Trophy only or payout

[Royal Hill]

mattw:

your reasoning is sound and what I was alluding to - your willingness to pay up to a magic number (20 in this example) for no payout, no player gifts. and recognition only (trophy or equivalent). My magic numbers were for no payout, no player gifts. When you strip away the gifts and the payout one can find what the going rate is for the intrinsic competition value.

I believe the magic of success for a club/area, etc is orchestrating these two types of events well and not getting them confused with each other or ending up halfway in between: 1.The moderate to high fee event with gifting or payout (or both) AND 2. events where there is neither payout or player gifts with low entry fee.

Finding a balance of the two styles on the calendar is the win win. Maybe its two low cost to every one moderate/high cost event in a ratio kind of way. and maybe one blow it all out jewel event for regional Ego feeding. Or…if you are a club or non profit assoc, you balance out a calendar schedule during event seasons to cover both without conflict. Casting nets on both sides of the boat. Why keep chasing after the same fish every time?

The players that can't help but playing will play 'em both. Those that wish to gamble (on themselves) will find a way on the side to make that happen - they can't help it.

I do agree with DavidSauls comment earlier that entry fees escalate to provide the payout and gifts people think they want.

 

[rhatton1]

The problem is, the demand for payouts and players pack pushes up entry fees to cover them. We're getting bribed to play with our own money.

.

This is the bit that after the initial excitement of first playing in tournaments and getting player packs quickly became apparent. I'm paying extra to get something that probably isn;t my first choice and might never get used.

If the player pack can be given as part of a sponsorship deal then great, but if I'm paying for it I'd be much happier to pay cheaper entry and go without.

I think the player pack appeal tends to wear off after a couple of years of tournament play, it certainly did for me.

I have just started up a series of trophy only + disc prize events. at a bare bones cost of £10 (~$14) per event. this just about covers my costs (not time costs) as long as i get 20+ attendees to the one day events, as everything is worked out per head apart from the PDGA tax there is no profiteering going on from players (and yet even at £10 a head you get people questioning...)

It seems to be quite popular. As the tour gets bigger I will be attempting to bring in more sponsorship in order to give more away to players. I don't want to charge players more to play. I want them to get good value for money and get the chance of a couple of PDGA rated high quality organised rounds in a professional atmosphere for as little as possible. IMO it's the best way to grow the competitive side of the sport rather than bribing players to play with their own money. We shall see!

 

[krupicka]

The IOS does offer the trophy only option (players get Player pack and eligible for divisional CTPs) for $20 rather than the full entry fee of $30. We have a handful that take that option regularly, but it is not many.

 

[JC17393]

There's also a theory that flatter payout means attracts more players, so more entry fees into the prize pool, so adds dollars to the top. Would you rather win a 6-person division with steep payouts, or a 20-person division with flatter payouts?

One of the biggest misconceptions with regard to amateur payout, assuming use of PDGA amateur pay tables is that more players = more payout at the top. Just not the case. By and large, first place in amateur divisions is going to receive roughly the same payout no matter the size of the division. To illustrate, a series of sample first place payouts using the 45% table, based on $20 per player going into the purse:

5 players ($100 purse), pays top 2, 1st place = $60
10 players ($200 purse), pays top 5, 1st place = $60
20 players ($400 purse), pays top 9, 1st place = $68
30 players ($600 purse), pays top 14, 1st place = $66
40 players ($800 purse), pays top 18, 1st place = $68
50 players ($1000 purse), pays top 23, 1st place = $70
60 players ($1200 purse), pays top 27, 1st place = $68
100 players ($2000 purse), pays top 45, 1st place = $68

The attraction of deeper payouts in terms of increasing division sizes is that there is more opportunity to win something, not that there's opportunity to win more.

 

[smyith]

I have just started up a series of trophy only + disc prize events. at a bare bones cost of £10 (~$14) per event. this just about covers my costs (not time costs) as long as i get 20+ attendees to the one day events, as everything is worked out per head apart from the PDGA tax there is no profiteering going on from players (and yet even at £10 a head you get people questioning...)

I've found a lot of players have no idea what the costs are to put on a tournament. And how many players act like the TD deserves nothing for their time and effort, even a simple "thank you" is too much for some.

The PDGA is reaching the point where it's going to have to update it's structure and buck some of the traditions of the past in order to grow into what they dream of it becoming. All major sports have and still do this, about time the competitive DG world realize this. Without this I fear the trend of people getting burned out with tournaments will only start to snowball. I almost quite tournaments few years back cause of raising costs and poor value for my fees. I came back cause I love to compete. I have several friends that tetertoter on the fence with this too. PDGA is so focused on new members I fear they don't worry enough about retention.

