# How do you feel about the NFAA Indoor 5-Sport?



## The Hood (Jul 5, 2002)

from someone who was in the #1 spot and leading at the nationals and shot a 4 when I got thinking about being the the National Champion, I like the format the way it is, you miss that far out, you don't desire to win..........


----------



## Kade (Jan 11, 2011)

No no and no. Going to that scoring will do nothing. First off on the local and state level there are only a handful of guys that are going to drop a 300 every time anyway. Last year there were 9 shooters out of about 50 FS shooters that shot a 300 both days. Someone that shoots a 300 w 50Xs does not deserve to loose to someone that shot a 299 w 51Xs. I personally would rather shoot a 299 w 58Xs then a 300 w 50-55Xs but I shouldn't beat the person with the lower X count because I had more Xs for one simple reason. I MISSED. If you miss you don't DESERVE to compete for the win in the indoor game. That's just the way it is. Besides when it really comes down to it if your dropping points your still gonna loose most times anyway ones you get out of the "local league" anyway for one reason. If you shoot a 299 58/59Xs your not going to be able to make up those points anyway because someone is going to shoot a 300 58-60Xs anyway so your still not gonna make it up.

if your shooting in the 45-55X range anyway your really not gonna have a shot at a win outside of your local league anyway at best. I know my league your score isn't going to be close to the high if your not shooting 58-60Xs.


----------



## 148p&y (Aug 8, 2005)

I wish our league would go to 360 format. I think it makes people work harder to get the x's. I like the 300 format for state. It would suck to lose state to a 299 score.


----------



## Spoon13 (Feb 20, 2007)

To me, making that change is not doing anything. Just like adding the "Pro" line in the 4 ring outside. If you are dropping points, you should beat someone who isn't. Plain and simple. 

I agree with Kade in the fact that I would rather shoot a 299 58X than a 300 50X but a 300 is still a 300 and should beat all the 299's no matter what.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

We changed out leagues to the 360 format this year. We had some of the "better shooters" crying because we had other shooters with handicaps shooting "over" 300 with their handicap added in. These top shooters were crying the blues saying..."well, if they are allowed to go over 300 points with their handicap, that means that we can't beat them." We think ALL scores should be capped at 300 points even with handicap added in." So now, after a few weeks, EVERYONE, including them will have a handicap...and can go OVER 360, haha. We've had TWO 360 rounds shot, so for a week or so....those TWO shooters will have a ZERO handicap and shoot "scratch"...hoop-dee-doo. I'll bet that they won't shoot 3 360's in a row to KEEP that zero handicap, much less 9 more in a row!

They fail to see the flip-side of the coin...IF we capped ALL scores at 300, then those top shooters would NEVER LOSE...the WORST they could EVER do is TIE. Of course, they then say, "Well TIES shouldn't happen, break the ties with x-count." Yeah right...put EVERYTHING in THEIR court so that the top shooter could NEVER LOSE....

Many top guns don't see that leagues are there to get new shooters going, to give them a fighting chance, and to watch them improve. If you cap the scores at 300 max even with handicap....then after about 3 weeks, the mold is cast...it is a GUARANTEED WIN every week for those wanting caps at 300 and ties broken with x-count.

LEAGUES ARE NOT FOR THE TOP SHOOTER....they are not designed for that.

Now, there is a "new round" out called the 420 round that scores a "7" for an inside blue dot and then 6, 5, etc. Great...FOR THE TOP ECHELON SHOOTER...but as far as changing the NFAA Nationals, or the bigger shoots to use THIS target for competitions because TOP SHOOTERS and SOME Pros are "bored" with the 300 or 360 format...Once again...it would be favoring the BEST shooters, and taking the average Joes right out of it, regardless of the division.
It would NOT be the same for everyone. It would be worse than the loss of participation when the field rounds were changed to 5.4.3 scoring years ago.

I say, leave the round alone. Heck, you only have LESS than 3% of ALL the shooters that are shooting 60X at ANY major tournament....IF you use the numbers correctly....as in take ALL of the round shot by everyone in the tournament (not just the PROS), and then divide the total number of 60X scores shot by ALL the rounds shot in the event(s). If there are 1,000 shooters at the NFAA Indoor Nationals, everyone shoots 2 full 300 rounds. That makes 2,000 rounds shot...there were, say, 11 shooters that Shot 120X's. So that makes 22 total 60X rounds shot. divide 22 by 2,000 = that is 1.1% of ALL the shooters....and somebody wants to TOUGHEN IT UP for 1.1% of the shooters???? 

