Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members

INTERMEDIATE DIVISION 2010 Options
Phil Miller
Posted: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 5:48:51 PM

Rank: Extreme Veteran

Joined: 12/12/2003
Posts: 497
Location: Where it gets the hose again.
NEngle wrote:



I like yours better Nick
NatiBuckeye
Posted: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 6:09:17 PM

Rank: Extreme Veteran

Joined: 8/13/2008
Posts: 348
Location: Mt lookout
clearly there is a point to the INT division if it was created by the PDGA for the majority of its tournaments.

finnhawc
Posted: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 6:28:22 PM

Rank: Elite Veteran

Joined: 1/16/2007
Posts: 912
Location: Wyoming
And another thing... IMO Ratings systems work well only after a critical mass of data is collected. Quite difficult at the novice level. And, BTW- THIS IS A FORUM FOR DISCUSSION so get over the fact that it is being used as such! My solution is make novice pay the same as advanced and give them less payout-pulling the extra money and adding it to the Open purses.
mikekem
Posted: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:02:17 PM

Rank: Extreme Veteran

Joined: 2/16/2008
Posts: 400
Location: Lebanon
Madmike wrote:
get em mikey!! LOL So it would be like freds semi pro division??? Im not tryin to get anything started by that post mike about the between open and advanced wouldnt that do the same as would addin intermediate i mean give them more experienced players more chances to cashand win ?? That to me just seems all that the GCFDA is only here to benefit the open players just saying you know if that was the case then it then would only be right to add the intermediate division. This who debate thing is the same as for the reasons why i dont get involved with the government cause its all politics and all meant to benefit the rich ( or for this instance OPEN divisions) and screw the rest of the people who put in just as much practice and if I may play twice as hard to make something of what they have!!!!


I'm not sure why my point keeps getting missed here. I DON'T want a division between Pro and Open.  I'm commenting on this mentallity that you must have a prize all the time during competition.  We've all gone through the same system up until now. When you first move up to the next division whatever it may be you shouldn't expect to be in the top %50, should you? 

Also the only players that Open players care about are other open players.  What possible relevance does a Rec, Int or Adv player have to an open player.  That has been mentioned countless times on this tread.  Please explain how open players are benifiting by preventing an itermediate division.

Edit: I take it back, please don't explain. This arguement has gone on too long. /Edit

Comparing the CCS to the PDGA is apples and oranges. An advanced player in the CCS is usually more like an Intermediate in the PDGA.  Advanced PDGA players fall more inbetween CCS Adv-Pro.  To me we already have the equivalent of the PDGA intermediate division but it's called Advanced.

I'm tired of arguing this point as well.  It seems like there is enough support for this division.  My concern is that it will bastardize the system and create more bagging. 

Horse dead and beaten severely.


NatiBuckeye
Posted: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:15:37 PM

Rank: Extreme Veteran

Joined: 8/13/2008
Posts: 348
Location: Mt lookout
finnhawc wrote:
\ My solution is make novice pay the same as advanced and give them less payout-pulling the extra money and adding it to the Open purses.


Why in the world would u pull the novice money and give it to open players??? 

You want to punish players who support the sport and our club for just now starting to play, or not being able to practice during the week??
STEVO
Posted: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:19:58 PM
Rank: Veteran

Joined: 3/10/2003
Posts: 228
I just don't think it will add any extra participation to the CCS, but there seems to be a lot of interest among those involved. So come to the meeting and vote for it.

If I had a rating, I'm sure it would be low enough for Intermediate, so do it. I'm running low on plastic anyway. laugh
andersab
Posted: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:56:33 PM

Rank: Elite Veteran

Joined: 5/22/2006
Posts: 692
Location: in the chains
NatiBuckeye wrote:


Why in the world would u pull the novice money and give it to open players???

You want to punish players who support the sport and our club for just now starting to play, or not being able to practice during the week??


Obviously you haven't been around long... This is how most tournaments work.  Amatuers pay money... % of your entry goes to open purse. Its how things work monetarily (is that a word?).  I can tell you that very few PDGA tournaments would be ran without that exact scenario...

I don't think its all that wise at CCS, but hey while changes are in the works...

