Area 1 Gm Attendance

[ong45]

The past couple or 3 area 1 matches have seen a steady decline in GM attendance.

Anyone have an opinion as to why?

Does anyone care?

If yes, what can be done about it?

James

[Sam]

James, I care. I want to shoot with GMs because it's the only way for me to get better.

In my opinion, there is currently no compelling reason for GMs from outside Area 1 to travel to this match. The decision has been made to run it as a trophy only match and give away all the prizes non-competitively, through the drawing of names from a hat. If you reside in Area 1, you can win an "Area Champion" title and a slot to the next years nationals. A GM from Florida or Arizona is elegible for neither of these two things in Area 1. Many GMs are professional instructors and have to make a living giving lessons on weekends. Their dance cards are pretty full. Who is going to give up a certain $3,000 in teaching fees to win a piece of wood?

While I truly enjoyed the match and the expertise with which it was run, this "non-competitive" awards approach is death to attracting the real talent. For me, there is no mystery in the disappearance of the GMs. When Area 1 was held at Idaho Springs Colorado in the mid 1990's, it was loaded with prize money and GMs.

I'm not bashing the match. It's just plain economics in my eyes.

[JohnRodriguez]

looks to me like area 1 might want to consider not having there match when another major match is happening (Area 8). Most of the better GM's are sponsered and the sponsers might be asking that they attend the match that will get them the most exposure and if they see and hear that most of the big names are going to a certain match then that's were they want their shooter to be.

I just read Sam's response and did not realize that Area 1 is a lottery/trophy match. Boy there's nothing like winning your division and being drawn last to go the prize table. If that sort of match is local, i'll shoot it for trigger time. If it's more than a 4 hour drive, i won't even bother. It's not like you get any good prizes on the revo table anyway but it makes practicing kind of worthless when you shoot a prize drawing match.

[John Dunn]

What Sam said.

[DJPoLo]

In my opinion, there is currently no compelling reason for GMs from outside Area 1 to travel to this match.  The decision has been made to run it as a trophy only match and give away all the prizes non-competitively, through the drawing of names from a hat.

However, I would guess that this prize/awards format is very attractive to D, C & maybe B shooters who rarely get a chance to win anything nice from the prize tables.

If you look at the numbers, D, C & B easily make up the majority of USPSA competitors.

Therefore, I can understand the reasoning behind the format.

-Chet

[ong45]

How about raising the entry fee 10 or so bucks so we can at least pay the division winners something?

James

[Chuck Anderson]

The policies of Area 1 specify that the matches be trophy only. Any prizes that are donated must be given away by random drawing. This reared it's head in 2003 when some knucklehead ended up pestering the sponsors for a little over $20,000.00 in prizes. It took a little time to figure out how to get them to the shooters. As a guy who does pretty well on order of finish tables, I'm not big fan of the random draw. That said, I know that many of the prizes of that match went to people who were in C/D class, were new shooters or shooters that were returning from an extended IPSC absence. Some of these shooters still mention winning these prizes as a reason why they stuck in IPSC. I think there is a spot in IPSC for both kinds of prize tables. We'll have to see how 2006 goes. The same knucklehead got roped into prize coordinator again.

[Bret Heidkamp]

Last time A1 was in Missoula (2000) the format was the same - trophies only. However, there were zero prizes. Todd Jarrett showed up, along with the Army team, and a bunch of other GM's.

So, while I personally prefer prize tables, I don't agree that a prize table is 100% necessary - I think this match was just a scheduling conflict with A8 (and especially if A8 ran a prize table...).

Actually, the way A1 gave away guns this year was pretty decent - much better than having nothing at all.

I guess I just don't care much anymore. We shoot this game for the love of it, not to make money, right? At least I do. If it were to make money, we'd have to travel to and win prizes from everything we entered. Then we'd make about 12 cents on every dollar spent!

[TNK]

Everything is about money.

[kimel]

I am pretty sure the guns given away at A1 this year went home and were used by those that won them. Unlike many of the guns won by the top finishers that just go on to the pile and show up on the USPSA classifieds.

I would love to see more GMs but I think it is important to the growth of our sport that the D/C/B shooters get something bettter of the prize table than a set of TGO's used ear plugs.

[Bret Heidkamp]

If it was about money for me, IPSC would be at the bottom of my list, and trap would be at the top. Gad, I hate shooting trap.

[shred]

Clearly the problem is I'm not a GM.

Ok, so I wasn't at Area 1 either, but I thought about going, and will think about it next year too. Darn vacation limits.

[dirtypool40]

I don't think it's about money only. Unless you win $1000 or more at a match it doesn't cover expenses, so that is rarely a factor if you can step back and really look at it.

