Why are Nationals so important to USPSA?

[Chris iliff]

I've never shot a Nationals, but I will some day. I think it is an important event because it legitimizes everything we try to accomplish as the premiere Shooting sport in the USA. This isn't some "outlaw" type club we belong to, is it? One of the first things that really kept me coming back and shooting USPSA was the fact that it is LEGIT. Clubs,Sectionals, States, Areas, Nationals, cream rises. I can't wait to go some day.

[remoandiris]

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.

You have completely lost sight of my original question. This isn't about Nationals per se. It is about the candidates for USPSA pres saying their primary reason for running is Nationals. I asked why, then added a few other questions. Maybe you should re-read my OP.

I think Vegas is a great choice, especially since there is so much more to do besides gamble. A family could make a nice vacation out of a trip there. But with such a small percentage of USPSA members going, how can Ntionals be the number one reason so many want the office? As another person stated, in future issues of Front Sight, the candidates may elaborate on their plans for the organization. I have a pretty good idea who I'm voting for, but will eagerly read the Q&A and very well may change my mind.

To your question on time and money for Nationals, how much money is being spent on Nationals now? I don't remember seeing anything written in Front Sight. Maybe it was.

Until I read Carmoney's post, I had no idea less than 400 people shot each Nationals in Vegas last year. That is a smaller field than I thought.

[BritinUSA]

The BOD decides how USPSA is going to be run, the President actions those decisions.

The President has sole responsibility for Nationals, therefore any candidate that is running for USPSA President needs a plan for Nationals.

If any candidate says that their prime reason for running is not Nationals then chances are that they don't fully understand how USPSA is run. Nationals is pretty much the only thing that the President can control in USPSA.

The BOD makes the decisions, except for Nationals.

[remoandiris]

The BOD decides how USPSA is going to be run, the President actions those decisions.

The President has sole responsibility for Nationals, therefore any candidate that is running for USPSA President needs a plan for Nationals.

If any candidate says that their prime reason for running is not Nationals then chances are that they don't fully understand how USPSA is run. Nationals is pretty much the only thing that the President can control in USPSA.

The BOD makes the decisions, except for Nationals.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying the USPSA president is a figurehead with no more ability to make changes than what the BoD allows. Of course the pres can introduce agenda items and such.

Edited April 28, 2011 by remoandiris

[BritinUSA]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying the USPSA president is a figurehead with no more ability to make changes than what the BoD allows. Of course the pres can introduce agenda items and such.

The duties of the President are outlined in the bylaws (section 7.2)

[Jake Di Vita]

You have completely lost sight of my original question. This isn't about Nationals per se. It is about the candidates for USPSA pres saying their primary reason for running is Nationals. I asked why, then added a few other questions. Maybe you should re-read my OP.

I think Vegas is a great choice, especially since there is so much more to do besides gamble. A family could make a nice vacation out of a trip there. But with such a small percentage of USPSA members going, how can Ntionals be the number one reason so many want the office? As another person stated, in future issues of Front Sight, the candidates may elaborate on their plans for the organization. I have a pretty good idea who I'm voting for, but will eagerly read the Q&A and very well may change my mind.

To your question on time and money for Nationals, how much money is being spent on Nationals now? I don't remember seeing anything written in Front Sight. Maybe it was.

Until I read Carmoney's post, I had no idea less than 400 people shot each Nationals in Vegas last year. That is a smaller field than I thought.

Hold on, let me re-look at your OP.

I just finished reading the May/June 2011 Front Sight. Several of the candidates for USPSA president said Nationals is the single most important reason they want to serve as pres.

Why? What is so special about Nationals? USPSA has almost 20,000 members. About 500 USPSA members get to shoot Nationals. So why is Nationals so important when so few members get to participate? What benefit does the rank and file member, who didn't get a slot, get out of it? The vast majority of USPSA members aren't going to win, so why should they care?

I shot Nationals a few years ago and for the most part it was fun, but it isn't very important to me. I care about local/section issues and matches.

