards a model that does not include Recreational AND Novice divisions. Furthermore, I don't think anyone playing in divisions above those two should have as any say in it, unless their basis for complaint is slow play.

The real problem with baggers is unrated players. That is where the problem lies, and the solution should address that issue, and only that issue. I would have no problem with PDGA sanctioned B-Tiers and up requiring a PDGA membership in order to play. In fact, as a player and a TD, I would applaud it. Let the C-tiers still allow casual players (ie: non-members) to play as a starting point. We don't want to exclude them.

It must also be said that most winners on any given day have their best rounds that they have ever had (if they are a rated player anyway.) This is NOT bagging, as much as it might appear to be from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't know how they play. We must be careful not to assume a problem without the proper facts....which again comes back to having all the players rated.

This post isn't meant to give the final solution to the problem, but to clarify what the talking points should be.

Please don't get rid of the lower divisions. There are plenty of players who love competition that will never reach Intermediate level.

Realize that most people arguing for removing the divisions at higher levels are not advocated removing the players rated in that division. Instead it's more about removing the divisional boundaries and lumping all players into larger divisions in order to really spotlight the best players.

I think Dave242 poses a reasonable argument that it makes sense for tournaments at a higher prestige to lean more towards a one am division model, where the rec, int, and adv level players are all competing in one division. This way, you're crowning one true amateur champion. Not to sound harsh, but I don't think rec or even int players really deserve much recognition for winning their division. At lower level, more regionalized events it's okay to give those players something to play for and give them a moment in the spotlight, but as you get to higher level events, it makes more sense to really highlight the best players of that day or weekend.

Of course, I also don't think the PDGA should mandate this, it's a decision each TD should consider individually.

 

[jeverett]

This way, you're crowning one true amateur champion.

Again, I'm not certain that restricting players to a fewer divisions actually accomplishes that. As my example of the BSF illustrates (where the average player rating for MA1 is ~900), for events that fill, there is no guarantee that a larger single-division field will be any more competitive. i.e. you're not actually crowning a 'true' amateur champion, but the best player from the subset of total players who actually got into the event. Yes, one important distinction here is that the event fills (in the case of the BSF, between Open and Advanced, approximately 2.5-3x as many players want into the event as there is space for (and there is space for 300)), but overall the end result is an Advanced field actually easier than is likely to be found at smaller events!

 

[bradharris]

Again, I'm not certain that restricting players to a fewer divisions actually accomplishes that. As my example of the BSF illustrates (where the average player rating for MA1 is ~900), for events that fill, there is no guarantee that a larger single-division field will be any more competitive. i.e. you're not actually crowning a 'true' amateur champion, but the best player from the subset of total players who actually got into the event. Yes, one important distinction here is that the event fills (in the case of the BSF, between Open and Advanced, approximately 2.5-3x as many players want into the event as there is space for (and there is space for 300)), but overall the end result is an Advanced field actually easier than is likely to be found at smaller events!

I'm not saying it would be more competitive. In order to raise the level of competition, the TD needs to find ways to make his event more enticing to top level Ams.

Obviously for any event, you can only crown the best of the field on that day. That's all I was referring to. No tournament can say it is crowning the one and only champion of the disc golf world. But by eliminating the partitions between nov/rec/int/adv, you get to spotlight only the best performances of the day.

 

[Psicko]

I think that it is up to the TD's discretion. If the tournament can handle a novice/rec then go for it. I understand why the big tournaments like the memorial have advanced AM's as the lowest bracket because the Memorial is a big tournament. They wouldnt have any more time to give lower divisions unless we add another course to the tournament to disperse the players.

 

[DagG]

Realize that most people arguing for removing the divisions at higher levels are not advocated removing the players rated in that division. Instead it's more about removing the divisional boundaries and lumping all players into larger divisions in order to really spotlight the best players.

Recent tournament, lowest division offered was MA2. The event was popular so less than a third of the competitors in MA2 were actually rated 900+. This created a situation were any half assed performance by 900+ rated players had them cashing (plasticing?). This would be considered spotlighting the best?

I appreciate some of the sentiments expressed but to effect them, one needs to exclude.