 

[smyith]

The IOS does offer the trophy only option (players get Player pack and eligible for divisional CTPs) for $20 rather than the full entry fee of $30. We have a handful that take that option regularly, but it is not many.

Do you think more people would exercise the trophy only option if you didn't offer the store credit as the player pack? As in you get a random disc/etc instead.

 

[DavidSauls]

Thanks, JC, for running the numbers, which I was too lazy to do.

 

[krupicka]

I'd love to offer the even cheaper you get nothin' but a couple organized rounds for your entry fee option, but we run all of our PDGA events as B-tiers on the Am side of the house and the tour standards don't allow it.

The PDGA tour standards are all focused on how much is paid out. The level of a tournament is assessed only in the amount of stuff handed out. There is no option for a sanctioned event where the value is in the event itself. If a TD wants to be compensated for all of the time he puts in to running a high quality event, he either needs to be good at acquiring outside money handed to him by sponsors or acquire prizes at enough of a discount so that the margins in the merchandise make it possible. The PDGA dropped the idea that TDs could collect a reasonable fee off the top years ago.

 

[smyith]

^again why I feel they need to spend some time to restructure their models. Five years ago the sport was in a much different place than today. The growth in that time period blows the 30 years before that out of the water. Revisiting ideas of the past have more merit now with the influx of players.

 

[krupicka]

Do you think more people would exercise the trophy only option if you didn't offer the store credit as the player pack? As in you get a random disc/etc instead.

Personally I think it is more because many disc golfers like competing for and winning something. How many times do you see people posting on a club's facebook page. "I'm going to be at the course at noon, who's up for a $5 round, winner takes all"? Even players competing for tags seem to always want to put some extra $ on the line.

Maybe it's just because I'm older, I like playing in organized events, but don't feel the need to win something for it. I just like competing. (Or could be too that ratings decline that Chuck keeps talking about when we get older is all too true for me)

 

[smyith]

Personally I think it is more because many disc golfers like competing for and winning something. How many times do you see people posting on a club's facebook page. "I'm going to be at the course at noon, who's up for a $5 round, winner takes all"? Even players competing for tags seem to always want to put some extra $ on the line.

Maybe it's just because I'm older, I like playing in organized events, but don't feel the need to win something for it. I just like competing. (Or could be too that ratings decline that Chuck keeps talking about when we get older is all too true for me)

Honestly I think it's more than winning something. Putting something on the line is where the thrill comes from. Winning just validates the thrill.
And I agree with your last thought.

 

[JC17393]

I've found a lot of players have no idea what the costs are to put on a tournament. And how many players act like the TD deserves nothing for their time and effort, even a simple "thank you" is too much for some.

The PDGA is reaching the point where it's going to have to update it's structure and buck some of the traditions of the past in order to grow into what they dream of it becoming. All major sports have and still do this, about time the competitive DG world realize this. Without this I fear the trend of people getting burned out with tournaments will only start to snowball. I almost quite tournaments few years back cause of raising costs and poor value for my fees. I came back cause I love to compete. I have several friends that tetertoter on the fence with this too. PDGA is so focused on new members I fear they don't worry enough about retention.

I think the PDGA is already starting to attempt to buck some traditions in their adoption of "True Amateur" for Worlds and their encouraging of other events to do the same. From there, it's more a matter of the events themselves both adopting the philosophy and then scaling back the cost as well. It really has to be a gradual change to undo the years/decades of the old ways in order to be fully effective.

If we see a point where more amateur events are in the "True Amateur" mold of being player pack/experience heavy rather than primarily payout heavy, then it's just a matter of reducing entry fees from their ridiculous levels and scaling back the player packs accordingly (while maintaining the experience factor). Honestly, there's no reason that one can't have a B or A-tier level event that is worth traveling to that only charges amateurs somewhere between $25 and $40.

 

[krupicka]

The thing is even with "True Amateur" the PDGA requirement is to hand out enough stuff that the value of the stuff meets the payout percentages.

 

[krupicka]

Of course I don't know how I would change this. One of the reasons I started playing in PDGA events is I knew that events had to meet certain criteria and my free disc with entry wasn't going to be some cast off misprint disc.

 

[JC17393]

The thing is even with "True Amateur" the PDGA requirement is to hand out enough stuff that the value of the stuff meets the payout percentages.

So?

