Sanctioned or Non-Sanctioned

Let's say you're hosting, or even just attending, a tournament (one day, "C-tier" style). What do you think would be better? Sanctioned, or Non-Sanctioned? Maybe Non-Sanctioned the first time around to build a name, and then come back WITH Sanctioning next time around?

Non-Sanctioned would eliminate the $10 on-member fee, and draw more non-members to turn out. And you could drink all you want (as I like to do) and do all your other wacky stuff.

But wouldn't a Sanctioned event draw more pro players, since the scores will go to points, and ratings on the PDGA side of things? And the non-members who don't show up (because of the $10 fee), wouldn't be bagging and take all the am payout.

I'm just tossing this around trying to get ideas for something I would like to do next year. Thinking of maybe trying to start a little tour of some sort, here in my region of the world. It probably won't happen due to lack of funds, but I have someone interested and asking me to get it all figured out on the technical side of things. And make him the pitch.

[Hootie]

Go sanctioned all the way. Maybe the non-members should give some of their hard-earned cash each year to the PDGA, who is working to get more courses in the ground for both members and non-members alike. Then they wouldnt have to pay the extra $10. A big-name Pro who may be in the area at that time will be more likely to sign up for a PDGA-sanctioned event as well (especially if the cash prize is nice), and this could help draw more people to your tourney. I really enjoy casual rounds, but I also enjoy getting serious for a tournament, and thats why i think people prefer PDGA-sanctioned events (plus members get points, which is goo to keep track of your progress).

[Rob Peil]

Hootie said:

Maybe the non-members should give some of their hard-earned cash each year to the PDGA, who is working to get more courses in the ground for both members and non-members alike.

What?

[Chuck Kennedy]

Mark Stephens said:

I will agree with the what comment.

The PDGA did not help us get any courses in the ground. They do other things but, I would say that it not one of them.

If a local player gets a course in the ground and they happen to be both a PDGA member and local club member, why does the local club get more credit than the PDGA for this particular person's effort? All this person did is pay dues to both clubs. All clubs are a reflection of the efforts made by their members. The PDGA does huge amounts of local work thru their members as it is still mostly an organization of volunteers.

[Chuck Kennedy]

Bob Jones does 10 hours of volunteer work and he's not a member of any club.
Steve Smith does 10 hours of volunteer work and he's a local club member
Jan White does 10 hours of volunteer work and she's only a PDGA member
Chris Wilson does 10 hours of volunteer work and he's both a PDGA member and local club member

In all cases, it's just local people volunteering. And yet, somehow the local club naturally gets credit for the effort versus the PDGA for the two who are members. Whether paying club dues or PDGA dues, none of that money helps me do that volunteer work. But the money simply helps bring together like minded people to do something good for the sport. And yet, when money is spent on the PDGA, they are supposed to "do something" locally based on that money and yet, the same amount of money contributed to local dues also doesn't do much other than cover admin cost. Most of all value delivered locally is simply the labor of the volunteers and many of them are legitimately PDGA as much as any local club. But it's human nature to credit the local club.

[Chuck Kennedy]

I'm just saying the credit should be proportional and the PDGA typically gets zero for the work our members do for courses, running events, doing local outreach and education. If I do something locally, it's now perceived as being the PDGA doing something since I do a lot for them nationally. But it's still just me doing the same work on courses I did when I started in 1989 and the local club should get some credit. On the other hand, if a PDGA member does something wrong, you know that it will reflect poorly on the org. People are more than willing to dole out criticism than grant credit.

[4U2NV]

Sanctioned,

As for this discussion between Chuck and Mark, I have to agree with Mark. The mentality of local players is usually a result of the local club moreso then the PDGA as a whole. Local club players are on the ground cleaning the grounds, pushing for more courses, installing courses, promoting the game, even promoting involvement in the PDGA..

[Terry "the Pirate" Calhoun]

IMHO, there is nothing the PDGA does that does not contribute to more courses getting into the ground. For example, I consider the work I have done a Bandemer, Waterloo, Pinconning, Mary Beth Doyle, and other places to have been work on behalf of a3disc members, MDGO members, PDGA members, and nonmembers alike. But having the PDGA's presence is helpful in ways that permeate all of disc golf.

At Pinconning, for example, they were able to funnel tax deductible donations** to the course through the 501(c)(3) organization that the PDGA set up for such things, the Disc Golf Foundation, which got their major contributors receipts to use at IRS time! The Foundation is no longer owned by the PDGA, it was set off on its own, but it came from the PDGA and certainly helped there.

That said, obvious local clubs do a LOT more hard work, on the ground, so to speak. I would not say that the PDGA was directly responsible for Bandemer, certainly not as much as a3disc is, but maybe more so than the MDGO is. Certainly, it was the guys on the ground here in Ann Arbor who felt a great deal of satisfaction when it was done!

Regardless, this is thread drift. Sheila and I are thinking about a charity event soon that will be PDGA sanctioned. I recommend looking at that option, which gets you a C Tier but the TD only has to pay $25 in total fees to the PDGA, everything else goes to charity. If you have questions about it, call the PDGA office and ask for advice. I did, yesterday, and got stuff by email about 20 seconds later!

BTW, it looks like 2008 will end up being the year that the PDGA sanctions 1,000+ tournaments for the first time!

** Ask me about this any time, it's a pretty cool deal that can help with course creation fundraising.

[Hootie]

Geez, i opened a can of worms.... anyway, go sanctioned, Mark has already said his tourneys get 50% more players than his unsanctioned ones, but once again it depends on the player demographic. And I dont believe that the PDGA would refuse to help you with a course proposal if you approached them about it. Even a formal letter of introduction and support for your project would help with local council.

[Matt Sink]

Sanctioned, my 2 cents.

[Lotto]

non sanctioned, get wasted.

[Hootie]

Get wasted after you've thrown for the day. Drunk golf does not make for good scores anyway.

[Lotto]

its non sanctioned, who cares....