Does Nationals Feel Like A Overgrown Area?

[Kyle Norris]

I was watching the NPPL (paintball) Nationals on OLN tonight, and was amazed by the number of sponsors and vendors the size of their displays. The place resembled an outdoor SHOT show for the paintball industry! All the trickest new stuff was on display. Extensive media coverage, things to do besides play paintball, large spectator turnouts, ect. Now granted, paintball is a little more spectator friendly than IPSC, but still, there were hundreds (thousands?) of people on the grounds that had no connection to any participating team.

I know this has been covered before, but why do we have around 8 vendors, a relatively small amount of media coverage (even from shooting publications), no spectators whatsoever, and a range that offers USPSA Nationals and nothing else? What's the problem, and more importantly, the solution? Why can't we fill up Race Gun?

I used to be resistant to an all divisions combined Nationals, but the more I think about it, the better it seems. Should we also think about moving away from isolated ranges like PASA Park to something closer to a major metropolitan area? Quicker posting of preliminary stats in an easier to read format?

What do ya'll think? What's the way to make our national championship feel like one?

[BrianH]

I think one one of the issues you brought up, sponsors, prob. has to do with the manufacturers who feel WE are part of their market. And who are they?

Forget open....we've basically created our own "market-exclusive" companies for that. Limited? Kinda the same thing. Para seems to be having a hard time playing.

Lim ten? Kimber. SA. Nobody is going to fork up $3500 for a Wilson or Brown just to start out.

Production? Glock owns it. Period.

That's about it. Nobody is going to jump into sponsoring a match where they basically have no market. And I think that's our fault. (USPSA)

[TDean]

People turn out to paintball events so they can see people get "shot".

What's the fun of IPSC where all we shoot is cardboard?

sick society?

[kimel]

Yeah...isn't it weird that a sport which glorifies "shooting people", with full automatic weapons no less, is politically correct, whereas a sport which emphasises safety and NOT shooting people is not politically correct.

I tried paintball exactly once. I found I was unable to point a "gun" at a person and pull the trigger without talking myself through it every time by which time I was splattered with neon colored paint and growing welts and bruises. This made it non-fun. I never went back. This is what happens when at the tender age of 5 you are taught to not point guns at things you are not willing to kill/destroy.

Some say paintballers are a crop ripe for picking and bringing into USPSA. Well, maybe after one helluva intensive safety course. Those guys think ADs are funny and sweeping someone with the muzzle unintentionally is no big deal.

Another major difference between paintball and our sport is cost. What we pay for an entry level blaster will buy a darn nice paintball gun. For under $200 you can get going in paintball. Mutiply this by at least 3 to get going in IPSC. So, a vendor can set up at a paintball match and sell a truck load of "starter kits" for $200 to impulse buyers. No background checks required.

How many "impulse buy starter kits" are Glock, SA, Para, SV, STI, Kimber likely to sell, even if they had one and we had spectators who might want to buy, when the going price is $800 and you have to pass a background check? Oh yeah...and you have to come back in x days to pick it up because you can't take it with you right now due to state/federal law.

We CAN grow. We need to get people to hold gun safety courses and encourage these students to come out to a match for fun. We need to encourage the junior shooters and encourage them to bring their friends along (if their parents will let them of course). Aw heck, bring the friend's folks along and let them play too.

[TRNinTX]

This is something that Kyle, BJ, and their mother and I have discussed extensively. USPSA has been a wonderful thing for our family. Mom doesn't shoot, but you won't find a bigger supporter than her because she sees how much fun and what camaraderie "us boys" have shooting.

I still believe Production should be pushed more for Jrs. It has been my observation that most Jrs get Dad's hand me down blaster and start from their. It is usually too big, too loud and too complicated for a Jr to be comfortable.

BJ started shooting at 11 with his G34. It had minimal recoil, was easy to operate and for less than $1000 he was completely outfitted with gun, gear & mags. This allowed him to become familiar and comfortable with shooting and not be scared of the gun.

