USPSA Rate increase pushed back

[Joe4d]

1 hour ago, RJH said:

What does ELO stand for?

Electric Light Orchestra 

[admcd]

On 8/5/2023 at 2:50 PM, Joe4d said:

Electric Light Orchestra 

Don't bring me down, Bruce.

[Fishbreath]

On 8/4/2023 at 9:34 AM, Racinready300ex said:

I think @Fishbreath has been playing with some ELO stuff. I'm sure it has it's own issues, he could probably fill us in on. 

 

I'd imagine it runs into trouble if someone is shooting small clubs with no heat they wont get a good idea of their standing until they go somewhere else and shoot against higher ranked people. With our classification system you at least can see where you stand on that skill test no matter who shows up at your local club. 

 

I was on vacation and am therefore a bit late to the party, but you're pretty much exactly right in the second paragraph.

 

Elo doesn't require that everyone shoot against everyone else to produce good results, but it works best on sets of competitors with a relatively dense web of interconnections. Major match competitors fit the bill: there are a relatively large number of people who travel nationally, or at minimum across big geographic regions, to visit matches, which means they serve as 'rating carriers' to ensure that a 1500 in California is similar to a 1500 in Virginia.

 

Local match datasets also work fairly well for a particular region. I have ratings for Western PA, for instance, that match my understanding of the relative skills of shooters in the area. Things start to get suspect if you mix geographically separated regions: for the Virginia-California case, almost every shooter-to-shooter comparison is going to be a Virginia shooter against a Virginia shooter, or CA-vs-CA. Since there are next to no carriers between the two regions, there's no leveling effect to ensure that the ratings in VA and CA are on the same scale.

 

Put another way, consider these two groups of shooters: one A-class guy beating 9 C-class guys by 20%, and one GM beating 9 A-class guys by 20%. Elo will rate the two winning shooters the same, even though the GM guy is probably better. Since Elo depends solely on relative performance, cross-pollination between groups of isolated shooters is necessary to make the numbers work out.

 

I don't have a good way to get result information for, say, "all matches in 2023", so I can't actually try it, but even ratings combining relatively proximate regions like Western PA and Delmarva got a little hinky, last time I tried it.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Fishbreath

[varminter22]

On 8/4/2023 at 11:47 AM, Joe4d said:

And there we have it,, ,, it offers little value in return for the membership, 

I certainly agree.  

 

I like to see my classification.  And I like the magazine (although not as much as I used to).  

 

But is it worth $65 per year?  NO!  

 

We all realize expenses are up.  But worthy of an 62.5% increase in dues?  NO!  Maybe a 5% or 10% increase?  Maybe.  

 

Edited August 11, 2023 by varminter22

[RJH]

38 minutes ago, varminter22 said:

I certainly agree.  

 

I like to see my classification.  And I like the magazine (although not as much as I used to).  

 

But is it worth $65 per year?  NO!  

 

We all realize expenses are up.  But worthy of an 62.5% increase in dues?  NO!  Maybe a 5% or 10% increase?  Maybe.  

 

 

Just to correct some math, going from 35 to 65 is slightly over 85% increase in dues. So if you were no at 62 and a half percent, I reckon you're going to still be a no at 85+ percent

[Joe4d]

51 minutes ago, varminter22 said:

I certainly agree.  

 

I like to see my classification.  And I like the magazine (although not as much as I used to).  

 

But is it worth $65 per year?  NO!  

 

We all realize expenses are up.  But worthy of an 62.5% increase in dues?  NO!  Maybe a 5% or 10% increase?  Maybe.  

 

The only expense I can agree with going up would be some kinda liability insurance and on the back burner lawyer for club protection, 
But yeh I agree, presidents, BOD, NROI's free vacation travel expenses have gone up,,, I mean dang hotel bills and bar tabs arnt cheap for them to all come tell us its a "Volunteer" sport.

[BritinUSA]

The classifier fees pay for the classification system, probably several times over as the system is mostly automated. It used to be done manually.
 

Advertising revenue was once enough to more than cover the cost of the magazine (it used to make a net profit). For some reason the cost has exploded over the past few years.

 

The activity fees are the result of literally thousands of man-hours of work by the membership, designing and building stages, running matches, officiating, maintaining props etc.

 

Are the members getting value for all that money/work? Probably not.
 

Is the situation going to improve? Probably not.

 

I often wonder how much revenue other IPSC regions are pulling in each year, and how they manage to run the sport within the confines of that income.

 

 

 

[Joe4d]

 i am involved in another sports management,,, and yep for whatever reason the magazine printing and mailing costs have greatly increased, and advertising has gone done,, as Advertisers get it better than the majority of BOD... people dont read magazines. They get it online and many go straight to the trash. 

[truespode]

18 minutes ago, Joe4d said:

They get it online and many go straight to the trash. 

 

My USPSA magazine came in yesterday and I thumbed through it then to the trash. I saw all the polls and graphics on the website already. The magazine is of absolutely no use to someone engaged.