 

[PhattD]

Let local demand for divisons drive the divisions offered.

I don't get the point of this thread. Why don't you just do what this ^^^^^ guy said? If you can get more people by offering the lower divisions then do so. If not then don't. What's the debate?

 

[AndyJB]

Rec is a very important part of the tournament scene these days. Although Ive yet to see a tournament with a Novice division (that division is not popular here in CO) I do see lots of people playing Rec...and not staying there. They move up quickly. In that regard, it is a very good feeder system. Now, say you've been playing for awhile and are thinking about entering a tournament. There is an A-Tier two hours away that costs 50 bucks for Rec, or a C-Tier that's 7 hours away that costs 30 bucks for Rec. That player is obviously going to choose the A-Tier.

Now take that A-Tier and make it a no Rec or one Am division. Which tournament is the player going to play? The answer: neither. A casual player is not going to drive 7 hours for their first tournament. Sometimes, Geographic limitations are the be all end all of which tourney to play, especially if someone is not from a disc golf hot spot. In my opinion, the two biggest things the PDGA needs to do is go tournament only (with players packs) in Amateir, and to encourage more tournament players bu offering MORE events with Novice and Rec divisions, not less. Its very easy for good players to sort of look down their nose at us sucky players and tell us we don't deserve a division, but that elitist attitude hurts potential growth.

On an a somewhat related note, the PDGA ratings are flawed. I am currently rated a 796. However, my last tournament I played Rec (I was rated a 740-something at tournament time, it was before the last update) and I threw my best rounds ever...a 914 and a 920 (I didn't even win the division) which tells me I need to move up. However q on the next ratings update, even factorimg in those scores Ill still be only around an 820 or so. If I were unscrupulous, I could still play Novice or Rec! No TD has the time to check every players history to see what kind of rounds they shot. And I think its BS that I or someone in my position could pull that sandbagging crap. Bit that's another story...

 

[DavidSauls]

I don't get the point of this thread. Why don't you just do what this ^^^^^ guy said? If you can get more people by offering the lower divisions then do so. If not then don't. What's the debate?

I think the concept---which I don't endorse---is to raise the standards of the higher-tier events by making them a bit more exclusive.

My experience is that it's only somewhat true that if you don't offer lower divisions, those players will play up. Some of those players will play up. If you don't offer MA3, some of the MA3s will enter the MA2 divisions, some won't, and on average it's the better MA3s that do. If you only offer MA1, some of the MA2s will enter, and a few MA3s will.

There are other factors involved in which divisions a TD offers. If he wants to increase the Pro cash and otherwise upgrade the standards to a higher tier, but continue offering the lower Am divisions, I think he should.

Also worth noting is that this is just a concept floated for discussion, not---to my knowledge---a proposal under consideration.

 

[DavidSauls]

Should the recreational division be limited to 1 day tournaments?

Discuss.

Since most of this thread has responded to the tier components of the poll, or wandered off elsewhere, I'll ask---What would be the reasoning behind this?

There are a lot of 2-day C-tiers around here. Many have substantial Rec divisions, indicating that the Rec players want to play 2-day events, or at least are willing to. I suspect there's little connection between disc golf skill level and disc golf enjoyment. And despite the ill-chosen division name, many of the Rec players are as devoted to disc golf as anyone else.

It's hard to see much benefit to 2-day tournaments by excluding lower divisions. There are other reasons tournaments might want to exclude them, but not this one.

 

[jeverett]

On an a somewhat related note, the PDGA ratings are flawed. I am currently rated a 796. However, my last tournament I played Rec (I was rated a 740-something at tournament time, it was before the last update) and I threw my best rounds ever...a 914 and a 920 (I didn't even win the division) which tells me I need to move up. However q on the next ratings update, even factorimg in those scores Ill still be only around an 820 or so. If I were unscrupulous, I could still play Novice or Rec! No TD has the time to check every players history to see what kind of rounds they shot. And I think its BS that I or someone in my position could pull that sandbagging crap. Bit that's another story...

