A suggestion for TD's to help with sponsorship for their events

[loki]

Back in the day when I started playing disc golf you could stroll into any tournament and sign up same day. Those days are well gone, and now I see lots of detractors (most of whom have never run a tournament) bitching about not getting into tournaments because they fill up too quick. It seems that people are working hard to come up with a solution to the huge demand but there does not seem to be a clear solution to this huge discrepancy between supply and demand.

I don't have a solution other than getting many more volunteers and adding multiple courses to a single tournament (with the right manpower Oregon could easily become the home to the largest tournaments in the world), but I do have a suggestion that might kill two birds with one stone:

For our tournaments that have the most interest (Oregon series for example), why don't you hold 50 spots (or more) that are "sponsors exemptions", meaning that there are 50 entries for each tournament that cost $50 more than the actual entry fee. The people who are willing to pay this extra cash automatically become sponsors of the tournament (and secure an entry for themselves). This way TDs can raise extra cash for prize money (or scrip). 50 spots equals $2500 added which nobody should complain about. Hell, I bet there is enough demand where TDs could hold 100 spots this way (and raise an extra $5000 in the process).

Another suggestion would be to auction off 10 entries where all the money above the entry fee price can also go to the prize pool. That being said, I would happily pay an extra $50 to get into the GNO, but I'm working at 8pm on Friday so I don't fancy my chances!

[loki]

OK, how about this: If you have a tournament with 144 players (i don't know what the max is for a lot of these tournaments), you could also hold 50 of those spots for "fundraisers". So 94 spots will be filled normally (first come first served) at the regular price. The 50 guaranteed spots are held for those individuals who can raise $150 in sponsorship (from anywhere....their work, their own money, friends etc). They will still have to pay a regular entry themselves but the added $150 gets their name (or their work/sponsors name) on a hole (shared). If 50 people raise $150 in added cash (think $7500 extra prize money/scrip) these tournaments not only will fill but will have the best payouts of almost any other tournament. It also takes some huge pressure off TD's who are expected to do a shit load of fundraising on their own which is a daunting enough prospect as is.

I (and I'm sure a few TD's.....some of who have already pm'd me since I posted this) would love to hear peoples opinion on these suggestions. Will there be a lot of bitching ("just because they have more money they get in....isn't that kind of elitist?"), or will people realize that the demand for tournaments in Oregon is so high that the only real logical solution is to double the entry fee (which too will not be a popular decision for many).

It is simple economics......demand is way too high for these tournaments, so prices must go up to balance the sheet so to speak, but I am trying to offer some semblance of a solution here.

Discuss.....................

[Chuck Kennedy]

Taken from a player's perspective, why would I make the effort to find an extra $50 sponsor if I could get in for the regular entry fee without one? If all of the regular entry fee slots were filled, it's sort of like paying a $50 late fee regardless whether I pay it or I find some suc... I mean sponsor to post the extra $50. Better to just call it a late fee and let the players decide whether to pay it themselves or some or all of it paid by their sponsor.

There's nothing wrong with trying the format to see if it works. It even qualifies for PDGA sanctioning. Call it a $50 discount for the first X number of entrants. After that, entrants have to bring in an amount either thru a $50 tee sign sponsorship (or more) and/or direct payments equal to the full entry fee. The USDGC did something like this with their sponsor exemption slots.

["Over the Hill" Bob]

After the 2010 BSF I actually brought up the idea of "any player bringing us a $1000 sponsor gets a paid entry". I think the players helping to bring in sponsorships is a good idea. Still doesn't help with the problem of too many players not enough room in a tournament, but it would help to make the tournament better.

Bob

[Wobbly Bob]

The Lilac City Open has used the paid entry format for anyone sponsoring the tournament to the tune of $250 or more for the last 4 years. I usually get two or three sponsors per year that opt out for this type of sponsorship.

[JMan]

It is simple economics......

no such thing actually exists...simple economics that is.. and don't get me started on GDP...

[Joshua Olmsted]

I will say, at least in the type of format you proposed, I would be wholeheartedly opposed, in fact I would be very disheartened if a trend like this emerged as a pattern across NW tournaments. As a college student with sporadic income, shelling out 60$ to (hopefully) play the McIver 3PO means huge cutbacks in my normal monthly budget, I know I'm not the only one out there in a similar situation, imagine how a disc golfer who has lost their job in this economy might feel about this. I know to you it may sound "bitchy" but calling this type of plan elitist is perfectly valid, I'm not saying my views are "right" they're just opinions, but that doesn't mean they're somehow just a result of me being whiny or greedy. Now if someone goes out and gets a thousand dollar sponsor from the community, sure, go ahead, allow them entry, that's bringing in a whole new level of support in connecting new sponsors to the sport, but simply reserving spots just for those people to whom an extra $50 is not a huge investment, in my opinion, isn't a step forward, it's an exclusionary fix.

[jshrack]

If it is a supply vs demand issue, find a better tipping point for the tourney price.
Don't gouge a few and let others slip... seems shady.

I understand Josh's perspective too, I am in the same boat financially.
I know our sport is growing though, those good tourney spots are becoming more valuable.
I have to pick and choose the tourney's I play.
I would still pay an extra $10-20 if I know it's a good tourney and is gonna have payout to match. (NAAC is a good example)

You could always do invitationals as well, reserve 50 spots for returners, big names, high rankings, big supporters... These could easily incur a small donation each, for the touney.

[Bullseye]

I love the idea of new concepts being thrown around, but I won't be allowing people to buy their way into any event I run.

I have tossed around the idea of holding a blind auction for a single slot in the event. That way the bidding wouldn't get totally out of hand, but could still add a little additional money to the event.

When all is said and done, I still prefer a method that is as fair as possible for everyone who would like to play in the event.

[JMan]

^^^
like the one for the BSF 2011...great idea

[Sausage Fingers]

^^^
like the one for the BSF 2011...great idea

And this thread is a much better place for my posts about the BSF to reside if a moderator wanted to move them here...

:pirate:

[loki]

Well I like the fact that people have thought about this. And I like the honesty of the responses. Does anybody else have a solution other than the one that was suggested to me by a TD (which is to raise the prices across the board for entry fees so that there is a closer balance between supply and demand)?

My reason for suggesting what I did was in an effort to keep tournaments affordable for those numerous disc golfers who are students, unemployed or just don't have a steady income (or just broke) because if we continue to have such a demand for tournament entries the obvious progression will be to raise the price of entry across the board thus excluding many as is, so I am trying to come up with a solution that can allow those financially burdened to still play while those who can afford more can pay more. I am not trying to be an elitist, in fact, quite the opposite, I am trying to be as inclusive to as many as possible by tabling these suggestions.

I actually like the BSF idea of taking entries from every interested party and then drawing from a hat, but along with that concept comes it's own problems but at least it is fair and doesn't exclude anybody.

Please feel free to add your own solutions if mine are not working for you. I am not trying to stir a pot in any way. I am actually amazed and stunned by the growth of the sport in Oregon, but now we are experiencing growing pains.

[Chuck Kennedy]

The OP indicated part of your increasing problem is too many players and not enough capacity to handle them in an event. It would seem the solution is for more TDs to step up and host events on the same weekends. We are having more weekends each year in Minnesota with 2 or 3 events on the same day and sometimes 2 are sanctioned. C-tiers can be as close as 25 miles apart.

[Kenny B]

Okay, here's a little bit of "thinking outside of the box" (at least for me)

A potential way to double or even triple participation in events without the sponsorship discussion above...(this might be a good Beaver State Fling idea too).

First, assume all players are from the same division (Advanced or Open-I haven't figured this out yet for multiple divisions). Have pools A and B play two rounds on alternating courses on a Saturday. Then, one week later (again on Satruday) have pools C and D play two rounds on the same alternating courses. Then on Sunday (after the second satruday) have one final round consisting of the top 25% of each pool (A, B, C, and D).

To accomodate players from out of town, require that registering local players fill pools A and B first, while allowing players from say 150+ miles away (or some other distance appropriate) to fill pools C and D first.

Furthermore, if pools C and D don't fill up, you may find A and B pool players that didn't qualify on the first saturday, signing up for a 2nd chance.

Additionally, you can add two more pools on the sunday following the first saturday and change the qualifiers to the top 10 of each pool (plus ties) for 60min players leaving 12 spots open for ties during the final sunday round.

6x72=432players

[LJ Jubner]

Okay,

You said there'd be "no math"

[Scott]

Okay, here's a little bit of "thinking outside of the box" (at least for me)

A potential way to double or even triple participation in events without the sponsorship discussion above...(this might be a good Beaver State Fling idea too).

