I wrote to Chuck Evans about some rules I would like to see improved on.If anyone has some idea’s they would like to bring forward to the FLW please write them here or send Chuck a email.Now is the time to help make things better before the season starts.I believe they are looking for our input to get the program better suited for us. 
John Gildersleeve
Rule #1. Fish are to cooperate on day two of champ. 
.
What changes did you ask for so they arent duplicated???
We need to duplicate so they know what we really want. Better pay out, 2 day tournaments.
I have fished the league for 3 years now…1 as a co-angler and 2 as a boater….I haven’t noticed anything that I see as a rule that needs to be changed.
John G., I understand you not posting the specific rules you are thinking so it doesn’t start a big debate here but if you wouldn’t mind PMing me I am interested in your ideas.
John
#1 HIGHER ENTRY FEE = BETTER PAYOUTS.
Some kind of a reward for finishing angler of the year! (Other than a trophy)
Just my two cents, Brady
Get credit for last place points, or at least receive show points for paying the entry and fishing the event if you do blank.
I would not want to see the entry fee too much higher, these tournaments are affordable for people who might not otherwise be able to fish tournaments. If you want higher pay outs you can always fish the tour.
Quote:
#1 HIGHER ENTRY FEE = BETTER PAYOUTS.
Some kind of a reward for finishing angler of the year! (Other than a trophy)Just my two cents, Brady
Quote:
Get credit for last place points, or at least receive show points for paying the entry and fishing the event if you do blank.
I agree with Mike. There should be something for getting out of bed, opening the wallet, and putting time on the water.
I think there is too much emphasis put on the Super Tournaments. Is it true that someone was in the top 5 going into Bemidji, blanked and didn’t make the finals cut?
I wish they would have been able to fill the field for the finals. I didn’t totally understand why they couldn’t attract boaters for a no entry fee tournament, but it may indicate a format flaw.
Overall, I’m very pleased with the FLW. It’s great value for a well run circuit.
Sully
I wouldnt like to see points for a zero. Keeps every one too close for the finals. I would hate to be beat out and not be able to fish the champ. by some one who only caught 1 fish in all the tournys. A zero is a way for you to seperate yourself from others.
Higher pay outs would be nice but you will see a increase in the entry fee. We (as boaters) only pay about 1/10th of the cost as the guys on the tour so a little increase would be ok.
Better pay outs on the bonus side. Such as getting ranger to pay out more. It will only benifit certain owners of certain boats or equip. but it would raise the pay outs with no add. cost to the people entering. Lso getting yamaha and evenrude to get a bonus going would increase payouts as well.
Thats all I can think of for now I’ll keep thinking 
Quote:
Thats all I can think of for now I’ll keep thinking
Don’t let it hurt Stick! 
I brought up a few idea’s to help promote the FLW and also to help promote us too.I believe they need to get the local paper’s more involved prior too and during the tournaments to help make other angler’s aware that the FLW is coming and hopefully join in and make the tournaments have better participation and better payout.The payouts will be a important issue because of the expense us boater’s have to put out to fish the events.A higher payout I believe would make it more inviting for more people to try to win the bigger prize and help cover expenses.I do think the contingincy money could be better too.The other issue I had was with the Championship not having a full field of Pro’s.That in itself needs some repair work.Maybe they need to put up a prize for Angler of the Year to help incourage people to fish all four events.Overall I think their events are run really well.I just thought that maybe some things could be made a little better.My intentions is just to help the league.So if you have some idea’s you can pm me or just post it here or just email Mark Dorn himself with your thoughts. 
Thanks,
John
Keep posting your ideas guys I will make sure this thread gets emailed to Mark and Sonny.
I am still thinking 
Another thing about the championship was if there wasnt a full field the pay outs should have gone up. The money was alredy there for the 105 boats that were too participate its not our fault those that got invited didnt want to come so they should increase the pay out cause of the missing boaters.
I almost forgot of two very important rule changes that need to made.Stickboy is required to have his cell phone in a bag that floats so he does not drop his phone in the drink and loose it again.Rule number two is Jbob cannot fish by the blue flower. 
