# 2015 Indoor Nationals



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Okay...I know rejection letters have been sent out.

Who's been accepted? I know that in the West region, Rio Rancho (NM) and Phoenix (AZ) have been rejected for National Indoor/JOAD Indoor for 2015. This is out of Phoenix, Rio Rancho, Reno, SJC, California, and Seattle sending in bids.

Anyone else send in a bid and gotten rejection or acceptance letters?

-Steve


----------



## Treepete (Jan 1, 2014)

If that's the case, I would suspect Reno gets the biz.

I wonder though, about Seattle.. maybe Seattle.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> Okay...I know rejection letters have been sent out.
> 
> Who's been accepted? I know that in the West region, Rio Rancho (NM) and Phoenix (AZ) have been rejected for National Indoor/JOAD Indoor for 2015. This is out of Phoenix, Rio Rancho, Reno, SJC, California, and Seattle sending in bids.
> 
> ...


 I know AZ could have done a good job, however I do like spreading events to different places around the country. I like visiting different countries, regions, states and communities. Hotel rates get a little crazy in AZ in February. For indoors it makes economic sense to host events where costs are more affordable like April in Phoenix


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Serious Fun said:


> I know AZ could have done a good job, however I do like spreading events to different places around the country. I like visiting different countries, regions, states and communities. Hotel rates get a little crazy in AZ in February. For indoors it makes economic sense to host events where costs are more affordable like April in Phoenix


As I've mentioned on my Facebook page, I'm a bit concerned about the potential sites for 2015.

It seems that Salt Lake City is a given. Easton wants to show off their new jewel. 

I don't know if the new archery center for the CVOTC will be complete by the time National Indoor begins. This may be an alternate site to Tulare. Tulare is a reasonable drive from Arizona, but not necessarily for New Mexico archers.

For those in Arizona and New Mexico (which has a large amount of archers present), those that got rejection letters (ABQ/Rio Rancho and Phoenix) means that archers from those two states have to travel a decent amount to reach an Indoor National location. As mentioned, Tulare or the CVOTC isn't bad for Arizona archers. For New Mexico archers, you have to travel 11 plus hours to Salt Lake City, or a bit more to go to Texas A&M (if they win a bid). 

In the Arizona bid package (of which I was one of the authors for and I wrote out the final bid packet to go to USA Archery), one of our arguments for additional sites was due to the sheer growth of archery in general. It makes sense for more Indoor National sites because of the growth of archers that could complete in a National tournament.

Predicting potential winners, I'd hazard a guess that it's California, Salt Lake City, and either Reno or Seattle. I'm hoping that the California location is Tulare again, mainly due to it's central location to that state's archers. As mentioned, SLC is a given because someone wants to show off their new facility, and Reno/Seattle are the other two locations - hoping it's Seattle since Reno is a 7 hour drive to SLC, it's too close to Tulare, and awarding Reno would mess with the large amount of archers in the Northwest region of the United States.

-Steve


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

We in Las Vegas were too late this year to put in a bid, but we are planning to bid next year. 

I would like to shoot at the new facility in Salt Lake. I am hoping they will have one of the Olympic trials or USAA Nationals. 

Chris


----------



## jwalgast (Aug 7, 2005)

Super disappointed about Rio Rancho! Jenn Harvey does an awesome job.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

jwalgast said:


> Super disappointed about Rio Rancho! Jenn Harvey does an awesome job.


I think its about the venue. Some place have great institutional experience but their ranges are two small. Some have access to large ranges however the rental fees are cost prohibitive without guaranteed attendance. The trick is insuring that money a tourney isn't a money loser so that the sport grows sustainably year after year after year.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Are the rejection letters coming with specific reasons why a bid was not accepted? For a community that doesn't have the infrastructure in place to accommodate one of these tournaments, receiving a generic rejection letter will do nothing to help them gather the necessary resources for the next year. Bob uses the range too small scenario. If a prospective tournament director receives a letter saying the available range is too small to accommodate the tournament, they can take that to the city, DNR, or whomever to see about increasing that resource. If all they receive is "sorry, try again next year" then that's not much leverage to use in making things better and/or more accessible.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

This is the text of the rejection letter sent to the Arizona contingent...
----

USA Archery thanks you for taking the time to submit a bid to host the 2015-2016 U.S. National Indoor/JOAD National Indoor Championships. We value your interest in the growth and development of the sport of Archery and thank you for your time.

At this time we, we regret that we must decline your bid. The Board of Directors met on May 31, and a calendar was presented and approved.

USA Archery strongly encourages you to bid again on other events as we are always looking for new and exciting ways to promote the sport.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Ok, so that facilitates the CYA of a formal letter. Unfortunately, it doesn't do anything to help prospective tournament hosts better prepare for next year. If all it came down to was they chose destination A over destination B, it would be good to know there's not a piece missing that hasn't been addressed. Likewise, a location that just doesn't have enough hotels would like to know they shouldn't waste time making another request until more hotels pop-up in the area.

I wonder, is there a resource at USAArchery that is setup to help clubs determine if they have what the organization is looking for in a tournament destination?


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Mulcade said:


> Ok, so that facilitates the CYA of a formal letter. Unfortunately, it doesn't do anything to help prospective tournament hosts better prepare for next year. If all it came down to was they chose destination A over destination B, it would be good to know there's not a piece missing that hasn't been addressed. Likewise, a location that just doesn't have enough hotels would like to know they shouldn't waste time making another request until more hotels pop-up in the area.
> 
> I wonder, is there a resource at USAArchery that is setup to help clubs determine if they have what the organization is looking for in a tournament destination?


I suggest calling USAA before taking the time to prepare a bid. If a bid is unsuccessful, I suggest calling back to find out if improvements can be made to be successful. There are a lot of moving part...venue, staff, equipment, capabilities, accessibility, restaurants, rental car, hotel costs and the most important factors, sustainable funding and commitment to success.
Most entities I work with professionally do not provide a detailed deficiencies list, however they are more than willing to conduct a review of the proposals so that improvements can be made for the next submittal if it is worthwhile to do so. Often the award is made less on the submitted proposal and more on a competitors proposal. In the old days, folks would have to be begged to host a tourney. Now a days, there is competition and proposals must be professional and robust. It’s nice being a popular, meaningful and significant sport.

On a side note, I am hoping some group in the NE can find a place that makes sense to host a large quality USAT outdoor tourney.


----------



## droy (Dec 21, 2012)

_On a side note, I am hoping some group in the NE can find a place that makes sense to host a large quality USAT outdoor tourney. _

Maybe New jersey will host in a few years

http://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2014/04/world-class_archery_center_lik.html


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Serious Fun said:


> I suggest calling USAA before taking the time to prepare a bid. If a bid is unsuccessful, I suggest calling back to find out if improvements can be made to be successful. There are a lot of moving part...venue, staff, equipment, capabilities, accessibility, restaurants, rental car, hotel costs and the most important factors, sustainable funding and commitment to success.
> Most entities I work with professionally do not provide a detailed deficiencies list, however they are more than willing to conduct a review of the proposals so that improvements can be made for the next submittal if it is worthwhile to do so. Often the award is made less on the submitted proposal and more on a competitors proposal. In the old days, folks would have to be begged to host a tourney. Now a days, there is competition and proposals must be professional and robust. It’s nice being a popular, meaningful and significant sport.
> 
> On a side note, I am hoping some group in the NE can find a place that makes sense to host a large quality USAT outdoor tourney.


We knew we had an uphill battle in putting a bid in for Arizona. It was told to us by multiple people that if Arizona was to win the bid, we would have to totally wow the crap out of USA Archery and beat out the incumbent nearest to us...meaning, we had to have a better bid than Rio Rancho.

The lead group that wrote the bid out had a full list of pluses and minuses, and we had discussions with people to help reduce the known minuses down a bit.

Our pluses were:
-Experienced Tournament Staff. We were drawing people in from the Arizona Cup and were intending to use judges that had experience on a national and international level.

-Venue. We had located a venue that would allow over 100 bales and have dedicated practice lanes all at the same time. The City of Scottsdale (who owns the venue) was willing to bend over backwards to accommodate us with food vendors as well. It also would have been extremely ADA compliant.

-Parking. Plenty of parking. 

-Weather. Who doesn't like Arizona in February?

-Airport access. Gee, that's a no-brainer. Two airports accepting commercial air travel, one of them being one of the busiest airports in the world.

-Lots of hotels. 

-Rental cars. No issue there.

-Budget. Thanks to the City of Scottsdale, they were committed to ensure that the event would be a financial success. Their fee structure was extremely aggressive and would ensure that the host clubs and USA Archery would make money.

