At the last meeting the PDGA approved the 2008 proposed format except as to item 2. I saw a draft of the proposed format at Worlds and I thought I would start educating our club members on the new stuff.
There will be four main amateur divisions:
Am 1 -- 935+
Am 2 -- 900 to 934
Am 3 -- 850 to 899
Am 4 -- Under 850
They will have names. The names are still being discussed. Expert, Advanced, Intermediate and Enthusiast were approved. The anti-Expert forces are uniting behind Elite, apparently.
The Pros-Playing-Am rule will work like before except that the cap for Expert will be 975. Pros under 975 can play Expert. Pros under 935 can play advanced. Etc.
Women, master and junior divisions are mostly unchanged. The new Pro Masters Playing Am Masters line is 935.
This is cool: Ams playing pro can take merch instead of cash and stay am.
TDs might care about this. There are no minimum purse or % added requirements for a B-tier or an A-tier. It is much simpler than that. $500 added gets you a B-tier. $1,500 added gets you an A-tier. So any TD with the $500 in hand can run a B-tier without having to worry about also being able to make the $1500 total, or whatever it was.
That's all the changes I can remember right now. I might remember the other one later. There was one more worth mentioning.
Wow those are pretty big changes, although I think they are cool for the most part. It might be a little screwy as far as figuring out how to split the divisions like the IOS does. I guess you'd have to run some numbers to see how many experts you would have vs. advanced and see if it's better to do Pro/Expert and Adv/Int/Enthusiast (couldn't they do better than Enthusiast?) or Pro/Expert/Advance and all other divisions the other day.
I'm a little concerned about the minimum purse and added requirements. A lot of TD's could really take advantage of that to their own evil devious means. Bottom line: TD's need to earn the trust of the players, and if the players like what you do, then they'll keep coming back. It should make it a little bit easier on TD's overall though, yay.
I have a feeling the way we split days is going to be weird. We won't be able to split the divisions in a typical upper/lower days. We might need someone to run some numbers from the IOS points spread sheets combined with ratings to help us figure out how we need to split days to accommodate as many players as possible.
I took a quick look at IOS#1-3 using August ratings (cuz i'm lazy to look up my data w ratings at that time), but anyway
| Tourney | Upper | AM2 | Lower | AM2 |
| IOS#1 | 93 | 30 | 79 | 12 |
| IOS#2 | 87 | 37 | 78 | 9 |
| IOS#3 | 72 | 24 | 114 | 14 |
The short is that less players would switch days if the new AM2 was grouped up/rather than down.
Quote from: krupicka on September 10, 2007, 02:03:09 PM
I took a quick look at IOS#1-3 using August ratings (cuz i'm lazy to look up my data w ratings at that time), but anyway
| Tourney | Upper | AM2 | Lower | AM2 |
| IOS#1 | 93 | 30 | 79 | 12 |
| IOS#2 | 87 | 37 | 78 | 9 |
| IOS#3 | 72 | 24 | 114 | 14 |
The short is that less players would switch days if the new AM2 was grouped up/rather than down.
I don't think that I understand your chart. We need to know what the turn out by 2008 am and pro divisions was for each 2007 event. Then we can apply that to figure out what the most efficient divisional grouping is.
I think what mike has is displayed is that for IOS #1, there were 42 (30 + 12) players that would qualify for the new AM2 (Advanced) Status, Then it would be 46 players from IOS #2, and 38 from IOS #3.
So if you were to change it so that you left Pro and Expert on Saturday and moved all of the new Advanced to Saturday, you would have had 105 players for Saturday IOS #1 (adding the 12 Am 2 from Sunday to the total 93 on Saturday), and 67 players on sunday. IOS #2 would have had 96 on Saturday, 69 on Sunday. IOS #3 - 86 on Saturday, 100 on Sunday.
Some more data could be pulled to see what other groupings you could do (Like a Pro/Expert/Int day and an Advanced/Enthusiast/Others day), although I could see a lot of advanced players not liking that.
I'm curious what balance we might get with Open, Expert, Advanced on one day, and all other divisions the other day, including all kinds of women, masters and grand masters.
I'll run numbers on that in November if no one else does. Or maybe in december if there is a December ratings update.
An easy to read chart would take each IOS, assume the age and gender protected divisions don't make any different choices and run divisions across the top and tournament names down the side using 2008 divisions.
Open, Master, Pro W, Am 1, Am Mas, Adv W, Adv Mas W, Grand Masters, etc.
What we are going to discover is that there is no one formula that works for every course. Tougher courses attract more to Adv, easy courses get more lower players.
----------------
This is really going to mess with TDs. There are TDs who still don't know that the divisions are not called Advanced, Ams, and Novice. A TD asked me this year, "Hey, Bruce, what's the ratings cap on Advanced?" and he thought he was clever for at least knowing there was a cap on advanced. :rolleyes:
so i wouldnt have to decline cash in open i could just get plastic?
I am not sure whethe it is a TD discretion thing or a player right thing, but at any IOS you could get Brass instead of cash and stay Am. I'll see if i can find my copy of the document.
Scott read my table above correctly.
I should have the data from the last year's worth of IOS tournaments with ratings current to the time of the tournament. I'll work on breaking it down next time i have a long compile. Rockford will probably have a different split than others in the way it draws players that are willing to travel.
When I read Bruce's post above that "easy courses get more lower players", my eyes deceived me and I read with a southern accent "easy courses get more Iowa'r players". :D
I'm glad you and Scott understand your table but I think Jon and I are mystified. ;D If you do any break down work, break it down by current ratings, not ratings at the time of the event. That way we can see how this year's Kenosha crowd sorts out for next year's tournament. That sort of thing.
