Capped Divisions... wave of the future?

[Flatroc]

This idea was brought up years ago on another message board, (not sure who dunnit :whistler:) and was slammed, ridiculed and the final answer was pretty much.... foist come foist soived and that the idea sucked.
As the sport continues to grow, I was curious if some of you feel any different.
:chinscratch:

[General Scales]

Are you saying capped as in amount of entrants per division? If thats the case, I would agree. THe only issue being how do you cap a division? How do you say, Open can have 50 while advanced men get 30 and open women get...I can see that going very bad. Especially if you can't fill one division yet another division has a lot of people trying to get in. Those people would either have to step up and play above (or below) their skill or not play at all.

Saying it could be a great idea if the application of said idea is done correctly.

Now back to your regular programming.

[sillybizz]

Bad idea plain and simple. I'm not sure what this would accomplish.

[Flatroc]

Bad idea plain and simple. I'm not sure what this would accomplish.

Yep, that's exactly the way it was taken years ago. :headbang:
One thing it would accomplish (one of my peeves) is that there's a better chance that nobody would ever have to play in a division that they did not sign up for.
Sure, some folks don't care but there are many that do.
I think it would actually encourage people to sign up sooner if they knew their fields were limited. This in turn would help the gigmeister's job.
If you look at the results from past gigs it's fairly easy to determine where to place the cap within each division.

sillybizz,
For the sake of discussion/input/feedback would you care to plain and simply comment as to why you think it's a bad idea? I've prolly heard your reasons before, but please share.
yose

[tmiller]

I can see capping the divisions you know will be overly popular to make sure that other divisions are viable. This is what they did for the Rose City Open this year. They capped MA1 to 60 players. Any MA1s that signed up after that go on the waitlist and if the advanced women didn't fill their 12 spots then they could get in.

[Lund]

I can see capping the divisions you know will be overly popular to make sure that other divisions are viable. This is what they did for the Rose City Open this year. They capped MA1 to 60 players. Any MA1s that signed up after that go on the waitlist and if the advanced women didn't fill their 12 spots then they could get in.

Yes this post is mostly true.* We (the TDs of the upcoming Rose City Open) decided not only to limit the field to 6 total divisions but also to cap a couple specific divisions where the demand is so high (MA1,MM1). Those specific cap numbers were based on anticipated and on the fly demand respectively. We did so for a few reasons. Our primary reason for the division caps is our goal of achieving some semblance of a balance between the number of AMs and PROs, which in our opinion makes for a "better" event. We considered other ways to try to achieve a balance but that alone is perhaps a topic worthy of a whole other discussion (one that I think fits into the "when to move up" debate).

Of course not everyone will ever agree unanimously on what makes for a better event. Also this is (admittedly) not necessarily the most fair system. The Amateur side filled within a few days and their waitlists continue to grow, whereas the Professional registrations have tricked in over a several week period without the pressure of a first come first serve until we hit X number of total registrations (regardless of division) approach.

Trying to have a balanced event (and however you want to debate or describe that) is just the tip of the iceberg as far as the benefits of division numbers and caps. There are many others not the least of which is “helping the gigmeisters' job” as Jose said, especially given our relative inexperience with the job.

I am curious to hear other opinions on all of this too.

* I say mostly true because we currently have 9 FW1 right now. IF that remains the number we are unofficially leaning towards 3 groups of 3 for their division (as opposed to adding 3MA1). Same might be true if MPO, FPO and any other "odd" number divisions but we're a ways off to be making those calls right now...

[Bullseye]

and here are some reasons why:

First off, I always reserve a certain number of spots for women. I think it is important that we encourage women to play events and by reserving some spots for them we are showing them that they are welcome.

Secondly, almost all events are filling up quickly these days and in order to fit as many people into our events as possible TDs have to do flights. The only way to properly manage a flight is to put a cap on the number of players in certain high-demand divisions.

For instance, the Beaver State Fling amateur side has two pools: A & B. The MA1 division completely fills the A pool and if I didn't cap that field at 76 players the MA1 players would start gobbling up the spots available to the B pool players. At this moment I have 194 MA1 players vying for 76 spots in the event. If I didn't cap the fields, the BSF would likely be full of MA1 players only.

Another issue would be that if we allow the MA1 field to overflow in to the B pool, then they would also not be playing the same course at the same time as their "main pool". This may or may not give someone an advantage, but it does open up that possibility.

Anyway, that is a quick rundown on why I support and encourage the practice.

[General Scales]

This is a great discussion. I have only one issue with capping the MA1 divisions so tightly. This is by far and away the most filled field in any tournament. Perhaps doing a separate weekend on the biggest tourney's for just MA1 is in order. With so many up and coming talents, it's hard to turn away a player that could be, for all intensive purposes, the next Climo, Locastro, Feldberg, etc. You wouldn't know that if you put them on a waiting list and or turn them away.

