Does anybody check a tournament’s “based on” accuracy to ensure it is a realistic target?
For example, the 23rd Western States Open (http://www.renochess.org/wso/index.html) has a prize fund of $52,400 based on 500 entries. However looking back in the history of this event, the most it has attracted in the last eight years is about 430 (averages between 380-430) and so how can anyone make a claim of getting 500 entries.
The fact is made even worse when the section “E” players only count as half players since they only pay half the entry fee.
The Masters prize fund is guaranteed (presumably for Grand Prix purposes) and so when the tournament falls under its 500 target, only the lower section prizes will be the ones suffering.
Is it someone’s responsibility to regulate this type of unrealistic “based on” advertising or do we just hope that the “50% payout” rule will help avoid this?
The Delegates tend to pass rules about this, as they did last August, but they aren’t the ones who have to do the work to check up on events, are they?
If you’re looking for work, Chris, I don’t think the USCF currently has any openings on the Tournament Police.
I think most players figure out quickly which organizers puff up their prize funds and which don’t.
Well, it took me about 5 minutes to pull up the history and do a quick “click” on each one to read the summary that told me the number of entries for the previous tournaments!
Maybe someone could check the tournaments that have prize funds over a certain amount, say $20,000 and above?
And no, not looking for a job with the USCF, heard Crossville isn’t quite as much a “party” town as Vegas is.
Chris
PS - I would assume if the Delegates pass a motion asking someone at the office to “do something” then someone had better do it!
Chris, the Delegates passing motions mandating that the office do this and the office do that is one of the reasons why the USCF had a payroll of $1.6 million dollars two years ago and was losing $250,000 or more a year.
That’s not to say that they aren’t good and worthwhile ideas, but nobody ever considers the cost of enforcing all those rules, and some of them conflict with other rules. (And I’ve probably been as guilty of that as most other Delegates.)
Further, the objects of enforcement actions tend to get upset about it, especially if they think others are getting away with breaking the same rules.
Consider rule 23C (memberships required in USCF-rated tournaments), for example. There’s little doubt that the USCF has gotten rather lax about enforcing that rule, and that not enforcing it costs the USCF a substantial sum of membership revenue every year. (My estimate is at LEAST $25,000/year, possibly several times that.)
However, if the office holds up events because of non-members in it, people start complaining about the delays and saying that we should rate the games THEN worry about the memberships–maybe.
There are plenty of similar enforcement issues, such as non-certified TDs directing events, or lapsed affiliates being listed as the sponsoring affiliate.
Memberships are one case where the cost of enforcing the rules probably pays for itself, I doubt that checking up on guaranteed prize funds does.
I believe this was discussed at the last Delegates’ meeting, but there was no consensus. Instead, they adopted three somewhat milder reforms, which appear on p. 7 of the October 2004 CL.
It should be noted that the current rule (at least 50% of each advertised prize must be paid if the prize fund is over $500) represents a toughening of the previous policy (which did not require any guarantee). The last change I know of was about ten years ago, when the Delegates voted to exempt tournaments of under $500 from the 50% rule.
Another point to bear in mind is that the USCF has very limited power to enforce such rules. It can refuse to rate a tournament (drastic, and rather unfair to the players), or it can refuse to accept advertising (TLA or display). In practice, the latter is the USCF’s only leverage; a tournament without a TLA is simply not going to be successful
If you really consider this a serious problem, I have two suggestions. The first is: don’t play in those tournaments, and let the market decide. Since you probably won’t like that one, the second is: run for Delegate next time (it’s no longer restricted to organizers, though in practice the same people usually get elected), or else look up the Delegates from your state and lobby them to vote for a change.
There was a solid consensus in the workshop in 2004 to change the rules so that a prize fund of $10,000 or more had to be guaranteed, period. No based-ons permitted at all. That got watered down to the point where the changes that were passed were IMHO meaningless.
I haven’t seen the full agenda for 2005 yet, I don’t know if there will be any advance motions dealing with this or if it will resurface at the workshop like in 2004.
It will also be interesting to see where Bill Hall figures in this. As the ED, he can retask office priorities to address enforcement tasks like this, though that probably means something else doesn’t get done as fast or not at all. It may also depend on when the publications department moves from NY to TN, since the TLA person is currently in NY.
I think it’s unlikely you will get a majority of the Delegates to agree to this, but I could be wrong. Historically, these policies have only been changed when abuses have really gotten out of hand, and while the current situation is not ideal, it’s not nearly that bad.
The only time you can show the organizer has an un-realistic target. If the organizer has the based on prize greater then the certification level of the chief tournament director. Would start to question the based on prize, as the organizer should understand the limits of certification. Would have to say the based on was only a marketing tool, if the director does not have certification at the level of based on prize.
Not that many players check the history of the tournament director, or understand the certification level, or understand how many players the director can have. If you do a check, with understanding of the certification, if the director does not have certification at the level of based on prize – you should question the organizer/director before going to the event.
You guys definitely have a significant edge over me knowing about the past history and the previous Delegates’ attempts to clarify this matter and to stop people abusing the unrealistic “based on” advertising.
