Super Squads at Nationals

[spanky]

[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.

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.

Where it does make a difference is when the person picked went with the intention of shooting with a family member and enjoying their vacation as planned and that has been taken from them with no written rule and no choice.

[Chuck Anderson]

However, they are "sponsored" by the AMU.

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.

To the first part...so? I can understand someone mistakenly making an argument that the match is crooked because they allow shooters to buy their way onto the squad. But this makes no sense at all. They are on the Super Squad because they are "sponsored"? Or are they sponsored because they are good enough to be on the Super Squad. Besides the fact that your argument is fundamentally flawed based on the several unsponsored shooters that end up on the Super Squad every year.

As to the second part. No offense, but spoken like someone who has never been on the squad looking from the inside. Some will shoot better on, some will shoot worse. There is a great deal of screwing with people that goes on within the Super Squad. I've had to play referee on arguments between shooters, nurse egos, and watch a former Para shooter mess with a current Para shooter. The arguments about special treatment are nuts. I've shot with regular squads, super squads and the B super squad. I've seen everything you describe as "Special" treatment on every other squad, and rarely on the Super Squad. Jay is right. I rarely shoot with a group that tapes and resets the stage more quickly. I've also never seen a walkthrough run long. The 5 minute buzzer goes off and we're done. Just not getting, one, what stage you watched where it ran long, and two, why you would be paying so little attention to your own match that you would be timing the other squads walkthrough times.

The Super Squads exist for simple reasons. One to have a better sense of how the match is going, who's winning. By putting all the likely stage winners on one squad it makes it easier to see who is leading the event and leads to more even media coverage. Two, few people will keep a better and closer eye on the guys who are likely to win a stage than the guy who is likely to come in second on the stage. There is no cheating that goes on within the Super Squads. No fudging, no weaseling. The guys watch each other like hawks to make sure it's a fair match. That doesn't mean some won't argue for a reshoot here and there. But it's based on knowledge of the rules and experience, not the name of the gun company on the shirt. As has already been mentioned it also keeps everyone at the top on a consistent schedule related to weather. Makes it less likely that the National Champion is decided by who got to shoot the stage in the sunny weather and who shot it in the driving downpour where he couldn't see the targets. It also means if one of them finds a hole in the stage they at least all have the same opportunity to exploit it.

[Flexmoney]

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.

(from a match staff perspective...)

I comment, and concur, with Jay. While I haven't run a stage at the Nationals, I have run plenty at other Majors. The SS gets the same treatment, from me and my stage crew (and when I am the MD, I expect my staff to treat all the shooters the same as well). They don't get any more than the same time I allot for other squads. If anything, I am a bit harder on them, since they have been around the block and know what needs to be done (and I am often manning a stage that requires lots of setup). You will hear me use my "range voice" to call for the squad to reset. It often happens. BUT, it doesn't happen because they are lazy super-squadders. It happens because they are mostly nice guys...and people are coming up and wanting to talk with them and engage them in conversation.

Of course, there are a few exceptions. And, those are really just personality traits that individuals have. Believe me, there are various personalities on all the squads.

[beltjones]

To the first part...so? I can understand someone mistakenly making an argument that the match is crooked because they allow shooters to buy their way onto the squad. But this makes no sense at all. They are on the Super Squad because they are "sponsored"? Or are they sponsored because they are good enough to be on the Super Squad. Besides the fact that your argument is fundamentally flawed based on the several unsponsored shooters that end up on the Super Squad every year.

I never made the argument that only sponsored shooters end up on the super squad. However, for the past couple of years there have been members of the AMU competing on the super squads who have not been classified in the divisions in which they are shooting. Obviously these guys are studs - but do they deserve the exposure over someone who has put in the time in that division? I personally don't think so. They end up on those squads over guys who are classed higher than they are for one reason or another, and it probably has to do with who they work for.

