USPSA World Shoot Selection Policy

[BritinUSA]

It seems that USPSA's World Shoot Policy is generating some ill-feelings…

IPSC typically awards 60 slots to the six largest regions and USPSA has published their policy on how those slots will be awarded. The concept is similar to what has been published before but the team allocation seems a little off to me.

• Open
• Open Lady
• Open Junior
• Standard
• Production
• Classic

With many media outlets indicating a strong growth of women in the shooting sports I think that excluding a Ladies Standard and Production team sends the wrong message, both teams medalled at the last World Shoot so I cannot understand why they are not on the list. The same is true of Revolver.

With sixty slots available there is the possibility of sending up to 15 teams (four people per team), obviously we cannot afford to fully fund every team. I think that those we do send should represent our best chances of winning medals in the both individual and team competitions.

Production, Standard and Open remain the most populous divisions in a typical World Shoot so teams in those three divisions for both Men, Women and Juniors should be the priority, so that produces nine teams and uses up 36 of those 60 slots.

Every team we submit should contain four team members; If a DQ occurs or some other significant problem, then the remaining three can still qualify for the team competition, if we have a team if only three then one mistake/problem and the whole team is out of the running.

Add a team for Revolver and Classic (both medalled at the last World Shoot), that makes eleven teams and uses up another 8 slots, bringing our total to 44.

I think this should be our minimum, what we do next depends on how many additional slots (if any) that we get, bearing in mind that ten slots are given to the President to award as he sees fit, so that brings the total of allocated slots to 54.

The remaining slots could be used for teams dependent on their skill levels, for example if we have four strong Open Senior shooters then we can submit an Open Senior Team. Repeat that for each division/category until we either run out of slots or run out of viable, competitive team members.

If we have slots left then allocate them to individuals based on performance (as per the current protocol).

For example if we have additional Open, Standard or Production competitors that have a shot at the title but missed the team allocation then I think we should award them a slot, this could come out of the Presidents 'ten' or from additional slots if we get them.

Also, I think that the World Shoot selection policy should be published before the end of a year with a World Shoot, so the next Policy would be published before the end of 2017. This way we can determine the success of the policy based on results from the WS and ensure that our members are aware of it before the first Nationals qualifier takes place the following year.

[bret]

How much does it cost to send a team?

[BritinUSA]

I think there is a team entry fee for the match, plus whatever money USPSA deems appropriate to help cover the costs of the trip and that would depend on the destination. The policy indicates that there is no commitment to provide funding for any of the teams, even those listed specifically, so I guess they make that determination when they do the budget for 2017.

Edited August 24, 2015 by BritinUSA

[MarkCO]

All we can hope is that the new President can clean this up...

[BritinUSA]

All we can hope is that the new President can clean this up...

The policy is already set for the next World Shoot and changing it now will only disenfranchise those that have entered and paid for slots to the various Nationals in order to stand the best chance of going to France. The only option I can see for 2017 is for the President to use the ten slots that he is allocated to provide for two additional teams, for me that would be Standard Lady and Production Lady.

Under the existing policy it is likely that the top Revolve shooters would already qualify.

[bret]

All we can hope is that the new President can clean this up...

Can the new President clean this up, or is he going to need the BOD to back him and vote with him?

[BritinUSA]

I think it has to be approved by the BOD, but as I mentioned above I think that realistically it's too late to fix it now, we have already had three of the qualifying Nationals, SingleStack, Revolver and Production and IPSC Nationals is next month so people have already paid money based on the current policy. I don't see how it can be changed now without causing a lot of grief.

[bret]

I think it has to be approved by the BOD, but as I mentioned above I think that realistically it's too late to fix it now, we have already had three of the qualifying Nationals, SingleStack, Revolver and Production and IPSC Nationals is next month so people have already paid money based on the current policy. I don't see how it can be changed now without causing a lot of grief.

It isn't right to change the rules midstream.

[MarkCO]

I am sure that the policy can be kept in tact and the new President, if so inclined, can clean it up by other means without creating angst. I am not advocating ditching an approved rule midstream.