It is nice to win something and say "yup, I WON this at Area X", but there are only two fair ways to award prizes: Random drawing and raw order of finish. Screwing around with the Clueless (lewis) system, or letting sandbaggers finish 80% of hoa and take home a new gun for Top "C" discourages shooters from paying that entry fee. Give me a straight up fair fight, or a lottery ticket. Either way I am happy.

I ain't no top GM, so take this for what it's worth. For me deciding to go to a match has to do with what competition (or good friends) will be there to squad up with, how interesting but not goofy or abusive the stages are and how easy it is to get in and out. A four hour plane ride followed by four more hours in the car the day before a match doesn't really whet my appetite. Do I have to stay in a flea bag motel 90 minutes from the range? etc. etc.

I don't know where you held your match so don't take this is criticism on that front.

[bgary]

The policies of Area 1 specify that the matches be trophy only.

Not entirely accurate. There's no "formal policy" that says that the Area-1 has to be a trophy-only match.

A little history... throughout the 90s, prize tables were big, and match fees were growing to suit. The 1998 Area-1 match fee was nearly $200, if I recall correctly. While that did a great job of attracting people who come to a big match because they can "get something", it also did a great job of turning away the "average joe shooter" in Area-1.

My predecessor, Dave Carruthers, decided to do something bold and for the 1999 match, he made the match "trophy only", with a match fee of just 75 bucks. He got screams from certain sectors, with people yelling at him (literally, in some cases) that there was "no point" in coming to a match where they couldn't "get something".

About 30 fairly well-known people decided not to come. At the same time, about 100 "average joe shooter" guys came out of the woodwork, and the match more-than sold out. Notably, some of the *top* shooters still came (TGO, Todd Jarrett, Matt McLearn) - the people we lost were largely top-A and top-M shooters from other areas, who had shown continuing success in being able to cover their travel expenses by selling whatever they took from the prize table.

Same thing happened at the 2000 match in Missoula. Todd Jarrett won, narrowly beating Max Michel, Julie Goloski was top-lady, etc. Match was full of everyday club-level shooters who were thrilled to be able to shoot a major match.

Since that time (and since becoming the representative for Area-1), I have continued the trophy-only policy. I would characterize it as my "preference", not my "policy". In lieu of any compelling reason to change direction, I believe that the Area-1 championship *should* be for the shooters of Area-1. It is "their" Area match.... and if they get squeezed out, either because of a high entry fee or because "their" slot was taken by a prize-chaser from [somewhere outside Area-1], I feel like I have done a dis-service to the very shooters I am supposed to represent.

Having said all that... I'm not hard-core against prizes (or cash payouts, as Ong45 suggested to me at the recent A1 awards). If we can do those things *and* keep the entry fee reasonable *and* make sure that the Area-1 match continues to serve the interests of the shooters of Area-1.... I'm open to it.

Fundamentally, as far as I am concerned the match is the MD's to run, if an MD wants to offer prizes or cash payouts, I won't say "no" - I'll merely ask that we find a way to do it so that the "average joe" shooters of Area-1 are well-served, as well as the top shooters.

----

Topic shift - as a separate topic, I have my own opinions about why top-GMs do or do not attend a match.

To some extent, it is the same issues we have about getting attendance at a Nationals: The nationals always do better when they are

-- on dates that don't conflict with another match

-- on a schedule which minimizes time away from work

-- at a location near a "hub" airport

-- in a town that has "something to do"

-- bonus points if people can easily drive to it

-- double bonus points if there are family activities, since then we can call it a "family vacation"

The Area-1 match in the last couple of years has had a couple of challenges. First, this year we were the same weekend as the Area-8 (hey, we picked our dates *first*). Second, we experimented with a Thu-Sat schedule instead of our "traditional" Fri-Sun schedule... which, while it meant that people had more time to travel home on Sunday, and allowed match-staff a day to tear-down and decompress... it also meant that most people had to take an additional day off work. Third, the match has, in the last couple of years, been in places that have been great for Area-1 members, but not so great for people who would need to fly in from ... oh, say, Arizona, Virginaa, Florida... Any of those would require hitting at least three, possibly more airports en route, which makes for a loooong travel day.

In talking with some of the Army team, and a couple of other top GMs, it seems clear that they need pretty "streamlined" match arrangements to get them to your match. Some of them said "if I can fly in Friday, shoot Saturday, and fly home Sunday, I'll come." We could normally have accomodated the "shoot Saturday" thing, but the Friday and Sunday things would have been long travel days for them. This year, because of the Thu-Sat schedule, we couldn't feasibly offer the "shoot Saturday", because Saturday was a half-day.... all we could offer is "fly in Thursday, shoot Friday, fly home Saturday", which did not seem to be optimal. Call that a trade-off... the Thu-Sat match schedule worked well for Area-1 shooters and staff, but did not [apparently] work well for people who had to shoot the match in a single weekend day.

I'd also note that Area-1's match schedule is very different than many of the more easterly Area matches. We traditionally schedule a 2-1/2-day match, where shooters shoot (and do nothing but shoot) for two of the half-days, they work a stage (so that other shooters can do nothing but shoot) for one of the half days, and they have two half-days "off" (to watch other shooters, play with the family, go fishing, socialize, sleep off hangovers, whatever). The feedback I get is pretty universally positive - people out here seem to like that schedule. At other Area matches, the match might be scheduled over three days.... one group of shooters shoots thru the whole match on Friday, and goes away. Another group of shooters shoots thru the whole match on Saturday, and a third group on Sunday. Each shooter only "has to" be on the range for one day... and they really seem to like that fast-track schedule. On the other hand, they lose out on a lot of the "social aspects" - if I shoot on Friday, and you shoot on Saturday, we'll never see each other. I personally like the "social" nature of our matches. ymmv.

All of this - much like the shooting game itself - comes down to priorities and tradeoffs. Instead of "fast-accurate-powerful", the tradeoffs to match format come down to a different set of variables.... things like - who is the match for? How much vacation time can/should they have to take off to get the "full match experience"? How much local staff is available? How much time are *they* able to take off from work for match setup and teardown? Etc, etc, etc.

Some of the decisions that we make will well-serve one group (eg, the "average-joe shooters" of Area-1), but by their very nature may make the match less attractive to the top-GMs from other Areas. I think, more than anything else, that is what has happened in recent years. To some extent, we have "biased" the match towards the interests of Area-1 shooters and, in doing so, may have made the match less attractive to top shooters from outside the Area.

These are not easy choices to make... and each one has a different set of effects. As always, I'm open to your input...

It is not an exact science. And... I don't think it comes down to the single decision of "prizes vs. trophies". I would be surprised - and very sad - if that was the one thing that made someone decide to attend or not attend *any* match... my *hope* is that putting on a quality match experience, with well-designed stages and good match staff, will bring in people who want to *shoot*.

Isn't that, at the end of the day, what this game is supposed to be about?

Bruce

[SteveZ]

How about raising the entry fee 10 or so bucks so we can at least pay the division winners something?

James

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know if thats the right answer either. I know of a few local GM's who commented (and I quote) "$150 for a plaque match? You've got to be kidding. I could spend about that much for a match with a prize table".

For me, shooting is about shooting...

Area 1 in Marysville in 2001 had no prize table (at least none that I can remember...I sucked so bad back then, I wouldn't know! ) ...but it DID have TGO, Max Michel Jr, Saul Kirsch, Travis Tomasie and a few others I can't remember off the top of my head....so it can be done. The question remains....HOW?

[bgary]

How about raising the entry fee 10 or so bucks so we can at least pay the division winners something?

Hey, two random thoughts...

-----

One: I've always been intrigued by the old "steel challenge" approach to match fees. What they used to do (maybe still do) is have a two-tiered entry fee: "amateur" shooters pay one match fee (eg, $75 or something), and "pros" pay a different match fee (eg, $300 or something). The "amateurs" compete for trophies only. The "pros" compete for cash and prizes, with 100% of the extra buxx going directly to their prize pool.

Would something like that be interesting at an Area match? In other words, lets say we set up the next Area-1 with a two-tiered entry fee... the ordinary average shooter pays 75 bucks to shoot the match for plaques; if you *want* to buy into a cash-payout, your match fee is 200 bucks (or something), with the guarantee of 100% payout of the difference. What that means is that if you want to play for cash, you can, and the guys who don't want to don't have to pay extra to subsidize it.

Thoughts?

----------

Two) Regardless of whether the match has a payout or not, there is nothing that would keep interested people from throwing money into a pool, with payout at the end of the match. I mean, a shooter could easily go around to his competitors with a hat... "put a 20 [or whataver] in here, division winner gets the cash at the end of the match." Heck, I'd even be happy to put the hat at the registration table...

Thoughts?

---------

I guess the place where I land on this thing is that, the guys who want to shoot for cash and prizes should be able to. But I don't think *everyone* should have to pay extra to make that happen. Somewhere, there must be an "opt-in" kinda way to make that work.

Bruce

[shred]

Isn't the usual problem with Pro-Am that very few people pony up the 'Pro' $?