Anyhow, I was disappointed but not surprised when Arizona's bid was rejected. I was extremely surprised that Rio Rancho lost out. From a geographic standpoint, that really puts a crimp in a lot of archers and their travel.


----------



## Arsi (May 14, 2011)

Beastmaster said:


> ... and have dedicated practice lanes all at the same time.


Wow, we dont even have this in Tulare. You guys got rejected? Sheesh.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Arsi said:


> Wow, we dont even have this in Tulare. You guys got rejected? Sheesh.


Well, I'm hoping that Tulare won a bid. My biggest fear is the LACK of lanes now for National Indoor/JOAD Indoor in the West region.


----------



## RaceBannon (Jun 8, 2014)

All the JOAD Teams for Colorado submitted a collective bid as well and received a rejection letter worded as yours. 

We will be interested to see where it is chosen as well, and try to discern the reasoning for the choice. 

It will be disappointing if a choice is made that is geographically limiting to our archers, which is what I am sure all locations have in mind as well. Rio was always very enjoyable (some times chaallenging weather wise) and possible trip for a lot of our teams.

We too were disappointed that Colo wasn't chosen and with the form nature of the letter, with a lack of specificity as to where the bid was lacking or if it could be improved to make it viable for a possible future bid. 

We thought we had covered most of the items you laid out that were in your bid. We knew that AZ or NM would probably be the front runners due to the prior experience, but as a group we wanted to toss our hat collectively in the ring to try to get it up here. We have seen a huge growth in archery in our area, especially JOAD (which everyone is seeing as well from discussions I've had with other states) and wanted to take a stab at hosting. We have a big "bubble" of Cadet on down moving through our systems and hope that their siblings will be following in their wake. Over the past four years the participation from Colorado at Rio Rancho has steadily grown, as has archery in our state. This year at the Nationals in Rio Rancho, from our count, almost half of the participants were from Colorado. That may in part have been because, as you say, geographically is was conducive for a larger number of participants from areas (outside of those who could make a trip to California or Arizona). Rio seemed to be a make able trip for a lot of our JOAD families, with an 8 hour drive +- (Raton pass always being the exciting winter roll of the dice). If SLC is the choice that may prove even more interesting for travel as well, for those who have driven either I-80 or 70 during the winter know. 

Geographically, where ever it goes, time and cost will eliminate a number of those who might otherwise participate, as would the choice of Colorado for those further west. So we too look to see where the final choice may be.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

IMO, the more venues the better so as to allow everyone to participate without having to drive more than say 5 hours max


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

We have not heard.
We work with the Visitor's bureau of Butler County, who are more than happy to help! 
We have bid with a brand new venue, that we can have about 30 target mats in, more than what MSU had in the turf arena. So we will see. I'll post what we have heard, if anything! CJO does a great job with our staff and our parents! 
We have had several shooters saying "WE WILL BE BACK!" After the 2014 Indoor weather thing and working around what we had to we decided we needed a bigger venue, so BCVB jumped up and said here, look at this, at the BCFairGrounds! Beautiful HUGE NEW building! I said WOW, and as far as I was concerned it would be more than enough! SO we go from a ten target range to a 15-30 target range! How's that for growing the chance to compete?!!


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

lizard said:


> We have not heard.
> We work with the Visitor's bureau of Butler County, who are more than happy to help!
> We have bid with a brand new venue, that we can have about 30 target mats in, more than what MSU had in the turf arena. So we will see. I'll post what we have heard, if anything! CJO does a great job with our staff and our parents!
> We have had several shooters saying "WE WILL BE BACK!" After the 2014 Indoor weather thing and working around what we had to we decided we needed a bigger venue, so BCVB jumped up and said here, look at this, at the BCFairGrounds! Beautiful HUGE NEW building! I said WOW, and as far as I was concerned it would be more than enough! SO we go from a ten target range to a 15-30 target range! How's that for growing the chance to compete?!!


Considering you all did not get the rejection letter, it would be safe to say you all got the bid.


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> Considering you all did not get the rejection letter, it would be safe to say you all got the bid.


I never take anything for sure until it is signed sealed and delivered!


----------



## lizard (Jul 4, 2003)

For those who like to travel to destinations and tournaments unknown, I grant you there is some adventure to that statement, however, if I KNOW the club putting it on, and I know what to expect! then I am more likely to WANT to come back year after year. My expectations are for a well run tournament, for a professionally run tournament, for amenities and concessions, for all the things our tournaments are known for providing to the archers, and their families. Our tournament is a known commodity, and a tournament that people actually look forward to coming to year after year. 
The fact is, we used to take a great contingency to MSU in E. Lansing, MI for indoor, then after a few years of being crammed into The Demmer Shooting Center, we made the risk of bidding for the Indoor National Championships, to take some of the weight off the Demmer Center. I would bet that MSU still packs The Demmer Center to the rafters, but now there is another option. This year we had people from KY, TN, PA, OH, IN, along with others, and even someone from Washington state, who was traveling through, and decided to shoot our tourney! So, all I'm saying, is if you like to travel to different destinations, you are free to do so! There are many venues to choose from. For those who like the known commodity, of what you are getting when you shoot a certain venue, then you know what you are getting! IF we did win this two year bid, you are getting a brand new facility (by the indoor, it will be about 9 months old, and have gone through 1 butler County Fair), but the building is HUGE! I look forward to seeing if we got it, and if we did, then I look forward to seeing those who know our tournament, or who want to experience our "new and improved" indoor location, then bring 'em on! We are ready!


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Times have changed, in the past, volunteer clubs would do the NAA a favor to host a tourney for a 100 archers. Now a days with hundreds archers per venue, tourney hosts must bid for the opportunity to host. Archers want a good venue, capable staff, convenient location and income to be able to support national programs without raising membership fees All things being equal (venue, capability, regional location) the proposal that offers the most funding for programs and growth wins. It’s great that USA Archery events are the size for convention and visitor bureaus to subsidize.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Serious Fun said:


> Times have changed, in the past, volunteer clubs would do the NAA a favor to host a tourney for a 100 archers. Now a days with hundreds archers per venue, tourney hosts must bid for the opportunity to host. Archers want a good venue, capable staff, convenient location and income to be able to support national programs without raising membership fees All things being equal (venue, capability, regional location) the proposal that offers the most funding for programs and growth wins. It’s great that USA Archery events are the size for convention and visitor bureaus to subsidize.


Yes, but when a bid meets those criteria, and then gets rejected, then what is the reason for the choice?


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> Yes, but when a bid meets those criteria, and then gets rejected, then what is the reason for the choice?


All other things being equal the tournament hosting proposal that provides the most funding to USA Archery for programs and growth wins. The bid package are guidelines. Like buying a home sometimes you have to pay higher than the asking price to win the bid. Target archery growth is a game changer.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Serious Fun said:


> All other things being equal the tournament hosting proposal that provides the most funding to USA Archery for programs and growth wins. The bid package are guidelines. Like buying a home sometimes you have to pay higher than the asking price to win the bid. Target archery growth is a game changer.



I don't know if that makes any sense. The USA's costs to hold an indoor is limited to 

1) compiling the data

2) supplying cheap medals

3) paying the judges

the host club gets I think 60% of the entries, USA 40%. The more entries =More money for the USA. and the number of judges generally is based on the number of entries. SO more venues will generally mean MORE money for the USA. Having attended several NICs at MIchigan and then having been part of the management of the ones we have run, I can tell you that the top competitors will go to the tournament (i.e. if the Cincinnati Venue did not exist, our top kids as well as Columbus and KY would probably go to Michigan or VA or GA etc) but each venue will have 1-2 dozen archers who attend because the event is in their local area. Example, the JOADs who are say not nationally or regionally competitive. Few parents are going to drive 6 hours to take a Cadet who is not going to break 1000 to a National indoor. However, if its less than a couple hour drive or if they don't have to incur hotel room costs, they will. 

Its the number of those sort of archers (who pay the same fees as a USAT aspirant or a top Pro Like Scott Starnes or Erika Jones) that is greatly expanded when you have more venues. and given it only takes a few of them to pay for extra judges, economic common sense suggests more venues rather than less


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Heat map. Took me a while to generate it with Google tools (which is free). 

This is generated from 2014 National Indoor and JOAD Indoor. I had to trim the data sets a bit, so if you had less than 40 archers combined (30 was the threshold for Nationals and yes, some states had NO JOAD archers), you got nothing on the map.

Cool to see which states really bring in the archers.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Other oddball stats...

2014 Indoor Nationals, all age groups (Bowman to Masters)
Registered Archers Per Region:
East - 614
North - 302
South - 269
West - 518

2014 JOAD Indoor Nationals, all JOAD age groups (Bowman to Juniors)
Registered Archers Per Region:
East - 389
North - 249
South - 207
West - 272

And - 2014 Indoor Nationals (NOT JOAD!!!) by state...