I don’t have my rule book handy and so maybe this is already in there but I think the “50%” rule should be amended to say something like “the percentage of attendance compared to the based on, with a minimum of 50%”, or something of that nature. Therefore if you don’t reach the advertised based on figure but say reach 80% (e.g. 400 players but the prize fund was based on 500) then you should have to pay out 80% of the prize fund and not just 50%.
However, this doesn’t stop situations like this where the tournament is guaranteeing the Masters prize fund and so the prizes in the other sections are going to be the ones suffering when, as history as shown, this tournament only gets 400 players when it is advertising a prize fund based on 500. (Question: When you fall below the based on figure, do you have to pay a minimum of 50% of each individual prize, or just make sure you pay 50% of the total prize fund that was on the table?)
The rule does say that. If your prize fund is based on x, and you get y players, you have to pay at least y/x of each advertised prize, minimum 50%. (Assuming, of course, that y is less than x.)
If you guarantee some of the prizes but not all, you have to pay the full amount of the prizes you guaranteed, and at least 50% of each other prize. I am reasonably sure you have to pay those based-on prizes proportionately as above, though I’d have to check the exact wording of the rule. This is obviously going to result in paying out a higher percentage than with a straight based-on, so an organizer should do the math before setting it up this way.
Later: Yes, the “proportional payout” rule applies to the based-on portion of a partial-guarantee prize fund (32E).
There is no reason going to the delgates Nolan. The poster was talking about how to check the accuracy of the realistic targets. Nolan did you not give the members and non-members the tools to check up past tournaments with the MSA? With the tool of the MSA, anyone can check up on the organizer, and the chief tournament director before the start of the tournament. If the organizer has a based on prize higher then the certification level of the director, would not that be clear evidence of false advertisment?
Nolan if you were the organizer, you should more then understand having a club tournament director … or… local tournament director, for a tournament with a based on prize of 150 players. The poster was talking about checking, I’m sure the delegates do not check the MSA data for errors on the based on prize. Its’ not the delegates that find the problems with the organizers, it is the rank and file USCF membership.
If you want to talk about the delegates, that is fine. What group of delegates from some state is going to point out the problems of their state as the problem of the organizer. If the organizer of that state has problems, the delegates of that state is not in the mood to point them out. The delegates of some other state, they have little time to do background checks of each and every state. The time is short, talking about one bad organizer in one state will be a total wast of the delegates time.
What the delegates have come up, still gives the organizers a great deal of tweaking the numbers higher. If the organizer can study and know only the past 20 years the tournament only has 75 - 100 players, the 50% rule can make the organizer tweek the numbers up to 150. The based on prize is a marketing tool. The higher the based on prize more players will come. As the prize fund is one higher, two the numbers are high for the players unwilling to go to a small event.
If the organizers do have the based on prize, they should need the right certification level of director. If they use the historical emperical evidence, they only need a local tournament director. If they tweek the numbers they need a senior tournament director. If the chief tournament director is a local tournament director, how could the organizer be right on the based on prize of the director is not certificate at that level?
Something else to consider regarding tournaments with prizes based on “unrealistic” numbers is the proportion of prize payout to entry fees.
Consider a tournament that traditionally has 100 entrants and a $10 entry fee. Attendance might range from 50 to 150 players at the extremes.
Option A:
Advertise as $$800 b/100
This is 80% payout.
If 50 players show up, the required $400 in prizes is still 80% payout.
If 150 players show up, the required $800 in prizes is only a 53% payout (good for the organizer).
Option B:
Advertise as $$1200 b/150
This is still 80% payout.
If 50 players show up, the required $600 in prizes is 120% payout (good for the players).
If 150 players show up, the required $1200 in prizes is the 80% payout that was advertised.
Change the TLA’s paper and online reporting. If the organizer is going to post a based on prize, the chief tournament director must have certification at that level. The online TLA’s would have to change. The organizer must report the based on prize, and the person being the chief tournament director. If the based on prize is higher then the certification level of the chief tournament director, the TLA will be rejected. If the delegates approve this idea, it should not take Mr Nolan long to change the online reporting.
The problem is simple, if the organizer has a based on prize, the organizer should have the director at that certification before the event. The delegates have to come up with the numbers for each level of director certification for the top level of based on prize. It would not be rational to have the limit of the chief tournament director be 120 as the based on prize – if and only if the directors certification is local. That would be the limit of the local tournament director with one assistant tournament director with a computer pairing program. In my judgement, the limit should be 80 as based on prize fund for a local tournament director.
It would make the organizers have a better understanding what the based on prize should be. If the delegates approve the levels of based on prize for the certification level of the directors. The organizers would have to find more rational numbers for the based on prize. Or they would need to get the right director for the certification numbers they put out.
Not all the based on prize have the right certification of the director. I’m not talking about the large national events, as most of the based on prize would have the chief tournament director be a senior director or greater. I’m talking about the based on prize for the smaller events. I’m sure if the delegates approve this idea, the organizers would be having a fit. As most of the based on prize is only a marketing tool. If they need a director with that certification, they would have to think of a better marketing tool.
