# 2011 National Indoor Championships and JOAD National Indoor Championships



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

2011 National Indoor Championships and JOAD National Indoor Championships Announced - USA Archery August 24, 2010 
http://usarchery.org/news/2010/08/2...national-indoor-championships-announced/38201


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Wow. Very few venues compared to last year, or is it my imagination? 

Last year MSU was so full that some unfortunate times had to shoot 3 lines. Talk about a long day. I hope there will be additional venues coming on line.


----------



## Paula (Sep 8, 2009)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Wow. Very few venues compared to last year, or is it my imagination?
> 
> Last year MSU was so full that some unfortunate times had to shoot 3 lines. Talk about a long day. I hope there will be additional venues coming on line.


I am hoping that MSU decides to use a differant venue at the school.Doing it like they did last year tried peoples' patience and I would hope that they try not to do it that way again.The facility is wonderful but not able to handle that many people.I know someone will come up with a decent solution.There is time right now to do that,,,,:thumbs_up Paula


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Wow. Very few venues compared to last year, or is it my imagination?
> 
> Last year MSU was so full that some unfortunate times had to shoot 3 lines. Talk about a long day. I hope there will be additional venues coming on line.


I suggest that a lack of venues is not the issue, but instead a lack of trained judges for indoors that:
1.	Have taken a recent judges seminar
2.	Responded to the USAA judge case studies
3.	Are up to date with the FITA rules
4.	Understand multi target face scoring 
5.	Know JOAD Bowman and Cub target faces and 10 ring scoring 
6.	Have experience with appeals. 
We need more trained judges that can work events. Ideally, tournament judge would not simply be whomever volunteers but instead selected based on knowledge, skill, experience and competency.
USAA Indoors also has a variety of traditional bows that require special knowledge.
When there are three or four shooting session per day, there needs to be relief judges so that judges can take a break. 

My hope is that more become competent active judges so that we can host more archers. What do we need to encourage people to be qualified tournament judges?


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Paula said:


> I am hoping that MSU decides to use a differant venue at the school.Doing it like they did last year tried peoples' patience and I would hope that they try not to do it that way again.The facility is wonderful but not able to handle that many people.I know someone will come up with a decent solution.There is time right now to do that,,,,:thumbs_up Paula


Hi Paula, 
Could you elaborate on how the facility was not able to handle that many people.
Archer/spectator seating? 80cm shooting line space per archer? Bow stands? A/C? Other?


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

Not much room for the archers put their bows between ends, very little room to do the line change in the (to be enforced this year) stupid 10 second rule. No real room for parents and spectators. Poor lighting and a terrible back light by the setting sun in the afternoon through the windows, that gave some scope shooters fits.


----------



## scriv (Jan 31, 2008)

*Msu*

I heard no complaints from the archers we sent concerning range conditions. As a spectator/support person I felt it was much more enjoyable than the IM building that was used previously. I thought the folks at MSU did a wonderful job and made for an enjoyable weekend. The lighting for the archers was terrible in the IM building.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Under the circumstances Norm did a great job. The place was just too small for the number of registered shooters. Three lines was brutal!


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

NORTH - March 4-6, 2011
East Lansing, MI – MSU Archery Club (North)
Wichita, KS – Wichita Shooting Stars (North)

EAST - February 25-27, 2011
Andover, MA – State Archery Assn. of MA (East)

EAST - March 11-13, 2011
Harrisonburg, VA – Shenandoah Valley Archers (East)

SOUTH - February 25-27, 2011
Conyers, GA – Georgia Archery Assn. (South)
Edmond, OK – UCO Sports & Recreation (South)

SOUTH - March 4-6, 2011
College Station, TX – Texas A&M University Archery Club (South)

WEST - February 25-27, 2011
Tulare, CA – Tulare Target Archers (West)
Rio Rancho, NM – New Mexico Roadrunners JOAD (West)

Western folks, mark your calendar for February 25-27, 2011. Northern folks, March 4-6, 2011
This is one of the best values for JOAD family. By making one trip and taking part in two championship tourneys.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

SBills said:


> Not much room for the archers put their bows between ends, very little room to do the line change in the (to be enforced this year) stupid 10 second rule. No real room for parents and spectators. Poor lighting and a terrible back light by the setting sun in the afternoon through the windows, that gave some scope shooters fits.


Are there any links to photo galleries of last years tournament? I would love to see what the physical layout was.


----------



## SBills (Jan 14, 2004)

This album shows pictures from this March.

http://tradtalk.com/forums/album.php?albumid=89

Contrast with these pics from the previous years venue attached.

Nearly every archery I have spoken to thought this years venue was not as good as the previous one. One local archer that attends MSU said he would shoot at another venue this year if it was back at the Demmer center. 

I am not trying to complain I know these things are done by volunteers and they make the best out of what they have. And all told I am attending agin wherever it is. But if somebody asks what was less than great or could be improved I will try to help.

