How to run the Nats (discuss) - split

[Carmoney]

Those that are complaining about how it is currently done are VERY welcome to volunteer their time and resources to USPSA next year to help offset the "over spending".

I don't think it's "complaining" to suggest that USPSA could consider doing some things differently in order to make the match run more efficiently and more profitably. I'm not saying I have all the answers, but I did make a couple constructive suggestions that I think might help the cause. With any organization like this, it's pretty easy to get stuck in a rut and keep doing things the same way year after year, even when they aren't working as well as they could.

Many of us who are active participants on this forum regularly contribute to the sport in many ways, and at various levels.....some more obvious than others.

[Chris iliff]

Tuna and I worked a stage at the 2012 Florida Open. It was exhausting. I thought Frank was generous and compensated us, but like others state, it's a losing proposition if you think you are going to break even. RO's shot for free, so I did save money there.

I haven't worked a nationals, but I doubt it could be harder than a Florida Open stage, maybe I'm wrong. We started at first light, and I mean, first light, and ran shooters till late, late in the day. It was just Tuna and me, not two of the most physically fit specimens by far.

Anyways, I'm finding it hard to understand why you'd need more than two staff per stage. So maybe money could be saved there. I love the idea of staff shooting for free. I love the idea of rotating a small group of staff as "break" RO's.

If I had to pay for a hotel, or even some of a hotel, that would be a deal breaker. If I had to pay for more than 1 meal a day that would be a deal breaker. Frank provided food for staff.

I do think USPSA could rethink some things, possibly save some money. I think splitting it up into 6 different nationals would make it worse.

[colt]

From what a couple of friends that worked the Nat. this year I think if there just 2 ROs per stage the ROs would drop after the 2nd day. 12 hours is a long day in hot weather. Good luck getting ROs the next year.

Brent

[kevin c]

Isn't there is a difference between monetary efficiency and match efficiency?

Of all matches, the Nationals should be the ones most professionally run and cock up free, and if it takes extra staff or money to do it (and I think it likely) then so be it.

I don't think that a business HR point of view, where you PAY people and can REQUIRE them to do things beyond what they think is reasonable (or quit or be fired) applies to a situation where the staff are volunteering their time and effort with minimal compensation.

I'm all for any extra efficiency to make the matches run better, but not if it comes at the cost of stressing the staff more than they are already.

As far as the prize table's go. This year I finished roughly in the middle of the pack in both matches, and went home with $200 in discounts on my favorite bullets, and a discount card good up to $500 on equipment. I'm not complaining (anyway, I don't go to the Nationals for the prize table).

Edited December 1, 2012 by kevin c

[Nik Habicht]

The back to back format has taken the Nats from a huge money drain on the organization to at least coming close to breaking even if not coming out a bit ahead. Splitting them into 6 separate events would likely take us back to pouring money down the Nationals hole.

With all due respect, Chuck, I never understand why we keep hearing this claim from USPSA.

This year 868 competitors shot the back-to-back Nats in Vegas. If you figure $250 average entry fee, that's $217,000 in total entry fees, and the prize tables were donated (and pretty frickin' weak). WHERE DOES ALL THE MONEY GO??

Back in 2003, USPSA ran a Limited match, an Open match and a production match -- with ~780 shooters in all. The organization lost significant money that year (though the multigun match may have also played a role)....

It led to a bylaw change -- giving the BOD some opportunity to reign the president's plans in....

That doesn't mean it couldn't work -- just that there'd need to be significant budget oversight, and very capable match planning across all matches....

Travel costs might be a factor as well -- when you pay (partially?) for transportation to and from a back to back match, that's going to be more affordable than paying for individual matches in separate locations. Too many locations may have been part of the issue in our prior attempts at this, hence the development of the back to back system...

[gino_aki]

I could see more similar (well as far as mag capacity is concerned) combos of the divisions in the current format...like Open being paired with Limited and L-10 with Production as well as having Revolver be with the Single Stack Nationals as I understand it's going to be for 2013. Be able to design stages that play to each divisions tactics and strategies a little more...which may or may not produce more efficiencies in stage clearing times.

