Order of Finish vs. Random Drawing Prize Tables

[IHAVEGAS]

12 hours ago, Tanders said:

I totally understand giving away a few door prizes or raffling off some of the more expensive items so that everyone has a shot at winning something.  However, I do think that division HOAs should get something of value out of winning the match.  It seems a bit unfair to me that a division winner who pours a lot of time and expense into the game can walk away with nothing while another guy who doesn't practice at all wins a $500 gun.

 

Why? 

If you win a match that is great for you, and it is great that you have the God given skill, and the time, and the will, and the money, to excel at your chosen pastime. 

All good stuff, but I don't know of a reason that other competitors who do not have a chance of benefitting  should be required to help pay for it. 

Placement prizes make sense to me in sports where the prizes actually bring in more money to the events or in situations where people want to ante in their own funds at their option. Else, I think Cha-Lee has got things figured out well. 

[Ssanders224]

19 minutes ago, IHAVEGAS said:

 

Why? 

If you win a match that is great for you, and it is great that you have the God given skill, and the time, and the will, and the money, to excel at your chosen pastime. 

All good stuff, but I don't know of a reason that other competitors who do not have a chance of benefitting  should be required to help pay for it. 

Placement prizes make sense to me in sports where the prizes actually bring in more money to the events or in situations where people want to ante in their own funds at their option. Else, I think Cha-Lee has got things figured out well. 

 

No one is “required” to pay for anything. Everyone registers, pays, and shoots of their own accord. 

 

I still like the “purse” model, and I think buying in on optional purses would be neat too. 

 

 

[wtturn]

 
Placing well in the match is its own reward, while getting product into the hands of competitors is both a bonus for the shooter who didn't win, as well as the manufacturer that is trying to gain name recognition. 
 
Items on the prize table are never purchased using match fees, and should not be distributed based on match placement.  If they are, attendance will diminish, and then donations will suffer.  Not good for the sport, and not good for the match.  

Ah yes, the Bernie Sanders prize distribution model.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[IHAVEGAS]

1 minute ago, wtturn said:

Ah yes, the Bernie Sanders prize distribution model.

 

If you guys really want to go into politics, you have the one group that wants to be rewarded with everybody else's match fees and the other group that thinks everybody should pay their own way. 

[IHAVEGAS]

24 minutes ago, Ssanders224 said:

No one is “required” to pay for anything. Everyone registers, pays, and shoots of their own accord. 

 

Taxed might have been a better choice of words than required. 

[wtturn]

 
If you guys really want to go into politics, you have the one group that wants to be rewarded with everybody else's match fees and the other group that thinks everybody should pay their own way. 

I think we should award achievement in an allegedly competitive sport with winners and losers, yes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[Ssanders224]

58 minutes ago, wtturn said:

I think we should award achievement in an allegedly competitive sport with winners and losers, yes.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk
 

 

Hush your mouth you fascist. 

[RJH]

It seems the dividing lines here are the people who look at this like a hobby (which it is for probably %95 of participants), and those who look at it as a professional sport.  If you look at something that has  a real professional league like football/basketball/ect you  will notice there are varying degrees of money and such involved from small tournaments, to semi-pro, to aaa leagues, to full professional, with varying degrees of money/talent. But what you will not see is the NBA asking for money from a local 3 on 3 tournament to pay the top NBA players. 

 

The difference with USPSA is we all share the same court, but to say that the average C,B,A shooter should have to pay a top GM shooters way, cause the GM has the sponsors, time, and money, to be a top GM, is kinda naive.  You are asking all the peons to pay the top dog really for the "opportunity" to share some stages with him, actually kinda ridiculous now that i think about it.  

 

I shoot some archery and and if you are an amateur you pay $30 a match, and get a payback if you win.  If you are a pro you pay $200 or so (i am not a pro, so i don't remember the exact number, but it is up there)  and get much bigger paybacks to win.  So all those asking for only the top bunch to get a prize, do like the archery realm does, GM and M class can pay $400 a match, and A class down pay $150, and do a payback to win, and to be truly democratic about it, give the prizes based on the percentage of shooters in a class.  Haha, bet no one likes that idea.