As to the second part. No offense, but spoken like someone who has never been on the squad looking from the inside. Some will shoot better on, some will shoot worse. There is a great deal of screwing with people that goes on within the Super Squad. I've had to play referee on arguments between shooters, nurse egos, and watch a former Para shooter mess with a current Para shooter. The arguments about special treatment are nuts. I've shot with regular squads, super squads and the B super squad. I've seen everything you describe as "Special" treatment on every other squad, and rarely on the Super Squad. Jay is right. I rarely shoot with a group that tapes and resets the stage more quickly. I've also never seen a walkthrough run long. The 5 minute buzzer goes off and we're done. Just not getting, one, what stage you watched where it ran long, and two, why you would be paying so little attention to your own match that you would be timing the other squads walkthrough times.

No offense taken, at all. This is just an interesting conversation - no reason at all for hurt feelings.

To your last question, you are aware that Nationals is shot in a half day format? This past year I shot on the opposite half of the day as the super squad which allowed me to tag along and watch them shoot several stages. It wasn't a distraction from anything other than getting lunch and taking a shower.

Maybe you've never noticed a walkthrough run long, but I timed your squad several times after it started to seem like the walkthroughs were taking a long time, and believe me when I tell you that they very often ran long. I started timing walkthroughs on one stage where I heard the RO call for 5 minutes, and after waiting several moments I thought that this was a very long five minutes. I pulled out my phone and timed the rest of the walkthrough at 7 minutes or so.

The Super Squads exist for simple reasons. One to have a better sense of how the match is going, who's winning. By putting all the likely stage winners on one squad it makes it easier to see who is leading the event and leads to more even media coverage. Two, few people will keep a better and closer eye on the guys who are likely to win a stage than the guy who is likely to come in second on the stage. There is no cheating that goes on within the Super Squads. No fudging, no weaseling. The guys watch each other like hawks to make sure it's a fair match. That doesn't mean some won't argue for a reshoot here and there. But it's based on knowledge of the rules and experience, not the name of the gun company on the shirt. As has already been mentioned it also keeps everyone at the top on a consistent schedule related to weather. Makes it less likely that the National Champion is decided by who got to shoot the stage in the sunny weather and who shot it in the driving downpour where he couldn't see the targets. It also means if one of them finds a hole in the stage they at least all have the same opportunity to exploit it.

I'm not questioning the historical purpose of the super squad, nor the need for it to continue to exist. I think that has been discussed to death. The more interesting question at the moment seems to be how the squads are chosen, whether that process is fair, and whether or not it's an advantage to be on the squad. It seems like the answers are becoming more clear... Thanks for the discussion.

[beltjones]

I really appreciate this forum. As an outsider the SS looked like the cool kids who were getting all the perks. Now I see the other side of the coin.

I have to say, it's pretty gross that the members of the SS are forced to be on the squad or not shoot the match. Given freestyle stages, self-service squadding, etc, I thought it would be a lot more self-deterministic than that.

[Shawneeboy87]

I don't know where I read this recently, I think it was in the Front Sight that highlighted nationals. I'll need to double check but I think they said one of the reasons they do it is for marketing and PR purposes. It's easier to have all the big time shooters that will attract attention in one squad so people don't have to walk from squad to squad for each individual. I'll have to double-check where I read that.

As far as being fair, I don't think it makes that much of a difference. If you're good enough to beat them, you're going to beat them. And if you're good enough to beat them, most likely you're going to be on the SS. I think there's advantages and disadvantages.

Really the only advantage I can think of is that you can share stage breakdowns, but at the end of the day if you're not good enough to compete with them on the shooting aspect of the sport, you could be the Albert Einstein of breaking down stages and it's not going to make a difference. Thats my opinion.

[old506]

I may be a little controversial here but I think that one of the problems with this sport is that there is an expectation that a novice or mediocre shooter should get the same or similar accolades as someone that is at the top of the skill level. We call our really big match "nationals" and a "championship" and then invite or open it up to mediocre shooters and give them plaques and prizes and such. I think it takes away from the sport and does nothing to make it legitimate. I think that for all but a few shooters it is really just another "club match" with a chance to win a plaque for being mediocre and at the end a really neat prize table. More like a get together, not a true "championship". I am not saying that Nationals is wrong, if we want a really big match where everyone has a chance at a trophy and a prize, I think that is what we have accomplished.

What makes a championship is the best of the best going head to head against each other.

[38SuperDub]

I don't know where I read this recently, I think it was in the Front Sight that highlighted nationals. I'll need to double check but I think they said one of the reasons they do it is for marketing and PR purposes. It's easier to have all the big time shooters that will attract attention in one squad so people don't have to walk from squad to squad for each individual. I'll have to double-check where I read that.

As far as being fair, I don't think it makes that much of a difference. If you're good enough to beat them, you're going to beat them. And if you're good enough to beat them, most likely you're going to be on the SS. I think there's advantages and disadvantages.

Really the only advantage I can think of is that you can share stage breakdowns, but at the end of the day if you're not good enough to compete with them on the shooting aspect of the sport, you could be the Albert Einstein of breaking down stages and it's not going to make a difference. Thats my opinion.

It was actually mentioned in front sight - about how they put the top shooters that have the best chance to win in the same squad for media purposes

[Shawneeboy87]

I may be a little controversial here but I think that one of the problems with this sport is that there is an expectation that a novice or mediocre shooter should get the same or similar accolades as someone that is at the top of the skill level. We call our really big match "nationals" and a "championship" and then invite or open it up to mediocre shooters and give them plaques and prizes and such. I think it takes away from the sport and does nothing to make it legitimate. I think that for all but a few shooters it is really just another "club match" with a chance to win a plaque for being mediocre and at the end a really neat prize table. More like a get together, not a true "championship". I am not saying that Nationals is wrong, if we want a really big match where everyone has a chance at a trophy and a prize, I think that is what we have accomplished.

What makes a championship is the best of the best going head to head against each other.

I agree with you somewhat and I have thought about that before.

Personally, I go to the area matches for competition. I think local matches are good, but going to area matches lets me see where I stand against a larger pool of people. It also gives me the opportunity to see shooters I normally would not see. Anyone can be the man at local match if you practice enough, but going to an area match really lets you know where you stand. On the other hand -- I'm against allowing anyone to go to Nationals. I thought that was point of needing an "invite" from a club to go.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Shawneeboy87

[beltjones]

I may be a little controversial here but I think that one of the problems with this sport is that there is an expectation that a novice or mediocre shooter should get the same or similar accolades as someone that is at the top of the skill level. We call our really big match "nationals" and a "championship" and then invite or open it up to mediocre shooters and give them plaques and prizes and such. I think it takes away from the sport and does nothing to make it legitimate. I think that for all but a few shooters it is really just another "club match" with a chance to win a plaque for being mediocre and at the end a really neat prize table. More like a get together, not a true "championship". I am not saying that Nationals is wrong, if we want a really big match where everyone has a chance at a trophy and a prize, I think that is what we have accomplished.

What makes a championship is the best of the best going head to head against each other.

You know, I agree with you. Not everyone should get the same accolades. Accolades should be earned through performance.

One of the measurable accolades is media exposure. It's true that ease of media access is a valid reason for having a Super Squad. If it helps promote the sport then I'm all for it. However, media exposure - to the extent it helps shooters gain sponsorships, promote training businesses, gain names in the "community," etc. - should be parced out fairly in terms of awarding spots on the Super Squad. For those shooters who don't want the exposure, that should be respected as well.

[old506]

In my mind, you are either shooting for fun or shooting for a championship, not both. If they don't want to be on the SS then you aren't shooting for a championship, you are shooting for fun. We already have a system of Area Matches and possible "qualifiers" to figure out who should be worthy to shoot for a championship. Top three from their perspective Area Match (or similar) go to Nationals and shoot for a championship.

I may be a little controversial here but I think that one of the problems with this sport is that there is an expectation that a novice or mediocre shooter should get the same or similar accolades as someone that is at the top of the skill level. We call our really big match "nationals" and a "championship" and then invite or open it up to mediocre shooters and give them plaques and prizes and such. I think it takes away from the sport and does nothing to make it legitimate. I think that for all but a few shooters it is really just another "club match" with a chance to win a plaque for being mediocre and at the end a really neat prize table. More like a get together, not a true "championship". I am not saying that Nationals is wrong, if we want a really big match where everyone has a chance at a trophy and a prize, I think that is what we have accomplished.

What makes a championship is the best of the best going head to head against each other.

You know, I agree with you. Not everyone should get the same accolades. Accolades should be earned through performance.

One of the measurable accolades is media exposure. It's true that ease of media access is a valid reason for having a Super Squad. If it helps promote the sport then I'm all for it. However, media exposure - to the extent it helps shooters gain sponsorships, promote training businesses, gain names in the "community," etc. - should be parced out fairly in terms of awarding spots on the Super Squad. For those shooters who don't want the exposure, that should be respected as well.

[pjb45]

USPSA has more lower classified members than GMs.

The membership pays for Nationals for the most part. Not allowing them to shoot is a travesty .

The idea of media coverage is not really valid for the most part, sure it is nice for people taking movies and pictures to highlight the 'super squad'.

IMO: the status of being on the 'super squad' is the issue. The decisions relating to who is on and off was IMO subjective.

From a membership perspective, 3 or 4 GM/M on each squad is more egalitarian and would have a more positive impact on the membership.

[JakeMartens]

This is one of those times that reading the rule book and doing some research would help!!

This is exactly what we have now

Your finish at an Area Match can earn you a slot to the Nationals

Your finish at the previous years Nationals will earn you a slot to the Nationals

The Sections earn slots based on participation, then the Section Coordinators thru the bylaws in their section pass out the slots.

The remaining slots are then open up to a wait list.

In my mind, you are either shooting for fun or shooting for a championship, not both. If they don't want to be on the SS then you aren't shooting for a championship, you are shooting for fun. We already have a system of Area Matches and possible "qualifiers" to figure out who should be worthy to shoot for a championship. Top three from their perspective Area Match (or similar) go to Nationals and shoot for a championship.

I may be a little controversial here but I think that one of the problems with this sport is that there is an expectation that a novice or mediocre shooter should get the same or similar accolades as someone that is at the top of the skill level. We call our really big match "nationals" and a "championship" and then invite or open it up to mediocre shooters and give them plaques and prizes and such. I think it takes away from the sport and does nothing to make it legitimate. I think that for all but a few shooters it is really just another "club match" with a chance to win a plaque for being mediocre and at the end a really neat prize table. More like a get together, not a true "championship". I am not saying that Nationals is wrong, if we want a really big match where everyone has a chance at a trophy and a prize, I think that is what we have accomplished.

What makes a championship is the best of the best going head to head against each other.

You know, I agree with you. Not everyone should get the same accolades. Accolades should be earned through performance.

One of the measurable accolades is media exposure. It's true that ease of media access is a valid reason for having a Super Squad. If it helps promote the sport then I'm all for it. However, media exposure - to the extent it helps shooters gain sponsorships, promote training businesses, gain names in the "community," etc. - should be parced out fairly in terms of awarding spots on the Super Squad. For those shooters who don't want the exposure, that should be respected as well.

[JakeMartens]

And as for the walkthrough time

3.2.4 After the written stage briefing has been read to competitors, and questions

arising there from have been answered, competitors should be permitted

to conduct an orderly inspection (“walkthrough”) of the course

of fire. The duration of time for the inspection must be stipulated by the

Range Officer, and it should be the same for all competitors. If the

course of fire includes moving targets or similar items, these should be

demonstrated to all competitors for the same duration and frequency.

If because they are on a sqaud of 16+ compared to 10-12, then yeah they probably seem to get more time.

[beltjones]

USPSA has more lower classified members than GMs.

The membership pays for Nationals for the most part. Not allowing them to shoot is a travesty .

The idea of media coverage is not really valid for the most part, sure it is nice for people taking movies and pictures to highlight the 'super squad'.

IMO: the status of being on the 'super squad' is the issue. The decisions relating to who is on and off was IMO subjective.

From a membership perspective, 3 or 4 GM/M on each squad is more egalitarian and would have a more positive impact on the membership.

I don't think that anyone has suggested that lower-classed shooters shouldn't get to compete at Nationals. The suggestion was that accolades shouldn't be given out equally. I think there is some merit in that idea. For example, at Production Nationals last year I was 30th overall, and 2nd in A class. You can bet my goal this year has nothing to do with placing higher in my class, and everything to do with placing higher overall.

I think we can all agree that restricting the match to only a few handpicked shooters would be disastrous. Personally, I don't have a problem with the way Nationals slots are handed out, but clearly the way the SS is picked leaves a lot to be desired.

[old506]

I was thinking out loud about how we pick the SS and who has the chance to win a championship, not who goes in the first place.

Frankly, (in every respectful way possible and not be standoffish) the rule book proposes how we reward mediocrity when it comes to who gets a slot.

This is one of those times that reading the rule book and doing some research would help!!

This is exactly what we have now

Your finish at an Area Match can earn you a slot to the Nationals

Your finish at the previous years Nationals will earn you a slot to the Nationals

The Sections earn slots based on participation, then the Section Coordinators thru the bylaws in their section pass out the slots.

The remaining slots are then open up to a wait list.

In my mind, you are either shooting for fun or shooting for a championship, not both. If they don't want to be on the SS then you aren't shooting for a championship, you are shooting for fun. We already have a system of Area Matches and possible "qualifiers" to figure out who should be worthy to shoot for a championship. Top three from their perspective Area Match (or similar) go to Nationals and shoot for a championship.

I may be a little controversial here but I think that one of the problems with this sport is that there is an expectation that a novice or mediocre shooter should get the same or similar accolades as someone that is at the top of the skill level. We call our really big match "nationals" and a "championship" and then invite or open it up to mediocre shooters and give them plaques and prizes and such. I think it takes away from the sport and does nothing to make it legitimate. I think that for all but a few shooters it is really just another "club match" with a chance to win a plaque for being mediocre and at the end a really neat prize table. More like a get together, not a true "championship". I am not saying that Nationals is wrong, if we want a really big match where everyone has a chance at a trophy and a prize, I think that is what we have accomplished.

What makes a championship is the best of the best going head to head against each other.

You know, I agree with you. Not everyone should get the same accolades. Accolades should be earned through performance.

One of the measurable accolades is media exposure. It's true that ease of media access is a valid reason for having a Super Squad. If it helps promote the sport then I'm all for it. However, media exposure - to the extent it helps shooters gain sponsorships, promote training businesses, gain names in the "community," etc. - should be parced out fairly in terms of awarding spots on the Super Squad. For those shooters who don't want the exposure, that should be respected as well.

[JakeMartens]

So if you finish in the top of your division from the prior years nationals and earn a slot that awards mediocrity?

So if you win your division at an Area level III match and that earns you a slot based on how many people you beat awards mediocrity?

So taking the winners of all the divisions in all the Area Matches and having them then compete against each other in a Nationals awards mediocrity?

Same with the class winners?

So how do you suggest we award slots, if not by the winners of the Level III Area matches?

I was thinking out loud about how we pick the SS and who has the chance to win a championship, not who goes in the first place.

Frankly, (in every respectful way possible and not be standoffish) the rule book proposes how we reward mediocrity when it comes to who gets a slot.

This is one of those times that reading the rule book and doing some research would help!!

This is exactly what we have now

Your finish at an Area Match can earn you a slot to the Nationals

Your finish at the previous years Nationals will earn you a slot to the Nationals

The Sections earn slots based on participation, then the Section Coordinators thru the bylaws in their section pass out the slots.

The remaining slots are then open up to a wait list.

In my mind, you are either shooting for fun or shooting for a championship, not both. If they don't want to be on the SS then you aren't shooting for a championship, you are shooting for fun. We already have a system of Area Matches and possible "qualifiers" to figure out who should be worthy to shoot for a championship. Top three from their perspective Area Match (or similar) go to Nationals and shoot for a championship.

I may be a little controversial here but I think that one of the problems with this sport is that there is an expectation that a novice or mediocre shooter should get the same or similar accolades as someone that is at the top of the skill level. We call our really big match "nationals" and a "championship" and then invite or open it up to mediocre shooters and give them plaques and prizes and such. I think it takes away from the sport and does nothing to make it legitimate. I think that for all but a few shooters it is really just another "club match" with a chance to win a plaque for being mediocre and at the end a really neat prize table. More like a get together, not a true "championship". I am not saying that Nationals is wrong, if we want a really big match where everyone has a chance at a trophy and a prize, I think that is what we have accomplished.

What makes a championship is the best of the best going head to head against each other.

You know, I agree with you. Not everyone should get the same accolades. Accolades should be earned through performance.

One of the measurable accolades is media exposure. It's true that ease of media access is a valid reason for having a Super Squad. If it helps promote the sport then I'm all for it. However, media exposure - to the extent it helps shooters gain sponsorships, promote training businesses, gain names in the "community," etc. - should be parced out fairly in terms of awarding spots on the Super Squad. For those shooters who don't want the exposure, that should be respected as well.

Edited April 18, 2012 by JakeMartens

[beltjones]

So if you finish in the top of your division from the prior years nationals and earn a slot that awards mediocrity?

So if you win your division at an Area level III match and that earns you a slot based on how many people you beat awards mediocrity?

So taking the winners of all the divisions in all the Area Matches and having them then compete against each other in a Nationals awards mediocrity?

Same with the class winners?

So how do you suggest we award slots, if not by the winners of the Level III Area matches?

I was thinking out loud about how we pick the SS and who has the chance to win a championship, not who goes in the first place.

Frankly, (in every respectful way possible and not be standoffish) the rule book proposes how we reward mediocrity when it comes to who gets a slot.

This is one of those times that reading the rule book and doing some research would help!!

This is exactly what we have now

Your finish at an Area Match can earn you a slot to the Nationals

Your finish at the previous years Nationals will earn you a slot to the Nationals

The Sections earn slots based on participation, then the Section Coordinators thru the bylaws in their section pass out the slots.

The remaining slots are then open up to a wait list.

In my mind, you are either shooting for fun or shooting for a championship, not both. If they don't want to be on the SS then you aren't shooting for a championship, you are shooting for fun. We already have a system of Area Matches and possible "qualifiers" to figure out who should be worthy to shoot for a championship. Top three from their perspective Area Match (or similar) go to Nationals and shoot for a championship.

I may be a little controversial here but I think that one of the problems with this sport is that there is an expectation that a novice or mediocre shooter should get the same or similar accolades as someone that is at the top of the skill level. We call our really big match "nationals" and a "championship" and then invite or open it up to mediocre shooters and give them plaques and prizes and such. I think it takes away from the sport and does nothing to make it legitimate. I think that for all but a few shooters it is really just another "club match" with a chance to win a plaque for being mediocre and at the end a really neat prize table. More like a get together, not a true "championship". I am not saying that Nationals is wrong, if we want a really big match where everyone has a chance at a trophy and a prize, I think that is what we have accomplished.

What makes a championship is the best of the best going head to head against each other.

You know, I agree with you. Not everyone should get the same accolades. Accolades should be earned through performance.

One of the measurable accolades is media exposure. It's true that ease of media access is a valid reason for having a Super Squad. If it helps promote the sport then I'm all for it. However, media exposure - to the extent it helps shooters gain sponsorships, promote training businesses, gain names in the "community," etc. - should be parced out fairly in terms of awarding spots on the Super Squad. For those shooters who don't want the exposure, that should be respected as well.

This is a very different issue than the Super Squads at Nationals. Perhaps you could take it to a different thread?

[old506]

Not exactly sure what you are asking but what I meant by "mediocrity" was that right now we reward mediocrity by having many different classes and winners at nationals. Some have suggested that we eliminate the SS so that it is "fair". I am suggesting that right now we are closer to having a club match with lots of trophies and freebies at the end, dressed up like a national championship. It amazes me how many people complain about the prize table being small, or getting to the prize table late or not having a good opportunity at the prize table.