I heard (I was not there) that the Friday JOAD was a marathon. I know from a few compound shooters that shot Saturday afternoon that the setting sun was a big distraction coming through the windows at their back and glaring off their scopes. I think shades for those windows might be a must. But that will block the spectator views. I know of another archer who found the score clocks (seen in the picture) glaring off of their arrows some what distracting. 

I shoot barebow, no stabs, scopes etc. So if I notice it is a tad cramped well...... 

I took note of the change of line score clock and did not notice one time when all archers had changed in less than 15 seconds.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 19, 2006)

It's very disapointing that SLC didn't receive their bid...I wonder why the south region has 3 venues, while the west has 2...and I know Tulare in recent years has actually closed the doors (ie, turned people away) because of the numbers they have...and it's a fairly large building. Larry and Randy have always done a great job with the SLC venue and to say this is annoying is an understatement to say the least.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Wow. Very few venues compared to last year, or is it my imagination?
> 
> Last year MSU was so full that some unfortunate times had to shoot 3 lines. Talk about a long day. I hope there will be additional venues coming on line.


true-it didn't help squid's score that it tool 5 hours to shoot 60 arrows and his last 20 arrows were shot at a time he is always in bed.

sadly this tournament is a mail in and you cannot really compare scores from other venues that didn't have such issues


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

SBills said:


> This album shows pictures from this March.
> 
> http://tradtalk.com/forums/album.php?albumid=89
> 
> ...


 there is no way that the new center can accommodate all the north shooters especially if the ONLY OTHER venue is Kansas. IT is a huge handicap to our JOAD kids to have to shoot three lines while kids in Tulare or Andover do not
for last year, Cincinnati put a bid in and we were denied so we ended up with the overcrowding at DC. Its not norm's fault, he expected to get the turf arena

but the MSU generally is one of the top 2-3 venues and without wisconsin it's going to be a nightmare


----------



## Paula (Sep 8, 2009)

Jim C said:


> there is no way that the new center can accommodate all the north shooters especially if the ONLY OTHER venue is Kansas. IT is a huge handicap to our JOAD kids to have to shoot three lines while kids in Tulare or Andover do not
> for last year, Cincinnati put a bid in and we were denied so we ended up with the overcrowding at DC. Its not norm's fault, he expected to get the turf arena
> 
> but the MSU generally is one of the top 2-3 venues and without wisconsin it's going to be a nightmare


Why was Cincinnatti denied? I agree that it is not Norm's fault.If they remain at the new center than perhaps they should think about keeping it going 24 hours a day. They almost did that last year as it was. Could it be run over two weekends so that the load could be spread out?:thumbs_up Paula


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Paula said:


> Why was Cincinnatti denied? I agree that it is not Norm's fault.If they remain at the new center than perhaps they should think about keeping it going 24 hours a day. They almost did that last year as it was. Could it be run over two weekends so that the load could be spread out?:thumbs_up Paula


the north is normally the most populous 

I have no idea but given the second venue is far from 90% of the archers and since ROCHESTER-which took some of the NE Ohio and most of the NW PA archers is not in the mix Lansing is going to be the closest venue for the huge archery states of Ohio, Illinois (chicago area) Wisconsin, Michigan and the western side of PA as well as Indiana.

the ATA did a study and it determined that holding its show in the triangle between Indy, Columbus and Lexington was the best possible area since more than 60% of the archery dealers lived within a days drive of that triangle


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

I see the biggest problem as attendance. I ran an indoor last year, and ended up in debt. You can't pay for a venue with no attendance - point blank. I went from a place that could hold 30 or more targets to a place that would hold 6, and I only filled one line. I was forced to break a contract for the first venue, and still hang my head over it. Why didn't I do it again? Because I'm not in this to loose money or dignaty. I hope I never have to do buisness with the local fairgrounds again, because I bet they won't forget. WI was low attendance too.....I could only guess they didn't do it for the same reason. If you don't come, we won't offer. That's how it goes.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Huntmaster said:


> I see the biggest problem as attendance. I ran an indoor last year, and ended up in debt. You can't pay for a venue with no attendance - point blank. I went from a place that could hold 30 or more targets to a place that would hold 6, and I only filled one line. I was forced to break a contract for the first venue, and still hang my head over it. Why didn't I do it again? Because I'm not in this to loose money or dignaty. I hope I never have to do buisness with the local fairgrounds again, because I bet they won't forget. WI was low attendance too.....I could only guess they didn't do it for the same reason. If you don't come, we won't offer. That's how it goes.


Scott-I have been active in the North Region for about 15 years now. The vast majority of active tournament archers in the region come from the Michigan, Ohio and Chicago area-especially in terms of youth. Ohio sent the most kids from the North region to the Oklahoma JOAD tournament and at the recent North REgional in NW Indiana, it was Ohio and Michigan with the most.
The most active college clubs in the North are Purdue, CWRU, Ohio State and they all go to MIchigan.

