Nationals format

[j1b]

I am certain this is in some thread that I haven't read yet - but nonetheless I was curious what other people's opinions are.

I can see why combining the nationals is good. It doesn't "force" if you will anyone to go to multiple nationals matches. That's a good thing. One BIG event and its done.

My concern is the spread of talent. For many, like myself, its a good thing. Clearly it increases the odds of being able to win the match because the potential for all of the top dogs to shoot in one division are limited. I would still contend though that winning a match where everyone is basically shooting the same match would be more rewarding.

I think about this years nationals and I wonder who's going to shoot what. If Jerry goes - I bet he shoots open. Todd . . . open - maybe L-10? He has a title in L-10 to defend but hard to say if he'll even shoot in that division to contend. TGO . . . again - hard to say. I would guess limited, limited-10, or production. Part of me wants to say production so he can see if he can get a little redemption from last year. On the other hand - he's won the limited nationals three years in a row - it'd be hard to throw that streak away. JJ, Jo Jo, Max, Eric, I'd say they are all going to be open.

My point is - the field may not be completely stacked no matter which division you are in. For the under dogs that is probably a good thing. But I wonder . . . would it be better to win a national title where there were (realistically) only 3 or 4 shooters who would contend, or place in the top 5 at a nationals where every big dog and their brother was there putting the pressure on. I know what the record books will say, I just don't know what I would feel if I were in that winning position.

First - do I make any sense? Second - does anyone agree? I personally would rather see them split out the FGN (Lim-10 and Production), Limited Nats - and Open nats. A lot of matches I know - but whoever wins any of them has accomplished something very big!

JB

[Loves2Shoot]

You make perfect sense, and I agree 100%

It is like putting an * beside your name if you win and can't be competing against the best of the best because they are shooting a different division.

[shred]

Are World-Shoot team slots on the line? That may determine who shoots what (ie, we're not likely to field a WS L-10 team, or probably even a Ladies Limited Team, so shooting those categories would be counter-productive to getting a US Team spot)

[j1b]

Shred,

That's another component I hadn't thought of. Yeah I would guess that'll be a factor too in spreading out the field.

L2S - I wasn't going to write the * comment because I would never take a nationals win away from anyone - but that is what I was thinking. If someone wins nationals, they should feel like NOBODY could beat them that week. Current format - there could be some "if he shot this division would things be different" comments . . .

JB

[BDH]

As match staff, I would like to see separate events because I end up having to watch for different things by Division (although, not sure how they are going to squad this match, so maybe I will see full squads of Open, squads of Production, squads of L10 etc.).

As a shooter, I would want to compete against all the best in my Division, which would mean that I would want all the big dogs shooting.

I think this really comes down to if we could FILL the individual matches, we would have separate Nats. Unfortunately, it's difficult to fill them, which makes it difficult to make them break even financially.

Just my .02

[mactiger]

Good points by Shred and BDH--let's expand on them a bit:

Producing what amounts to 4 National Championships, as we've done for the past few years is a tremendous burden, financially and resource-wise, mainly because they don't all fill up, but also because it takes twice as many people to do it, and since they've been in two separate locations, that's twice the range fees, targets, pasters, paint, etc.

World Shoot: they don't shoot separate World Shoots--it's one big match, pick a division, and "run what ya brung". That may influence what the top competitors shoot at this year's Nationals, I don't know.

Divisions: most competitors generally shoot only one division--a few stray into other divisions at times, but most everyone has a division they stick with. Only a few people can afford the time and money to compete in more than one and do it seriously. If you normally competed in Limited Division, would you swap to Open just because the "big dogs" were all shooting Open at the Nationals?

I think there are enough good shooters in the country that all divisions will be well represented--it's not going to be easy pickings for anybody.

We can't bring the USPSA National Championships back to the level they once were by splitting them up into smaller matches. I believe this is a needed first step to getting back to that level.

Troy

[ong45]

I agree with you JB, although it probably wouldn't matter to people like Todd, Rob, Jerry or Eric G how much competition they had because they have won it all and have less to prove. Now a first time winner might feel otherwise.

I hate having to be at barry for a week and shooting only 18(?) stages, at least last year at bend, a week gets you a sh-tload of shooting.

James

[mactiger]

FYI, there are currently 24 stages planned for the Pistol Nationals, and we are working on adding some side events to provide more shooting enjoyment. The actual match shooting days are Monday thru Friday, with shootoffs planned for Saturday. Registration and the (planned) staff match will be Sunday.

I believe that there will be golf carts available for rental. Details on that and parking, etc., will be sent with your confirmation letter.

That's the plan for now. If you have any more questions, I'll try to answer them.

If anybody has a good course of fire they'd like to submit, there's still time to do so. PM or email me, and I'll provide information on where to send it.