It seems likely that the new AM 2's will be on the bubble. All male Pro and AM 1 will certainly play Saturday. You can add divisions to Saturday to get a more even mix from either AM 2 or perhaps Am GM or Am M. I suspect AM2's would prefer to play Saturday but from the TD perspective it may be a matter of seeing where they can go to give you a more even distribution. Would you split pro women from the rest of the women and put them, er ah, Barrett, on Saturday? I suspect that if you did this the usual suspects amongst Am women would play both days and then be able to take home brass on both days. Also, if Bruce's rating goes below 935 does this change everything? ;D
The non-variable in this equation is that Bruce plays on Saturday. Everything else revolves around that.
Quote from: krupicka on September 11, 2007, 07:48:20 AM
The non-variable in this equation is that Bruce plays on Saturday. Everything else revolves around that.
But if Bruce really wants to play Saturday and the only division he fits into on Saturday is Pro Master, then I guess he's playing Pro Master next year!
Hmm, Pro cashing converting to brass plastic equivalent... intriguing equation :) Would it be dollar for dollar or a different ratio...
Quote from: krupicka on September 10, 2007, 06:39:57 PM
When I read Bruce's post above that "easy courses get more lower players", my eyes deceived me and I read with a southern accent "easy courses get more Iowa'r players". :D
That's funny because i've been spending some time recently with an Aussie who adds rs to words ending in vowels and drops them from words ending in rs. He also pronounces long As like long Is, but not all the time.
Tonight he was telling a joke about an Irish Catholic priest, a Pentacostal preacha and a Rabbi. His Pentacostal preacha had no discernable accent whatsoeva because he was doing "American." I felt like saying, "You'd do us all a fivah, mite, if you'd just pretend ya a Pentacostal alla time."
http://www.pdga.com/documents/2007/2008CompetitionChangesSummary.pdf
Quote from: Jon Brakel on September 11, 2007, 08:56:03 AM
Quote from: krupicka on September 11, 2007, 07:48:20 AM
The non-variable in this equation is that Bruce plays on Saturday. Everything else revolves around that.
But if Bruce really wants to play Saturday and the only division he fits into on Saturday is Pro Master, then I guess he's playing Pro Master next year!
Or if he is under 935 perhaps because he is throwing too much lefty the Am Masters will play on Saturday regardless of where the GM's are playing, at least for one more year. Then the Masters and GM's would switch when Bruce enters the slightly grayer beard division. Or, who knows, maybe Emily Dickenson will start playing pro women?
Quote from: krupicka on September 11, 2007, 07:48:20 AM
The non-variable in this equation is that Bruce plays on Saturday. Everything else revolves around that.
Recently the whole world has been revolving around me. But today it went back to revolving around the sun.
Quote from: Top Banana on September 12, 2007, 01:46:55 PM
Quote from: krupicka on September 11, 2007, 07:48:20 AM
The non-variable in this equation is that Bruce plays on Saturday. Everything else revolves around that.
Recently the whole world has been revolving around me. But today it went back to revolving around the sun.
Now if the sun plays intermediate...
LOL
Quote from: Chainmeister on September 12, 2007, 01:59:09 PM
Quote from: Top Banana on September 12, 2007, 01:46:55 PM
Quote from: krupicka on September 11, 2007, 07:48:20 AM
The non-variable in this equation is that Bruce plays on Saturday. Everything else revolves around that.
Recently the whole world has been revolving around me. But today it went back to revolving around the sun.
Now if the sun plays intermediate...
LOL
Adding another amateur division only makes all of the divisions smaller, which in my opinion is bad for the game.
The draw of alot of bigger amateur events is playing in a large advanced field (Bowling Green for example). It will be interesting to see if the top division still has 300+ players for BG, or if the fields all get smaller when alot of people sign up for Advanced instead of "Expert". Supposedly this helps the 950-980 player who doesn't want to play pro, but I don't understand how. They won't be competing against any different or better players than before, they'll just have the lower half of their field cut off, therefore decreasing their payout.
They should be cutting divisions instead of adding them.
Quote from: Dan Michler on September 12, 2007, 06:54:24 PM
Adding another amateur division only makes all of the divisions smaller, which in my opinion is bad for the game.
The draw of alot of bigger amateur events is playing in a large advanced field (Bowling Green for example). It will be interesting to see if the top division still has 300+ players for BG, or if the fields all get smaller when alot of people sign up for Advanced instead of "Expert". Supposedly this helps the 950-980 player who doesn't want to play pro, but I don't understand how. They won't be competing against any different or better players than before, they'll just have the lower half of their field cut off, therefore decreasing their payout.
They should be cutting divisions instead of adding them.
Whoever said it helps the 950-980 rated Am player is full of crap. It helps the 915 to 925 rated ams who didn't have much of a chance to compete against the 950+ rated Ams. Advanced was the only division above jrs that had an 80 point ratings spread. I'm not sure how well this will help but I just thought I'd throw out one of the reasons behind the decision.
It does not work for my self-interest. I've gone from being above the cash line in Advanced to bottom feeder in Expert. Nonetheless, for the reasons advanced by Jon, I'm for it.
I think something has to be changed with the amateur obelisk, though. It makes no sense to award it to the Advanced player who gets the most points when the better Expert player who plays the same number of tournaments has no chance of winning it because he is playing in an eight-man field at most well attended tournaments.
Sometimes all I put on the Open 1st place trophy disc is "Champion". If Expert becomes a one-trophy microdivision, their trophy might just say, "Expert".
I'm not convinced that this is a good idea, but it does have an interesting effect on mediocre players like myself.
The only real goal I've ever set for myself, and have failed miserably at so far, is getting to a 900 rating. With any degree of consistency over the next few months, I could finally attain that this year; and come January, I'd then be an 'Advanced' player... which is a joke. So where I'm reasonably competitive in the current Intermediate system, I'll get hammered playing in the new Advanced division.
But, being old, the new 'ams playing pro for plastic' rule has some advantages. In a lot of WI tournaments, for example, where there's rarely an Am GM division (although that's changing), I'll be more inclined to play in a pro GM division, where with a couple of exceptions I can be competitive.
Although I've got way too much plastic anyhow.