Of course, they'll say, Well, 11 people out of the 75 (or whatever) in the PRO division did it...so 22 out of 150....or 14.6% of the PROS are doing it. Since when does archery start and stop with ONLY the PROS? Yeah, I know SOME of them shot 60X the first day and didn't the second, or vice versa...but you get my drift....That is apples and oranges and you must look at the TOTAL picture of ALL the competitors, IMHO before you go for "toughening things up."

You wanna change EVERYTHING for 3% or less of ALL the shooters competing? I don't think so! The MAJORITY is supposed to rule, correct? So, if some of the "hot dogs" that are "bored" with the 360 round "protest" and don't show up? Well, OTHERS will gladly fill in their slot and that makes someone else make the money, hahahahaha. Yeah, you might make the best of the best a teeney bit "happier" but what is it going to do FOR the people that pay the bills at the tournaments...you know, The Average Joes, mid-level shooters, and beginners...THEY are the backbone of the sport, NOT the "hot dogs."

A couple of the shoots with more notoriety already FILL UP completely and people are trying to be the "first to click to get the pick", anyways. Do you think that "all" of those shooting the "Championship" division really care if "top notch, No.1 ranked whomever" shows or not? NO! Cuz if "top-ranked No. 1 whomever doesn't show...that means that more than likely....everyone else moves UP one more slot on the leader board and that he/she will be replaced by another shooter anyways, hahahaha.


----------



## jbw59 (Jun 27, 2010)

I say leave it alone. I'll never be a champion shooter and it doesn't matter. I'm trying to improve all the time so I won't be discouraged. The beautiful, and difficult, part about our sport is that every arrow count's. In golf, you can hit a bad shot and recover with a long par putt or a sand save. Not the case here. If you miss, you miss and it count's and you cannot get it back. I have to disagree with the concept that the top shooters winning all the time keeps the beginners and mid level shooters from coming. I believe there are flights and divisions that keep the same level shooters shooting against one another. I like it the way it is. Just my two cents.


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

Be responsible for your own shooting or don't play the game.

The same shooters will still win.

However, there will be 300-50X shooters tied with 300-60X shooters. The 50X shooter will lose the shootoff but will be able to go home and tell his wife and kids that he ended up in a tie with Jesse (or whoever). His wife and kids will still be proud of him even if he did not win the shootoff. So, is that not a good thing?


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

Absolutely...and will keep those shooters that shoot those 50X 300's coming back to try again. This is a WIN-WIN situation for the sport, IMHO.

The 360 round does give a person that "bloops" one to TRY to pick up that 2-point boo-boo...but the chances are slim if that is the ONLY round being shot. However...if the next round is say a Vegas 330....then that 358, COULD slip into there and at least finish in the "money". If they bloop and miss only the X and shoot a 359....it is NOT over for them....cuz then they really do stand a chance of making up points on the Vegas 330 round.

However, I still feel that the target and round are just fine the way they are, and certainly don't need to be "toughened up" to stop 1% or so of the total number of shooters from shooting the elusive 60X 300. The sport is NOT about the top 1-3%....it is ALL about the other 97%.

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## The Hood (Jul 5, 2002)

LEAGUES ARE NOT FOR THE TOP SHOOTER....they are not designed for that.

ditto


----------



## X Hunter (Jan 11, 2007)

Why does everybody want to keep changing the game to make everybody a winner/feel better about themselves??? IF you cant hit the X you dont deserve to win... IMO


----------



## The Hood (Jul 5, 2002)

take me a few years to shoot a 300 and a 300 is what kept trying! took me another few years to 60x's and the 60 is what kept me trying

and I what a few years without shooting a 4 and then shot one while in the #1 hole at the nationals,,,got to love the mental game of the 300 60x game to really understand it...


----------



## ramboarhunter (Jun 5, 2006)

the best way to solve that problem is to throw out that **** 5 spot blue and white and shoot the multi colored Vegas spot.


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

The Hood said:


> take me a few years to shoot a 300 and a 300 is what kept trying! took me another few years to 60x's and the 60 is what kept me trying
> 
> and I what a few years without shooting a 4 and then shot one while in the #1 hole at the nationals,,,got to love the mental game of the 300 60x game to really understand it...