I don't know what the solution is but MIchigan cannot accommodate all the people who went there last year and driving 10 hours to Des Moines works for JOAD nationals but not an indoor for most people in my neck of the woods

The area where you operate just isn't an area that has lots of archers.


----------



## CHPro (May 21, 2002)

Just an fyi, WI pulled in close to 50 archers at our venue last year including several again from the MN area. No where near close to the 100 we ran through the first year.....back when the shooting fees were about 1/2 what they are now . Anyhow, even though the attendance was less than stellar, WI did put in a bid again to host one of the 2011 venues for the Northern Region. Bid was rejected, explanation given was an intent to cut back on the number of sites per Region.

Just wanted to let you know that WI did try, we just weren't wanted this year . I hope/trust that Lansing will secure someplace larger this year because there are a few of us in WI who will be needing someplace to shoot next year and Wichita is too far away. Unfortunately betting the MN contingent that has been attending WI may not be heading to either site....NAA's loss I guess?

>>-------->


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

CHPro said:


> Just an fyi, WI pulled in close to 50 archers at our venue last year including several again from the MN area. No where near close to the 100 we ran through the first year.....back when the shooting fees were about 1/2 what they are now . Anyhow, even though the attendance was less than stellar, WI did put in a bid again to host one of the 2011 venues for the Northern Region. Bid was rejected, explanation given was an intent to cut back on the number of sites per Region.
> 
> Just wanted to let you know that WI did try, we just weren't wanted this year . I hope/trust that Lansing will secure someplace larger this year because there are a few of us in WI who will be needing someplace to shoot next year and Wichita is too far away. Unfortunately betting the MN contingent that has been attending WI may not be heading to either site....NAA's loss I guess?
> 
> >>-------->



amazing. we are expanding USAT shoots to areas in the middle of nowhere forcing Juniors who want to make the team to attend several more shoots at rather high expense yet we are cutting back on the indoor.

No way can that Center at MSU accommodate 50 more archers unless they start having lines at 8AM Friday Morning through 8 PM Sunday Night


----------



## Kungur (May 3, 2009)

Can an Ohio resident go to the one in Virginia?


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Kungur said:


> Can an Ohio resident go to the one in Virginia?


yeah but that is 4 hours more driving for you
some of my kids went there due to date=conflicts with MSU-its a good 6 hour drive/. Same with Georgia 

I sure Hope Norm gets the Turf arena-I was at teh D Center last year and three lines SUCK


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

SBills said:


> This album shows pictures from this March.
> 
> http://tradtalk.com/forums/album.php?albumid=89
> 
> ...


Scott Bills 
Wow, the photos on Tradtalk look like the place is great. Nice looking targets, bright, digital timers, bow stands. No picture of the seating area to comment on. 

That having been said, I think the USAA Indoor Nationals should look like a major event with lots of archers and lots of targets. This is what the Rio Rancho indoors looked like in 2007 http://www.azjoad.com/2007/2007_naa_indoor_photos.htm The problem was as Scott Leek noted, a lack of attendance. The arena could have handled double the number of archers.

For those thinking that a hockey rink is ideal, it is! The border glass can be replaced with plywood. The team box makes a great bow case and set up area. The spectator seating over the heads of the archers makes for great viewing. Having food concession stands is really nice. The PA system was awesome. The radius corner of the rink provide ample space for the DOS area. As a multipurpose performance space the house can focus lights on the targets if needed.

The best thing about the Santa Ana Star Center was that the JOADs, parents and coaches got a sense of how big target archery is in the rest of the world. It gave a sense that this archery thing is serious fun…


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

The problem is Bob is that some regions like ours in the North have varying densities of archers. The triangle between Chicago, Cincinnati and Mid Michigan is where most of the archers are concentrated. Michigan and Ohio archers make of the vast majority of the North Region youth who travel to the big national tournaments. Indeed, at the North Region, Michiigan and Ohio had more youth archers than the rest of the entire region. I think the same is true at JOAD nationals and at the USNTC. So we have one venue that is stuffed to the gills and Scott's venue which is at a sparsely populated part of the region (in terms of archers) that is subjected to low turnout. the venue with the second most attendees was denied a bid this year. Just as Cincinnati was denied a bid last year even though we would have had most of the Ohio archers, some of the East archers from western PA, some of the south archers from KY and most of those from Indy and SW Indiana.

