Nationals Location

[wgnoyes]

Also, sometimes a change of pace is nice just for the heck of it.

The Nats have been at Quincy (central part of the US) many, many times, and recently Bend, OR (West Coast)..... maybe its time we had an East Coast Nats.... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure! It's been in PA and VA before. No reason it can't happen again. The trick is getting a club to put in a proposal to host it.

[Sestock]

I doubt you will see a proposal coming from East Huntingdon for next year. Nine majors in seven years are a lot, we need a rest.

[wgnoyes]

And a well-earned rest, I'm sure. I know about the one Nationals, what else has been going on up there?

[Flexmoney]

How does that knock out the Juniors and the teachers? Kids take time off to go to disney and everywhere else. School teachers get vaction too not just the extra 3 months the rest of us work! Sorry but that arguement doesn't work.

Chriss,

That arguement does work...becasue it is true. As a Section Coordinator I have heard the complaints from the parents and teachers. Sorry if you don't agree.

The point was...no matter what, somebody isn't going to be happy with the format.

[bgary]

should not be taken lightly by the USPSA board

ObNote: "the USPSA board" does not have any say in when or where the Nationals will take place. The USPSA *president* has full and final authority for that decision.... and we frequently hear about the Nationals venue and schedule at pretty much the same time you do.... *after* the decision is made.

I am *fully* plugged into this thread, and have taken a couple of swings at gaining the board more involvement in the process. But... at this moment, we have little or none. So... make sure El Prez hears your preferences...

Bruce

[Sestock]

And a well-earned rest, I'm sure. I know about the one Nationals, what else has been going on up there?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

2 Area 8 Matches

1 Sectional

5 Tri-State Championships

1 Nationals

[Chriss Grube]

I'd be real interested in the number of complaints from teachers and kids/parents. Like the numbers show 16 last year in the combined and 23 in both matches this year. I don't see a big change. As far as teachers take vacation, hell summer is the busy time for me but I take off. I missed a shooting and a homicide while I was there. Guess what somebody filled in and handled it. That is the concept behind sick days and vacation, when you can't be there they get somebody else to fill in. Aint any of us that damn important that they can't find a sub to fill in for a week.

[shred]

FWIW, around here teachers don't get to take vacation during the school year, period. They can take sick days, but more than 2-3 in a row, or planned in advance and you're in big trouble.

[Jake Di Vita]

Juniors aren't the only ones. Guys in college are severely limited as well.

[Flexmoney]

I'd be real interested in the number of complaints from teachers and kids/parents.

I'm not making this stuff up you know.

If you want some numbers, I recall that 6 shooters from Ohio...that planned to go in 2004...didn't go because of the timing issue with school.

Further, the complaints that came out of Ohio, when the 2004 dates were announced, likely help bring about the decision to allow juniors like ammo_burner21 (Brad B.) to shoot through that match.

And, my sister (also, my great aunt and a 1st cousin) is a school teacher. Short of being in the hospital with a serious illness...teachers aren't going to be taking a week off just as school is starting up after summer break.

Anyway...I am sorry I brought this up. The point I was trying to make was that...no matter how, where, and when...somebody isn't going to be happy. I might be wrong, but I think we go through threads like this one every year?

Some matches are too hot...sme are too cold. Some are too wet...some are too dusty. Some have too much down time...some don't have enough.

Sometimes you have a World Shoot to schedule around...sometimes you have a heat-wave/drought right at the time and place you are holding your match.

As near as I can guess, I will be shooting somewhere just about every July that I live to see. Ohio weather is hot and humid in July too.

[EricW]

Can I ask which special interest groups are *not* going to be catered to with regards to match scheduling? Mid-July is peak wheat harvest time here, so this year's schedule would seem discriminatory toward farmers.

What about lifeguards? And bean-pickers? Summer is peak season for all of them. How can Pamela Anderson and David Hasselhoff ever make it to a Nats if it's going to be scheduled during prime beach time?

Where does it end?

If I ever want to go to Nats, I have to get on a plane. And let me tell you, the second week in May through Labor Day are sheer hell at the airport. If I'm going to go through that kind of ordeal, I'd like to work it into a vacation. And don't take this the wrong way, but there's nowhere in the midwest I want to go on vacation, ever.

Sell shoot through passes for $50 to $100 a whack and let those that need to get in, shoot, and scoot. Donate the proceeds to the Junior and/or Ladies' Programs.

(And yes, I actually have beeen all the heck over the midwest, including Ohio and Illinois in the summer.)

[wgnoyes]

I'd be real interested in the number of complaints from teachers and kids/parents.

I'm not making this stuff up you know. ...

I'm not making it up, either. I could not goto last year's nationals in september because it conflicted with opening week of afterschool programs here. That is a FACT.

...Anyway...I am sorry I brought this up.  ...

Don't be. And just so we all know, September at PASA isn't any kind of guaranteed oasis, either. One of the hottest nationals I ever experienced there was in the middle of September. And yes, we do go through threads like this EVERY year.

[Bret Heidkamp]

should not be taken lightly by the USPSA board

ObNote: "the USPSA board" does not have any say in when or where the Nationals will take place. The USPSA *president* has full and final authority for that decision.... and we frequently hear about the Nationals venue and schedule at pretty much the same time you do.... *after* the decision is made.

I am *fully* plugged into this thread, and have taken a couple of swings at gaining the board more involvement in the process. But... at this moment, we have little or none. So... make sure El Prez hears your preferences...

Bruce

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bruce,

I hear ya, but it would be great if the BOD would discuss this topic as a board? I guess, secondly, why is the Nats location solely the Prez's responsibility to determine? Perhaps that should be changed to a BOD decision. It sounds a bit autocratic to me, personally. Probably because I don't know the basis for having it this way.

Secondly, you guys as board members have a rapport with the Prez - right? I mean, I say hello to him about once a year and get the deer-in-the-headlights look because he doesn't know me whatsoever, which is totally understandable. So... if some BOD members were to cc him on this thread at least all of us would know our voices were heard.

Other than that, I would be more than happy to send him a fax of this thread if that makes the most sense.

Lastly, what time of year is the decision usually made for hosting so I can make sure to fax this to USPSA HQ beforehand?

Thanks Bruce!

[Rob Boudrie]

The nationals location is the president's call because of the USPSA bylaws, however, the current president has consulted with the board before making arrangements. Also, the 5 year deal for PASA (ending in 2006) was the result of a board vote, not a presidential edict.

One thing to consider is that those involved do the best they can, but cannot always publish every offer, negotiating position, etc. If we disclose every aspect of all bids publicly, it would serve to undermine USPSAs ability to effectively negotiate. This is similar to the situation in real estate sales - no broker will tell you the contract price on a house until the $$ has changed hands, as that information could undermine seller's negotiating ability if the deal falls through.

There are often conditions which are not obvious. For example, a range which is making a bid, and plainning on making a facilities investment to meet USPSA's needs, may adopt a firm stance of "n years in a row guaranteed". The members will hear "the board turned down the proposal from .....", but will not always know every fact that went into that decision.

I am in favor of open disclosure of USPSA board activity, but financial negotiations are one matter which necessity dictate take place in private (with the result being published in the annual report)

[bgary]

I hear ya, but it would be great if the BOD would discuss this topic as a board?

We do. In fact, we had a half-day "strategy session" a couple of years back, specifically to codify the criteria that we felt would make a good nationals venue, so that the process of finding - and in some cases developing - venues could be made more smooth. Bend (Oregon), for example, was a venue that had never previously been considered, but it met the criteria and seems to have worked out pretty well. The criteria have been discussed and refined a number of times since then, and the President has proven to be pretty open to the input. But - notably - he is not *bound* by the input. The decision is his, and his alone. To his credit, he has accepted the input of the Board and seems to be including it in his evaluative processes.