The trophy-only option makes a lot of these dilemmas moot, but it's still a rarity outside of the IOS series, as far as I can tell. And since I tend to inhale great wind through pursed lips at most IOS events, this doesn't help me anyhow. :P
Quote from: damonshort on September 12, 2007, 09:32:08 PM
inhale great wind through pursed lips
;D :binkybaby:
Hey, moderator, could you move this thread to PDGA topics? I started it in here because the document was not yet public, but now it is.
Ask and, well.... you know.
Here are what the IOS 2006 and 2007 tournaments would look like based on Sep 2007 ratings. In the table below I've ground the Am Women together and the Juniors together for simplicities sake.
| ALL | AMW | JRS | AM1 | AM2 | AM3 | AM4 | FPO | MG1 | MM1 | MPM | MPO |
| IOS #1 at Kenosha | 203 | 7 | 8 | 30 | 54 | 46 | 8 | 6 | | 9 | 11 | 23 |
| IOS #4 Forest City Frenzy | 224 | 6 | 6 | 41 | 59 | 43 | 8 | 6 | 1 | 12 | 9 | 33 |
| IOS #5 Streamwood Sturgeon | 163 | 5 | 5 | 22 | 43 | 37 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 7 | 22 |
| IOS #6 at Aurora Borealis | 143 | 3 | 5 | 18 | 32 | 44 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 8 | 4 | 15 |
| IOS #7 Fairfield Fairwell | 162 | 2 | 7 | 28 | 42 | 47 | 7 | 3 | | 9 | 6 | 11 |
| IOS #2 at Lombard | 202 | 10 | 5 | 31 | 51 | 50 | 9 | 6 | 2 | 9 | 9 | 20 |
| IOS #3 Crystal Cruise | 209 | 8 | 8 | 34 | 63 | 45 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 26 |
| IOS #1 at Kenosha | 172 | 3 | 5 | 25 | 44 | 39 | 17 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 19 |
| IOS #2 at Lombard | 165 | 6 | 8 | 16 | 48 | 32 | 22 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 16 |
| IOS #3 Crystal Cruise | 186 | 4 | 14 | 17 | 47 | 52 | 18 | 2 | 5 | 6 | 2 | 19 |
| IOS #4 Discontinuum's Midwest National Qualifier | 171 | 4 | 4 | 27 | 45 | 28 | 15 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 25 |
| 2006 Average | 187 | 6 | 6 | 29 | 49 | 45 | 7 | 5 | 2 | 9 | 7 | 21 |
| 2007 AVerage | 174 | 4 | 8 | 21 | 46 | 38 | 18 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 20 |
| Average | 182 | 5 | 7 | 26 | 48 | 42 | 11 | 5 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 21 |
Note also the jump in AM4 rated players from 2006 to 2007.
When you look at those numbers by skill level, you really can see the bell curve, if you're one of those people who can look at tables full of numbers and see curves.
If you want to play around with this: Add MPO, Am 1 and Am 2 together and then add all other divisions together and see how that splits the field, tournament by tournament. Also, add Am 1 and Am 2 as a total, and add all other divisions as a total and see how that splits the field. Finally, add all pros and Am 1 together and add all other divisions together to see how that splits the field.
Can anyone think of any other useful combinations? It would be nice to split the field so that there is room on both days for our 2007 attendance in 2008. Also, the split should be something easy to communicate, like "Open, Am 1 and Am 2 on Saturday; all other pro and amateur divisions on Sunday."
The unlabeled columns are the other for each scenario in the preceding column. Best bets so far seem to be grouping either MPO/AM1/AM2 or grouping AM1/AM2 with the age protected divisions(/MM1/MG1/MPM)
| | ||| | | | ||| | MG1 | | ||| | | | ||| | | |
| | ||| | | | ||| | MM1 | | ||| | | | ||| | | |
| | ||| | | | ||| | MPM | | ||| | | | ||| | | |
| | ||| | MPO | | ||| | MPO | | ||| | | | ||| | AGE | |
| | ||| | AM1 | | ||| | AM1 | | ||| | AM1 | | ||| | AM1 | |
| ALL | ||| | AM2 | | ||| | FPO | | ||| | AM2 | | ||| | AM2 | |
| IOS #1 at Kenosha | 203 | ||| | 107 | 96 | ||| | 79 | 124 | ||| | 84 | 119 | ||| | 104 | 99 |
| IOS #4 Forest City Frenzy | 224 | ||| | 133 | 91 | ||| | 102 | 122 | ||| | 100 | 124 | ||| | 122 | 102 |
| IOS #5 Streamwood Sturgeon | 163 | ||| | 87 | 76 | ||| | 66 | 97 | ||| | 65 | 98 | ||| | 83 | 80 |
| IOS #6 at Aurora Borealis | 143 | ||| | 65 | 78 | ||| | 53 | 90 | ||| | 50 | 93 | ||| | 65 | 78 |
| IOS #7 Fairfield Fairwell | 162 | ||| | 81 | 81 | ||| | 57 | 105 | ||| | 70 | 92 | ||| | 85 | 77 |
| IOS #2 at Lombard | 202 | ||| | 102 | 100 | ||| | 77 | 125 | ||| | 82 | 120 | ||| | 102 | 100 |
| IOS #3 Crystal Cruise | 209 | ||| | 123 | 86 | ||| | 77 | 132 | ||| | 97 | 112 | ||| | 110 | 99 |
| IOS #1 at Kenosha | 172 | ||| | 88 | 84 | ||| | 64 | 108 | ||| | 69 | 103 | ||| | 81 | 91 |
| IOS #2 at Lombard | 165 | ||| | 80 | 85 | ||| | 47 | 118 | ||| | 64 | 101 | ||| | 75 | 90 |
| IOS #3 Crystal Cruise | 186 | ||| | 83 | 103 | ||| | 51 | 135 | ||| | 64 | 122 | ||| | 77 | 109 |
| IOS #4 Rockford | 171 | ||| | 97 | 74 | ||| | 75 | 96 | ||| | 72 | 99 | ||| | 91 | 80 |
| 2006 Average | 187 | ||| | 100 | 87 | ||| | 73 | 114 | ||| | 78 | 108 | ||| | 96 | 91 |
| 2007 Average | 174 | ||| | 87 | 87 | ||| | 59 | 114 | ||| | 67 | 106 | ||| | 81 | 93 |
| Average | 182 | ||| | 95 | 87 | ||| | 68 | 114 | ||| | 74 | 108 | ||| | 90 | 91 |
Why does the PDGA keep messing with the Am's? For a minute there I thought that this is a good thing, till I saw that my rating is 936! I guess I have step up my game as I am now the bottom of the top am division... I beleive this new structure will not have me playing any events that are not trophy only... Should I even bother renewing my pdga membership till I am a master in 2009? This change is good for few and a bad thing for most Advance players.