ALmost everyone who shot at Wisconsin last year will be closer to Michigan than to Kansas which is at the very western region of the north and far away from the main population center of archers in our region. Since MSU could not properly accommodate all of those who shot there last year, the situation will only get worse unless MSU accommodates Norm's request to use the much larger Turf Arena (site of the tournament for over a decade) which can handle at least 100 archers a line rather than less than 60.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Jim C said:


> The problem is Bob is that some regions like ours in the North have varying densities of archers. The triangle between Chicago, Cincinnati and Mid Michigan is where most of the archers are concentrated. Michigan and Ohio archers make of the vast majority of the North Region youth who travel to the big national tournaments. Indeed, at the North Region, Michiigan and Ohio had more youth archers than the rest of the entire region. I think the same is true at JOAD nationals and at the USNTC. So we have one venue that is stuffed to the gills and Scott's venue which is at a sparsely populated part of the region (in terms of archers) that is subjected to low turnout. the venue with the second most attendees was denied a bid this year. Just as Cincinnati was denied a bid last year even though we would have had most of the Ohio archers, some of the East archers from western PA, some of the south archers from KY and most of those from Indy and SW Indiana.
> 
> ALmost everyone who shot at Wisconsin last year will be closer to Michigan than to Kansas which is at the very western region of the north and far away from the main population center of archers in our region. Since MSU could not properly accommodate all of those who shot there last year, the situation will only get worse unless MSU accommodates Norm's request to use the much larger Turf Arena (site of the tournament for over a decade) which can handle at least 100 archers a line rather than less than 60.


My head is spinning. I think that there are three factors: Appropriate venue, capable staff and archers that want to take part. All three need to come together but they rarely do. Opps there is a fourth item...$$$. The tourney that has it all is Vegas.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Serious Fun said:


> My head is spinning. I think that there are three factors: Appropriate venue, capable staff and archers that want to take part. All three need to come together but they rarely do. Opps there is a fourth item...$$$. The tourney that has it all is Vegas.


you missed one - appropriate dispersion of tournament sites


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Huntmaster said:


> you missed one - appropriate dispersion of tournament sites


bingo


----------



## swbuckmaster (Dec 20, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> it's very disapointing that slc didn't receive their bid...i wonder why the south region has 3 venues, while the west has 2...and i know tulare in recent years has actually closed the doors (ie, turned people away) because of the numbers they have...and it's a fairly large building. Larry and randy have always done a great job with the slc venue and to say this is annoying is an understatement to say the least.


+100


----------



## bowgal (Jun 12, 2003)

Gee, I thought we were trying to encourage archery participation?? Whats up with the fewer sites??? 


FWIW.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

On one hand, the indoor national championship could be open to any range that registers and conducts a 18 meter event any time in February without limitation on officials, type of targets, etc.
On the other hand, the Indoor national championship could be one single event at a single location like the WAF Las Vegas with all shooting under the same condition, with the same officials and the same process.

If indoors becomes more important, I could see where the indoor national championship would be a two step process. First a qualification process where the archers take part in regional events. Then the top 8 or 16 finishers in the combined qualifying tourney result would meet in one location and compete head to head for the title of indoor national championship.

The current system is a compromise. It attempts to provide a uniform high quality of indoor national championship venue, officials and process by staff that seek to achieve common high level of USAA event quality. The best way to be able to manage quality is to limit the number of opportunities for variation. 

I think the key to success is to have officials and tournament hosts that have the knowledge, desire and are trained to execute events in a like, high quality way. An example is the USAA result team that took part in the outdoor USAT tourneys this year. We need the same type of support for judges so that there are enough well trained USAA judges to go around. Top flight officials should be a requisite for a national championship!


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

based on participation Bob, Indoor nationals is the most important tournament to the majority of NAA members. It is the national tournament most likely to be attended by JOADs. Rather than expanding the number of USAT shoots to areas that have almost no NAA members and causing those who want to make Jr USAT or sr USAT to have to attend 6-8 events to stay competitive, why not have more Indoor locations which is a true national championship. 

lack of judges is not the issue. As Scott noted, its the proper disbursement of venues.

forcing 80% of the North Region to use a l ocation that was too small last year is not sound thinking


----------



## LoneBear (Feb 6, 2008)

*Pics - 2010 Indoor Nationals at UCO Edmond OK*



Serious Fun said:


> Are there any links to photo galleries of last years tournament? I would love to see what the physical layout was.


http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1164707


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Another option would be to have every state conduct its state indoor championship as a FITA star in January to act as a Indoor National Championship qualifier. Then have the top scorers meet at one venue and compete in February. In other words there are many options. No option is the correct option, the decision is a subjective one.

Has anyone found out what Michigan is planning for a venue? 

I heard that NM is working hard to plan a stellar event in anticipation that flying to Albuquerque is affordable and convenient and is the most accessible western region venue.

I understand that the USAA annual meeting information indicated that the leadership has heard from membership that four outdoor USAT events was too few so the leadership doubled the number and went to eight. Then they heard from membership that eight was to many so will the number be six in 2011? It is great to see the USAA be proactive.

Overall, the USAA BOD and leaderships actions in response to member input is wonderful. What a representative form of leadership should be. 

