Should tournaments pay deep into the field?

Reason I ask is the James Harrison story about him taking away participation trophies from his kids made me think of this. To me I like seeing the top 15% get paid no matter the entries. Obviously Sealy and etc are a different type event but on a best stringer event to me if you pay more than 15% of the field it seems like participation trophies in some regard.

Trust me I am usually in that crowd that would be affected by reducing payout percentage anyway. I am a champ at missing checks...

If you are fishing to win, then deep payouts are a novelty.


I think top 15% is a fair payout.

1 in 5 or 1 in 6 is deep enough.

I'm not sure what the best formula is. But when I was 19 I entered my first tournament. It was on Bob Sandlin. there were 157 boats. Me and my partner placed 10th and got paid $100 and that hooked us. It was awesome. We were more excited that we placed in the top ten on a lake neither of us had ever been on before, and against all the locals and great fishermen that were there. But winning some money was cool.

Why in the world would anyone want to pay more than 15% or so? What's the point? We always feel good when we cash a check in Champs because we know we beat a LOT of great guys to get that check. It would do nothing for me, if we get 50th place out of 200 teams and that got us a check.

As it pertains to James Harrison's story, I think we he did was awesome! this country is quickly becoming one of entitlement and it makes me sick! Hard days work gets you a hard days pay. Being better than your opponent(s) in that game or on that day gets you a prize, trophy or whatever. Otherwise, you need to do better in the next game

I think 15% is good, but I would like to see a winner take all format! But I know that will never happen LOL. I don't like the "participation award" era we are in!

Our Club pays 1 in 5 which is pretty typical. That is top 20%. We only pay up to 6 places out however so the percentage can go down depending on the number of boats. I think that is fair.

You mean I don't get a check for finishing 38th?????

1 in 5 with 50% going to the winner.

man I will never get paid

I like that formula. Maybe a side pot for big fish

1in5 capped at 15 spots total payout. No ribbons for participant

You can if there's 250+ entries and they pay 15% of field!

One in 5 or 6 is good average.

This

I know what Harrison would say and I agree to a point! Payouts used to be 1 in 10, then they went to 1 in 7 and so on. I would prefer 1 in 10 payout schedule as long as the trail can get enough boats to pay out 10 places if the trail cannot get that many boats then it needs to make the changes needed to get there!

If you had a tournament circuit that could pay millions of dollars on the level of the PGA I'd say yes but for the most part we don't have that luxury. I like to fish tournaments that pay out a small number of places but will increase the number based on increased entries. Some gas money would be nice even if I didn't do very well.........

I think it depends on the trail and situation. Bass clubs, don't take this personally as I am a clubber at heart (and in skill), cater to a group of people who aren't aiming to compete at levels like champs. You pay out deeper there to give people a chance to make a check, keep them coming back, and keeps things interesting for a large percentage of the field.

In champs, guys are fishing for first place. They fully expect to win and anything else isn't what they were aiming for. No need to payer deeper to get people interested in participating.

Yep, maybe even top 10% it'll make you do your home work to cash...And it'll be worth it $$$$$$.. jm2c's

I like 1 in 10, the small club I'm in now pays 3 regardless of entry and it is stupid getting a check for less than your entry fee.

So what about the elites and flw, they pay right at 50% of the field?

There are guys that want deep payouts and guys that want bigger payouts. Everyone wants both.

I like 1 in 7 for a trail. For a club I think paying 3 places for 10 entries is fine. If you are fishing a club, or even a trail with a $150 per team entry fee for money you've probably going to be disappointed.

Depends on the trail. I have won a couple of club tournaments and still lost money due to hotel rooms, food, etc. So if you pay out deep then it doesn't even make it worth it except for the pure competition of it. The only way I see you can pay deeper is raise entry fees, which I am sure most dont want that.

i like to see tournaments 100-200 boats pay 20-25 places of ur tossing in 300$ or so for entry. The ones close to 300 boats should pay 30 places. At least give the 20-30th place guys entry fee money. Anytime u crack top 20-30 in a high level event like champs or TTT u fished good.

1 in 7 or so...

It's not really how deep I'm concerned about, it's more of the payout structure.

Professional and open amateur tourney's are two different things y'all. You can't put them in the same discussion when looking at payout schedules.

That might work with a small boat field. Way to much money for first if there's over 75 teams. Jmo

Depends on the amount of the entry fee, and the amount dedicated to the prize fund.
If the entry fee is loaded with prize fund money, then the payout will be different than an entry fee with a small amount of
money dedicated to the prize fund. Normally I would like to see 10-15% of the entries win money, with the last cash at least
winning back their entry fee.

My thoughts exactly. Deeper payouts seem to make more sense for "fun" clubs with low to moderate entry fees and low travel costs. The more serious trails with high entry fees and high travel costs should push bigger payouts to a smaller percentage of teams.