Quote from: Top Banana on September 13, 2007, 06:51:15 AM
When you look at those numbers by skill level, you really can see the bell curve, if you're one of those people who can look at tables full of numbers and see curves.
If you want to play around with this: Add MPO, Am 1 and Am 2 together and then add all other divisions together and see how that splits the field, tournament by tournament. Also, add Am 1 and Am 2 as a total, and add all other divisions as a total and see how that splits the field. Finally, add all pros and Am 1 together and add all other divisions together to see how that splits the field.
Can anyone think of any other useful combinations? It would be nice to split the field so that there is room on both days for our 2007 attendance in 2008. Also, the split should be something easy to communicate, like "Open, Am 1 and Am 2 on Saturday; all other pro and amateur divisions on Sunday."
i wish Am 1 and Am 2 would be on separate days so I could play both.
One item that will be hard to predict is depending on the split, can we encourage more double dipping? e.g. Often the FPO division has a lot of players that are playing also on Sunday. If AM1 and MPO are on separate days will more AM1's test out MPO especially with the new merch instead of cash rules.
Dan and Mike's double dipping point is a good one. But let me talk about the data first.
The splits Krupicka is showing above strongly favor the MPO M1 M2 / All others or the one Mike came up with, M1, M2, 40+ / All others. Because of the strong internal resistance to putting juniors on the MPO day, MPO M1 M2 / All Others is looking like early leader.
Chuck Kennedy has a split idea where you put every other division on one day so that both days anyone can play up one division, like Dan was talking about. That would start off like
Day X: MPO M2 M4/FW1
Day Y: M1 M3 FW2
Chuck's plan does not say what to do with the 40+ divisions and Jr. divisions because he would eliminate those divisions. I don't think we want to go that way, but I'd be o.k. with eliminating my age protected division if we were eliminating all of them. My problem with Chuck's plan is there is no simple way to remember and tell people what division plays what day other than to say, "Go to double you double you double you brass cash dot com and see. They made it to complicated to remember." ;D
| | ||| | Pro | |
| | ||| | AM2 | |
| | ||| | AM4 | |
| | ||| | | |
| | ||| | | |
| ALL | ||| | | |
| IOS #1 at Kenosha | 203 | ||| | 102 | 101 |
| IOS #4 Forest City Frenzy | 224 | ||| | 115 | 109 |
| IOS #5 Streamwood Sturgeon | 163 | ||| | 82 | 81 |
| IOS #6 at Aurora Borealis | 143 | ||| | 62 | 81 |
| IOS #7 Fairfield Fairwell | 162 | ||| | 69 | 93 |
| IOS #2 at Lombard | 202 | ||| | 95 | 107 |
| IOS #3 Crystal Cruise | 209 | ||| | 105 | 104 |
| IOS #1 at Kenosha | 172 | ||| | 92 | 80 |
| IOS #2 at Lombard | 165 | ||| | 93 | 72 |
| IOS #3 Crystal Cruise | 186 | ||| | 88 | 98 |
| IOS #4 Rockford | 171 | ||| | 95 | 76 |
| 2006 Average | 187 | ||| | 90 | 97 |
| 2007 Average | 174 | ||| | 92 | 82 |
| Average | 182 | ||| | 91 | 91 |
The one nice bonus of every other division idea is that (unless you are a pro), if you show up on the wrong day, there is a sanctioned division that you are eligible for.
Chuck thought the every other format would split the field evenly based on the bell curve when we were talking about this. I don't know if this was by e-mail or on a message board. Looks like he did some hypotheticals from real tournaments.
I really like Chuck's idea but, as some of you may have surmised by now, I'm mentally ill. If my less crazy brother and Brett both liked it, I could remember MPO, MA2 and MA4 play Sunday, because the even divisions are playing on the second day. Then again, maybe I could remember all that but someone who does not have "a beautiful mind" could not.
Oh, and while I'm on that topic I've been wondering, can everybody else see Jon and Brett, or to you does it look like Diana and I run these things alone? :rolleyes:
Looks to me like Brett does the course prep., lays out temp. holes and runs the new player clinic on Sundays. Jon organizes the cards, tabulates scores, does all the reports. You just sell merch. >:D
;D
Quote from: can't putt on September 13, 2007, 11:45:42 AM
Looks to me like Brett does the course prep., lays out temp. holes and runs the new player clinic on Sundays. Jon organizes the cards, tabulates scores, does all the reports. You just sell merch. >:D
;D
LOL!
I see what everyone puts into running these things, totally a group effort. But I've been back there helping also, so I know that a tourney is a LOT of work. Thanks to all for making the IOS great and setting the bar for reporting to the PDGA. :occasion14:
Back on topic, I think the smaller the divisions, the better the competition. That's all I got to say, other than that, I'd lobby to have my division play on Saturday >:D
a slight problem that you might see with an Open AM2 AM4 day is that the Am4's would not be necessarily playing the same course as the Open guys in the same round. An example would be this weekend. Open plays 2 sets of longs and Am4 would play 1 short and 1 long. That may get confuzin'. Would pro's rather be on Saturday for Ace pool reasons, or would they rather be on Sunday (where Sunday can be good or bad depending on if there is an ace pool rolling over). I'd honestly rather be on Saturday, but that's just for my own personal reasons.
