A possible way to increase membership..

[PDX_Stu]

A buddy of mine was up from California last week. He tried to sign up for a very popular tourney occurring down there in the near future (108 spots). Of course, the tourney filled up the first day of sign-ups. There are about 65 players signed up for ADV and ADV Masters. About 25% do not have a PDGA number. I think it would be fair to give PDGA members priority to the sign up list. This might give the others incentive to become members. People down there were complaining that certain non-members were given preferential treatment (friends of the TD, more experienced players etc). Anyway, my friend was miffed for not getting in and I would be too.. Todd??

Cheers

[Scott]

Originally Posted by PDX_Stu

A buddy of mine was up from California last week. He tried to sign up for a very popular tourney occurring down there in the near future (108 spots). Of course, the tourney filled up the first day of sign-ups. There are about 65 players signed up for ADV and ADV Masters. About 25% do not have a PDGA number. I think it would be fair to give PDGA members priority to the sign up list. This might give the others incentive to become members. People down there were complaining that certain non-members were given preferential treatment (friends of the TD, more experienced players etc). Anyway, my friend was miffed for not getting in and I would be too.. Todd??

Cheers

PDGA members receive priority when signing up for PDGA tournaments? On the surface this makes a lot of sense.

I'd be interested in hearing from some of our resident PDGA insiders. Has anything like this been discussed before?

[Pizzel]

Great idea!!!

[Chuck Kennedy]

There's no PDGA policy preventing TDs from allowing only PDGA members to enter an event for some time period to give them a chance. But that would be up to the TD. Several PDGA events are invitationals or qualifiers as it is.

[TreeLove]

As a 10-year member who has never lapsed: I think it's a great idea.

[Sam]

I have lapsed. I also think that this is a great idea.

[LegoRules]

Ditto I agree.

Cindy

["Over the Hill" Bob]

I'm all about FAIR, and this sounds like a very FAIR idea. Hmmmmm! If you are a paid PDGA member you get a shot at the BSF before non members? Yep, sounds fair to me!

Bob

[Sausage Fingers]

Originally Posted by "Over the Hill" Bob

I'm all about FAIR, and this sounds like a very FAIR idea. Hmmmmm! If you are a paid PDGA member you get a shot at the BSF before non members? Yep, sounds fair to me!

Bob

I don't think that this applies to the BSF as it is already required to be a PDGA member to play in that tourney...

["Over the Hill" Bob]

Originally Posted by Sausage Fingers

I don't think that this applies to the BSF as it is already required to be a PDGA member to play in that tourney...

Dang it! Ok, the GNO!

Bob

[snap7times]

up to the td.... but PDGA could make an official announcement "encouraging" td's to give priority to PDGA members?

[Chuck Kennedy]

It's a balancing act for TDs and the PDGA. The assumption is that PDGA sanctioning helps fill tournaments. But TDs also do events as a courtesy to the PDGA and should still have the option to fill them with whatever players they can encourage to enter. Many times, they are local promoters and they may see it as beneficial to get new non-PDGA members involved in competition. But it might be worthwhile to indicate in the PDGA docs for TDs that they have the option to restrict entry to only PDGA members for some time period.

[Todd Andrews]

I like the idea. However, the problem with requiring something like that for all PDGA events is that in some parts of the country they don't have as high a percentage of PDGA members as we do here. The TD's in those areas would be put at a disadvantage and it wouldn't be advantageous for them to do this. So, to that end, I would agree that it is up to the individual TD to determine whether they should institute a policy like this or not.

[Sam]

Not a requirement. A suggestion. Offer early (read priority) registration rights to PDGA members for PDGA sanctioned events. If not all of them, at a certain level and above. I am surprised that this is not already suggested in the TD packet, actually.

[LJ Jubner]

It use to be. It was called the bump rule!

but with the invention of the $10 non fee it kills both ideas. Potential New members won't play at all or more then once for the extra $10. Why because they only play at certain courses so If the event is not at one of them they won't play and most certainly won't join.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Old news Jub. The PDGA non-member fee started in the late 90s ($5 then but membership was also lower). Most non-members have not stopped entering and pay the fee. Some surprisingly pay it more than five times per year.

[Sean Phillips]

Sounds a bit too elitist to me.

However, I agree that there needs to be some sort of qualification process added to the fast filling tournaments out there. And it'll be hard to add such a process without it appearing a little elitist.

[LJ Jubner]

Originally Posted by Chuck Kennedy

Old news Jub. The PDGA non-member fee started in the late 90s ($5 then but membership was also lower). Most non-members have not stopped entering and pay the fee. Some surprisingly pay it more than five times per year.

Like I said it use to be. $5/ lower membership still the same rational

I would like to see the stats of

1. How many nons vs reg play?
2. The percentage of the nons who play more than 5 times/year?*

I bet the stats are only kept as total number and the dollar amount.

Todd's excuse of" regional differences" and the pDGA not pursuing national policy once again leaves it up to the TD "The boots on the ground" person.


* That's easy money for the pDGA then, No stats, no mag just "clear blue sky"

[Chuck Kennedy]

I would like to see the stats of
How many nons vs reg play?
The percentage of the nons who play more than 5 times/year?*

Contact PDGA HQ

I bet the stats are only kept as total number and the dollar amount.

Details are tracked.

Todd's excuse of" regional differences" and the pDGA not pursuing national policy once again leaves it up to the TD "The boots on the ground" person.

Balance between forcing TDs to do certain things versus providing flexibility for TDs to deal with regional and other situational conditions.

* That's easy money for the pDGA then, No stats, no mag just "clear blue sky"

Absolutely. Why shouldn't non-member fees subsidize costs for members?

[LJ Jubner]

Originally Posted by Chuck Kennedy

Contact PDGA HQ

Details are tracked.

My question is then
How does the pDGA convince these people to play sanctioned events but not ACTUALLY join the organization?

Originally Posted by Chuck Kennedy

Balance between forcing TDs to do certain things versus providing flexibility for TDs to deal with regional and other situational conditions.

It's funny how forced/flexibility is used and how each is applied Like the 0 tolerance (forced) but the bagger (flexibility) policies. Lets call it what it really is C.Y.A.

Originally Posted by Chuck Kennedy

Absolutely. Why shouldn't non-member fees subsidize costs for members?

If that's right Chuck then why has my membership fee's kept going up then?
To the sacred cow that is The IDGC! In Georgia?

1. How does the pDGA reconcile itself by purchasing fundraising discs from one of the manufactures it's supposed to be regulating? Is that contract up for bids? How often?
2. The speculation on the wholesale costs of producing the USDGC and Worlds Videos?
   Jeez i went to the "little red box" and could not find one of them anywhere
3. How about the insurance policy scam. How does that work? We all now insurance companies are so magnanimous in the service they provide. I can't imagine the policy costs anywhere near the revenue generated.