This thread was started to see if people thought that lessening the max number of counting tourneys would increase KDGA membership by giving everyone more of a shot to make it into the skins competition. I've stated why I don't think this will be the case. I will give a couple of extreme examples to illustrate my point.
Let one scenario be that we count all tournaments, just like Dyck said. This supports both skillful play AND tourney attendance. This was the way it actually used to be done, I believe. There is nothing wrong with this method, in my opinion. Almost 90% of the players who made it in were the most skilled players while 10% might have been the ones who were rewarded for their support of the KDGA all year round. Those folks were not the ones who won all of the skins, anyway.
Let the other scenario be that only a player's very best score (1 tournament) is counted. Obviously only the players who took 1st or 2nd at a major tournament would make it in. Do you think this gives a better chance to everyone? I know this is an extreme example, but it is just a darker shade of gray when compared to 10 or 15.
We kind of had this discussion already when we talked about having qualifying tournaments to decide the skins players instead of tracking points. The people that posted for the most part said that it would be better to reward the people that attended tourneys all year rather than 1 person that won a tournament at some point in the year.
The argument that "with so many counting tourneys, why would a professional level player want to join?" to me is not a valid one. The top players have always made it in. Often they did this with less than 15 showings. These players also often know which tourneys they will attend (more than the average player) and it won't change much with how many tourneys count towards point totals.
Let's think about the pros and cons to each situation. If we reduce the number of counting tourneys, we MIGHT get a couple of real good players like Emac or some out-of-staters to join. If we got a couple of out-of-staters to join and they attend a handful of tournaments and walk away with all of the cash, what will that do to the rest of the players tournament attendance?
I suppose that there is an argument that by bringing in some really good players to KDGA tourneys, KDGA membership will rise. Sure, I can see that. But to get the super-pros to become members... just easy skins money won't do it anyway. We will have to have several A tier events to get these results. The tournament cash is what gets the out of staters to come to Kansas. Even then, would they want to join the KDGA when they don't even live in state? I'm guessing that these are elite pro Kansas players that we are trying to reach.
Who? There are probably less than a handful who are not already in the KDGA. Why aren't they members now? That's what we should be finding out. I doubt it has to do with the skins competition, because it already favors them. How bad can it hurt to give $25 to support the KDGA (which they get right back) from players that can earn $150+ at any given KDGA tournament. If these players choose to earn more money in bigger tourneys elsewhere, that's great. Making the skins money easier to get isn't going to lure them, A-tiers will. This new scenario gives the players that are already making the most money in tournaments a lockdown on the skins also. This is supposed to be about the fun. The fun part is giving back to the dedicated players. We have to make sure that the decisions we make will encourage players to keep supporting the KDGA.
OK, it seems that we are trying to grow the sport here. This is done by aquiring new players. Why do we want to get a couple more highly skilled players and sacrifice the possibility of aquiring new players. It seemed that with creating the top ten skins competition in the amateur division, we were encouraging more new players to join. It was a hell of a good payout. By dropping the counting tourneys to 10, the only ones that will benefit are the elite pros and the sandbagger ams. These players can play 10 and gave almost a garaunteed bid, while others can play 25 or more and not have a shot. Since that would be such an exercise in futility, I doubt many would try, or even join the KDGA for that matter, if that decision was indeed based upon the skins competition.
I know I've had more than my share of opinion sharing on this topic. Lowering the number of tourney counted makes zero sense to me, especially with more tourneys next year. I think it's great that we're trying to come up with ideas to grow the sport and the KDGA, but I think that this idea would push things the other way.
Due to inactivity the KDGA forums have been locked. All past threads are still available. Please join us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/groups/kansasdiscgolf!
2005 top ten
How does the Texas 10 work?
I know that you must play in atleast 10 events to qualify for $$$ in the final event.
We could just do away with a skins match all together and do something like the Texas 10. Spread the $$ out to all of the players who attend all 10 events.
Anyone who knows how it works, chime in an help me out.
Smitty
I know that you must play in atleast 10 events to qualify for $$$ in the final event.