Those that would like to help the USAA serve the membership and be the best it can be should consider volunteering for task forces, committee and eventually BOD candidacy. Right now the USAA seeks applicants for East and South national JOAD committee members


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 19, 2006)

On the subject of USAT events...where is the information on the world team trials for next year? Anyone know anything about this?

If they are cutting the events back down, that was fast...you'd think there'd be a few years to test it out. I hope the Nor'easter retains its USAT status, the event was well run.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> On the subject of USAT events...where is the information on the world team trials for next year? Anyone know anything about this?
> 
> If they are cutting the events back down, that was fast...you'd think there'd be a few years to test it out. I hope the Nor'easter retains its USAT status, the event was well run.


the main issue is with weighting Dakota. For example at one shoot there was only ONE Junior. Does a kid who comes in say second out of three participants in a lightly attended JR USAT shoot merit selection on USAT ahead of a boy who finishes 5th out of 60 at the Indoor or 4th out of 40 at the National Target Championships?


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Jim C said:


> the main issue is with weighting Dakota. For example at one shoot there was only ONE Junior. Does a kid who comes in say second out of three participants in a lightly attended JR USAT shoot merit selection on USAT ahead of a boy who finishes 5th out of 60 at the Indoor or 4th out of 40 at the National Target Championships?


This was my proposal, said in a few different ways.
The total number of archers in a category at an eligible tournament determines the "quality" or the "significance" factor of a tournament. 
The archers tournament finish position rank and the overall number or archers determines the ranking points received. 
Formula: Total number of archers in category minus tournament finish position in category divided by total number of archers in category. 
"The total number of competitors below an archers tournament finish ranking divided by the total number of archers equals USAA Archer Ranking Points"
It looks a lot better on a spread sheet.


----------



## tjk009 (Feb 15, 2007)

I guess the folks in Alaska, Washington, Montana and other northwest residents need to travel for days to shoot indoor nationals this year. Not sure how many JOAD parents will schedule a costly cross-country trip for a ten year old to shoot. Perhaps the whole tournament should be like the JOAD mail-in. Aren't we supposed to be having more people compete rather than fewer. Exxon and BP will be happy!


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Serious Fun said:


> This was my proposal, said in a few different ways.
> The total number of archers in a category at an eligible tournament determines the "quality" or the "significance" factor of a tournament.
> The archers tournament finish position rank and the overall number or archers determines the ranking points received.
> Formula: Total number of archers in category minus tournament finish position in category divided by total number of archers in category.
> ...


I agree


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 19, 2006)

Jim C said:


> the main issue is with weighting Dakota. For example at one shoot there was only ONE Junior. Does a kid who comes in say second out of three participants in a lightly attended JR USAT shoot merit selection on USAT ahead of a boy who finishes 5th out of 60 at the Indoor or 4th out of 40 at the National Target Championships?


Personally, I had a minor issue with tying the Jr. USAT to the Sr. USAT events. Why not simply say 'these events here and here count for jr. USAT.' and leave the rest as sr.? It takes a couple years for an event to grow in numbers to match the AZ Cup and Gold Cup. I thought the turnout for the South Dakota and Mass. events was acceptable, high end archers were at both events so it wasn't an 'easy' win for the senior crowd. For the juniors, I felt it would water down the participation...when I was a junior, there was limited chances to make up lost ground...uhh...Indoor Nationals, Outdoor JOAD Nationals, NAA Outdoors, and sometimes I think there was a free floating one that was sparesly attended compared to the others. There does not seem to be the numbers required to make a junior division at all USAT events.

As for weighting...I have issues with it. I'd argue, let there be two USAT events (senior...the junior events just don't affect me, no offense intended to anyone...) per region, count USAA Outdoor as one of them, ie, right now, the North Region has it, so that's one of the two, and give it a few years to let tournament participation numbers settle out. And someone move the Nor'easter off the 4th of July weekend. I'll bet that the numbers will level out pretty equally. Save for events that are a drive...South Dakota took a jumper plane plus a 2 hour drive to get to Yankton. Those events may have low numbers just because it is more difficult to get there. But looking at Gold Cup, Texas Shootout (either jumper plan in for extra cash or commence a two hour drive), there are no issues with driving from the airport and participation. In a couple years, the numbers should be consistant across the board for events and if the top end people keep going to each event the quality of competition is going to be constant. If it is weighted, then why go to a small event when you can get more bang for your buck at the big events?


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

So our top 5 archers attend two shoots. One where they only show up, and another with 40 competitors. They finish the same in both - so the top archer gets less credit for the smaller shoot, and the 5th archer gets hit harder on the small shoot becasue he has no one behind him? How can that be right? Better yet, the top 4 can't make the bigger shoot becuase of an international shoot, so #5's first place finish means more simply because he could go? If you want weighting, the archers ranks have to be included. Otherwise you'll kill the smaller shoots. The top won't go becase of the low attendance deduction, and the bottom won't go for of the same reason.