NatiBuckeye
Posted: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 7:58:10 PM

Rank: Extreme Veteran

Joined: 8/13/2008
Posts: 348
Location: Mt lookout
I do understand the basic principle, I dont see how pulling more money is at all justifiable.
DrewMiller(RH)
Posted: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 8:30:43 PM

Rank: Veteran

Joined: 5/25/2009
Posts: 200
Location: Loveland
Sc0rch3d wrote: I was 41 yrs old last yr when i started playing disc golf.....i placed 11th at harbin(our 1st ccs), 6th at the 2nd event and then went on to bring the trophy home. I threw 3 arms off wrkin on my drive and it turned out i had a knack for the game. Just makin sure noone is mixing me up with the bagger talk again....its all i heard. But i must admitt, my goal is to be called a bagger on the advanced card this yr lol. we will see if im so lucky


This is the perfect example of a competitive player vs. a recreational player. Competitive players are driven, driven by their passion for competition and progression. Recreational players are those who enjoy the game, enjoy the competition, but either don't have the time or the drive to committ to improving their game. What % of novic players are first year players? Novice implies beginner: somebody who is beginning or learning an activity and has acquired little skill. I think that's an inaccurate description of those players and it implies that is the leauge one should play in at first, but some players are naturals, some players work hard and acquire skill. Yet, they stay in "Novice" because of the point series incentive and the very title of the division. Lawerence is the poster child for this (funny calling someone 41 a child, no disrespect Lawerence, I got mad respect for your improvement this year.....I was on that card at Harbinthumbsup ). See, this being Lawerences first year, he fit the descritpion of a "novice", a beginner with little skill. Then he got game, but he stayed in the novice divsion because he was a "beginner" technically and was incentivized to stay in Novice due to the point series structure.

Now, if you look at the definition of Recreational, not for work: done or used for pleasure or relaxation rather than work. I think this better describes the "Novice" division. Lawerence definately would not fit this descritption because as he put it, he "threw 3 arms off WRKIN" on his drive. If you look at the opposite spectrum, the Open division AKA "Pro" short for "Professional as in businesslike: conforming to the standards of skill, competence, or character normally expected of a properly qualified and experienced person in a work environment. Thus recreational, is almost a perfect antonym for Pro, and fits well given the two divisions are on the opposite side of the spectrum.

So, that leaves us with, what's in between? Say "Intermediate, defined as something between two other things: something that lies or occurs between two different forms, states, points, or extremes.....

So I propose the following:annouce

Change the name of Novice to Recreational
Change the name of Advanced to Intermediate
Eliminate the points for Recreational division

All with the purpose of bringing clarity to the divisions and to help navigate players into the appropriate divison based off of their skill level and committment to the sport.

 
finnhawc
Posted: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:43:15 AM

Rank: Elite Veteran

Joined: 1/16/2007
Posts: 912
Location: Wyoming
Quite, so!            It isn't too disrespectful to pay homage to the masters(Not that I am one, lmao) of your sport even if in the form of $1 or $2 per am player. I'm just Saiyen, ya know.
perica
Posted: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 9:38:59 AM

Rank: Extreme Veteran

Joined: 9/18/2005
Posts: 370
Location: Where it puts the lotion on its skin
mikekem wrote:


I'm not sure why my point keeps getting missed here. I DON'T want a division between Pro and Open.  I'm commenting on this mentallity that you must have a prize all the time during competition.  We've all gone through the same system up until now. When you first move up to the next division whatever it may be you shouldn't expect to be in the top %50, should you?



Mike nailed it here.  If you expect to always cash, then you are playing in the wrong division.  That is of course unless you're in open.
Erik
Posted: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 9:55:08 AM

Rank: Veteran

Joined: 2/17/2009
Posts: 212

Phil Miller wrote:


Point is, you worked on your game.


Point is, not many people pick up the game this quickly.

 

finnhawc wrote:
And another thing... IMO Ratings systems work well only after a critical mass of data is collected. Quite difficult at the novice level. And, BTW- THIS IS A FORUM FOR DISCUSSION so get over the fact that it is being used as such! My solution is make novice pay the same as advanced and give them less payout-pulling the extra money and adding it to the Open purses.

 

The data is out there, we just need to use it.  I fully agree on this being a discussion.  This is to express new ideas, old ideas, as well as pros and cons to anything brought up.