Good one John!!! 
I think it was the purple flower
Quote:
I almost forgot of two very important rule changes that need to made.Stickboy is required to have his cell phone in a bag that floats so he does not drop his phone in the drink and loose it again.Rule number two is Jbob cannot fish by the blue flower.
The most impotant thing they need do is promote the events. If they can fill the qualifers, they should have no problem filling the championship.
Also maybe hold the championship in a state where the league has no events. This might even the field a little, with no one having home water advantage.
I like that idea of having it on a body of water outside of the participating states but I think that will make for fewer participants because of the distance to travel. For example….would someone from Michigan drive to Devils Lake, or Oahe or would someone from Mn drive to Port Clinton?? Those are just examples…I don’t think the payouts are good enough to get people to travel that far.
They called me to fish the championship this year….but they called me the week before. I hadn’t prefished and I actually used vacation time in Aug that I had intended to use for the championship. I am guessing they didn’t fill it for a couple reasons…it was on the river in Mn and they were trying to get people with very little notice and it is probably difficult for people to get the time off from work with that short of notice.
I am not knocking the river, it is a great fishery….but….I think there are a lot fewer people that feel comfortable fishing a river versus a lake…..even something as big and intimidating as Bays De Noc or Lake Erie.
I do not see any need for change on the league events they are affordable well run and if you desire higher payouts there are plenty of events that offer just that, If the format changes you will lure more full time pro,s and with that your chances of cashing a check as a weekend warrior go with it. I think maybe a state wide poll on possible locations would be nice it might entice a few more anglers and make us feel like we are apart of the process 
I’d like to see a slightly more sophisticated point system that rewards anglers that go out and get a limit. Here’s what I’m thinking, please feel free to chime in if you have a better method. Anglers with 5 fish, their point system starts at 200 and goes down from there, 4 fish start at 180 and go down from there, 3 fish 160 down, 2 fish 140 down and 1 fish 120 down, 0 is just that, zero. When there are more then 20 anglers with 5 fish that simply bumps the starting point for 4 fish down that many spots, etc. With today’s computer technology I would not anticipate this too difficult to implement and it provides another reward level for those that figure out difficult bites.
The other comments about getting more money through sponsors is a great idea but are the sponsors already tapped out?
I’m another one that had a strange first impression when so many of the top League anglers were absent at the Championship but the rules clearly state that the next angler will be given the opportunity and the sponsors that support the League deserve a full field or as close to full as possible. It gives someone that might have had a lot of hard luck a chance at a 621 Ranger. Only in America…….
Good post! Thanks for bringing this forward John G. Anxious to hear what other improvements anglers have in mind……..
Kurt
Talking with Mark Dorn at the championship he said they are changing the points system for next year. I don’t remember the exact way they are going to do it, but Mark said it will make it a tighter race in the end.
It will be interesting to see what changes they make.I am sure they will be fair.It sounds like they are willing to make this the best they can with our help and suggestions. So keep them coming.Their is really alot of idea’s to kick around.
Quote:
I’d like to see a slightly more sophisticated point system that rewards anglers that go out and get a limit. Here’s what I’m thinking, please feel free to chime in if you have a better method. Anglers with 5 fish, their point system starts at 200 and goes down from there, 4 fish start at 180 and go down from there, 3 fish 160 down, 2 fish 140 down and 1 fish 120 down, 0 is just that, zero. When there are more then 20 anglers with 5 fish that simply bumps the starting point for 4 fish down that many spots, etc. With today’s computer technology I would not anticipate this too difficult to implement and it provides another reward level for those that figure out difficult bites.