Why have I heard of a problem with the Jr's being included in the SR event and USAT? Is it really a problem? Is it threatening someones USAT chances or something? I don't see the problem.


----------



## spangler (Feb 2, 2007)

scriv said:


> I heard no complaints from the archers we sent concerning range conditions. As a spectator/support person I felt it was much more enjoyable than the IM building that was used previously. I thought the folks at MSU did a wonderful job and made for an enjoyable weekend. The lighting for the archers was terrible in the IM building.


It may just be anecdotal evidence, I haven't managed to find my way back to God's country (Michigan) yet, but I heard very bad reviews from everyone I know that shot that venue last year.

-Andrew


----------



## KJarchery (Jun 12, 2010)

Huntmaster said:


> So our top 5 archers attend two shoots. One where they only show up, and another with 40 competitors. They finish the same in both - so the top archer gets less credit for the smaller shoot, and the 5th archer gets hit harder on the small shoot becasue he has no one behind him? How can that be right? Better yet, the top 4 can't make the bigger shoot becuase of an international shoot, so #5's first place finish means more simply because he could go? If you want weighting, the archers ranks have to be included. Otherwise you'll kill the smaller shoots. The top won't go becase of the low attendance deduction, and the bottom won't go for of the same reason.
> 
> Why have I heard of a problem with the Jr's being included in the SR event and USAT? Is it really a problem? Is it threatening someones USAT chances or something? I don't see the problem.


Well, I'm not sure what the right thing to do here is, but the contra-arguments are:

1) The purpose of USAT, and therefore a USAT shoot, is to identify the best archers in the country, not boost the tournament host or just get people on a target field. The reason a diamond has value is because it is rare. 

2) The higher number of USAT events with lower attendance is great for the shooter who is funded (by parents, spouse, or sponsors) and who can get to them, but the resulting ranking is therefore not based on equal opportunity (or any pretense thereof) and does not represent a true measure of the archer by comparison to others. Therefore, again, the true purpose of the USAT selection is not served.

3) The Juniors now have two (cadets have three) bites at the USAT apple while the seniors have only one, which is unjust. The juniors and cadets also have JDT opportunities and special additional event opportunities. If a junior or cadet is truely committed and talented, he/she will be around as a senior, so why rush (especially at the expense of seniors working just as hard without the additional opportunities)? Mind you, there is no issue with a talented junior shooting up and making the Sr USAT, but if you're going to do it, then put the big kid pants pn and call yourself a senior for the entire season. Be willing to take the risk, and forfit your right to the Jr. USAT potential placement, so that everyone knows where you stand. Declare your intentions and division in advance of the season. By going for both, you're playing the odds, mussing up the standings at each level, and messing with other people's goals and expectations because you're selfish and playing the "what if" game. If the kids have the talent (as many do), then let them act as seniors the whole time and clear the ranks for other juniors. If they aren't willing to make that committed jump (and take the chance), then shoot for Jr USAT and become SR USAT when ready. 

None of these are new thoughts. And phew, add to that the inclusion of foreign archers (seniors, juniors, cadets) in a USAT event and you have really have a cluster f...


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Huntmaster said:


> So our top 5 archers attend two shoots. One where they only show up, and another with 40 competitors. They finish the same in both - so the top archer gets less credit for the smaller shoot, and the 5th archer gets hit harder on the small shoot becasue he has no one behind him? How can that be right? Better yet, the top 4 can't make the bigger shoot becuase of an international shoot, so #5's first place finish means more simply because he could go? If you want weighting, the archers ranks have to be included. Otherwise you'll kill the smaller shoots. The top won't go becase of the low attendance deduction, and the bottom won't go for of the same reason.
> 
> Why have I heard of a problem with the Jr's being included in the SR event and USAT? Is it really a problem? Is it threatening someones USAT chances or something? I don't see the problem.


Here's the issue

archer one finishes fifth at JOAD Fifth out of 50 at indoor nationals, and 3rd at say National target but that is all he can afford to go to. He has 13 points

A guy who finishes 7th at JOAD and 7th at National target and 7th at Indoor goes to say a shoot where he is the only competitior and gets 1st with a score that wouldn't finish top 10 at JOAD, He goes to another shoot and finishes 3 out of 4. He has 11 points and knocks the above kid off of JR USAT despite losing to that kid all three times they shoot head to head. By not averaging placements and by not weighting tournaments this will happen this year.

IT turns JR USAT into a money contest for those on the bubble


----------



## Landed in AZ (May 11, 2008)

KJarchery said:


> Well, I'm not sure what the right thing to do here is, but the contra-arguments are:
> 
> 1) The purpose of USAT, and therefore a USAT shoot, is to identify the best archers in the country, not boost the tournament host or just get people on a target field. The reason a diamond has value is because it is rare.
> 
> ...


