Gary Wagoner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I want to preface these comments by saying that I
> have never played as an amateur so if someone
> chimes in by saying that Gary does not know what
> he is talking about I will concede that he is
> probably right. I have not paid much attention to
> the sand bagging thing but it seems to generate
> the most consternation among the amateur ranks.
> As an outsider to the issue here are my thoughts.
>
> It seems to me that there can only be two reasons
> a person would compete in a division grossly below
> his skill level: glory or money. Since there is
> very little glory in steamrolling the competition
> it must be the money. Yes, Ams play for
> merchandise but discs are a fungible commodity,
> that is, something that can readily be converted
> to cash.
>
> Ranking may be a solution, but I do not see that
> happening in the near term. It also begs a lot of
> questions about documentation, enforcement,
> penalties, etc., and I am against anything that
> adds to the burden on a TD. If the players will
> not police themselves then the logical solution is
> to reduce the amount of merchandise awarded to the
> winner.
>
> Slash Am entry fees. A trophy and a disc or two is
> all that would be awarded the winner. I do not
> like this solution but it would work. In most
> sports all the Ams get is a trophy.
>
> Keep Am fees about where they are and give half
> the money to the Pro payout or maybe to a charity.
> I do not like this either because it seems
> fundamentally unfair to the Ams.
>
> A plausible solution may be to flight the Am
> divisions like many ball golf tournaments do. The
> Am and Am Advanced divisions are divided into
> three flights with 50% going to the top flight,
> 30% going to the middle flight and 20% going to
> the last flight. Every flight would receive a
> first place trophy (which also reduces the payout)
> and their respective share of the merchandise.
> The baggers can fight it out for half of their
> customary winnings and the legitimate players will
> have a fair shot at trophies and discs.
>
> Gary Wagoner

Taking entry fees from lower divisions, and paying higher divisions is the best way to get them to move up.
If intermediate has 50 people and pro has 10 now, the intermediate player wins more, and doesn't have to work as hard for it. Move that money around, and you'll see your higher classes growing. Takes away the reason to bag, and puts a hold on the much debated ratings issue, until it can be straightened out.

Look at any race, and there are always tons more slower cars, than fast cars. But the higher up class gets paid more. They move money around. As of now there is no reason to move up, except to have more of a challenge. I play intermediate, and just donate either way, but it wouldn't bother me to see our entry fees given to the players who are better. It happens in many other sports, why not here?

I think the money should be moved around because there is no incentive to move up to open. Would you want to compete against better people and if you win, win half of what you would win if you played a lower division?

I have already posted how I am going to do the payouts at Wall Doxey so I am not going to change that. I have no idea who the flagrant baggers are because its not something that is on my radar. However, after I post the tournament results I am requesting that those of you who are tuned in and interested in this issue review the results and get back with me via PM. If you can convince me that my tournament had a bag worm infestation I will do something next year along the lines of what has been suggested in this thread.

Gary Wagoner

The claim that there is a problem (bagging) in the Intermediate division is overrated. Forget about impressions, speculation and opinion for a minute and stick with the facts. The Intermediate division is the largest division at every tournament. See, it is doing fine. When people stop signing up for the Intermediate division get back to me on it. Until then I see no reason to risk wrecking what is working by taking possible winnings from the players who sign up for it.

Recast the problem as a dwindling Advanced division. Solution - make it more like what is working - the Intermediate division. There is one easy, efficient and complete fix for the problem and it does not require a SN rule change, ratings or non-score entrant money re-distribution. It is, I think, essentially a flight system as GW suggested, although I am not familiar personally with how the stick golfers do it. TD's can make the Int. & Adv. divisions the same size and shift money to advanced without depriving any player of their shot at it by using classification and 1st round score to set the divisions.

It is still up to TD's though. It is pretty lame to tell TD's who are filling their events that what they are doing is wrong. Again stick with the most important fact. If their events are filling they are doing it right. It's the only reason we have a SN series at all, TD's making large numbers of players happy with their events. If bunches of players are paying their entry things just can't be that bad. I'm not saying there is no room for improvement. I'm just suggesting a perspective. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

If you win the SNAC...with more than 7 players, move up or be excluded from playing in the said class(group)(SN ADV...or ADV Mast.).



don't be a discing douchebag like someone else here in Memphis. Give back...rather than sell back.