[CHA-LEE]

The thing I don't get is how there can be significant issues at the Nationals but not at Area matches of roughly the same shooter count. The two USPSA Handgun Nationals I have attended and worked (2011, 2012) had significant issues from multiple fronts. There is always something to complain about or do better but from what I seen both times most of the failures I seen were due to there being too many Chiefs and too many Indians. With a State, Section, or Area match you usually have one person that "Owns" everything in the match and has a vested interest in making it happen properly. At the Nationals there are far too many "Bosses" that only have a small chunk they are "Boss of" so you end up with a congenital issue of "This is my little thing to worry about, I don't care about anything else" going on. Then you have way too many Indians working on each stage.

A lot of the issues are manufactured during the match. Like setting up two stages on one bay, which never works causing delays and squad log jams. Or allowing WAY too many shooters "Walk On" and sign up for the match right before it starts causing congenital match schedule issues because there are simply too many shooters to work with the predefined schedule. Or having invalid stage and schedule data in the Match Book, does it really take that much effort to proof read the stages or make sure that the correct match schedule is used?

The way I see it, once you open the door to "Compensating" the match staff its really hard to create a financially viable match. This is a volunteer sport at all levels, from club matches to the nationals. We need to keep to that mantra in order to make these things work. You are either volunteering your time and $$$ to help run the match or you are not. I think that when we are staffing matches with non-shooters that is the start of the problem. There is no reason why the majority of the match staff couldnt also be active shooters who will also compete in the match. As a match director, all you need to do is make the schedule work to support that plan.

[old506]

Very well stated.

The thing I don't get is how there can be significant issues at the Nationals but not at Area matches of roughly the same shooter count. The two USPSA Handgun Nationals I have attended and worked (2011, 2012) had significant issues from multiple fronts. There is always something to complain about or do better but from what I seen both times most of the failures I seen were due to there being too many Chiefs and too many Indians. With a State, Section, or Area match you usually have one person that "Owns" everything in the match and has a vested interest in making it happen properly. At the Nationals there are far too many "Bosses" that only have a small chunk they are "Boss of" so you end up with a congenital issue of "This is my little thing to worry about, I don't care about anything else" going on. Then you have way too many Indians working on each stage.

A lot of the issues are manufactured during the match. Like setting up two stages on one bay, which never works causing delays and squad log jams. Or allowing WAY too many shooters "Walk On" and sign up for the match right before it starts causing congenital match schedule issues because there are simply too many shooters to work with the predefined schedule. Or having invalid stage and schedule data in the Match Book, does it really take that much effort to proof read the stages or make sure that the correct match schedule is used?

The way I see it, once you open the door to "Compensating" the match staff its really hard to create a financially viable match. This is a volunteer sport at all levels, from club matches to the nationals. We need to keep to that mantra in order to make these things work. You are either volunteering your time and $$$ to help run the match or you are not. I think that when we are staffing matches with non-shooters that is the start of the problem. There is no reason why the majority of the match staff couldnt also be active shooters who will also compete in the match. As a match director, all you need to do is make the schedule work to support that plan.

[MarkCO]

Good points Charlie.

In some respect, we are still complaining about the way the "old administration" ran the matches, as we have not yet experienced what the "new administration" is going to do. I've voiced my opinions to the "new administation" (which includes past and new ADs as well) in person, via e-mail and on the phone. Most of my concerns have been addressed and I have refreshed optimism for the direction of USPSA as a whole and for the nationals.

I do firmly beleive that allowing staff to shoot and be scored in the main match will increase the overall proficiency, comraderie and quality of the nationals. Will it cost more or less? Depends on how it is done, but it can certainly be done for less.

[BSeevers]

I paid some of my own money to work the Nationals. I believe that should not ever happen. I can see a point of not profiting but a $300 air allowance and $15? food is a joke. In addition, I was so beat up it affected my first day of shooting, very much. I will never do that again,I might consider shooting first or do a separate stand alone one.

We had 4 RO's one day and 3 the next two and frankly it was working straight, dawn to dusk with no break. This is outta control I think. Two RO's on a 32 rounds long course? no way.

Oh yea, you rude or stupid shooters, get your own freaking chair and don't sit in the RO area since he is working on scores/prepping and might also be trying to steal a 30 second sit down break.

[sperman]

Back in 2003, USPSA ran a Limited match, an Open match and a production match -- with ~780 shooters in all. The organization lost significant money that year (though the multigun match may have also played a role)....

I know nothing about the USPSA budget, so this may be a naive statement, but....

I can't think of a better way to give back to the sport than by spending money on Nationals. I'm not saying we need to pay the staff, but if we lose a little money to put on a great match I don't see that as a bad thing.

[Jaxshooter]

• Maybe the answer is to do away with 12 hour days for the staff. If you have 4 people on a stage why not split the work into two 6 hour shifts. You have the squad reset steel and paste targets. The two ROs can switch off running the timer and scoring. You can also add another person if necessary that is not a certified RO. You can certainly get by with 2-3 people working a 6 hour shift.
  

[Jaxshooter]

The other thing mentioned every year is how walk up shooters mess everything up. The solution to that is provide for more shooters to participate in the matchfrom day one. The NSSA, ATA and NSCA handle more shooters at each of their National Championships than USPSA handles at all of theirs combined. Maybe somebody needs to visit these events and see how they manage to do it. Yes they have referees, scorekeepers, trap boys and support personnel. In addition the courses in sporting clays are changed daily. They also run 5 Stand events and Fitasc daily while the sporting clays are being shot.

I also hope that Phil will provide more financial information to the members than the previous administration. If we are losing money on the Nationals I hate to think what is being lost annually on Steel Challenge both in operating cost and cost of money used to purchase it.

[CHA-LEE]

I paid some of my own money to work the Nationals. I believe that should not ever happen. I can see a point of not profiting but a $300 air allowance and $15? food is a joke. In addition, I was so beat up it affected my first day of shooting, very much. I will never do that again,I might consider shooting first or do a separate stand alone one.

We had 4 RO's one day and 3 the next two and frankly it was working straight, dawn to dusk with no break. This is outta control I think. Two RO's on a 32 rounds long course? no way.

Oh yea, you rude or stupid shooters, get your own freaking chair and don't sit in the RO area since he is working on scores/prepping and might also be trying to steal a 30 second sit down break.

Your requirement to work from dawn to dusk non-stop is a perfect example of poor match management. There is no valid reason why a shooting schedule can not be adhered to if the Match Director and Range Master plan effectively. Inviting stage log jams by doubling up stages on a single bay, or allowing way too many shooters enter the match will lead to the match schedule getting blown out of the water. These are just two examples out of many things that can cause the match schedule to get jacked up.

Its up to the primary match staff (MD & RM) to put their foot down and NOT allow things to happen which will circumvent the effectiveness of the match. Ideally these decisions need to be made well before the match even starts. If someone proposes that two stages be doubled up on a single bay, that idea should dismissed as ineffective and not used. The maximum shooter attendance per day for the match must be strictly adhered to, no exceptions. These kind of decisions usually only work when you have one person in charge of the whole thing, not a group of people that need to squabble about it to come up with a decision.

Also, if you think there is enough $$$ in the match to fully pay for all of your expenses while ROing the match you are grossly misinformed. The only way that is happening is if the entry fee for the nationals is $1000 per shooter, which will not happen. Even if the entry fee was $1000 per shooter the match staff would still find a way to blow all of that money. That is human nature. You spend what you make.

[remoandiris]

Doesn't seem like Nats are really splitting that much. Lim & Open/Lim 10 are b2b. SS and revo are combined in Pasa. A separate Prod Nats is really the only difference.

I'm hoping to work the Lim Nats and shoot Open Nats. I might volunteer to work the Prod Nats on my way back from UT if there is enough time to drive there at a leisurely pace.

[pskys2]

Doesn't seem like Nats are really splitting that much. Lim & Open/Lim 10 are b2b. SS and revo are combined in Pasa. A separate Prod Nats is really the only difference.

I'm hoping to work the Lim Nats and shoot Open Nats. I might volunteer to work the Prod Nats on my way back from UT if there is enough time to drive there at a leisurely pace.

Actually the biggest change is the Separate Revolver Nationals, that is earth shattering. Simply due to the leap of faith of our new President for a Division that has traditionally been an after thought. But has a small hard core following. Hats off to Phil. I'd be curious to hear updates on how many are entering.

With the popularity of Production , Open, Single Stack and Limited it's a no brainer to have separate matches, if you have the people to staff it. Limited 10 is the only one being combined. And being as some are subject to those restrictions probably shouldn't be eliminated.

Finding the qualified staff for this many National Matches is a huge feat and we must hope it doesn't lead to a burn out and then a decrease in the Matches themselves.

[Nik Habicht]

The way I see it, once you open the door to "Compensating" the match staff its really hard to create a financially viable match. This is a volunteer sport at all levels, from club matches to the nationals. We need to keep to that mantra in order to make these things work. You are either volunteering your time and $$$ to help run the match or you are not. I think that when we are staffing matches with non-shooters that is the start of the problem. There is no reason why the majority of the match staff couldnt also be active shooters who will also compete in the match. As a match director, all you need to do is make the schedule work to support that plan.

Volunteering -- cool. Volunteering and spending ~ $60-100 per night on a hotel room to work the match, as well as big dollars to travel to the match -- a lot less cool. Not providing lunch and beverages for your match staff -- decidedly uncool......

There are advantages to running a match with a dedicated staff running all shooters through their stages -- but those advantages cost. There are ways to rotate staff through stages without losing that consistency -- but it's harder to pull off.....

I support USPSA both with my talents and my checkbook every year. I would never volunteer to work a Nationals, if the cost for that topped $1000 -- a number that's pretty easy to hit with three hotel nights (the bare minimum), some meals and not a lot of travel....

[Nik Habicht]

Back in 2003, USPSA ran a Limited match, an Open match and a production match -- with ~780 shooters in all. The organization lost significant money that year (though the multigun match may have also played a role)....

I know nothing about the USPSA budget, so this may be a naive statement, but....

I can't think of a better way to give back to the sport than by spending money on Nationals. I'm not saying we need to pay the staff, but if we lose a little money to put on a great match I don't see that as a bad thing.

I'm ok with spending a bit of money to put on the nationals, in an off year. I don't need them to make a profit for the org, if they break even, I'm happy.....

Back in 2003 though, I believe the short fall approached or hit 6 figures. That kind of money severely cuts into the org's reserve cash -- and that's not sustainable....

[pjb45]

I think the point that is trying to be made and addressed is the past match administration should not be the model for future national matches.

Perhaps a new crew needs to be involved in the design and development of the matches.

This past Limited Nationals was an organizational disaster. When it is past 7PM, I finished eating dinner and shooters are coming in from the range something is wrong. When we are the first squad to shoot in the morning but we cannot because we have to wait for another squad to finish three stages be we can start something is wrong. When the sun is setting on the West facing ranges and the ROs will not allow a 10 minute delay so the shooters can actually see the targets something is wrong.

I had one Area Director tell me that only responsibility the President has is putting on the Nationals. Maybe that is true, I don't know but perhaps the actually roles and responsibility of all the USPSA needs to be spelled out.

How many times were candidates for President and Area Directors had a phrase "make the staff more responsive...."

Improvement requires an honest evaluation of past problems with an emphasis to fixing them not pointing fingers.

[Atlgentlegiant]

I am at matches locally nearly every month including setup and tear down. My main issue is the lack of RO courses run at regular schedules anywhere near me. To me USPSA needs to put more effort into getting more ROs and providing incentive to work the major matches. I would willing pay a little towards my room or food (but not both) and the key is match management. Making things work to schedule, making sure there are enough people to provide breaks and such. I am still new to this and still working things out but that is what I see.

[CHA-LEE]

The way I see it, once you open the door to "Compensating" the match staff its really hard to create a financially viable match. This is a volunteer sport at all levels, from club matches to the nationals. We need to keep to that mantra in order to make these things work. You are either volunteering your time and $$$ to help run the match or you are not. I think that when we are staffing matches with non-shooters that is the start of the problem. There is no reason why the majority of the match staff couldnt also be active shooters who will also compete in the match. As a match director, all you need to do is make the schedule work to support that plan.

Volunteering -- cool. Volunteering and spending ~ $60-100 per night on a hotel room to work the match, as well as big dollars to travel to the match -- a lot less cool. Not providing lunch and beverages for your match staff -- decidedly uncool......

There are advantages to running a match with a dedicated staff running all shooters through their stages -- but those advantages cost. There are ways to rotate staff through stages without losing that consistency -- but it's harder to pull off.....

I support USPSA both with my talents and my checkbook every year. I would never volunteer to work a Nationals, if the cost for that topped $1000 -- a number that's pretty easy to hit with three hotel nights (the bare minimum), some meals and not a lot of travel....

I totally agree with your comments for match staff that is not shooting the match. It would be very unrealistic to expect a non-participant to shoulder the full cost of being there and working the whole time. But your point about this makes my other point very important.

If the match staff is comprised of shooters who plan on participating in the match along with working it then the out of pocket costs become a lot more "Justified". Participants always spend their hard earned money on expenses to attend the match anyway because they want to shoot. If they are going to be spending money on all of those expenses anyway then why would it be a requirement for the match to cover their expenses if they are "Volunteering" to help run the match? Sure, treat these volunteers right, give them a "Match Staff" shirt, a free entry and meals at the range when they are working. But anything beyond that is extravagant and wasteful.

We need to promote USPSA matches as a volunteer sport that does not succeed without the hard work and dedication of its members. The hard work and dedication of the USPSA membership is what makes all of these matches happen from the Local level all the way up to the National level.

When the mentality of the membership transitions to a "What am I going to get out of Volunteering" or "Let someone else do all of the work" then we are in trouble. We don't help this situation by promoting both of these thought processes by creating excessive "RO Packages" and creating match "Consumers" instead of "Participants".

[BritinUSA]

Everyone wants Nationals to be a success but there seem to be many different views about how to go about this; I've watched the last four Nationals closely, as I've been covering them since 2009. I see a lot of the same problems every year;

1. Allowing walk-on shooters, as others have stated this can throw out the schedule, it causes delays during the registration process, this stresses out the organisers and those running the registration process. There were delays in the start of registration, the second match the delays were caused by the people that had booked the room before USPSA, they were supposed to be out about 1.5 hours before registration started but they over-ran.

2. Hosting Nationals late in the year reduces the number of daylight hours, the glare on the range during this year's Nationals was crazy. And once the sun dipped below the mountains the lighting became a serious issue especially on the final day of the first match, people were competing in the dark ! They had no option to shoot the next morning as the match would have been over. The added number of shooters at the match contributed to this problem.

3. Doubling up stages on a single berm; They don't work, stop it !... seriously.

4. Round count; The higher the round count, the longer it takes to clear the stages. Personally I prefer the IPSC method of stage design, the 3-2-1 ratio of short, medium and large courses. I think they provide a better test of the competitor's abilities and also provide an advantage for RO's that want to volunteer to work the match but are perhaps not as physically able as they once were.

5. The biggest cost in running Nationals is probably the staff costs, I don't think that expecting people to pay out of their own pocket to work 12 hours a day is reasonable. I've been paying out of my own pocket to cover USPSA matches since 2009 (hotel + travel) and the costs are horrendous ! The past couple of years USPSA has covered my hotel bill which is usually well over $600 for the back to back Nationals.

6. USPSA negotiates a group rate for the staff but I think that group rate is predicated on the number of rooms that will be booked by the competitors. The more people that book at the match hotel the better the rate that USPSA gets, plus some other complimentary services. So if competitors book in the match hotel, it saves USPSA money... I suspect that many of our members do not know that... Perhaps it should be publicized a little better.

7. I agree that we should provide the option for RO's to shoot the match, but that would increase costs as they would need at least an extra day or two in the hotel to cover those shooting days, they would have to work as well as shoot as we would need RO's to run the RO's.

8. Increasing the sponsorship of Nationals could enhance the amount of money available for the competition. Non-shooting companies could be approached, Go-Pro, Red-Bull etc. But I think in order to get that kind of sponsorship would require more exposure of the sport than what we are currently achieving. There are a growing number of companies/organisations/people that are recording video of our matches and using that to promote our sport would give added exposure for these sponsors, which in turn could increase that sponsorship.

9. Social Media.... USPSA sucks at this. I have been checking the video downloads from my web-site and the most popular videos are those that were promoted by the shooters on their Facebook pages. I despise Facebook as much as the next person but as a method of growing our sport it should not be ignored, our sport has a 'season' and obviously during the down-time there's not much to report on, but once the season is underway then we should be promoting what we do as a driver to increasing membership and sponsors.

Edited December 10, 2012 by BritinUSA

[Carmoney]

I totally agree with your comments for match staff that is not shooting the match. It would be very unrealistic to expect a non-participant to shoulder the full cost of being there and working the whole time. But your point about this makes my other point very important.

