Joel,
This message is in response to your e-mail of January 3rd regarding the
pistol events schedule for the 2005 USASNC. I apologize for the delay in
getting back to you but felt it important to consult with members of the
staff to provide reasonably complete information.
We appreciate you concerns and interest in promoting the shooting sports. We have taken discussion from the competitor/member meeting at this summer's nationals along with many other factors into consideration in developing the 2005 schedule. I would like to point out a number of factors that go into the decision making process.
During the rifle-pistol meeting this summer at Fort Benning you did
circulate a survey and there was discussion regarding shortening the
nationals schedule. That discussion was not thorough and did not address
many points. Approximately one-half of the pistol competitors attended that meeting. Since that meeting, we have spoken with many pistol shooters and Buddy DuVall did a survey himself. Input we received indicates shooters want to shoot two times over each event course, they desire quality training time and do not want to shoot two matches in one day. Buddy only received nine responses to his survey and had to solicit a portion of those. Tuesday morning Mary discussed these nationals schedule alternatives with shooters here for a camp and came away with the same result. Two years ago at nationals free pistol training was only provided in the afternoon following another competition. Competitors complained strongly and at that year's competitor meeting the consensus was to have a training day between events, which we have provided.
The platform for all discipline national championship is to conduct a quality competition for the membership to recognize and honor our countries best Olympic style shooters and to select a National Team (NT) and National development Team (NDT). Some championships are used in the USST selection process, which may impact the schedule. Policies and Procedures dictate USST selection. Staff has established promoting the sport and increasing participation as an objective of the national championships as well. To this end we have added shooter clinics conducted by the National Coaches and resident athletes, added a noon time barbeque to provide a social experience as well as honor volunteers and life members, added more awards for 2005, added a new entry category this year and reduced fees for juniors and collegiates. The new entry category and junior grand champion award are specifically directed to newer and junior competitors.
In selecting the NT/NDT/USST there has never been a national coach in any discipline willing to select team members based upon one course of fire. In most competitions multiple courses let the better shooters' skills prevail. We have also seen this at the Junior Olympic Championships where the more highly skilled shooters have a poor performance the first day and come back with a more representative score the second course. While shooting multiple courses does require more days, the overwhelming consensus from shooters, coaches and parents is to shoot multiple courses at the higher-level competitions. There was a time when the USST selection for pistol was three separate competitions with one course of fire at each. The major complaint was that folks did not want to travel to shoot only one course of fire. Shooting one course of fire at the nationals would negatively impact the quality and integrity of the event. The nationals are to be a premier competition. Shooting one course of fire to determine the national champions would place the event in the same category/status as a local/regional event.
For 2005 the National Championships will be the USST selection for the
Championship of the Americas (CAT) as well as providing the opportunity for open shooters to earn world cup participation berths. That being the case, it is felt that two match courses and one final should be the minimum for selection. We have used a fall and spring match to select the USST keeping the nationals out of the selection process. While this process has been successful in shotgun, it has not proven to be so in rifle and pistol. We have experienced poor participation, which not only makes it difficult for the match to work financially, but low participation also limits the field eligible for the USST and creates a poor environment for overall performance development. While the objective was to provide three quality events (fall, spring and nationals) thus enhancing training and skill development, this has not been successful. Shooters cite limitations imposed by school, work and lack of funding. In a world championship or Olympic year, the fall and spring match scenario seems to work better. Moving the CAT selection to Nationals also frees national team budgets to do more training and international travel since the coaches are not funding selection matches. The Coaches do not finance athlete participation at nationals other than for residents. This brings us back to the age-old conflict of using the nationals as USST selection vehicle for the elite shooters rather than as a membership participation event to better accommodate the desires of the general shooter base.
Changing the pistol schedule is not as easy as it may appear. The rifle and pistol schedules must mesh. Those discipline events must overlay to make effective use of range time and volunteer labor. We cannot justify the additional expense of having days of only rifle or pistol events. We did run the rifle nationals longer in 2004 to accommodate shooters participating in the Milan World Cup. The additional cost was approximately $1,500 per day, which is not acceptable. We also have to consider time and work involved with range change over between events/disciplines. It may be easy to ask volunteers to work additional hours but that decision is not without challenges. Volunteers are key to conducting our competitions. Most are over 50 years of age and they will not nor can they work longer days if we want them to return for future matches. We currently receive pushback from 25 and particularly 50-meter staff as a result of long days, hot weather, insufficient help and little appreciation. When we ask them to run extended practice following a match and finals, they are not pleased. Employing temporary staff/volunteers is not an option. We continually have problems with folks who want to help a few days or partial days. We need people on the job every day that are knowledgeable and capable to provide the quality
competition and safety oversight our members deserve. It is also surprising how few volunteers we get in Columbus considering this is the home of the USAMU and many retired shooters. We also operate with half to one-third the volunteers used from say ten years ago and that is considering the change to electronic targets. We typically have volunteers doing more than one task. This reduction is necessary to control costs. It has been policy since the 1990s that we operate USAS conducted competitions on a breakeven or small profit basis. We can no longer operate events at significant losses without impacting athlete programs.
One of our major goals is to increase the athlete pool. Pistol has not had
the junior farm system as other disciplines have had. We are directing
resources at developing effective youth air pistol programs through the new progressive position air pistol program that Martin is initiating. It will
take some years before this program produces top-level international
shooters. While we are seeing a decline in pistol shooters attending the
nationals and team selection matches, the number of participants in the
Junior Olympic program is increasing. We are limited to the number of
competitors we can invite to the national in the Olympic Shooting Center but sport pistol and free pistol entries continue to increase.