 

Truthfully I like cha-lee's way best

[Mcfoto]

I’m a perineal bottom of the list finisher. Usually, I don’t have to worry about prizes other than the trinkets given when I RO. At Area 1 a couple weeks ago, they gave away the prizes randomly. When you checked in, you drew a number that corresponded to a bag which contained your prize. I drew my number and won... a hat. Yeah, I was bummed I didn’t win a gun, but on reflection karma was served. The young lady working the desk probably thought I was crazy when I laughed out loud. My wife is kind of fed up with all the hats I’m collecting with shooting events so it was doubly appropriate.

[Nevadazielmeister]

I think the idea of a prize table has been lost throughout the years. The concept is pretty straight forward: The bigger the prizes, the more talent you will attract to your match. The higher the talent, the greater the interest by people who have no chance at the prize table because they want to watch and possibly shoot with the amazing folks who will get a prize. One of the best ways to gain interest in your match is to squad some talent or big name person (say Taran Butler) and then watch the shooters flock to your match. Then, you get to charge a higher match fee thus paying for the greater prize table. 

 

When you go random or reduce the prize table, you lose that interest. I personally would LOVE to see extreme talent and would love to be squadded with them. But again, this is reduced because of so called "Super Squads" or "Glam Squads" who breeze through. I am against those. Let the super starts shoot with the regular guys and it is a MUCH more enjoyable experience for everyone. 

 

Just my two cents. 

 

P.S. I have gone to two major matches and never saw Taran, just saying. 

[IHAVEGAS]

29 minutes ago, RJH said:

The difference with USPSA is we all share the same court,

 

And the pro sports pay all of the worker bees that make the sport happen up front. I think USPSA would be 80% dead if they covered actual costs of all the volunteers, I'm pretty sure it would be 100% dead if they paid volunteers minimum wage.

[Ssanders224]

21 minutes ago, RJH said:

It seems the dividing lines here are the people who look at this like a hobby (which it is for probably %95 of participants), and those who look at it as a professional sport. 

 

I think you’d be very hard pressed to find someone that thinks of USPSA as a “professional” sport. 

 

I think a more accurate assessment would be;  there are people that think of USPSA as just a hobby, and there are those that understand it’s a competitive sport. 

 

Almost every hobby I’ve ever had has been competitive in nature. I’m drawn to to test my skills against others. This is the reason I compete in USPSA. If I had no interest in competing (and trying to win), I’d find a less costly, less time consuming way to shoot recreationally. 

 

Now, I understand there are plenty of shooters that just enjoy the sport for its recreational purposes. Attending matches, buying new guns, traveling with friends, etc.. They aren’t there to “win”, and I 100% whole heartedly support that.  But they are still attending a competition, because by definition that’s what USPSA is. In a competition, the winners are rewarded and everyone else isn’t. I wouldn’t show up at a local golf tournament and ask to play for free since I have no chance of winning. However, I MAY show up, pay the entry, and just enjoy the day. 

[Ssanders224]

9 minutes ago, Nevadazielmeister said:

I think the idea of a prize table has been lost throughout the years. The concept is pretty straight forward: The bigger the prizes, the more talent you will attract to your match. The higher the talent, the greater the interest by people who have no chance at the prize table because they want to watch and possibly shoot with the amazing folks who will get a prize. One of the best ways to gain interest in your match is to squad some talent or big name person (say Taran Butler) and then watch the shooters flock to your match. Then, you get to charge a higher match fee thus paying for the greater prize table. 

 

When you go random or reduce the prize table, you lose that interest. I personally would LOVE to see extreme talent and would love to be squadded with them. But again, this is reduced because of so called "Super Squads" or "Glam Squads" who breeze through. I am against those. Let the super starts shoot with the regular guys and it is a MUCH more enjoyable experience for everyone. 

 

Just my two cents. 

 

P.S. I have gone to two major matches and never saw Taran, just saying. 

 

Im pretty sure that Taran himself would not be the reason people were joining his squad.

[Nevadazielmeister]

5 minutes ago, Ssanders224 said:

 

Im pretty sure that Taran himself would not be the reason people were joining his squad.

 

Yeh, okay, you got me, it's not him per se but the hot girls he brings with him. Maybe that is it.. I don't know. 

[RJH]

3 minutes ago, Ssanders224 said:

 

I think you’d be very hard pressed to find someone that thinks of USPSA as a “professional” sport. 

 

I think a more accurate assessment would be;  there are people that think of USPSA as just a hobby, and there are those that understand it’s a competitive sport. 

 

Almost every hobby I’ve ever had has been competitive in nature. I’m drawn to to test my skills against others. This is the reason I compete in USPSA. If I had no interest in competing (and trying to win), I’d find a less costly, less time consuming way to shoot recreationally. 

 

Now, I understand there are plenty of shooters that just enjoy the sport for its recreational purposes. Attending matches, buying new guns, traveling with friends, etc.. They aren’t there to “win”, and I 100% whole heartedly support that.  But they are still attending a competition, because by definition that’s what USPSA is. In a competition, the winners are rewarded and everyone else isn’t. I wouldn’t show up at a local golf tournament and ask to play for free since I have no chance of winning. However, I MAY show up, pay the entry, and just enjoy the day. 

 

 

So you don't like the archery idea?  Let the high end "Pros" pay a bigger fee and get bigger paybacks and the "scrubs" pay a smaller fee and get smaller paybacks? This seems reasonable because the "scrubs" are the ones footing %95 of the match.  If C class is the biggest class in a division, wouldn't that also make it the most competitive and most deserving of the most prizes on the prize table?  Seems kinda socialist to ask the majority (ABCD shooters), to pay for  minority 

 

Make no mistake when i go to a match i am there to compete, but I also have no interest in paying a GM for winning the match, crazy right?  I haven't the time or money and more than likely, not the skills to start to compete at that level.  I do try my best, but i am also realistic.  

 

Also notice in USPSA, you are only competing against your class right?  

[Ssanders224]

24 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

 

So you don't like the archery idea?  Let the high end "Pros" pay a bigger fee and get bigger paybacks and the "scrubs" pay a smaller fee and get smaller paybacks? This seems reasonable because the "scrubs" are the ones footing %95 of the match.  If C class is the biggest class in a division, wouldn't that also make it the most competitive and most deserving of the most prizes on the prize table?  Seems kinda socialist to ask the majority (ABCD shooters), to pay for  minority 

 

  

 

It isn’t socialist at all, in fact it’s quite the opposite, to reward those that have worked harder and/or achieved more. This is by definition the basis of  “competition”. 

 

And no, I’m not a fan of the idea of pro-rating entry fees based on classes. I think equality of opportunity is a good thing, and it also sounds like a fantastic way to promote sandbagging. 

[RJH]

2 minutes ago, Ssanders224 said:

 

It isn’t socialist at all, in fact it’s quite the opposite, to reward those that have worked harder and/or achieved more. This is by definition the basis of  “competition”. 

 

And no, I’m not a fan of the idea of pro-rating entry fees based on classes. I think equality of opportunity is a good thing, and it also sounds like a fantastic way to promote sandbagging. 

 

The C classer would have had to work harder, they had to beat more people, since we are only shooting against classes.  IE: the more competitors in a class the more the competition.  Comparing GMs to C classers is a lot like when Kramer was best in his karate class, but fighting 10 year olds.   How many GMs brag about winning a match where all the other competitors were C class, the answer is none, cause a C class shooter is actually 0 competition for a GM.  So why reward a GM for stomping a bunch of B and C class shooters at a major, still doesn't make since.  Actual competition requires at least a modicum of equity in the competitors. If we race and I use a Stock Corvette and you use a stock Pinto, were we ever really racing?

 

So on the second point, i figured you wouldn't like to put your money where your mouth is so to speak, most people don't.   Equity of opportunity, does not exist between C class vs GM shooter.  The GM could have a gun go down and 0 a stage,  borrow a glock 19 for open division and still destroy a C class shooter in a 5 stage match.  

 

Last point:  wouldn't promote sandbagging, if you win your class at level 2 up, you should automatically get bumped

[RJH]

Hell, I think we should raise match fees to $500 dollars with a %60 cash payback winner of the division takes all.  Your match would only have about 3 division shoppers in each division, but the best would be rewarded......

 

 

[Ssanders224]

44 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

The C classer would have had to work harder, they had to beat more people, since we are only shooting against classes.  IE: the more competitors in a class the more the competition.  Comparing GMs to C classers is a lot like when Kramer was best in his karate class, but fighting 10 year olds.   How many GMs brag about winning a match where all the other competitors were C class, the answer is none, cause a C class shooter is actually 0 competition for a GM.  So why reward a GM for stomping a bunch of B and C class shooters at a major, still doesn't make since.  Actual competition requires at least a modicum of equity in the competitors. If we race and I use a Stock Corvette and you use a stock Pinto, were we ever really racing?