First, assume all players are from the same division (Advanced or Open-I haven't figured this out yet for multiple divisions). Have pools A and B play two rounds on alternating courses on a Saturday. Then, one week later (again on Satruday) have pools C and D play two rounds on the same alternating courses. Then on Sunday (after the second satruday) have one final round consisting of the top 25% of each pool (A, B, C, and D).

To accomodate players from out of town, require that registering local players fill pools A and B first, while allowing players from say 150+ miles away (or some other distance appropriate) to fill pools C and D first.

Furthermore, if pools C and D don't fill up, you may find A and B pool players that didn't qualify on the first saturday, signing up for a 2nd chance.

Additionally, you can add two more pools on the sunday following the first saturday and change the qualifiers to the top 10 of each pool (plus ties) for 60min players leaving 12 spots open for ties during the final sunday round.

6x72=432players

Love the thinking outstide of the box.

This particular idea would run a heavy cost of volunteer hours. Now you're asking TDs and volunteers to step up not one but two weekends. That is a commitment that should not be taken lightly.

[Scott]

The OP indicated part of your increasing problem is too many players and not enough capacity to handle them in an event. It would seem the solution is for more TDs to step up and host events on the same weekends. We are having more weekends each year in Minnesota with 2 or 3 events on the same day and sometimes 2 are sanctioned. C-tiers can be as close as 25 miles apart.

Then we need to get over the idea that we're (TDs) are competing with each other. It seems we always have folks :waaah: because tournamnet A is on the same weeknend as tournament B even though in some cases they are several hours apart. Players are ticked because they want to play both. TDs start bickering because the other TD scheduled over them. Kind of silly, considering that all anyone is trying to do is grow our sport.

[Chuck Kennedy]

I haven't checked lately but I recall seeing a higher ratio of 2-day events to 1-day events in the NW when I did a national study in 2006. Several other hot DG areas have continued to move to predominantly 1-day events or doing two 1-day events on one weekend at the same site with different divisions each day. Not sure if that might help to serve more players in your area? In some cases, "competing" TDs would flip-flop their divisions so Advanced was offered on Saturday at one split division weekend event and offered on Sunday at the other one.

[Flatroc]

This is from the Professional Disc Golf Association's, 'Competition Manual' for disc golf events.
Section 1: Tournament Procedures
1.2 Tournament Registration
C. ALL openings in the field of play will be filled on a first come-first serve basis, until the allocated places have been filled.

Why bother printing this if we are not going to honor it?

[Chuck Kennedy]

Except when the TD applies for and is granted a waiver for events like invitationals and those requiring qualification like USDGC.

[all2common]

That being said, the amateur side of the BSF is not invitational or a chance to qualify for the USDGC.

[Flash]

That being said, the amateur side of the BSF is not invitational or a chance to qualify for the USDGC.

A waiver can be granted for any situation the PDGA did not think of before creating or printing of that document.

Face it folks we are an anomaly, that causes the PDGA grief.

Chuck the problem with the two events same weekend is that our golfers usually want to play events at certain locations. Especially in the greater Portland Area. If a tournament is going on at course A ( highly desirable) and course B( less desirable) then everyone will try to get into course A event first. Sure they may back fill the course B event but not be as satisfied as if they could have played in the Course A event. This also causes strife with TD's who may feel that one event is targeting another event based on location and course. I think the only way this could work is for 2 TD's to agree to the same weekend two different events format and just accept that some will prefer a certain course over another.

Of course this would also require a waiver or PDGA sign off given that our courses are usually inside the realm of too close together to comply with Tier level separation rules.

[Chuck Kennedy]

PDGA or State Coordinator is not involved if both TDs agree to run events closer than the sanctioning guidelines. It's only if there's disagreement that the mileage factor steps in or a waiver. Frankly, if you have the scenario you mentioned where there's a less desireable course, as a TD I would simply run amateur divisions only with lower entry fees than the other event and no pro divisions since they are only a negative economically on event finances and there are three times as many Ams in the PDGA. I'm really surprised there aren't more amateur only events popping up since they make more sense for TDs and will still fill in many locations against other events.

[Flatroc]

Except when the TD applies for and is granted a waiver for events like invitationals and those requiring qualification like USDGC.