We could just do away with a skins match all together and do something like the Texas 10. Spread the $$ out to all of the players who attend all 10 events.
Anyone who knows how it works, chime in an help me out.
Smitty
-
Notorious ROG
- Posts: 206
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 8:53 am
- Location: OKC or WIC depends on day of week
smitty
I like they way you think........... Smitty.........
steal a good idea that seems to be working.......
steal a good idea that seems to be working.......
-
discgolfer_1999
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:25 am
- Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Lowering the number of tournies to 10 is like getting to retake a math test 5 times and drop the lowest score. Some days you just aren't in the math groove. It gives the people on the lower end of the golf curve a better chance.
I'm in favor.
I'm in favor.
I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.
-
Schoen-hopper
- Posts: 6301
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:58 pm
As stated before, I believe the opposite is true. I think that lowering the number of counting tourneys will benifit the players at the upper end of the golf curve. I gave my reasons in my posts and thought I made some good examples that have yet to be questioned.
I think that the idea of reducing the counting tourneys is deceptive because the scores will be tighter. Therefore most will believe that it is actually a closer race. I can see that there will be less opportunity for catching players will higher totals.
I gave an example of counting all tournaments and having only 1 counting tourney, in my post. I want to reconsider the scenario with 1 counting tourney. Though it may not be true, let say that the Friz gets 1.5 times the KDGA attendance over the second largest tournament of the year. In this case, this single tournament determines the top ten for the skins in both divisions. 10th place at this tourney will beat 1st at any other tourney....
My example is very extreme, but maybe someone else can see that (in the case of 10 counting tourneys) the top dozen tournaments are going to get a very significantly larger attendance. Because in Kansas we have a good idea which 10 tourneys will draw the most KDGAers, these are events that most everyone will hit, while the others being known to produce less players will be pointless to attend. Players trying to make up points at other tournaments will not succeed because there simply aren't enough players. Bonus points would be highly recommended. As this could be overdone, the amount would be really important.
As far as giving a prize to the player who attends the most tourneys... I think that is a great idea. But if this is to compensate for lowering the counting tourneys... it would have to be considerable so as not to look pale in the face of the huge skins money. Winning the tourney total and not playing in the skins would be an embarrasment.
As far as looking at this year and inspecting the "would be" results of counting only a players' ten best tournaments... I'm curious. I don't suspect that there will be much difference. But as the KDGA is relatively small, that is to be expected. I don't see that drawing conclusions from past data in which the players were playing a different strategy will be more significant than taking a look at how the probabilities will be effected in changing the system. If an organization can justify changing things whenever they feel like the outcome "won't make that much difference", things tend to go downhill for everyone involved quickly.
I wanna say that I'm not saying this to benefit myself. I've never made 15 KDGA tournaments, though I did make more than 10 on a couple of years. Who knows, maybe I would have made it in to the skins with only 10 counters (I don't believe this is the case). Those people who were dedicated to playing on the KDGA tour deserve to play in the skins competition more than I did!
I think that the idea of reducing the counting tourneys is deceptive because the scores will be tighter. Therefore most will believe that it is actually a closer race. I can see that there will be less opportunity for catching players will higher totals.
I gave an example of counting all tournaments and having only 1 counting tourney, in my post. I want to reconsider the scenario with 1 counting tourney. Though it may not be true, let say that the Friz gets 1.5 times the KDGA attendance over the second largest tournament of the year. In this case, this single tournament determines the top ten for the skins in both divisions. 10th place at this tourney will beat 1st at any other tourney....
My example is very extreme, but maybe someone else can see that (in the case of 10 counting tourneys) the top dozen tournaments are going to get a very significantly larger attendance. Because in Kansas we have a good idea which 10 tourneys will draw the most KDGAers, these are events that most everyone will hit, while the others being known to produce less players will be pointless to attend. Players trying to make up points at other tournaments will not succeed because there simply aren't enough players. Bonus points would be highly recommended. As this could be overdone, the amount would be really important.
