motosapiens Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 The money situation wouldnt really change for the national organization. Those who shoot IDPA, are classified will still pay the dues to be members. Those who MIGHT shoot a match or 2 a year won't pay it either way. Thats the same boat im in with others I know who are asically USPSA members who will never shoot a major,or more than maby 1 or 2 IDPA matches a year. Shot my one match after having a couple USPSA matches canceled due to weather and just wanted to shoot something and figured that was better than nothing. Would I pay 40 bucks for a year to maby shoot another one not a chance. Would I shoot another match or 2 in the year if I didn't have to? more than likely. The local club looses out on money for those couple matches. So the national organization neither gained nor lost anything because I would have no intent of joining either way. What if IDPA got a clue and offered a $5-10 1-day membership? Many regional motorcycle race sanctioning bodies do this, and it makes it reasonable for me to do a race in oregon or norcal if i happen to be there without having to pony up for an annual membership that I won't get to make use of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hkguy Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 my club will have anywhere form 70 shooters on a bad day to 130+ shooters. This presents a big problem for the MD and SO staff. we had squads of 15+ and it made the match run very long. My club modified the the joining requirement to you can shoot 3 matches and then you need to join, perhaps that is a more workable solution than shoot one match and join. this gave those who were on the fence a couple of matches to figure out if they really like the "game" and wanted to join. that gives new shooters about 1/3 of our season to figure out if they want to join or not. My club also only charges $35 ( the $5 difference is for the club) which really is not that expensive. if you dont reload your own ammo your spending $35+ per match on ammo alone.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TacticalReload Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Again, I'm baffled at the level of hostility toward IDPA for a policy that I see as neither unfair nor unreasonable. First off, I find it hard to believe that people are really just upset on behalf of the clubs because they will be losing out. I promise you that they are making a lot more money having IDPA matches than not... (1) if you're only going to shoot one or two matches a year tops, then they aren't going to get a whole lot more in match fees from you, (2) if IDPA just let anyone shoot the matches without requiring membership then they would probably have to end up raising fees to the clubs, and (3) if having the IDPA name associated with their matches isn't drawing more people than just holding some generic "handgun match" then they could just drop IDPA completely and cater to a crowd that would be happier not joining an organization to shoot in order to attract more people. As was mentioned before, gun games are not a cheap sport. IDPA is probably the cheapest and most accessible way for the average shooter to get involved. Trust me, I know that $40 is $40 and "wasting" it by supporting an organization that holds matches that you will only shoot once or twice isn't anyone's idea of a good time. But realistically, $40 is the cost of a spare mag, or a couple of boxes of ammo, or a holster... all of which you would need to shoot the match anyway. If you want to look at a real ripoff... try GSSF. You have to be a member to even shoot one match and depending on where you live there might only be one match available within a reasonable driving distance. It's been mentioned here that match fees do not go to IDPA. It was also said that USPSA takes a cut of every match fee... so they are basically not only charging you for membership (if you so choose) but also to shoot as well... yet somehow their policy is better? IDPA is probably the most popular of the handgun games (at least it is around here)... in fact, it might be the most popular of all the gun games with the possible exception of trap. The reasons are that it's comparitively cheap, it's not intimidating to noobs, and easy to find a match. If their policies were so detrimental, none of these things would be true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike4045 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I just show up and shoot. Usually to test a gun. I let my membership drop. Most clubs will let you shoot just show up and pay. Forcing membership does keep away alot of new shooters. I know because they go to other matches that dont force joining. If you don't shoot State or regoinal matches why waste the $40 bucks. You can put that towards more bullets. One club is dead and another not far behind. One that is left barely gets a 10 - 12 shooters. I know almost all of the regulars are not members (80% to 90%). I would be suprised if they make it another year. The carbine match the same weekend is killing it. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Round_Gun_Shooter Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 The argument I have heard is from club members. They pay anywhere from $100 to $300 a year to be a member of a club. Their dues support the club, equipment, and ranges. They argue "I only shoot here where I pay dues, my club pays IDPA each yeaqr, why do I need to pay?" Although I am a member of IDPA, I do not think these club members are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donnyglock Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Those club members would be wrong. The club is just the place to hold the matches. IDPA,USPSA.ICORE..etc.. Have rules and regulations in place to ensure they stay alive and make for a level playing field. I think the one and have to join is a little quick however thats there rules. If you really want to compete at IDPA you need to know what your classification is so you will be scored against shooters of the same skill level. Lets face it shooting is not a cheap hobby so fourty bucks a year is not going to make or break