Yeah, I knew it wasn't realistic, but I always like playing Saturday and then getting Sunday to relax
The tee assignment thing is a good point. We might be stuck between having amateurs compromise on appropriate tees or Am 4s not getting ratings. I think we already compromise on that at Aurora, though, since the shorts there seem like they are appropriate for Rec and Under to me and the Longs are for Int and up.
Since Saturday rolls to Sunday and Sunday rolls to Saturday, the ace pool is a wash once it has rolled for a cycle, which it did a couple of years ago.
I don't know if it is still an issue, but another item that may make it interesting is ZOEs. By having Pros and Advanced currently on Sunday, I believe we avoid a bunch of conflicts. With any sort of strange mix, ZOEs are going to be rather interesting.
Didn't you ever read the whole thing about ZOEs actually being AREAs? There is no routine enforcement of any of that.
A rea of
R elatively
E xcessive
A mbiguity
I actually drafted that message with AREA and then edited it to ZOE. I realize its not generally enforced.
Quote from: Top Banana on September 13, 2007, 09:03:04 AM
Dan and Mike's double dipping point is a good one....
Chuck's plan does not say what to do with the 40+ divisions and Jr. divisions because he would eliminate those divisions. I don't think we want to go that way...
Put the am masters and gms with Open, and the pro 40+ on the other day. Some of the better pro masters often play Open anyhow. Open/am gm/am Master/am2/am4, then Pro 40+/am1/am3...
ehhhh, real complications with tee assignments though, and I haven't even included women & juniors here. Never mind....
Quote from: krupicka on September 13, 2007, 04:44:28 PM
I actually drafted that message with AREA and then edited it to ZOE. I realize its not generally enforced.
I did get a nice apology from Karolyn from the PDGA for approving Brian's tournament on our weekend. I really like Brian but I have no idea why he keeps insisting on scheduling/trying to schedule his tournaments on weekends that we already have events scheduled. But I guess his tournament request went thru the AREA process instead of the ZOE process. Which is really a lose/lose/lose situation for the two TDs and the players. I think the solution to that is to have a 100 mile ZOE for all events. I think 100 miles is really more realistic and then they'd have fewer conflicts to try to avoid.
I guess he'll have to learn when no Ams show up to his tournament. It's one I woulda maybe gone to had IOS not been the same day. It's a no-brainer that the IOS is better value(player's pack & in the competition & attendance) He'll get the Indiana guys and the some Pro & Adv guys that want to make it a double weekend.
Quote from: Top Banana on September 13, 2007, 02:55:10 PM
The tee assignment thing is a good point. We might be stuck between having amateurs compromise on appropriate tees or Am 4s not getting ratings. I think we already compromise on that at Aurora, though, since the shorts there seem like they are appropriate for Rec and Under to me and the Longs are for Int and up.
Since Saturday rolls to Sunday and Sunday rolls to Saturday, the ace pool is a wash once it has rolled for a cycle, which it did a couple of years ago.
I think Scott, and then Bruce touch on a dilemma with the pro/Am2/Am4 plan. Obviously I prefer to play rated rounds. If I have to throw from the longs, so be it. However, it would be a bit weird having Am 4 play longs if Am 3 was not. It seems you have a conflict between the desire to either a) give most players a reasonabe chance to play on either day,or b)have the course more approximate the types of players playing that day. ie better players on longs, weaker ones on shorts. I think B makes more sense but ultimiately I will play whenever. Just tell me the dates and I will show up. I already have an advantage as I can play an age protected division (if it still exists) if I can't make it on Am 4 day.
I would not renew if age protected divisions were dropped. Has nothing to do with competition, everything to do with peer groups.
The current plan by the PDGA is to leave the age protected divisions alone. They know where their bread is buttered.
Since I can't quote Jon above. I think 100 miles is a much more reasonable ZOE/AREA. I'm typically not going to drive more than that for a tourney.
(never mind)
The more I think about it, the more I like the way Open-2-4 splits the field, offers everyone the ironman option, and automatically balances itself for those venues that top players show up for versus those venues that appeal to lower rated players. I think the new Am 4 will almost always have enough gators at our tournaments. We had something like 14 under 850 gators at Aurora playing Rec and Am 4. Just by running Am 4 this year we've beefed up the Am 4 gator pool.
One drawback of the Open-2-4 / 1-3-age-gender split is that the leaderboard will be a mess on the 1-3-age-gender day. On that day we'd have something like eleven or twelve divisions. We could get it down to six colors if we did all juniors one color, all pros another color, all old guy ams a third color, all am women a fourth color, and Am 1 and Am 3 getting different colors.
im confused ( that wont surprise anyone )
is there an age protected amatuer division ?
in sanctioned ?
in unsanctioned ?
my thinking was that there wasnt an " intermediate master " division or "novice master division " for sanctioned T's
i thought that gary offered a prize (mokena and channahon ) ( its a trophey ) to the top master in intermediate and or novice , on the side, to compensate for the lack of that division in a sanctioned event
obviously if its unsanctioned, the division could be offered
so next year ( in a sanctioned event)
im over 40, my rating is 865 still, where/when do/will i play
i dont see playing adv masters unless i want to play the same day as my brother ( open master)
In unsanctioned anything goes. In sanctioned tournaments, the only divisional change is the number and cutoffs for the am non-age protected divisions. (I don't know what they've done with the women ams). If you are a 40+ 865 male, you are eligible for MPO, MPM, MA1, MA2, MA3, MM1.
