NASCAR Type Point Series

[blackdragon]

Hi Stirling,

The only problem is that most sponsors will want to give product, not cash. Tax write off and such. How would you give the product in lew of cash?

Ivan

[shred]

FWIW, the match balance sheets for the 2002 Race Gun and 2002 Factory Gun nationals show sponsorship $ income of $1700 and $2700 respectively.

$4400 seems a little low. Is that all there is? I'd guess that product isn't included, but there's no way sponsors are going to give $-for-$ cash vs product.

[MoNsTeR]

$2000 a trip?!?!?!?!?

Using the figures you just supplied, it would never cost more than $1000.

I only supplied some of the figures, plus you're forgetting the two weeks lost pay. 10 days * 8 hrs * $10 = $800, like I said crappy job, and it only gets worse the more you earn.

But that doesn't matter! It's so striking a quantity of money precisely because you can cut it in half -- an $8k season instead of $16k -- and it's still insurmountable for USPSA's bread & butter shooters.

[blackdragon]

I believe that we donated over $2500.00 in product for the 2004 HG nationals.

Ivan

Armscor

[Barrettone]

Flex:

Sorry if I offended. My statement was not directed at anyone in particular. I am very giving to this sport, and I get easily annoyed with those that b*tch about paying $10 for something they say doesn't benefit them directly. I am a big picture kind of guy, and I know that if by giving a little, I can grow the sport I love (ala a ponts series), I am all in...even if it does not benefit me directly. You get back what you put in IMHO. I see this at the local level all the time, and I feel it is selfish. Some guy complains if match fees go up $2, but he'll spend $3000 on an open blaster!!! I simply feel, that our guns are useless if we don't have a sport to shoot them in. I think it is a small investment in the future. Call it a philisophical difference. I don't see it as the money is lining the pockets of only upper-echelon shooters, I look at it as building the sport. I think this mentality hinders a lot of growth for USPSA, and it is short-sighted. Sorry for the thread drift, but I had to get that off my chest....Okay ya cheap b*stards...where were we???

Jeff

[Jake Di Vita]

Ivan,

Donating cash is a tax write-off as well.

[John Dunn]

I think the focus needs to be on the little guy, at the club level. A program to put more money in the winner's pockets, while not bad, may be a little misguided. If we were to put a 10 dollar tax on matches I would want to spend that money by sending new members copies of Matt Burkett's videos, not giving a sponsored shooter a couple of extra thousand.

Who is going to be shooting in this series? The sponsored, the independently wealthy, and maybe the retired. I can't see anyone with a job shooting more than 4 majors a year, and that would be a stretch.

[MikeFoley]

Flex,

Oops, it was Jake who challenged "Instead of everyone saying why the idea won't work....offer up ideas on how to MAKE it work."

Jake,

How could we get a wider view of the membership on this? A poll may be in order to see how BE'ers feel about the point series, or what they would like to see. But, I would like to know what most active USPSA shooters would like to see. We have some very good ideas here, but some strong disagreement about "what the point series is or should be".

I agree with your statement "If you have the same payout for every class, you don't encourage improvement to the higher levels of the sport....just the higher levels of your class.". I hadn't thought about it that way. I just don't think we should make it an automatic that the pros will get most of the money, yet I admit I don't have a solution to prevent sandbagging. It is not that I don't think that the best deserve all of their winnings and respect, I just don't think the average shooter wants any part of funding it. I, BTW, don't feel like I am in that group, because I like the idea of the points series, and will pay to be in it, but not because I have to.

It should be very simple, a point series program should be self sufficient and fully explained in an offer to the members, who can then make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to participate, and what the benefits/potential benefits are to participating.

gmw2b,

I really like scenario #1 and the payout by the numbers. I like registration for free, but feel the match fee(paid by the participating shooter) should still be there to fund the series. I like the idea of no multiplier(even playing field, regardless of geography), but I would like to see nationals and state matches be points opportunities. I had suggested multipliers in my previous post, but after reading yours, think they are biased heavily toward nationals. Maybe all state and area count as one, and nats as two. Just tossing this into the air.

Barrettone,

You are passionate about the sport. The work you did this past year shows it. People like you. I appreciate your ideas, but I am not on board with abandoning our major event. We need to find as many ways to grow this sport as possible. I love introducing people to it. We should start another thread on how we can increase participation in USPSA, both to our current membership, and to prospective members.

[blackdragon]

Jake,

You are right. It just hits the bottom line quicker. And since I have a really big company in the Philippines to keep happy, BOD and All, I can justify it in my budget as advertising (Once it is approved). If I spent it all in cash they would ask for their margines in cash. Thats a tough nut to crack at the end of the year. Believe it or not my sponsorship budget for one year exceeds 20K. And that doesn't include Eric G. I like a lot of the ideas here. But I would be carefull about placing a lot of the responsibility on the sponsors. Back in the day it was over all finish on the prize tables. I have to laugh at some of the shooters who say they are going to get shock buffs and a crying towel. They should have been around back then! We at Armscor here in the US give a tidy amount to the matches that Glenn and I attend. It is real hard to determine which matches to sponsor. We hope to at least break even with sales. Thats why we will be at both the nationals this year. and to add a statement, Chevy won't touch this sport until we get rid of the humaniod target just my 2 pennys worth. If you guys have a better idea for the sponsors let me know!

Peace Out!

Ivan

[Cameron]

Mr. Dunn has the same "local" winner tone that I have. For this "local" reason, I feel the growth of a point series, as well as the growth of USPSA would be better reflected in limiting a new point series format to Area level. Keep it affordable to the average Joe, while increasing the competitiveness.

[Barrettone]

Well,

We have a lot of good ideas, but no steadfast agreement on how to implement any one or a combination of those suggested. Anything we discuss would, in my mind take a year or two to implement. Let's back up to the origional idea of "tiering" the competition as many suggested. It seems to me that it allows for more flexibility to all classes of shooters. Sectionals to Areas, and then ultimately...Nationals (gasp-I knew we wouldn't be able to get rid of them). The funding is still the major issue. If we still have nats, the competition kills the PS, as participants won't invest what it would take to make it successful. We can barely get 100 people to chip in $10 and pay the additional PS fees at the match (let alone $100 for a regional / area PS). That only leaves, as discussed, corporate sponsorship to fill the gap. As stated previously, most sponsors want to give goods in our industry, so it would have to be an outside, non-shooting-related sponsor(s). So where does that leave us??? I know that Dave Thomas was working on some marketing info to make USPSA more attractable to outside sponsors, but I don't know if the project was completed, nor how extensive of a project it was. I'll do a little digging. It is a shame it can't be self-supporting and in-house. Nationals is sooo costly, but nobody wants to let go of the "big one". I knew it would come to this. I am of the feeling that something needs to be done, as Point Series has so much potential to help USPSA, it just needs a boost. As it is now, it is on death row. I hope we can save it.

Jeff

[shred]

I'm all about growing USPSA too, but I just don't see how Points Series is going to do it. Most of the shooters at my club match are lucky to get away from work, family and other responsibilities for one or two days a month, max. They are the bread-and-butter of USPSA. Those are the people we need more of, many more of. If somebody can explain how PS will get us more of them, I'm all for it.

[Jake Di Vita]

Shred,

The reason I feel the point series we were talking about would help get more of those type of shooters is because of the simple fact that the more money there is, the more publicity there is. Most people that are interested in guns that I know never heard of USPSA before I introduced it to them. You are 100% right when you say those are the bread-and-butter and we need more of them. I feel the only way to heavily drive numbers is by getting the word out to more people...and the biggest thing that does that is television. While we do have it occasionally on television right now, it is on semi-obscure channels...Most people I know don't get OLN or the outdoor life network.

John,

I personally know at least 3 people in my area with jobs that attended 8-10 majors this past year. One is me.

[JFD]

At this point I don't see that any shooting sport has made it past the "OLN level". It's fairly well known that with our scoring, USPSA matches are not viewer-friendly except to other USPSA shooters.

Somehow manage to get more cash flowing and the average shooter thinking of USPSA will see it as "no way can I afford to get into this". We're already regarded as a sport that's expensive to play (How many times have you heard "I can't afford a $2500 racegun"???), and the best you can hope for is to attract more shooters to IDPA since that will be the less expensive option offered to them by anyone who knows anything about shooting. It's hard enough to recruit as it is now.

I don't want to be negative, but it sounds like greed is overpowering common sense. If you want a clue as to how much money is available in our sport, then ask yourself how many people are making a living shooting USPSA/IPSC right now?

Look at our total membership, why would Pepsi care less if you wore their colors? I don't see how you're offering anything extra to current industry sponsors as it is now. Pushing them for cash when you damn well know they prefer product is not going to be helpful to the sport. A friend won a certificate for 500 pieces of Starline brass Saturday. He and those of use around him immediately mentally converted that free brass into a dollar value. Starline got the PR benefit of a $50 cash prize without spending $50. Do you think they care about the 1% who thinks they should get $50 cash? If they were convinced that $50 cash to YOU is worthwhile, I can guarantee you that this Toys for Tots match won't be getting anymore certificates thanks to the drain on their advertising budget. The benefit to USPSA is getting very cloudy indeed.

The best you're going to do in the short term is have a PS that is totally supported by PS shooters. Prove that the PS benefits USPSA and you should be able to get more USPSA financial support.

A really short term goal might be to get USPSA to give you an icon at the top of their site instead of folks having to find info about it under "additional content". That would at least be a realistic goal.

Sorry for being negative, but I tend to be realistic.

[John Dunn]

Jake,

Well that's 3! Most majors are 2-3 day formats, correct? Figure one travel day, so lets say only a 3 day committment per match. 3x8=24. If we just assume that people get 4 weeks of vacation a year, then they have 4 whole days to do stuff with the family, assuming the whole family isn't into shooting as much as you.

No matter how you slice it, a point series will have a limited draw, it will never replace the nationals, and it will benefit only a very few shooters.

If you just want to make USPSA more popular or TV friendly, I think there are better ways.

[Jake Di Vita]

Ok, say most matches are 3 days. Leave on Friday after work, shoot the match Saturday, come back Saturday night or Sunday. That way you are missing no work at all (assuming you don't work weekends).

[shred]

How does that give 3 days of shooting? Which area matches can be shot just on Saturday?

IME, anything except a "local" match (under 200 miles) adds half a day to a full day on either side, driving or flying.

[SmittyFL]

Ok. This is going to be long and probably confusing but I'll give it a shot. A bud and I were solving this whole issue over a couple.....dozen beers last night.

How 'bout this, or some variant.

I think the main issue of the point series is having something worthwhile to shoot for. I think we have figured money is the "carrot". The point series isn't ever going to be viable for everybody. I think John's numbers are a little off, you're normally only missing one day of work for a major (except Nats) so 8 matches would only be 8 days of work. But regardless, it does take some time and money. Face it, this sport isn't bowling or needle point, it is a fairly expensive hobby. While I'd like to compete in all the Area matches, I won't ever be able to afford it unless I win the lottery or something. I think the current system or one that includes a bunch of area matches is too much. Also I wouldn't want to get rid of the Nationals.

We figured the PS needs to be geared towards the "fairly serious" competitor. What is that? We figured someone who shot 4 majors last year including the Nats. If the carrot were good enough that "fairly serious" competitor could probably squeeze in one or two more matches.

The guys that are at the local match every month but never shoot more than the state match are not going to compete in the point series anyway. They either don't have the money to go to majors, don't have the time, or don't care. The "bread & butter" shooter as has been discussed probably is the backbone of the sport. They may never shoot a major, and don't care to. They shoot on the local level for fun, they are happy with that and god bless them. They are not the guys practicing, dry firing, and surfing enos until 2 in the morning.

Sooooo here is what we came up with. The PS is 3 or 4 matches, they score the best. The Nationals and the Area match you live in have to count for score. Then you can use your best one or two of the other approved PS matches. It could be a state match, a different Area, an "other" match or whatever. So the guys that can afford to shoot all the area's still have a better shot at scoring well. But you will use your Area, the Nats and one or two other match. We thought about making your state or section match mandatory for score also. That would force Robbie and the big boys to shoot state matches which I think would be cool. But I'm not sure everyone has a state or section match available. It should culminate at the nationals so Area and other matches from one year (2004) would be used along with the 2005 matches for the PS champion.

We also figured the "carrot" needs to be 15-20 times your entry fee to attract attention. So if you put in $100 you have a chance to win $1500-$2000 or more. The money is given out pro-rated by division and class. So if there were twice as many folks in B Limited as GM Open, the B limited guys would win twice as much. If the PS fee was $150 and due to the more attainable match structure lets say we double the amount of entries, there would be $30,000 in the kitty. Depending on how the class and division's shake out it would be close to $1500 for the class winner in each division......I think. If we could get anything from USPSA or sponsors (which already give so much to the sport as has been mentioned) we would be close to the 20 times your investment.

Now for the confusing part. I think there needs to be some kind of "factor" for the matches. (excluding the Nationals, that will be straight up) I think if you shoot Area 7 with maybe 4 GM's in Limited or Open vs. Area 2 with 13 or so, you're not going to score as well at Area 2. So some kind of factor, maybe you get .25 of a point for every GM in your division. I'm not sure of the answer here, we would have to look back at matches and figure what the difference is, plus we could tweak it the next year if it didn't work out right.

On bagging. I don't really care about baggers but money is what makes folks bag. So maybe if you win your class in the PS you're bumped next year. Or maybe you can't get any more points in a match than what you are classed. So if you're a B shooter and you shoot 82% at a match you only get 75 points or something like that. For example, and I don't know this guy from atom and am no way saying he is bagging. There was a B shooter at the nationals who scored higher than all the A shooters and most of the M shooters. Obviously something isn't right about that. Some folks just don't get the opportunity to shoot classifers. Florida Open is a good example, we get a lot of shooters from out of the country. They get over here at some point to get classed, then only come back for the Open and maybe another match or two. Then they shoot all year in their country. So their USPSA class probably doesn't represent their true ability. But it's not their fault, it's just the way it is.

To sum it up:

Only three or four matches makes it much more reasonable to do

If the carrot is enough folks could make the extra match or two

Keep the Nationals, look at the PS as an office pool or something. If you want to gamble, great, if not you don't have to.

It's supported totally or almost totally by the shooters

Ok, sorry for the book. Open fire.

[John Dunn]

Smitty,

Sounds a little more reasonable. My question is, would the potential prize of only 2,000 bucks, that isn't even going to fully defray match expenses for the winner, going to motivate a plethora of go-getters to shoot an extra match or two? Maybe, I don't know.

As long as it is supported by sponsors or participants, I'm all for it. I don't think it should impact Joe Average (that's me!) in any way.

My math was screwy. But I'm about 6 hours from anywhere, so if I go to a major, it is a full travel day flying or driving before and after the match. Last Area 1 I shot, we shot Fri, Sat, Sun. I lost work on Thurs, Fri, Mon. That's where the three day thing came from. If I could get shoot throughs at a bunch of majors for Saturday only, I could probably go to a few more.

[Jake Di Vita]

Shred,

I shot Area 3, 5, and 8 all in 1 day formats. In fact, out of 9 (I think) Majors that I went to this year, the only one that I was shooting for more than one day was the Nationals.

[shred]

Shred,

I shot Area 3, 5, and 8 all in 1 day formats. In fact, out of 9 (I think) Majors that I went to this year, the only one that I was shooting for more than one day was the Nationals.

Cool. Can everybody do that? We need to get some people talking to the Area 4 & Area 2 MD's then. They have a bad habit of 3 or 4 shooting days..

[B.J. Norris]

Just another point, Area 7 is shot in a 8 stage, half-day format, and was the best match I shot this past year.

[TRNinTX]

Shred,

I shot Area 3, 5, and 8 all in 1 day formats. In fact, out of 9 (I think) Majors that I went to this year, the only one that I was shooting for more than one day was the Nationals.

We drove to Boston on Fri., shot A7 Sat AM, great match in 1/2 day format, drove back to Fredericksburg Sat PM and shot Summer Blast on Sun AM. That's two PS matches in one weekend with only one day off. If I was willing to pay two air fares and rent car, I probably could have gone to Boston after work on Fri and not missed a day of work.

However, that being said, the current format favors the Mid-West- East Coast shooters where you can drive 300-500 mi to several majors.

[SmittyFL]

No doubt the current system or probably any system is going to favor eastish shooters. But if the format is reduced to three or four matches, most anybody can make that.

[MikeFoley]

Smitty, this is the most reasonable format suggested so far. The factoring based on GM attendance needs a little work, but I am totally on board.

Drift: Shouldn't we get a few points for making our guns do that special thing we do? End of drift.

To address low classifier counts, the PS could make so many in the previous year mandatory. That might even get some really good shooters back to their local matches.

If the money is paid by the participant(as it should be), and we don't want to squeeze our sponsors, maybe we just invite sponsors to sponsor the series, or make prize packages that can be shipped directly to the shooter along with all ofthe sponsor's marketing materials. This could allow you to pay a little deeper after the cash.