AL - 5
AZ - 74
CA - 350
CO - 125
CT - 93
DE - 1
FL - 77
GA - 156
IA - 17
ID - 1
IL - 37
IN - 7
KS - 38
KY - 13
LA - 7
MA - 161
MD - 46
ME - 39
MI - 193
MN - 62
MO - 18
NC - 35
ND - 1
NE - 6
NH - 60
NJ - 103
NM - 43
NV - 8
NY - 104
OH - 104
OK - 38
OR - 18
PA - 223
RI - 13
SC - 11
SD - 30
TN - 31
TX - 151
UT - 4
VA - 68
WA - 159
WI - 17
WV - 2
WY - 1


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> Heat map. Took me a while to generate it with Google tools (which is free).
> 
> This is generated from 2014 National Indoor and JOAD Indoor. I had to trim the data sets a bit, so if you had less than 40 archers combined (30 was the threshold for Nationals and yes, some states had NO JOAD archers), you got nothing on the map.
> 
> Cool to see which states really bring in the archers.


Utah is a stunner.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Not really. I've had folks contact me from Utah wondering where they can get thier kids into a JOAD program. Who knew.

I'd be curious to see the NAA membership map as it compares to Indoor Nat's. map.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Not really. I've had folks contact me from Utah wondering where they can get thier kids into a JOAD program. Who knew.
> 
> I'd be curious to see the NAA membership map as it compares to Indoor Nat's. map.


Unfortunately, that amount of data goes beyond what I can do with "free" toolsets, like what Google does.

I can do up to 1000 lines of discrete data. Beyond that, I have to use pay systems to do it. And, since I'm doing this on a whim (see my Facebook page for other archery related heatmaps), and I'm not getting paid for it, I won't shell out the cash to figure it out beyond the free stuff.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Gotcha. Would be interesting to see though. In fact, if I were making an argument as to where, oh let's say..., Outdoor Nationals should be held, it would be a very useful tool to help inform the membership.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Let me play with some other things. I've finished generating heatmaps for the 2013 EJN and NTC. I just posted it up on my Facebook page. I'm waiting for the 2014 Gator Cup and last year's 2013 Texas Shootout to finish grinding through the Google cloud. Once those are done, I'll take it and put it up on a separate thread.

One definite interesting thing - I'm getting the odd feeling that no one at USA Archery has done this.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Beastmaster said:


> Let me play with some other things. I've finished generating heatmaps for the 2013 EJN and NTC. I just posted it up on my Facebook page. I'm waiting for the 2014 Gator Cup and last year's 2013 Texas Shootout to finish grinding through the Google cloud. Once those are done, I'll take it and put it up on a separate thread.
> 
> One definite interesting thing - I'm getting the odd feeling that no one at USA Archery has done this.


the ATA did a study a while ago and concluded that the triangle between Louisville, Indianapolis and Columbus had more ATA members within a days drive than any other place in the USA


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Jim C said:


> the ATA did a study a while ago and concluded that the triangle between Louisville, Indianapolis and Columbus had more ATA members within a days drive than any other place in the USA


But that's ATA members. That means it's the number of shops or industry people in those areas. Kinda skewed.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

limbwalker said:


> Gotcha. Would be interesting to see though. In fact, if I were making an argument as to where, oh let's say..., Outdoor Nationals should be held, it would be a very useful tool to help inform the membership.


_*"..help inform the membership."*_  (if the insinuation is that that would be a part of USAA execs' interest or calculus)...


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Question: Did you count Georgia, Florida, Carolinas in the south or in the east?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

TomB said:


> Question: Did you count Georgia, Florida, Carolinas in the south or in the east?


Per USA Archery,

Florida - South
Georgia - South
Carolinas - South

Not my classification, it's theirs.


----------



## Casualfoto (Mar 10, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Gotcha. Would be interesting to see though. In fact, if I were making an argument as to where, oh let's say..., Outdoor Nationals should be held, it would be a very useful tool to help inform the membership.


I posted this this last year............ here is a link to the thread that it came from http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2046378&highlight=demographic


ETN JOAD Demographic 2013 

Here is a mindless yet somewhat interesting demographic breakdown of the ETN JOAD 2013. Of course the number represents the # of participants from that state or country. Yes, there are a few questions: What does USA mean? , what does CA Guest mean. The answers are really not important. With a little bit of knowledge and some imagination we can look at these numbers and make some profound observations. But to me, the most striking observation is the absolute need to move this tournament around the country. 

AL 1
AZ 8
CA 82
CA-Guest 8 ??
CO 14
CT 18
DE 1
FL 27
GA 37
IA 5
IL 2
IN 1
KS 1
KY 3
LA 2
MA 12
MD 4
ME 6
MI 19
MN 6
MO 11
NJ 24
NY 18
OH 18
OK 10
OR 1
PA 10
SC 1
SD 9
TN 5
TX 20
VA 3
WA 15
WI 3
Canada 19
TPE 8
PHL 1
JPN 1
USA 3 ???? 

CP


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I don't think the governing body should give more than generalized comments, to everyone, in terms of selection considerations. Legally, you open yourself to litigious second guessing. I do some sailing and don't want this becoming like the America's Cup (where they destroyed their public standing with legal squabbles) or the battle over which builders can call their boat the "Laser." Also, in a competitive bid environment you don't want the appearance much less reality of bid-coaching or corruption. Not saying people are corrupt, just saying it doesn't look right if a committee member tells you what you need and you then squeak past your rival. It would be useful feedback and can be innocent in the sense of "I just want to provide what they want so I can have the hosting experience," but that sort of thing is also prone to abuse. I tell my buddy what he needs to qualify. He beats out a site that doesn't have the personal relationships to get the inside scoop. etc.

Now, that level of delegation to the selection committee has its own corruption risks, as the process is more opaque. We have had the whole BB discussion. But I think that's best addressed by having baseline expectations that protect the archers' interests in strong venues, and external vigilance about whether the selections make sense. Also, I think if you have annual site rotation, ie, can't host consecutively over and over, that keeps the sites on their toes. Even if A&M has a solid indoor setup I don't want them hosting every time, from an experiential standpoint.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Casualfoto said:


> I posted this this last year............ here is a link to the thread that it came from http://www.archerytalk.com/vb/showthread.php?t=2046378&highlight=demographic
> 
> 
> ETN JOAD Demographic 2013
> ...


The NOrth region doesn't have ANY USAT shoots. If people want the NTC in California or Arizona etc, the North should get the AZ cup or the So Cal Cup or the Texas shoot


----------



## chrstphr (Nov 23, 2005)

There use to be the Gold cup USAT in New Jersey. I dont know why they lost it. 



Chris


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Jim C said:


> The NOrth region doesn't have ANY USAT shoots. If people want the NTC in California or Arizona etc, the North should get the AZ cup or the So Cal Cup or the Texas shoot


Just a quick little administrivia detail that's not too well known about the Arizona Cup.

The Arizona Cup is a World Ranking Tournament first and foremost. It's priority with the operating staff and management is that it is to be a World Ranking Tournament. The fact that it's a USAT qualifier is truly a separate and secondary item. 

Simply put, let's just say that the USAT Qualifier portion really piggybacks onto the WRT portion of the tournament. It's convenient for USA Archery to piggyback a USAT onto the WRT portion because you have instant international competition worthy of USAT archers, and you have them all conveniently in one location. 

If the Arizona Cup was to lose the USAT portion of the event, it would not be the death of the Arizona Cup. Frankly, it would open up the tournament to have an even more international draw. 

So, if someone wants to go for a USAT qualifier, my recommendations are to have a quality tournament staff, treat the tournament like a World Ranking Event, hire all National Judges at a minimum, and bid for it. And don't forget to give USA Archery their fair share...they will require it.

-Steve


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Beastmaster said:


> Just a quick little administrivia detail that's not too well known about the Arizona Cup.
> 
> The Arizona Cup is a World Ranking Tournament first and foremost. It's priority with the operating staff and management is that it is to be a World Ranking Tournament. The fact that it's a USAT qualifier is truly a separate and secondary item.
> 
> ...


trust me, here at CJO we know a lot about running tournaments. And Yes I know the background of the AZ cup-one of the boys practicing on my front lawn as I write has one of those nice AZ Cup shirts with all the sponsors on the back on it


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

It would be great for the target archery community in the north east to collaborate and offer host a USAT tourney that can conducted year after year.