Hi AndyJB,

Well, in the PDGA rating system, your most recent rounds will be double-weighted, which may help to nudge your actual rating up a little more. But yes, even the PDGA admits that their rating system only reaches 'acceptable' accuracy once a player has at least 8 rated rounds (the cutoff for being considered a 'propagator'), hopefully on at least 4 different courses. DGStatistician, a member here, was working on a method of addressing this so-called 'ratings lag' (i.e. your rating lags behind your actual current skill), but of course that's all theoretical (not actually something the PDGA is considering, to my knowledge).

Also, even if a TD did check previous round scores, they're required to follow the PDGA rules for division cutoffs, not whatever they feel like (i.e. all that matters is your current rating).

 

[Allurex]

I've yet to see anyone with a reason against higher-tier events not having a Rec division?

We can all see the importance of these divisions for the players who play in them, but it's often not logistically reasonable for bigger events.

An event like the Glass-Blown Open a few weeks ago in Emporia, for example. There were only 3 courses for Pros, Advanced and Intermediate (including ladies' and age-protected divisions) and they still had Tee Times from 9:00 AM until 2:00 PM.

The fact of the matter is, the bigger events just have no room for Rec level players who can't play in Intermediate.

 

[AndyJB]

I've yet to see anyone with a reason against higher-tier events not having a Rec division?

We can all see the importance of these divisions for the players who play in them, but it's often not logistically reasonable for bigger events.

An event like the Glass-Blown Open a few weeks ago in Emporia, for example. There were only 3 courses for Pros, Advanced and Intermediate (including ladies' and age-protected divisions) and they still had Tee Times from 9:00 AM until 2:00 PM.

The fact of the matter is, the bigger events just have no room for Rec level players who can't play in Intermediate.

I played Colorado States in 2012...I don't know how many people played, but it was a lot, and it was an A-Tier. No problems having two cards of Men's Rec and one card of Women's. But that's also no Glass Blown Open.

 

[Allurex]

An event that I think has things right is the KC Wide Open.

It's all one 'event' but it encompasses an National Tour Event, A-Tier, and a C-Tier.

NT: Open Men and Women
A-Tier: Age-Protected Pros and All Advanced Divisions (Men, Women, Age-Protected)
C-Tier: All Intermediate, Recreational, and Junior Divisions

Both the NT and A-Tier play 4 rounds at 4 courses over 3 days, while the C-Tier plays only 2 rounds (at different courses) on just one day.

This gives the 'lower' divisions a chance to compete in an event (especially one with a name like the KC Wide Open) while still highlighting the more prestigious players.

A lot of Intermediate and Recreational players have been complaining about only getting to play 2 rounds, but they are free to sign up for Advanced if they want to. If you want to play in a BIG event like the KC Wide Open, you might have to sack up and play in a higher division.

 

[SomeChump]

If you want an exclusive event, make people play their rating and don't let them in without one. Then there'll be a lot of competition in any given division...assuming you can fill the tourney. The last tournament I played there was no one in the intermediate division who actually had an intermediate rating, at least that had a current PDGA registration. Check it out:

http://www.pdga.com/tournament_results/101110

34 players, 11 ratings from 727-892.

 

[DavidSauls]

I've yet to see anyone with a reason against higher-tier events not having a Rec division?

We can all see the importance of these divisions for the players who play in them, but it's often not logistically reasonable for bigger events.

An event like the Glass-Blown Open a few weeks ago in Emporia, for example. There were only 3 courses for Pros, Advanced and Intermediate (including ladies' and age-protected divisions) and they still had Tee Times from 9:00 AM until 2:00 PM.

The fact of the matter is, the bigger events just have no room for Rec level players who can't play in Intermediate.

That's valid, but different from having a PDGA standard requiring higher-tier events from offering Rec division.

Just as there may be good reasons for an A-tier to exclude them, there may be good reasons for another A-tier to include them.

Heck, for various reasons I've run C-tiers that didn't offer Rec divisions. Each situation is different.

 

[jongoff09]

If you want an exclusive event, make people play their rating and don't let them in without one.

And just how do you ever get a rating if up I can't play without one?

 

[scarpfish]

Exclusion of any divisions should be done by the TD who knows the local player market best, not by some blanket rule by the PDGA.