I don't think you can fairly say the winner of the SNAC has to move up. It may be impossible to say who won the SNAC if for example Adv. and Int. play different tees and the Int. winner's score is lower. The concept is not bad though IMO. If the idea is popular I would propose an addition to the new handbook as follows:

1.2.4.8.
The player with the lowest final score at a SNAC who played all the same tees and holes stipulated for and played by any "Advanced" division players shall thereby be deemed to have accepted money in a Pro division, gained Pro status and may not thereafter compete in an Amateur division except as reclassified in accordance with Section 1.3.

Or if you want to make more division winners of 7 or more move up:

1.2.4.8.
The player with the lowest final score in the Advanced, Advanced Master and Intermediate division at a SNAC, if of seven (7) or more players in the division, shall be deemed to have accepted a finishing award of money in the next higher division for which they are qualified by age and gender as listed above and may not thereafter play in a lower listed division except as reclassified in accordance with Section 1.3.

The latter would generally mean the 3 winners would have to move up for at least 4 SNQ's, Adv to Pro, A40 and Int to Adv. Intermediate winners who turn 40 could still just move up to A40.

I don't think there is any issue with these players not playing up after the SNAC. We are only talking about the winner of SNAC Playing a different division at the next seasons SNC

The last TWO winners of the SNAC ADV Masters have refused to move up...



checkmate.

Discjazz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The claim that there is a problem (bagging) in the
> Intermediate division is overrated. Forget about
> impressions, speculation and opinion for a minute
> and stick with the facts. The Intermediate
> division is the largest division at every
> tournament. See, it is doing fine. When people
> stop signing up for the Intermediate division get
> back to me on it. Until then I see no reason to
> risk wrecking what is working by taking possible
> winnings from the players who sign up for it.
>
> Recast the problem as a dwindling Advanced
> division. Solution - make it more like what is
> working - the Intermediate division. There is one
> easy, efficient and complete fix for the problem
> and it does not require a SN rule change, ratings
> or non-score entrant money re-distribution. It
> is, I think, essentially a flight system as GW
> suggested, although I am not familiar personally
> with how the stick golfers do it. TD's can make
> the Int. & Adv. divisions the same size and shift
> money to advanced without depriving any player of
> their shot at it by using classification and 1st
> round score to set the divisions.
>
> It is still up to TD's though. It is pretty lame
> to tell TD's who are filling their events that
> what they are doing is wrong. Again stick with
> the most important fact. If their events are
> filling they are doing it right. It's the only
> reason we have a SN series at all, TD's making
> large numbers of players happy with their events.
> If bunches of players are paying their entry
> things just can't be that bad. I'm not saying
> there is no room for improvement. I'm just
> suggesting a perspective. Don't throw the baby
> out with the bath water.

Lmao...the intermediate division is full so we should leave it alone...are you serious. The reason it is full, is its the easiest to win in, and pays more because of those extra players. So if you pay more in advanced and pro, then those players will move up...I guarantee it.

If it were changed, answer me this. Would you rather slaughter players you are way better than for 3-4 disc, or play with people who you can beat some days, and them beat you some days for 10-15 disc???

Championships would be even more spread out for the higher divisions...pay the ones who earn it, and spread out the pay in intermediate more if anything, but there is no reason the winner of intermediate should win more than advanced,
ad advanced more than open...any day.

The original question was as Eric stated, no SNAC repeat winners. The problem with that generally as stated by others is that a player's ability can change over the course of a year and it is not so clearly universally fair to exclude repeats as it is to just make winners move up a while and at least test the waters. Wayne references two SNAC winners who "have refused to move up" that he thinks should have, so maybe just a move up rule would take care of them and the like without having to rule out all repeats. After all if those 2 had been required to move up under the rule I proposed, they either would have cashed and been stuck up or not cashed for 4 and be allowed to move back down like anyone else. I don't think we should have a rule that essentially excludes them from competing fairly in any SNC because their play has been proven (by 4 losses) to be not good enough for P40 or Advanced yet they are excluded from A40 as a potential repeat. I'm not saying what is fair or not for Wayne's 2 A40 winners. I'm just saying that a move up rule might be more fair than a no repeat rule.

