How many ranges have the facilities to host Nationals

[ChuckS]

4 hours ago, B_RAD said:

To speak of SUPS. The dust was crazy bad. Not sure I'd want to go back there either

 

 

It's a dry mud...

 

[B_RAD]

4 minutes ago, ChuckS said:

 

It's a dry mud...

 

It was dry!  

 

 

[tha1000]

I hope Talledega earns the opportunity for more national level matches after IDPA worlds and Single Stack nats next year...

[Bagellord]

Does CMP have enough pistol bays to have 21 stages?

[konkapot]

There's probably plenty of ranges with the acreage/bays, but probably 15 that have the footprint and reasonable logistical stuff.

[wtturn]

 
And touching on capable facilities, who says uspsa nats has to be 20+ stages? With there being a travel/check out stages day. Then 3 days of shooting, then travel day home you're into it 5 days for Nats. Personally, I'd be happy with the match being one day of 10 stages and be done with it. Ten well designed and ran stages should surely test who is the best of us.

A Nationals needs to be 20+ because the more data you have, the more accurate result you will get.

More stages = more stratification along skill levels and instances of luck/chance are less heavily weighted in the results.

Also, a long match tends to test mental endurance in a way that a short match never will.

Finally, I think a Nationals event should be a big deal. Bigger than other matches, grander than other matches. It's the culmination of the shooting year; it should be expected to require a bigger time + money investment.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[rowdyb]

On 10/9/2019 at 9:22 AM, wtturn said:

It's the culmination of the shooting year; it should be

It may be emotionally but I don't feel like it is physically. Due either to timing or to the fact we have 8 area matches that do nothing to add validity to being national champion. 

 

To me, I'd rather see a system based off multiple events that occur through the year. Kind of like we already have. Since we don't have wins and losses in our sport it has to be points for finish percentage. It seems crazy that, and this is an example not a true story, someone could shoot 8 area matches and win their division in each one but if they don't go to nats then they're not the champion. 

 

And this would far yield more data, more competitors, more time and more challenges. If your reason for nats being one big match is that it's a better test (and i disagree ) then how much better would it be to crown a champ from 8 events? Pscore can do it, they've done it before as I have it in my results.

[obsessiveshooter]

The Cameo complex by Grand Junction would be perfect.
*Tons of hotels in Grand Junction.
*The range itself is incredible and brand new.
* The views all around from the range are absolutely gorgeous.
*Weather is predictable and ideal.
*It is located more central in the U.S..
*It's a location worth staying an extra couple days to drive around and see Grand Mesa, etc.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Racinready300ex]

13 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

It may be emotionally but I don't feel like it is physically. Due either to timing or to the fact we have 8 area matches that do nothing to add validity to being national champion. 

 

To me, I'd rather see a system based off multiple events that occur through the year. Kind of like we already have. Since we don't have wins and losses in our sport it has to be points for finish percentage. It seems crazy that, and this is an example not a true story, someone could shoot 8 area matches and win their division in each one but if they don't go to nats then they're not the champion. 

 

And this would far yield more data, more competitors, more time and more challenges. If your reason for nats being one big match is that it's a better test (and i disagree ) then how much better would it be to crown a champ from 8 events? Pscore can do it, they've done it before as I have it in my results.

 

How many people shoot all 8 area matches? Doesn't seem like you'd really be competing against many people with that system.

[motosapiens]

20 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

It seems crazy that, and this is an example not a true story, someone could shoot 8 area matches and win their division in each one but if they don't go to nats then they're not the champion. 

 

area matches generally have a lot less competition than nationals, and for all except a handful of dedicated and/or wealthy competitors, going to more than a couple area matches is not really feasible. You might end up with a bonafide national champion, but then some people in the top 5 that simply showed up to every event and got points, without ever being able to do well at a national event.

 

It is worth looking at the last few national champions to see if there are any winners you feel are not deserving, or would not have won if there were multiple events. I personally don't see any.

Edited October 10, 2019 by motosapiens

[wtturn]

1 hour ago, rowdyb said:

It may be emotionally but I don't feel like it is physically. Due either to timing or to the fact we have 8 area matches that do nothing to add validity to being national champion. 

 

To me, I'd rather see a system based off multiple events that occur through the year. Kind of like we already have. Since we don't have wins and losses in our sport it has to be points for finish percentage. It seems crazy that, and this is an example not a true story, someone could shoot 8 area matches and win their division in each one but if they don't go to nats then they're not the champion. 

 

And this would far yield more data, more competitors, more time and more challenges. If your reason for nats being one big match is that it's a better test (and i disagree ) then how much better would it be to crown a champ from 8 events? Pscore can do it, they've done it before as I have it in my results.

 

Sorry, bud, but you're all over the place here.  We've gone from a 20+ stage nats is too big/long/inconvenient, to a 10 stage single day nats, to an 8-event area match points scheme.

 

I don't really understand where you're coming from.

 

What I said is that a 20 stage match is a better test than a 10 stage match; that can't really be rebutted.  

 

Ultimately, I'm not sure what you perceive to be  *wrong* with our current system of determining champions, at least on a macro level.  The matches on the micro level could be improved, sure.  But I feel pretty confident that the best guys will always show up for nats, and more often than not the single best guy is the one who wins.    

[rowdyb]

Nothing is wrong. Just brainstorming. 

[Joe4d]

1 hour ago, rowdyb said:

It may be emotionally but I don't feel like it is physically. Due either to timing or to the fact we have 8 area matches that do nothing to add validity to being national champion. 

 

To me, I'd rather see a system based off multiple events that occur through the year. Kind of like we already have. Since we don't have wins and losses in our sport it has to be points for finish percentage. It seems crazy that, and this is an example not a true story, someone could shoot 8 area matches and win their division in each one but if they don't go to nats then they're not the champion. 

 

And this would far yield more data, more competitors, more time and more challenges. If your reason for nats being one big match is that it's a better test (and i disagree ) then how much better would it be to crown a champ from 8 events? Pscore can do it, they've done it before as I have it in my results.

, well DUH,,, If they dont go to Nats they arnt champs of anything.
100% disagree... people have lives and turn it into a points during year  thing and those with lives will simply not bother showing up. So I dont shoot an area, suddenly I am behind in points and no hope of doing well at nationals overall ?
Yeh did that one year in BASS before I quit.
Or is your goal to make nationals a sweety pie sponsored shooter only event ?  Yeh good luck getting the finances to work out on that.
Far as stage count,, no reason it couldnt be 12.. 6 AM 6 pm over a few days.. Folks could pick squads and do 6 a day, or all 12 in one day....
Think fredericksburg VA could do that 12 stages, plenty of lodging, plenty of shooters, plenty of RO's, plenty of food.

[MikeBurgess]

32 minutes ago, wtturn said:

 

 

What I said is that a 20 stage match is a better test than a 10 stage match; that can't really be rebutted.  

 

  

yes it can,

 

what a 20 stage match does is dilute mistakes, and our sport is more about mistakes than most think. look at the results for a bunch of nationals and you will see that the match winner is not the guy that wins the most stages he is normally the guy with the least bad stages, because they mean more than good stages.

 

[wtturn]

yes it can,
 
what a 20 stage match does is dilute mistakes, and our sport is more about mistakes than most think. look at the results for a bunch of nationals and you will see that the match winner is not the guy that wins the most stages he is normally the guy with the least bad stages, because they mean more than good stages.
 

That's not revelatory, considering how our scoring model works.

More stages (really more match points) tends to dilute, or modulate, both peaks and valleys, rewarding consistency.

You can also conceptualize more stages as more opportunities to make mistakes.

So here we are, back where we started.


Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[MNshooter]

More stages (really more match points) tends to dilute, or modulate, both peaks and valleys, rewarding consistency.

This! Nats should be 20+ stages, maybe more. Even dummies like me can string together a reasonable performance for 10 stages but our true B class colors come out with a longer test.

[Nathanb]

Maybe we go the route of the postal match for nationals. Each area match has the same stages. Then they get correlated on a national level. Little more work during the match little less work prepping. 

[Racinready300ex]

44 minutes ago, Nathanb said:

Maybe we go the route of the postal match for nationals. Each area match has the same stages. Then they get correlated on a national level. Little more work during the match little less work prepping. 

 

The GFDS postal match for example is cool but you can't do a nationals like that. The stage will not be 100% consistent from range to range. The stages are close, but they aren't the same.

[Sarge]

Could go to a regional layout. Just as an example there are 4-5 clubs within 30-60 minutes of Cincinnati that can each easily put 6 good stages on the ground. There is 24-30 stages. Lots of hotels food etc easily accessible. Plus casinos, amusement park, etc etc. 

[DKorn]

54 minutes ago, Sarge said:

Could go to a regional layout. Just as an example there are 4-5 clubs within 30-60 minutes of Cincinnati that can each easily put 6 good stages on the ground. There is 24-30 stages. Lots of hotels food etc easily accessible. Plus casinos, amusement park, etc etc. 

 

I’ve always liked this idea, although I’ve never shot a match like this. It seems like it would work really well. Each range would correspond to the block of stages you shoot on a given day, so you don’t have to worry about the delay of getting people from one range to the other in between stages on the same day. 

[MacLethal]

 
I’ve always liked this idea, although I’ve never shot a match like this. It seems like it would work really well. Each range would correspond to the block of stages you shoot on a given day, so you don’t have to worry about the delay of getting people from one range to the other in between stages on the same day. 

There was actually talk of this being a possibility for an Area 1 match, I think it would be pretty cool to try and could work.

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, DKorn said:

 

I’ve always liked this idea, although I’ve never shot a match like this. It seems like it would work really well. Each range would correspond to the block of stages you shoot on a given day, so you don’t have to worry about the delay of getting people from one range to the other in between stages on the same day. 

I actually stole the idea from Cincinnati’s summer Olympic bid some years ago. All equestrian events would be in Lexington KY, shotgun events in Vandalia and us existing stadiums in Cincy. It would have required minimal building of new venues that would just go to waste after the games.

[Sarge]

58 minutes ago, MacLethal said:

There was actually talk of this being a possibility for an Area 1 match, I think it would be pretty cool to try and could work.

There is no doubt it could work. I just think USPSA politics and the all mighty dollar would prevent it from happening.

[shred]

The Pan Americans in 2018 were held on two different (separated by a 45 min drive) ranges in Jamaica.  USPSA brass was there so they have an idea how that does and doesn't work.

 

IME, and I was there too, it's better to be all on one range if you can make it fit.  Way less duplication of effort.

 

[Dutchman195]

46 minutes ago, shred said:

The Pan Americans in 2018 were held on two different (separated by a 45 min drive) ranges in Jamaica.  USPSA brass was there so they have an idea how that does and doesn't work.

 

IME, and I was there too, it's better to be all on one range if you can make it fit.  Way less duplication of effort.

 

I've heard this is the case for a lot of IPSC Clubs in Canada. You show up and shoot your 10 stages at the range and then the next day go somewhere else. 

I like the idea. 

I hate the fact we have 17 different nationals now. 1 match, same stages, pick your division. Also, Not that I'm tired of Florida, Can somewhere else host them? Would like to attempt to travel elsewhere. As Rowdy said....its probably a money thing.