your shooting season. The arguments I read here are the same type of crap every club member sees at the board meetings. The bottom line is if you want to shoot IDPA join.... If not don't.... Its that simple. Also stop compairing IDPA to USPSA. They each run things the way they want to. I shoot more USPSA but enjoy IDPA as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hkguy Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 The argument I have heard is from club members. They pay anywhere from $100 to $300 a year to be a member of a club. Their dues support the club, equipment, and ranges. They argue "I only shoot here where I pay dues, my club pays IDPA each yeaqr, why do I need to pay?" At all the clubs in my area, your not required to be a club member to shoot. club members pay a reduced entrance fees. If anything clubs that require you to be a member in order to shoot are doing more to push potential shooters away than $40. For those of you who really are getting bent out of shape over $40 bucks,pack your lunch for a few days a week instead of eating out. Don't go out dinner, the bar, or the movies for one, possibly two nights and now you have saved the cost of a years membership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Again, I'm baffled at the level of hostility toward IDPA for a policy that I see as neither unfair nor unreasonable. it might not be unfair or unreasonable (especially for folks that are serious about idpa), but I still think it is counterproductive, and if enforced would turn away 'dabblers', some of whom will eventually become more serious. The 1-day membership solution would imho be more productive than either ignoring the rule (which most clubs seem to do) or strictly enforcing it. It would also give IDPA an opportunity to contact these 'dabblers' and know who they are and encourage them to eventually join. But... whatever, I've become reasonably serious about it, so I joined IDPA (after 4-5 matches). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EkuJustice Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 +1 on a member or pay an extra few bucks a match to Idpa. I would not have a problem with that. Will I ever shoot IDPA much? not a chance. Being a pay or don't shoot like it is now, I will take my money elsewhere to the uspsa matches. I agree what their 1 and join does is eliminates the crossover people who might occasionally dabble in the other sport a couple times a year. 40 bucks over a coule matches pretty much doubles the entry fee. USPSA I have zero problem with the dues as that is the one I typically shoot 3 matches or so a month(maby more) in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirLoin Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I think motosapiens raises the critical point here. There might be debate on whether the rule is unfair/unreasonable, and yes, if you don't like something, you have every right to say no and to walk away. With that being said, the requirement IS a disincentive. This is why a lot of Fortune 500 companies offer "trial packages" (e.g., free for your first week, free first month, etc.), and they make them long enough so that the majority of those who would sign up if they had enough chances to try it, would go ahead and sign up. Just look at Amazon and Netflix, two companies who are absolutely ruling their markets -- their free trial offers have led to a lot of customers signing up for memberships. I've designed subscription and loyalty programs as part of my job, and in almost every instance, extending the trial to more than a one-shot deal led to significantly more people signing up. It then becomes a win-win: the person signing up gets enough repetitions to make an informed decision -- one that leads him to sign up for a long-term arrangement/membership, and the company gets a long-term customer. USPSA, which has been here longer, has adopted this marketing technique. The same customer behavior would apply to IDPA. If the IDPA powers-at-be decide to adopt this approach, it can only help grow the membership base of IDPA. Just my two… well, maybe eight cents… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe4d Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 People are going round and round over the should you or shouldnt you. The bottom line is it is an IDPA rule, either enforce the rule as written or dont call yourself IDPA. If you dont like the rule campaign to change it. But until it is changed follow the published rules. Like I said earlier, the tendency of IDPA match directors to make up their own rules, and pick and choose which one they like has done more to chase off shooters than making people follow the rulebook and join the organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear23 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 You get a incredibly awesome journal with your IDPA membership!!!!! Our local clubs here don't seem to enforce the rule, I think their turnouts would be less. The only people who seemed to get amped up by this issue are the IDPA purists. I say live and let live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TacticalReload Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I think motosapiens raises the critical point here. There might be debate on whether the rule is unfair/unreasonable, and yes, if you don't like something, you have every right to say no and to walk away. With that being said, the requirement IS a disincentive. This is why a lot of Fortune 500 companies offer "trial packages" (e.g., free for your first week, free first month, etc.), and they make them long enough so that the majority of those who would sign up if they had enough chances to try it, would go ahead and sign up. Just look at Amazon and Netflix, two companies who are absolutely ruling their markets -- their free trial offers have led to a lot of customers signing up for memberships. I've designed subscription and loyalty programs as part of my job, and in almost every instance, extending the trial to more than a one-shot deal led to significantly more people signing up. It then becomes a win-win: the person signing up gets enough repetitions to make an informed decision -- one that