Note, too, that the President *has* experimented with some different venues and formats over the past couple of years, with some [arguably] mixed success. One of the things that we learned, as a Board, is that the more matches there are, the more likely USPSA is to lose money in the process. One match (you pick your division) is reasonably easy to "break even" on. Two matches, if run well, can break even. Three or more matches, the finances seem to go south in a hurry. The Board has been *very* clear with the Pres that the Nationals have to be viable from a financial standpoint (in an interesting separation of powers, the President is responsible for the Nationals, but the Board is responsible for the budget, including the Nationals budget). the "hope" is that the Nationals will break even, but there is no requirement to do so... so, we are jointly pretty interested in picking a venue that will not only be great for the shooters, but that will also keep the red numbers to a minimum. (Note that 2005 has three matches - Open/L10, Lim/Prod/Rev, and 3gun - but only two venues and - arguably - two sets of match dates from a planning perspective. We'll be watching to see if we can draw any conclusions at the end of the year...)

I guess, secondly, why is the Nats location solely the Prez's responsibility to determine? Perhaps that should be changed to a BOD decision. It sounds a bit autocratic to me, personally.

Two reasons: first, because that's what the bylaws say. And second, I have grown to believe that it is probably the most efficient way to get it done. You have one point of contact for all negotiations, you have one path for all bids to flow thru, etc. You would not *believe* how difficult it is to arrange a time for 11 people (8 ADs, Pres, VP and ExecDir) to be on a con-call. It takes sometimes weeks before we have a time slot that works for everyone. To impose that kind of overhead onto the process of evaluating nationals bids (and making a decision) just would not make sense. Not to put too fine a point on it, but we'd probably still be "discussing" it at the end of the season...

What *does* make sense, at least to me, is to put some "guardrails" around the process. Specifically, I'd like

-- The bid process opened up to *any* reasonable venue, without significant bias towards the "usual" ones

-- The Board to be made *aware* of bids in a timely manner, so we can give feedback

-- The process made "consistent and defensible" by using known criteria to evaluate the bids

-- The selection decision made early in the season (ideally, a year before the match dates) to allow scheduling the Area matches and other things around it.

-- The selection decision broadly communicated in a timely manner.

I think the process has actually come a long way in the last few years. It is not perfect... but it is far more open than it used to be (Rob's comments about financial disclosures noted), and we've seen the Nationals in a number of new venues in the last couple of years. I think that's progress.

Bottom line... if you know a venue that would be good for the Nationals, make sure the President is aware of it. Be prepared to be able to tell him

-- how many bays and stages it can support

-- what work is required to make the range "ready"

-- whether there is sufficient "local talent" for things like setup and range services

-- whether there are sufficient assets (steel, walls, etc) to put on the match

-- whether there is sufficient room for parking for 300-500 competitors

-- plus administrative spaces (stats, shooters meeting, etc)

-- plus vendor space

-- whether or not there is a town nearby with adequate hotel space

-- which can be reserved in blocks at reasonable rates

-- and is near an airport - preferably within a couple hour drive of a "hub" airport

-- etc, etc, etc

-- plus... all the intangibles, like

-- is it an "interesting" place to go?

-- is the weather likely to be good?

-- are there things for the family to do?

-- are there things to do after the shooting day is over?

-- etc, etc, etc...

The last "thing" I'll mention - but separate from the "criteria", because it isn't one - is... does the town have any interest in supporting the match in some way? Because, while it is *not* a requirement, anything that the venue can do that will help put the match on the ground more efficiently (and more cost effectively) will probably jump their bid up the list. Maybe that is administrative support from the local "visitors bureau". Maybe that is discounts on consumables, provided thru the chamber of commerce. Maybe that is discounts on blocks of hotel rooms, thru the local convention coordinator. Or any of all kinds of other things...