And the following FACTS that "some" of the big guns won't, don't, and do not want to understand:

1. There are those that haven't been beat; there are those that have been beat. EVERYONE (including the one you look at in the mirror every day) ends up in that second category sooner or later....MOST sooner rather than later.

2. There are those that haven't missed an X or a bullseye, and there are those that HAVE misssed X's and bullseyes. EVERYONE (in spite of what some people think of themselves) ends up in the second category sooner or later. MOST sooner rather than later.

3. There are those that are due for a "miss" and there are those that are OVERDUE for a miss...it is inevitable; get used to the idea. NOBODY averages 60X's for long...sooner or later you miss an X; plain and simple and FACT

4. SOME top shooters seem to think that if a person shooting at a combo shoot of 360 and 330 rounds....shoots a 359 on the 360 round that they shouldn't be able to "come back" with shooting well and picking up points on the 330 round the next day. SOME of those want to CHANGE the 360 to a 420, thinking that this somehow precludes anyone from "coming back" the second day? They don't realize that the 360/330 tournaments were designed around the very concept that one or two misses out of the X, or even a miss into the 4-ring doesn't necessarily put you out of contention. You will have to "suck it up buttercup" on the 330 round and DO NOT MISS...or only miss one or two...and you are right back into the game...and could make the shootoff! Nothing wrong with that. Keeps people coming back.

Is there something wrong with a person shooting a 359 on Saturday coming back with a 329 on Sunday for the WIN? Is there something wrong with somebody shooting 359 on Saturday, shooting a 328 on Sunday and ending up in the 7-way tie for the Championship? I sure don't think so! The other 360 shooters just didn't "suck it up buttercup" well enough, and left room for this person to shoot better and pick up the point. Who's fault is THAT? hehehehe. So what if the 359 shooter's "miss" was a tweener that on the "330 round" wouldn't have made a "10"...that was YESTERDAY, it is HISTORY...and today, on the 330 round, he dun OUTSHOT YOU to make the tie!

field14 (Tom D.) 

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## frank_jones (Mar 2, 2006)

*change?*



X Hunter said:


> Why does everybody want to keep changing the game to make everybody a winner/feel better about themselves??? IF you cant hit the X you dont deserve to win... IMO


brad, don't you know that in school sports the students are being awarded as participates. how dare that winners and losers be separated. a situation like that will hurt someones feelings!


----------



## FS560 (May 22, 2002)

X Hunter said:


> Why does everybody want to keep changing the game to make everybody a winner/feel better about themselves??? IF you cant hit the X you dont deserve to win... IMO


If the game were based upon your premise, it would be a very small sport. We have to make room for the dedicated shooters who cannot hit the X every time.

I used to think like you when I was younger but now am aware of the needs of a broader spectrum of the shooting population.

At the end of the shoot, the better shooters will still win.


----------



## Kade (Jan 11, 2011)

ramboarhunter said:


> the best way to solve that problem is to throw out that **** 5 spot blue and white and shoot the multi colored Vegas spot.


No it isn't. You will still have the same issue. The scores will just be different. Those 55X+ shooters are still going to be the ones shooting the high scores. The people that just shoot an occasional 300 or 300s with lower X counts are still going to struggle and not shoot 300s on the 3 spot face. The 10 ring is the same size as the 5 spot X ring and most people will tell you that they have an easier time shooting that blue one. That yellow face is VERY unforgiving.


----------



## red1691 (Jun 8, 2007)

Maybe I did not say it right, What it comes down to (for me) is I do not enjoy shooting an indoor round because of that One Arrow thing! Now as far as Field, 900, International Rounds, they are a lot more Relaxing and Fun to Shoot because there, that One Arrow will not effect you like it will in Indoor! Or at lest that is how I think of it! Guess I'm just not mentally good enough for indoor.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

FS560 said:


> Be responsible for your own shooting or don't play the game.
> 
> The same shooters will still win.
> 
> However, there will be 300-50X shooters tied with 300-60X shooters. The 50X shooter will lose the shootoff but will be able to go home and tell his wife and kids that he ended up in a tie with Jesse (or whoever). His wife and kids will still be proud of him even if he did not win the shootoff. So, is that not a good thing?


Same rational when we went from the 5-3 . I still feel it killed attendance.


----------



## nock tune (Jul 5, 2009)

I don't think it matters making the X a point for indoor shoots, maybe counting inside out hits as a point would be interesting!
But I do think they should count the X as a point for outdoor shoots in all classes, now that will make a difference.
Instead of counting X's at multiple shooting sight just make it a point.
The better shooters will still score higher, but this way you can make up a bad shot and feel better about shooting the wrong target or not setting your sight to the proper distance!
This way you can make up a few points by shooting more in the middle than your competition.
Beside the NAA went to this scoring on there Fita Field round, and I think it works well. You'll see it in Yanton if you go.


----------



## hoytgirl00 (Jan 23, 2008)

we have our open shoots as a 360 round,i dont like it at all.i think a natural 300 should beat a 299...if i dont shoot a 300 and a high X count i shouldnt win.its my fault for not hitting them.our indoor league uses 300 round and no X's counted for points.i personally like it that way.my 2 cents


----------



## Fleahop (Feb 7, 2009)

I just wish we had indoor shoots in south alabama! That being said i think they are 2 different games but the NFAA indoor nationals should stay the 300-60X game.Just like Vegas is a 300 30X game different face. I am not a 60 X shooter but I want to be and I am working to get there.

I vote leave it alone.


----------



## mdbowhunter (Oct 22, 2002)

If you change the rules to satisfy the top shooters...eventually you will *ONLY* have the top shooters around.

IMHO that cuts out the little guy or gal...and for the sport to survive you need them most of all.


----------



## DFA (Dec 30, 2002)

I agree with britesite and Field14.
There is absolutely no need for a 360 or any other number round. I don't see a value in changing the scoring. If you miss well you missed. It just takes makes it harder for the average individuals. If you change the rules to satisfy the top shooters...eventually you will ONLY have the top shooters around.

I believe a 299 with 59Xs does not beat a 300 no matter what the X count is !!! 
DFA


----------



## pipeliner8 (Feb 22, 2010)

if you make a bad shoot on a deer, he is not going to fall dead because you made the last 59 shots good. leave it alone.


----------



## archerycharlie (Nov 4, 2002)

DFA said:


> I agree with britesite and Field14.
> There is absolutely no need for a 360 or any other number round. I don't see a value in changing the scoring. If you miss well you missed. It just takes makes it harder for the average individuals. If you change the rules to satisfy the top shooters...eventually you will ONLY have the top shooters around.
> 
> I believe a 299 with 59Xs does not beat a 300 no matter what the X count is !!!
> DFA


Ditto X 2


----------



## archerm3 (Jan 4, 2007)

Fleahop said:


> I *just wish we had indoor shoots in south alabama*! That being said i think they are 2 different games but the NFAA indoor nationals should stay the 300-60X game.Just like Vegas is a 300 30X game different face. I am not a 60 X shooter but I want to be and I am working to get there.
> 
> I vote leave it alone.


Call up White Oak Archery and tell James that!


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

There are those out there wanting to change away from even the 360 scoring on the Blue face by use of the 420 scoring round and target. Their justification is that the "PROS" are "bored" with the easy 300/360 NFAA target and want something more challenging to shoot? They also claim that the scores of the PROS need to be higher than those of the "average joes", so to get that separation, the 420 target is essential.

I've also fielded questions about making the Vegas target "more challenging" for the PROS...as if there are so many 30X rounds shot. These people figure that 14 people in the Championship shooting perfect 900's and into the 80's on X-counts make is essential to toughen up the round to prevent this.

Again, what these people don't consider is PERCENTAGES of those "perfect scores" when calculated out versus the total number of rounds shot at any tournament, regardless of whether or not it is 300 NFAA, 360 NFAA, or the Vegas rounds. The percentages of perfect scores is still way too low to even fathom a target or scoring change. It would take the life-blood of archery tournaments right down and out. That life-blood being the average joes that pay the bills and by far out number the PROS or the top echelon shooters.
Make the rounds tougher and all you'll have left is the top echelon shooters, and instead of 1,500 at Vegas, you might have 200, because even the top echelon shooters will drop out of it if it becomes next to impossible to score well unless you have the talent, time to practice, and backing of the best coaches on the planet.
Just my opinion, but over the years, every time a change in scoring or an attempt has been made to toughen up the scoring or change the target to something smaller...the ONLY ones benefiting are the hot dogs...and said change has become a disaster for the progress of tournament archery.
field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## DFA (Dec 30, 2002)

Well said............I agree 100%
DFA


----------



## blueglide1 (Jun 29, 2006)

I am leaning toward the traditional 300 round.If push comes to shove and too many are tied then thats what shoot offs are for.Two scoring ends then inside out arrow for arrow till broken.