----------



## kshet26 (Dec 20, 2010)

We had the Nor'easter as a USAT up until a few years ago. Don't know the exact reason, but there were some issue with how it was run/setup one year and then poof - no more USAT status.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

kshet26 said:


> We had the Nor'easter as a USAT up until a few years ago. Don't know the exact reason, but there were some issue with how it was run/setup one year and then poof - no more USAT status.


same with the Gold Cup in NJ


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Azzurri said:


> I don't think the governing body should give more than generalized comments, to everyone, in terms of selection considerations. Legally, you open yourself to litigious second guessing. I do some sailing and don't want this becoming like the America's Cup (where they destroyed their public standing with legal squabbles) or the battle over which builders can call their boat the "Laser." Also, in a competitive bid environment you don't want the appearance much less reality of bid-coaching or corruption. Not saying people are corrupt, just saying it doesn't look right if a committee member tells you what you need and you then squeak past your rival. It would be useful feedback and can be innocent in the sense of "I just want to provide what they want so I can have the hosting experience," but that sort of thing is also prone to abuse. I tell my buddy what he needs to qualify. He beats out a site that doesn't have the personal relationships to get the inside scoop. etc.


I wasn't trying to say that bidders should receive information on why they didn't get chosen over the other guy. More of a situation along the lines of "you weren't considered because you're lacking xyz." Things like they don't have enough hotels in the area, major airport isn't close enough, not enough tournament hosting experience, etc. We can't let fears of litigation keep the NGB from helping clubs, tournament hosts, etc. become better than they are now. Doing so only hurts the whole organization in the long run. Archers helping archers I think was around long before ArcheryTalk and will still be with us long after Archerytalk has run its course.


----------



## Casualfoto (Mar 10, 2009)

Jim C said:


> The NOrth region doesn't have ANY USAT shoots. If people want the NTC in California or Arizona etc, the North should get the AZ cup or the So Cal Cup or the Texas shoot


Yes absolutely, but as you know I'm not against NTC/ETN and a USAT shoot being in the same state with a number of provisions. I still believe that with planning, resolve, and a commitment by USAA, this issue of excluding much of the country can be worked out. As time goes on I've become more firmly convinced that USAA has an adgenda that does not include the Northwest, Northeast and everything in between. Someone, anyone try to convince me otherwise..........please.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Mulcade said:


> I wasn't trying to say that bidders should receive information on why they didn't get chosen over the other guy. More of a situation along the lines of "you weren't considered because you're lacking xyz." Things like they don't have enough hotels in the area, major airport isn't close enough, not enough tournament hosting experience, etc. We can't let fears of litigation keep the NGB from helping clubs, tournament hosts, etc. become better than they are now. Doing so only hurts the whole organization in the long run. Archers helping archers I think was around long before ArcheryTalk and will still be with us long after Archerytalk has run its course.


I think the way to do it is either give everyone the inside scoop on everyone.....in front of each other......or maintain confidence but neutrally explain the criteria that were pivotal. You can walk through the whole process, that's transparent, but you've then taught people how to game the committee. Or you can be transparent with pointed but general statements like, "We felt venue size was important." Tell everyone a few criteria like that and they can read in between the lines without getting insider information. But if Bid X can pin his committee buddy down and get an explanation that Bid Y can't get, that's a competitive advantage gained from access.

Either that or total blackout and a denial letter so that no one gets coached.

One risk of feedback is it gets flipped back around, I looked at your criteria and how the heck did X get it over Y. That is a benefit of transparency but if someone goes out and sues about it, I'd almost rather they sent out form letter denials instead.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Casualfoto said:


> Yes absolutely, but as you know I'm not against NTC/ETN and a USAT shoot being in the same state with a number of provisions. I still believe that with planning, resolve, and a commitment by USAA, this issue of excluding much of the country can be worked out. As time goes on I've become more firmly convinced that USAA has an adgenda that does not include the Northwest, Northeast and everything in between. Someone, anyone try to convince me otherwise..........please.



The NW seems to be a hotbed of good girls recurve archers. One of my kids made it to the medal round of Junior Girls-she lost to a Californian in the semis and a girl from Pa (I believe) in the bronze but she had to beat three higher ranked girls from Washington on her way


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

Are there set regions or is it fluid with a NCAA style notion that we'll spread it around where we want and slap regions on it like a brand name?


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Azzurri said:


> I think the way to do it is either give everyone the inside scoop on everyone.....in front of each other......or maintain confidence but neutrally explain the criteria that were pivotal. You can walk through the whole process, that's transparent, but you've then taught people how to game the committee. Or you can be transparent with pointed but general statements like, "We felt venue size was important." Tell everyone a few criteria like that and they can read in between the lines without getting insider information. But if Bid X can pin his committee buddy down and get an explanation that Bid Y can't get, that's a competitive advantage gained from access.
> 
> Either that or total blackout and a denial letter so that no one gets coached.
> 
> One risk of feedback is it gets flipped back around, I looked at your criteria and how the heck did X get it over Y. That is a benefit of transparency but if someone goes out and sues about it, I'd almost rather they sent out form letter denials instead.


See, I think that's exactly what we need. The process and requirements should be as transparent as possible. There needs to be defined criteria that is public knowledge so that each bid knows where it stands when it sends in the request. The process needs to be impartial and I'd actually argue that if bid X gets the nod over Y because of some rubbing elbows there _should_ be some litigation. USAA needs to have some consequences to their actions from the membership if it is warranted. 

I think that's part of what got us into this mess. USAA has nothing to fear from and no accountability to its members.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Azzurri said:


> Are there set regions or is it fluid with a NCAA style notion that we'll spread it around where we want and slap regions on it like a brand name?


The regions are defined by USA Archery. It's been this way for a while too. From the USA Archery webpage:
-----

Members of the JOAD Committee

John Stover ([email protected]) - North Representative - Committee Chair
North States: ND, MN, SD, NE, KS, MO, IA, WI, IL, IN, MI, OH

Dee Falks ([email protected]) - South Representative
South States: TX, OK, AR, LA, MS, AL, GA, FL, SC, NC, TN, KY

Doug Ludwig ([email protected]) - East Representative
East States: VA, WV, PA, NY, ME, MD, DE, NJ, CT, RI, MA, NH, VT

Mike Cullumber ([email protected]) - West Representative
West States: OR, WA, CA, NV, ID, MT, WY, CO, UT, NM, AZ, AL, HI

Mackenzie Brown ([email protected]) - Athlete Representative


----------



## Casualfoto (Mar 10, 2009)

Jim C said:


> The NW seems to be a hotbed of good girls recurve archers. One of my kids made it to the medal round of Junior Girls-she lost to a Californian in the semis and a girl from Pa (I believe) in the bronze but she had to beat three higher ranked girls from Washington on her way


Yep, some really good girls, and some very good boys. Same in the Northeast especially if you want to include Pennsylvania and New Jersey in the Northeast. Yet there are no high level tournaments, and the season is virtually over by the time most of these kids have had a chance to get outside and shoot. Oh yeah, lets not forget what the Heat Charts (demographics) tell us..........., quite possibly the largest incubator of new talent is the Northeast!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Casualfoto said:


> Yep, some really good girls, and some very good boys. Same in the Northeast especially if you want to include Pennsylvania and New Jersey in the Northeast. Yet there are no high level tournaments, and the season is virtually over by the time most of these kids have had a chance to get outside and shoot. Oh yeah, lets not forget what the Heat Charts (demographics) tell us..........., quite possibly the largest incubator of new talent is the Northeast!


Or just the highest concentration of families who can afford the sport when played at the national level.


----------



## Casualfoto (Mar 10, 2009)

I'm sure you're just kidding , but seriously if you take Manhattan and Greenwich Ct out of the equation the rest of us are just hard working folks. :darkbeer:


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> Or just the highest concentration of families who can afford the sport when played at the national level.



one of the guys on my college skeet shooting team wrote a paper he asked me to review. CT had more NSSA (skeet shooters who shoot registered tournaments) per capita than any other state. His conclusion was that CT also had-at the time-the highest per capita income of any state.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

I was surprised bare bow at the indoors championship was on the chopping block.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Serious Fun said:


> I was surprised bare bow at the indoors championship was on the chopping block.


So am I.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

Serious Fun said:


> I was surprised bare bow at the indoors championship was on the chopping block.



I think what needs to be on the chopping block are the board members who supported getting rid of bare bow

Now from what I have been told-it might have been due to negligence rather than an overt action. but still, its time to get a board that is responsive to the membership and I have yet to see a single member claim they wanted BB gone from nationals. and given when I directly asked the CEO what benefit the membership derived from this deletion, I got absolutely NO answer, Its obvious we have to change things.


----------



## trevorpowdrell (May 8, 2012)

Well it looks like they got rid of the traditional archery divisions from national competition.


