USPSA Rate increase pushed back

[RJH]

24 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

The tricky part is the media hates us so getting on regular TV is going to be a challenge. Then if you do get there, one well publicized school shooting and it'll get canceled. Plus, do people even watch TV anymore? I don't, everything I watch is streamed through the internet.

 

Youtube would be the answer but youtube is google, google hates us. We know they shadow ban, throttle and demonetize shooting content. So we're probably not going to get super far there.

 

 

It needs to happen on the internet, and we should probably be working with existing youtube creators to get ideas how to move forward. If people will watch corn hole they'll watch USPSA we just need to polish it some to make it interesting and then get it in front of them.

 

We should probably hire someone who's hole job is this kind of thing.  Oh...wait. 

 

 

I think Newtown is what made three gun Nation go off the air now that you mentioned school shootings. I'd forgotten about that correlation. I shouldn't forget it, as it was about 3 months after I opened a range and then there was no ammo.....

[konkapot]

Let take a really deep dive. TV, sponsorships, lawyers...small potatoes.

 

Let's go real high tech. 

 

How about enough porta potties at a major match?

Let's manage our finances properly. 

We can't even create a MAGAZINE without drama. 

 

Let's focus on being a small organization of shooters. Try to get THAT right. 

[RJH]

33 minutes ago, konkapot said:

Let take a really deep dive. TV, sponsorships, lawyers...small potatoes.

 

Let's go real high tech. 

 

How about enough porta potties at a major match?

Let's manage our finances properly. 

We can't even create a MAGAZINE without drama. 

 

Let's focus on being a small organization of shooters. Try to get THAT right. 

 

Hard to find an issue with any of these points, except for maybe don't even create a magazine lol

[shred]

USPSA members don't even come out to watch USPSA matches, why would anybody else?

 

Fun to shoot, boring to watch.  Lots need to change if that's going to change.

[RJH]

4 minutes ago, shred said:

USPSA members don't even come out to watch USPSA matches, why would anybody else?

 

 

I don't go to watch them, but I watch them regularly on YouTube. I think some sort of video streaming of major matches with a solid production level and maybe some sort of commentary would be good. Maybe enen toss in some pro level match break down, and discuss how the top guys finished on a stage. It could also be a huge money loser, I don't know. I think building bleachers to watch USPSA would be dumb

[ltdmstr]

I think if there was a split screen or screen within screen image showing hits on target in real time as someone was actually shooting the stage, that would be pretty cool and something people would watch.  Short of that, it's just plain boring.

[ltdmstr]

As for the magazine, everyone I know does the same thing I do.  They thumb through it in about 2 minutes then toss it in the recycle bin.  A complete waste of paper, not to mention time, money and effort.

[shred]

5 minutes ago, RJH said:

 

I don't go to watch them, but I watch them regularly on YouTube. I think some sort of video streaming of major matches with a solid production level and maybe some sort of commentary would be good. Maybe enen toss in some pro level match break down, and discuss how the top guys finished on a stage. It could also be a huge money loser, I don't know. I think building bleachers to watch USPSA would be dumb

Guy I know was a Youtuber back when shooters could make money at it.   His match videos got a tenth of the traffic as his other shooting videos.

 

But, hey, they somehow made Golf on TV a thing.

 

I keep the mags that have articles of interest to me in them, but don't save the rest anymore after USPSA put up the archive if I need to find something from decades ago.

 

[Fishbreath]

On 8/14/2023 at 11:21 AM, euxx said:

Using points or just HF won't be representative... The idea is to compare similar stages, so precision/normal/hoser would be along the lines (though I think it may need to be more granular).

 

Short/medium/long constitues a distinct axis for performance, IMO—I perform better than my average on short stages without respect to target difficulty. I can't back that up with data yet, but maybe I'll look into it over the winter. I think it would be interesting to see how much stage-type ratings differ from the overall ratings, and it also opens up some interesting research opportunities on classifiers.

 

On an unrelated note, I had a thought a while back about a way for me to collaborate with PractiScore, in a way that would let me do some deeper analysis and drive donations to PS—drop me a private message or an email if that sounds interesting from your end.

[RJH]

4 minutes ago, shred said:

Guy I know was a Youtuber back when shooters could make money at it.   His match videos got a tenth of the traffic as his other shooting videos.

 

But, hey, they somehow made Golf on TV a thing.

 

I keep the mags that have articles of interest to me in them, but don't save the rest anymore after USPSA put up the archive if I need to find something from decades ago.

 

 

 

I don't know which guy you're talking about, but most match videos I watch are just some guy shooting a stage. Whether he's a b class shooter or a GM there is not much difference on that end. That's why I think you would need some commentary, maybe something highlighting where the hits were on the target while the shooting was going on, and where that stage lands a shooter in the match. I'm not saying that would get as much footing as some of the dumb shooting crap I see on YouTube, but it would I think help some

[Fishbreath]

4 minutes ago, RJH said:

That's why I think you would need some commentary, maybe something highlighting where the hits were on the target while the shooting was going on, and where that stage lands a shooter in the match.

 

On YouTube, at least, I stopped doing commentary and analysis in match videos because the ones where I did performed worse than the ones that were just unadorned shooting footage.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Fishbreath

[RJH]

1 minute ago, Fishbreath said:

 

On YouTube, at least, I stopped doing commentary and analysis in match videos because the ones where I did performed worse than the ones that were just unadorned shooting footage.

 

Maybe you have an annoying voice

 

 

Just kidding. But in reality, maybe the people watching your videos are all USPSA shooters already and know what's going on. I'm talking about some sort of videos that would cast a wider net, and hopefully pull people in that don't know about the sport at all. The only way I learned about USPSA originally was from shooting USA, though I think it was called American shooter or something like that at the time. Of course the internet was a much smaller thing at that point, but what I saw on that show peaked my interest and I doubt I'm the only one

[ddc]

21 minutes ago, shred said:

USPSA members don't even come out to watch USPSA matches, why would anybody else?

 

Fun to shoot, boring to watch.  Lots need to change if that's going to change.

 

I think this very true.

 

Not only boring to watch but if I was not a USPSA competitor I wouldn't have a clue what I was watching. 

 

Also I wouldn't have a clue whether or not a given competitor was having a great run or a dumpster fire.

All I would see is somebody running around shooting at targets and looking very much like the previous shooter.

 

I think for a televised event to generate any interest it needs give immediate and understandable feedback concerning the shooters success/failure. A typical USPSA match does not provide that opportunity.

 

[Racinready300ex]

I watch match footage, but I'm weird so I get that match video doesn't get many views. What makes me weird? I already know what's going on and understand what I'm looking at. I also care about shooting and want to learn. etc.

 

The trick is going to be making it so the average person who doesn't already know all that stuff can understand what they're looking at and why it's worth watching. I don't watch corn hole, or golf or most other things like that, it seems boring as hell. Yet people watch it. 

 

No matter what it would take effort on the part of the org to ever make progress on that kind of thing and like @konkapot pointed out we've got much simpler problems we can't fix right now. 

 

 

[euxx]

38 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:

Short/medium/long constitues a distinct axis for performance, IMO—I perform better than my average on short stages without respect to target difficulty. I can't back that up with data yet, but maybe I'll look into it over the winter. I think it would be interesting to see how much stage-type ratings differ from the overall ratings, and it also opens up some interesting research opportunities on classifiers.

 

As not all stages are the same, regardless of the round count (which gives you short/medium/long categories). I think you need to add 2nd dimension for HF ranges, something along the lines of 0..4, 4..8 8..12, 13. That will give 12 buckets between round count and HF ranges.

The HF buckets may not be needed for low-round count stages, especially ones that don't require movement. But longer stages tend to differentiate competitors more significantly, at least from what is observable in the results for large matches.

 

38 minutes ago, Fishbreath said:

On an unrelated note, I had a thought a while back about a way for me to collaborate with PractiScore, in a way that would let me do some deeper analysis and drive donations to PS—drop me a private message or an email if that sounds interesting from your end.

I am not the one who is making calls about data access. You should send an email to support@practiscore.com and outline your proposal and scope of work.

Though having your code under GPL might be a problem, unless you're willing to change license for PS use.
 