[Lund]

and here are some reasons why:

First off, I always reserve a certain number of spots for women. I think it is important that we encourage women to play events and by reserving some spots for them we are showing them that they are welcome.


If the last couple lines of my previous post were not clear - we agree with the above statement. We will not cap either female division and will explore a couple other options for accommodating a slightly larger flight if need be.

[Bullseye]

If the last couple lines of my previous post were not clear - we agree with the above statement. We will not turn away FW1 but rather would explore a couple other options for accommodating a slightly larger flight.

Our posts crossed in the mail... I wasn't second guessing you guys at all. I think we all have parallel objectives.

[Scott]

This is by far and away the most filled field in any tournament. Perhaps doing a separate weekend on the biggest tourney's for just MA1 is in order. With so many up and coming talents, it's hard to turn away a player that could be, for all intensive purposes, the next Climo, Locastro, Feldberg, etc. You wouldn't know that if you put them on a waiting list and or turn them away.

In a perfect world, second weekends would be great for all of the larger tournaments.

But don't forget that tournament director's time and energy (as well as the time and energy of the many volunteers needed to run events of this magnitude) are not an umlimited resource.

[sillybizz]

sillybizz,
For the sake of discussion/input/feedback would you care to plain and simply comment as to why you think it's a bad idea? I've prolly heard your reasons before, but please share.
yose

Personally it doesn't matter to me because all of the events I am interested in playing in I sign up early for but I can see issues...

Where do you cap that number at? I think doing this can kind of screw (not the best word to use I know but can't think of anything better at this moment) people in age and gender specific divisions. I've seen tournaments where no woman or masters players shows up and others where ten or fifteen players show up. If you cap it at say five and then fifteen players shows up, what then? You can also see the problem when you save five spots and none of those players show up and you refuse five AM2 players because you were saving spots for people who weren't there. Maybe in a larger tournament this is less of a problem, I don't know I've never played an A Tier or NT event and my only TD experience has come at events less than 30 players. Just my thoughts for now but I'm not stuck on my opinion, I could still be swayed .. so get going, sway me already! :cheers:

[Jeff Hemmerling]

With so many up and coming talents, it's hard to turn away a player that could be, for all intensive purposes, the next Climo, Locastro, Feldberg, etc. You wouldn't know that if you put them on a waiting list and or turn them away.Who cares (or knows) if someone's an "up and coming talent" or not? If you don't sign up in time, tough luck. Pretty simple. I'm sure Climo, etc., got shut out of some tournies in their day. The cream will still rise...

Grammar police: "intensive purposes" --> "intents and purposes".

[Flatroc]

Personally it doesn't matter to me because all of the events I am interested in playing in I sign up early for but I can see issues...

Where do you cap that number at? I think doing this can kind of screw (not the best word to use I know but can't think of anything better at this moment) people in age and gender specific divisions. I've seen tournaments where no woman or masters players shows up and others where ten or fifteen players show up. If you cap it at say five and then fifteen players shows up, what then? You can also see the problem when you save five spots and none of those players show up and you refuse five AM2 players because you were saving spots for people who weren't there. Maybe in a larger tournament this is less of a problem, I don't know I've never played an A Tier or NT event and my only TD experience has come at events less than 30 players. Just my thoughts for now but I'm not stuck on my opinion, I could still be swayed .. so get going, sway me already! :cheers:

"If you look at the results from past gigs it's fairly easy to determine where to place the cap within each division".

There are still things/people that can get screwed with this practice.
But speaking for myself as a 25+ year TD, what else is new?
And yeh you're right, those old farts can always throw a wrench in the woiks.

[NWDiscer]

I'm sure Climo, etc., got shut out of some tournies in their day. The cream will still rise...




cmon now Jeff i gotta believe that he never got shut out of a tourney...and hell except for a couple of events outside of lil Ol' Oregon....NO1 hardly ever gets shutout or turned away. :whistler:

[grant]

not playing in many tournaments myself. I have found that when I have entered not knowing my rating(non pdga member) I would just sign up for whatever division no matter what, who cares about results and just have fun, personally I am not an ultra competive kind of guy and just enjoy playing. So here is my .02 if you are unsure of where you match up in a given division, just sign up and have fun regardless of how good/bad your competition may be.

[Carie CPink]

In a perfect world, second weekends would be great for all of the larger tournaments.

But don't forget that tournament director's time and energy (as well as the time and energy of the many volunteers needed to run events of this magnitude) are not an umlimited resource.

Reason #345 why TDs should be compensated for their time and talent.

[General Scales]

Reason #345 why TDs should be compensated for their time and talent.

Thread drift :laughing:. Seriously though, I would willingly pay a TD from my own pocket if it meant I could get a second weekend just for MA1. I'd bring beer for the volunteers (if they were so inclined to partake in a delicious brew).