Edited August 24, 2015 by MarkCO

[CHA-LEE]

Can someone explain the importance of the "Team's" thing in these IPSC matches. We don't do "Teams" of categories (Ladies, JR, SR, SSR, etc) for the USPSA major matches. Why would we want to burn up our very limited quantity of World Shoot slots on a bunch of category "Teams" when the majority of them don't have a snowballs chance in hell in actually contending for the win within the division. The same goes for padding the teams with 4 competitors because someone on the team might get DQed. Even more excessive waste of very limited WS slots if you ask me.

Why wouldn't we put a higher importance on allocating the slots based on who can actually win within the divisions? The people willing to spend huge $$$ to attend the World Shoot are the same people who are going with the goal of winning overall. Why would we hog up the majority of US world shoot slots for "Tourist" competitors that really don't stand a chance of winning overall?

I am not interested in attending the World Shoot myself, so I guess I really don't care how the slots are distributed. But how its currently being done seems pretty retarded if you ask me.

[BritinUSA]

For the men, we have maybe 6-8 people who could win Standard Division at a World Shoot, perhaps 5-6 Open shooters and a similar number of Production competitors that could win that division outright, that's about twenty people. We get 60 slots (at a minimum).

While many USPSA members don't give a hoot about IPSC because they never shoot it, the rest of the world does. And for the other regions, being picked to represent your country in a division/category is a very big deal. For some in USA it is also a big deal but its hard to explain what it means especially to someone who has little or no interest in it. I guess its like being selected to compete in the Super Squad at Nationals, if Nationals had 1500 competitors in it and the match lasted 6 days and had 30+ stages !

USPSA could market its success in World Shoots and help to promote the sport but it has not done a very good job of that, we had the World Shoot in our backyard last year and the media coverage was practically non-existent so I think USPSA missed an opportunity.

The World Shoot is our Olympics and just like those games its all about the Gold Medal count: Where we have a realistic chance of winning the Gold then we should participate with our best competitors, determining who those are is the trick and the cause of all this grief. We had a strong showing in Ladies Standard and Production and I think we can do even better in 2017 as there is some new talent on the horizon.

Figuring out how to pay for all this should be easy enough, we have many sponsors and there are ways that USPSA could help to raise money to help cover the costs of travel/hotel. USPSA World Shoot products can be sold, calendars, playing cards, mouse mats with photos of our top competitors on them could help to raise money. Raffles with prizes donated by sponsors, etc.

Edited August 24, 2015 by BritinUSA

[MarkCO]

In IPSC, "Team" medals are viewed as being just as important as individual medals. I am sure few in our egocentric, me-first country feel that way, but most of the rest of the world is more about "team" than the individual "superstar."

[MarkCO]

BTW, how many of you know we also send teams to the IPSC Shotgun WorldShoot? In fact our team is preparing for WorldShoot2015 next month. We have a strong contingent of Juniors, Ladies and Divisional teams. I know several of those shooters are all about team, and the USA has won medals.

[pmt]

How much does it cost to send a team?

It doesn't 'cost' anything to send a team. The costs involved with shooting the match are entry fees, airfare, hotel, meals, and shirts (if you all want to dress the same). The question is how much of these expenses will (should) USPSA cover, and for how many competitors. Going to France to shoot the match will probably amount to approx $3000 per person. The US will get 60 slots ($180K) Should USPSA (you and I) pay for any or all of this? Do we pay for the elite few that may medal, and tell everyone else 'good luck'? Of the 20K+ USPSA members, how many really care about the World Shoot?

[Ben Stoeger]

I wrote a policy also. Here it is:

This proposal is designed to help USPSA determine which teams to officially support with slots/funding as those things become available.

This policy would be in addition to the already official USPSA Team selection policy. This policy also would need to come in to effect after USPSA determines a slot award policy for individual USPSA (non team) members. This proposal would be a supplement to those policies.