Chuck,
As far as B, C and other tiered gigs go, do you think the BOD needs to address certain registration scenarios.
With all the growth and discussion about how to deal with it, I think there's a need for some stricter guidelines from the PDGA concerning the lower tiered events.
It seems that there are still too many fuzzy, gray agreements occurring.
Especially now that we are wanting to put more focus on the grassroots.
If new players experience situations that they feel are unfair, and then they see the PDGA supporting such, it could send an undesirable message.
Yose
4438
23 year PDGA member

[Chuck Kennedy]

As far as B, C and other tiered gigs go, do you think the BOD needs to address certain registration scenarios.
I haven't heard of a problem anywhere or heard from Gentry that there's a problem brewing. What specifically do you feel is falling in a grey area? You happen to have two Board members in your area that haven't brought up any issues for the Competition Committee to address in this regard.

[Wes Hansen]

This is from the Professional Disc Golf Association's, 'Competition Manual' for disc golf events.
Section 1: Tournament Procedures
1.2 Tournament Registration
C. ALL openings in the field of play will be filled on a first come-first serve basis, until the allocated places have been filled.

Why bother printing this if we are not going to honor it?



I was wondering the same. Maybe this isn't a problem with most of the country, but there's little question it is a problem here.

The new trend seems to be mystery methods to get into tourneys. Register and you might get in. Someone holds a "drawing" and then you find out if you get in!?!?!?

When is the public random draw party being held? Where are the mysterious wait lists supposed to be made public?

Demand has far exceeded supply.

New guidelines for TDs are needed to tell them how to fill their tourneys. It seems eeny-meeny-minnie-mo is the new rule of the day.

[Chuck Kennedy]

If it appears the TD is not following the "first come first served" PDGA policy, report it to the PDGA office if the TD hasn't indicated (s)he has printed confirmation of a waiver. In that case, the special reg method should have been posted long before the event.

[Flatroc]

You happen to have two Board members in your area that haven't brought up any issues for the Competition Committee to address in this regard.

I'm sad to read this, but not surprised. :rolleyes2:

[Sausage Fingers]

I'm sad to read this, but not surprised. :rolleyes2:

That's some weak shit right there...:smash:

:pirate:

[Wes Hansen]

Yup, makes me re-think agreeing with him earlier.
Trashing two folks that have been working for a decade to grow and improve DG is not cool.

[Bullseye]

I'm sad to read this, but not surprised. :rolleyes2:


Yose...

This post makes it appear these guys have not been doing their jobs, but if no one mentioned anything to them directly it is unfair to expect them to have done something about it. Am i right? However, if you have actually had a complaint ignored, then I stand corrected.

We're growing at light-speed out here, and there WILL be growing pains. I think we all want what is best for our local golfers, our courses and the game itself. To reach those objectives we all have to work together. Having two members of the board here in Oregon could be an advantage for us, but only if we work with them.

I don't know about you, but each time I have approached those two board members (Dave Feldberg and Todd Andrews) with issues regarding the PDGA I have had my questions addressed promptly.

The bottom line: We can only work with them... if we try. If we try, and nothing is addressed... then we can raise it up a notch.

[coryreu]

Okay, here's a little bit of "thinking outside of the box" (at least for me)

A potential way to double or even triple participation in events without the sponsorship discussion above...(this might be a good Beaver State Fling idea too).

First, assume all players are from the same division (Advanced or Open-I haven't figured this out yet for multiple divisions). Have pools A and B play two rounds on alternating courses on a Saturday. Then, one week later (again on Satruday) have pools C and D play two rounds on the same alternating courses. Then on Sunday (after the second satruday) have one final round consisting of the top 25% of each pool (A, B, C, and D).

To accomodate players from out of town, require that registering local players fill pools A and B first, while allowing players from say 150+ miles away (or some other distance appropriate) to fill pools C and D first.

Furthermore, if pools C and D don't fill up, you may find A and B pool players that didn't qualify on the first saturday, signing up for a 2nd chance.

Additionally, you can add two more pools on the sunday following the first saturday and change the qualifiers to the top 10 of each pool (plus ties) for 60min players leaving 12 spots open for ties during the final sunday round.

6x72=432players

Is that possible?

[coryreu]

You said there'd be "no math"

LO to the mother fn L.
I like math. But there are quite a few unknown variables in this equation. Wait a sec. What would make it really interesting is to have tee times on holes 1 and 10 for each round.
I'm going to try it Jub. Do you mind being my assistant TD for this one?