A national championship should be the best of the best going at it, head to head in the same squad and it should really, really, mean something. The way that I threw out, as a suggestion, was to take the overall division winners in the Area Matches or other chosen large matches (as qualifiers) as a way to "earn" your right to challenge for a championship.

I have nothing against anyone shooting nationals as an amateur or novice, I just think we should have two different things, a handfull of the best shooters shooting for a championship, head to head for something that means something and then a bunch of other people having fun.

When I go to a Cardinals game wearing a jersey, no one mistakes me for a ball player.

Edited April 18, 2012 by old506

[BritinUSA]

A national championship should be the best of the best going at it, head to head in the same squad and it should really, really, mean something. The way that I threw out, as a suggestion, was to take the overall division winners in the Area Matches or other chosen large matches (as qualifiers) as a way to "earn" your right to challenge for a championship.

I have nothing against anyone shooting nationals as an amateur or novice, I just think we should have two different things, a handfull of the best shooters shooting for a championship, head to head for something that means something and then a bunch of other people having fun.

FYI: This is what will be happening for the World Shoot. Only the best in USA will get to compete.

But if we did the same for Nationals then there would only be a handful of competitors, there are always spare slots at Nationals so we cannot fill the match as it is now, if we restrict who can attend then it will diminish it further. Nationals should be our premier event and should be presented as such, slots should be earned (and they are by various means). There is also a 'match within a match' which is the Super Squad, typically the top 10 will come out of this squad. In order for the playing field to be level among the contenders it is important that the range conditions be as similar as possible for each stage, having them on the same squad accomplishes this.

It also makes it easier to cover the event with regard to media and also for those within USPSA who cover the events for Front Sight.

I think our current system works well and is fair.

[old506]

I agree 100%. I wasn't talking about slots for everyone, I was suggesting an option on how we decided who competes for a national championship, thereby shooting on the SS.

In my most humble opinion and without trying to ruffle any feathers, I feel that this sport will be truly legitimate when prize tables and trophies for anything other than the top 3 are eliminated and the overall winner takes home a big fat check.

A national championship should be the best of the best going at it, head to head in the same squad and it should really, really, mean something. The way that I threw out, as a suggestion, was to take the overall division winners in the Area Matches or other chosen large matches (as qualifiers) as a way to "earn" your right to challenge for a championship.

I have nothing against anyone shooting nationals as an amateur or novice, I just think we should have two different things, a handfull of the best shooters shooting for a championship, head to head for something that means something and then a bunch of other people having fun.

FYI: This is what will be happening for the World Shoot. Only the best in USA will get to compete.

But if we did the same for Nationals then there would only be a handful of competitors, there are always spare slots at Nationals so we cannot fill the match as it is now, if we restrict who can attend then it will diminish it further. Nationals should be our premier event and should be presented as such, slots should be earned (and they are by various means). There is also a 'match within a match' which is the Super Squad, typically the top 10 will come out of this squad. In order for the playing field to be level among the contenders it is important that the range conditions be as similar as possible for each stage, having them on the same squad accomplishes this.

It also makes it easier to cover the event with regard to media and also for those within USPSA who cover the events for Front Sight.

I think our current system works well and is fair.

[shootingchef]

What AL503 proposed is not feasible. this is a thread drift and should be moved.

Regardless of what the media wants, you should not be FORCED to shoot in a particular squad with people you don't want to shoot with. This is a volunteer sport not the NBA.

[beltjones]

I think our current system works well and is fair.

Respectfully, I don't think it's fair at all.

Essentially someone picks the members of the Super Squad. They are free to snub people they don't like, they can apparently force someone to be on the squad who doesn't want to spend 3 days playing headgames with the salty veterans, etc. If the Super Squad is the match within the match to see who is crowned the champion, cool. But the participants of that match should EARN their way there - not be placed there by someone on a power trip.

[Ben Stoeger]

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?

I don't decide who squads where. I put in my request like everyone else does.