Mensuration

Post questions and comments to Justin McLuen the Iowa State Coordinator

Moderator: Clue

Re: Mensuration

Postby GDL17921 » Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:35 pm

Good ideas Jared
User avatar
GDL17921
 
Posts: 8552
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 9:57 am
Location: on a rock

Re: Mensuration

Postby irban » Tue Jan 14, 2014 2:54 pm

I think so too. I bet you'd still get a lot of pros playing C tiers though, regardless of added cash and such. Some are motivated more by proximity than money. But I guess you could put them all in a super am division or something.
~~~- ¥
User avatar
irban
 
Posts: 5231
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 10:31 am
Location: A State of Minds. (the idiot who thought this was clever is back, did you notice?)

Re: Mensuration

Postby jjpitt29 » Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:08 pm

irban wrote:I think so too. I bet you'd still get a lot of pros playing C tiers though, regardless of added cash and such. Some are motivated more by proximity than money. But I guess you could put them all in a super am division or something.


Do you mean if we change the divisions as I suggested? If so then the pro's couldn't play C tiers. If you are talking about just the lowering entry fees, then ya I agree. You will still get some playing the C tiers being driven by location, etc. Thats fine. If the entry fee's are lower you will still end up with bigger fields and IMO more happy and competitive fields. (Also, if you take the "cashing" crap out of turning pro, you would get more advanced players playing up.)

Changing the requirement on what makes someone a "Pro" is an easy fix, and something that really needs to be done badly IMO.
jjpitt29
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:19 pm

Re: Mensuration

Postby Clue » Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:54 am

One of the things I've said is that we have to protect pros from themselves. They burn themselves out whether it be from playing too many tournaments or losing too much money. I actually love the idea of no pros at C tiers. After all, the whole tier status is basically about money for pros. The biggest thing Jared is right about is the opposing solutions for pros and ams. What's good for one is bad for the other.
Clue
 
Posts: 4398
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:03 pm
Location: Des Moines

Re: Mensuration

Postby grodney » Thu Feb 06, 2014 11:47 am

This might be peripherally and/or tangentially related to this thread. Quoted from DGCR:


The folks at Discstalker are running some one day tournaments in the Atlanta area with a low entry fee ($15.00 entry fee for non-Pros) and a "Winners Circle" option.

From their web site:

"All amateur competition is trophy only, there will be no merchandise payout, intermediate and advanced divisions are allowed to buy into the winners circle competition for cash payout instead of merchandise payout. Open players are also allowed to buy into the winners circle competition for open.

Winners circle payout depth will be 45% for intermediate, 35% for advanced and 25% for open and we will use standard PDGA payout tables to determine the payouts.

Any sponsorship money raised will be split evenly into the Winners Circles payout amounts for each division unless someone specifically designates it for a specific division.
"
User avatar
grodney
 
Posts: 2298
Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:08 am

Re: Mensuration

Postby Swisher Streets » Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:23 pm

grodney wrote:"All amateur competition is trophy only, there will be no merchandise payout, intermediate and advanced divisions are allowed to buy into the winners circle competition for cash payout instead of merchandise payout. Open players are also allowed to buy into the winners circle competition for open.

Winners circle payout depth will be 45% for intermediate, 35% for advanced and 25% for open and we will use standard PDGA payout tables to determine the payouts.
"

This format would basically encourage sandbagging, play down and still get cash.
Swisher Streets
 
Posts: 375
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:48 pm

Re: Mensuration

Postby jjpitt29 » Thu Feb 06, 2014 2:01 pm

I think idea of amatuers playing for trophy only is catching on. More what they call "true amateur" where they have big players packs but no payout. I think this is key to really building disc golf.

The winners circle thing seems pretty hokey to me. I agree I think it encourages sandbagging. Now if they had one payout for everyone where ams could compete score wise vs the pros for a payout that would be cool. That way if an am would do well in pro they still could get something. It should still be relatively small but would be a cool thing for ams. Not just competing amongst themselves, while kinda forcing them to pay attention to how the pro's are doing.
jjpitt29
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 1:19 pm

Re: Mensuration

Postby StingHP » Sun Feb 16, 2014 2:28 am

jjpitt29 wrote:I think idea of amatuers playing for trophy only is catching on. More what they call "true amateur" where they have big players packs but no payout. I think this is key to really building disc golf.

The winners circle thing seems pretty hokey to me. I agree I think it encourages sandbagging. Now if they had one payout for everyone where ams could compete score wise vs the pros for a payout that would be cool. That way if an am would do well in pro they still could get something. It should still be relatively small but would be a cool thing for ams. Not just competing amongst themselves, while kinda forcing them to pay attention to how the pro's are doing.


If you were to pit the ams vs the pros score wise, I think you would need some sort of a handicap. I know in the DSM Buschwackers, there is a robust system used for the handicap based on the last six weeks of play vs par and a couple of other things. I also recall the golf uses a handicap system as well, but I am certainly not familiar with how it is set up.
StingHP
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:52 pm
Location: Ames

Previous

Return to Ask the State Coordinator

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests