rgkeller

Florida State has been changed to Mar 29, 30 Still at Garcia Range in Frostproof.

What could the membership possibly know about three gun that the BOD and USPSA don't know.

I hope and trust RO's will know and enforce the correct starting postion of Uprange.

And no mission count fees.

The crux of the matter.

>>I want USPSA to be *THE* brand name in practical shooting the same way Microsoft is the brand name in desktop computing, and I feel that this benefits our membership.<< How?

That option was discussed at length, and ultimately rejected. The consensus was that doing it that way would have been bad for USPSA, bad for the clubs, and bad for the shooting sports. Why? -- starting something from nothing always costs more than starting from a stable foundation and building on top of it. To say there could be a USPSA steel division "without the outlay of funds" is just not reality. -- we would have faced an uphill battle from day one, because we would have already had a fully in-place competitor with brand recognition, media visibility and momentum -- additionally, since the SC would have been sold to someone else, *they* would be in a position to do what we're trying to do (build the SC Shooting Association into a national - or international? network of affiliated clubs and matches) -- we would have further fractured the community of competitive shooters, by *adding* to the number of things that clubs/members can choose to spend their time on ("let's see, do we want to do SC steel, or Florida steel, or USPSA steel? We can't do all of them, let's pick one...) In essence, we would have been "the IDPA" of steel shooting (I mean no disrespect to IDPA in that... only noting that they started up from nothing as a direct competitor to USPSA, and it has had a fracturing effect on all of us). -- in the same vein, if we had started a "USPSA steel division", we would have needed to develop different stages, different formats, etc, in order to avoid conflict with (and potential legal issues over) "the Steel Challenge". We would have had to spend *more* money to differentiate ourselves and build our own brand - against an established and respected brand, and it would have been very hard to show that USPSA's "different" was "better". By buying the Steel Challenge (the match, the name, the org, the physical assets and the rest) we now *own* that intellectual property and can use it (and license it for clubs and matches to use) without creating a conflict with anyone. We end up making the sport stronger, without having to fight to make anyone else weaker. That seems... more "respectable... at least to me. At the end of the day, we felt it was better to start with a known quantity and grow it, than to start from nothing and try to *compete* against that known quantity. $.02 Bruce So, how much did we/you spend to buy the Steel Challenge? How much does USPSA intend to charge people and clubs to shoot Steel Challenge?

USPSA is about competition. If the competition becomes secondary, then USPSA is toast.

True dat.

Ms. Chico, The "downside" is the resources spent by USPSA to buy something that the members and the clubs could and have already done. Are you willing to send USPSA club fees and mission count fees for your SC matches? What do you expect to receive in return?

"Now USPSA could have spent the limited resources as you state to develop a new shooting discipline that would have no guarantee of being a success in the near future and that could prove to be even more disastrous." Or USPSA Directors, Officers and Staff could stop trying to change USPSA from its current role as custodian of a difficult and challenging sport to an umbrella organization of many different shooting sports. A change being taken with no input from the membership, no debate during the recent election and no details as to the overall plan.

In your post you are asking to use USPSA's limited resources to enhance our sport, and then in the same sentenance you talk about diluting those same resources to develop a different game. USPSA purchsed an already succesfull shooting discipline. So your comparision above is flawed. Now USPSA could have spent the limited resources as you state to develop a new shooting discipline that would have no guarantee of being a success in the near future and that could prove to be even more disastrous. - Alan So we can assume that none of the existing USPSA staff will be used for SC stuff. If they are, that is dilution. And that the money spent for the SC did not come from the dues/mission count/classifier fees from USPSA members and clubs. If it did, that is dilution. USPSA bought a match attended by 250 or so shooters including all the pistol shooting pros. And the opportunity to charge clubs and shooters at the local, section and area level who shoot steel matches some sort of fee.

Perhaps I don't understand the question. The differences between SC and USPSA matches are enormous. The difference between the value of a guiding central authority for SC and USPSA is enormous. The differences between the skills required for SC and USPSA competition are enormous. All this seems self evident.

Why not use USPSA's HQ's and USPSA clubs' limited resources to enchance the sport defined in our principles rather than dilute those resources and ignore those principles to develop a game consisting of low power, static postion, shooting drills? Sounds to me like the BOD and staff are writing a check they expect the membership to cash.

I remember when every ten year old boy in school had a pocket knife.

Looking at results, it seems that the SC in Piru had about 250 competitors. Is this accurate? How much was the 2007 match fee. How much were the fees for the side matches?

A "Classic" match.

Well, the USPSA beat them to the Steel Challenge.

So you envision the role of ADs and SCs to expand to include promotion of Steel Challenge?

Chuck, I have run a local Steel Challege match for the last few years. About half the shooters at SC are not USPSA shooters. I get NRA/Biachi shooters, IDPA, misc., and a whole flock of the newbies. The non-USPSA shooters are there. So, for you, what does USPSA bring to your party?

Here is one source with SC stage packages. Posted for cost info only. http://www.dswelding.com/packages.html

Dale said something interesting on the USPSA Forums (most posts on which are months or *years* old) -- why not let USPSA rent a forum space here, instead? Seriously. How many members are hitting USPSA forums but don't know about this forum? And for those that don't, it would do 'em good. Like shooting vitamins. Maybe the Board will buy it.

You are fortunate to have access to a range that has so many "slots" for matchs. Many ranges only permit one or two matches a month. USPSA matches already compete with SASS and IDPA for these slots. Do you think that the steel match folks will be willing to send money every month to USPSA?

"Now gotta go to figure out how to incorporate SC stages into the local match scheme." More Steel. Less IPSC.

"Lastly, I see some people bitching about this that to the best of my knowledge have never worked on a big match for USPSA, nor have they been on, or run for, the board. I could be wrong, but I know about Nationals, and I've never seen any of you there, except maybe as competitors. In my opinion, you can be part of the problem, or part of the solution. Take your pick." Well, sometimes the peasants who work hard at local clubs - the clubs that do the actual work of recruiting new members and who take the financial risk when they buy new equipment and who faithfully send in their mission count and classifier fees - feel a need to voice their opinion on a matter which is certain to influence them. Forgive me.