Has anybody ever tried a NBA-draft style prize table? Say there's 100 shooters. 1st gets 99 entries in the pot, 2nd 98 and so on down to the last shooter that gets one entry. Draw from the pot. Might need to bunch shooters to make it more manageable-- say every 10 or so.

[bgary]

Random - but perhaps relevant - thought.

At the 2001 3-gun nationals, I approached a couple of "household name" GMs (nope, won't identify them) and invited them to come to the 2001 Area-1 match at Marysville.

One said "hey, let me get my calendar. If it is going to be a good match, and if I can shoot it in one day, I'll be there."

The other said "f___ no! It's only a trophy match, and it isn't worth my time to go to a match that nets out costing me money to attend. If I can't make money on the trip, I can't justify doing it."

There, in a nutshell, is the quandary. I don't know how to design a match format that gets *both* of those GMs to come, without adversely affecting the "regular" shooters of Area-1.

Bruce

[bgary]

Isn't the usual problem with Pro-Am that very few people pony up the 'Pro' $?

Um.... probably. But... at the same time, isn't that the perfect example of Darwinian "survival of the fittest"?

If people want the cash payouts, they'll vote with their money and it will thrive. If people don't want it.... the payout pool will correspondingly dwindle. Either way, the people who pay into it, get the benefit of it. The people who don't want it, don't have to pay extra for it.

Taking off my "area director" hat for a second, and reverting to my normal persona as a less-than-average bottom-of-B-class shooter.... why would *I* want to kick in an extra 50 or 100 bucks for a match fee, knowing that it is *not* going towards a better match experience for me or anyone else, but is instead going straight into the pocket of another shooter?

I [personally] don't have a good answer to that.

Bruce

[EricW]

Well, it wasn't like there wasn't *some* money to be won at Area-1. There was hardly a shortage of people in STI shirts gunning for the contingency program. Maybe the money needs to come from manufacturers. CCI could have a "Blazer Contingency" program for Production and Limited shooters. Glock and Springfield could go head to head in Production.

FWIW....

[ong45]

bgary Posted Today, 07:47 AM

 

Since that time (and since becoming the representative for Area-1), I have continued the trophy-only policy. I would characterize it as my "preference", not my "policy". In lieu of any compelling reason to change direction, I believe that the Area-1 championship *should* be for the shooters of Area-1. It is "their" Area match.... and if they get squeezed out, either because of a high entry fee or because "their" slot was taken by a prize-chaser from [somewhere outside Area-1], I feel like I have done a dis-service to the very shooters I am supposed to represent.

Some of the decisions that we make will well-serve one group (eg, the "average-joe shooters" of Area-1), but by their very nature may make the match less attractive to the top-GMs from other Areas. I think, more than anything else, that is what has happened in recent years. To some extent, we have "biased" the match towards the interests of Area-1 shooters and, in doing so, may have made the match less attractive to top shooters from outside the Area.

It is in the interests of the "average joe" shooter that there are legitimate GM's to compare their performance against IMHO

I am certainly looking at this issue from a self serving viewpoint, i want to pay more in entry fees so i can measure myself against the best.I have no problem with "bribing" them to show up ( not to suggest that money is all that motivates the top guys)

I hate to admit this, but knowing ahead of time who was going to be present at area 1 this year, i would have thought long and hard about whether i wanted to shoot. My priorities might not be in the right place and this is not to infer in any way that the match was anything less than first class.

James

[Loves2Shoot]

Shooting with GM's isn't the only way to get better there are lots of GM's who got there without have GM's to shoot with regularly.

Lawman (Chuck Anderson) could be a GM and proof positive the M can be deceiving, that guy can flat shoot (anything.)

As a shooter with limited funds and time, you have to measure your options. If you have a choice between shooting a match that can pad your budget and one that doesn't it makes your choice eaiser. With shooting, teaching, and family obligations prioritizing your weekends can be difficult to decide what to do.

Ditto to James Ong. ~

[BrianH]

I think another issue is that many GM's (whom are NOT sponsored) have decided to dedicate their money and vacation time to other matches like the Nats, Bianchi, and Steel Challenge.

It's hard for some to decide to shell a grand for an area match when they're gonna shell twice that to get to the SC.

[Carmoney]

looks to me like area 1 might want to consider not having there match when another major match is happening (Area 8) . . . . It's not like you get any good prizes on the revo table anyway but it makes practicing kind of worthless when you shoot a prize drawing match.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did you notice the guy who won Revo at Area 8 is over on the revolver forum trying to figure out what to do with his match prize, a brand new S&W 625?

[Flexmoney]

I know three guys that I shot with at the Nationals last year that live around Reno...who ought to be carrying their G-cards. That might kill a few birds with one stone.