Super Squads at Nationals

[JakeMartens]

why does it matter?

[bbbean]

No need to contact USPSA. The criteria has been described here already.

The point now is whether or not it is fair. I offer that it is indeed not fair.

I think that if you're shooting at the contender level, it isn't going to make a lot of difference.

Further, while we talk about a singular SS, the squadding I've seen looks like there are usually multiple SSs, in large part due to the fact that clusters of Ms and GMs are old friends and want to shoot together for both personal and competitive reasons. In some cases, there are well known enmities between top shooters, which makes a single SS undesireable. Multi-day matches often see mini-SSs due to travel conflicts.

While I can see the potential for frustration if you're a top 20 shooter stuck in a squad of D class duffers who feels like he could be a top 10 shooter in the SS, I suspect the number of such shooters is pretty limited. For 90+% of the shooters at the nats or any other level II or III match, the composition of the SS is irrelevant to their performance or enjoyment.

One other consideration is the ability to get coverage for Front Sight and other shooting magazines/shows/websites/etc. There's a strong argument for putting the most popular shooters in the same squad to make life easier for the photographers covering the event. Happy photographers take more/better pictures, and more pics=more coverage of the match. Since popularity doesn't always correlate with performance on a 1:1 basis, that may mean shooters in the SS who wouldn't be there using strictly performance based criteria.

Crux of the matter: The current system works.

[XRe]

If the selection process were more egalitarian at least the members of the super squads would "deserve" the enhanced treatment.

Just a point of order - no one (super squad, GM, whatever) deserves "enhanced treatment". Maybe physically handicapped shooters. That's about it.

[beltjones]

No need to contact USPSA. The criteria has been described here already.

The point now is whether or not it is fair. I offer that it is indeed not fair.

I think that if you're shooting at the contender level, it isn't going to make a lot of difference.

Further, while we talk about a singular SS, the squadding I've seen looks like there are usually multiple SSs, in large part due to the fact that clusters of Ms and GMs are old friends and want to shoot together for both personal and competitive reasons. In some cases, there are well known enmities between top shooters, which makes a single SS undesireable. Multi-day matches often see mini-SSs due to travel conflicts.

While I can see the potential for frustration if you're a top 20 shooter stuck in a squad of D class duffers who feels like he could be a top 10 shooter in the SS, I suspect the number of such shooters is pretty limited. For 90+% of the shooters at the nats or any other level II or III match, the composition of the SS is irrelevant to their performance or enjoyment.

One other consideration is the ability to get coverage for Front Sight and other shooting magazines/shows/websites/etc. There's a strong argument for putting the most popular shooters in the same squad to make life easier for the photographers covering the event. Happy photographers take more/better pictures, and more pics=more coverage of the match. Since popularity doesn't always correlate with performance on a 1:1 basis, that may mean shooters in the SS who wouldn't be there using strictly performance based criteria.

Crux of the matter: The current system works.

If it's not going to make a lot of difference, why do certain top shooters want to shoot with other top shooters? Not going to name names - the point is NOT to make this personal.

If there is benefit to the sport that top shooters get squadded together for media purposes, then those shooters also receive a benefit because they get the most media coverage. Again, is that fair? I am most certainly not talking about myself here (I wouldn't deserve to be on a SS no matter how you slice it). However, if there is a shooter struggling to get sponsors but competing at a high level, doesn't he deserve the limelight more than someone who didn't fare as well the previous year?

[Chuck Anderson]

You've never heard of them making a decision based on sponsorship? Then how do you explain putting unclassified members of the AMU on the super squads?

1st, how do you think they got on the AMU? Every one of them is an extremely talented shooter.

2nd, what does the AMU do as far as sponsorship to USPSA? What possible link is there?

The AMU shooters you refer to were put on the squads because they were expected to be in the hunt for the win.

[bbbean]

If it's not going to make a lot of difference, why do certain top shooters want to shoot with other top shooters? Not going to name names - the point is NOT to make this personal.

I suspect for the same reason anyone else wants to squad with certain shooters. You'd have to ask them.

If there is benefit to the sport that top shooters get squadded together for media purposes, then those shooters also receive a benefit because they get the most media coverage. Again, is that fair? I am most certainly not talking about myself here (I wouldn't deserve to be on a SS no matter how you slice it). However, if there is a shooter struggling to get sponsors but competing at a high level, doesn't he deserve the limelight more than someone who didn't fare as well the previous year?

Performance will eventually gain attention. Consider how few people knew who Nils was 2 years ago. If we went to some other system, there'd be someone else who was being "left out". I'm also not sure if it's the MD's job to do PR for someone seeking sponsorships. Given the size of the shooting community, it's hard to imagine the best shooters don't have a decent shot at the best sponsorships, regardless of whether they shoot the nats on the SS.

I don't see the problem.

[beltjones]

You've never heard of them making a decision based on sponsorship? Then how do you explain putting unclassified members of the AMU on the super squads?

1st, how do you think they got on the AMU? Every one of them is an extremely talented shooter.

2nd, what does the AMU do as far as sponsorship to USPSA? What possible link is there?

The AMU shooters you refer to were put on the squads because they were expected to be in the hunt for the win.