 

So on the second point, i figured you wouldn't like to put your money where your mouth is so to speak, most people don't.   Equity of opportunity, does not exist between C class vs GM shooter.  The GM could have a gun go down and 0 a stage,  borrow a glock 19 for open division and still destroy a C class shooter in a 5 stage match.  

 

Last point:  wouldn't promote sandbagging, if you win your class at level 2 up, you should automatically get bumped

 

So, let’s break this down, and define some things. 

Equality of opportunity. Everyone has the same opportunity at a USPSA match. EOO isn’t dependent on your personal talents or skill sets. In a EOO society, one person has the same opportunity to become a mechanical engineer as the next, but because of his or her aptitude or intelligence, one or the other may not achieve it. Again, college and careers are competitive, much like a competitive sport. 

 

“Money where my mouth is”?? You’ve got to be kidding me. 

Up until this point, this has been a good discourse on match structure. You have now chosen to take it into the weeds.  The fact that I don’t think it makes sense to offer pro-rated fees to shooters has NOTHING to do with me “putting my money where my mouth is”. I don’t think you understand my position. 

 

Ah. So now we need to recreate the classification system to accommodate this pay plan. Got it. 

 

How about order or finish prize tables? How do you feel about those? Should those horrible GMs get to snatch up the decent stuff before anyone else gets a chance??

 

Edited July 4, 2019 by Ssanders224

[Ssanders224]

17 minutes ago, RJH said:

Hell, I think we should raise match fees to $500 dollars with a %60 cash payback winner of the division takes all.  Your match would only have about 3 division shoppers in each division, but the best would be rewarded......

 

 

 

Now we’re on the same page (but I’d like a 100% payback)  

 

I’m kidding of course. 

[Hi-Power Jack]

2 hours ago, Mcfoto said:

I’m a perineal bottom of the list finisher. 

 

Do you mean perineal, or perennial ?

 

If you mean perennial, you should give yourself a good laugh for today

by looking up perineal in your Funk & Wagners.     

[cas]

I would think random prize drawings are probably better for the people donating the prizes. (giving the the products to the same people and their circle of friends over and over is a smaller market exposer) 

 

Random draw is a door prize, unrelated to the match. I have won some money at matches, I didn't really expect to, so the prize wasn't why I signed up.  But there have been larger matches where I thought "Dang that's a lot of money, I dunno.... but who knows, I could win a gun."  (like buying a lottery ticket, you're spending $2 to daydream. Match fee and raffle ticket in one, provides some incentive to register for many people. 

 

I've seen the same people who say they don't care about the prize, don't go for the prize, complain about the prize or lack there of. 

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, RJH said:

Hell, I think we should raise match fees to $500 dollars with a %60 cash payback winner of the division takes all.  Your match would only have about 3 division shoppers in each division, but the best would be rewarded......

 

 

 

Those 8-12 guys can do that on their own without involving the rest of us.

 

Which is exactly how that would end up.

Edited July 4, 2019 by cas

[Ssanders224]

7 minutes ago, Hi-Power Jack said:

 

Do you mean perineal, or perennial ?

 

If you mean perennial, you should give yourself a good laugh for today

by looking up perineal in your Funk & Wagners.     

 

Lol. 

[Mcfoto]

10 minutes ago, Hi-Power Jack said:

 

Do you mean perineal, or perennial ?

 

If you mean perennial, you should give yourself a good laugh for today

by looking up perineal in your Funk & Wagners.     

 

Dang auto-correct. Although, it’s probably a more accurate description of where end up in the standings...

[Tanders]

1 hour ago, RJH said:

Make no mistake when i go to a match i am there to compete, but I also have no interest in paying a GM for winning the match, crazy right?  I haven't the time or money and more than likely, not the skills to start to compete at that level.

Since the vast majority of match prizes are sponsor-donated, you aren't paying a GM to win the match; your match fee goes toward paying for supplies and compensating the staff, something from which every participant in the match benefits.  If a GM gets a big-ticket item for winning the match, it doesn't cost you a dime.

 

Most of the guys who win sectionals and area matches do not have a sponsor who is giving them anything more than a discount code for a product.  These guys are winning because they sink more time into skill development than the other competitors, not because they have some "sugar daddy" sponsor who's paying for their ammo and match fees or because they are born with natural talent.  This investment of time and resources should be rewarded since it encourages others to make the same investment and therefore helps to improve the talent pool of the sport.  I don't see how that could be a bad thing.