[BritinUSA]

We don't need TV for match coverage, and YouTube is not necessary for streaming. We don't need to show every competitor shooting every stage, just like we don't see every golfer on every hole at the US Masters.

 

I was providing live coverage of matches over 11 years ago, the technology and bandwidth have improved significantly since then. Adding scores, leaderboards and commentary is all achievable.
 

I've heard estimates for costs over $250,000, it's more likely to be less than 10-15% of that, mostly on equipment that could be used for several years.

 

 

[RJH]

20 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

We don't need TV for match coverage, and YouTube is not necessary for streaming. We don't need to show every competitor shooting every stage, just like we don't see every golfer on every hole at the US Masters.

 

I was providing live coverage of matches over 11 years ago, the technology and bandwidth have improved significantly since then. Adding scores, leaderboards and commentary is all achievable.
 

I've heard estimates for costs over $250,000, it's more likely to be less than 10-15% of that, mostly on equipment that could be used for several years.

 

 

 

 

Good to hear that the cost would be reasonable. The problem I see with it not being on TV or YouTube is getting people who know nothing about the sport some way of finding the video.

 

I don't see why even if you hosted it yourself you couldn't go ahead and forward part or all of the videos to YouTube. It wouldn't even need to be monetized just something with a link back to the original format or something. Maybe I'm saying that right I am not a techno wizard LOL

 

I think it would need to have at least some way for a broader audience to find it if there was any hope of getting sponsors to help put the bill for it. I don't know if sig or Glock would pay a bunch of money to only reach 400 people

[GOF]

On 8/4/2023 at 1:11 PM, motosapiens said:

all you have to do is go to one of the 'other organizations' matches and get screwed over on a bogus rules call to appreciate uspsa. Not really a big deal i guess for people who aren't competitive and just shoot to have fun and make noise, and don't want to shoot major matches with a reasonably consistently applied ruleset and stage design criteria.

You can get screwed over on bogus calls in USPSA too. BTDT

[whan]

A few thoughts on the broadcasted match/nationals topic (putting aside questions of the priority of doing so)

 

The best real world analogue to our sport is golf. Lots of dead time and often can be boring to viewers that are not "in the know", even for those that are familiar with guns but don't shoot competition. A few of the niche sports listed, particularly extreme sports like mtn biking, surfing, skating, naturally look exciting, and hence there is a market for those sports.

 

The main reason I think golf does get viewership is because the player-base is far larger than the shooting sports. Quick search shows that 25 million people in the US play golf. Even if we assumed there were 100k unique action shooting participants across all disciplines (USPSA, IDPA, multigun, etc.), golf dwarfs our field by 250x. And even then, most people never really watch golf, unless it's the masters or a similarly important tournament

 

The one saving feature is that there are lots of gun owners in America, but I think in order to attract them, the key is that how the competitions are portrayed needs to be as exciting as possible. There is a reason why there's a lot of very popular guntubers whose channels and videos have multitudes higher view counts than anything USPSA related. If I was to propose trying to make a nationals broadcast the most exciting, below would be some key things I'd want in an ideal world

• Focus on super squad / GM competitors. Nationals are essentially pro-Am competitions, but it's only worth following the top shooters from a broadcast perspective
• Super squad competitors all must wear POV cameras. POV footage is far more exciting and interesting than 3rd person. While we find 3rd person footage helpful for improvement, honestly it usually looks underwhelming from an excitement standpoint. The POV footage will be the primary footage of the initial run, replays afterwards can be shown in third person
• "Real-time" scoring synced with the POV run footage. Perhaps a virtual mockup of each target that's currently being engaged in the bottom corner, with circles/dots showing where the holes went. IMO if able to put a small and cheap camera that looks at each target, we have the technology to do this via software via doing it manually.
• Include a running tally of A, C, D, M, NS with point tally, as well as a running time stopwatch at the bottom. Using the real-time scoring, each time a shot is taken, flash what the shot was somewhere visible on the screen, maybe even with a sound to match. As dumb as it sounds, first person shooter video games have had a lot of success with using hit markers and hit marker sounds to make the games more satisfying
• Initial briefing of stage layout so the audience is aware of what's going on, and a virtual minimap in the corner of where the shooter currently is. Again, a concept taken from video games, but giving people a sense of where the shooter is relative to the stage, what direction they're facing, etc. will help provide context
• Commentary needs to be from a GM level as well, and point out nuances as such

