USPSA Survey results in

[RJH]

https://uspsa.org/surveys/results/2022-prov-mg

 

 

 

And the majority of members would like limited optics, and they would like limited optics to be minor only...

 

 

I seem to remember there were some of y'all that appear to be opposed to limited optics, or opposed to limited optics being minor only that said let's have a survey and do what the membership wants. Do y'all still feel that way since the membership wants limited optics and wanted to be minor only?

Edited February 18, 2023 by RJH

[Zachjet]

The people have spoken.  
I recently made the switch from CO to production. It’s sad that no one shoots it anymore.. area 8 Match I think there’s only 20 of us shooting production 

[usmc1974]

I think this minor and major power factor is a bunch of crap. This should be 1 power factor for everybody no matter what kind of gun no what kind of optics what kind of Compensator. One power factor for everybody makes a even level playing Field

[IL-SIG]

Maybe we should just stop keeping score and everyone should get a participation trophy for trying their best. 

[LordManHammer]

35 minutes ago, usmc1974 said:

I think this minor and major power factor is a bunch of crap. This should be 1 power factor for everybody no matter what kind of gun no what kind of optics what kind of Compensator. One power factor for everybody makes a even level playing Field

I shoot Open Major against other people who shoot Open Major.  The playing field is level.  My score relative to other divisions is irrelevant.

[deerslayer]

3 hours ago, RJH said:

https://uspsa.org/surveys/results/2022-prov-mg

 

 

 

And the majority of members would like limited optics, and they would like limited optics to be minor only...

 

 

I seem to remember there were some of y'all that appear to be opposed to limited optics, or opposed to limited optics being minor only that said let's have a survey and do what the membership wants. Do y'all still feel that way since the membership wants limited optics and wanted to be minor only?

 

If 42% of voters want to try major in an experimental, trial-and-error division, I don't think they should be ignored.  

[Rich406]

21 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

 

If 42% of voters want to try major in an experimental, trial-and-error division, I don't think they should be ignored.  

If 58% want minor only. Maybe they shouldn’t be ignored either?

[shred]

They can always shoot minor.  Even in a Major/Minor division that option is always open. 

[lroy]

2 minutes ago, shred said:

They can always shoot minor.  Even in a Major/Minor division that option is always open. 

 

Then why not just shoot open minor?

[deerslayer]

19 minutes ago, Rich406 said:

If 58% want minor only. Maybe they shouldn’t be ignored either?

 

The 4% or so of the membership who voted that way can shoot minor only all they like.  Nobody is telling them what they have to shoot.  

[Rich406]

17 minutes ago, deerslayer said:

 

The 4% or so of the membership who voted that way can shoot minor only all they like.  Nobody is telling them what they have to shoot.  

So, you can spin the results to align with your viewpoint. But when it’s correctly pointed out the the poll in fact shows the opposite, you fall on back excuses why the poll should be ignored.

 

you should go into politics.

Edited February 19, 2023 by Rich406

[deerslayer]

11 minutes ago, Rich406 said:

So, you can spin the results to align with your viewpoint. But when it’s correctly pointed out the the poll in fact shows the opposite, you fall on back excuses why the poll should be ignored.

 

you should go into politics.

 

The poll in the other thread favored major scoring 56-44.  Which one do we use?  Neither - they are both probably too small a sample to be relevant.  

[Rich406]

1 minute ago, deerslayer said:

 

The poll in the other thread favored major scoring 56-44.  Which one do we use?  Neither - they are both probably too small a sample to be relevant.  

So you comparing a poll with 100 participants to one with 25x the number?

 

There was an uproar over the last set of equipment changes, and one thing said from pretty much every talking head is that there should be polls for changes like this. So somebody listened and now that it’s not going the way some would like, there is an uproar over the poll…

 

I agree 2500 isn’t a large number. But you know what, everyone had an opportunity to vote, and the people that did are absolutely relevant. Those that didn’t, chose not to, and thus gave up their voice on the matter. 
 

The 2500 number actually shows how much fluff and casual members are in total membership numbers.  

[Itgma]

I'm glad that production is hopefully going to increase capacity to 15. I think it's a good middle ground. 

[YVK]

While I am  appreciative of USPSA's effort to get members' input and some objective data behind their decisions, maybe they can get professional help in designing their data collection instruments the next time around. 20% of responders are against the division altogether. Why are their opinions on a power factor of a division they don't want to happen relevant?  The results of two last two pie chart diagrams of the LO part of survey are contradictory to each other. Same number of respondents replied to a question "if you already shoot CO..." and  to a question "If you don't shoot gun with an optic...", with the sum of the numbers of responses well exceeding the total number of people who have replied. 

In well designed surveys negative answers to some questions preclude one from answering the next questions, and some choices have to be mutually exclusive. The way this one was set, I see up to 20% potential error rate on power factor discussion alone, and evidence of low internal validity. 

 

 

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by YVK

[Nathanb]

It’s sad that we actually get a voice in how the sport goes and only 2500 people can be bothered to spend five minutes to complete a survey. 

[GJM]

The poll represents a relatively small percentage of the overall uspsa membership. The way the questions were asked also undoubtedly influenced the results. That doesn't make these results irrelevant, but they should be kept in perspective. I hope the uspsa board will consider these poll results, think about market trends like which calibers are becoming more or less prevalent, and try to reach a decision that makes sense now and in future years. Personally, I would be in favor of a by law change that requires the addition of any new division be accompanied by the deletion of an existing division. 

[Rich406]

10 minutes ago, YVK said:

While I am  appreciative of USPSA's effort to get members' input and some objective data behind their decisions, maybe they can get professional help in designing their data collection instruments the next time around. 20% of responders are against the division altogether. Why are their opinions on a power factor of a division they don't want to happen relevant?  The results of two last two pie chart diagrams of the LO part of survey are contradictory to each other. Same number of respondents replied to a question "if you already shoot CO..." and  to a question "If you don't shoot gun with an optic...", with the sum of the numbers of responses well exceeding the total number of people who have replied. 

In well designed surveys negative answers to some questions preclude one from answering the next questions, and some choices have to be mutually exclusive. The way this one was set, I see up to 20% potential error rate on power factor discussion alone, and evidence of low internal validity. 

 

 

 

It’s abundantly clear that whoever made the polls had zero experience and also rushed them out. The grammar mistakes alone were comical. 
 

 

[Dirty_J]

44 minutes ago, Rich406 said:

It’s abundantly clear that whoever made the polls had zero experience and also rushed them out. The grammar mistakes alone were comical. 
 

 

Have you met the buffoons that were behind it?
 

When the dude that’s in charge of the RO corps contradicts himself every other ruling and the dude running nationals has zero clue how much they spend on an event are drafting a survey.. this is what you get. Pure incompetence. 
 

The whole place needs a major house cleaning… before they change another bylaw, rule or division. 

[Rich406]

14 minutes ago, Dirty_J said:

Have you met the buffoons that were behind it?
 

When the dude that’s in charge of the RO corps contradicts himself every other ruling and the dude running nationals has zero clue how much they spend on an event are drafting a survey.. this is what you get. Pure incompetence. 
 

The whole place needs a major house cleaning… before they change another bylaw, rule or division. 

Make no mistake, I’m not a fan of the board and how they do things. But, it’s going to be 6-8 years best case scenario before there is any meaningful change. At some point you have to work with what you got…..

[Boomstick303]

1 hour ago, Nathanb said:

It’s sad that we actually get a voice in how the sport goes and only 2500 people can be bothered to spend five minutes to complete a survey. 

 

Is it?  

 

The 2500 number is way more than the members that actually debate such rule changes on this board or on any forum I imagine by a far margin.  If you think that a large percentage of people that show up to matches on a weekly to monthly basis depending on where you shoot actually get caught up into all of this or actually care about rule changes in general, or if USPSA keeps and/or grows the membership you would be mistaken.  

 

To be honest I am surprised that many responded.  I also suspected the poll would go that way and close to the percentages I expected as well.  Major is dying.  People who are invested can fight this fact all they want but it is NOT going to change that fact.  Will it dies as quick as low cap divisions?  No, Major will die a slow death when fewer and fewer people choose to buy those guns.  If LO actually becomes a division will this contribute to the death of Major PF?  I imagine it will, but 9mm is the direction the market has been moving towards for years now.  LO might speed up the process, but its a process already in motion.   

 

One -  I am glad the board actually held a poll.

Two -  Can you fault the board for the number of people that participated?  Nope.

Thee -  Will the board listen?  Who knows.

Four -  The board cannot win no matter what they do.  People will bitch no matter what they do.  

 

I will not complain if the board decides to allow Major into LO.  No.  Do I think its the correct path?  Nope, but I will not complain as it is a provisional, or if Major becomes a part of the Final Division Rules.  If they do add Major, it will for certain become another 2011 division and everyone will shoot Major that wants to truly compete.  In my eyes this is a huge failure that I think if it starts as a Minor division you will see all kinds of guns, and they mostly will compete at the same level.   

 

[Dirty_J]

11 minutes ago, Rich406 said:

Make no mistake, I’m not a fan of the board and how they do things. But, it’s going to be 6-8 years best case scenario before there is any meaningful change. At some point you have to work with what you got…..

The board is what it is. Puppets. 
 

DME and DNROI are the culprits behind the stagnation… if not decline of the org. 
 

Replace those two by whatever means… and you’ll see immediate improvements with the right personnel in place. Ideally some without bankruptcies and extensive criminals records. 

[deerslayer]

4 hours ago, Rich406 said:

So you comparing a poll with 100 participants to one with 25x the number?

 

There was an uproar over the last set of equipment changes, and one thing said from pretty much every talking head is that there should be polls for changes like this. So somebody listened and now that it’s not going the way some would like, there is an uproar over the poll…

 

I agree 2500 isn’t a large number. But you know what, everyone had an opportunity to vote, and the people that did are absolutely relevant. Those that didn’t, chose not to, and thus gave up their voice on the matter. 
 

The 2500 number actually shows how much fluff and casual members are in total membership numbers.  

I was surprised and a little discouraged at the participation rate.  Even people I shoot with, pretty serious shooters, didn’t know about the poll.  I asked them if they had voted yet.  A couple said, “Voted on what?”  That was disappointing.  

[BritinUSA]

Adds fuel to the theory that there are only 10% of the members care about what happens at a national level. The other 90% are social/casual shooters who rarely set foot outside of an L1 match. This is the same reason why they don't know about these surveys, they likely don't read the magazine or check the website as they just don't care enough to do so.

 

I'm not suggesting that the org disregard the results here, but there is a big disconnect within the sport and the org does not seem to care about it. I think the majority of the members need to be more involved, or the major issues facing the org will never get resolved.

[usmc1974]

8 hours ago, IL-SIG said:

Maybe we should just stop keeping score and everyone should get a participation trophy for trying their best. 

I think there should be 1 power factor shoot whatever you want winner takes all. That's all I'm saying.

Edited February 19, 2023 by usmc1974