Area 1 Gm Attendance

[Sestock]

This is a tough year for matches with the World Shoot pushing everything early in the summer. We have many majors and tournements being shot on the same weekends. I know from an A8 standpoint we had a decent turnout last weekend of GM's for the match.

[Ron Ankeny]

Yes James, I would have liked to see more GM shooters. I went to Area One this year solely as a learning experience. I really wanted to watch and video a few GM shooters, just to see how the game is played at the upper levels of competition.

I agree with a lot of what Bruce has to say, but I also agree with Sam because I know good old cash can bring some pretty decent shooters to the arena, at least it does in other shooting sports.

As for economics, this year the guys had to shell out $95.00 in entry fees for Area 1. Let's say there were 250 shooters. That's $23,750.00 in fees. Where did that money go and why wasn't there a bigger return to the shooters? If the match is for us good old boys in Area 1 who are on a budget, then why not a $75.00 fee? Don't get me wrong, I am not complaining. I am really curious, is there that much overhead in a match this size?

Then there was the three day format. Depending on the "work schedule" some guys may have had to take an additional day of vacation and spring for over night lodging just to tape and set steel. Of course, it worked the other way too and some folks may have been able to come a day later or leave a day early. Still, no matter how you cut it, shooting a major match is a budget buster for guys who don't have much disposable income. However, I think a lot of shooters would pay a few more bucks in entry fees if the money came back to the shooters.

I am from Laramie, Wyoming and I remember the good old National Shooter's League. Yeah, it was a flash in the pan and it died, but a lot of really good shooters came from a long way off to play. Every single dime of entry fees, beyond administrative costs, came back to the shooters. I wonder if a similar type of match would fly in our sport? Do you think shooters would pony up a $100.00 entry fee (only $5.00 more than Area 1) if say $20,000.00 was paid back? BTW, if that does happen, it wasn't my idea. I probaly have said too much already, so don't ask.

[Jake Di Vita]

The VAST majority of money is spent in bringing RO's in and lodging them for the duration of the match.

[bgary]

That's $23,750.00 in fees. Where did that money go ...?

I haven't seen this year's A1 match budget yet, but based on prior years, I can tell you that the money goes towards some obvious things, such as

-- targets/tape/lath/staples/etc

-- props/paint/nails/etc

-- scorecard printing

-- signs, banners

-- trophies

...some less obvious things, such as

-- golf-cart rental

-- porta-john rental

-- meeting-room costs

-- staff meals during setup and match

-- staff lodging for out-of-staters (eg, RM, stats, etc)

-- staff shirts

-- stats supplies

-- match books

-- other printing expenses

...some relatively obscure things, such as

-- consumables (gas, batteries, paper, pens)

-- postage

-- advertising

-- vendor area chair/table rentals

-- range-use fees

-- sunk-costs for unsold shirts, hats, etc

-- hay bales

-- insurance

...some things we'd love to do more of

-- (some of the stuff raffled off, including at least a few of the guns, was purchased)

... some things we'd *love* to forget ;-)

-- USPSA activity fees ($5/shooter for a tournament)

... and myriad other things.

PLUS, I *hope* that there will be some money "left over" for the club... in general, part of the reason that a club puts on a big match is to generate some funds for infrastructure improvements. Put another way, it is perfectly reasonable for a club to use match funds to pay for props, steel, activators, dirt-work or who knows what, for the good of the match, and that stuff remains behind after the match is done, for the good of the club. For this match, for example, the club built some [impressive] number of wall panels. I would not be surprised if they used match funds to pay for all the 2x2s, visqueen, etc.... and they will get use of those wall panels for years. That's a Good Thing.

I can dig out a more detailed list when I get home, if interested. But, yes, the short answer to your question is that it is quite likely they went thru the match income, "just" putting on the match. When you are putting on a 2.5 day, full-service, fully-staffed match for 250+ shooters, $23k is *not* a lot of money, especially without a "title sponsor" footing the bill.

As other data points (off the top of my head)

-- Area-1 2001 (Marysville) made a few $k profit, and returned it to the clubs that helped put on the match (each club came away with about $500, if I recall correctly)

-- Area-1 2002 (Medford) spent the "extra" money they made on powder, primers, bullets, etc, and gave them away by random draw at the awards presentation.

-- Area-1 2003 (Bend) did *not* break even - If I recall correctly, it took a couple hundred bucks of my Area budget to balance the books.