As far as giving a prize to the player who attends the most tourneys... I think that is a great idea. But if this is to compensate for lowering the counting tourneys... it would have to be considerable so as not to look pale in the face of the huge skins money. Winning the tourney total and not playing in the skins would be an embarrasment.
As far as looking at this year and inspecting the "would be" results of counting only a players' ten best tournaments... I'm curious. I don't suspect that there will be much difference. But as the KDGA is relatively small, that is to be expected. I don't see that drawing conclusions from past data in which the players were playing a different strategy will be more significant than taking a look at how the probabilities will be effected in changing the system. If an organization can justify changing things whenever they feel like the outcome "won't make that much difference", things tend to go downhill for everyone involved quickly.
I wanna say that I'm not saying this to benefit myself. I've never made 15 KDGA tournaments, though I did make more than 10 on a couple of years. Who knows, maybe I would have made it in to the skins with only 10 counters (I don't believe this is the case). Those people who were dedicated to playing on the KDGA tour deserve to play in the skins competition more than I did!
Ok guys.. here is a list of what the top 10 (in both Pro and AM) standings would have looked like from last year had only the top 10 tournaments counted. I threw out the 5 pnt bonus Salina Ice Bowl event to help us see what just the top 10 tournament standings would look like. In both cases, the top 10 did not change, but the placings did in a few spots.
Here it is!
Top 10 PRO:
Convers 282
Smitty 262
Jon 255
Harv 246
Sandman 245
Babbit 226
Mattison 226
Bleything 223
The Dyck 207
Randy 187
Honerable mention: Dave Richardson 184, Dustin 180, Schoenhofer 171
Top 10 AM:
Jones 202
Mordecai 182
Dusty 160
Engelken 150
Darren B 136
Nick Myers 124
Brett str8 122
Hoover 117
Larry 112
Bob 109
Nobody else in AM would have had over 100.
Jon
Here it is!
Top 10 PRO:
Convers 282
Smitty 262
Jon 255
Harv 246
Sandman 245
Babbit 226
Mattison 226
Bleything 223
The Dyck 207
Randy 187
Honerable mention: Dave Richardson 184, Dustin 180, Schoenhofer 171
Top 10 AM:
Jones 202
Mordecai 182
Dusty 160
Engelken 150
Darren B 136
Nick Myers 124
Brett str8 122
Hoover 117
Larry 112
Bob 109
Nobody else in AM would have had over 100.
Jon
Thanks Jon-
Looks like it didn't matter much how many events counted. I also think that it may have lured in some other people.
Eric played in the following tourney that I can remember (Friz, Beloit, Emproia, MacPherson, Hays, Herrington). I would dare to wager that he may have been close to making it based on these events.
Robert played in several events and placed well (Beloit, Salina, Emporia, Wichita)
What about T Ruder. He probably played in close to 10 events if not more.
Ben Mass and Scuba Steve these two probably played in about 10 events and would have made it in to the top 10 no problem at all.
These are just a few people that come to mind. I don't know if fewer events counting would draw them in or not.
Other people that just popped into my head. Leo and Jeff Ring
I still like the idea of having a points race that qualifies you for a special payout. I think Reeks did this with his "super tour" idea a few years ago. I also like the idea of qualifing for a "special" event USDGC style.
Smitty
Looks like it didn't matter much how many events counted. I also think that it may have lured in some other people.
Eric played in the following tourney that I can remember (Friz, Beloit, Emproia, MacPherson, Hays, Herrington). I would dare to wager that he may have been close to making it based on these events.
Robert played in several events and placed well (Beloit, Salina, Emporia, Wichita)
What about T Ruder. He probably played in close to 10 events if not more.
Ben Mass and Scuba Steve these two probably played in about 10 events and would have made it in to the top 10 no problem at all.
These are just a few people that come to mind. I don't know if fewer events counting would draw them in or not.
Other people that just popped into my head. Leo and Jeff Ring
I still like the idea of having a points race that qualifies you for a special payout. I think Reeks did this with his "super tour" idea a few years ago. I also like the idea of qualifing for a "special" event USDGC style.
Smitty