Glock and Springfield have been supporters of our sport, why can't we work some kind of deal with them to sell Jr. shooters (OK, parents of Jr. shooters) 34's, 17's or XD's at a discount to let them get started?

Just my .02

[Steve Anderson]

A lot of the bias starts in the gunshops...most folks buy the first gun out of a perceived need for self-defense. (I did)

The gunshops tell them that idpa is more realistic for defense training. This is true. If you HAD to pick one, we'd have to admit that IDPA is better for practicing defensive skills.

BUT, IPSC is more fun, and build a higher level of proficiency.

I think an Intro to uspsa dvd/vhs would be cool.

You'd need sponsors to defray costs, but if it was done right it would bring new shooters.

It should break down each division in detail with emphasis on prod and lim 10.

Most new shooters at our club either have an 8 rd 1911 or a high cap 9. No good place for either gun, really.

But they come to shoot, and leave happy.

SA

[L9X25]

I think that we are drifting the thread a little but I will follow Steve on this one...

I too purchased my first handgun for self-defense purposes. While I was becoming proficient with the gun, there were several "entry level" shooting sports held at our local indoor range. We shot bowling pins and a "carnival" style shooting gallery which had numerous different targets. These were not sports that would hold your interest for the long term but they did get you to the point where you were ready for more. USPSA was the next obvious step. These "entry level" sports do not exist in my area anymore and we are not able to feed off of them. Also, some of the folks that attend their first USPSA match are not prepared (or proficient enough) to handle the sport.

Leo

[Bear1142]

Steve,

I think the biggest reason is exposure and a sense of "Extreme" type competitions. If our sport is to grow and get more mainstream, we need positive media exposure. Running the Nationals on ESPN 2 at 1 am. is not going to get many people interested. As if I didn't stir up enough trouble on another thread, here is goes. Mainstream media coverage will attract spectators and manufacturers. Look at any shooting show on the outdoor channel. Everything from clothing to ATV's are running commercials. The more attractive and popular the sport, the more manufacturers are going to want to support and advertise their products. They want to reach a national audience. The more manf. the more money they pump into the sport through sponsorships and support for promotional considerations. Now comes the tough part. What do we need to do to get better media/Sports coverage? There are 2 BIG changes we are going to have to make. First, get rid of the current targets and go to the classic targets or something else. Nothing even remotely near a humaniod shape. The media just will not show us running around shooting humaniod targets without putting some kind of a negative spin on it. The second is the scoring system. Its much too complicated for the average uninformed viewer. Hell, most of our own members don't know what a hit factor is and how it relates to a particular stage. We need to go to a time based scoring system similar to IDPA. We can adjust the time penalties to keep the flavor of our sport and simplify the whole system. An average viewer needs to be able to watch a top shooter run a stage and instantly know his time and how it relates to everyone else he just saw, so he can say to himself, "yeah, that guy just burned that stage down. He beat everyone else by 4 seconds." They don't want to wait until the end of the match to see when the results are posted. What spectator wants to wait for an hour after the match is over to see who won. You can't get some shooters to wait around for that long, and thats with a prize table. Until we streamline the scoring and make the targets more consistant with a game and not practical pistolcraft, I think the sport can only go so far.

Erik

[diehli]

In paintball competition, full auto shooting is expressly forbidden. I sure as hell could make it seem like I was shooting full auto, though... that's the great thing about a $1300 marker, $600 air tank, and $70 paintball hopper.

I started out shooting skeet with my buddy and his dad. Then I talked my dad into buying my/our first gun just before the magazine ban... a Glock 22.

The next thing dad and I got into was paintball. That was a helluva lot bigger investment than the G22 ever was. Each weekend we went out it cost a minimum of $100 ($20 a piece for "entry" and $60 for paintballs).

Once I started getting really into it and decently proficient, I stepped up in gear and we'd easily spend about $200 an outing (higher grade paintballs X 2 as I'd go through a case and some by myself).