Troy

[Duane Thomas]

TGO . . . again - hard to say. I would guess limited, limited-10, or production. Part of me wants to say production so he can see if he can get a little redemption from last year.

That would be my bet.

[Duane Thomas]

Producing what amounts to 4 National Championships, as we've done for the past few years is a tremendous burden, financially and resource-wise, mainly because they don't all fill up

It would probably help also if the Factory Gun Nationals wasn't scheduled on the 4th of July weekend, as it was last year. Considering that, it's amazing as many shooters showed up as did.

And, yes, I understand the difficulties of finding a facility to host a national level championships, but still I have to say that scheduling the FGN for August in Barry - with 110 humitemp all four days of the match - didn't help, either. I know more than one person who showed up for the first Factory Gun Nationals, and when I asked them, "So, you going back next year?" the answer was, "Not as long as it's in Barry f-in' Illinois I'm not."

[uscbigdawg]

I actually am glad to see a single Nationals. I don't recall seeing anyone dole out asterisks or any shooter that thought less of his or her, at say an Area match or World Shoot.

The fact is that on any given day you are competing in a field against whoever decided to shoot a particular gun. If there was just a FGN, and all the 'bigdogs' decided to shoot Production, would that make the L10 match winner any less deserving. While I understand the scenario stated would never happen, the reality is that if you finish in the Top 16 in Open and there are some missing 'bigdogs' that MAY (and as much MAY NOT) have contributed to your finish, are less deserving to be in the shootoffs. Hell no! You shot your match on your day against the field that showed up that day and you deserve every piece of your results...good, bad or National Champion.

Just my two Lincolns.

Rich

[mactiger]

It would probably help also if the Factory Gun Nationals wasn't scheduled on the 4th of July weekend, as it was last year. Considering that, it's amazing as many shooters showed up as did.

And, yes, I understand the difficulties of finding a facility to host a national level championships, but still I have to say that scheduling the FGN for August in Barry - with 110 humitemp all four days of the match - didn't help, either.

Hi, Duane.

I understand the concerns for heat and humidity and scheduling. But, scheduling the match isn't up to me, or Ray Hirst, (who was FGN MD last year). The dates were (and are) picked by Michael Voigt, based on whatever he based them on. We can't do much about the weather. Besides, coming from South Louisiana, what heat and humidity?

(At one 3 Gun in Vegas a few years back, it snowed on us--go figure.)

This year's dates should provide better weather, if only marginally. (But, we didn't pick those, either.) Of course, there are complaints about it being during school time, etc. I don't think it's possible to make everybody happy, unless of course we had the match in Hawaii, provided free air fare, free beer, and everyone could shoot the match in half a day...

Along these lines--some constructive criticism couldn't hurt here--what would be a good time period, and a good location for Nationals in everyone's opinion? Remember that the range needs to be able to hold at least 18 stages, and there needs to be some infrastructure (hotels, restaurants, airport, etc.) within a reasonable distance.

I'm not looking for bids here, just suggestions. Are there places we need to be looking at but aren't?

TIA

Troy

[AikiDale]

Frank's place in Frostproof right now. We still have a couple or three years to go before Silver Creek is ready in Southern Indiana (we are only up to 11 bays so far). For a national event with hundreds of shooters spread out over a week it really should be a Summer time event so we don't loose all those who must be in school. Unless of course we did it over Christmas break in Florida

[Tman33_99]

unless of course we had the match in Hawaii, provided free air fare, free beer, and everyone could shoot the match in half a day... 

NOW YOU HAVE MY VOTE FOR THAT FORMAT!!!!!!!, But lets keep the shooting to cover several mornings (but not too early, so I can sleep off the free beer), and be done early enough to test which lens is best in glasses for laying on Wakiki and taking in the scenery in the afternoon each day.

Travis

[j1b]

Thanks for the input.

I know that a nationals win is a nationals win - there is no doubt. It is a major accomplishment no matter how you slice the pie. I will give you my personal thoughts on this though. I am going to shoot Area 4 this year - shooting Lim-10. Now - let's say, long shot I know, but lets say I win Lim-10 at area 4 this year. Will I, personally, feel like I'm the best Lim-10 shooter in the nation that weekend? Of course not. I have a very deep understanding of the fact that if Rob, Todd, Jerry, David and a slew of others were in the match that things may have been different. I may have still won, but clearly the potential existed for others to win as well. The fact that they were not there allows me to beg the question that if I go to nationals (I'm not this year) would I have a chance to win there? On paper yes - in reality - probably not.

I've won area championships. I've won area championships with performances that would probably not have gotten me a top ten at a nationals. Clearly the field impacted that.