----------



## Jim C (Oct 15, 2002)

trevorpowdrell said:


> Well it looks like they got rid of the traditional archery divisions from national competition.


that happened a few years ago


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

trevorpowdrell said:


> Well it looks like they got rid of the traditional archery divisions from national competition.


Looks like Glenn and company created a national traditional championships in 2013. Hopefully that will continue. Nearly all the traditional shooters I know shoot 3-D if they shoot targets at all. The vast majority are backyard and keyboard champions, I'm afraid.


----------



## Casualfoto (Mar 10, 2009)

Jim C said:


> one of the guys on my college skeet shooting team wrote a paper he asked me to review. CT had more NSSA (skeet shooters who shoot registered tournaments) per capita than any other state. His conclusion was that CT also had-at the time-the highest per capita income of any state.


It really doesn't matter what the income levels are. The point is to bring the tournament circuit to where the participation comes from. In addition, if you want to subscribe to the theory that USAA's sole function is to develop Olympians (it's OK if you don't), then the tournaments have to be located in a way that allows more access to those who might need some inspiration without the initial overwhelming commitment of time and money that traveling cross country to a National tournament would entail. 

And it seems that they put Barebow back on the schedule for 2015. Good for you!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Yea, actually I wasn't kidding. This is a very expensive sport when played at the USAT/Jr. USAT/Nationals level. Fact is, there is more money on either coast than in the middle of this country. So it's a factor. Not the only one, but a factor nonetheless. 

The problem with putting the events near major population centers is several-fold. Expenses for starters. Location. Finding a field that they can afford to rent, along with all the expenses of running the event - all that goes through the roof anywhere near a major urban center. As much as I think Yankton, SD is a ridiculous place to locate a national headquarters or world archery event, they do have much more affordable lodging, meals, rentals, etc. in a place like that. I suspect Hamilton, Ohio is right on the edge of where a national event could be held before it gets prohibitively expensive.

The other issue is making the same people travel the furthest every year. 

Personally, I loved Colorado Springs for outdoor nationals. I loved having a reason to go there, and would love to have a reason to take my family there each year. Who doesn't like shooting with those mountains in the background, with dry cool air, and with so many neat things to go see and do in the area? Also, I liked it being near an Olympic training center, and thought it wise that our national staff could sleep in their own beds and help run the event instead of running up tens of thousands of dollars in travel and per diem expenses. Our RA's and judges could stay in the lodging and eat at the OTC as well, rather than have to get hotel rooms and be given money to eat out.

Lots to consider. But just looking at where the "most" people are located is only one factor.


----------



## Casualfoto (Mar 10, 2009)

I sure you know that this conversation has happened here. You're absolutely right in thinking that New York City would be out the question because of price and other factors. So might be Boston and Philadelphia. But there are many places outside of the major population centers that could be explored. Downingtown is a good example?? Of course the same could be said in the Northwest; Portland and Seattle may be out of the question but there must be acceptable locations outside of the those population centers. Location wise Colorado Springs is great place, but the participation density is just not there, yes not the only factor but it is an important one.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Yea, actually I wasn't kidding. This is a very expensive sport when played at the USAT/Jr. USAT/Nationals level. Fact is, there is more money on either coast than in the middle of this country. So it's a factor. Not the only one, but a factor nonetheless.
> 
> The problem with putting the events near major population centers is several-fold. Expenses for starters. Location. Finding a field that they can afford to rent, along with all the expenses of running the event - all that goes through the roof anywhere near a major urban center. As much as I think Yankton, SD is a ridiculous place to locate a national headquarters or world archery event, they do have much more affordable lodging, meals, rentals, etc. in a place like that. I suspect Hamilton, Ohio is right on the edge of where a national event could be held before it gets prohibitively expensive.
> 
> ...


The CVOTC and CSOTC will backcharge the NGB using their facilities for events. I don't know what the current going rate is now, but at a rough 500 dollar/week rate for a twin bed, shower space, and 3 squares a day per person isn't too bad...as long as you like Chobani for your breakfast yogurt...


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

That would be very sad to discover that the NGB is charged more to house staff/athletes/officials at the OTC than they would have to pay for a hotel and per diem. 

We need to just overtake a small college campus every year. I'd have no problem with renting a dorm room and eating in a cafeteria.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Casualfoto said:


> I sure you know that this conversation has happened here. You're absolutely right in thinking that New York City would be out the question because of price and other factors. So might be Boston and Philadelphia. But there are many places outside of the major population centers that could be explored. Downingtown is a good example?? Of course the same could be said in the Northwest; Portland and Seattle may be out of the question but there must be acceptable locations outside of the those population centers. Location wise Colorado Springs is great place, but the participation density is just not there, yes not the only factor but it is an important one.


I had a conversation with Chuck Cooley the other day, and one of the things we were discussing was that Seattle by way of SeaTac has just priced themselves out of future archery tournaments with their $15/hour minimum wage. The new surcharges now are starting to kill things off slowly.

This is one of the biggest issues out there - venue space. Whether it be a field for outdoor or a place for indoor, having a space to shoot in is critical for any tournament's success in the short and long term.

When searching for venues in our 2015 National Indoor bid, we had to consider drive time from the airport, nearest hotels, and whatnot on top of whether or not the venue was capable of handling the archers, coaches, spectators, and all their associated gear. It's one of the reasons why two of the people doing the venue research were tournament technical delegates.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> That would be very sad to discover that the NGB is charged more to house staff/athletes/officials at the OTC than they would have to pay for a hotel and per diem.
> 
> We need to just overtake a small college campus every year. I'd have no problem with renting a dorm room and eating in a cafeteria.


I base this mythical $500/week fee on the fact that USA Archery charges $450 to merely cover room and board for a week long Level 4 coaches class. Since the people running the Level 4 coaches class are either paid staff (Coach Lee and Coach Krueger), or 1099'ed staff (Steve Cornell), they are not physically profiting from the teaching of the class.

USA Archery *might* be profiting some minor percentage from that Level 4 class, but I really doubt it. I've heard similar $400 fees per week for OTC use from other NGB's as well, so it's a pretty accurate number that I can use.

Now, bringing another sore subject into play - wouldn't it be better to give that $400/week out to the athlete for them to use in advantage for their training? It's not a wonder why the USOC is considering closing the CVOTC or handing it's operation to a third party.


----------



## RaceBannon (Jun 8, 2014)

Just curious, has anyone heard where the Nationals have been set for 2015 if Rio Rancho was not selected?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> wouldn't it be better to give that $400/week out to the athlete for them to use in advantage for their training? It's not a wonder why the USOC is considering closing the CVOTC or handing it's operation to a third party.


Makes one wonder what our athletes who've earned their top rankings could do with the $K's that it takes to send a training squad (notice I didn't use the term "team") to a second tier international event, doesn't it.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

RaceBannon said:


> Just curious, has anyone heard where the Nationals have been set for 2015 if Rio Rancho was not selected?


Announcements will be roughly 2 weeks away, per Sheri Rhodes.

Rumor has it that Carl Jamison and the Chili Peppers JOAD won the bid, backed with support from an Easton Foundations member. It's supposedly going to be held in a large venue.


----------



## baller (Oct 4, 2006)

When and where will the list of host sites be posted? I'm curious to know who in the Midwest will be hosting, hopefully somewhere close by.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

baller said:


> When and where will the list of host sites be posted? I'm curious to know who in the Midwest will be hosting, hopefully somewhere close by.


As I just mentioned, announcements should be 2 weeks away.


----------



## baller (Oct 4, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> As I just mentioned, announcements should be 2 weeks away.


My bad I didn't scroll to page 3 before I responded.


----------



## deadeyedickwc (Jan 10, 2010)

heard the shoot is moving from rio rancho to albquerquie


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

deadeyedickwc said:


> heard the shoot is moving from rio rancho to albquerquie


Supposedly, yes. Rumor has it that Carl Jamison from the New Mexico Chili Peppers club won it, with support from an ESDF member and the use of a larger venue.

-Steve


----------



## archer_nm (Mar 29, 2004)

Come on Richard. Albuquerque don't ignore spell check. Expect to see you in the Duke city and you can take that to the bank.


----------



## Number46 (Dec 26, 2012)

So have the locations been posted and I'm just looking in the wrong place?


----------



## trevorpowdrell (May 8, 2012)

Try here
http://www.teamusa.org/USA-Archery/...-and-Locations-Announced-for-Indoor-Nationals

Still waiting on the annoucment of vertical 3 spot


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

trevorpowdrell said:


> Still waiting on the annoucment of vertical 3 spot


If it happens, is it going to be everyone on the WA-style 3 spot, only certain categories, or just if you choose to shoot multispots it's now vertical instead of a "V?"

Just asking.......is there an up and down on the Vegas 3 spot or can you pick which way the "V" faces? Not shooting multispots yet to even need to know, but now I wonder.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

This is an interesting question with lots of different answers.