I was always the "instigator" when it came to getting into these things-- any appreciation of safety WRT firearms was embedded through my own practices. Maybe I'm the minority, but I consider myself an ex-paintball player that doesn't think an AD is funny (paintball or otherwise). In paintball the name of the game is sweeping someone with the muzzle... your intent is to mark/shoot them.

kimel, I think you got in with a bad group. Either that or since it's become a lot more mainstream, more idiots have flocked to it.

[Patrick Sweeney]

Kyle,

At the risk of re-hashing several old positions, (but you asked) here goes:

Sure, having the match closer to a large metropolitan center would be better. However, we're stuck with the ranges that have the room, personnel, organization, and experience that we have. Find me a range big enough, close enough, and we can talk about getting the people there.

As for the sport itself, it breaks down to several things;

1) Targets. I live in a university town. People look askance at me when they find out what I do for a living. (Being a published author and court-recognized expert witness helps redeem me somewhat in their eyes.) The sticking point for those who object is the target. Squishy liberals don't care about hi-cap mags, hollowpoints, running and gunning (although some of them think it is quite "Walter Mitty" of us to do so.) go to the international target. The hard-core practical types among us (who hate comp guns anyway) scream about losing the last remnant of our roots. To them I reply, look it up in "Cooper on Handguns." The target is not sacrosanct.

2) Scoring. To call our scoring system Byzantine is to insult that dysfunctional old Empire. We have grown out of it. The scoring system was developed when a club match was two or three stages, 20-30 shooters, and could be done on a pocket calculator. We should simply make it time. Instead of points, it should be zero time off for an A, and a tenth of a second for each step down. (D Minor would be a +.4 second hit.) When Tiger Woods steps to the tee on the 18th, everyone, including Tiger, knows exactly what he has to do to win. We don't know who won until hours later.

3) Appearance. You want television coverage, we can't have shabby props, toilet seats for start positions, and targets that can't be seen. We need more falling steel, professional-appearing props that don't block the cameras view, and range gear that doens't look like it was slapped together the night before. (Barring thunderstorms.)

4) Sponsors. Sponsors come because they get something for their money. What do we offer potential sponsors? And in the event we do offer something attractive, do they know it? Sponsors come because spectators watch. Spectators watch because it is exciting and understandable. TV crews arrive because spectators who couldn't make it want to watch. The whole process revolves around having something people want to watch, and can follow.

We too-often set our sights too low. Too many of us view a "good match" solely by the prize tables. "The Area X match was better than this Nationals" because the prize tables were more heavily laden. From the viewpoint of an organization, a match is successful when it entices new participants. A Nationals should crown a National Champion (or two or three) but it should also entice new shooters to come out and try because it looks like a hell of a lot of fun, and is understandable.

[cpty1]

Range locations are the issue. You can stick a paintball range/course anywhere, and no one has to worry about noise levels or projectiles leaving the range area proper and causing damage or injury. You cannot open an outdoor firing range just anywhere. Especially one large enough to handle a nationals size match. If the range was more accessible and closer to large metro areas, you'd get a lot of people spectating for the first time just to have something to do, and to see what was going on. However, once you get spectators there who are unfamiliar with the sport; to get these people to stay, or come back, as has been previously mentioned, we've got to address the PC issues, (targets), simplify the scoring and set up stages/props where 90% of what the shooter is doing is invisible to anyone other than the RO. When the spectators come, shortly behind them are the corporate sponsors and the media. I truly don't understand the target issue personally. How many people refuse to shoot the Florida Open simply because they've standardized on classic targets?

[Wildman]

As a shooting challenge, I’ve enjoyed the last couple of FG Nationals. As an event, either individual of family, they are pretty poor. For a little perspective, let me say that special events are an area of some experience for me. From Eddie Money Concerts to Unlimited Boat Races (yes, the Budweiser girls look nice up close) to smaller community festivals, I’ve had a chance to serve as host or producer many times over the last 20 years. One of the things they all have in common when successful is sponsor support. I will take my hat off to the sponsors at the last FGN, they are truly supportive of the sport. But it looks like our group treats them as second class money buckets. With 250 or so competitors, and a 100 or so support staff and spectators, several exhibitors drove from all over to sit in a tent in the Midwest over the 4th of July. There was lots of time given to competitors to visit the exhibitor’s area, but who wants to sit in a tent in 95+ degree heat, and wheel and deal? At least in 2002, there was a fan. Not this year. Makes it hard to get excited about showing a product to a limited audience.