You know, I understand the financial implications of having multiple matches. I just don't agree with going back to the old format. I guess I'm a bit more of a proponent of dynamic change. If the scenario was not financially feasible, then come up with what the picture should look like, and paint it. By reverting back to the ways of old, all we've done is step back.

Guys trust me - if I went to nationals this year and won Lim-10 - I would be stoked. I don't give a shjt who was in the field. I would personally feel like the win was more credible had I won against every major competitor out there - that would feel a little more like winning . . . well . . . like winning a national level competition.

JB

[Wakal]

According to Mike Voight, who told me directly (as in "during a face to face converstation"),repeatedly, and in front of a host of unimpeachable witnesses that no location will even be considered for the Nationals unless there is substantial cash support...on the order of 10 to 15 thousand dolllars...up front...for USPSA.

In other words, bring your bribe money to the table, folks. Barry leads the field in bribes, thus Barry gets the Nationals.

Facts are inconvenient to some folks, but they are still facts. Bribery rules!

What is good for the shooters is irrelevant. Holding the Nationals in a liberal haven like Bend, or leftist-run Illinois is terrible for the shooters...but who cares, the number one concern is cash on the barrelhead. Bend...two and a half hours from the nearest airport and an hour from the range...isn't a "prime location" by anyone's consideration. But they ponied up the cash, and so they got two Nationals.

Barry ponied up the cash in a long-term sweetheart deal, and so they keep getting Nationals.

Our discussion is just discussion...without a substantial bribe from someone ELSE, the Nationals will be in Barry again. Frank's range gets my vote, but unless there is cash involved it won't get Mike's...

Alex

[BritinUSA]

Although I have no opinion as to location of future Nationals I would like to add my thoughts on the format and timing of our premier shooting event.

There is much enthusiasm for the USPSA Junior program within this sport and rightly so, any sport that does not grow membership is doomed to failure, but on so many occasions this support vanishes when it is time to schedule the USPSA Nationals. I cannot think of any valid reason as to why the Nationals could not be held during a school break period so that not only students could participate, but teachers - and others - involved in the nation's education programs.

As to the format, I feel that a single Nationals is by far the best solution to the myriad problems that have plagued Nationals in the past. The cost of hosting such a match is increasing dramatically. Also I feel that multiple Nationals places an uncomfortable burden upon the vendors and merchants that are asked to sponsor and provide prizes for these events. I simply cannot imagine how any vendor can profit from sponsoring and/or appearing at multiple Nationals.

A single event could become a showcase not only for gunsmiths and those that produce accessories but for gun manufacturers also. The growth in production division can only help in this regard; Who knows, in years to come the USPSA Nationals could become more than a shooting competition and expand to include a shooting/gun exhibition along the lines of a roving SHOT SHOW. This would attract not only competitors but regular folks to see the latest technology and take in some of the action at the same time.

We must aim high; We may fail in the attempt but we will always grow if we aim high. Those that aim for mediocrity are doomed to succeed in their quest.

[Jake Di Vita]

"Those that aim for mediocrity are doomed to succeed in their quest."

Good line.

[Vince Pinto]

In other words, bring your bribe money to the table, folks.  Barry leads the field in bribes, thus Barry gets the Nationals.

Facts are inconvenient to some folks, but they are still facts.  Bribery rules!

I think your use of the word "bribery" is not only inaccurate, it's also highly offensive (and possibly libellous), because bribery is defined as "the practice of offering something (usually money) in order to gain an illicit advantage". In other words, it implies dishonesty and corruption.

If PASA Park offered, or if Mike Voigt (or anybody else on the USPSA BOD, for that matter) demanded a secret, "under the table" payment in order to influence their decision on the venue of the Nationals, that would indeed be bribery, however that is clearly not the case.

Given that the "up front payment" being solicited is public knowledge (e.g. Mike Voigt spoke to you about it openly), and it benefits the USPSA as a whole (and not certain officers thereof), it is more accurately described as a "cash incentive".

[mactiger]

Thank you, Vince.

The cash incentive from the Quincy CVB has been public knowledge for a while, and did not originate with Michael Voigt's presidency. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, does USPSA hold a cash incentive requirement over anybody's head when looking for a Nationals venue. But, it's hard to pass up several thousand dollars in either cash or discounts when planning a major match. There is a contract in place with PASA--it's been there for a while, and that's one reason that USPSA has one match per year there. That contract may be up shortly, I don't know. If you feel strongly about that venue, let your Area Director know.

A few years ago, I was looking into the possibility of holding a National championship in Shreveport, LA (home of Clark Custom Guns, and their Shootout Range). The Shreveport/Bossier regional sports authority had several different programs designed to attract sporting events to their area, including discounts and some cash incentives. Admittedly, some of this money comes from the casinos in the area, (and they hope to get some back) but that's not a bad thing. ALL the benefit from these would accrue to the organization, not a single individual. It's not bribery.