[Scott]

And you could pay all of the volunteers, too? Getting a TD to commit to two weekends is one thing. Getting a large team of volunteers together for two consectutive weekends is a lot to ask.

[General Scales]

And you could pay all of the volunteers, too? Getting a TD to commit to two weekends is one thing. Getting a large team of volunteers together for two consectutive weekends is a lot to ask.

Ahh, see, this is where I differ from everyone. If you are a volunteer, you don't get paid. Period. That's the point of a volunteer. Does anybody expect to be compensated with money when they volunteer their time to do anything? I sure hope not.

Case in point. I recently volunteered my efforts to help the blood drive in Spokane by getting people to donate. I busted my ass to do so. For weeks I was hounding people to just spend the 30-45 minutes and donate. Cause you know 1 person can save 3 with blood and plasma. After all that leg work (30-40 hours a week) I got a tee shirt and a thank you card. Did I expect to get paid? Nope. There are people that will do it just to do it. Do they deserve to get compensated? Sure do. Are they going to? Nope. Just the way it works.

It would be a huge undertaking but one that could be very worthwhile if pursued. Personally, I thank all volunteers and T.D's as much as I can during a weekend. If more players did so, there would be more people willing to volunteer. It's amazing how much a sincere thank you and a hand shake inspire people. I know it does for me.

[Parks]

Ahh, see, this is where I differ from everyone. If you are a volunteer, you don't get paid. Period. That's the point of a volunteer. Does anybody expect to be compensated with money when they volunteer their time to do anything? I sure hope not.

What makes a TD anything other than a glorified volunteer, then? Why should they get paid, but not other volunteers? I may have misread your post and you meant that TDs should also not get paid.

Back on topic: Sillybizz, I imagine the capping is mostly for the insanely large fields. There is no reason to cap smaller fields because as you indicated, their size can very greatly (a %500 difference is probably not uncommon). They are also not going to completely saturate the field, while something like MA1 could.

[Parks]

Grammar police: "intensive purposes" --> "intents and purposes".

Maybe he only meant the intensive purposes, and was ignoring all intents and non-intensive purposes.

[Scott]

Maybe he only meant the intensive purposes, and was ignoring all intents and non-intensive purposes.

Perhaps he meant intense porpoises.

[Parks]

Let's not be silly. No matter how intense they are, dolphins don't play the Frisbee disc.

[Ol' Bob]

Let's not be silly. No matter how intense they are, dolphins don't play the Frisbee disc.

Yeah, but... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGrN3uWO_Rs)

I ain't wired to be silly, if Silly's any indication.

The rest of the story: (http://www.papadisc.com/frisbee/frisorg.htm)

http://www.papadisc.com/frisbee/frisorg1.jpg

[dooley]

"If you look at the results from past gigs it's fairly easy to determine where to place the cap within each division".

There are still things/people that can get screwed with this practice.
But speaking for myself as a 25+ year TD, what else is new?
And yeh you're right, those old farts can always throw a wrench in the woiks.

no wrench throwin this year....moved up to Grandmaster and will be playin in events offering a chance to play in that division:cheers:

[D.L.]

Let's not be silly. No matter how intense they are, dolphins don't play the Frisbee disc.

http://www.zazzle.com/dolphin_frisbee_card-137978032480574632
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dan4th/483867696/

and just skip youtube:shocked:

[The Ombudsman]

for all intensive purposes

?

you mean 'for all infants and porpoises'

[General Scales]

?

you mean 'for all infants and porpoises'

I meant to use a computer and not quick text on my Android. Stupid smart phone.

[sillybizz]

Let's not be silly.

Let me be silly. ;)

I ain't wired to be silly, if Silly's any indication.


Nice.

[DexterHawk]

I really like capping... It makes for more evenly distributed fields(nice when everyone has a good number of people to play against) , encourages players to try pro (usually the last division to fill), and makes course distribution make sense. I have been especially impressed with the recent lottery systems employed by the 3PO and the Fling... seems like the best solution to the sign up races that we had last year.
The truth is that more is not better... I've played in a few events with too many ghost groups and stuff like that and slow golf can suck the fun right out of an event. I would love to see more 3 per tee pad events and more pro only and am only events on the schedule...

[Scott]

There are pros and cons to capping.

There are probably about 150 advanced players that didn't get into the BSF who aren't really big on the idea.

On the other hand, there's a ton of women and crusties who are pretty damn thankful.

[Parks]

You could also cap a female trophy only division at two players and call it 2girls1cup.

[General Scales]

You could also cap a female trophy only division at two players and call it 2girls1cup.

Yeah but would the cup be filled with chocolate ice cream?

[Parks]

That would be a nice touch.

My alternate name for a tournament with only two female players or maybe a women's only doubles tournament would be 2girls1flinger.