Requiring Membership to Shoot Level 1

[PKT1106]

The PCC thread opened up a new topic that I think needs it's own discussion. Should Level 1 matches require membership to participate?

[Chuck Anderson]

No

[ChuckS]

Not required now and probably shouldn't. I would think that the option to try then buy would be a good thing to preserve to get new folks into the game.

[Sarge]

No. This is the only rational way to let people try the sport first before diving in head first

[Nghthwk1911]

Why not? Provide new shooters with a "Try It" match a local club, maybe 2. but then after that why would they not join. If non-members are shooting matches and taking slots from USPSA members at local matches that is not right.

With a partnership of gun manufactures, USPSA could provide marketing material with a "Free" club match for new shooters.

[Sarge]

Why not? Provide new shooters with a "Try It" match a local club, maybe 2. but then after that why would they not join. If non-members are shooting matches and taking slots from USPSA members at local matches that is not right.

With a partnership of gun manufactures, USPSA could provide marketing material with a "Free" club match for new shooters.

I guess if you have too many local Uspsa members and you are capping matches for some reason you might be able to use USPSA policy that says they are open to all Uspsa members to informally require membership.

[aandabooks]

Like this idea. 2 local level matches without being a member and by the third one they've joined. Or if they continue not to join then a $5-$10 match fee upcharge. Do 12 local matches a year and the membership would have been cheaper.

[JAFO]

I don't think it should be required. IDPA does this and I think it's a deterrent. But if you want to charge non-USPSA members a few dollars more per match, there would be some incentive for those in your area to join.

[ChuckS]

Here is the rule:

6.4.1 All competitors must be individual members of USPSA, or a current member of their IPSC region, for Level II and above competitions. A competitor who submits a paid USPSA membership application to the Match Director or presents proof of online registration and payment as a new member prior to entering the competition is considered a member for the purpose of this rule.

[2MoreChains]

No. I think USPSA's model of not requiring membership to shoot L1 is better than the other shooting game that requires membership after your second match.

[PKT1106]

Just talking about L1 matches. A person in another thread had the similar argument of non-members taking spots from members in locals and was adamant about having only members be involved at all levels.

[Gooldylocks]

I see the pros and cons of both. It makes sense to have people join, they are taking advantage of the stages, and the RO's blah blah blah. Also, memberships aren't expensive (I don't get the magazine, so it's only 25 bucks a year) and provide you with a classification, and more active USPSA members would likely make more manufacturers look at USPSA more seriously.

But I think that it could be a deterrent to some people to REQUIRE membership, as there are some people (I'm assuming, though I don't know of any personally) that shoot very regularly but don't care about a classification, and new members that don't want to spend the money on it after only a couple matches. It can be hard to know if you want to commit to something new after only trying it a couple times. Or the guy that only shoots 2-5 matches a year, then it might not make sense to even have a classification or pay the money.

[MilkMyDuds]

It's interesting because locally I see IDPA matches are attracting 5-10 new shooters every time, while USPSA matches have 1-3 new shooters most of the time. It can be just a local thing, but still seems to be in contradiction with the deterrent theory. Maybe by allowing a max of 1 free match, people actually become more interested and are willing to come out and try it?

[basman]

Have some membership applications at sign in, and if they join (you keep app/money and send it in) allow them to shoot the match for free.

[ktm300]

How about not forcing people to join. Make the membership worth the price to non members. Make it in the clubs interest to sign new people up.

A local match is going to let people shoot, rule, or no rule. That is the way they make enough money to keep putting on local matches. If anything they save the classifier cost on that shooter.

So how do you make it worth it for people to join. 1 educate them in what they already get. How about an application to join that has the clubs name on it that explains what you get for your $25 or $35. The club gets $10 classifier credit, per new member they sign up. Now the club has another incentive to get people to join.

Add some manufacturer discounts or other benefits that people that don't think they will shoot big matches want.

[JD45]

You can shoot all IIDPA matches here like forever with no membership. Half of us pay it, but No ranges enforce the rule.

[PKT1106]

It's interesting because locally I see IDPA matches are attracting 5-10 new shooters every time, while USPSA matches have 1-3 new shooters most of the time. It can be just a local thing, but still seems to be in contradiction with the deterrent theory. Maybe by allowing a max of 1 free match, people actually become more interested and are willing to come out and try it?

Could be commitment psychology. Could it be that IDPA is more "tactical" where as USPSA is more of a racing game?

[lcs]

Why not? Provide new shooters with a "Try It" match a local club, maybe 2. but then after that why would they not join. If non-members are shooting matches and taking slots from USPSA members at local matches that is not right.

With a partnership of gun manufactures, USPSA could provide marketing material with a "Free" club match for new shooters.

I don't get "non-members are shooting matches and taking slots from USPSA members"????

[lcs]

I don't think Level 1 matches should mandate USPSA membership. They will join if they want to be classified. I have guys that have been coming for years and will never join. They pay the same for the match as members and just come to enjoy shooting.

[Beastly]

The original complaint was that matches in some areas were over-subscribed, and this local situation was being used as an argument against PCC.

My observation / idea was that perhaps USPSA members should preferential access over non-USPSA members for over-subscribed USPSA matches.