It is far easier to satisfy True Amateur requirements than the demand of big payouts when you are charging a lower entry fee. I've been able to maintain a $20 entry fee at my B-tier for over a decade by running a True Amateur event while watching am entry fees balloon over the same period for events that focus the return of entry fees through a payout.

If one of the negatives of the traditional model is escalating and increasingly prohibitive entry fees, then the True Amateur model offers the opportunity for a solution.

 

[rhatton1]

Maybe it's just because I'm older, I like playing in organized events, but don't feel the need to win something for it. I just like competing. (Or could be too that ratings decline that Chuck keeps talking about when we get older is all too true for me)

This for me too, I just want to beat myself and get that dmaned rating to where I feel it should be, not where it languishes now!

 

[simpletwist]

Cash or not cash, killer player's pack or not is usually the least of my concerns when choosing to play a tournament. Cost, course, format, and maybe even the potential weather all impact my decision more.

At the posed $45 for $70 player's pack, if I chose to play that tourney, I'd be more than happy with a trophy. My house is littered with Disc Golf trophies. And although the wife is starting to bitch about my interior decorating skills I expect to hang a few more before I hang it up.

PS, money is always cool.

 

[rhatton1]

For the poll question my answer would be similar to David Sauls earlier in the thread. I would happily pay £30 (~$40 - 45) to compete in a well run 2 day event with some side games and good social atmosphere without any player pack at all. I just like playing competitive disc golf and I love PDGA ratings. Spending $45 for 2 days entertainment? There's not a lot else that is that good value for money, it costs me half that to watch the latest release at the cinema for 2 hours.

 

[smyith]

I think the PDGA is already starting to attempt to buck some traditions in their adoption of "True Amateur" for Worlds and their encouraging of other events to do the same. From there, it's more a matter of the events themselves both adopting the philosophy and then scaling back the cost as well. It really has to be a gradual change to undo the years/decades of the old ways in order to be fully effective.

If we see a point where more amateur events are in the "True Amateur" mold of being player pack/experience heavy rather than primarily payout heavy, then it's just a matter of reducing entry fees from their ridiculous levels and scaling back the player packs accordingly (while maintaining the experience factor). Honestly, there's no reason that one can't have a B or A-tier level event that is worth traveling to that only charges amateurs somewhere between $25 and $40.

My only concern with this model is the large number of players that are not pro caliber and don't care about players pack. The ones who want to win something. Do they try something like semi-pro again?

 

[ToddL]

One of the biggest misconceptions with regard to amateur payout, assuming use of PDGA amateur pay tables is that more players = more payout at the top. Just not the case. By and large, first place in amateur divisions is going to receive roughly the same payout no matter the size of the division. To illustrate, a series of sample first place payouts using the 45% table, based on $20 per player going into the purse:

5 players ($100 purse), pays top 2, 1st place = $60
10 players ($200 purse), pays top 5, 1st place = $60
20 players ($400 purse), pays top 9, 1st place = $68
30 players ($600 purse), pays top 14, 1st place = $66
40 players ($800 purse), pays top 18, 1st place = $68
50 players ($1000 purse), pays top 23, 1st place = $70
60 players ($1200 purse), pays top 27, 1st place = $68
100 players ($2000 purse), pays top 45, 1st place = $68

The attraction of deeper payouts in terms of increasing division sizes is that there is more opportunity to win something, not that there's opportunity to win more.

Thanks for printing those numbers. There are a few weird trends in there. Why do you get paid more for winning a field of 20 than a field of 30? But like you said, the money goes to depth. If you want a high payout for 1st place, you have to add cash to the payout. But the general trend is that if there's no added cash, the winner will receive about 4x his entry fee.

And for a very odd twist, the calculator shows higher winners payout for a 50% payout than a 45% payout in many cases.

50 players, $20 each ($1000 purse), pays top 23 (45%), 1st place = $70 (3.5x entry fee)
50 players, $20 each ($1000 purse), pays top 25 (50%), 1st place = $100 (5x entry fee)

25 players, $50 each ($1250 purse), pays top 11 (45%), 1st place = $175 (3.5x entry fee)
25 players, $50 each ($1250 purse), pays top 13 (50%), 1st place = $213 (4.3x entree fee)

25 players, $50 each, $500 added ($1750 purse), pays top 11 (45%), 1st place = $245
25 players, $50 each, $500 added ($1750 purse), pays top 13 (50%), 1st place = $298

I can't think of any logic to why that would happen. Bug report?
On the Pro side, the calculator makes sense. As the payout percentage goes down, the winner's payout goes up. The Pro curve is also steeper, with more money going to the top 3-4 places than the Am version and less going to the rest of the field.