Is SCSA big enough to have its own BOD?

[Nolan]

3 hours ago, rowdyb said:

It stood on its own before uspsa bought it. They didn't buy it because they thought it would be a horrible money suck.

 

SC has value and should be its own thing, separate from uspsa in all ways. I voted yes.

 

The Steel Challenge had a board of directors before USPSA bought it, of course it was a board of 2.  Mike Dalton and Mike Fichman.

 

I second Moto's question:  "what problems are you trying to solve?"

 

I shoot both USPSA and SCSA and voted "NO."   I think SCSA is doing just fine.

 

Nolan

[UFO]

On 8/29/2021 at 6:53 PM, motosapiens said:

I shoot both, as does my wife and I’m pretty sure neither of us care is in the slightest whether steel challenge has a separate board of directors or not. I get that the average Uspsa shooter doesn’t care much about steel challenge but what problems are you trying to solve?

 

Not saying there are any problems. So, let the USPSA board make decisions for them, and let SCSA Shooters make decisions for SCSA. I've reached out 2 times to my Area Director about Steel Challenge. 1. He doesn't care enough about Steel Challenge to even reply to me. 2. He should at least attend his Steel Challenge Area Championship.

[outerlimits]

my take has been uspsa saw the SC as a cash cow of pure numbers, which is why it grabbed the organization.  in truth, the core could care less as the crossover is small.  i can see the argument for a separate BOD, but it makes little sense at this point.  a spin off would justify it, but not as a piece of the org.

[Jollymon32]

As to the higher growth, 17% of a low number means a lot less that 3% of a huge number.  So there’s that.

 

It should split off on its own.  It is completely different sport and there is very little overlap in terms of shooters that practice both.

 

[Racinready300ex]

On 8/29/2021 at 11:51 AM, David.Hylton said:

If you want to add a BOD for SCSA, why stop there. What about SCSA area directors and state directors? It seems the same benign neglect happens at that level also.

 

 

The BOD's are the Area directors. Same people. 

[Racinready300ex]

On 8/29/2021 at 9:53 PM, motosapiens said:

I shoot both, as does my wife and I’m pretty sure neither of us care is in the slightest whether steel challenge has a separate board of directors or not. I get that the average Uspsa shooter doesn’t care much about steel challenge but what problems are you trying to solve?

 

I think the case for it would be that you have 8 directors elected by the membership. At this time most of the members are USPSA shooters only, so it's reasonable that most of the time all 8 of the directors will be USPSA shooters only. It seems completely reasonable to me for a BOD that consists of USPSA shooters running uspsa and a BOD of SC shooters running SC. It's unlikely you'll get any great new ideas from people who don't participate in the sport they're in charge of.  If we want both to succeed something like this is probably a good idea. 

[Boomstick303]

Would it make sense to double up areas when creating a SCSA Board?  Instead of having 8 board members have 4, but keep the eight areas.  To me it does not make sense for people who do not shoot or shoot SC very little to be in charge of making rules for something they do not have a stake in.  I have no interest in Steel Challenge at all, but say if it were reversed where people who only shot SC were in charge of running USPSA I would not like it.  It makes no sense at all.  

 

I do not think SC splitting off of USPSA would be good for SC, but I also think it deserves its own board.  

[motosapiens]

21 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I think the case for it would be that you have 8 directors elected by the membership. At this time most of the members are USPSA shooters only, so it's reasonable that most of the time all 8 of the directors will be USPSA shooters only. It seems completely reasonable to me for a BOD that consists of USPSA shooters running uspsa and a BOD of SC shooters running SC. It's unlikely you'll get any great new ideas from people who don't participate in the sport they're in charge of.  If we want both to succeed something like this is probably a good idea. 

is that where great new ideas come from? elderly guys on the board? Hmmmm, this is my skeptical face....

[MikeBurgess]

35 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

is that where great new ideas come from? elderly guys on the board? Hmmmm, this is my skeptical face....

this is a problem on the current BOD, I think it needs solving before we add any more "elderly guys" with nothing better to do with their time.

 

and to not be the guy that says their is a problem without offering a solution. My solution is capitalist, make being an AD a compensated position, say pay them $10-20K a year so its enticing enough that many shooters would want to do the job and be willing to put in a fair bit of effort to keep it.

[Sarge]

1 hour ago, motosapiens said:

is that where great new ideas come from? elderly guys on the board? Hmmmm, this is my skeptical face....

 

21 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

this is a problem on the current BOD, I think it needs solving before we add any more "elderly guys" with nothing better to do with their time.

 

and to not be the guy that says their is a problem without offering a solution. My solution is capitalist, make being an AD a compensated position, say pay them $10-20K a year so its enticing enough that many shooters would want to do the job and be willing to put in a fair bit of effort to keep it.

Elderly guys? Have you taken a look at the RM Corps lately? Or even the typical USPSA shooter? By and large this sport is not made up of 20-40 year olds. Not to mention the BOD/AD position requires a lot of free time to attend major matches, meetings, etc if they do the job right. Damn near need to be retired with some disposable funds to get the job done.

[motosapiens]

25 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

this is a problem on the current BOD, I think it needs solving before we add any more "elderly guys" with nothing better to do with their time.

 

and to not be the guy that says their is a problem without offering a solution. My solution is capitalist, make being an AD a compensated position, say pay them $10-20K a year so its enticing enough that many shooters would want to do the job and be willing to put in a fair bit of effort to keep it.

i guess I don't have a problem with the current BOD. Probably means I'm not paying enough attention.

[Hoops]

In our area, there are very few cross-over shooters between USPSA and SCSA.  In some ways, it's like comparing football to soccer.  No matter the sport, the enthusist's or ardent supporters of each respective sport usually don't see the attraction to the other.  The current USPSA organization is arguably skewed much more heavily towards USPSA and that's fine.  It's a great sport for those who want to shoot it.  Clearly from the current poll and comments, SCSA members are of the opinion that SCSA is under-represented at the current USPSA Board/Management level.  

 

What caught my eye in the BOD meeting notes were the number of people shooters in total and the breakdown of non-members vs. members.  I was surprised at just how few participate in both USPSA/SCSA reguarly enough to be captured in the latest stats considering the population of the U.S.  MD's are required to pay USPSA match fee's per person whether member or not so I assume this is where the data is collected.

 

USPSA - 33,336 total.  19,726 (59.18%) members.  13,610 (40.82%) non-members.

SCSA - 16,416 total.  7,449 (45.38%) members.  8,967 (54.62%) non-members.

 

How much time does the current BOD have or dedicate to building up the membership and giving deserved attention specifically to SCSA is not known.....but it is perceived to be "not enough".   

 

 

[Racinready300ex]

1 hour ago, motosapiens said:

is that where great new ideas come from? elderly guys on the board? Hmmmm, this is my skeptical face....

 

So you assume a young guy that doesn't shoot SC will do a better job than a old guy that doesn't shoot SC? I guess that makes sense. 

[MikeBurgess]

6 minutes ago, Sarge said:

 

Elderly guys? Have you taken a look at the RM Corps lately? Or even the typical USPSA shooter? By and large this sport is not made up of 20-40 year olds. Not to mention the BOD/AD position requires a lot of free time to attend major matches, meetings, etc if they do the job right. Damn near need to be retired with some disposable funds to get the job done.

Kinda my point, if the job doesn't pay but requires a large time commitment you get a very small group of people willing to do it. if we want people working hard to better the sports lets make it worth their time. this goes to my basic belief that when you have volunteers, you take what you can get and are happy for it, when you pay people you can be more choosy.  

[Hoops]

I suppose at 70 and retired now, I am considered "elderly".  I haven't been able to understand when their is a discussion on SCSA there tends to be references to elderly, women and children.....and usually by non-SCSA shooters.   Not productive in my opinon.  I am fortunate to have the means and the time to be willing and able to contribute to SCSA in my area to promote the sport.  I'm confident there are many others just like me.  Truth is, without volunteers every week, USPSA and SCSA would fail.

 

But the rub would be at the USPSA management level.......not taking feedback seriously or otherwise blowing off the "old" guys.  Folks from our generation would not suffer that for long.

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

So you assume a young guy that doesn't shoot SC will do a better job than a old guy that doesn't shoot SC? I guess that makes sense. 

more like I haven't yet figured out what 'job' needs to be done. what is SC lacking? What changes need to be made but aren't because there's no board? How has the current USPSA board been unresponsive or unsupportive of requests from the membership and match promoters?

 

Is there a specific problem we are trying to address? or is just adding bureaucracy in order to have more bureaucracy?

 

I shoot a fair amount of steel challenge (just made M in carry optics today), including, including putting on a match from time to time, and traveling out of state for a match or two every year. I'm still not sure what value having our own BOD would add.

Edited September 1, 2021 by motosapiens

[Boomstick303]

3 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

more like I haven't yet figured out what 'job' needs to be done. what is SC lacking? What changes need to be made but aren't because there's no board?

 

Because you are happy does not mean everyone is.  If everyone is or is not happy is not the point.  The point is people who are not a stake holder are responsible for the stewardship of that sport.  Not sure how this even remotely seems reasonable.  Just because people think things are "fine" now does not mean they will be in the future.  By the time they do realize there is an issue its usually too late.  Be proactive instead of reactive.  

 

3 minutes ago, motosapiens said:

How has the current USPSA board been unresponsive or unsupportive of requests from the membership and match promoters?

 

 

It would seem this is an issue, if you think there is one or not.

 

17 hours ago, UFO said:

I've reached out 2 times to my Area Director about Steel Challenge. 1. He doesn't care enough about Steel Challenge to even reply to me.

 

[Darqusoull13]

32 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

Because you are happy does not mean everyone is.  If everyone is or is not happy is not the point.  The point is people who are not a stake holder are responsible for the stewardship of that sport.  Not sure how this even remotely seems reasonable.  Just because people think things are "fine" now does not mean they will be in the future.  By the time they do realize there is an issue its usually too late.  Be proactive instead of reactive.  

 

 

It would seem this is an issue, if you think there is one or not.

 

 

Can you detail the specific changes and responsibilities the additional board would take on? 

I do not currently see the need so I'm asking for specifics, not generalizations. 

[Boomstick303]

17 minutes ago, Darqusoull13 said:

I do not currently see the need so I'm asking for specifics, not generalizations. 

 

Did you read the complete post? 

 

52 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

If everyone is or is not happy is not the point.  The point is people who are not a stake holder are responsible for the stewardship of that sport.  Not sure how this even remotely seems reasonable.

 

For one, I am not saying anything needs to change currently (I do not shoot SC so I would be the last person to ask this questions), but as an observer I do wonder if something can evolve to make it better?  Do you?  For instance, I like how USPSA has recently changed the Classifiers to include more movement.  That's evolution to better the sport and is better representation for classification.  From this discussions and what I have observed from the outside looking in it would seem there is zero structure/representation for anyone to listen to ideas, let alone institute any ideas.  Do you think there is no way to improve SC, no way for SC to evolve, ever?

 

Stewardship does not mean anything needs to change in its current form, but making decisions, whatever those may be, to keep the sport healthy.  Stewardship, means there is someone there to listen.  Do you think anyone on the current USPSA board is "listening" or even care?

 

Second, I do not shoot SC nor do I really care what happens to it.  I am looking at this in a completely third party view.  If I participated in a sport that was dictated by people who had zero skin in the game would be a problem for me.  In regards to the current structure I am not sure how this is reasonable or acceptable SCSA participants. I guess that does not bother most. 

 

SC can keep being ran the way it is forever for all I care.  Do I think that is a good thing?  No.  Again, just an opinion.   

[Darqusoull13]

@Boomstick303 so not shooting a sport you want to discuss (incite?) changes? Perhaps you should attend at least one match to start understanding the community before continuing the generalizations and opinions. 

Regarding the BOD specifically, I have spoken to 3 AD's about various SCSA related topics. I know each of them are quite interested in the sport based on these conversations. 

[motosapiens]

1 hour ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

Because you are happy does not mean everyone is.  .

 

 

i'm listening. if people are unhappy, what exactly are they unhappy about? I talked to lots of people at the last two world championships, and a few more at the A2 championships last month. I didn't hear any unhappiness....

 

27 minutes ago, Boomstick303 said:

 

 (I do not shoot SC so I would be the last person to ask this questions)

 

wait.... wut?

[Boomstick303]

1 hour ago, Darqusoull13 said:

Regarding the BOD specifically, I have spoken to 3 AD's about various SCSA related topics. I know each of them are quite interested in the sport based on these conversations. 

 

Sounds like things are perfect then.  Disregard any of my ramblings.

Edited September 1, 2021 by Boomstick303

[Racinready300ex]

57 minutes ago, Darqusoull13 said:

@Boomstick303 so not shooting a sport you want to discuss (incite?) changes? Perhaps you should attend at least one match to start understanding the community before continuing the generalizations and opinions. 

Regarding the BOD specifically, I have spoken to 3 AD's about various SCSA related topics. I know each of them are quite interested in the sport based on these conversations. 

 

 

I think you're right, I don't shoot SC either so I'm sure you guys are correct so I'll stop expressing a opinion on it too, if SC shooters don't want to discuss things with USPSA shooters that's fine with me. I'll be sure to remember that in future elections for my AD. 

 

 

[Boomstick303]

19 hours ago, Darqusoull13 said:

I know each of them are quite interested in the sport based on these conversations

 

I do have one last question.  Do all of these ADs shoot SC matches?  

Edited September 2, 2021 by Boomstick303

[zzt]

I voted yes, but if adjustments were made to current thinking on SCSA by the BOD, I don't think it necessary.  I'll also say that since the majority of SCSA shooters I shoot with do not shoot USPSA, they think some of the rules and commands are just plain stupid.  I get that.  An example:  when the SCSA rule changed for PCC to match the USPSA rule, I got constant arguments about hammer down.  Why they asked.  I cock the gun to show clear.  Then you want me to close the  bolt, pull the trigger and cock the gun again so I can flag.  It doesn't make sense.

 

Another:  No one I know in SCSA says if you are finished, unload and show clear, except me.  They all shorten it to if finished.  I know this pisses off USPSA BOD, but they don't care.  The next command for any pistol is:  8.3.8 “If clear, hammer down, holster” (handguns).  For rimfire pistols it is always something like if clear, slide closed and case.   That actually makes some sense, because the expected ACTION for a rimfire pistol shooter if clear......is:  8.3.8.2 Rimfire pistol – show clear and holster or case. (Trigger need not be pulled.).  For a PCC shooter the expected action after hearing if clear.......is:  8.3.8.4 Pistol Caliber Carbine – show clear, close the bolt, pull the trigger, insert flag, case. The bolt must be closed on a chamber flag.  Why isn't the expected action the actual command?

 

I freely admit most of those running SCSA shooters are not NROI ROs, so perhaps you can forgive them for thinking this stupid.  One of the beefs I do have IS NROI ROs who have never read the SCSA Rules and/or do not have the SCSA cert.  Examples:  on my very first steel challenge shoot (an LII) I carried my rimfire pistol holstered, because it was more convenient.  I was told I had to pull the trigger to hammer down and then holster.  I told the Ro that was not the SCSA rule.  He called the rM who said pull the trigger.  So did the MD when called.  It was explained to me that USPSA rules had to be followed.  They still got it wrong, because they said I had to pull the trigger if I was going to holster, but not if I was going to case. 

 

A PCC shooter in an SCSA was DQ'd by a USPSA RO for breaking 180.  The offense:  he was carrying the gun vertically and flagged, but pointed very slight rearward from dead vertical.  The shooter complained loudly.  I went over to the Ro and explained the rule was 'reasonably" vertical.  He said no and the DQ stuck.

 

A MD at an LII match ruled that shooters with a permanent disability did not have to move on OL and did not receive the penalty.  However, if the injury was temporary, such as a broken leg, the penalty applied.  I'll note that this is no longer the case, and things HAVE gotten better over time.  Improvement is still needed.

 

I'll say again the BOD sees some benefit in having USPSA range commands stated identically for both sports.  They cite language comprehension for foreigners, etc.  Personally, I don't buy it.  If you give a command it should be one that WILL be followed to the LETTER.  USPSA ROs should not run shooters in SCSA unless they have an SCSA cert.  There should be a special, shortened SCSA only RO class for people who will never RO a USPSA shoot (much less shoot one).  I know quite a few SCSA only shooters who would become official ROs if that were the case.  First, when I took USPSA RO class it was taught as if the only matches you would see had a CRO and two ROs on every stage.  How does that help an aspiring SCSA RO.  Also, about 2/3 of what they would be required to learn and be tested on have zero application in SCSA.

 

So my suggestion to the BOD is to either adjust your attitude and some of the rules and requirements, or stop complaining about how not all the USPSA rules and commands are followed in SCSA.

Edited September 2, 2021 by zzt