 

I also am not opposed to the purses of advanced and open both getting larger from intermediate.  It promotes people to get better and play for bigger prizes.  But it also discourages bagging.  I am sure this would match what is already going on anyways…

 

mikekem wrote:
I'm not sure why my point keeps getting missed here.

 

I will try to hit all your points here…

 

mikekem wrote:
I DON'T want a division between Pro and Open.  I'm commenting on this mentality that you must have a prize all the time during competition.  We've all gone through the same system up until now. When you first move up to the next division whatever it may be you shouldn't expect to be in the top %50, should you?

 

Stating “we have all gone through the same system” is a close minded mentality that does not want to improve the tournaments.   If the system could be improved, then why not improve it?

 

I would say any given day you could be in the top 50%.  Look at Phil Miller for example. 

 

Phil Miller wrote:
I haven't won a tournament since I moved up to Open. I cash occasionally and I am OK with that.

 

He is bragging that he is playing up a division because he likes the harder competition and it makes him a better player.  He still cashs! Which would definitely be in the top 50%....

 

mikekem wrote:
Also the only players that Open players care about are other open players.  What possible relevance does a Rec, Int or Adv player have to an open player.  That has been mentioned countless times on this tread.  Please explain how open players are benefiting by preventing an intermediate division.
Edit: I take it back, please don't explain. This argument has gone on too long. /Edit

 

I was about to start pulling quotes from people saying adding a division would be more work, take away from other divisions, etc… But I am sure you could or have read these as well.

mikekem wrote:
Comparing the CCS to the PDGA is apples and oranges. An advanced player in the CCS is usually more like an Intermediate in the PDGA.  Advanced PDGA players fall more in-between CCS Adv-Pro.  To me we already have the equivalent of the PDGA intermediate division but it's called Advanced.

 

As many people have stated here before, most recreations in a PDGA tournament would be intermediates in the CCS if we had it.

mikekem wrote:
I'm tired of arguing this point as well.  It seems like there is enough support for this division.  My concern is that it will bastardize the system and create more bagging.

 

If done properly more bagging should not occur.  Utilizing a rating system would prove to be beneficial.  Adding an extra division without some way to regulate the bagging would definitely bastardize the system.

mikekem wrote:
Horse dead and beaten severely.

 

I am surprise you could even identify the dead caucus as a horse after all this beating!

 

STEVO wrote:
I just don't think it will add any extra participation to the CCS, but there seems to be a lot of interest among those involved. So come to the meeting and vote for it.
  It would actually add a lot of people who previously felt they were just throwing away their money.  I for sure will be at the meeting on Monday.  Got my $5 off for Uno’s ready in my wallet!  lol

STEVO wrote:
If I had a rating, I'm sure it would be low enough for Intermediate, so do it. I'm running low on plastic anyway. laugh
  If you rating is low enough, then there would be good competition, why would we care if you won by competing fairly…

 

DrewMiller(RH) wrote:
So I propose the following:annouce

Change the name of Novice to Recreational
Change the name of Advanced to Intermediate
Eliminate the points for Recreational division

So what has changed?  Taking series points away from novice/recreational.  Call it what you will, but there needs to be regulation on these 3 groups.

Erik
Posted: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:22:06 AM

Rank: Veteran

Joined: 2/17/2009
Posts: 212
I don’t think everyone realizes how much draw there is for regulated intermediate divisions. I get stopped on the courses by people thanking me for being so vocal on this. I get PM’s and emails asking me to keep up the good work, fight for the new/lower level players, etc.

The bagging will not be solved by eliminating the points for rec/novice. It needs to be regulated change. Also, why would anyone want to turn away all these people wanting to play intermediate? Charge them $10, given them less prizes than advanced and give more prizes/money advanced and open. It is a no brainer!

Novice - $5 entry. Not in the series and hardly any payout at all. Prizes include instructional DVD, markers from local shops, etc… new player gifts. (Most people will not play this division, but the option is there for the occasional new player)
Intermediate - $10 entry. (Most old “novice” players will be here.) Charged more and getting a fair game, but the same prizes. Ratings enforced for leading players.
Advanced - $10 entry. Charged the same and getting the more prizes. Ratings enforced for leading players.
Open - $20 entry. Charged the same and getting the more.