-- Area-1 2004 (Reno)... never got the final numbers. That reminds me....

Etc.

Bruce

[Lee Dimaculangan]

Hmm - I actually shot Area 1 last year @ Reno, and enjoyed the match.

Normally my criteria for picking major matches isn't for the prize table - but for the technicality of the stages, location, and competitors. The RO's are awesome, and my only reason for not going to that match this year is that, it's too far. Houston - all the way to Montana, just isn't worth the drive for me. Last year all I got was a wooden plaque, but I didn't really expect an STI slide/frame or anything like that. I still enjoyed the match very much, as it had AWESOME stages, and even better staff.

Maybe location might be one thing as well? I'm not really familiar w/ Missoula or Montana, but I've noticed that every area match this year was also located near or at a large metropolitan area (as if that should really matter). I'm sure Reno was a definite eye-catcher to quite a few GM's last year, but if it wasn't for it being an open division 'world shoot team' qualifier match, I probably wouldn't have attended as well.

Anywho - I agree w/ James

[n2ipsc]

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Challenging stages, an engaging underlying theme, lots of buzz pre-match, Pacific NorthWet, wonderful weather…

A12001 squadded for 325 shooters for a "plaques match," and sold out over six weeks in advance.

It CAN be done…

(May The Farce Be With You)

[bgary]

(May The Farce Be With You)

And, let us not forget the presence of Queen Im-a-dollar

Bruce

[Ron Ankeny]

Thanks Bruce. I had no idea it took that kind of coin to put on a major match.

[Bear1142]

I wanted to come out to A1 because I wanted to see Montana, but the conflict with A8 made that impossible. In deciding which one to do, I went with A8 because of it's reputation as an outstanding match with excellent stage designs and match administration. A8 also has a reputation for providing an excellent prize table (although I disagree with the random drawing process), at least I had the chance to get something. Please don't interpret my reasons for selecting A8 over A1 as having anything to do with A1 not putting on an excellent match. I've never been to one and I can't make any comments about the quality of their matches, but I can tell you if two matches are the same weekend and one is a trophy only and the other is a prize table match, the decision is pretty simple.

Erik

[kimel]

The same calculation probably comes into play for travel. Given two matches on the same weekend the one that is closer to the population centers is more likely to draw the largest crowd.

Hopefully the double-up of major matches on the same weekend can be avoided in the future. A1 has their date spoken for already.

I believe Bruce said A8 doubled on to A1 after A1 announced their dates. But with World Shoot compressing the match schedule it was probably unavoidable. So goes life.

[bgary]

Hopefully the double-up of major matches on the same weekend can be avoided in the future.

Topic drift:

This is a problem we seem to face every year. The Area matches don't seem to have a problem knowing where the match is going to be, a year out. But the Nationals are often not announced (date or location) until well into the new year. So.... there are some "risks". We (the Area Directors) can try to pick dates that we are pretty sure the Nationals *won't* be on, or we can wait until the Nationals dates are announced and scramble for the remaining dates. Neither is a good approach, and the latter means that Area matches often fall on top of each other.

Gotta find a way to fix that...

Bruce

[Sam]

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.

Bruce, I lke your idea. If the lack of prize money is keeping some away, this could help bring them back.

Either way, I'm looking forward to next year. When I told my sponsor it was in the Portland area, she immediately said, "We're Going!"

[kimel]

Continuing Bruce's drift a bit...

IMHO the dates and location for next year's match (anything Level III and up) need to be announce no later than the closing ceremonies at this year's match.

The only reason not to do this is disorganization and the lack of will to do it. It just takes a bit of planning ahead.

After we draft Bruce and make him run for USPSA president...

[bgary]

IMHO the dates and location for next year's match (anything Level III and up) need to be announce no later than the closing ceremonies at this year's match.

Totally agree. And, I've pushed the USPSA president to do that, pretty much every year, for... well, several years. At one point I proferred a "non-binding resolution", stating the Board's desire that that be the president's standard of performance, but it failed (interestingly, on a tie broken by the president's vote).

The only reason not to do this is disorganization and the lack of will to do it. It just takes a bit of planning ahead.

I *tend* to agree with you, but there are a variety of reasons that may make it problematic to annouce a Nationals venue a year in advance. At least some of them are probably valid

Among them:

-- there are far fewer venues that can put on a Nationals, than can put on a Level-III (eg, an Area match). We can put an Area match on the ground pretty much anywhere that has 8 bays, and adapt entries to suit. For a nationals, you need to have lotsa bays, lotsa infrastructure, lotsa parking, lotsa other stuff. There are a finite number of ranges that have everything it takes.