My response to Chad is that "yes" intermediate is large. That is not a bad thing. What we need to do is make Advanced larger, not necessarily make Int smaller. We could make Int smaller without making Adv larger and that would be a bad thing. If we keep them all and put them where they are proven by their score to belong we have done no harm and made competition more fair. What we should be focused on is an objective way for everyone to play in a large division of similar skill, not making Int smaller. Int is clearly working as a division, by the numbers.

Jazz you totally missed my point. To say its working because its got more players makes no sense. If everyone in advanced that doesn't cash 4 tourneys drops down, and the next tourney you have has 75 intermediates and 2 advanced players, does that mean intermediate is doing that much better, or did more people decide to bag with a better chance to win more prizes??? Open and all the masters players can do the same, until there is 1 player in every division except intermediate, (because one would have to cash). Then in your way, intermediate would be perfect, because now we have 80 intermediates, 1 advanced, and 1 open. Now we don't need to work on getting 50 or so of those intermediates to move up, we just need to get more open and advanced players to show up. But when they do, then why not step down and play for more winnings.

I'm not saying that'll happen, because some people have pride in playing peoe of there skill level or better. But for the ones that don't move up, they take away from the ones who aren't as skilled. Without incentive to move up, like better payouts instead of less payouts in a higher division, they'll never move up.

Suggestion for the newly elected BoD concerning payouts:

Pro Division: Pay Top 1/3 (or more)
Adv Division: Pay 50% of the Field
Intermediate Division: PAY ONLY THE TOP 1/3 OR LESS

I never understand why someone placing 15th in a pool of 30 players would receive anything for finishing!
It seems the same principle as when I coached youth sports that everyone gets a trophy.
We're all grown ups and realize that some days we play good and some days we don't.
Reward those who play good on certain days and be done with it.
Give out nice player packs if you want everyone to get a prize.

Agree with hudd, have standardized tournament formats for divisions and prizes across the SN Land for TD's to understand and follow.
But first, standardized tournament guidelines need to be written.

Eric Day Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think there is any issue with these
> players not playing up after the SNAC. We are only
> talking about the winner of SNAC Playing a
> different division at the next seasons SNC

That's what a majority of us are talking about... repeat winner is playing same division. Do you read our post? LOL.

Also, I predict ZERO BOD members being at the SNAC!

Joey,
Why pay advance field 50%, but only pay open 1/3? I think is should be the reverse. Pay the pro deeper so more cash and stay in the division.

___________________________________________________________________________
Keith "Sunshine" B

Chad I think your point is that a large division is not necessarily good. My point is that a large division is necessarily good. Any division system that brings in the players is good, for everyone. Whatever our formula for that obvious Intermediate success is, we need to apply it to make the Advanced division large too. Don't take potential winnings away from the Intermediates. Give them a chance to win or lose a portion of entry in the 1st round by their score. Make Int & Adv the same division the 1st round. A TD can make this happen. Be a TD.

Dillon Gourley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Eric Day Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I don't think there is any issue with these
> > players not playing up after the SNAC. We are
> only
> > talking about the winner of SNAC Playing a
> > different division at the next seasons SNC
>
> That's what a majority of us are talking about...
> repeat winner is playing same division. Do you
> read our post? LOL.
>
> Also, I predict ZERO BOD members being at the
> SNAC!


I was speaking of the post right above me when I posted that, I didn't realize I needed to quote it for you....

I believe Pat and John will be at the SNACs not sure on the others.

Discjazz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Chad I think your point is that a large division
> is not necessarily good. My point is that a large
> division is necessarily good. Any division system
> that brings in the players is good, for everyone.
> Whatever our formula for that obvious Intermediate
> success is, we need to apply it to make the
> Advanced division large too. Don't take potential
> winnings away from the Intermediates. Give them a
> chance to win or lose a portion of entry in the
> 1st round by their score. Make Int & Adv the same
> division the 1st round. A TD can make this
> happen. Be a TD.


It's not the size of any division, that makes it good or bad. The point is, it is large because, it's easiest to win in, and no reason to move up for less payout.

So I guess what I'm saying is, pay the better players more money, and the better classes will grow. Simple as that.