----------



## 1stRockinArcher (Dec 30, 2002)

I know a Pro that came in 2nd to a "Joe" because he didn't score an arrow, his release went off, the "Joe" didn't shoot a 300, but he still finished 1st, didn't have as many X's as the Pro either.
This Pro was not upset by it, and actually laughed about it, but you know the "Joe" was on cloud 9. He can honestly say that he beat a Pro, whether anyone believes him or not !!!
I was there and saw it happen, and I am not the Pro or the Joe !!

So no I don't think it needs to change, leave it alone.


----------



## 1stRockinArcher (Dec 30, 2002)

blueglide1 said:


> I am leaning toward the traditional 300 round.If push comes to shove and too many are tied then thats what shoot offs are for.Two scoring ends then inside out arrow for arrow till broken.


At the Indoor Sectionals, if they are multi site, Inside out X's are counted as secondary tie breakers, because you can't have a shoot off when tournaments are on different days and in different locations.


----------



## r49740 (Dec 7, 2006)

This was presented in for our league as well. Maybe I'm thinking wrong about it, and if so I'm sure I'll be corrected. But how does doing that scoring help the lower score shooters? 

The guy that presented this to our league shoots an average of about 295-35x(somewhere in that ball park anyways). I have been averaging 300-57. So assuming my math is correct, he loses by 5 points. If he shoots great and gets the 300, or if I shoot lower than average for a 295, we tie, and then I win by x count. His incentive is to shoot better and get more x's, and my incentive is to work on my mental game to keep a 300 and pick up the other 3 xs. 

Change the scoring. His score is 330. Mine is 357. He loses by 27 points. I know that averages are the mode of all the scores shot, but to think that we will each have a 16 point swing(or score differently on 50% of our shots) at the same shoot on the same day seems a little off. So instead of losing by 5 or needing to make just 5 more good shots, or hope I make 5 worse shots, he now needs to shoot 27 more good shots or hope I make 27 more bad shots. 

Seems to me that the better shooters benefit and the lower shoots get hit harder. This would probably help the mid range score shooters some in a 1 or 2 day tournament, but other than that, to me anyways, it just creates bigger gaps in score.


----------



## blueglide1 (Jun 29, 2006)

1stRockinArcher said:


> At the Indoor Sectionals, if they are multi site, Inside out X's are counted as secondary tie breakers, because you can't have a shoot off when tournaments are on different days and in different locations.


This is the only shoot that this happens in,thats why me and number of other pros would rather go back to the way it was.Half the fun was shooting against your peers with the added pressure.The multiple venues suck.Bring it back to one place again.And then the shoot offs will happen again,its more fun for the spectators also.I would feel more satisfied beating someone right next to me than three hundred miles away.


----------



## Monster X (Oct 19, 2010)

I think it needs to be left alone. The more that changes, the more that get screwed up.


----------



## brtesite (May 24, 2002)

blueglide1 said:


> This is the only shoot that this happens in,thats why me and number of other pros would rather go back to the way it was.Half the fun was shooting against your peers with the added pressure.The multiple venues suck.Bring it back to one place again.And then the shoot offs will happen again,its more fun for the spectators also.I would feel more satisfied beating someone right next to me than three hundred miles away.


 I'm with you. I would only have to tally up 75 shooters instead of the 400+ we usually get . Look at how much money we could save on trophies , targets, & score cards. You would know instantly who won because you just beat him , isn't that better than having to wait a couple of days to find out . Why give 400 + shooters a place to participate in a sectional when we can have a nice cozy intimate place to shoot. 
Of course there is no guarantee that you would beat some one there or 300 miles away


----------



## bowhunter_va_28 (Apr 28, 2003)

brtesite said:


> I'm with you. I would only have to tally up 75 shooters instead of the 400+ we usually get . Look at how much money we could save on trophies , targets, & score cards. You would know instantly who won because you just beat him , isn't that better than having to wait a couple of days to find out . Why give 400 + shooters a place to participate in a sectional when we can have a nice cozy intimate place to shoot.
> Of course there is no guarantee that you would beat some one there or 300 miles away



I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, without smileys.

Why not run the Nationals the same way as the sectionals? Mutiple locations so more shooters can shoot the "Nationals" at their "home" range where they are comfortable with little or no added pressure. The increase in attendance could boost the NFAA cash flow to new levels. If you could go from 75 to 400 for Sectionals, imagine the possibilities for National attendance. Then there will be plenty of money to spend on promoting the sport (does that happen?) to draw even more folks to the 2012 NFAA/YOUR STATE ORG HERE/REGIONAL/NATIONAL Indoor tournament, held at a location near you. That would look good in lights.

Horse tracks should use this method too. Races at 8 different locations with anywhere from 1-12 horses. Gather the times from each location and determine the winner. That would really be exciting and prove which horse was better. I can already see how sought after this new horse racing award would be.


----------



## sweet old bill (Apr 21, 2003)

frank_jones said:


> brad, don't you know that in school sports the students are being awarded as participates. how dare that winners and losers be separated. a situation like that will hurt someones feelings!


From a x cub run manassas archer 

Keep it the way it is, I still am striving to be better each year and being a old fart 70, this is not hard to do. That what killed off the NFAA, lets keep adding type of archers FS, BHFS, women, men, I just wish they would put us all togethers and let the best person win. if a women beat me so be it...


----------



## field14 (May 21, 2002)

sweet old bill said:


> From a x cub run manassas archer
> 
> Keep it the way it is, I still am striving to be better each year and being a old fart 70, this is not hard to do. That what killed off the NFAA, lets keep adding type of archers FS, BHFS, women, men, I just wish they would put us all togethers and let the best person win. if a women beat me so be it...



Yeah....let's add more divisions, and high on MY priority list is the creation of the new SENIOR CUBS division...for those over age 60; they move back up to 10 yards. My wife constantly accuses me of being into my 2nd childhood...so why not move back up to the shorter distances for people over 60? SENIOR CUB is for ME! hahahahahaha.

Yep, put the ladies right in with the men....no problem....a score is a score...a 280 is a 280 regardless of which equipment it was shot with. As long as it is shot from the SAME DISTANCE, then we really do NOT need all those separate classes and divisions, IMHO. Besides, many of us, when we age, are accused of "shooting like a girl", so getting beat by a girl should quickly follow along, and I don't have a problem with it at all (seriously).

I even think that if/when you are beat by a 'girl', that at the next tournament you should have to paint a fingernail with red nail polish...and each time you are beaten by a girl, you add another finger nail that has nail polish on it, and then go to your toes. Then, when you have cycled through 20 losses to girls....you have to wear an ear ring, and start the process of painting fingernails over again, only this time with PINK nail polish. The 3rd cycle through, you put one bow in your hair...or if you are bald, you have a fake tatoo of a bow air brushe on your "dome". What the heck, hahahahaha

field14 (Tom D.)


----------



## njshadowwalker (Aug 14, 2004)

Wow. A ton of debate here. Just leave it alone. The target is twenty yards away. And shooting "just" a 300 is not very difficult for the majority of those who actually travel and attend the shoots. If you can't keep 60 arrows a day for two days into that monstrosity of a "5" ring you don't deserve the win. A 300 with 1x should beat a 299 with 59x all day long. Yes, its great that you shot 59 x's.....but why couldn't arrow number 60 just stay in the white? Your obviously the better shooter, just not when the pressure of shot number 60 got to you.

Tooo many guys trying to "even" it out. If you wanna shoot with the big boys, then put the time in. If not, just go out like most of us do and HAVE A GOOD TIME.


----------



## sharkred7 (Jul 19, 2005)

In most divisions at State/Natl level the X already counts as a point (in a way) because it takes a 600 to win and X's separate the cream. That said I think it should stay the same. I enjoy the 360/330 formats Like IA and Pressleys as a Novelty change of pace. 

Leagues are NOT designed for the top shooters, handicapping (as was stated before) handicaps the top shooters but makes it more enjoyable for the majority participating. If you need to win you league to 'validate' your top dog status maybe you should revisit why you are shooting. People know who the best shooters are, let them feel like they can compete with them, keep more people in the sport.

Look how many "Big" names missed the Vegas shootoff or last years Nats. The game is hard enough.

My .02


----------



## super* (Jan 26, 2008)

just fine the way it is because its to the point where you just cant have the 300 you need the 60xs to win so whats the difference to changing it to 360


----------