What happens if you are an angler who is skilled at catching larger fish? Chances are you may not get a limit if you’re going for those one or two large fish bites over the course of a day. I think this type of system would unnecessarily complicate the process. A limit on some bodies of water is definitely a greater accomplishment than someone who blindly stumbles into a large fish out of sheer dumb luck, but I would rather fish for a couple of pigs than go for a limit of smaller fish any day. I don’t necessarily agree that bringing in a limit is in all cases a greater accomplishment than catching a couple of nice hawgs. Just my two cents…
I can add some further insight as a first year co-angler. All in all I thought the Minnesota league events were well organized and a lot of fun. I entered the tournaments on a last second whim, not knowing exactly what to expect. I would have to say that, all in all, it was a good experience. I fished with some very good anglers, and some not so good anglers, but I learned a lot. My hat goes off to Mark Dorn and his crew. They handled the tournaments with the utmost class and professionalism.
Based on my limited experience I would like to see the following changes implemented for next year:
1) I don’t like the zero points for no fish, especially on the co-angler side. I think it would be a better idea to give token points for fishing the events. For example if the tournament is worth 200 points, maybe those boats that zero should get 50 points. A person who finishes near the top of one tournament could very easily finish higher in the season standings than someone who fishes in all four tournaments and zeros in one or two of them. This is a bit frustrating on the co-angler side, and exponentially so if you get paired with a boater who is on the body of water for the first time and didn’t pre fish.
2) I would like to see some sort of non-refundable entry fee for the championship. I understand there were several boaters who were down pre-fishing for the championship and left because they weren’t on fish. I think this is unacceptable, and shows a great amount of disrespect for the co-anglers and the league as a whole. I think they would have been less likely to leave or cancel at the last minute if they had some sort of financial commitment already vested in the championship. At the very least, it would serve as a minor penalty.
3) I am a bit torn on the issue of prize money. The chance at a $40,000 boat was enough for me to get excited about fishing the tournaments. There aren’t too many tournaments that offer the chance at that sort of grand prize, so I’m not sure that they really need to increase the prize money all that much.
4) Encourage some sort of dress code at the weigh-in for all tournaments.
5) No smoking, especially around the tournament weigh-in. My boater on Mille Lacs went through about a pack an hour, and tossed all of his butts and wrappers into the lake. Talk about a complete lack of respect for the fishery! I was very disgusted. There’s nothing like fishing downwind in a cloud of smoke all day. Littering should be grounds for immediate disqualification.
I completely agree that weight has to be factored in but in the 4 MN events and championship there was a total of 40 limits brought to the scale. Do the stats and you’ll see that more times then not bringing 5 fish to the scale will bring home more money consistently then swinging for the fence. Maybe the point system is fine like it is but I’ve always held those that can bring in 5 fish to a different standard…….. Again these are just my opinions, not right or wrong………
Well anyone who brought in a limit on Lake Bemidji certainly fished head and shoulders above the rest. That was one tough bite. I agree that in most cases catching a limit is indicitave of the anglers skill, but just not necessarily in all cases. It will be interesting to see what the new points system will be for next year….
When we are talking raising the payouts I think their is a couple of ways to go about it.Everybody promote the events as much as possible and hopefully fill the field with 100 boats or raise the entry fee or seek some more sponsor’s.I would like to see full fields and not have to raise the entry fee.I try to get friends to join all the time and show them how fun this League really is. 
I would like to see full fields at all the tournaments as well. It has been noted that there is near zero local promotion of the tournaments. If there was more local promotion it would create more excitement at the stage and help fill the field, but it would also change the mix of anglers. There would be a lot more one tournament boaters. That can be good and bad.
There is something to be said for the PWT format where you have to fish all the tournaments to be in the circuit. There is a key advantage to local knowledge.
I have mixed feelings on how it would impact the circuit.
Sully
One of the things I’d like to see is the payout be
spread out alot more than it is. Even though I won the big
prize, I don’t see that much equity in the payout level for
the championship. The qualifier payouts on the other hand are tiered ok.
If we increase the entry fees, we’d in all likelyhood lose more boaters. But as CW said in the pre-meeting for the championship, the FLW is going to aggressively grow the walleye tournaments like they did for the bass tournaments.
I’d love to see that. Along w/ full fields.
That’s my 2cents.
Dave Palecek
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