And if a player improves along the way, let them move up…
Sigafoos
Posted: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 10:23:49 AM
Rank: Tree Hukker

Joined: 7/16/2008
Posts: 5
Location: Hyde Park
As a newbie to CGFDA events, I played in Novice for Mt Airy and Banklick course challenges. Those were my first two events. I'm planning on playing Advanced next year, but I can see the desire for an Intermediate division, as there were quite a few players in Advanced that were much better than me. I do appreciate competition, but less so when there's little to nil chance of me coming in a even a moderately respectable position on the leaderboard due to the skill level of the others in the division...

One thing I noticed that I would be opposed to would be the siphoning off of $ paid by Novice players to fund the prizes in other divisions... Sorry, but I would be strongly opposed to paying as much as Advanced division to fund the purse and prizes of another division. I'd rather spend that money on a twelve-pack and go to another course and play with friends than have my entry fee go to a division other than mine.
Erik
Posted: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 11:12:26 AM

Rank: Veteran

Joined: 2/17/2009
Posts: 212

Sigafoos wrote:
As a newbie to CGFDA events, I played in Novice for Mt Airy and Banklick course challenges. Those were my first two events. I'm planning on playing Advanced next year, but I can see the desire for an Intermediate division, as there were quite a few players in Advanced that were much better than me. I do appreciate competition, but less so when there's little to nil chance of me coming in a even a moderately respectable position on the leaderboard due to the skill level of the others in the division... One thing I noticed that I would be opposed to would be the siphoning off of $ paid by Novice players to fund the prizes in other divisions... Sorry, but I would be strongly opposed to paying as much as Advanced division to fund the purse and prizes of another division. I'd rather spend that money on a twelve-pack and go to another course and play with friends than have my entry fee go to a division other than mine.

 

If you were willing to pay the $10 for advanced, why not pay $10 for intermediate and have a more respectable position on the leader board?

 

I would think the other divisions are already being siihoned to give more cash to the open players.  What is the difference?

 

This could be confirmed by posting the “Pre-made chart” that is used to calculate the payout.

 

 

 

Prizes:

Cash is awarded to Open/Master/Grandmaster divisions. All other divisions receive credit towards discs and miscellaneous equipment sold after the awards are finished. A pre-made chart is used to calculate the payout.

finnhawc
Posted: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 2:11:45 PM

Rank: Elite Veteran

Joined: 1/16/2007
Posts: 912
Location: Wyoming
No, Erik there currently is no shifting of funds in the CCS. It is a sign of respect I don't expect from anybody living in this vacuous culture.
Phil Miller
Posted: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 2:15:32 PM

Rank: Extreme Veteran

Joined: 12/12/2003
Posts: 497
Location: Where it gets the hose again.
Erik wrote:

 

If you were willing to pay the $10 for advanced, why not pay $10 for intermediate and have a more respectable position on the leader board?

 

I would think the other divisions are already being siihoned to give more cash to the open players.  What is the difference?

 

This could be confirmed by posting the “Pre-made chart” that is used to calculate the payout.

 

 

 

Prizes:

Cash is awarded to Open/Master/Grandmaster divisions. All other divisions receive credit towards discs and miscellaneous equipment sold after the awards are finished. A pre-made chart is used to calculate the payout.



Currently no money from other divisions goes to Open in the CCS. Prizes awarded and number of payout spots are by number of players for each division. I can't remember the exact formula and don't see the chart posted anywhere. ( I was looking for it here this morning, it used to be on the old site). As far as I know , no money has ever been taken from the other divisions to supplement Open.  That's why the cost to play Open was raised from $15 to $20 a few years ago. There were consistently low turnouts for Open, and the thought was that more money would entice the pro's to come out.


Erik
Posted: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 2:36:43 PM

Rank: Veteran

Joined: 2/17/2009
Posts: 212

finnhawc wrote:
No, Erik there currently is no shifting of funds in the CCS. It is a sign of respect I don't expect from anybody living in this vacuous culture.

 

Odd, I would think that would be the incentive to move up.   I would think the lower levels would not mind since they would have a better chance of winning this way.

 

Phil Miller wrote:

I can't remember the exact formula and don't see the chart posted anywhere. ( I was looking for it here this morning, it used to be on the old site).