The first year I attended a National, my wife, and kids came. Watched through lunch, then found other things to do in the area. They have not been back since. National is not a family event, except for a devoted few. Social activities are nonexistent (except for the Beer on the porch at S&W hall Friday. Thanks!). Waiting a full day after the main match for the awards and prize distribution is nonsense.

SASS claims over 700 shooters and 25,000 others at their End of the Trail event. These guys know how to put on a show. It’s easy to see vendors lined up for this type of event. Families attend and participate, tour and plan their summer around this type of activity. There is a lot more appeal to the family groups.

There’s no doubt in my mind that USPSA can put on a first class shooting event. It’s the other side that I think leaves a lot to be desired.

[THS]

I think we are off the topic, and mark for that matter, here.

Take a look at the NRA National championships going on at Camp Perry Ohio. There will be 800 to a thousand shooters this week and about 600 plus of them usually stay another full 10 days to complete the whole thing. They have several good things going for them.

The location is a constant, and like it or not, at least you know where it will be and can plan for it.

There are no "Slots" to worry about. Pay your money and take your chances against the best!

There is no prize table to speak of. The winner will not even see enough to refund the entry fees.

There is a single national championship. Pick which division you want, and shoot.

Our nationals needs to be something similar. One championship week, pick your division, and in a location that is a constant. The NRA has used Camp Perry for decades, and the local economy has grown to like the money shooters bring. That financial relationship has been fostered over time, and has resulted in capital investments in the facility that have made the championships better for the shooters. Our nationals need a similar capital investment for props and ranges, but that investment can only pay for itself over time. Hence the need for a static location.

Those who judge a match by prize table are part of the problem, not the solution, especially at the national level. Damn few of us are ever going to turn a profit by shooting, and the prize tables have spawned the sand baggers and "classifier managers." I'd make the Nationals a raffle for prizes, and a simple per stage payout designed to defray the cost of entry fees and no more.

I agree you need a more streamlined scoring system if you want a spectator friendly Nationals, but with wireless PDA's I'm sure there is a way to have data entry almost as soon as a stage is shot. Think of it, shoot the stage, the scorer simply taps the screen on the PDA and then after the shooter and RO initial it, he enters the data. It would be instant, or nearly so, as well as allowing for visual stage and or match results in real time, and that is the only way we'll ever get spectators.

Sponsors are great, but we'd be way better off having a raffle and using the sponsors donations to improve infrastructure and match gear instead of a prize table. Sponsors seem to get sucked dry, and after a while it has to be a bigger drain on them than they can support. Consider the sponsor who donates a prize gun or gear. The winner already has 3, so he sells the gun to someone for a little less than what is would go for. If I'm the sponsor I want the winner to use my gear or gun, not just sell it! I want to be able to say "Billy fastashell has\uses a super balster and you need one too" Someone with a background in marketing can chime in here...... but I see sponsors saying I've had enough.

Some of this will be hard to change, but I think If we want to grow we need to look to making this a more pure event, not a prize opportunity.

It aint Friday yet, but flame away!

Tom

[Wildman]

THS, I like the way you think on some of the issues. Competitor numbers have to increase. There is no way to make a bigger "event" without participants. The slot issue is a fundraiser, not a true capacity cap. We still seem to have open slots for Bend. There is a message here somewhere. I like the idea of constant location, hopefully centrally located, with infrastructure in-place to truly support the activity. Its not all just bays and parking. A lot of other things factor in.

Community support is important. Not only the local club or facility, but truly the community. Having the locals happy to see you year after year means a lot. I said it in another post, but the Rolla Chamber of Commerce hosting a cookout Saturday night for the COPS event is one of a kind, but needs to spread. Not tapping vendors or exhibitors for this event, but truly the local community is pretty clever.