-- Nationals has a pretty detailed contract that has to be signed with the host venue. If a prospective host *knew* that the USPSA *had* to have that contract signed by a given date, it creates a "negotiating imbalance"

-- Nationals is affected by outside things such as world-shoot dates, availability of the Nationals RO cadre, etc. It also generally has to fit into a smaller window of time... an Area match in June is fine, a Nationals in June is "too early in the season for a championship match".

-- etc.

Having said all that, I don't really understand why we don't have our Nationals venues planned 2 or 3 years in advance... but that's easy for me to say, having never participated in those negotiations.

After we draft Bruce and make him run for USPSA president...

I'm not listening to Kevin, la-la-la-la-la! (fingers in ears)

Bruce (my wife would *hurt* you ... and then kill me)

[kimel]

Oddly enough the "limited number of venues" arguement actually cuts both ways. If there are x venues nationwide that can handle it then you only need to negotiate with x groups. Constantly starting negotiations new every stinking year is NOT an effective strategy. Build a relationship and work toward a goal that is mutually beneficial.

It would seem to me that the ONLY way to do this right is to negotiate 2 years out, 3 would be better.

With x number of ranges you can always just put it into a rotation. Put 3Gun at one side of the rotation and handgun at the other side. Every range has a match every x/2 years. Or maybe it would be better to stage them consecutively so a range spools up for a 2 year run then has x-2 years to recover and regroup.

As new ranges develop (which hopefully DOES happen) the list expands. Attrition is a natural thing so I doubt the list would ever get all that big.

The nice thing about a rotation is that people can plan accordingly.

There also isn't any reason the schedule of dates can't be arrived at in advance. The conflicts at Venue A are likely to be the same conflicts year in and year out. Proper contact with the Chamber's of Commerce and Visitor's Bureaus at the host cities would get you a list of dates to avoid.

One of the things I learned a LONG time ago with periodic events was that if you held the event on the same day of the week, at the same time, in the same place, the attendance grew rapidly.

The same could well be true of our major matches. Sure would make our lives easier. We could avoid the double bookings. The GMs could plan their match attendance wayyyy in advance (and therefore schedule courses through out match season easier...including courses as they travel to and fro).

Make the GMs planning easier and prevent conflicts and viola' we have more GMs at every major. (how's that for drifting it back!)

Edited July 1, 2005 by kimel

[EricW]

T-R-A-I-L-E-R

It's more than just a landing pad for extra-terrestrial life forms...

[kimel]

Dang straight! That's where Cletus and Earlene live with their 27 children!

[Bret Heidkamp]

If I remember correctly the Barry venue is under contract for 5 years (starting about 4 years ago). The reason Barry got the Nats was because they kicked in some coin for subsidies (RO motels?).

I think all of this was in the BOD minutes when the contract was up for renewal. If I also remember correctly, Las Vegas did not offer anything to USPSA (besides a seat at a blackjack table!).

Too bad, my preference is definitely Vegas, and I think the majority of shooters would prefer that - in fact... that's another good poll question!!!

[bgary]

There is a *very* inexact science to getting people to come to a match venue...

Some of the items were mentioned earlier in the thread:

-- 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"

Other, intangible ones are

-- have we been there before, and do people want to go back? (we often get a "spike" in attendance the first year in a new place, but it may drop off significantly if we go back there the next year - that happened at Bend)

-- are there sufficient (and sufficiently affordable) hotel rooms available?

-- are there time-of-year issues to content with (eg, too hot in summer, too soggy in springtime, other "big" events to make a schedule problematic)

-- is the town willing to "help" in some substantive way? (eg, in-kind donations, such as x free rooms for every y filled, or even direct cash subsidies from the locality, as a result of our bringing something like 4000 room-nights worth of "tourist business" to their town)

-- etc

So... yeah, Vegas is a place people like to go to, but it may not be financially attractive for USPSA to put the match there. Barry has the financial thing, but it may not be all that exciting for people to go to the umteenth time. "X" may offer good financial incentives, but may not have adequate hotel capacity. "Y" may have all of the above, but might be a place that isn't very "family-friendly". Etc, etc, etc.

Factor on top of that, that *every* shooter wants to have the match no more than a 4 hour drive from their own backyard, and... it seems to me that there isn't one magic place that is going to work year after year after year.

I applaud the USPSA president for having the stones to move the match around a lot in the last couple of years. It has cost the org some money, and there have been some mis-steps, but we have learned a lot and I think it has served a larger portion of the membership. If we can develop new venues that are attractive to shooters, *and* put good matches on the ground in a way which is financially viable for the org... we'll be onto something.

B

[Stuck in C]

I'll put my two cents in (all I have left after Area 1) as a below average average Joe shooter. C class but should probably still be in D the way I've been shooting lately. I applaud Bruce Gary for his attitude of Area championships should primarily be for Area shooters. We make up most of the USPSA and the sport would die quickly without our support and the local clubs and matches. But, its a huge perk for us low class shooters to shoot with M and GM shooters at large matches, and is one of the main reasons we are willing to spend the money to come. By the luck of the draw I got to shoot on Squad 21 with James Ong and it was worth the price of admission to watch him. (Nice guy too. One of the things I love about this sport is the attitudes of the top shooters that I've met.)

There needs to be a balance between attracting top shooters and not driving away the rest of us by making matches too expensive. As long as the fee is around $100 bucks I'll go. If it gets up around $200 forget it. I have no chance of winning anything at a prize table so it doesn't matter to me whether there is one or not. If its needed to attract good shooters, fine, have one-but don't raise the match fee to where I can't go.

My guess the reasons more top shooters didn't show up in Missoula are: Area 8 the same weekend (probably the biggest reason) and travel expense to a small airline market like Missoula (my brother in Portland OR can fly to the East coast or the Midwest cheaper than he can fly to Montana!).

[TDean]

The 2 biggest reasons why I didn't go, and it has nothing to do with being a GM.

-Match fee was out of balance with the payback to shooters ($95/$150 after deadline).

-Couldn't justify spending 4-5 days worth of hotel, gas and dining expenses for an 11 stage match.

I have 10 days of vacation per year. If I can only attend 2-3 matches per year, I'm going to attend the matches that offer the most bang-for-the-buck (level of competition and payback to the shooters).

That doesn't make me a bad person does it?

Maybe I'm being too honest, but after looking at the GM turn-out (which is what this threads about) I'm not the only one who's thinking that way.

Bruce and Floyd, I know these ain't easy decisions. You sure can't please everybody. Overall, the match sounded like a success. Great job.

[Jake Di Vita]

The biggest problem is it was scheduled against Area 8...at a club which is already nationally proven to hold fantastic matches. Had Area 1 been on it's own weekend, I bet there would have been MUCH higher attendence...I know I would have gone.

[Jim Norman]

I would argue that we must get the Nationals schedule set each year at least bythe end of the current Nationals. Preferably we would schedule tha NAts as far out as three years. Then we could schedule all the Areas as well as the Sectionals and the specials.

Area 8 has Mid-Atlantic, VA-MD, Western PA, Summer Blast, Tri-State and of course A8. That should cover 6 weekends. If you factor this accross the country, we'd have 48 weeks taken right off the top, kick in three Nationals and we are a weekend short. This doens't allow for Christmas, New Years, 4th of July, Memorial Day, Easter, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, your Wedding Anniversary or your wife's 10th anniversary of her 29th birthday!

Seriously, with the exception of a few special matches, we should be able to schedule the Areas and Nationals so that there is no conflict. Ideally the Nationals should follow all the Areas, which should follow all of the Sectionals. This would allow sectins and areas to set up an awards program that would award slots to the area's best.

The balance of the special matches would just have to fit in. If nothing else, we should never have adjacent areas holing matches on the same or even successive weekends.

Jim Norman

[davecutts]

Mostly I don't realy care about GM's or prize tables, however;

One of the things I learned a LONG time ago with periodic events was that if you held the event on the same day of the week, at the same time, in the same place, the attendance grew rapidly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

look at AREA II

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...topic=25246&hl=

When was the last time it didn't sell out?

[kimel]

Area 2 is also drawing from probably the most shooter dense location on the planet...the Phoenix/Mesa area not to mention the huge population center of Kali.

They also schedule at a time of the year when the weather outside is frightful so shooters from across the country go just to remember what being warm outside was like.

We could schedule Area 1 in the less clement part of the year...no wait, we already did that in Bend a couple years ago.