 

I was looking for it too.

mikekem
Posted: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 3:53:31 PM

Rank: Extreme Veteran

Joined: 2/16/2008
Posts: 400
Location: Lebanon
You're right, I'm tired of fighting this. You DO continue to miss my points. Taking one snippet out of a entire paragraph is not a complete point. But if you want the division I'll even vote yes for it. This whole conversation has been cycled at least 5 times. No one is coming up with anything new to add the argument.

Here's what I see happening:

Novice $5: people will bag here for financial reasons sometimes. People will still bag here. Will discontinue to be part of the points series
Intermediate $10: Ratings will NOT be enforced but can be used as peer pressure. Will not solve bagging problem but will please the entire world apparently. More people will bag here. I don't see participation going up either. Will not be part of the points series.
Advanced $10: Same as last year.
Open $20: Same as last year

Please don't quote me, you already have my vote. I'm tired of having to double and triple explain things.
andersab
Posted: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:20:43 PM

Rank: Elite Veteran

Joined: 5/22/2006
Posts: 692
Location: in the chains
I think everyone is missing one major point...

Dave Marlow is the CCS Coordinator. I don't know where he is with everything being planned, but its his decision!!! He's the one that has to get the different colors of board cards, figure out the payout during lunch of each tournament, setup the TD book for everyone to use, etc.

This may/may not be a great idea but it should be his decision. If he says that he has most stuff done, then maybe next year...

At least put some type of formal purposal together to be reviewed. He doesn't read the board hardly at all. And if you are going to try to get a vote, don't you think that purposal will help people (and Dave) make better decisions? All I know right now is someone(s) wants an Intermediate division, is it required for someone to create new ratings? Who will govern, etc?

This argument has gone around and around, lets see something formal from those of you that are wanting this. If you go to the meeting with something organized, its been my experience that things go a little more smoothly.
agentdozzer
Posted: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:24:18 PM

Rank: Veteran

Joined: 5/14/2006
Posts: 295
I agree with Mikekem on what he sees happening and completely fine with the intermediate costing the same as advance. The only problem I have with that proposal is the dropping of the points series, I dont think it will encourage people to move up mid year cause they would already be behind by the point they decided to move up. So there's nothing left of the horse and we have Int costing the same as advance with a smaller payout, sounds good. Guess well see monday.
DrewMiller(RH)
Posted: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 7:16:39 PM

Rank: Veteran

Joined: 5/25/2009
Posts: 200
Location: Loveland
FYI-I calculated player ratings for 180 rounds from league data that I have. Given, we don't have any player with a PDGA rating hire than 950 playing leagues, the ratings are superficialy inflated. The correction factor is unknown since so few of the players in league play PDGA tournaments and have a current rating (won't be an issue). Of the data, the interquartile ranges follow:

Q1-850
Med-900
Q3-930

These seemed like logical placements for division rating requirements:
Novice Less than 850
Int 850-900
Adv 900-930
Open-930 and above

I then calculated the median for each player, placed them in the appropriate divsion, and then using a quick V look up, updated my data set tagging each round with the division that player would be in.

Then, running a moods median(Anova for nonparametric data, non normal) I validated the placement of the division ratings when the test clearly displayed statistical difference between all 4 groups.

I can perform the same analysis with last years CCS scores, cross referening rating history from the PDGA. It should be much more accurate given the CCS is a larger sample size, and has current PDGA ratings from across all divisions....

One thing I noticed in the league scores was the difference in standard deviation in the divisions:
N was 80
I was 40
A was 33
O was 30

I expect the difference between O and A in the CCS to be more pronounced due to Dave Cox, Vandemark, and those other super consistent open players. Looks like I know what I'm doing with my Sunday morning.....and evening, :-)
DrewMiller(RH)
Posted: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 7:19:51 PM

Rank: Veteran

Joined: 5/25/2009
Posts: 200
Location: Loveland
I'll have the SSA for the courses too
mikekem
Posted: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 8:07:07 PM

Rank: Extreme Veteran

Joined: 2/16/2008
Posts: 400
Location: Lebanon
SSA is the problem with the current system's ratings. Too often CCS have extra holes added or changed thus changing the round ratings.
boss00
Posted: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 8:11:21 PM
Rank: Tree Hukker

Joined: 1/30/2010
Posts: 10
is this not going a little bit overboard?lol with all the data calculations
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

YAFPro Theme Created by Jaben Cargman (Tiny Gecko)
Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.7 running under DotNetNuke.
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.