As a "C" shooter, prizes by lottery are fine with me. Or even no prize table at all after the top 10%. Probably 85% of the shooters at most events would feel the same. Its nice to take something home occasionally to show the spouse, but its even better to have funds invested in the facility.

[shred]

FYI, the RGN prize table was top-down, so "sandbaggers" and "classifier-managers" only got a piece of wood, if anything.

I'll also disagree about time+ scoring. Hit-factors are complicated. Math is hard. But hit-factor scoring is what makes IPSC great. Different stages require different strategies and the time value of a point varies constantly based on the stage, and how you personally are shooting it. Until somebody comes up with a variable time penalty system that works, I say leave HF alone. TV spectators (which is where the $ are) aren't watching it live and can get scores plopped right on their screens.

In-person spectators don't get excited unless there's head-to-head competition, and we don't do that. Golf spectators watch their favorite players play. They don't all go running off after somebody else if they get a shot ahead of Tiger.

Until IPSC gets interesting to watch, no scoring system in the world is going to bring in spectators. Are SASS spectators really there to watch and see who is going to win?

What we need to bring people in is more like what they do-- have a "shooting festival" where the match is only part of it. Combination SHOT/Gun show, IPSC Nationals, Demo days, side matches, pony rides, cookoffs, whatever. Then you'd have something for the non-match shooters to do, and a reason for lots of vendors to attend.

Slots are a pain. $200+ entry fees are the #1 barrier to getting shooters to big matches. Where does that money go?

Prize tables are great if done properly. As in: Shooter gets something they want to check out. Sponsor gets product in front of shooters. Dollar-value is entirely secondary. Cash payback blows, IMHO.

[Carlos]

Patrick: I am w/ Kyle on this - move the nationals out of the boonies.

How about here?: http://www.tcandsc.org/ While the resident USPSA IPSC club is underdeveloped, the facility has 6 bays that will soon be 10 or more in addition to a 300 yard rifle range and about a 1/2 mile strip of trap ranges. There are camping hookups and a river suitable for small boats/trout fishing and a clubhouse with a pool.

As for the location benefits, its about 1.5 hours or less from D.C., Baltimore, and not much more to Pittsburg. Close to Baltimore/Washington International, Dulles & Reagan International Airport (so the families have something else to do including NRA Headquarters, the National Firearms Museum, and HQ range run by GM Greg Wodack). Plenty of train access too and NYC is within 4.5 hours drive.

As far as local talent, Thurmont is driving distance for GMs J.J. Racaza, Phil Strader, Todd Jarret, and Matt Trout (among others). You would also attract well known shooters like former US Army Team shooter Julie Goloski and Junior A class shooter B.J. Norris - who was mentioned on the front page of the recent Glock/GSSF report. Area 8 would clearly be a better location for the nationals.

The Thurmont location is only one example of where we -could- host the nationals if there were the motivation to move out of PASA park.

I do not buy the excuse that there simply are no other suitable clubs - or clubs that could easily be made suitable - in the entire USA. The clubs are out there. What I question is whether there is any interest within USPSA to find a better location & thus, more potential for growth of our sport.

Erik/Bear - agree 100% w/ comments on scoring & use of the classic targets. Like it or not, if we want media attention, we are inviting attack by using the current target. If we want the growth of paintball, follow their lead - they don't even call their equipment "guns", notice Gorilla called them "markers"?? I hate political correctness, but ignoring it will not make it disappear in the minds of the public. A switch to the classic targets is in order. As for scoring, the US is hooked on instant gratification & our current scoring system denies us (& the pontential new shooter) any satisfaction.

Regards, D.C. Johnson TY 44934

[Detlef]

Totally 2nd shred here: The "complicated" (yeah, right... try watching a ballroom dance or figure skating competition, you won't know who won until the very last moment, just like IPSC, yet they get plenty of media coverage, go figure...) HF scoring is not what keeps us off the air!

