From Craig Gangloff (pdga message board)who TD'd this tournemant: "I think what I learned is that the sliding scale does a couple things.1) It reduces your expectation of what 1st place cash should be for a field of 65 players. It’s not a bad thing – just different – 1st place was a little over $500. A couple ways to deal with this – change the scale to make the bottom ceiling a little higher (maybe $60 for a 2 day event instead of $40), increase the ratings windows as CK suggested above …………or raise more added cash!! (Always a difficult task) or some combination of those.2) It met my expectations for a nice even distribution. 15th place got over $100.3) It met my expectations for equity across what would otherwise be separate divisions – of 31 players who cashed, 11 were masters aged players, 10 were what the PDGA would say qualify for MA1 (under 970).4) I think overall there was good value offered for a fair price for all players (of course mine might be a biased opinion – so I am interested in how others feel)I have yet to get much feedback from the survey I put in the program (Saturday’s rain storm probably trashed most of the programs) – but I am hopeful I will get some meaningful responses still.One more note of interest. We had nine players in the MGM division. Only one would have cashed in the MPO division and he was rated 974 – and would have tied the one MGM player who did play in the MPO division. This to me validates the over 50 split for divisional play (at least to what I would consider a reasonable degree). " For more on the results and discussion.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Update on New Concept for Tournaments
From Craig Gangloff (pdga message board)who TD'd this tournemant: "I think what I learned is that the sliding scale does a couple things.1) It reduces your expectation of what 1st place cash should be for a field of 65 players. It’s not a bad thing – just different – 1st place was a little over $500. A couple ways to deal with this – change the scale to make the bottom ceiling a little higher (maybe $60 for a 2 day event instead of $40), increase the ratings windows as CK suggested above …………or raise more added cash!! (Always a difficult task) or some combination of those.2) It met my expectations for a nice even distribution. 15th place got over $100.3) It met my expectations for equity across what would otherwise be separate divisions – of 31 players who cashed, 11 were masters aged players, 10 were what the PDGA would say qualify for MA1 (under 970).4) I think overall there was good value offered for a fair price for all players (of course mine might be a biased opinion – so I am interested in how others feel)I have yet to get much feedback from the survey I put in the program (Saturday’s rain storm probably trashed most of the programs) – but I am hopeful I will get some meaningful responses still.One more note of interest. We had nine players in the MGM division. Only one would have cashed in the MPO division and he was rated 974 – and would have tied the one MGM player who did play in the MPO division. This to me validates the over 50 split for divisional play (at least to what I would consider a reasonable degree). " For more on the results and discussion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment