atbarr Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Isn't CO on the agenda at the Shot Show? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 The BOD created a ruleset that didn't match what the 7 of us were asking for. AFAIK they didn't communicate the new division to SC or MD's, so if you aren't active on the internet, you don't even know the division exists. They didn't make it legal for anything but Level 1 matches. IMO, they did everything they could to kill the division right out of the gate. It will be interesting to see if participation increases after the next board meeting, where I think some of the above will be addressed. I am in favor of the division, but if participation doesn't increase, I wouldn't have a problem with it going away. I've only been around for a few years, but I don't know of any provisional divisions that weren't eventually turned into full fledged divisions. I'm only aware of 1 division going away (Modified in IPSC.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 One participant in CO at FL State. Hey, a state title is a state title, right? lol. Considering CO isn't legal for a L2 match, I would say no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Participation is low at the moment for all the reasons that others have stated, and as I have stated here and on the USPSA forums, USPSA has done NOTHING to promote this division since it was provisionally declared.with all due respect (and this is the same comment I made last year), why should USPSA be making the effort to promote the division? IMHO, *you* are the one who should be making that effort, along with the other 6 people that lobbied intensively for a new division. If you expect someone else to do the work to make your pet project succeed, it is bound to fail. If I were you, I would start by promoting a big CO-only match, with a nice prize table and good sponsor support. How about a simple article in Front Sight talking about the new division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_striker Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 CO with a weight limit and 10 round capacity will die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atbarr Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 CO with a weight limit and 10 round capacity will die. Maybe, maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHA-LEE Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 Here are some data points pulled from the January 2016 Classification update....... Number of USPSA members with Classifications in each Division. Keep in mind that these numbers include active USPSA memberships and Life memberships of shooters who may not be participating any more. LTD - 11414 PRD - 9232 OPN - 5942 L10 - 5929 SS - 4747 REVO - 1627 CO - 43 Looking at the numbers above, with CO only capturing the interest of 43 shooters dedicated enough to even achieve a classification, this isn't looking like an overwhelming amount of interest. Or something that was missing from the line up which would bring in a crap ton of new shooters. I also want to point out that out of the 43 classified CO shooters there is only 1 person that ONLY has Carry Optics classifier results. To me this looks like with the adoption of Carry Optics as a division it has gained USPSA 1 new shooter....... Let me repeat....... 1 new shooter........... Maybe its too early to rule CO as a failed attempt at a new division based on these data points? As others have said, USPSA has done a horrible job of marketing the new division so new or existing shooters may not even know about it? The way I see it, CO has a hell of a long way to go in order to even get the to REVO level of classified shooters. Do we really need another "Revo" type of division for a few dudes that refuse to shoot/use what the masses do? Personally, I would say NO. But I really don't have a dog in this hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHA-LEE Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 It would be interesting to know what numbers or statistics USPSA HQ uses to determine if a division is valid, growing, declining or dead. The above numbers are only valid for shooters who performed enough classifiers to earn a classification. With all of the club and major match activity reports being submitted USPSA could mine that data for how frequently any division is being participated in or not. For example, they would be able to tell if there are a bunch of existing members that tried CO for a couple of matches but then quit and moved back to shooting their "normal" division. Or if CO is being shot by primarily newer shooters. I would like to give USPSA HQ the benefit of the doubt that they are in fact looking at these type of metrics to make educated business decisions. If not, we have bigger problems to deal with than adopting a new division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_striker Posted January 20, 2016 Share Posted January 20, 2016 It would be interesting to know what numbers or statistics USPSA HQ uses to determine if a division is valid, growing, declining or dead. The above numbers are only valid for shooters who performed enough classifiers to earn a classification. With all of the club and major match activity reports being submitted USPSA could mine that data for how frequently any division is being participated in or not. For example, they would be able to tell if there are a bunch of existing members that tried CO for a couple of matches but then quit and moved back to shooting their "normal" division. Or if CO is being shot by primarily newer shooters. I would like to give USPSA HQ the benefit of the doubt that they are in fact looking at these type of metrics to make educated business decisions. If not, we have bigger problems to deal with than adopting a new division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Here are some data points pulled from the January 2016 Classification update....... Number of USPSA members with Classifications in each Division. Keep in mind that these numbers include active USPSA memberships and Life memberships of shooters who may not be participating any more. LTD - 11414 PRD - 9232 OPN - 5942 L10 - 5929 SS - 4747 REVO - 1627 CO - 43 Looking at the numbers above, with CO only capturing the interest of 43 shooters dedicated enough to even achieve a classification, this isn't looking like an overwhelming amount of interest. Or something that was missing from the line up which would bring in a crap ton of new shooters. I also want to point out that out of the 43 classified CO shooters there is only 1 person that ONLY has Carry Optics classifier results. To me this looks like with the adoption of Carry Optics as a division it has gained USPSA 1 new shooter....... Let me repeat....... 1 new shooter........... Maybe its too early to rule CO as a failed attempt at a new division based on these data points? As others have said, USPSA has done a horrible job of marketing the new division so new or existing shooters may not even know about it? The way I see it, CO has a hell of a long way to go in order to even get the to REVO level of classified shooters. Do we really need another "Revo" type of division for a few dudes that refuse to shoot/use what the masses do? Personally, I would say NO. But I really don't have a dog in this hunt. 1 shooter in Carry Optics at the Florida State Championship. He used to shoot production. Looks like a very small following. Is it out of the provisional stage and now a recognized division? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcs Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I have shot CO at 4 matches already, at another match I had to use my CO gun in Open because they hadn't entered CO in their Practiscore yet. (they plan to have it ready for next months match). Eric Don't let them fool you. Practiscore has the Div and before they added it to the software--you could create a DIV for a match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tarosean Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Practiscore has the Div and before they added it to the software--you could create a DIV for a match. Yep and it takes about 1 second to add it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 To add it to practiscore you check a box, I think the default is all of them are already checked. If not it takes a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_striker Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) Here are some data points pulled from the January 2016 Classification update....... Number of USPSA members with Classifications in each Division. Keep in mind that these numbers include active USPSA memberships and Life memberships of shooters who may not be participating any more. LTD - 11414 PRD - 9232 OPN - 5942 L10 - 5929 SS - 4747 REVO - 1627 CO - 43 Looking at the numbers above, with CO only capturing the interest of 43 shooters dedicated enough to even achieve a classification, this isn't looking like an overwhelming amount of interest. Or something that was missing from the line up which would bring in a crap ton of new shooters. I also want to point out that out of the 43 classified CO shooters there is only 1 person that ONLY has Carry Optics classifier results. To me this looks like with the adoption of Carry Optics as a division it has gained USPSA 1 new shooter....... Let me repeat....... 1 new shooter........... Maybe its too early to rule CO as a failed attempt at a new division based on these data points? As others have said, USPSA has done a horrible job of marketing the new division so new or existing shooters may not even know about it? The way I see it, CO has a hell of a long way to go in order to even get the to REVO level of classified shooters. Do we really need another "Revo" type of division for a few dudes that refuse to shoot/use what the masses do? Personally, I would say NO. But I really don't have a dog in this hunt. 1 shooter in Carry Optics at the Florida State Championship. He used to shoot production. Looks like a very small following. Is it out of the provisional stage and now a recognized division? Not sure if it's recognized or still provisional. I'm hearing mixed things. I won't get into the growth/sustainability of USPSA, but so far CO has only resulted in 1 new classification. The central point to the argument to make this a provisional division was that it would attract new shooters. So far it's primarily just been existing members shooting it. Now I'm hearing that it's USPSA's fault for not promoting it. Did USPSA promote Production and L10 when they were introduced? I'm seriously asking as I haven't been a member for as long as many of you. It seems to me that if USPSA were to make the effort to market CO, they could get the same net result by marketing any of the other divisions without the need to create an unnecessary division that only a few guys wanted to shoot in the first place. Edited January 21, 2016 by d_striker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 I was told it's no longer a provisional division it's a recognized division but I don't know. Not many people shooting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Yeah, if we're going to promote something, let's promote singlestack, because every reasonable person already *has* a 1911 (and that's my preferred division, heh heh). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcs Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Yeah, if we're going to promote something, let's promote singlestack, because every reasonable person already *has* a 1911 (and that's my preferred division, heh heh). Really? Single Stack--ever tried to get in SS Nationals. SS needs no help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Apparently Phil had a financial interest in setting a weight limit and getting the division approved. Where is he working now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d_striker Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) It sure seems that way. It doesn't matter though. CO is going to die unless some changes are made to it. I don't care about it too much though. I say leave everything alone with it and let it die. Edited January 21, 2016 by d_striker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altabonita Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Apparently Phil had a financial interest in setting a weight limit and getting the division approved. Where is he working now? Where? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motosapiens Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Yeah, if we're going to promote something, let's promote singlestack, because every reasonable person already *has* a 1911 (and that's my preferred division, heh heh). Really? Single Stack--ever tried to get in SS Nationals. SS needs no help. Yes, I shot nats last year. Had no trouble getting in.... but I read the instructions. But it should be promoted at the local level, with more ss-specific matches. USPSA has done nothing to promote this division. In fact, the only people promoting it have been the ones that wanted it in the first place......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimitz Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Slight thread drift but I assume all you on this thread who think CO should be sacked also believe PCC should not become a provisional division as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcs Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Here are some data points pulled from the January 2016 Classification update....... Number of USPSA members with Classifications in each Division. Keep in mind that these numbers include active USPSA memberships and Life memberships of shooters who may not be participating any more. LTD - 11414 PRD - 9232 OPN - 5942 L10 - 5929 SS - 4747 REVO - 1627 CO - 43 Looking at the numbers above, with CO only capturing the interest of 43 shooters dedicated enough to even achieve a classification, this isn't looking like an overwhelming amount of interest. Or something that was missing from the line up which would bring in a crap ton of new shooters. I also want to point out that out of the 43 classified CO shooters there is only 1 person that ONLY has Carry Optics classifier results. To me this looks like with the adoption of Carry Optics as a division it has gained USPSA 1 new shooter....... Let me repeat....... 1 new shooter........... Maybe its too early to rule CO as a failed attempt at a new division based on these data points? As others have said, USPSA has done a horrible job of marketing the new division so new or existing shooters may not even know about it? The way I see it, CO has a hell of a long way to go in order to even get the to REVO level of classified shooters. Do we really need another "Revo" type of division for a few dudes that refuse to shoot/use what the masses do? Personally, I would say NO. But I really don't have a dog in this hunt. I hear what your saying--but it is too early to be making any decisions based on classification data. Saying, "with CO only capturing the interest of 43 shooters dedicated enough to even achieve a classification" --is a bit premature. In many parts of the country, it is to cold to have matches. Let's see what the numbers say around October 2016. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcs Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Apparently Phil had a financial interest in setting a weight limit and getting the division approved. Where is he working now? I would be very careful of accusing someone in print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bret Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 Apparently Phil had a financial interest in setting a weight limit and getting the division approved. Where is he working now? Where? He is a pro shooter for Smith and Wesson one of the 3 that lobbied for carry optics, guess he is getting his payback for getting the division in now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now