How this would be administered would be the question in my mind. Perhaps early registration allowing USPSA members (or even hosting range members) to reserve a slot a week before opening registration to all comers.

There was NOT a suggestion to restrict level 1 matches to USPSA members only. That is something that popped up in this thread and that IMHO would be counter-productive.

[lcs]

The original complaint was that matches in some areas were over-subscribed, and this local situation was being used as an argument against PCC.

My observation / idea was that perhaps USPSA members should preferential access over non-USPSA members for over-subscribed USPSA matches.

How this would be administered would be the question in my mind. Perhaps early registration allowing USPSA members (or even hosting range members) to reserve a slot a week before opening registration to all comers.

There was NOT a suggestion to restrict level 1 matches to USPSA members only. That is something that popped up in this thread and that IMHO would be counter-productive.

Thanks. I missed that. If my matches exceeded capacity, USPSA members would definitely have priority on registration.

[Sarge]

If anything they save the classifier cost on that shooter.

Matches owe Uspsa for EVERY shooter, not just members.

[Nghthwk1911]

Why not? Provide new shooters with a "Try It" match a local club, maybe 2. but then after that why would they not join. If non-members are shooting matches and taking slots from USPSA members at local matches that is not right.

With a partnership of gun manufactures, USPSA could provide marketing material with a "Free" club match for new shooters.

I don't get "non-members are shooting matches and taking slots from USPSA members"????

Yes, In A8 there many matches if you don't sign up within minutes of sign up opening you are on a wait list.

Don't get me wrong we need new members, and we should bring more with us when we go to matches.

But the habit of "old Club" members that come to matches at the "home" club take all the slots and never pay USPSA Member dues and the club either does not send in scores because they cant afford to pay the fees to USPSA. as they had more non-members shoot (sometimes at a discounted rate) than paid USPSA members to make it worth while. Scores are on Practiscore go look, oh your a USPSA member and you shot a real good classifier.. Oh well.

Oh wait now we start to blend topical issues, like score reporting, match attendance, club affiliation renewal.....

[lcs]

If anything they save the classifier cost on that shooter.

Matches owe Uspsa for EVERY shooter, not just members.

Sarge nailed that one. Unless you are stripping out non-members from the classifier file, you are paying for them.

"To reserve the use of USPSA’s images and intellectual property for USPSA competitions and that activity fees shall be paid for all competitors at any match employing such images or property, or that competitors might reasonably assume to be a USPSA event."

"The club understands that failure to follow rules/procedures will result in revocation of USPSA/IPSC affiliation."

[Thomas H]

It amazes me that people think that a local problem is something that should be the national organization's problem to solve.

Seriously.

If a local club has SO MANY PEOPLE coming to shoot that the match fills---congrats! Solve it however you like. If that means preferential treatment to USPSA members, well, the rulebook doesn't say you can't. If you choose another way, as long as the rulebook doesn't say you can't, great. (Better yet, make changes so you can run more shooters. What a great problem to have!)

The idea that USPSA HQ should somehow instead make an everyone-must-follow-this rule about "you can't shoot more than one match without being a member" or some similar nonsense is precisely that, in my opinion--nonsense. What problem will it solve, exactly?

Seriously, what problem will that solve? The problem is matches being over-booked. The only solution to that is either making the matches able to handle more shooters, or reduce the number of shooters. How will requiring membership (as a USPSA rules) make the matches able to handle more shooters? It won't, right? Therefore, people voting for that apparently must think it'll reduce the number of shooters at matches.

Well, there's a unique way to build the sport.

How about instead, individual clubs handle it in whatever way is best for them while following the rulebook, instead of having HQ make a one-size-applied-to-all rule that may not solve any of the problems? I don't know, prioritize ROs, then USPSA members, then others? Include a lottery of 5 new shooters each time? First-come, first-served? Who knows---the optimal solution will probably be different for each club.

I'm pretty sure the solution will NEVER be "make 'em all be USPSA members." (Noting that for people saying that IDPA does this, far as I know, most local clubs pretty much ignore this rule since it is stupid, and will only lose you shooters since most people take some time to realize that being a member is worth doing.)

But the habit of "old Club" members that come to matches at the "home" club take all the slots and never pay USPSA Member dues and the club either does not send in scores because they cant afford to pay the fees to USPSA. as they had more non-members shoot (sometimes at a discounted rate) than paid USPSA members to make it worth while. Scores are on Practiscore go look, oh your a USPSA member and you shot a real good classifier.. Oh well.

I don't understand the part I bolded in the quote above. Clubs aren't smart enough to charge enough for a match to pay the $1.50 fee to USPSA? Clubs have non-members shoot at a discounted rate compared to members of USPSA for USPSA matches?

That's not a shooter numbers problem, that's a "stupidly-run club" problem. I mean, how can the club not be smart enough to charge enough to run the match plus the USPSA fee that they have to pay for members and non-members alike? Did they magically forget that USPSA clubs have fees they need to send in? (Why would a non-member get to shoot the match cheaper?)

....anyway: I really don't understand why this is a topic that anyone is asking USPSA HQ to solve in terms of a new rule.