--Detlef

[Flexmoney]

Wow...pretty informative posts here today.

Great points made by all.

Instant scoring would be a plus. With the PDA scoring, you could have a "leader board" at each stage (that is doable). I think we could get away from having to wait an hour for the scores. The technology is here now.

On sponsors...I'd just like to add that USPSA/IPSC shooters belong to much more than one little targeted niche market. It seems to fly under the radar that we are a group with fair amounts of descretionary income and a propensity to spend that income.

[Irishlad]

I'm not sure this is a totally analagous situation, but in regards to making it more spectator friendly and/or media worthy, the shotgun sports in the Olympics had to make several changes over the years.

Not in order, but for the shoot off rounds they began to use "flash" targets.

Basically, flash targets explode in a larger orange dust cloud, instead of pieces like the regular birds. Spectators can easy see if the target is hit and you can actually see them on television. Very difficult to see the normal targets.

They also altered the program for the top 6 shooters to compete against each other, a little more excitement.

They are considering other changes to make a shooting sport more "television friendly", i.e. more human drama, more people watch and more money. It's a business, they are not striving for the 'essence' of a sport.

Shooting is not an easy sport, in this country anyway, to make sponser and media friendly. Pistol is tougher than shotgun and IPSC style even tougher.

Humanoid targets would have to be eliminated, quickly, and more 'reactive targets' would have to be used. I think that's a given!!

Then, you( or whomever) would need a real producer to make it exciting. Watching shooting is like watching paint dry.

But, if you can make bobsledding interesting to watch, just by a stop watch on the screen, a time to beat and some commentary, you could make anything exciting.

This may change the sport too much for some, but for large shoots, concessions could be made given the attempt to popularize the sport more.

This would help the "image" of the sport, if it's needed, and create some awareness at the very least.

[THS]

I think a lot of the sponsor issue comes soley from numbers. NRA Highpower has over 45,000 classified competitors. To show up in that 45k number you have to be current, having shot at least one registered tournament in the last 24 months.

Even with that number of shooters, USPSA appears to have a much larger support base from sponsors than the HP game, (hence my concern we are riding them too hard) with a much smaller population of shooters. We might have 45k total on file, but I'll bet fewer than 10% of that are active. The USPSA website shows there are 9800 classified shooters, with another 28k expired memberships. My number is 17749 and I got it in '93. Since then we are at about 46,???. In 10 years we added 19k, but where are they and the additional 10k we've lost?

Sponsors will come if they can market something to a reasonably sized base of participants, but we are losing people. Why sponsor that?

Here's an idea. I shot Skeet for a few years and when I stopped renewing my NSSA membership I got a postcard survey in the mail, pre-stamped. It was pretty simple. "You didn't renew. Please take a minute to complete the questions on this card and drop it in the mail so we can make our sport better" The questions were color the dot type multiple choice and dealt with why I'd left, and would I come back. I didn't get anything like that the first time I left USPSA in 94. Imagine what we could have learned from 28k people who decided not to renew!

All this chatter about production rules, dropping lim and or lim10, and major 9 in limited has me wondering if anyone learned anything about how unstable rules and an arms race have affected memberships. That we are not 100 percent in line with IPSC concerns me way less than the cash outlay I face if there is another arms race, and you can bet there will be if 9mm major is allowed in limited.

There is a saying in the military about (Membership) numbers. It goes something like this "It's way cheaper to keep a good (Marine) than to recruit one to fill the gap if (s)he leaves" Hence the military pays reenlistment bonuses. USPSA could apply that too: once they're here we MUST focus on retaining shooters. If they leave bitter, with a bag full of specialized gear, they wont have nice things to say either.

You want sponsors and a better nationals. Retain our shooters, market our sport as an "extreme" event, and invest in real-time scoring. I saw it during the Indy 500 with teams having PDA's the size of notebook computer screens beaming data back and forth.

Just my thoughts,

Tom

[Flexmoney]

admin note

The "prize table" posts were moved to their own thread.