As of an End of September conference call plus recent high performance meetings at USA Archery, the targets that definitely will be used are the Vertical 3 spot and the 40cm 10 ring. From a USA Archery standpoint, the Vertical 3 and 10 ring 40cm have never been in jeopardy of being removed from Indoor Nationals.

Now, it was proposed by some oddball person or club that the 40cm target face be dropped. If World Archery drops it, then it might be considered. Since the recommendation came from a person or club and not World Archery, the recommendation never was considered.

With regards to the triangle 3. World Archery is eliminating the triangle 3. You want multiple spots, you use a vertical.

Now, USA Archery is considering keeping the use of a Triangle 3 for 2015 Indoor. It's an uphill battle to keep it. The JOAD Committee is making the recommendation to eliminate it, and I believe it has the support of others inside various USA Archery committees.

With regard to the Vegas or triangle face. Apex of the triangle is always up. In other words, the number 2 target is upward.

With regard to target face choices, you can choose vertical or single spot at the time of registration.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

USA Archery would be correct in keeping the triangle 3 spot for 2015. Organizers and participants should have adequate notice. Participants would need to have their ranges, or clubs order vertical 3 spots in order to practice. How many ranges actually keep these in stock? Organizers would need to secure adequate target butts to accomodate their anticipated numbers wishing to use a vertical target. I'm not quite sure why the JOAD Committee would push for adoption of a change with so little notice. I dare say the majority of juniors out there have never seen a vertical 3 spot. Why the rush?


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

I'm still pretty mediocre so I shot nationals with a 10 ring last year. But there were plenty of traditional and youth shooters (as well as quite a few OR people) in the full nationals shooting lower than me. It would be only the best youth shooters who would even want to use multispots.

If they have to differentiate themselves from Vegas -- a stealth consideration perhaps at work here -- adopt the vertical the rest of the world cup uses (funny but Vegas doesn't blend), but give people a 10 ring choice. Cuz otherwise you'd be running right back off some of the same people whom the multisite configuration is supposed to be bringing in.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

While the vertical 3 spot has been in use for quite some time internationally, it is sparingly used in the USA. So the majority of facilities do not have these faces on hand and would be loathe to order them without some clear guidance from USAA that these will be the operating standard. Has USAA said this to the community? Then there is that pesky cost of ordering targets outside of the ranges normal purchasing windows. A range might have to pay more than double the price to order just a few hundred faces on short notice. All things USAA and their various committees should be considering.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

midwayarcherywi said:


> USA Archery would be correct in keeping the triangle 3 spot for 2015. Organizers and participants should have adequate notice. Participants would need to have their ranges, or clubs order vertical 3 spots in order to practice. How many ranges actually keep these in stock? Organizers would need to secure adequate target butts to accomodate their anticipated numbers wishing to use a vertical target. I'm not quite sure why the JOAD Committee would push for adoption of a change with so little notice. I dare say the majority of juniors out there have never seen a vertical 3 spot. Why the rush?


Okay...call me a bit jaded, but we have BOWMEN that shoot the vertical 3 spot here in the state of Arizona. Heck, my soon to be 13 year old started shooting verticals when he was 9. If a junior hasn't shot a vertical 3 ever, then that junior hasn't been around the block much.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

midwayarcherywi said:


> While the vertical 3 spot has been in use for quite some time internationally, it is sparingly used in the USA. So the majority of facilities do not have these faces on hand and would be loathe to order them without some clear guidance from USAA that these will be the operating standard. Has USAA said this to the community? Then there is that pesky cost of ordering targets outside of the ranges normal purchasing windows. A range might have to pay more than double the price to order just a few hundred faces on short notice. All things USAA and their various committees should be considering.


Again, I don't know where you find the Vertical 3 being sparingly used. I see it being used at a lot of places outside of Arizona. Gee - for last year's National Indoor, I know it was available in Tulare (CA) and Rio Rancho (NM). It was likely used at other venues as well. World Cup Indoor at the World Archery Festival in Vegas would use Vertical 3's.

Within Arizona, the major ranges and pro shops all carry Vertical 3's. The largest JOAD clubs in Arizona (Corner Archery, Arizona Archery Club, Desert Sky Archers, Paseo Vista Archery Club, Pineapple JOAD) all shoot vertical 3's at 18m. 

Again, maybe I see a different side of the archery world.

-Steve


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> Okay...call me a bit jaded, but we have BOWMEN that shoot the vertical 3 spot here in the state of Arizona. Heck, my soon to be 13 year old started shooting verticals when he was 9. If a junior hasn't shot a vertical 3 ever, then that junior hasn't been around the block much.


Haha. English. By junior I meant anyone under legal drinking age, rather than a USAA definition of a junior.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> Again, I don't know where you find the Vertical 3 being sparingly used. I see it being used at a lot of places outside of Arizona. Gee - for last year's National Indoor, I know it was available in Tulare (CA) and Rio Rancho (NM). It was likely used at other venues as well. World Cup Indoor at the World Archery Festival in Vegas would use Vertical 3's.
> 
> Within Arizona, the major ranges and pro shops all carry Vertical 3's. The largest JOAD clubs in Arizona (Corner Archery, Arizona Archery Club, Desert Sky Archers, Paseo Vista Archery Club, Pineapple JOAD) all shoot vertical 3's at 18m.
> 
> ...


Yeah. I definitely think you are seeing a bit of a different archery world than many of us. Chicago is not exactly small but no ranges around here have verticals for you to practice. I don't think any North Region venues for USAA Indoor Nationals had verticals as an option.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> Again, I don't know where you find the Vertical 3 being sparingly used. I see it being used at a lot of places outside of Arizona. Gee - for last year's National Indoor, I know it was available in Tulare (CA) and Rio Rancho (NM). It was likely used at other venues as well. World Cup Indoor at the World Archery Festival in Vegas would use Vertical 3's.
> 
> Within Arizona, the major ranges and pro shops all carry Vertical 3's. The largest JOAD clubs in Arizona (Corner Archery, Arizona Archery Club, Desert Sky Archers, Paseo Vista Archery Club, Pineapple JOAD) all shoot vertical 3's at 18m.
> 
> ...


Btw verticals in Vegas were only available for the WA shoot off. You couldn't fit a combo of vertical 3 spots and single spots on the Morrell butts used. I did not see any targets with a vertical outside of the WA event. So I contend that this is much more than a minor tweak and shooters should be given an adequate heads up.


----------



## RickBac (Sep 18, 2011)

Here in Arizona, Vertical 3 spots are used as often as 10 Ring. Triangles are only used by clubs that wish to go to Vegas. 

As host of the 2015 AZ Indoor, we will not be offering the Triangle. Vertical or 10 Ring only. The state organization does not have any Triangles in stock. Our club has a handful at best. We burn through verticals like they are gasoline.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

RickBac said:


> Here in Arizona, Vertical 3 spots are used as often as 10 Ring. Triangles are only used by clubs that wish to go to Vegas.
> 
> As host of the 2015 AZ Indoor, we will not be offering the Triangle. Vertical or 10 Ring only. The state organization does not have any Triangles in stock. Our club has a handful at best. We burn through verticals like they are gasoline.


Do you think it is appropriate for a sate org to be making that call? Since this is a national event should not USAA be dictating what the standards are, or are not? Should this not be clearly communicated to all? Why should there even be any doubts about this in mid October?

Ah, my mistake as you were talking about a state event.


----------



## RickBac (Sep 18, 2011)

We try and follow what USA Archery is doing but we generally plan a little bit ahead of USAA

Last week there was supposed to be a meeting deciding on the fate of the Triangle at the national indoor.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Hardly any vertical 3's being used in Texas and then mostly for those practicing for world indoor trials. Texas A&M, our host for indoor nationals, would have to order all new bales to accommodate the verticle 3 spots. Someone explain to me how you put vertical 3 spot on the same bale as a single spot 40?


----------



## RickBac (Sep 18, 2011)

You can put 2 verticals and 2 singles on a bale with an AB/CD Line.

http://www.azjoad.com/main/forms/Indoor_Target_Type_Assignments.pdf


----------



## wa-prez (Sep 9, 2006)

RickBac said:


> You can put 2 verticals and 2 singles on a bale with an AB/CD Line.
> 
> http://www.azjoad.com/main/forms/Indoor_Target_Type_Assignments.pdf


That is some good planning. But only real monkey wrench would be THREE single 10 ring with one wanting vertical 3-spot OR Three vertical 3-spot and one 10-ring.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

wa-prez said:


> That is some good planning. But only real monkey wrench would be THREE single 10 ring with one wanting vertical 3-spot OR Three vertical 3-spot and one 10-ring.