If the match staff is comprised of shooters who plan on participating in the match along with working it then the out of pocket costs become a lot more "Justified". Participants always spend their hard earned money on expenses to attend the match anyway because they want to shoot. If they are going to be spending money on all of those expenses anyway then why would it be a requirement for the match to cover their expenses if they are "Volunteering" to help run the match? Sure, treat these volunteers right, give them a "Match Staff" shirt, a free entry and meals at the range when they are working. But anything beyond that is extravagant and wasteful.

We need to promote USPSA matches as a volunteer sport that does not succeed without the hard work and dedication of its members. The hard work and dedication of the USPSA membership is what makes all of these matches happen from the Local level all the way up to the National level.

When the mentality of the membership transitions to a "What am I going to get out of Volunteering" or "Let someone else do all of the work" then we are in trouble. We don't help this situation by promoting both of these thought processes by creating excessive "RO Packages" and creating match "Consumers" instead of "Participants".

Very well stated.

I'll say it again--there is no real reason why Nationals cannot be a profitable venture for USPSA without raising entry fees.

My entry fees for everything else in life are going up in January because certain other leadership can't manage to keep their spending under control. We can certainly do better in this organization.

[remoandiris]

If the match staff is comprised of shooters who plan on participating in the match along with working it then the out of pocket costs become a lot more "Justified". Participants always spend their hard earned money on expenses to attend the match anyway because they want to shoot. If they are going to be spending money on all of those expenses anyway then why would it be a requirement for the match to cover their expenses if they are "Volunteering" to help run the match? Sure, treat these volunteers right, give them a "Match Staff" shirt, a free entry and meals at the range when they are working. But anything beyond that is extravagant and wasteful.

Are you saying for the 3 days the person is working the match they should pay for their own room, rental car, etc? I think you'll have a tough time getting "volunteers" in the out years. If someone will spend just as much money only shooting as they would shooting and ROing, what is their incentive to work the extra days? "I worked Nationals and all I got was this lousy t-shirt". I don't think that'll go over too well.

We need to promote USPSA matches as a volunteer sport that does not succeed without the hard work and dedication of its members. The hard work and dedication of the USPSA membership is what makes all of these matches happen from the Local level all the way up to the National level.

True. How many threads have been on Enos asking for methods to get more people involved in match setup and operations? How many MDs have complained about burnout?

When the mentality of the membership transitions to a "What am I going to get out of Volunteering" or "Let someone else do all of the work" then we are in trouble. We don't help this situation by promoting both of these thought processes by creating excessive "RO Packages" and creating match "Consumers" instead of "Participants".

What is an "excessive RO package"? How much money do you think ROs should be spending to work a match? I spent $200 to work the last L III I was involved in. I could have skipped the long hours and extra days, squadded with my friends, and spent the same amount. Did I work it for the excessive RO package? No, because there wasn't one. I will, however, think long and hard before I work that match again.

Edited December 10, 2012 by remoandiris

[CHA-LEE]

remoandiris> You are still trying to apply the existing Nationals work strategy to the idea that I am proposing which obviously does not work. We need to start thinking outside of the box with this stuff instead of trying to jam a square peg into a round hole then pointing out that it does not work.

There is no reason why the "RO's" would need to shoot or work exclusively on certain days. Since the match is already broken up into half days of shooting you could have the same person shoot one half of the day then work the other half of the day. Doing this would eliminate the need of the shooters staying extra days before or after they shoot to RO. For this plan to work its important that the match schedule have enough cushion to deal with issues and not fall behind schedule and be strictly adhered to. Its also important to disallow actions that will put the match schedule at jeopardy, such as letting 20% more shooters walk on at the last minute. You also don't set a match schedule that requires 12 hour days to complete.

This is just an idea, but as I stated before, different plans in staffing a match require a completely different strategy in running the match.

I don't understand your last comment about the excessive RO package. You chose to volunteer your time and $$$ to help run the match. There is nothing stating that you should be committed to working that same match year after year. If we had the bulk of USPSA members that attend large matches willing to do what you do even once a year that would more than cover what is needed to staff these big matches without causing excessive expenses for the match. This is what I was talking about before. We need to foster the "Give back to the sport" mentality. The more of that we have the better off we all are.

Edited December 10, 2012 by CHA-LEE