USPSA Nationals

[Chills1994]

Okay, thanks, Gary.

[Zerwas]

Thinking out loud...what about:

6 month prior to the US Nationals, open a "preferred" enrollment window. You could enter during this time if:

1) You've been recognized at an Area match the previous year.

2) You've been recognized, and/or top 25 at the US Nationals the previous year.

3) You have been sponsored by your section's coordinator (give each SC a certain number of slots). This way a section can recognize a shooter who's really helped, w/out necessarily having won....

All of the above would be guaranteed entry and $100 off the match fee. The onus would be on the individual to enroll during this preferred period.

Also, prior to this period: courtesy invitations would go out to:

1) World Champions from the previous match -- 'cause why not? Handgun shooting is a microscopic sport, and if someone has to leave jingoism and pettiness aside....why not us?

2) IDPA National winners for the different Divisions from the previous year.

3) SASS National winners.

4) Bianchi cup winners?

Anyway - this would be a courtesy invitation with no match discount.

5 months prior to the Nationals, have "Open Enrollment." Handle whatever openings are left as usual; either first-come, first-served, or a lottery, and a waiting list.

It's *got* to be a huge headache (and expense?) for USPSA staffers to wrestle with the current slot policy, and, if I understand it right, you can just show up and have a pretty certain chance of entering anyway....

Boo,

I like your ideas and thoughts on this matter. I like the idea of the SC"s having the discretion to award someone who may not have come out on top in their division/class but always to the right thing and promote the club/ association etc..

I like the idea of a deeper discount for shooters that have earned a slot. Can we instutute this QUICKLY please???

I like the idea of inviting other shooting sports (maybe get even more crossover big names than what we already have).

I also like your timeframes.

[wide45]

Thinking out loud...what about:

6 month prior to the US Nationals, open a "preferred" enrollment window. You could enter during this time if:

1) You've been recognized at an Area match the previous year.

2) You've been recognized, and/or top 25 at the US Nationals the previous year.

3) You have been sponsored by your section's coordinator (give each SC a certain number of slots). This way a section can recognize a shooter who's really helped, w/out necessarily having won....

All of the above would be guaranteed entry and $100 off the match fee. The onus would be on the individual to enroll during this preferred period.

Also, prior to this period: courtesy invitations would go out to:

1) World Champions from the previous match -- 'cause why not? Handgun shooting is a microscopic sport, and if someone has to leave jingoism and pettiness aside....why not us?

2) IDPA National winners for the different Divisions from the previous year.

3) SASS National winners.

4) Bianchi cup winners?

Anyway - this would be a courtesy invitation with no match discount.

5 months prior to the Nationals, have "Open Enrollment." Handle whatever openings are left as usual; either first-come, first-served, or a lottery, and a waiting list.

It's *got* to be a huge headache (and expense?) for USPSA staffers to wrestle with the current slot policy, and, if I understand it right, you can just show up and have a pretty certain chance of entering anyway....

Boo,

I like your ideas and thoughts on this matter. I like the idea of the SC"s having the discretion to award someone who may not have come out on top in their division/class but always to the right thing and promote the club/ association etc..

I like the idea of a deeper discount for shooters that have earned a slot. Can we instutute this QUICKLY please???

I like the idea of inviting other shooting sports (maybe get even more crossover big names than what we already have).

I also like your timeframes.

You section has the ability to award slots however they choose. A change the way they do it, it has to come from within the section.

We would all like to pay less to shoot. Reducing the price for one group, means everyone else pays more. I don't think we need a change here.

You have to be an USPSA/IPSC member to shoot the Nationals. Everyone has the chance to join. Non-members likely have a reason. Members have the opportunity to get slots by shooting/supporting USPSA events.

I see no reason to change the slot policy at this time.

[boo radley]

You section has the ability to award slots however they choose. A change the way they do it, it has to come from within the section.

We would all like to pay less to shoot. Reducing the price for one group, means everyone else pays more. I don't think we need a change here.

You have to be an USPSA/IPSC member to shoot the Nationals. Everyone has the chance to join. Non-members likely have a reason. Members have the opportunity to get slots by shooting/supporting USPSA events.

I see no reason to change the slot policy at this time.

If you give out fewer slots you can make the discount more significant. That's why I proposed only those recognized at Area matches or the previous Nationals, should get the discount, along with the handful given to the sections.

As far as non-members getting invitations....what can I say? In most cases the winners of the Steel Challenge (forgot that one), and IDPA, etc, will already *be* USPSA/IPSC members, and if not, what would an invitation hurt? Why not be ambassadors?

The Masters is a PGA Tour event, right? Look at how it invites competitors...

As I said, just a thought. The foreign/non-USPSA invitations aside, I still can't believe it's fun having to call a long list of C/D class L10 winners, etc., etc., and go through this convoluted process. Did you get a plaque at an Area match last year? Want to shoot the Nationals? You're going, and if you enter within a certain time period, you'll save $100.

[Flexmoney]

If you give out fewer slots you can make the discount more significant. That's why I proposed only those recognized at Area matches or the previous Nationals, should get the discount, along with the handful given to the sections.

That would kill a big incentive that us "other" Match Directors have to run our match as a Level III.

[Charles Bond]

If you give out fewer slots you can make the discount more significant. That's why I proposed only those recognized at Area matches or the previous Nationals, should get the discount, along with the handful given to the sections.

As far as non-members getting invitations....what can I say? In most cases the winners of the Steel Challenge (forgot that one), and IDPA, etc, will already *be* USPSA/IPSC members, and if not, what would an invitation hurt? Why not be ambassadors?

The Masters is a PGA Tour event, right? Look at how it invites competitors...

As I said, just a thought. The foreign/non-USPSA invitations aside, I still can't believe it's fun having to call a long list of C/D class L10 winners, etc., etc., and go through this convoluted process. Did you get a plaque at an Area match last year? Want to shoot the Nationals? You're going, and if you enter within a certain time period, you'll save $100.

Keep in mind that what we are discussing is the USPSA National Championship. It is not a world championship or an invitational or a masters. It is not part of a national, world or even regional tour. It is the national championship for USPSA. USPSA is composed of members of USPSA. Winning a slot is great but the fact is that is not the only way to get there. You can receive a slot from your section and we leave it up to the section as to how to award slots which is how it should be. We have some slots that are available first come first serve to catch everyone else and to fill the match. Every member gets an equal chance at the wait list since we do not charge dues based on classifications. It was once suggested to me that priority on the wait list should be based on length of membership and type of membership but in my opinion the idea that a 65 year old life B class shooter should always displace a 18 year old M class 2 year member is not the best of ideas.

To quote another AD whom I admire, those folks who win "D" class are just as proud and worked just as hard at the match to win that award as did the first GM. I do not dismiss these shooters since the attraction of USPSA is that we have room for all levels of shooting and most of the GMs will be the first to tell you that it is because of the other classifications that first rate matches are able to be produced. USPSA and our nationals exist to serve all of the members from the top rated GM to the freshly started D class shooter in L-10.

The simple solution is a larger nationals that will allow us to have 600 or more shooters. If that were even possible, those who can afford to attend such a nationals is just like any other present nationals and is based more on income and time available rather than shooting classification. Just like the present waiting list where the upper classication shooters are no more likely to sign up than those with D cards, a larger match is going to give us pretty much the same mix of members particiating.

Does every member who wants to go to the nationals get the chance to know they are going 12 months in advance? No, but if we did then the excluive nature of the nationals would abate to the point of the match being less desirable. On the other hand, if you desire to atttend the nationals and are willing to be patient and work with the system to attend, you are likely going to be entered in the match with other members of USPSA that represent the entire cross section of the membership.

[bigj45]

I think we need to have a combined nationals, all divisions, the same stages, pick a division and run.

[Flexmoney]

You can receive a slot from your section and we leave it up to the section as to how to award slots which is how it should be.

Charles,

Just a point of order from the by-laws...

The Section bylaws shall be subordinate to these bylaws and shall set forth a means for distribution of

national championship slots. The distribution shall always consider placement in practical shooting

events and may additionally consider club membership and assistance at the events. Slots may never be

awarded by lot.

I agree with you on how it should be...which does seem to be the reality. Any chance of gettng the bylaws update to reflect reality?

[Charles Bond]

You can receive a slot from your section and we leave it up to the section as to how to award slots which is how it should be.

Charles,

Just a point of order from the by-laws...

The Section bylaws shall be subordinate to these bylaws and shall set forth a means for distribution of

national championship slots. The distribution shall always consider placement in practical shooting

events and may additionally consider club membership and assistance at the events. Slots may never be

awarded by lot.

I agree with you on how it should be...which does seem to be the reality. Any chance of gettng the bylaws update to reflect reality?

Note that the wording as to "placement" does not say what placement. I do not read the Bylaws as requiring the first place GM to get the slot over the first palce D. There is also nothing there about whether the person who gets the single section slot to the open/limited nationals is an open shooter or a lmited shooter. Since slots are distributed to sections, sections usually award slots to clubs based on their mission count so in that case "placement" is talking about the placement of a club rather than the placement of a shooter. If on the other hand the section holds a slots championship, and some sections aso distibute slots in this manner, then "placement" is talking about how an individual shooter performs in the slots championship.

IMO we are still leaving it wide open for the sections to distribute slots as they deem appropriate. We could fiddle with the bylaws on this but we might do more harm than good. As for myself, I am happy with the language but agree with you that it could be more clear. Other ADs might have members who would require it to me more restrictive. The sections are democratic with an elected SC. The secions earn the slots. The sections should get to decide how the slots are distributed. If it were up to me I would eliminate the second sentence which you quoted above which would merely mandate that your section bylaws mandate a distributeion method which is something other than a raffle.

[Flexmoney]

I wish you would have warned me first...I'd have put on my tall boots.

Note that the wording as to "placement" does not say what placement.

Let me get this straight. Your position on that is that somebody went to the trouble to require that placement in shooting events "shall always" be used in determining section slot distribution...and, you take that to mean that "placement" doesn't really mean who shoot better?

Hmmm....

Let me come at this from a different way. I think we want to be in the same place on this, I just don't like how we are getting there.

As an SC, I may have a shooter that placed well in our Section match come to me and ask for a slot (which just happened this morning). Our sections slot policy distributes slots to the clubs...based on mission count (highest mission count gets first dibs, and so on..on down the line). Now, this shooter could come to me and say that our policy is wrong...because the USPSA by-laws require that we shall look at placement.

It would be much better for us...as Section Coordinators...if the by-laws where cleaned up. I'd rather not have to feel like a used car salesman pushing a Ford Pinto off on somebody...all the while telling them how "safe" the car is. Know what I mean?

[wide45]

The rule says that placement shall be considered, not that placement shall be the primary consideration.

[HoMiE]

So it is left up to the sections on how they distribute slots based on mission count. Now, the sections I participate in hold points matches in which you shoot to be eligible for a slot. Now, I don't think you have enough slots to be able to give each points winner in each division/class. So then how do you make it fair?

I say make the nationals at least 500+ shooters if not more. Why have a waiting list? You can plan on how many people who want to shoot and schedule approiately. I think the nationals should be all divisions at the same time in two geographical areas, like a Spring and Winter Nationals (would be nice to go somewhere warm for the Winter Nationals).

[joseywales]

I add this 'tidbit' to the discussion here because we looked long/hard at the USPSA bylaws section discussed here in this thread. Our section had experienced a decline in attendance at our section point series matches the last few years - so not many folks seemed really interested.

We felt that slots should be awarded by performance, but without a match/point series - how would you do it and eliminate any possibility of favortism (disclaimer here - there may be other viable ways to distribute slots to section members that also eliminates favoritism - I'm not meaning to criticize any other methods that others may find work well in their sections).

Given that background - we thought something that would go over well with the shooters in our section and at the same time help increase our "points series" attendance would be to have two of the slots the section received PAID FOR the shooter by the section. Hence, if you won a slot from the section...you actually won "the ticket" to the show. How cool is that!?

Knowing that in our section, the GM/M's almost always win the divisions, and that we would likely have only 1 slot to award per division, we needed a worthwhile award method for all shooter classifications to have a legitimate chance at winning a FREE slot.

At first, we thought "raffle"...but then that little bit in the USPSA bylaws about "Slots may never be awarded by lot" was brought to our attention.

So, we tied the FREE slots to ACTIVITY CREDITS in the section point series (ACTIVITY CREDITS defined as: design a stage for the point series, setup/RO a stage at a point series match, RO at the point series championship match, etc).

Who knows what we will do next year, but this happened to work quite well this year, as we had increased attendance, and the folks who worked the most during the series were the ones awarded the FREE slots...now how cool is that?! => you work your A$$ off, you get a ticket to "the show". The remainder of the slots (the "option to buy" slots) were awarded to the division winners.

[Charles Bond]

Let me come at this from a different way. I think we want to be in the same place on this, I just don't like how we are getting there.

As an SC, I may have a shooter that placed well in our Section match come to me and ask for a slot (which just happened this morning). Our sections slot policy distributes slots to the clubs...based on mission count (highest mission count gets first dibs, and so on..on down the line). Now, this shooter could come to me and say that our policy is wrong...because the USPSA by-laws require that we shall look at placement.

It would be much better for us...as Section Coordinators...if the by-laws where cleaned up. I'd rather not have to feel like a used car salesman pushing a Ford Pinto off on somebody...all the while telling them how "safe" the car is. Know what I mean?

In the situation you cite, the slots get distributed to the clubs as the bylaws of the sections state and then it is up to the clubs to make the selections. That would be how I would instuct you if I were your AD. Your AD could feel differently.

Since your bylaws require highest mission count gets first dibs, you are considering placement as I outlined. At least in my area, the wise section coordinators are not looking to have discretion but rather want a specific guideline to follow. I do not have slots as AD to award and I prefer it that way.

Could the Bylaws use some cleanup? Yes and this is not the only area. IMO the BOD should concentrate more on serving the members and less on housekeeping. If you want this change go ahead and talk to your AD and tell him I would second his motion.