leads him to sign up for a long-term arrangement/membership, and the company gets a long-term customer. USPSA, which has been here longer, has adopted this marketing technique. The same customer behavior would apply to IDPA. If the IDPA powers-at-be decide to adopt this approach, it can only help grow the membership base of IDPA. Just my two… well, maybe eight cents… I personally don't see it as being that big a deal. The first match doesn't require membership, and IMO if you can't figure out if it's something you're going to want to do regularly enough based on a match then I don't see what's going to happen during matches two or three that is going to convince you otherwise. I also don't think that a longer "trial run" is necessarily what motosapiens is saying either (but he can correct me if I'm wrong). I think he's saying that it's not noobs that will be turned off by it but rather the occasional shooters who might shoot one or two matches a year. Personally, I don't really agree with that logic either. If you do create a $10 "one day membership" and someone shoots two matches a year, they are only $20 away from having the other 363 days per year covered. Someone who can't spare an extra $20 over the course of 12 months is not likely to be shooting much considering how wickedly expensive it is (especially nowadays)... and I think they are also unlikely to end up becoming "more serious" shooters based solely on the couple of extra matches they get to shoot. I don't mean to sound harsh, but IMO the only people who are negatively affected by this policy are the people who are either too cheap to spend the $40 and want to shoot as much as they can without paying for membership... or the people who don't care enough about IDPA to even bother shooting it much anyway. Like I mentioned before, I think that IDPA is by far the cheapest, easiest, and least intimidating of the big-name gun games for noobs to get started with. However, even with that being said, the $40 is still a fraction of the cost that it takes to shoot. If you truly can't afford the $40, then you probably also can't afford to shoot any matches with regularity anyway. And if you can afford it but don't want to spend the money because you only occasionally shoot IDPA when there is nothing else available, then IDPA probably doesn't really care all that much about catering to your needs anyway. Either way, I don't think it's really hurting their bottom line all that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Model19 Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I'm wondering if the dues help pay for the national championships? They obviously must fund the magazine. I bet some funds go to a liability coverage for the organization? I'm not phased by having to be a member to play. In my motorcycle racing past you had to be an AMA member (yearly dues. They sponsored the series) before you could turn a wheel on the track. Entry fees per each individual race were also required, not per weekend. So race 4 races at an event you paid 4 times. That paid for track rental, support services, etc. So paying to be able to play is understood by me. Somebody somewhere makes things happen, either at a club level or national level, and that takes funding. That being said, we let non-IDPA members shoot, but are ramping up our classifier frequency and we shot the postal as a match as well, and all of these are limited to IDPA members only. Period. No shooting it for fun. That has caused many people to rethink and join IDPA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkie Posted February 10, 2012 Author Share Posted February 10, 2012 I have a change in my initial thinking. I think you should join anyway always have my problem was the forcing part. Well you can still follow the rules and not force a person to do something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 What if the title of this thread was "Why does my USPSA club have to mail in their mission counts?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hkguy Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 What if the title of this thread was "Why does my USPSA club have to mail in their mission counts?" then it would be in the USPSA section Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waktasz Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 But it's the same thing, just money sent to HQ at a different time. One sports makes all their money via memberships, and the other doesn't care as much about you being a member because they get money from you anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 But it's the same thing, just money sent to HQ at a different time. One sports makes all their money via memberships, and the other doesn't care as much about you being a member because they get money from you anyway. It's not the same thing for people that only shoot a match or two every year (for example people who are mostly focused on another discipline). Those people are supposed to pay $40 to idpa, but they just pay a little at each match for uspsa. That's the whole point. The idpa rule(if enforced)discourages the occasional participant from shooting, whereas the uspsa rule does not. Now it's reasonable to speculate that for many, the idpa rule encourages the occasional participant to shoot more matches if he has to join IDPA anyway, and I'd guess for some, that's true. But it certainly also would prevent some people from shooting IDPA. I don't know if IDPA cares about that. Clearly not everyone on this forum does, and that's ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ima45dv8 Posted February 10, 2012 Share Posted February 10, 2012 This road is well traveled. And as always it devolves into a comparison/debate over how the two organizations do it differently. Restricted Content Politics Policy and political discussions or debates of any kind - even if you consider your opinions to be "facts" - are not welcome anywhere in the forum. Specifically including (but not limited to): USPSA vs IPSC IPSC vs IDPA If anyone has something significant to add, please PM a Moderator and we'll take it under consideration. Thanks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts