Why are Nationals so important to USPSA?

[MoNsTeR]

I'm saddened by all the replies who clearly didn't read, or didn't bother to understand the original post.

I wondered the same thing as the OP. Nationals is already a huge production, so why make it your #1 priority? Of all the criticisms that could be leveled at Voigt and the rest of the "current administration", is "not spending enough money & effort on Nationals" at the top of that list? I would prefer a focus on applying some sanity to the rulebook, or support for growing the sport at a local and regional level. The importance of Nationals, as described by many posters in this thread, is understood. The question is whether it's the most important margin at which to focus the efforts of USPSA HQ.

[Chills1994]

thanks cha-lee and ima45dv8 for answering my question with regard to 100% HF's. now if we could just get a for real classifiers records page published to the USPSA.org website.....

ya...know... this is just me speculating...but it could be that whoever(s) is running for USPSA President probably just decided that declaring the National matches were going to be their #1 priority just reckoned that was the safest (least controversial or least polarizing) "platform" to run on.

again, just speculating but maybe the candidates have other agendas in mind, but want to play it close to the vest and NOT tip their hands just yet.

or maybe NOT.

+1 to Monster. my sentiments exactly. funny how everybody read the same OP and came to different conclusions about what he meant.

[ima45dv8]

thanks cha-lee and ima45dv8 for answering my question with regard to 100% HF's. now if we could just get a for real classifiers records page published to the USPSA.org website.....

ya...know... this is just me speculating...but it could be that whoever(s) is running for USPSA President probably just decided that declaring the National matches were going to be their #1 priority just reckoned that was the safest (least controversial or least polarizing) "platform" to run on.

again, just speculating but maybe the candidates have other agendas in mind, but want to play it close to the vest and NOT tip their hands just yet.

or maybe NOT.

+1 to Monster. my sentiments exactly. funny how everybody read the same OP and came to different conclusions about what he meant.

I'm speculating you check in your closet and under the bed for that Grassy-knoll shooter before turning in at night.

[whitedog]

Upon further thought and more reading of posts.

I believe it is a symbiotic relationship. We need manufactures, they need customers. U.S.P.S.A. would not be what it is without this relationship.

That being said, making nationals larger for the "little" guy, or changing the way one gets in would not be a bad idea. The grassroots B and C shooters are the backbone of this sport.

[JFlowers]

If you ever get a chance to shoot a major match internationally, you would realize how our Nationals differ from similar matches around the world. EHC 2010 was over twice the size of the US Handgun Nationals. Plus international matches tend to have more pomp and circumstance. I think many of the candidates for president would like to see the US Handgun Nationals made into a premier match worldwide through growth and better planning.

Plus the issues with the Nationals - timing, announcement, etc - is one of this forums top complaints!

[wide45]

We need to keep the politics out of this thread lest it be closed.

The original question was a good one, and we have had some good answers.

Competition was the primary reason for the formation of USPSA. The Nationals is deserving of considerable attention, and USPSA has put the production of the nationals in the lap of the President.

[Carmoney]

I don't think it is because of money. Last I heard the Nationals is a financial "loser".

I think that's bullcrap.

If it's actually true, then the match is being horribly mismanaged.

[Religious Shooter]

I don't think it is because of money. Last I heard the Nationals is a financial "loser".

I think that's bullcrap.

If it's actually true, then the match is being horribly mismanaged.

So you think it's important because of the money? Or are you saying it's bullcrap because the Nationals is actually a cash cow for USPSA?

According to a former BOD member:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=95150&view=findpost&p=1090723

USPSA has consistently lost money on the MG nationals and the entire idea behind USPSA offering MG was to broaden our approach offering more to our membership and grow USPSA membership from bringing in MG shooters.

Maybe the Pistol Nationals is a cash cow for USPSA. But the MG Nationals isn't.

[ima45dv8]

We need to keep the politics out of this thread lest it be closed.

An excellent piece of advice.

[Chills1994]

ima45dv8 wrote:

I'm speculating you check in your closet and under the bed for that Grassy-knoll shooter before turning n at night

I was the second shooter on the Grassy Knoll.

[bluenite]

Several of the candidates for USPSA president said Nationals is the single most important reason they want to serve as pres.

I find that to be a big disappointment.

I do think the Nationals are important, but far from being the single most important.

But what do I know I have never shot a Nationals and have only been a USPSA member for a few years.

When I got into USPSA it was a sport (all sports are competitions by default).

Now days it is referred to mainly as competition with few references to sport.

I still like to think of it as a sport, one the whole family can enjoy.

When I look at a match app and see something like this (Match fees: ……..,……, Juniors, any time:$10.00).

Or hear of a match that that gives back to the community in any way.

Well, those are the types of thing that makes me proud to be a member.

[smokshwn]

I would argue that Nationals (both pistol and MG) is paramount to the local level club shooter for two reasons.

1) Nationals should set the standard to which every other match aspires. As has been mentioned, Nationals can set the standard with respect to Registration, Scheduling, Stage Design, Stage & Prop Decoration, Rules Application, etc. etc.

2) In creating a truly unique and premier match it will create exposure. This is a great self sustaining cycle as exposure creates sponsor and new member interest which creates more exposure.....more interest etc.

[A38337]

Nationals are important because they are THE premier USPSA event.

They are the opportunity to measure yourself against the best on the same stages, to watch them in person, and to have to best of the best in one place going for the win is important.

I've shot in 2 nationals and though I had not a chance of winning anything, I enjoyed the experience greatly.