Putting my tournament director and scoring director hat on here...

You group your target choices together. I'm going to sound arrogant here - if I was the tournament director or the scoring director, *I* choose what lane you shoot in, not the archer. This means that I have the luxury of putting a group of 3 spot shooters together/40cm 10 ring together, or I can mix and match them in a 2 by 2 arrangement.

Tournaments work well when they are pre-planned and staged properly. Not when it's willy-nilly and haphazardly set. Well run tournaments live and die when you either have a scoring director who knows what they are doing, or if you don't - your tournament does not exist for long.

-Steve


----------



## JoAnn (Jul 21, 2011)

Where is USA archery official ruling on the target faces for indoor nationals? I called USA archery 2 weeks ago and was told "most likely" they would be staying the the triangle 3-spot. This needs to be clarified ASAP so the kids can practice appropriately. My kid hasn't been exposed to vertical 3-spot until recently and that's only because I heard a "rumor" that the vertical 3 might be used at indoor nats. 2 ranges we use don't even have the vertical 3 in stock. I have to assume putting 4 vertical spots would mean side by side not top-bottom positioning?


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Clear communication with adequate time to prepare for changes is what any organizing body should strive for. It is clear there are many across the country who are in the same spot we are in, in the Chicago area. There are no verticals on which to practice and no one is ordering any until USAA clarifies what intends to do.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

JoAnn said:


> Where is USA archery official ruling on the target faces for indoor nationals? I called USA archery 2 weeks ago and was told "most likely" they would be staying the the triangle 3-spot. This needs to be clarified ASAP so the kids can practice appropriately. My kid hasn't been exposed to vertical 3-spot until recently and that's only because I heard a "rumor" that the vertical 3 might be used at indoor nats. 2 ranges we use don't even have the vertical 3 in stock. I have to assume putting 4 vertical spots would mean side by side not top-bottom positioning?


This is something that's interesting (to me).

To my exposure of anything with Indoor Nationals, including the years I either was a line judge, the DOS, or COJ - the vertical 3 spot and the 40cm 10 ring were always the primary offerings. 

The years I did Nationals where I was just a coach - the vertical 3 spot and the 40cm 10 ring were always the primary offerings.

I guess this is the difference in the different areas here in the United States. The major JOAD clubs here in the Arizona area train their archers to see an international viewpoint, not a national or regional one. 

Putting my scoring director/tournament director hat on - to a TD or SD, there is no difference in arrangements if an archer uses a 40cm 10 ring or a triangle 3. It's the same physical paper size on the bale.

For a target that has 4 verticals, they are arranged side by side like dominos. I refer to this document again where you can see the legal arrangements. This document is used at various judges seminars...it's WA legal.

http://www.azjoad.com/main/forms/Indoor_Target_Type_Assignments.pdf

With regards Morrell 48" targets: you are able to do all of these indoor target arrangements and make it WA, NFAA, and Vegas legal on a Morrell 48. You can also do it on a FieldLogic Block 48", a Big Green Targets 48", and others that have a minimum 48x48" size dimension.

With regards to triangle vs. vertical 3 and training: it should be easier to shoot a vertical 3 versus a triangle 3. Scores shot on a vert 3 and a triangle 3 should statistically be identical. I know for the kids that I track, it is.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

With regards to triangle vs. vertical 3 and training: it should be easier to shoot a vertical 3 versus a triangle 3. Scores shot on a vert 3 and a triangle 3 should statistically be identical. I know for the kids that I track said:


> A spot is a spot and with this I agree. It's the same size but it does take time to acclimate. I'm not sure where you come up with it is easier to shoot a vertical rather than a triangle. As a shooter though, it does take practice to make the change.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

midwayarcherywi said:


> Clear communication with adequate time to prepare for changes is what any organizing body should strive for. It is clear there are many across the country who are in the same spot we are in, in the Chicago area. There are no verticals on which to practice and no one is ordering any until USAA clarifies what intends to do.


I guess my own personal confusion is this, and I'll ask a question here - has there been a region for USA Archery Indoor Nationals that has NOT offered a vertical 3?

And then, my next question is this:

What are people practicing for? Is the goal in mind to be able to use one target (triangle 3) and be able to kill two birds with one stone and practice for Indoor Nats and Vegas in one fell swoop?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

midwayarcherywi said:


> A spot is a spot and with this I agree. It's the same size but it does take time to acclimate. I'm not sure where you come up with it is easier to shoot a vertical rather than a triangle. As a shooter though, it does take practice to make the change.


Both vert and triangle 3 requires small changes in form. Triangle 3's form change is less impacting because you're moving up and down slightly.

Triangle 3 requires and up/down change going from the apex (2 position) to the base points (1/3), and then a side to side change (1/3). You're changing up/down and side to side, not merely in an up/down.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> I guess my own personal confusion is this, and I'll ask a question here - has there been a region for USA Archery Indoor Nationals that has NOT offered a vertical 3?
> 
> And then, my next question is this:
> 
> What are people practicing for? Is the goal in mind to be able to use one target (triangle 3) and be able to kill two birds with one stone and practice for Indoor Nats and Vegas in one fell swoop?


I think I referenced in a different post that I believe the vertical was not offered at any North Region location last year. Not in Ohio, I believe. The years I shot East Lansing, not there either. 

The triangle does make tournament organization easier. It is convention in the majority of the country. I would say the vertical is not the norm outside of some pockets of the USA. NFAA shooters are used to the configuration and it makes crossover shooters feel at ease.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Beastmaster said:


> Both vert and triangle 3 requires small changes in form. Triangle 3's form change is less impacting because you're moving up and down slightly.
> 
> Triangle 3 requires and up/down change going from the apex (2 position) to the base points (1/3), and then a side to side change (1/3). You're changing up/down and side to side, not merely in an up/down.


Maybe. I can't tell you anyone who changes how they approach the shot when going from a single spot to the 3 spot. If they are, they may be over thinking it.


----------



## RickBac (Sep 18, 2011)

When we host a tournament, registration starts about 2 months prior to the event. In most cases they fill up prior to the tournament. It is relatively easy to plan target bale assignments as they must choose a type of target at registration, no change allowed. This gives the archer plenty of time to practice on the target face they chose. As most clubs here concentrate on WA rules, the compounders usually choose a vertical and the recurvers choose a 10 Ring. While yes a Triangle will fit in the place of a 10 Ring, not having it as an option reduces cost of target face inventory. Also, it keeps archers from bouncing between 10 Ring and Triangle at a tournament if they do not like their choice at registration. Yes it happens.

We do not allow registration the day of the tournament. (they are full anyway). This took a while for some to get used to and others choose not to shoot. Still there are plenty of archers to fill the venues.

Arizona State Indoor, Arizona JOAD indoor, Summer Sizzle, Iron Archer, Copper Classic all fill way before the tournament. The tournaments fill up because they are run well and are organized long before the day of the tournament. Not all indoor tournaments here do. Prior planning is key. Target face options are a huge part of the planning.


----------



## JoAnn (Jul 21, 2011)

Beastmaster said:


> This is something that's interesting (to me).
> 
> To my exposure of anything with Indoor Nationals, including the years I either was a line judge, the DOS, or COJ - the vertical 3 spot and the 40cm 10 ring were always the primary offerings.
> 
> Based on the 2 indoor nationals I have been exposed to the 2 applications merely said '3-spot'. it certainly didnt allow the option to take Veritcal or triangle and I know no one shot anything but a triangle 3spot on the lines I was present to see.


----------



## Seattlepop (Dec 8, 2003)

Beastmaster said:


> Both vert and triangle 3 requires small changes in form. *Triangle 3's form change is less impacting* because you're moving up and down slightly.
> 
> Triangle 3 requires and up/down change going from the apex (2 position) to the base points (1/3), and then a side to side change (1/3). You're changing up/down and side to side, not merely in an up/down.


I think you meant to say the vertical 3 is less impacting which makes more sense to me for the reasons you cite. The triangle target face requires what I have heard referred to as the "Triangle shuffle" to get your upper body realigned. Project the line of aim for spots 1 and 3 out to 70m and the targets would be several yards off center. Going from single to vertical to triangle spots I find my scores go from bad to worse to "I should have stayed home and rearranged my sock drawer".


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

> I guess my own personal confusion is this, and I'll ask a question here - has there been a region for USA Archery Indoor Nationals that has NOT offered a vertical 3?
> 
> And then, my next question is this:
> 
> What are people practicing for? Is the goal in mind to be able to use one target (triangle 3) and be able to kill two birds with one stone and practice for Indoor Nats and Vegas in one fell swoop?]