One of the reasons that the matches are so frequently in Barry, is because the town of Quincy has shown - consistenly, for years - that they want the match there, by providing in-kind services and other things to USPSA (discounts on hotel rooms for match staff, etc). Some (hi, Alex!) call this a "bribe" - it isn't... it is the same type of in-kind support that any other kind of convention or event might get when they come to town. When my employer hosts an event in some city, one of the things they evaluate is "how much is the local convention bureau willing to 'help', if we bring a few thousand room-nights worth of business to their city?" This is no different... it is nothing more and nothing less than good business, and, at the end of the day, it ends up being somewhere around $10k that USPSA doesn't have to spend if it brings a few thousand room-nights worth of business to the town of Quincy... in a climate where we have to watch the financials so closely, that's hard to ignore.

Does that mean that a venue "must" put together a financial incentive to host the Nationals? No. But it may be a "tie breaker" - and, any venue that puts in a bid, should know that we *are* a non-profit organization, and anything we can do to keep our costs down *without* diminishing the quality of the event is very attractive to us.

Bruce

[BigDave]

Can I ask which special interest groups are *not* going to be catered to with regards to match scheduling?  Mid-July is peak wheat harvest time here, so this year's schedule would seem discriminatory toward farmers. 

What about lifeguards?  And bean-pickers?  Summer is peak season for all of them.  How can Pamela Anderson and David Hasselhoff ever make it to a Nats if it's going to be scheduled during prime beach time?

Where does it end?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well said. The Nationals might be a lot more manageable if participation was somehow restricted more so than it is currently. It seems to me that too many accomidations are being made at the expense the quality of the match itself (read: no shoot-offs at this years nats).

But then again...what the hell do I know?

[shred]

Could we do without a 3-Gun Nationals if it's going to cost us a pistol nationals?

I know the current leadership is against it, but what's the breakdown of 3-gunners vs pistol shooters? Where/Can we get the match financial statements?

[Alan Meek]

I seem to recall the the current USPSA Prez a few years ago requested the 3 Gun nats step it up or there would not be a 3 gun Nats. These words are not his exactly but that was kind of the message. And the USPSA 3 Gun crowd did in fact step up to the table and met the expectations.

Alan

( I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong)

[George]

Could we do without a 3-Gun Nationals

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if it's going to cost us a pistol nationals?

Who cares as long as we don't lose the US3G.

Jeeeeezzzz!

[vluc]

I doubt you will see a proposal coming from East Huntingdon for next year.  Nine majors in seven years are a lot, we need a rest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

hehe...didn't the MD say that after the Tri-State, and voila...Area 8!!

[Chuck Anderson]

I think that 3-Gun is probably the fastest growing segment of USPSA. The rules are still in flux and we just had a new set approved. Cancelling the 3-Gun Nationals now, or in the next few years, would be a very bad idea. It wouldn't take much for the shooters that we are attracting from other sports to decide to pack it in again. The 3-Gun Nats has increased almost every year. I'm betting that this year will be the largest yet. I'd rather have a single nationals, like 04 than do away with the 3-Gun

[Sestock]

Could one of the BOD members(Bruce or Rob) summerize the basic facilities and local staff criteria that is needed for a club to host a nationals. Some people may think that their local club is too small to host a nationals compared to PASA. A set criteria may help a few more clubs in putting together a proposal to host a future nationals.

[Kevin Kline]

I agree with Lawman, I wouldnt do away with 3 gun. I think we should have 1 Nationals rather than dump 3 gun, and Im not a 3 gunner.

[Alan Meek]

What would happen if we were able to go to a facility that could do the 3gun nats and Handgun Nats back to back. Opinions comments?

Alan

[Jim Norman]

Hmmm,

Do the name PASA Park ring a bell?

In other words, been there, done that, two years ago. Limited Nats and 3-Gun, back to back, If I recall correctly

Jim