[Jon Merricks]

but if Nationals were to change to a single event (pick your division and shoot it), like a World Shoot or IPSC Level IV match then it could easily accommodate double that number.

You would think....... The first Nationals I attended, 2004 was like that and drew less than 500.

[Flexmoney]

The day to day running of USPSA is largely the job of the Executive Director, Dave Thomas...who does a great job, in my opinion.

The President is responsible for implementing the decisions made by the Board of Directors.

One of the specific jobs of the President is seeing that the Nationals are run. This is in the USPSA by-laws. It is an important part of the job, and it might be a good indicator of the overall effectiveness of the President.

[remoandiris]

The first Nationals I attended, 2004 was like that and drew less than 500.

The number of people who attend Nationals hasn't changed much since 2004. Maybe it is to keep the event manageable. Maybe it is to make sure everyone gets a prize worth something. I have never read the reason Nationals has the number limit it has.

One possible drawback to having various Nationals around the country (one of the candidates is an advocate for this) is the logistics of it. Granted, it might be cheaper for some participants, but do any of us think sponsors will provide as much support for 4 or 5 different Nationals? Guns may be selling like hotcakes, but they are only one part of the sponsor pie and USPSA would have to spend a lot more money to make it happen (range rent, staff lodging and meals, etc).

Some replies have said Nationals is like other major sporting events. Some replies have been sarcastic and unnecessary. One person mentioned it isn't that hard to get a Nationals slot. With all the banter about how great Nationals is, shouldn't it be harder to get a slot? I have never heard a pro football player say they weren't interested in getting to the Superbowl or a pro baseball player say they didn't care if they ever played in a World Series. Doesn't matter if 99.999% will never have the chance. All of them want to play in one.

Edited April 28, 2011 by remoandiris

[Carmoney]

So you think it's important because of the money? Or are you saying it's bullcrap because the Nationals is actually a cash cow for USPSA?

I'm saying USPSA Handgun Nationals is, or certainly should be, a profit center for USPSA. If they actually lose money on Nationals, there is something going really wrong.

Multi-Gun Nationals? Who knows. Other than reading about MG in Front Sight, most of us have little or no exposure to MG.

[remoandiris]

Multi-Gun Nationals? Who knows. Other than reading about MG in Front Sight, most of us have little or no exposure to MG.

Watched it on one of the shooting shows several months ago. Great competition. I think Daniel Horner from the AMU won.

[Jon Merricks]

So you think it's important because of the money? Or are you saying it's bullcrap because the Nationals is actually a cash cow for USPSA?

I'm saying USPSA Handgun Nationals is, or certainly should be, a profit center for USPSA. If they actually lose money on Nationals, there is something going really wrong.

Multi-Gun Nationals? Who knows. Other than reading about MG in Front Sight, most of us have little or no exposure to MG.

Do you think the full burden of the cost to run the Nationals should be on the participants and sponsors?

[Jake Di Vita]

Ok remo, since you (and others) quite obviously dislike my comments in the thread, let me ask you these questions. If we are putting too much into Nationals because most of our membership will never compete/win, how should the Nationals be run? How much time/money should be devoted to it?

And BTW, the comment about the Superbowl doesn't stop with only NFL players, as I'm pretty sure football is bigger than just the pro level. Similar to how USPSA is bigger than just GMs.

[CHA-LEE]

In politics the main topics discussed by candidates is usually driven by what they think will give them the most exposure. These topics are usually not what will make the biggest difference or what must be done but is not a favorable thing to do.

All it takes is one candidate to latch onto a topic such as making the USPSA Nationals better to trigger an avalanche of positioning and posturing about the same topic by the other candidates.

In the most recent Front Sight the candidates had their chance to respond to a specified Q&A session driven by the interviewer. In the next Front Sight the candidates will have an opportunity to give us their own stance on whatever subjects they want to talk about. I think that both angles have to be assessed before placing judgment one way or another.

[bbbean]

One person mentioned it isn't that hard to get a Nationals slot. With all the banter about how great Nationals is, shouldn't it be harder to get a slot?

I mentioned that it's not that hard to get on the waiting list once the performance-based slots have been assigned, and I think that's how it should be. But once the performance based slots are assigned, I can't think of any reason that the competition shouldn't be open to anyone who is a member and has the $$ for registration. If some dark horse shooter can show up out of nowhere and take the top honors, them good for him.

I do have mixed feelings about the slots that are awarded through the "good 'ol boy" network. On the one hand, many of these slots are a nice perk for hard working shooters who volunteer for their local clubs or sections and make the sport better for everyone. Hard work and dedication should be rewarded. On the other hand, it'd be nice to see slots offered further down the performance ladder - i.e. at the sectional level, or maybe for top 3 shooters in each division at Area matches, etc.

But in the end, the system works. It could (and should) be tweaked, but that isn't necessarily a criticism.

[Bear23]

Sorry you didn't like the superbowl comment.

Our nationals highlights what we are as a sport! If it really didn't matter then why would we have them? Cycling has the tour de france, most never compete in it, but still look to see who won. Competition pure and simple.

[Jon Merricks]

I agree with Bx3 but I think that is more of a sectional issue than a national.

[Carmoney]

Do you think the full burden of the cost to run the Nationals should be on the participants and sponsors?

I don't think I'm coming across clearly. I'm not trying to express an opinion on how Nationals should be run or funded. I'm simply saying that given the way Nationals is currently run and funded, there should be more than enough entry money coming in to support the match. Last year, the LPR Nats had 367 shooters and O-L10 had 381. That's at least $175,000 in entry fees.