USPSA is already committed to supporting the following teams:

Open

Standard

Production

Classic

Open Junior

Open Lady

Based on participation data, it seems that Open has seen a real decline in participation. If a new policy were being crafted today I suspect that Open Junior and Open Lady would not be the first two categories that USPSA would support. In any event, that commitment has been made publicly, and it seems difficult and unfair for USPSA to back away from it.

Moving forward, USPSA needs an objective way to determine what categories to offer support for and what categories not to. Obviously this is depending on two many factors:

1. Slots

USPSA will of course only be allocated a certain number of slots. There will likely be a policy in place soon for individuals to earn slots (non-team) based on performance and perhaps even a block of slots saved for a random draw lottery style system. Some slots will also likely be set aside for the RD to use his own discretion and award them as he sees fit.

2. Money

USPSA is not bound to offer any support to anyone that it has not already committed to. However, in the event that funds are available and the organization sees fit, it may offer to support additional teams.

In the event that USPSA has both slots and money available to support additional teams, I don't think anyone would object to supporting additional category teams. Using an objective system to determine where that support goes seems sensible, so I propose the following scheme.

We look at team participation data from the World Shoot in Florida. We then rank every category in terms of participation. The most heavily attended categories by teams will take first priority. For example, if one category had 8 teams and another had 6 teams, the category with 8 teams would be a priority for USPSA to support as it's own team. In the even of a tie, we will look not only to the Florida World Shoot, but also to Greece. We will analyze the trend. If one category is flat or declining and another is growing, the growing category will break the tie and take priority.

Using this scheme I have ranked all the IPSC categories:

Team participation is shown in parenthesis.

Open Senior (12)

Production Senior (9)

Standard Senior (9)

Standard Lady (6)

Production Lady (5)

Open Lady (5)

Junior Production (3)

Junior Open (3)

It should be noted that junior production and junior open are a true tie using this system, with identical data for both of the World Shoots we are looking at.

[Onepocket]

Ben, what's IPSC?

[BritinUSA]

See attached .pdf below that was compiled by José Luis de Diego (Spain), it shows participation in IPSC World Shoots going back to 1999.

​Open is declining and the increase in participation with Senior Teams in that division may be because they have the finances necessary to fund that equipment and/or the failing eyesight that requires the use of a red-dot (if only there was a cheaper alternative to Open… )

Anyway, it is clear that the participation of divisions is shifting and any slot policy needs to be reflective of that and also the need to promote certain demographics that may help our sport to become more widespread.

Divisions evolution.pdf

[Carmoney]

At the 2014 USPSA Nationals, 22 ladies competed in Open, 17 in Production, and 17 in Limited. Only 10 juniors competed in Open, 4 juniors in Production, and 4 juniors in Limited.

Let those numbers sink in for a minute, folks.

The extensive media coverage of our female and junior shooters is completely disproportionate to the actual participation numbers--which are very small.

[BritinUSA]

Media Coverage = Marketing

If we want to grow participation among women and juniors then we need to market the sport to those demographics, that is one part of media coverage.

The second part is exposure for the sponsors that help pay the cost of some of those women and juniors. By increasing exposure for those sponsors we encourage further sponsorship.

[PatJones]

At the 2014 USPSA Nationals, 22 ladies competed in Open, 17 in Production, and 17 in Limited. Only 10 juniors competed in Open, 4 juniors in Production, and 4 juniors in Limited.

Let those numbers sink in for a minute, folks.

The extensive media coverage of our female and junior shooters is completely disproportionate to the actual participation numbers--which are very small.

Media Coverage = Marketing

If we want to grow participation among women and juniors then we need to market the sport to those demographics, that is one part of media coverage.

The second part is exposure for the sponsors that help pay the cost of some of those women and juniors. By increasing exposure for those sponsors we encourage further sponsorship.

The same could be said of the smaller divisions. I believe divisions should trump categories.