Key:
MPO=Pro Open
MPM=Pro Master
MA1=Expert
MA2=Advanced
MA3=Intermediate
MM1=Advanced Master
btw Novice Master and Int Master can be done in sanctioned divisions the same way Bruce did the MA4 division this year as a trophy-only side bet, but they are not PDGA recognized divisions.
Dave- Nice rant on the PDGA message board on this topic btw.
Quote from: krupicka on September 17, 2007, 09:57:28 AM
Dave- Nice rant on the PDGA message board on this topic btw.
Dave who? How about a link?
Dave is outtabounds on the Competition Thread (http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=739882&page=0&fpart=2&vc=1).
Quote from: Tom McManus on September 17, 2007, 10:16:55 AM
Quote from: krupicka on September 17, 2007, 09:57:28 AM
Dave- Nice rant on the PDGA message board on this topic btw.
Dave who? How about a link?
It was me. Page 17 of this thread.
http://www.pdga.com/msgboard/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=738839&page=0&fpart=17&vc=1
Brett, Neal and Tom et al, you know I support our local pros. This guy just pissed me off.
Quote from: krupicka on September 17, 2007, 08:35:09 AM
In unsanctioned anything goes. In sanctioned tournaments, the only divisional change is the number and cutoffs for the am non-age protected divisions. (I don't know what they've done with the women ams). If you are a 40+ 865 male, you are eligible for MPO, MPM, MA1, MA2, MA3, MM1.
I believe that they eliminated FW3. I don't know whether they intended to or whether it was an oversight. They did not vote to eliminate it. They voted to adopt the proposal and it was not on the draft proposal I saw.
Way to get wicked with the flamethrower Dave! :)
I cannot find the post. Did it get deleted by the moderators?
Its still there. Try my link above as I reference the post number directly.
I think those links only work if you are using default settings.
msg #739882
Just go to page whatever Krupicka said and go about halfway down.
Mike referenced the wrong page in his link. Dave's post (just after Mike's) has a link referencing the correct page.
Isn't this essentially the same thing the PDGA tried with the Pro 2 division about 3 years ago?
Other than it being an Am division this time around, I don't really remember that system being much different.
Pro2 was a TD headache.
Really this is the same thing we've been doing since 2001 but with different ratings breaks to reflect the reality that most amateurs are staying amateur a little longer.
The PDGA decided that it didn't really like the names it adopted for the amateur divisions next year. These are the new names
Advanced -- 935 and up
Intermediate -- less than 935
Recreational -- less than 900
Novice -- less than 850
We're still calling them Am 1, Am 2, Am 3 and Am 4.
We're still going with Open, 2, 4 Saturdays and 1, 3, age, gender Sundays.
I'm still not sure what womens amateur divisions are part of the format. I think we will continue to offer the full range we have in the past
clear as mud
gee whiz lawyerspeak
Advanced -- 935 and up IOS translates it to AM 1 SUN
Intermediate -- less than 935 IOS translates it to AM 2 SAT
Recreational -- less than 900 IOS translates it to AM 3 SUN
Novice -- less than 850 IOS translates it to AM 4 SAT
We're still calling them Am 1, Am 2, Am 3 and Am 4.
We're still going with Open, 2, 4 Saturdays and 1, 3, age, gender Sundays.
I'm still not sure what womens amateur divisions are part of the format. I think we will continue to offer the full range we have in the past
By the table, it looks like Rec Women is still a division for 2008.
Can you post a link to the table? Is the table the document or the summary of the document?
The document that they approved did not have a Rec Women division. Someone on the Competition Committee told me that was an intentional decision so as to not increase the number of divisions by adding Am 4. Someone on the Board told me they did not discuss that and it might have been an oversight.
What it will come down to is whether anyone changes the TD report to remove FW3 as a division choice. I think if no one brings it up pointedly with Gentry or Graham it will slide by and still be on the TD report. If someone brings it up, they will have to make an intentional decision. But if no one brings it up, no one is going to notice and delete it from the TD report.
So now instead of telling the 935 and up rated Ams that they are moving up to Expert (which they had to do) they are asking the players rated 915-934 that were Advanced to move down to Intermediate, which the don't have to do?
Genius. :rolleyes:
2008 Division Grid (http://www.pdga.com/documents/2008/08PlayerDivisionsGrid.pdf)
If they had named the divisions this way to begin with there wouldn't have been nearly as much for people to argue about on the message board.
It will probably take two or three years for the players to start following the new ratings breaks. It took about four years for the current ratings breaks to really catch on.
But that's o.k. It will give an advantage to PDGA members who adapt to the new system. And the new system won't result in a lot of uninformed players accidentally bagging in the wrong division. The new system will punish the idiots instead of rewarding them.
I'm still curious to see what the $10 nonmember fee is going to do to attendance or membership numbers. I think most of the people who don't join, don't join because the $40 is too much for them. I think the $10 will be too much for them too.
For me when it was $5 or $40, I wasn't saying $40 was too much, but why pay $40 if I'm only playing 4-5 tournaments. I think if you get people standing line at their first tourney in the spring and tell them the non-member fee is $10 and that if they want to become a member it's only $40/$50, they can do the math and may be more likely to join. I don't know how many people that show up ready to play a tournament all day will turn around and go home for that additional $5 they might not have been planning on. Of course, they might be skipping lunch as a consequence.
Quote from: Uncle Sam on November 10, 2007, 05:31:49 PM
So now instead of telling the 935 and up rated Ams that they are moving up to Expert (which they had to do) they are asking the players rated 915-934 that were Advanced to move down to Intermediate, which the don't have to do?
Genius. :rolleyes:
Yeah. I am totally offended by being called an intermediate. I may quit playing. How dare someone have the audacity to create a division where I am an intermediate.
I propose the following divisions:
Okay
Pretty good
Darn Good
Excellent
Fantastic
Is that less offensive to your sensiblities?
Or how about:
White
Green
Red
Blue
Gold
Although I have always had something against people who are blue, so I wouldn't want to be affiliated with the blue group. And green people....