So...the title of the thread is "Why are Nationals so important to USPSA?", and in your multi-questioned original post you mention the USPSA president once in a statement (to which it has already been stated the president's solely responsible for nationals and USPSA everyday operations are ran by the executive director) and then ask 5 questions about the purpose/value of the nationals. Then you state nationals isn't very important for you and that you care about local/section matches.

Sorry, I thought I had pretty darn direct sight of your original question....

Hopefully you can see where I was coming from.

To answer your question of why it is the single most important reason, that is because it is a primary responsibility of that position.

[remoandiris]

<snip>

Hopefully you can see where I was coming from.

To answer your question of why it is the single most important reason, that is because it is a primary responsibility of that position.

Yes, I see where you were coming from. And your very succinct answer (above) answers my question as to why the candidates who answered the question with Nationals leads me to believe they think it needs to be bigger/better. Over the years, there have been numerous times I've read in Michael Voight's column about the importance of gaining members, growing the sport, etc., etc. I was just surprised that Nationals was the starring role in getting people to run for the office. Guess it goes back to the figurehead position the pres holds.

One candidate stated everything is important and another mentioned the changing priorities in USPSA. You can only have one #1 priority. Future Front Sight articles should allow them to elaborate on their agendas.

Edited April 28, 2011 by remoandiris

[Blueridge]

As a competitive fencer, my goal each year is to qualify to the US Fencing Summer Nationals. I cannot say that it is my goal to reach the USPSA Nationals, and the main reason is that I see the qualification path as too difficult. To qualify for the fencing summer nationals you have to finish in the top 25% of the field of competitors that participate in the Divisional or Sectional Championship. By comparison (and correct me if I am wrong) only the winner of the divisional or sectional USPSA championship from each division qualifies. I believe that more people would compete in the USPSA Nationals if there were more slots for them.

My intended point is that I don't believe that the Nationals ARE that important to the USPSA. It remains too exclusive to get into, and as such leads to the potential financial losing proposition that has been mentioned by others. Opening up Nationals to more participants would help with the financial issue, and would not (in my opinion) hurt the competition aspect.

How is it that the Memphis Charity Challenge can bring together 68 revolver shooters, but the nationals can only manage a third of that (22)? The opportunity for revolver shooters to compete in a match that was focused on them arose, and they responded. In kind I believe that all the USPSA shooters would respond in kind to more slots being available at the Nationals.

[Chills1994]

Carmoney wrote back on page 2:

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 tha 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 a east $175,000 in entry fees

well, hey, I am glad I am not the only one who has run the math.

But, to be honest and fair, there are some expenses to running a Nat's. there is the range "rental fee"...whatever that range charges USPSA to hold the Nat's there.

Then I'm sure the MD's, RM's, CRO's, RO's (clipboard commandos), stats people, etc. get their match entry fees refunded. Plus, IIRC, they get their travel expenses reimbursed up to a point...say like so many odd cents per mile.

then somewhere in there is however the match hotel does their room pricing. I'm pretty sure USPSA gets so many rooms comped and those go to the match staff.

so it's not like Sedro is laughing all the way to the bank with the full $175K.

on a much different note, if I understand it correctly, the World Recreation and Shooting Complex down here in Sparta, IL only charges $3 per shooter for each match. so I guess at most the "range fee" for a big match like Nat's would be $1,200. unless of course, the IL DNR would charge $3 per shooter per day. I guess in that case be say like 9 bucks times 400 shooters, so $3,600 .

I have no idea what these other ranges are charging. we have 12 pistol bays all lined up and cut in.

[Thomas H]

As a competitive fencer, my goal each year is to qualify to the US Fencing Summer Nationals. I cannot say that it is my goal to reach the USPSA Nationals, and the main reason is that I see the qualification path as too difficult. To qualify for the fencing summer nationals you have to finish in the top 25% of the field of competitors that participate in the Divisional or Sectional Championship. By comparison (and correct me if I am wrong) only the winner of the divisional or sectional USPSA championship from each division qualifies. I believe that more people would compete in the USPSA Nationals if there were more slots for them.

Not really, at least if there are over 49 people in a particular division for an Area match. The full slot policy is here: http://www.uspsa-nationals.org/Slot_policy_adopted_11-2010.pdf

Here is a brief excerpt:

"If an area championship division has at least 50 but no more than 99 competitors, that division will receive slots for:

• First overall

• First in class (M-D)

• Top woman

• Top junior

• Top senior

• Top super senior.

If an area championship division has 100 or more competitors that division will receive slots for:

• First and second overall

• First and second in class (M-D)

• Top woman

• Top junior

• Top senior

• Top super senior"

....so there are a lot more chances to receive a slot just at a regular Area match. Add to that the fact that slots can be gained from several different places:

"Slots to the USPSA National Championship Matches are allocated as follows:

• Returning Champions (see page 2)

• Area Championships (see page 3)

• Area Director Slots (see page 5)

• Clubs/Sections (see page 5)

• President’s Discretion (see page 5)

• Wait List (see page 6)"

...so as you see from the policy, slots occur all over the place. Many, many people get them from the waitlist. If I recall correctly, someone has also said that no one who has turned up to shoot has been turned away, either.

My intended point is that I don't believe that the Nationals ARE that important to the USPSA. It remains too exclusive to get into, and as such leads to the potential financial losing proposition that has been mentioned by others.

I'm staying away from the rest of this discussion, because I don't care but I thought I'd at least make it clear that it really _isn't_ an exclusive sort of thing. If you want to go, there's a way. (Unlike your fencing nationals, where you have to be in the top 25%. To get a slot to the USPSA Nationals, you can be first D at an Area match. Or get one from your Sectional Coordinator. Or get one from the waitlist.)

Just sayin'. If the participation isn't huge, it isn't because people were denied a chance at it.

[Nik Habicht]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying the USPSA president is a figurehead with no more ability to make changes than what the BoD allows. Of course the pres can introduce agenda items and such.

Pretty much, yes -- which actually mimics the corporate world, where company presidents often don't have a great deal of power, but rather implement what their Board of Directors tells them to....

[Nik Habicht]

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 reason is the size of the match. Biggest squad sizes I've encountered at a Nationals was 16-18 competitors. With a really topnotch RO crew, that translates to an hour per stage plus travel time between stages. (To put it in perspective -- that's three minutes to run a shooter, score and reset the stage, and it leaves about six minutes to read the walkthrough and allow for questions plus inspection)

You're not running squads through more than 8 stages a day at that point -- and really by adding in lunch, and vendor tent opportunities -- i.e. an hour in the schedule where you don't shoot, you're typically down to six stages a day. 6x18= 108 competitors, multiply that by the number of days, and you have your match capacity.

Do half days and you're running smaller squads -- say ~9 competitors, but doing more walk throughs, to run roughly the same number of shooters per day.....

Part of the reason World Shoots achieve their capacity is by running ~ 35 stages over five days, with a pre-match thrown in that adds another 20% or so to the total number of competitors.....

So the limit isn't arbitrary....

[BritinUSA]

World Shoots also have a greater mix of stages. A lot of small and medium stages which can move things along a touch quicker. Over the past few years there seems to be a trend at Nationals of introducing a wider variety of round count in the stages.

Edited April 29, 2011 by BritinUSA

[Chills1994]

from what I can recall during my German language minor days, Europeans view vacations totally different than us A-mare-ah-kunz .

so that might explain why they can get away with shooting a 5 day match and/or have more shooters in attendance.

[Chills1994]

pardon my ignorance...but I have no idea of what the legalties are involved for the Europeans to travel...err...drive from one country to another country where their big match is being held...with the flipside being ....

well...it would take me 27 hours to drive from near St. Louis to Vegas for Nat's. I am not real keen on flying and checking guns in my luggage. and of course, there is always that limit on the weight of the ammo the airlines impose.

so theoretically, if a USPSA LPR or O/L-10 Nat's involved 3 days of actually shooting, then it becomes a seven day deal. two days to get there and two days to drive back.

hmmm....wow! I just ran the numbers for gasoline...jeeesh! I might want to rethink driving to Vegas if the opportunity ever presented itself.

but I am sure there are other USPSA'ers/BE'ers who are just as skiddish about sticking a $3,000 open gun in a checked bag and having the luggage monkeys either walk off with it or bounce their bag off the tarmack before it goes into the belly of a 737.

anywhooo....sorry for the continued thread drift.

[waktasz]

The SCCA Solo nationals has like 1500 people at it, and everyone has to drive, because they need their car in order to race it there. The entire event lasts more than a week. Each class only runs for two days though. It would be cool for USPSA nationals to be a huge event like that, lasting a week or more, with each division scheduled to shoot during two of those days.

Could we field a group of 1500?

[CZinSC]

It would be cool for USPSA nationals to be a huge event like that, lasting a week or more, with each division scheduled to shoot during two of those days.

Wow, that is spooky. I was having lunch today after our local match with fellow forum member Glefos, and he said the same exact thing. Almost verbatim. Waktasz, you weren't in the Duncan, SC Zaxby's today were you?!

[waktasz]

Negative

[Wakal]

I think one of the reasons that the Nationals are so expensive is that someone, somewhere got the idea that they NEED many, many RO's per stage and that RO's NEED shirts, hotel rooms, per diem, travel expenses, and a puppy (not sure about some of that ). Speaking with my own match director hat on (from the Level III matches I've run), just covering match fees (scoring the RO's with the rest of the competitors) and hotel bills gets enough dedicated RO's to make a match work.

Two RO's per stage, enough "wandering" RO's to provide cover as needed, and drop the cash-draining travel/per diem expenses. Put the money into mid-range stuff on the prize table; the tables seem to be front loaded heavy and then mid and low level shallow. Even better, drop the &%#% prize table altogether and go to a random draw so THERE IS SOMETHING TO DO during the six hour wait for scores. Getting staff capable of timely scoring is a whole diffent issue

The top shooters will be miffed since they won't automatically get supercool kit that they can peddle off, but they are paid to be there anyway and will go no matter what since...hey, they are paid to play. No need to lure anyone in to the match, damn it, this is THE NATIONALS.

Back on topic...I think the Nationals are important because they are (supposed to be) the final crucible of competition for the year (I also think ALL Area matches should be held BEFORE the Nationals for just that point). How a candidate for President proposes to run them is important to me. I find it amusing that MV THIS year, an election year (?), finally got the Nationals scheduled before mid-year. Hmmm...not important enought to take care of his ONE enumerated job in a timely fashion in NON-election years, but...well, a coincidence

Alex

Edited May 1, 2011 by Wakal

[wgnoyes]

The nationals already has a staff capable of timely scoring, and Joy Hyden and her people really knock it out.

And as much as it irks me to say so, let's everyone steer clear of the politics lest this one get closed out from under us.

Edited May 1, 2011 by wgnoyes

[Jadeslade]

175,000 dollars. That is not a lot of actual money. Really it isn't.

[Chills1994]

it's all relative ....I suppose.

but just like taxes and the .gov, it's OUR money. and we have the ability to vote.

somebody higher up the food chain once told me that the money from the classifier system also goes towards paying for Nat's.

[JThompson]

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.

I agree with many of your points here....

JT

Edited May 1, 2011 by JThompson

[Jake Di Vita]

I would prefer a focus on applying some sanity to the rulebook

Ummm...can you cite me some examples of insanity in the rulebook?

or support for growing the sport at a local and regional level

Again, like what?

I think that a properly structured, marketed, and ran nationals (our flagship match) would do far more for promoting our sport than anything USPSA HQ could logistically manage on a local/regional level.

[wgnoyes]

I would prefer a focus on applying some sanity to the rulebook

Ummm...can you cite me some examples of insanity in the rulebook?

...

Seriously? Look in the Rules forum for any one of a couple of dozen different things being beat upon there.