[CHA-LEE]

I really don't get the continual marketing push for Ladies and Juniors. The vast majority of Ladies and Juniors participating in USPSA matches are doing so because their significant other, or family is participating in the sport already. There are not many Ladies or Juniors that will independently jump into the practical shooting sports 100% on their own without the involvement or support of their significant other or family. Sure there are a few that will or have, but that is more the exception than the rule. Every hobby has its associated expenses and if those expenses exceed the budget of Lady or Junior shooters then why would we try to augment or support this unsustainable situation?

The practical shooting sports are based on the volunteer efforts from the general membership which can comfortably afford to participate, which is easily quantified as middle aged men. Why we would focus so much marketing effort on "Bringing In" Ladies and Juniors to the sport who evidently need continual financial assistance to participate in the sport seems counter productive to me.

I would rather USPSA or IPSC reward/support the average volunteer member that continually busts their hump to make the practical shooting matches happen at the local club level. The local club match MD's, RM's, RO's, and CRO's that endlessly and thanklessly support their local practical shooting sports are the ones who actually make this sport viable. Why are we not "Supporting" these members for their proven dedicated to the sport? You need a cake to put icing on, but we continually market to the "Icing" demographic. If you have a big pile of Icing without a cake under it then you really don't have a "Cake" any more.

[titandriver]

Excellent post Charlie!!!

[C-Money]

Paul is absolutely correct that the point of the teams and sending people to WS is marketing. An effort to attract overall team or even division or category sponsors could lift the burden significantly for both those competitors and for USPSA members as a whole. Of course, the publicity generated from the event should also be greater in order to justify the support.

Figuring out a better WS policy should focus first on figuring out who we want to send to win medals, and who would go because they simply want to shoot without hope of winning a medal either singly or in a team. It might not be possible to send an entire Junior Open team, and there might not be a call for there to be some teams in other divisions+categories. This is assuming the argument for winning as many medals as possible for USPSA prevails. The reasons I feel a broad approach should prevail are:

1) This is the Olympics of practical pistol shooting. Nowhere else can you truly measure who is the best lady Standard division shooter (insert any category&division). This goes for regions as a whole as well.

2) National Pride. Bring home Gold for the USA. I think there is some value in all the medals we bring home, from Open to Ladies Classic. They are all still gold medals that you had to beat the best in the world in order to win. Sending as many teams as we can to maximize medals is the best play if you value the achievements those medals represent

3) Love of the shooting sports and desire to see them portrayed in a positive light. It is a good thing if you can show that women, youth, and seniors can participate and achieve renown on a level playing field. Not sending teams because of perceived tokenism is small-minded and restrictive thinking. Why shouldn't shooting sports and practical shooting be for everyone?

4) It maximizes sponsorship opportunities and possible stake-holders. There are people who care deeply about promoting women, juniors, and seniors in the shooting sports. Some of them have sponsorship dollars. By not bothering to send those shooters we show we don't want their support.

It seems nothing will get resolved or change until after the election. I certainly hope the next President and the BoD will revise the WS slot policy and the financial support they contribute to those going to the WS on official teams. I hope they also position and market USPSA involvement in the WS better than has been done in the past. It is a highly prestigious event, and should be portrayed as such.

[Nimitz]

as Cha-lee pointed out, in a sport which relies basically 100% on dedicated rank & file shooters to be volunteers to exist but does not support them to attend the WS seems inapproriate at the minimum. Particularly when you factor in that the top shooters in our sport are basically 'takers' and not 'givers' it really seems backwards not to also have a mechanism in place to reward volunteers as well.

I've started to see at matches which have random draw prize tables, separate prize tables for match staff as another way to say thanks. Seems to me we should be considering some kind of reward for volunteers WRT something like the WS as well ...

[MarkCO]

Don't lump all top shooters together as "takers". There are a good number of GM shooters who work, run matches and give back tremendously to the sport.

But I do agree with you Nimitz. I know some sections give slots to Nationals based on points earned for working matches, some only for match performance and some a hybrid. We only have a few of our top shooters in Colorado who do not run a match, help out at others and are generally good examples. But I do know that is not the story all over.