Troy

[BDH]

A single event could become a showcase not only for gunsmiths and those that produce accessories but for gun manufacturers also.

Great point! Anyone ever been to the Grand American Trapshoot in Vandelia, Ohio? It's a huge event, and I think just about EVERY manufacturer (and many gunsmiths) are there.

Even if you are not a trapshooter, it is worth a trip to Vandelia to see this and IMAGINE what it would be like our Nationals looked like this!!

Vince/Troy, I agree with your comments re: bribe....

[j1b]

OK - Point taken.

I do understand the financial implications of running seperate matches. Coincidentally I also understand the support issue from suppliers on multiple levels. If anyone has read any of my eary posts you'd know that one of my biggest gripes is the lack of support by the shooters of the major match sponsors.

I do wish there was a better way. Money will always dictate the path we go down - it has to because if we run out of cash - we have no match.

I just wish it were more like the days of old, where everyone was shooting the same game at any given match. I can tell you, that having 5 or 6 people positioned to be there on the last 3 or 4 stages makes for a ton of intensity, fun, and reward for he who comes out on top.

JB

[Wakal]

\Brib"er*y\, n.; pl. {Briberies}. [OE. brybery

rascality, OF. briberie. See {Bribe}, n.]

1. Robbery; extortion. [Obs.]

2. The act or practice of giving or taking bribes; the act of

influencing the official or political action of another by

corrupt inducements.

Although extortion seems correct, the "corrupt" part is not. Since this is up-front and in-the-open bribery, a more correct term would be "bakeesh" or "mordita"...just the price of doing business, as they used to tell me in Insirlik and Sicily. Mike or his precessor isn't (and hasn't been) personally profiting from this, true, but USPSA has put the almighty dollar up front and what is good for the shooters far in the back.

Convenient air travel, decent firearms laws, reasonably priced clean hotels...that describes Bend and Barry...yeah, in a pig's eye.

There are several ranges around these parts that WERE interested in hosting the Nationals...which is what drove the conversation about application packages and procedures that we had with Mike. However, while the ranges I'm associated with are very concerned with meeting the needs of shooters and putting on a hell of a good match, they are NOT interested in bakeesh.

Alex

[mactiger]

A few more facts:

1) I know what bribery means. Thanks for the definition anyway, though, because it proves that what USPSA gets as incentives is NOT bribery.

2) As far as "USPSA" putting the almighty dollar up front, especially where Nationals contracts are concerned, USPSA and Michael Voigt are one and the same. Only Michael Voigt can negotiate and sign a contract for a Nationals.

3) No Nationals competitor has ever had any problems or run afoul of the law in Illinois, relative to their gun laws, AFAIK. I can't speak for Bend, Oregon, but I think we'd have heard of any problems.

4) Michael Voigt and the board of directors have a sworn duty to act in the financial best interests of the organization. To do otherwise is grounds for removal from office.

5) The financial incentives come from the host city, NOT the host club or range. Many cities Chambers of Commerce are set up to provide discounts and incentives to increase their tourism. This means that someone associated with the host club needs to contact the local C of C and see what they have to offer. After that, USPSA (read Michael Voigt) handles the deal.

And, a couple of questions:

1) What ranges in Texas could host a Nationals, with or without financial incentives? Keep in mind the need for at least 18 stages, and hotel rooms for at least 400 people, give or take, relatively close by. A nearby airport would be good, too.

(Sort of like what Quincy, Illinois has.)

I'd honestly like to know.

2) If you think USPSA should not take any incentive money, what do you propose to do to help cover the cost of the Nationals? Raise the entry fee? How much would you be willing to pay to shoot the match?

(Keep in mind that the majority of the last few Nationals have lost money, despite the "bribes" from the local community.)

3) Do you think that when you fly to Las Vegas for much less than you can fly to anywhere else in the country that the airlines are doing it out of the kindness of their heart? Hell, no. Vegas subsidizes the hell out of those flights. Do you consider that bribery, or do you enjoy the benefit of the incentive?

The bottom line here, Alex: Instead of loudly proclaiming that USPSA is taking bribes, why not ask Michael Voigt directly about it? If you just got your nose out of joint because he said he'd have to have some financial incentive in order to consider placing a match somewhere, and you really want to host that match, why not contact the local Chamber of Commerce and see what they have to offer?

I'd be happy to help you out with where to start, if your local club or range wants to host a Nationals. It might not happen in the next year or 3, but it would be a beginning.

If you just want to bitch, I can't do a thing for you, sorry.

Troy

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

Since Troy has started a new thread called "Nationals Suggestion Box", where he's looking for constructive input, I'll lock this thread which has run it's course.