Clearly they are outstanding shooters. No one is arguing that.

However, they are "sponsored" by the AMU. I doubt they would have been put on the SS if they weren't wearing that Gold and Black jersey (especially considering they weren't even classified in the division in which they were shooting at the time).

I think it can be argued that being on the SS is an advantage based on a multitude of factors (most people claim to shoot better when surrounded by good shooters, ROs tend to give preferential treatment to super squads, etc). If those unclassified (but obviously talented) shooters placed well, it could be argued that part of the reason they did so well is that they were on the Super Squad. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Obviously being on the SS doesn't guarantee anything, and people not on the SS win every now and then - but to say it isn't a privilege that is potentially beneficial is pretty disingenuous.

[shootingchef]

Try and get the 5 minute rule to stick!

[beltjones]

If it's not going to make a lot of difference, why do certain top shooters want to shoot with other top shooters? Not going to name names - the point is NOT to make this personal.

I suspect for the same reason anyone else wants to squad with certain shooters. You'd have to ask them.

If there is benefit to the sport that top shooters get squadded together for media purposes, then those shooters also receive a benefit because they get the most media coverage. Again, is that fair? I am most certainly not talking about myself here (I wouldn't deserve to be on a SS no matter how you slice it). However, if there is a shooter struggling to get sponsors but competing at a high level, doesn't he deserve the limelight more than someone who didn't fare as well the previous year?

Performance will eventually gain attention. Consider how few people knew who Nils was 2 years ago. If we went to some other system, there'd be someone else who was being "left out". I'm also not sure if it's the MD's job to do PR for someone seeking sponsorships. Given the size of the shooting community, it's hard to imagine the best shooters don't have a decent shot at the best sponsorships, regardless of whether they shoot the nats on the SS.

I don't see the problem.

"Performance will eventually gain attention." Whose attention? Why should someone who places near the top one year get snubbed the next? Why should they have to compete for the attention of the folks at headquarters? Why not just staff the SS with the top shooters from the year before unless those folks a) don't want to be on the SS or don't attend nationals?

[beltjones]

Try and get the 5 minute rule to stick!

And to think people here claim there isn't an advantage to being on the SS...

It's well-known that the SS is slow. I wonder why that would be? It could be that they get extra time on the walkthrough (according to my stopwatch they do), and they get more leeway on load and make ready.

If anything, given that each of them runs each stage a few seconds faster than anyone else they should be the fastest squad at the match, but the opposite is the case.

I can see that in certain circumstances shooting with rivals is a detriment, but in virtually all other ways being on the SS is an advantage.

[JakeMartens]

Try and get the 5 minute rule to stick!

And to think people here claim there isn't an advantage to being on the SS...

It's well-known that the SS is slow. I wonder why that would be? It could be that they get extra time on the walkthrough (according to my stopwatch they do), and they get more leeway on load and make ready.

If anything, given that each of them runs each stage a few seconds faster than anyone else they should be the fastest squad at the match, but the opposite is the case.

I can see that in certain circumstances shooting with rivals is a detriment, but in virtually all other ways being on the SS is an advantage.

I think the biggest reason is that they are shooting the stages under the same conditions, whether it is raining and in bags, hotter than hell, or beautiful day

How it is selected, who knows. Send Phil and email

I don't see a problem with

- there are 16 spots on the SS, top 16 from ly

[steel1212]

I agree with Jake, 16 spots on SS, top 16 from LY.

Also if you have witnessed that squad getting preferential treatment did you bring it up to the RM?

I know I have shot with the AMU a few times and all but on one stage at one match, when their families came to watch, they bust their butts setting and racing to past at least in my experience.

Edited April 18, 2012 by steel1212

[BritinUSA]

One other consideration is the ability to get coverage for Front Sight and other shooting magazines/shows/websites/etc. There's a strong argument for putting the most popular shooters in the same squad to make life easier for the photographers covering the event. Happy photographers take more/better pictures, and more pics=more coverage of the match.

I agree completely; I was never a big fan of the concept of Super Squads until I started providing match coverage. If the top shooters are spread out all over the range it is incredibly difficult to get good pictures and video of them all, you spend more time tramping from one end of the range to the other than taking pictures.

The Single Stack Nationals has this problem to a lesser degree, the main contenders are squadded together on Saturday, but there are others that could be in with a shot (Shannon Smith for one example) who is on a different squad. If I get some shots of him then I could miss the whole Super Squad on another stage... Other top shooters are competing on Thursday and Friday so I need to be at the match the whole time rather than just Saturday...

[Ben Stoeger]

I think it can be argued that being on the SS is an advantage based on a multitude of factors (most people claim to shoot better when surrounded by good shooters, ROs tend to give preferential treatment to super squads, etc). If those unclassified (but obviously talented) shooters placed well, it could be argued that part of the reason they did so well is that they were on the Super Squad. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Obviously being on the SS doesn't guarantee anything, and people not on the SS win every now and then - but to say it isn't a privilege that is potentially beneficial is pretty disingenuous.