Just for the record and not that it really matters...Cadets do not have three bites at the apple. You can only do Jr and Sr USAT or Cadet and Sr USat. What you shoot at JOAD Nationals is what you are stuck with.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Jim C said:


> Here's the issue
> 
> archer one finishes fifth at JOAD Fifth out of 50 at indoor nationals, and 3rd at say National target but that is all he can afford to go to. He has 13 points
> 
> ...


I see that, but without weighting via the competitors ranking some how, everyone does. A person that places 10th in the big tournaments goes to a small one where he is 9th out of 10 (shooting the same scores), he now gets weighted lower simply becasue there were not 15 shooters below him. I'm just saying that something needs to be added for rankings. All of the usat and rolling ranking is a money chase for those on the bubble. I don't think there's a way to change that......although I wish there was.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Huntmaster said:


> I see that, but without weighting via the competitors ranking some how, everyone does. A person that places 10th in the big tournaments goes to a small one where he is 9th out of 10 (shooting the same scores), he now gets weighted lower simply becasue there were not 15 shooters below him. I'm just saying that something needs to be added for rankings. All of the usat and rolling ranking is a money chase for those on the bubble. I don't think there's a way to change that......although I wish there was.


back in the days when I took ISU skeet seriously there was only one way to make the US Shooting team (or world team, pan am team or olympic team depending on the year)

Go to the 4 day trials held once a year-sometimes at Prado (Ontario CA-site of the 84 games,) later wolf creek Ga (site of the 96 games) shoot 400 targets and the top 2 or 3 guys went to the Olympics or worlds or Pan Ams, next three were the second team and those within a certain score could go to some of the other shoots. One week of your life to make the team.

some complained it rewarded say Brad Simmons in 1976 who came out of nowhere to win an Olympic slot or Mike Thompson who, in 1984 knocked off a bunch of pro shooters from the army to go to LA with Army eventual gold medalist Matt Dryke

so they changed the rules ISU required a MQS (minimum qualifying score) shot at a tournament that had at least five other countries (no 1200 fita at your own state shoot) and that prevented lots of people from going including a guy who was in the mix in 1988. Then to kill of those of us who actually had jobs and weren't RA's or Army professional shooters at the USAMU at Benning they started having several selection shoots around the country. Combine that with having to shoot at a world cup or other qualifying event, it pretty much made it a requirement to take 4 weeks of vacation to even compete for a slot

did it improve the US standings internationally? Not really. our most successful shotgunner is Kim Rhode whose family spends hundreds of thousands each year and she won most of her medals in an event that very few women even competed in. Vince Hancock won a gold in 08 while in the Army but he is a once in generational talent. But the last 20 years has not seen any real increase over what we had done before that with one trials

as one long time competitor (who actually runs a business while winning three Pan am medals and a few world championships) noted, the olympics comes down to performing well for a couple days so why choose a team based on performing well over several months?

bottom line, when I shot the last trials where it was one 400 target shoot, there was a waiting list for the 120 slots. In 96 there were like 48 people or so

IF USAT is based on 3 shoots like it used to be, lots of people who have jobs or families can attend. When you make it almost a requirement to shoot 8 shoots you are gonna cut down on lots of people who may have talent but don't have the time to go to all those shoots to get rid of a bad pass here and there.

It clearly helps the RAs and other sponsored shooters


----------



## Landed in AZ (May 11, 2008)

It was addressed at the NAA meeting at Nationals. They are looking at it and the athlete committee is knee deep in it. I don't think you can find a way that will make everyone happy. But even so, I still think they are trying to be fair. As to the USAT slots, I think they are just trying to make sure that they get the true top archers. I understand your argues and so does the NAA. They clearly were concerned about it and are looking at it.

As to World Target trials, Pan AM Games, Jr Worlds and Olympic Trials: they passed out PURPOSED formats. And it was draft form only. The World Target is purposed to be two selection shoots due to the USOC asking why it was not that format to begin with. So cut to top 8 and they play for the spots. Jr Worlds part of JOAD Nationals or other USAT event, I think World Target might be part of another shoot as well (trying to keep costs down). First round of Oly Trials in Sept next year. It was a good meeting.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

*Indoor Nationals 2011*

I'm going to chime in here. As a participant, coach and observer.
I shot at MSU.
1. Venue was impressive.
2. It could NOT support the number of shooters (which as JimC said is no reflection on Norm!)
3. There was NOT much room for spectators and archers in the range.
4. The shoot took WAY too long because of the 'third line,' which in most cases only had 2 or 3 archers shooting.
5. Norm TRIED to get the TURF ARENA, but the University said "NO! We built the Shooting Center, and you WILL use the Center!" (Norm, correct me if I am wrong.)
6. Norm did the BEST he could, but due to the sheer number of archers, it was unmanageable, IMHO.