An accurate description of players at my skill level would just be the Horrible division. I'm pumped about the possibility of being Intermediate next year so I can play 2 days at the 2008 IOS events.
How about we go with:
Ridiculous
Embarrassing
Bad
Sux Balls
Pro Donators
Awesome
McManus would be a Sux Balls Grandmaster to give you a reference as to the ratings breaks for these new divisions. :wub:
I'm hoping for Open 1,2,& 3 in 2009. That way I can play with the same 3 or 4 people and we can all be winners. Yeah baby!
Quote from: Tom McManus on November 11, 2007, 06:36:39 AM
Quote from: Uncle Sam on November 10, 2007, 05:31:49 PM
So now instead of telling the 935 and up rated Ams that they are moving up to Expert (which they had to do) they are asking the players rated 915-934 that were Advanced to move down to Intermediate, which the don't have to do?
Genius. :rolleyes:
Yeah. I am totally offended by being called an intermediate. I may quit playing. How dare someone have the audacity to create a division where I am an intermediate.
I propose the following divisions:
Okay
Pretty good
Darn Good
Excellent
Fantastic
Is that less offensive to your sensiblities?
Or how about:
White
Green
Red
Blue
Gold
Although I have always had something against people who are blue, so I wouldn't want to be affiliated with the blue group. And green people....
I play disc golf, so I'm pretty much immune to being offended. I actually get to go all the way back to being a "Recreational" player, which is actually pretty accurate. I was hoping for an "Awkwardly Unskilled" division, but "Recreational" it is!
The original names were kind of ridiculous, but I understood what they were trying to do. If the top of Advanced becomes Expert, the over 935 guys "move up." It's a positive move. The way it stands now the 915-934 guys "move down" to Intermediate, which is a negative move. From a psychological and marketing perspective the original idea is better. No big deal, it all smoke and mirrors. The actual news is the ratings breaks, which stayed the same as the original proposal. The titles are just fluff. Besides, since when have we been marketing savvy? We still have a "Non-Member Fee" instead of a "Member Discount," which any marketing guy would have switched years ago. No matter. The sports just seems to keep growing no matter what we do. Maybe the game is just that good.
The Non-Member Fee will probably be a bigger deal anyway. I can't see very many players quitting over the new divisions regardless of what they are called. I can see people staying home over the $10.00.
i think expert is going to be a pretty small division next year, i mean many of the regular illinois players that are over 935 have in some form "moved up"
Expert no longer exists. Its Adv, Int, Rec and Nov now. But we're going with Am 1, Am 2, Am 3, and Am 4, since our TDs are easily confused and old enough to remember when Novice was Am 3.
In order for an Am 1 to win the points obelisk they will have to play Worlds, Am Nats, Bowling Green and a bunch of A-NTs that don't offer lower divisions. Otherwise, the obelisk will be won by an Am 2 who just plays a lot of tournaments.
so now adv is over 935?
Yup. If you are rated 935 or higher, you must play advanced (or pro).
One factor that i think is being missed here is pace of game. in the current system pro/adv play realitively faster tham AM2> divisions. If u add AM4 to saturday u will severly slow the pace down and create bunch ups on the harder holes. NO ONE LIKES A TOURNAMENT FILLED WITH CONSTANT WAITING AROUND.
Also, the problem with ams not moving up isnt divisions. its motivation. If pro divisions had more money add to them and the game reched higher limits of popularity more people will want to join and excel to the top. since ive been following the pdga strategys i am disappointed and amazed at the stupidity of it. The main goal should be elevating the popularity of the sport in the mainstream. Thats what brings players and money to the sport. Not only will it bring more players but also force the need for more courses. THIS GAME MUST GET ON MAINSTREAM TV TO GO ANYWHERE. Instead year after year they do nothing but make stupid videos of highlights that resemble what a stoner or drunk would do. Its disappionting and makes question why i joined such an ass-backwards association. sorry for the rant.
Just out of curiosity, why do you think AM4 players are slower than others? Because we suck so much? Sure an AM4 might have to make a few extra throws or something, but it's not like we take any extra time lining up a shot to knock it in.
How long does a round normally take on a Saturday this year? Probably about 3 hours? That's the amount of time it takes for a Sunday.
Completely ridiculous argument that Am4 would slow things down. We're not stupid.
Since I have been at every IOS tournament since the beginning of time, and many split-weekend MDGO tournaments before that [Yes, the MDGO began even before the beginning of time. It was the series they played in Valhalla.] I can say for a fact that Am 2s and Am 3s do not play slower than Am 1s and Open Pros. If anything, they play faster. Juniors, grandmasters, women and individual players sometimes play slower. Those divisions are all on the same day.
The IOSeries won't be on mainstream TV next year, as far as I know.
Scott
I hate to say it but he has a point. We make more throws. On the same course in the same round we are likely to take 10 more throws if we are having a good round, 15-20 on an average round and more if its just one of those days. On an AM 4 card there is more likely to be at least one player with a lost disc or a nightmare hole. I am not offended. Am 4 cards on the course with the pros will likely lead to a backup. This is especially true since I am advocating playing the same course--ie. longs as everybody else on the course. The only thing quicker about an Am 4 player is that it takes less time to walk to where your disc landed. :D From the AM 4 standpoint I think rushing to keep up with the pros is a mistake too. If they are in a hurry they can wait. I am going to take my time and hit the chains rather than rush under the glaring eyes of the pros and hit the rim. I agree with Bruce that Am 2's and 3's likely play as fast or faster than pros. If they slowed down perhaps they could become pros. ;D
If that presents a natural conflict in the order of things we will leave it to the wise ones to figure out whether its worth mixing the cheetahs and the slower beasts simply in order to get more people to the zoo.
Quote from: Top Banana on November 12, 2007, 01:37:11 PM
The IOSeries won't be on mainstream TV next year, as far as I know.