However, for those that don't stay up to date or don't read social media the magazine may be a good thing to leave by the toilet and flip through to inspire them to go shoot that weekend.

[BritinUSA]

34 minutes ago, Joe4d said:

and yep for whatever reason the magazine printing and mailing costs have greatly increased,

I'm not convinced that the increase is solely related to printing/mailing. I suspect that costs related to Nationals/staff have been transferred to magazine costs.

[Dirty_J]

There is no reason to have a printed magazine in 2023. 
 

If a member can log on to vote (all elections online now), there’s zero reason for the expense of the print magazine… other than to spend money. 

[RJH]

6 minutes ago, Dirty_J said:

There is no reason to have a printed magazine in 2023. 
 

If a member can log on to vote (all elections online now), there’s zero reason for the expense of the print magazine… other than to spend money. 

 

But what about when my phone runs down and I need to poop? What am I supposed to do then, live like a neanderthal?

[BritinUSA]

Some advertisers may prefer printed ads, it's possible that advertising revenue may decline if the magazine moved to an online format. However, if the cost of producing content for an online magazine was less than that reduced revenue then it would be worthwhile switching over.

 

I've yet to see a good format for online magazines, but I think it might be worth investigating.
 

They still have the problem of producing good content.

 

 

[BritinUSA]

3 minutes ago, RJH said:

But what about when my phone runs down and I need to poop? What am I supposed to do then, live like a neanderthal?

Use toilet paper like everyone else.

[RJH]

2 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

Use toilet paper like everyone else.

I think you must use your phone way different than I use mine in the pooper

[BritinUSA]

2 minutes ago, RJH said:

I think you must use your phone way different than I use mine in the pooper

Honestly I'm a little concerned I may have violated my AppleCare warranty. 

[Racinready300ex]

This thread has taken a turd...I mean turn.  lmao. 

[RJH]

3 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

Honestly I'm a little concerned I may have violated my AppleCare warranty. 

[varminter22]

6 hours ago, RJH said:

 

Just to correct some math, going from 35 to 65 is slightly over 85% increase in dues. So if you were no at 62 and a half percent, I reckon you're going to still be a no at 85+ percent

Not that it matters much, but the USPSA website shows annual dues to be $40 per year.  $40 X 62.5% = $25.  Then, $40 + $25 = $65.  

 

Yeah, I initially figured it based on $35 per year which figured to be an 85.71% increase.

 

And yes, I'm still a "no".  I tend to agree with the many others that simply don't see "value" nor a need for such an increase.  

[RJH]

7 minutes ago, varminter22 said:

Not that it matters much, but the USPSA website shows annual dues to be $40 per year.  $40 X 62.5% = $25.  Then, $40 + $25 = $65.  

 

Yeah, I initially figured it based on $35 per year which figured to be an 85.71% increase.

 

And yes, I'm still a "no".  I tend to agree with the many others that simply don't see "value" nor a need for such an increase.  

 

Well crap, I would have swore I paid $35 last year. So if it's 40, your math is correct LOL

[shred]

I think one or two of the presidential candidates said there's not enough money to run more than maybe 2 Nationals a year without losing money.  Maybe that's where the increase is going.  Would you pay $25 more to have more Nationals?  

[Joe4d]

16 minutes ago, shred said:

I think one or two of the presidential candidates said there's not enough money to run more than maybe 2 Nationals a year without losing money.  Maybe that's where the increase is going.  Would you pay $25 more to have more Nationals?  

not enough money for what ? Pay for their travel ? GTFOH.. For hundreds of dollars a head plus what ever sponsor money they cant put on a match without taxing the 90% of membership that doesnt go to nationals ?

 

[varminter22]

30 minutes ago, shred said:

I think one or two of the presidential candidates said there's not enough money to run more than maybe 2 Nationals a year without losing money.  Maybe that's where the increase is going.  Would you pay $25 more to have more Nationals?  

No, I would not.  

 

11 minutes ago, Joe4d said:

not enough money for what ? Pay for their travel ? GTFOH.. For hundreds of dollars a head plus what ever sponsor money they cant put on a match without taxing the 90% of membership that doesnt go to nationals ?

 

Well said.  

[varminter22]

6 hours ago, Joe4d said:

The only expense I can agree with going up would be some kinda liability insurance and on the back burner lawyer for club protection, 
But yeh I agree, presidents, BOD, NROI's free vacation travel expenses have gone up,,, I mean dang hotel bills and bar tabs arnt cheap for them to all come tell us its a "Volunteer" sport.

 

It's been said there are over 35,000 members in USPSA.  

 

35,000 X $40 = $1,400,000.  

 

It would appear that one could do okay on a budget exceeding $1 million.  

[BritinUSA]

Nationals will continue to lose money until the match sponsorship process is changed.

 

if members want confidence that even use is being spent wisely then a full budget/audit (including receipts) should be published. This would help to quell (or perhaps confirm) any rumors or conspiracy theories regarding expenses.