I would like nothing more than to not be on the Super Squad. I don't see it as a privilege or a benefit. I have always felt the extra attention given that squad is a distraction. I guess I don't really understand the idea that you think people perform better on the Super Squad... based on my observations I would assert the opposite is usually the case.

[Loves2Shoot]

I think if you took a poll, many of the shooters on the SS would rather not be in that squad. If you don't think there is increased pressure if you are in the hunt on the SS, you just might want to ask a few of the guys who have been there in that situation.

[BBoyle]

I can understand that being on the SS could help you or add stress to your shooting. Most at that level already have a good grip on the mental game, if they didn't they would not be as consistant as they are.

The advantage I think that they do have is for stage breakdown on some of the more complicated stages. I have seen a few top shooters figure out more efficient ways to shoot a stage and then most of the rest of the SS follow suit when they see what the others saw or how it worked for them when they shot it.

Brian

[XRe]

The advantage I think that they do have is for stage breakdown on some of the more complicated stages. I have seen a few top shooters figure out more efficient ways to shoot a stage and then most of the rest of the SS follow suit when they see what the others saw or how it worked for them when they shot it.

The exact same thing can work against them, too - I've also seen the SS talk themselves into some inefficient ways to shoot a stage. It's rare, though, because most of those guys have a very solid grasp on stage breakdown, and most of them show up early to do their homework before the match.

[beltjones]

I would like nothing more than to not be on the Super Squad. I don't see it as a privilege or a benefit. I have always felt the extra attention given that squad is a distraction. I guess I don't really understand the idea that you think people perform better on the Super Squad... based on my observations I would assert the opposite is usually the case.

I have to ask - why continue to be on the Super Squad then?

[shootingchef]

I would like nothing more than to not be on the Super Squad. I don't see it as a privilege or a benefit. I have always felt the extra attention given that squad is a distraction. I guess I don't really understand the idea that you think people perform better on the Super Squad... based on my observations I would assert the opposite is usually the case.

I have to ask - why continue to be on the Super Squad then?

Sadly because some folks are not given a choice. "This is your assigned squad, take it or leave it." USPSA has a way of insuring those they want on a SS are in one. I guess if you were to make enough noise they would let you move.

[38SuperDub]

I think it can be argued that being on the SS is an advantage based on a multitude of factors (most people claim to shoot better when surrounded by good shooters, ROs tend to give preferential treatment to super squads, etc). If those unclassified (but obviously talented) shooters placed well, it could be argued that part of the reason they did so well is that they were on the Super Squad. It's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Obviously being on the SS doesn't guarantee anything, and people not on the SS win every now and then - but to say it isn't a privilege that is potentially beneficial is pretty disingenuous.

I would like nothing more than to not be on the Super Squad. I don't see it as a privilege or a benefit. I have always felt the extra attention given that squad is a distraction. I guess I don't really understand the idea that you think people perform better on the Super Squad... based on my observations I would assert the opposite is usually the case.

So wait - I thought I was shooting on the Super Squad this weekend at Space City - I saw your name and Andy's and figured this was the "Super Squad" LOL

[spanky]

That's the Stuper Squad.

[CAB33]

The SS for the 2011 Nationals was picked by Mike Voigt and if you were picked that was final.

If you requested to be moved the answer was "no and if you don't want to shoot on that squad don't shoot the match."

This was after people have spent thousands of dollars to get their vacations booked.

...and no, this rule can't be seen in writing anywhere and was not voted on, it was Mike Voigt's decision.

[ong45]

I have heard first hand accounts of people having no choice but to shoot in the SS . I think it's a wash whether or not shooting with the big boys is an advantage or not , the pressure within is enormous and if you are good enough to nibble at the edges of the top 16 there is not as much to be gained stage strategy wise as you might expect.

[JayWord]

Try and get the 5 minute rule to stick!

And to think people here claim there isn't an advantage to being on the SS...

It's well-known that the SS is slow. I wonder why that would be? It could be that they get extra time on the walkthrough (according to my stopwatch they do), and they get more leeway on load and make ready.

If anything, given that each of them runs each stage a few seconds faster than anyone else they should be the fastest squad at the match, but the opposite is the case.

I can see that in certain circumstances shooting with rivals is a detriment, but in virtually all other ways being on the SS is an advantage.

I really do not want to get into this, but......... 5 minutes on the clock means that on my stages. Many squads do not take the full 5 minutes. They are slower because they are usually the largest squads in the match. For example, if normal squads are 10-12 the SS run 13-14 shooters. I always thought I had a lot to do with the press. For what its worth, I feel they are the easiest squads in the match to run. They tape and set steel, unlike some of the prima donnas out there. This is only my opinion.

[beltjones]

I agree with Jake, 16 spots on SS, top 16 from LY.

Also if you have witnessed that squad getting preferential treatment did you bring it up to the RM?

I know I have shot with the AMU a few times and all but on one stage at one match, when their families came to watch, they bust their butts setting and racing to past at least in my experience.

The top shooters from the previous year being on the Super Squad seems perfectly reasonable to me. It's the guessing game and the "predictions" that seem to be self-fulfilling that I think seem a bit wonky.

I did not report anything to the RM, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you would like specifics I could provide them, but only via PM, not on the public board.