It could work as a reality series like Survivor or Dancing with the Stars. Remember, just because you got the lowest score doesn't mean that you win. You still have to get audience votes. Team up local players with D list celebreities. "Barrett missed her putt so she is going to have to rely on teammate, Danny Bonaducci. Danny is pulling his mini out of his pocket, oh, my that's not a mini. I think we are going to have to go to a commercial. Put that thing back Danny, for crying out loud, this is network TV!" "David Carradine and his partner KVN are doing some tai chi before their round, no, wait a minute, it looks lie they are actually practicing their putting."
I've always thought you could do a good Survivor - PDGA Tour reality themed disc golf show. Start with a dozen wanna-be touring pros. The four highest cashing get to eat and sleep on the bus. The rest are outside in tents. Non-cashing players are subject to being kicked off the bus. At the end of the season the four guys left play some kind of show down match and the winner gets the bus and sufficient cash to cover the income tax consequences.
You've got constant product placement for some RV manufacturer as a sponsor.
From the Small World Department...
I'm editing a piece called "Don't Be Last" as we speak. It fell right into place when I showed up in Rock Hill and there was a play-off set for five guys / three spots. Turned into four guys and three spots, but that's another story. Naturally, the unique format of the round - trying not to be the worst - suggested the many stupid and inane shows my kids like to watch. That of course got me thinking that some DG Reality TV would be easy to put together.
I'm not sure if I'm comfortable admitting that Bruce and I landed on the same idea. An RV crammed with golfers as it rolls out on tour is compelling, albeit silly. No Cash, No Crash! Sorry, move along. Side games galore, best round gets the air mattress that doesn't leak. How many golfers does it take to change a tire?
I know a guy over at HBO Sports who might just be able to run with the idea somewhere.
Bringing DG to TV, one community station at a time. Just added: UNC-Charlotte, Ch. 22
Best regards
Joe
Joe, I truly appreciate what you do. If I ever take up watching TV I'll be all over getting your show on my local cable. Until then, keep up the good work.
Hey, Bruce - I truly appreciate your support for DG as well. Thanks goodness Mikey is back to give you some cover ;)
You know, of course, that you don't have to WATCH the show if you submit it to your station. They just need a resident to give them stuff. No undercutting of scruples, lowering of morals, or life-style changes necessary. (You really should see the latest show if you want to assess your form. Then again, the shots I included of Top Banana were both park jobs (metal on one!) so you probably won't learn anything useful...)
Howsabout asking the various Jr. Girls if anyone wants some DVDs to submit locally? I don't know if there are some tykes who might want to get involved in promoting locally. At least they'd get some free DVDs out of the deal. Ask around when you folks next meet, if you're still getting together.
Joe
I still don't see the point of adding more divisions.WTF lets have 200 divisions so that everyone can play with themselves LOL.
Seems to be silly , I intened to play pro master next year but if I do I can't see playing in many IOS tournaments because of the small fields . Yes i could play open but everytime I have tries this I have absolutely ZERO fun, and not much of a chance of cashing so why play open??? I don't know its either that or retire from the competitive side of this game again .Sux being and old man on the edge.
Ironic that you complain about multiple divisions while at the same time establishing the rationale for having them.
If you look at IOS results you see players rated in the 960s and below cashing in Open at all of our tournaments. Because of this, many of the masters aged players have no economic incentive to play Pro Master. They look at the size of the field and switch to Open where the bigger cash is.
The pro master switching thing won't be happening in 2008. Saturday will be Open-Am2-Am4, only. Am1, Am3, and all age and gender protected divisions will play Sunday. Pro Masters who show up on Saturday will pretty much have just one option, Open, unless they are rated below 935. Pro Masters who show up on Sunday will have their choice of Pro Master or Advanced if they are rated below 970.
If you choose to play Pro Master at an IOS in 2008 you'll have the assurance that half your field won't be jumping to Open. I doubt any of them will play Advanced.
Bruce,
Thanks for the input I look forward to playing both days at some of the IOS events next year . I just hope that I can get my head together so that I don't blow up and can have some fun playing in the pros.
I wish I had the option to play both days. It will probably work out best for the process if I play Saturday. So I'll play Am 2 if my rating stays down, or Open if it goes up a point.
In limited tournaments last year i ended up with a rating of "866"... So if i wanted to play both days of the IOS i could play Am3 and trophy-only Am4?
Quote from: ChrisPUTTS on December 27, 2007, 03:32:22 PM
In limited tournaments last year i ended up with a rating of "866"... So if i wanted to play both days of the IOS i could play Am3 and trophy-only Am4?
You could play Am3 or higher, but not Am4. Am4 is less than 850. You would be able to play trophy only in any division you want (again, no Am4). If you want to play both days, it would be Am3 and Am2 (and you'd probably go for the trophy only option)
Quote from: stpitner on December 27, 2007, 03:40:47 PM
Quote from: ChrisPUTTS on December 27, 2007, 03:32:22 PM
In limited tournaments last year i ended up with a rating of "866"... So if i wanted to play both days of the IOS i could play Am3 and trophy-only Am4?
You could play Am3 or higher, but not Am4. Am4 is less than 850. You would be able to play trophy only in any division you want (again, no Am4). If you want to play both days, it would be Am3 and Am2 (and you'd probably go for the trophy only option)
He could play trophy-only in any IOS Am division for which he is qualified by rating, age and gender. For 2008 we won't have trophy-only in pro divisions at the IOSeries. Instead we'll have "Half In."
would play half in but never done anything "halfway" in my life always beeen wide open if i blow up i blow all the way up .
Another interesting thing to note for 2008:
I noticed on the new PDGA payout tables for 2008 they are offering two different options for TD on payout's to AM divisions. They have the 50% payout table as an "optional" listing, and the new standard seems to be a 45% payout table for AM's. Very interesting :) It's nice to have when the fields aren't all that big.
The 50% table is more top heavy. For example, if there are 30 participants in a division, 1st place gets 15% of the payout on the 50% table, but only 11% on the 45% table.