How many players ever question the based on prize, when the advertisment says based on 75 players, only having the chief tournament director is a club. If the organizers based the event on 75, the organizers should understand the club director would not have the right certification. If the organizers wanted the event in the TLA, the online reporting or paper reporting should show the event in the TLA should be rejected. Its’ a fail safe system, as some organizers have gotten away with it for years. Then again the USCF have turned a blind eye to the level of certification.
I’ve aways felt that a balanced optimal for the organizer and player is to average about 85% of the based-on number. My basic mathematical assumption is that there will be a normal distribution of attendance around this 85% value with virtually non-existant tails below 60% and above 110%. So, as organizer I’m never going to get really burned and I’m only going to be making a profit when the based-on number is made. Between 60% and 100% I should break-even with any potential profits at the higher of those ranges being used to pay prizes out at greater than the nominally required percentage. For the players this tends to optimize the percentage of entry fee being paid out as prizes while still paying out 90-100% of the based-on prizes more than half the time (I used 90 rather than the average of 85 because as I mentioned above I’ll plow any profits into increasing the payout.)
I think the issue is significant when a player has to decide which of multiple different tournaments the player can take the time and money to go to in a month (or week, or season).
An organizer might inflate the based-on number to a level a little short of twice the number anticipated, and thus offer an apparently large prize fund while planning on a 55% turnout being the break-even point.
Let’s say one has an entry fee of $75 and a $10,000 prize fund based on 200 entries and a second has an entry fee of $75 and a $7.500 prize fund based on 150 players. For both tournaments there are $2 in prizes for every $3 collected in entry fees. Both tournaments are likely to have TDs of a high-enough level to legitimately offer those prizes.
It looks like the prizes at the first tournament are 133% the size of the prizes at the second tournament, but if the second tournament often reaches its based on and the first generally reaches only 60% of the based on then the actual prize ratio is that the first tournament only pays 80% of what the second tournament pays.
Some people would consider that the first tournament engaged in false advertising to entice people to come to it and compete for prizes larger than the organizer ever truly expected to pay out. Players that think they have a good shot at winning a prize can get upset over alloting their time to one tournament because it supposedly had larger prizes, and then finding out that the other tournament they rejected was the one with the larger prizes. About 20 years ago I would have been one of those confidant/over-confident players. For that matter, the organizers of the second tournament may feel that some of their likely entries were “stolen” by the first tournament’s “false” advertising.
A few of the many changes that can be made from year to year (and that make it difficult to determine whether or not an organizer is inflating the based-on numbers to an unrealistic level) are: advertising level and lead time; number of tournament days; venue; number of rounds; week of the year; time controls; round times; number of sections; total prize fund; distribution of prize fund; special entry fees (junior, multiple family members, unrateds, etc.); special guests. Many of these changes are not visible in MSA, and the advertising level and duration doesn’t even show up in saved TLAs. If any of these changes are significant then it makes it difficult to claim that the organizer is deliberately inflating the based-on number.
Without a clear claim, having the USCF be willing to sanction the organizer then risks either punishing innovation or having organizers play it safe by lowering their based-on and prize funds and thus getting a windfall when the attendance exceeds the based-on.
Doug, this is pertinent to the discussion at hand.
This isn’t pertinent to the discussion. The question being discussed has nothing to do with certification and everything to do with an organizer setting realistic expectations of entries to support his “based-on” prizes. This is what Nolan is trying to tell you. Can you stay on topic for once?
Radishes, sorry to disagree, but I think he actually had a valid point.
How do you know if an organizer has inflated his based on numbers to an unrealistic level? If he has a TD that can only direct a 100 player tournament, but his “based on” number is 150, then maybe he doesn’t REALLY expect 150.
In fact, I would say the certification level of the TD is evidence that the organizer never really expected 150 players (maybe not conclusive, but what would be?).
You don’t have to be a TD to organize tournament, including the big-dollar ones. (Fred Gruenberg built the National Open into a successful annual event, but he was only a local TD, and I don’t think he ever directed at the National Open, he usually had several NTD’s on staff.)
The issue here is the ORGANIZER, not the TD. For most big-dollar events the TD is a hired hand brought in by the organizer. The TD didn’t design the tournament payout, he didn’t do the promotion, why blame him if the event does not make the based-on numbers?
That’s where Douglas was off-topic.
If he wants to start a thread about TDs directing events larger than their certification, most of the instances of that are not big-dollar tournaments. (In fact, when we ran a check on that last year, most of the events that ran 50% or more over the chief TD’s certification limit weren’t money tournaments at all but scholastics.)
Most big dollar tournaments ($10,000 or more) are directed by well-qualified TDs, with most of the really big ones directed by NTDs.
I’m not saying he didn’t. I’m just saying it wasn’t the basis for the discussion here.
The original discussion was about unrealistic “based on” prize projections. It had nothing to do with certification because that’s a whole other issue and deserves it’s own thread if you wish to pursue it.
Frankly, I never could understand organizers who structured tournaments with high expectations of turnout when past history didn’t support it, and then wondered why they lost money. I think the current rules give the organizer an out when this happens, while at the same time making setting a minimum so players don’t get compeletly stiffed.