First place should get at least 50% of the money. Because they were #1. That's the object. 1 in 5 is what it should be.... That is the standard.

I'm a fan of the 1-7 payout. I'm also all about 1st place getting 50% I think the 1-7 would draw more participation because the payout is better for 2,3,4,5 . I always fish to win, but as anglers we all know we don't win them all. Better payouts deeper in the field is what attracts me to fish tournaments.

Great question Mark!

If you finish in the top 10, you wish for a shallower payout. If you finish outside of that, you wish for a deeper payout. It's all perspective. We're never all going to be pleased. I like a shallower payout personally.

More the better because from most of my experience aka Bass Champs the top 5 are on the lake all the time and when not fishing they are putting out tops all over the place to hold fish. Does not really make it fair for the guys who get to fish once or twice a month but want to compete.

So you do not want to reward hard work and effort? There is no such thing as "fair" when you start making it a bad thing to work hard and improve. I think to me logically if I was only able to fish once a month then perhaps Bass Champs is a little higher level than I need to be at. That is not a knock on yours or anyone's skills.
Just saying to me it harms the guys that have made it a point to put in the hard work it takes to be successful is all.

Sounds like you might want to fish some other smaller trails. Winning $20,000 is never going to be easy. There are plenty of people who are going to put in the time it takes to figure out the fish/lake. Bass Champs is definitely not geared towards benefiting the guys that can only fish once or twice a month.

1 in 5 seems good to me. I can remember fishing a 100 boat tournament where my 17th place check was less than my entry fee. Not exactly a rewarding experience.

1 in 10

1 in 12 or 15 is realistic.

Everything less than that is a lot of participation payout (like a lot of tourneys now days).

Tourney directors want folks to feel like they "won" so they return the next month.

Spend $500 on the weekend and "win" a $150 check and you feel GREAT! lol

So putting out tops makes you a better angler???? I think it should be ban from tournament fishing if your fishing tops you put out. Does not seem any different than fishing with live bait. You might call it working harder I call it taking advantage of the rules. A guy that has 5 to 10 tops to hit each tournament has a lot better chance of cutting a check than an angler with the same skills that is not fishing tops. Just my 2 cents!

If you think all Champs events are won off of brushpiles then really no sense in trying to change your mind on it. Skill has zero to do with winning I guess. I like how its OK to fish brushpiles you did not put out but its a sin to fish the ones you put out. We should only benefit from another's hard work, not our own. Its all about them brusopiles, well I mean other people's brushpiles.

Tawakoni and the Red River must be full of brushpiles.

Great example...Red River...fished it last year on Championship and the so called Top 5's did not do so well. Maybe some should have made a few trips down there with their pontoon boats full of tops and would have done better. Tom Brady got good skills but a flatter football in the freezing weather might help a little is all im saying!

This. I'm willing to bet that the percentage of Champs tournaments won on brush piles is quite a bit smaller than the percentage won off other things.

Really just sounds like excuses as to why some folks struggle. I am honest, I just suck at fishing but I can and will point out that some guys that win really do it on skill and time on the water. I don't need a brushpile excuse. I get that a lot of folks are simply better at it than I am.
As for your Red River comment, it just sounds like more sour grapes. Most people struggled there.

I guarantee you the 2 guys that won AOY in Champs North this year are not brushpile guys. I doubt they have 20' of line on their reels...

I don't see any point in any payouts that are under double whatever the buy in is. I.e. paying deep enough for someone to get back $150 on a $500 buy is pointless to me. Lowest paid place should be getting $1,000 at a $500 buy tourney for example. So 50% to first, and as deep in the field as you get registrants to sign up for, down to double buy in for last paid place, with a side pot or optional side pot for big bass to make everyone feel better fi they catch the best kicker fish but don't bring in the heavy sack, that should be worth buy in, so $500 for that maybe, so anyone regardless of place could get their money that way lol

That sounds about as "fair" as I can imagine paying competition should be personally, and leaves room for adjustment shallower or deeper. For all I care, as long as first gets 50%, the 2nd-10th place could evenly split the rest honestly, and I'd have no objection/qualms with it. So long as the criteria of first getting the most, and lowest paid gets enough to matter or make sense (double buy in). The serious competitors are fishing for first, and the people donating mostly know it and are there on a gamble that they luck into a heavier sack than someone and get in money but in a way are just fun fishing with an edge, if that makes sense. I talk to a lot of anglers who fish tournaments just for fun who don't honestly believe they have a chance at #1, which sounds crazy as most competitions occur between people who are all of the belief they are/can be #1 lol

My point is being made more for tournaments on Sam Rayburn and Toledo but I am sure the guys on Fork use the same tactics as well. Leave to tops to the crappie guys!