Steve, College Station, I.e. Texas A&M has NEVER offered a vertical 3 spot and to force them to use them means several thousand dollars in new bale investment and scrapping their Hips Bales.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

TomB said:


> Steve, College Station, I.e. Texas A&M has NEVER offered a vertical 3 spot and to force them to use them means several thousand dollars in new bale investment and scrapping their Hips Bales.


I have a feeling the Aggies would happily not be a host of Nat Indoors rather than shell out the cash for all new bales.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

TomB said:


> Steve, College Station, I.e. Texas A&M has NEVER offered a vertical 3 spot and to force them to use them means several thousand dollars in new bale investment and scrapping their Hips Bales.





Mulcade said:


> I have a feeling the Aggies would happily not be a host of Nat Indoors rather than shell out the cash for all new bales.


I have a question and based on a reasonable assumption, I feel I probably know the answer to it. From there, I have a comment.

Does TAMU use a 48" HIPS bale? Either the older layered/stacked Ethafoam one or the new 4x4 one?

If the answer is yes - then this next comment will likely be a bit...well...direct.

The thought of requiring the replacement of a 48" square bale to use vertical targets is a bit shortsighted and very unusual. Being blunt - it's a garbage excuse.

For indoor, you're able to do 60cm, and a combination of 4x40cm (either triangle or 10 ring), or 2x40cm (either triangle or 10 ring) and 2 vertical 3 rings, or 4 vertical 3 rings. As long as you are using a 48" target from ANY manufacturer, you're able to do any of those above combinations.

I guess this is a minor difference in personal and coaching philosophy from others. I train my kids and have my son trained to think globally, not locally. I run the tournaments that I'm hired to do in the same way.


----------



## Mulcade (Aug 31, 2007)

Beast, it's not a matter of being able to put the targets on the bales, but not wearing your bales out. With the replaceable cores, the 60cm, 40cm 10ring, and 40cm triangle, can all be arranged such that the majority of the hits will fall within the replaceable cores. You can't do that with the 40cm vertical faces, thus you have to rely on the non-replaceable portions of the bales to absorb a portion of those shots. When you start doing that, you make a big impact on the longevity of the bales.

If maintaining the longevity of the bales is not thinking globally, I'm not sure what is...

Like TomB mentioned, TAMU has never offered the 40cm vertical face at their tournaments. They have the equipment to support the 40cm triangle and it has been an official solution for a long time. I don't see any reason up to this point why they should have changed their procedure for something that was not necessary.



> The thought of requiring the replacement of a 48" square bale to use vertical targets is a bit shortsighted and very unusual. Being blunt - it's a garbage excuse.


if it were replacing one or a handful, I would agree. Replacing 30-40 targets at a couple hundred dollars a pop is hardly what I would consider garbage. It's not like you can just replace a couple and make them available down at the far end. What if you have 3 more archers who want to shoot vertical than you have bales? You can't just put out enough for the compounds and hope none of the recurves want to shoot at them. Rearranging the shooting line as the start time approaches is a recipe for disaster. So, you either have to have them available for everyone, or no one.

EDIT: To actually answer your question, I believe they do use the 48" 4-spot HIPS.


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Steve it appears your question about who did not offer vertical 3 spots should have been phrased differently since it appears more venues did not offer them than those that did!


----------



## JoAnn (Jul 21, 2011)

Looking at the 2014 applications for all 11 locations only NM and WA offered the option of a vertical 3-spot.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

JoAnn said:


> Looking at the 2014 applications for all 11 locations only NM and WA offered the option of a vertical 3-spot.


Precisely. Arizona is not the center of the universe. (Although I graduated from the University of Arizona and used to think so too.)


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

It would be relevant if the vast majority of potential sites COULD NOT use the verticals, but if USAA has decided indoor nationals should be done with the verticals, but is just encountering cost-benefit pushback from regularly chosen sites (who COULD use the verticals but would PREFER not to), that's the tail trying to wag the dog. You're not a site til USAA says you are, and if they disclosed upfront in the bid request that verticals were possible, that's the ground rules. I'd prefer that decision be central than we don't use what the governing body wants because in a multisite tourney the routine sites are dictating terms.

Now, if USAA didn't really let bidders know verticals were possible, maybe this is not the year to make any changes. Disclose it up front next year and pick sites on that basis. If TAMU wants to continue the regular hosting honors it plays ball.

This is yet another reason I think it should be one site, or qualify down to a one site final, is the sites seem to want to run their particular show their way and that leads to all manner of our complaints, scoring delays, face choices, etc. Either that or we start standardizing the multisites and if you want to host you meet the standards.


----------



## trevorpowdrell (May 8, 2012)

Here is the bid packet for 2015/16
http://www.teamusa.org/~/media/USA_Archery/Documents/ARY 20152016 Nat Indoor Bid pkg V1 020614.pdf

Recurve Division—
Two rounds of 60 arrows from 18 meters 40 cm Target face (Single or 3 spot face)
Compound Division—
Two rounds of 60 arrows from 18 meters 40 cm Target face (Single or 3 spot) – Inner ten ring scoring applied

Later there is the following

Local Organizing Committee Responsibilities:
All necessary target faces per distances being used (per World Archery Guidelines)

No explicit language that states the 3 spot should be vertical.


----------



## Azzurri (Mar 10, 2014)

trevorpowdrell said:


> Here is the bid packet for 2015/16
> http://www.teamusa.org/~/media/USA_Archery/Documents/ARY 20152016 Nat Indoor Bid pkg V1 020614.pdf
> 
> Recurve Division—
> ...


Between what you're saying, and the basic chronology where we know what the sites are but not what the face decision is, it sounds after-fact. Unless they called people independent of the bid packet and said, "when we said 3 spot we meant....." then people were bidding under a status quo assumption and it seems appropriate to continue as-is, regardless of any shift in policy to mimic WA.

That being said, if USAA wants to move to WA verticals and the site pool could handle it but just prefers not, make a final decision prior to sending packets out, put it in the bid packet next year, and maybe also ask a question to trigger expression in the bid of any opposition, and select accordingly.


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

Wow! This is one long and involved thread. I am going to make it longer. 

Although I do not have all the answers, maybe I can shed some light on a few items. As we all know, USA Archery does not make official announcements on this forum, nor does it discuss issues that concern USA Archery business. Being on the JOAD Committee, gives me the opportunity to participate in some of the items that have been brought up on this thread. I may be overstepping my bounds, being on the committee, but I am hoping to at least squash some of the rumors.

*40cm 3-spot triangle target face*----- There has been talk from World Archery of eliminating this face from competition. Almost no one in World Archery, except for the United States uses this target face. No decision have been made, it has just been talk. If anything happen, it will come during the World Archery Congress during the World Championships in 2015. If World Archery decides to remove this target face, then I would expect USA Archery to follow suit. Changes are difficult, but if we expect to compete in the International arena, we should prepare our archers, at least at the National Level. Local and State level should be considered training grounds, catering to the pure recreational archer along with those who have the desire to compete at higher levels. ( I expect to get a bunch of push back on this, it Is just my opinion, not USA Archery policy)

At this time, per that last meeting we had, Indoor National are going to be run the same as 2014. No Changes in what target faces are allowed. World Archery Guidelines allow the triangle target face at this time.

*40cm single 10 ring target face*------ will still be around. There was some discussion about removing it, but that was shot down very quickly without discussion.

*40cm 3-spot Vertical target face*-----This is the face that is used by World Archery in all indoor competitions. I would expect, in time that USA Archery will eventually use this target face only in its Indoor Championships. They key words are “in time.”

Our main focus of discussion was the issue between the JOAD Indoor and National Indoors on the difference on scoring inner and outer 10 ring for Bowman/Cub Compound. In the JOAD Indoor, Bowman and Cub compound archers score the outer 10 ring, but in the National Indoor they score inner 10 ring. This has caused some confusion and mistakes in scoring by Bowman/Cub compound in the National Indoor. There has been some in depth discussion on making it all the same, shooting inner 10 ring for all compound. There are varying thoughts on the matter. At this time, there has not a consensus on which way to go. More research has to be done.

Bottom line is that at this time nothing has changed for 2015. For Indoor Nationals, three target faces can be used: 3-spot triangle, 3-spot vertical and single spot 10 ring. For JOAD Indoor Nationals all of the mentioned target face and the 60cm target face.

Hope this helps

Mike


----------



## midwayarcherywi (Sep 24, 2006)

Hey Hey! Thanks for clearing all of this up.


----------



## trevorpowdrell (May 8, 2012)

I know 1 tournament director who needs to know that as that is not the information given when he asked before ordering targets.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

Thanks Mike. This is very helpful as we prepare our archers for the indoor season.


----------



## JoAnn (Jul 21, 2011)

Thank you Mike!!


----------