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...=6&t=7378&st=0&

[davecutts]

Until IPSC gets interesting to watch, no scoring system in the world is going to bring in spectators.  Are SASS spectators really there to watch and see who is going to win?

I've yet to get to a USPSA national event, but I worked the NRA booth at last years End of Trail, and I can it is a spectacle. It is kind of tuff to watch, the range at Norco wasn't set up well to deal with spectators. You could only see maybe half the bays the way they had things roped off to keep spectators away from the competitor (or their guns, who knows). All that said the place was packed, venders, shooters, and spectators. A way cool event, but SASS has an ensconced cultural mystic about it, and they know how to play it up with entertainment, and the like it really is more of a festival. Men and boys all across the country love their cowboys.

One thing that really impressed me about those cowboys was that most made it a family affair I have never seen that many RV’s, lots of kids and female shooters. Location could help we’re in Southern California an hour from the beach and all that jazz an major airport 20 minutes away and more tourist shit that anyone needs

[Nolan]

and more tourist shit that anyone needs

Funny you should say that, considering the berms at Norco. Oh what a lovely smell shooting in the rain!

I guess that could actually be considered an extra touch of authenticity!

[sfinney]

I had a slot to the Factory gun nationals this year (that I won) and a slot to the Race Gun nationals (that I got off the waiting list).

As it turns out, I'm not going to either.

As much as I would like to go to the "Back to Back" Nationals, reality sets in -

Airfare to Bend, Oregon (nice range, but COME ON!)

Rental Car

Hotel

Food

2 Entry fees

Ammo for two matches

Over a week of vacation!!

Who can afford to take the time to shoot "Back to Back" Nationals? Or afford it?

How many days was the Paintball Nationals? I bet it wasn't over a week!

Have ONE nationals, all divisions, you pick just one, run what ya brung. Keep it four days tops. Put it near the center of the country, or failing that near a large tourist draw (beach, amusement park, etc).

Then you'll see attendance jump -

If you absolutley have to have two seperate Nationals, seperate them by a few months! Have the Factory Gun Nats in May, and the Racegun Nats in September. Now you have TWO opportunities for the Vendors to cater to two sets of customers.

To many shooting "professionals" and vendors look at the Nationals like a huge mega vacation, and want to make it as long as possible. Which leaves the core of average shooters in the dust. By the time I take off all the extra Thursdays and Fridays just to shoot an Area match or two, a couple State matches, a 3-Gun or so, my discretionary vacation is spent (as well as my shooting budget).

[j1b]

This is a great thread -

Couple of things - I've been to the Nationals where there were quite a few sponsors tents there. It was cool, it was fun, and we let them down. I know I'm biased, but I want to use Springfield Armory as an example. They pay out some bank to support these matches, yet the number of competitors using SA guns never increases. I remember several match statistics where the 2 or 3 SA guns used in the matches were Rob, Kippi, and me - um . . . the factory supported people. At what point did the shooters decide to support the sponsors? Without that support what would provoke a manufacturer to sponsor a match? I know lim-10 has changed some things - but I doubt enough to justify SA's expenditure.

In terms of location - Nationals were held regularly at Barry for some time. Granted it was a hike to get to the match - it was still regular and dependable (even through the great flood). I doubt that's the problem.

I just think we need to encourage anyone and everyone to come shoot (no slots) Factory sponsored shooters need to do more than just shoot the match (hang out, demo) the booths need to be more interactive, more family type stuff going on - it needs to be more than just one event. Make it bigger, better and take the risk of asking the shooters to enjoy themselves outside of the match. Tiger Woods could lose every tournament for the rest of the year, but he's still a draw. We need that type of effect.

The last point - this thread is going to spur some great points. Things that can and should change. It's wonderful to discuss it - but that discussion isn't worth the paper it's typed on (you got it - $.00) if noone does anything about it. Take the common theme (because we can't satisfy all) and make a change. Otherwise we're not the people who changed the sport, we're the people who didn't like what we saw but did nothing about it. The definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.

JB