Yes Chad, the size of a division is a perfect measure of a good division. If everyone were in the same division it would not be so easy to win anymore but it would still be good if it generated 90 entrants. Heard of the USDGC? (at least the way it used to be). You can have a Gold Platinum Olympic division if you want to but if nobody signs up it is not a good division. You can sign up for Super Novice and if it generates 40 entrants you're playing in a great division. Hint, "great" = "big".

Since your point is "pay the better players more money", then you should eliminate all divisions except Open. That would be the one sure fire way to "pay the better players more money". Attendance might be down a tad, just like it might be if the Intermediates know going in they will not be allowed to win X% of their entry.

How does this sound?
All open divisions pay 45-50%
All adv divisions pay 30-35%
am pay 20-25%
nov,jr pay 50% as these are usually small & need to keep our jrs interested and can only play nov once

now do something like take 25% of am entry and 20% of adv entry and add to pro entry making pro payout anywhere from 130-145% each tournament depending on their entry fees. Also make it mandatory to have some type of players pack whether it be a disc or shirt or whatever for the am divisions, excluding fundraiser tournaments of course.

2011 Adv Points Champion
2011 Am player of the year

I think in the AM division that it shouldn't be a percentage that is paid out. I think it should be a set amount like top 3 spots no matter if there are 5 or 555. The only tournament that should be different is the SNAC. Think ADV should pay 33%....Pro divisions..33-50%

I college if you are not quiet ready for the college level classes you sometimes have to take intermediate classes. What these classes are there for is to get you ready for the next level, the real classes. That is what our AM ( intermediate) divison should be used for as well. Not for a place that a player can go and hang out in for years and years cashing 10-15 times a year..recieving 100-200 discs and then turning around and selling them.
Don't get me wrong, there are players that just don't have that skill set to move up.

Under our rules one can play Novice, and any other division, forever. The only move up rule we have ever had is that a TD can force a move up (or out) in the TD's event(s).

Good luck standardizing field percentage payouts. There are about as many different opinions on it as there are posters. I think most TD's would prefer a standard to follow rather than endless debate/criticism over it. Give TD's a tool to actually count the money and you will be helping. Otherwise why not just stay out of the TD's business and focus on making the series competition fair.

Why should the SN try to curtail masses of players who want to play for tons of plastic year after year? There is nothing unfair about it.

Give them a tool to add up the money(I assume you mean percentages)???
A calculator maybe???

Counting the money from entries to individual payout amounts is more than addition and more than I would prefer to do between rounds by calculator. Consider the TD perspective.

If simple percentages are too much for them to handle in a 4 hour period, then maybe they shouldn't be a TD...

If I've learned one thing as a td its that you will NEVER make all the players happy.

2011 Adv Points Champion
2011 Am player of the year

An excel spreadsheet can easily calculate the payout.

You could even put a page on this site where you could fill in the blanks and hit 1 button to calculate payouts, fees, etc.

You will never make all people or players happy, no matter what you do.

Playing music taught me that years ago

As a T.D., there are a lot of little things that have to be taken care of, and it last for a lot more than 4 hours, we got pencils,,who has the board, I got the cards, sign up sheets, who is doing the sign up, putting out water, has the course been cut and cleaned, the ropes where put out yesterday, are we cooking, who is going to the store, don't forget the round cards, she already got the Baton Rouge Bucks, someone need to help with the selling of disc, how about unloading the trailer, how did we forget the tables, must put up the tents, did we get the poweraid, who picked up the plaques, no 6'6'' is not in effect, yes the water is out of bounds not the bridge, got to have the pay outs ready for dinner, where is the cash box, do we have starter money, printed out the CTPs yesterday, ring of fire prizes, ace pot don't forget the ace pot, and we need some one to run it.
Oh crap, I forgot the ice, have we found the board, take care of insurance, be prepared for bad weather

And don't think it ends when the tourney is over, clean up, pick up, send in fee's, S.N. and Park, more if it is dual sanctioned

So Discjazz is right about having a standard, otherwise just go play


Dex

Nice flash of the TD mind set there Dex. I can tell you have lived some TD experience like several of the other posters on here.

Willy B.T. gave us a four page things to do for T.D.s list, and it starts several days out

it is like a T.D. Bible

Thanks Will

Dex

Willy B.T. helped us learn the TD ropes way back in the day too, probably before he had an actual list, but he knew what he was doing even then. We all listen and learn, and that is what keeps the SN going and growing.