Edited August 15, 2023 by whan

[whan]

Here’s an example of a youtube video in-line with a lot of the concepts I’m talking about. This is one of the most popular videos on Trex’s channel, yet when you break it down is essentially just a set of POV stage videos.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0_5gj_xkwE

 

As you can tell, I'm pulling a lot of concepts from FPS video gaming, but the reality is that we know it works. Some FPS streamers make a lot of money literally just showing and narrating over their gameplay footage. Competitive video gaming like Counter Strike has significantly more viewership than USPSA

 

On top of that, add in additional filler like featuring the competitor's gun. The viewership of USPSA is going to all be gun guys/gals, and everyone is always interested in what the pros are shooting. Have the super squad have their guns be put on a videography table briefly to show off what they're shooting, and also show a picture of that gun somewhere before each stage begins, just like in the Trex video. Can have the competitor even talk about, or list off the various mods to their guns to fill up time. I think sponsors would honestly love that, and would be far more impactful than just having a banner up on a stage. 

Edited August 15, 2023 by whan

[ltdmstr]

Golf coverage on tv has a big difference from shooting.  That being, the camera follows the ball.  So, you can see what's happening in real time.  That's not possible with shooting unless you have cameras on each target so you can see the hits as the shooter progresses through the stage.  Although it could be done, no way is it cost effective to do.  We had a LPGA tournament near here last summer and I was absolutely stunned by the amount of equipment they had out there.  That included a half dozen semis, a dozen plus lifts and cranes, mobil command/production center, who knows how many cameras, miles of cable, and all kinds of other stuff.  It was a major undertaking and I'm sure the cost was well into six or maybe even seven figures.  And that's for the ladies.  I'm sure a PGA production is 2-3x that, if not more.  No way is that ever going to happen with USPSA shooting. 

[whan]

I agree the cost of really making it a broadcast ready production likely is too high for USPSA, even into the future. At least with the current popularity level of USPSA even more broadly

 

That being said, re: the camera following the ball point, I actually think with the rapidly decreasing cost of cameras it could be possible to do for a major event without it being insanely expensive. The fact is that cheap webcams are <$50. It doesn't need to be extremely high quality - if anything it really just needs to be enough resolution that software can determine the hit location. At most it'd be 16 cameras per stage, and if you were only doing it for a super squad stage by stage, you could move them around to follow the squad. I imagine a shielded camera set up on the ground in front of each target, pointed up, and connected via some wifi together with a timer, and software that instantly determines approximate hit location

[euxx]

2 hours ago, ltdmstr said:

...So, you can see what's happening in real time.  That's not possible with shooting unless you have cameras on each target so you can see the hits as the shooter progresses through the stage.  Although it could be done, no way is it cost effective to do...

With lo-res cameras you may get away with about $50 per camera. That is with battery and wifi link... Though that adds up quickly - 1 camera per target x 16 targets - $800.

[motosapiens]

9 hours ago, shred said:

USPSA members don't even come out to watch USPSA matches, why would anybody else?

 

Fun to shoot, boring to watch.  Lots need to change if that's going to change.

why does it need to change? In general sports that Chase viewership dollars tend to suck more and more as time goes on. Practical shooting is currently pretty awesome From a participant standpoint and making it better for spectators Would probably make it suck more for the people doing it.

 

chasing TV dollars completely ruined mountain bike racing, and probably many other sports as well

Edited August 16, 2023 by motosapiens

[BritinUSA]

I don't think a running total of the hits is necessary, as long as the final score is available at the end of the video. And that's already feasible.
 

If you want all the editing between different cameras and as-you-go scoring then it's going to require a lot of work in post. The coverage would take days/weeks to hit the air. 
 

Camera resolution is dependent on whether you want live coverage or not though I think 1080 is the minimum.

 

As to viewing numbers, I hit over 30,000 unique IP addresses during the 2014 World Shoot. With access to better cameras and higher bandwidth a much higher quality product could dwarf those numbers.