Mu suggestion is to grant EACH REGION the same number of venues. Do a study of where your archers come from and respond to that information.
I know a club who has been ASKED to do several shoots for the NAA and they do a great job. I think, if there are proven sights, they should keep on keeping on. Do not penalize the archers by limiting the number of venue.

If USAT shoots can expand, then so should Indoor Nationals. 

OR...

Why can't the NAA conduct Indoor Nationals like the NFAA? They have what 3 lines, running throughout the day, ALL IN ONE VENUE!

We pay HIGH entry fees for these tournaments, for awards that don't truly cost that much! A plaque, isn't that expensive. The judges need to get paid. the venue, if you cannot get it donated, needs to get paid. The archers NEED their space, which is who I'd be worried about! They pay the entry fees! 

If I were the people at the NAA office, I might try to see what can be done to have the Indoor Nationals all in one venue. 

I can tell you, in our household we have 3 NAA members, 3 club (JOAD, Adult, and Camp) memberships ($210 for the clubs ONLY I don't remember what the fees were for 3 members, I think I got a family membership which for 3 years ends up being about $240! You can do the math!) Then to enter Nationals at $150 a person, (more math here!) and if 2 or 3 of us shoot...well let's say, we give A LOT of PRECIOUS $ to the NAA! We are LIFE members of the NFAA! 

It's all suggestions! There has to be a better way than to disperse the tournament al over the USA! Everyone is willing and able to travel to Louisville KY for the NFAA indoor because they make it appealing and fun! So too can the NAA, make Indoor Nationals more appealing and fun by putting it in one place, where we all can see each other twice a year, instead of once a year at National Target Championships!


----------



## KJarchery (Jun 12, 2010)

Landed in AZ said:


> Just for the record and not that it really matters...Cadets do not have three bites at the apple. You can only do Jr and Sr USAT or Cadet and Sr USat. What you shoot at JOAD Nationals is what you are stuck with.


I stand corrected. Sorry. I was thinking of the Cadet who shoots Cadet at a couple of events and Junior/Senior at a few. But ultimately, yes, they would have have to decide between Cadet/Junior at JOAD Nats. So... three potential divisions to play in, but two actiual bites.

And yes, I heard from others that the meeting at Nationals was very productive and informative (and open in spirit) on all levels. Would like to see the proposals and other documents since I couldn't get there... and would like to start planning for 2011 and 2012... even if it's just guestimate planning.


----------



## scriv (Jan 31, 2008)

spangler said:


> It may just be anecdotal evidence, I haven't managed to find my way back to God's country (Michigan) yet, but I heard very bad reviews from everyone I know that shot that venue last year.
> 
> -Andrew


Andrew, You aren't missing much here. Even less people are working than when you left. I hear alot of complaints about the shoot last year here on AT, but like I said the folks that went from our club (both venues) seemed ok with it. As evidenced by the photos that have been posted they needed tyvek on the floor to try to relect some light back to the butts at the IM building. Trying to find parking was difficult (and expensive). I admit I am predisposed not to like a half mile hike to the IM building in what was very poor weather in 2009. Comparitively, at the Demmer center we pulled up, unloaded the gear, shot, visited with friends, had an enjoyable day and went home. Twice. Maybe could have used a bit more area to put together bows, but most were considerate of others at the tournament and kept the tables clear. In my limited experience most of the problems archers have at tournaments they bring on themselves by showing up late, or not preparing the youngsters to take care of their own equipment prior to being there. If the kids are working on their gear then they are not just standing around in the way, and if they take care of their own, then the coaches/parents can be out of the area and not cluttering up the place. I was actually under the impression that there was not going to be ANY spectator seating in the range, so I was pleasantly surprised to see some when we arrived. I agree with Bob the photos on trad talk looked great and depicted the range as I saw it. The folks at the venue were top notch. Dave


----------



## scriv (Jan 31, 2008)

Just as an add on. There has been another thread started copncerning this topic. 2011 Indoor..... I like what he is saying.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Are all the sites still scheduled to host the Indoor on these appointed 2011 dates?
http://usarchery.org/news/2010/08/2...national-indoor-championships-announced/38201


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

College Station (Texas A&M) date has been moved to Feb. 25-27 due to the University forcing a date change.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

TomB said:


> College Station (Texas A&M) date has been moved to Feb. 25-27 due to the University forcing a date change.


 Thanks Tom!


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

If I might make a suggestion to MSU and the NAA, since the North Region has a lot of shooters and only 1 venue, can the venue at MSU be made available two or three weekends for the National event? Just a thought.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

lizard said:


> If I might make a suggestion to MSU and the NAA, since the North Region has a lot of shooters and only 1 venue, can the venue at MSU be made available two or three weekends for the National event? Just a thought.


Kansas is the other North Venue meaning 90% of the North membership is closer to Michigan


----------

