Not surprisingly, I find it necessary to keep up-to-date on the pulse of the bass fishing public. As many of you know, I often express opinion here that's far from the norm, forged by too much time drifting alone over vast waters or staring down a hole in the ice. Such things make the mind wander.
But I also feel it’s important to weigh in on your opinions, or those apparently beginning to trend within our community as a whole. I like to clear the air at times, so to speak, along with offering several angles to a topic.
Such brings us to our theme for the week.
While most newsworthy events in bass fishing’s near future will likely center on the Classic at Hartwell, I wanted to take a quick step back and discuss the much dramatized payout at the recent Rayovac event on Lake Okeechobee, clear up some rumors and shed a little light on how these things are calculated. Then, I want to discuss both sides of the coin and, most notably, why such a payout structure may be lacking for many involved.
For some reason, it appears I have become both the critic and defender of everything numeric in pro bass fishing, so turning a deaf ear to such an opportunity would likely be met with disappointment. So let’s dig in.
First off, let’s look into the numbers. I spoke with FLW this week, and, as usual, they were happy to remain transparent about their pay structure. The main discrepancy among those who casually reviewed the aforementioned event centered around the pay structure, and whether or not that scale accounted for the high number of entrants (250) in the same scale as prior events. Also, the number of entrants receiving a check (140) was also heavily criticized.
Let’s compare apples to apples:
FLW’s published payout structure for Rayovac events is that 27% of anglers receive checks based on a 150-boat field; therefore, 40 competitors cash checks. When a field size is increased above 150, one additional place is paid for each boat over the 150 mark. Therefore, in the case of Okeechobee’s monster 250-boat tourney, 140 anglers received paychecks.
When the field drops below 150 boats, the 27% model is adhered to. For example, in last season’s Potomac River event, 143 boats competed, reducing the payout structure to the top 38 places (27% of 143).
In addition, the payout percentage (based on entry fees collected) remains unchanged. Using figures derived from a close friendship with spreadsheets, as well as help from FLW when I misplaced a few numbers, payouts are right in the neighborhood of 85% (not including contingency bonuses or Ranger Cup prize boats) for all regular season events. For example:
> 2015 Okeechobee paid $314,600 total purse (equal to 84% of collected entries)
> 2014 Okeechobee: 84%
> 2014 Potomac River: 86%
> 2014 Kentucky Lake: 85%
Therefore, before any of us get elevated blood pressures, it appears we are all dealing with the same model that we’ve grown accustomed to. No additional money is being collected; no additional profit made.
So all is well, or is it?
One glaring issue I have to sound off on is the overall payout structure based on place. Again, using the Okeechobee event as an example, 41st through 140th place all received checks for $1,200. Something is wrong with that picture.
An angler finishing in the top 16% of the field (40th place) should not receive the same paycheck as an angler finishing 100 places behind him. Assuming the reasoning for payment is to reward accomplishment, this model is absurd. The 40th-place and 140th-place anglers’ accomplishment isn’t even close to being the same, as payout suggests.
Also, the figure bears mentioning: 1,200?
Does FLW realize the entry fee for this event was $1,500?
Of course they do, but such number scrutiny brings up the topic of two opposing opinions on payout structure. I think it’s relatively apparent that what the tournament organizers are trying to do is “give a little back” to many involved. That’s nice…
But doing so doesn’t help the overall picture. The cost for such an event likely nears $3,000, considering expenses and travel, for each pro competitor. Paying 100 of those pros $1,200 simply slows the bleeding.
I think it goes without saying that one of the ideas behind such a pay structure also yields itself to higher participation overall. I know I’m guilty of this logic at times. Most contestants likely paid the entry fee months ago, so $1,200 to get down the road seems like a small victory.
Let me give you another example: Last week, my wife convinced me to go to the mall to purchase a few new pairs of jeans. Being accustomed to a regular wardrobe of camo waders and raingear, such often proves to be quite an undertaking.
As I tried on endless styles, I noticed that a smaller waist size than my norm seemed to fit best. “Wow," I thought, “I must have lost a few pounds." Such elation led to a mega-purchase of four new pairs of pants.
My waist size hadn’t changed. The retailer’s measuring tape did; they purposely tag their jeans with “liberal” measurements, a trend evidently not so uncommon.
My point is this: Whether it’s having a few bucks in my pocket after a tournament or having a new pair of jeans with a smaller number on the tag, both leave me in a better mood after the event and make me anxious to purchase more product.
Neither has solved a problem. Neither has done anything to address a negative trend spiraling out of control, whether due to a shrinking wallet or a growing gut.
I think it’s time to measure twice and cut once. While I really appreciate a “squeaker” at times, such rewards just hide the truth. I, for one, will continue to press to reward accomplishment, not just participation.
(Joe Balog is the often outspoken owner of Millennium Promotions, Inc., an agency operating in the fishing and hunting industries. A former Bassmaster Open and EverStart Championship winner, he's best known for his big-water innovations and hardcore fishing style. He's a popular seminar speaker, product designer and author, and is considered one of the most influential smallmouth fishermen of modern times.)
