if competing was free

Rieferman · Post by **Rieferman** » 14 Mar 2006 05:36

To crazy legs

$10 to compete is low for most major events. I've seen events where it's more like $40 or $50. I'd rather buy some Lavers or a stitched bag.

Personally, I have the money to give, but that's not the case for all players.

If it were free, I might get up there just to give the crowd a flowy 2 minutes of shred, but I have no interest in actually winning (and zero chance of doing so if I did want to win) and therefore am not willing to pay to have my ass beat down.

DoctorJay · Post by **DoctorJay** » 14 Mar 2006 15:06

I guess in Europe it is better to enter with 20 Euros and most of the time there is ifpa membership included.

It would be super annoying if players would be prevented from competing due to entering fee.

50 $ seems way too much .

Last year at Worlds I asked a person why he did not compete and he told me due to the fee and i thought "shit man, you travelled so far to be here and now a stupid fee will stop you."

I do not know if price money is important - the money is not much and there are only a few competitors who are able to get it. It has nothing to do with a professional sport where you can pay all your bills so why do we have price money. A larger sport , more participants will bring money to events because sponsors will get interested in.

I was never able to win prize money but I highly appreciated the current attitude like at footjam or euros in denmark or any other european tournament I attented to have no prize money and a super service for all the players.

Just my two cents.

You can buy a lot of meals and water for 2000 bucks.
my calculation for an event is more like this:
how much is the petrol for two ways? how much is the cheapest accomodation? how much will be meals and drinks for the weekend?
and if there are a few bucks for the tournament shirt left, I will check my schedule !

Prize money has no impact on me , but the benefits of cheap accomodation and food have an impact on my decision .

Just my two cents

Tsiangkun · Post by **Tsiangkun** » 14 Mar 2006 15:29

Rieferman wrote:Would you be more likely to compete if it was free to do so?

I'd be more likely to compete if there was a designated spectator area, and people were sitting there watching my performance.

mc · Post by mc » 17 Mar 2006 10:56

if competing was free, I'd compete at every event.

at events where it's inexpensive, I compete. but, I'm not really a fierce competitor, and the prospect of losing a chunk of my precious beer money because I'm not a hardcore competitor doesn't seem so appealing.

Rieferman · Post by **Rieferman** » 18 Mar 2006 05:58

So, here's the model I think maximizes competitors (which has the benefits mentioned by others of making an event more fun to watch and more legit in the eyes of outsiders):

- Players either sign up as "eligible for prize money" or "non-eligible for prize money"

- Those who are eligible must pay the competition fee. Those that aren't do not.

- Regardless of actual finish position, the 1st X (three probably) eligible competitors receive the prize money. Everyone else gets bragging rights proportionate with where they placed (i.e. if you win 1st place that's some good bragging rights)

- To cover venue costs in the case where sponsors don't do this for you, charge some nominal fee to all players in attendance. I suggest $5 or $10 since experience show that this is generally sufficient to break even.

ptaku · Post by **ptaku** » 18 Mar 2006 13:25

Tsiangkun wrote:
Rieferman wrote:Would you be more likely to compete if it was free to do so?
I'd be more likely to compete if there was a designated spectator area, and people were sitting there watching my performance.

Good point, I think...

I haven't attended many events but the only event I visited, and people were watching the performance of competitors even in the first round were European Championships. This is actually the biggest even I attended so ... But on not so big events it was like everyone was just shreding around and didn't care about the performaces until the best players showed off...

When I compete I want to show my skills to other people - to all the world of footbag, and not only to judges... If more people would care how I performed then competing would be more funny, and not like after the all competition most people haven't even seen you showing off.

crazylegs32 · Post by **crazylegs32** » 20 Mar 2006 20:57

The concept of paying a fee only if you want to win money is old. Every time I see the option offered it still doesnt get tons of entries. It amounts to footbag is the opposite of competition(for most of us) We go to tournies to meet up and have fun playing footbag but only a few of us are actually in it to compete or "be the best".

Rieferman · Post by **Rieferman** » 21 Mar 2006 07:55

On that note, is there even a point in offering competitions at most events? Most of the players don't join, and it sounds like the entry fee is not the reason why. Also, I think the most sickness happens in circles NOT in the competition. So why not just shred and skip the competition? Sure some events are all about the competition (e.g. Funtastiks) but others aren't.. it seems anti-common-sense (made up word) to have competitions at many of the 'jammy' events.

Show of hands.. Who would rather just kick til you fall over at most small/mid sized and have all the other great players doing the same? Save the serious competitions for the big time events.

sen · Post by **sen** » 21 Mar 2006 08:00

I haven't been to many events, but I would think haveing competitions at the small and mid-sized events is a good thing, as it gives players a chance to practice there stuff. Also, to the public it seems more like a sport if you are going to a Competition, and not to a jam to play kicky bag with some friends.

slapdash21 · Post by **slapdash21** » 21 Mar 2006 08:07

Reiferman wrote:Show of hands.. Who would rather just kick til you fall over at most small/mid sized and have all the other great players doing the same? Save the serious competitions for the big time events.

haha, right after reading that, without thinking, i stretched my left arm...straight into the air. but i do actually agree for the most part. removing competitions also allows everyone to really lay it down in the circles without having to think about "taking it easy because im competing later"

crazylegs32 · Post by **crazylegs32** » 21 Mar 2006 18:01

I have as much or more fun at jams than tournies. What I require is music, acess to food and water and fun players.

CIC flurry · Post by **CIC flurry** » 25 Mar 2006 19:50

Rieferman wrote:Show of hands.. Who would rather just kick til you fall over at most small/mid sized and have all the other great players doing the same? Save the serious competitions for the big time events.

I really like how the WV jam had no competition.

modified

if competing was free

Re: if competing was free

Re: if competing was free