Back to one of the original issues regarding Nationals schedule, the 2005
program is one day shorter than last year. Shooters might consider
specializing in one event if time and financial constraints prevent
attending the entire competition. The performances of many athletes doing so in shotgun and rifle have benefited from specialization. Another viable possibility is to eliminate separate training days. In the old days at Black Canyon there was no training provided other than the very first day and "zeroing" for 15-30 minutes before the first course of fire. World cups used to have training only the first day of the event. However, the desire of shooters and the trend has been to provide additional training and we have accommodated those desires. Again however, any such schedule change must be coordinated with that of rifle.
While lengthy, I felt it necessary to provide some detail into the
considerations of establishing the Nationals schedule. Hopefully it is
realized that staff spends significant time weighing options and making
decisions that are in the best interests of the sport and meeting the
desires of the competitors. We are open-minded and certainly realize that we are a service organization. There are many factors and considerations involved in the decision making process. One of the most challenging aspects that staff faces is dealing with the controversy of promoting the sport versus preparing our top athletes to win medals. The two objectives are definitely not synonymous. We continually attempt to refine the USST selection process to select and train the best USST to maximize ISSF medal count. We continually tinker with schedules. In some 26 years of the US Shooting Team under the NRA and USA Shooting we have not found the optimum solutions nor have we pleased everyone involved. Our fourteen member staff is committed and dedicated to our sport. We do appreciate everyone's input and are sensitive to his or her needs. History verifies that we do make
changes based on member input. Do realize that at the end of the day, we have to make decisions and unfortunately we cannot meet everyone's desires.
I do hope the foregoing provides insight and addresses your questions to
which we are pleased to respond.
Bob
Robert K. Mitchell
ED/CEO
USA Shooting
719-866-4899
Response from USA Shooting regarding a shortened Nationals
Moderators: pilkguns, m1963, David Levene, Spencer, Richard H
Forum rules
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
If you wish to make a donation to this forum's operation , it would be greatly appreciated.
https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/targettalk?yours=true
-
Steve Swartz
Here It Is, Seri Atem
As painful as it is, my comments are indicated with **embeds** as indicated. I apologize in advance for assuming a dry, clinical, and somewhat "professorial" tone in my comments. I feel very strongly about this issue (not schedule compression per se, but the broader issue of USAS leadership-membership communication), and believe that a purely logical, clinical, and academic approach is absolutely necessary:
**Snip two paragraphs of introductory remarks from previous posting.**
During the rifle-pistol meeting this summer at Fort Benning you did
circulate a survey and there was discussion regarding shortening the
nationals schedule. That discussion was not thorough and did not address
many points.
**Arguable opinion; not shared by many. Tangential relevance.**
Approximately one-half of the pistol competitors attended that meeting. Since that meeting, we have spoken with many pistol shooters and Buddy DuVall did a survey himself. Input we received indicates shooters want to shoot two times over each event course, they desire quality training time and do not want to shoot two matches in one day. Buddy only received nine responses to his survey and had to solicit a portion of those.
**Opinion based on anecdotal report from biased source; small sample size; invalid sample.**
Tuesday morning Mary discussed these nationals schedule alternatives with shooters here for a camp and came away with the same result.
**Opinion based on anecdotal report from biased source(s); small sample size; invalid sample.**
Two years ago at nationals free pistol training was only provided in the afternoon following another competition. Competitors complained strongly and at that year's competitor meeting the consensus was to have a training day between events, which we have provided.
**Opinion from inappropriate, invalid example. Observation reported not validated by other observers. Arguable conclusion. Anecdotal report from biased source(s); small sample size; invalid sample.**
The platform for all discipline national championship is to conduct a quality competition for the membership to recognize and honor our countries best Olympic style shooters and to select a National Team (NT) and National development Team (NDT). Some championships are used in the USST selection process, which may impact the schedule. Policies and Procedures dictate USST selection. Staff has established promoting the sport and increasing participation as an objective of the national championships as well. To this end we have added shooter clinics conducted by the National Coaches and resident athletes, added a noon time barbeque to provide a social experience as well as honor volunteers and life members, added more awards for 2005, added a new entry category this year and reduced fees for juniors and collegiates. The new entry category and junior grand champion award are specifically directed to newer and junior competitors.
**Correct insofar as represented; however, not directly relevant to issue of schedule compression.**
In selecting the NT/NDT/USST there has never been a national coach in any discipline willing to select team members based upon one course of fire. In most competitions multiple courses let the better shooters' skills prevail. We have also seen this at the Junior Olympic Championships where the more highly skilled shooters have a poor performance the first day and come back with a more representative score the second course. While shooting multiple courses does require more days, the overwhelming consensus from shooters, coaches and parents is to shoot multiple courses at the higher-level competitions. There was a time when the USST selection for pistol was three separate competitions with one course of fire at each. The major complaint was that folks did not want to travel to shoot only one course of fire. Shooting one course of fire at the nationals would negatively impact the quality and integrity of the event. The nationals are to be a premier competition. Shooting one course of fire to determine the national champions would place the event in the same category/status as a local/regional event.
**Correct insofar as represented; however, not directly relevant to issue of schedule compression.**
For 2005 the National Championships will be the USST selection for the
Championship of the Americas (CAT) as well as providing the opportunity for open shooters to earn world cup participation berths. That being the case, it is felt that two match courses and one final should be the minimum for selection. We have used a fall and spring match to select the USST keeping the nationals out of the selection process. While this process has been successful in shotgun, it has not proven to be so in rifle and pistol. We have experienced poor participation, which not only makes it difficult for the match to work financially, but low participation also limits the field eligible for the USST and creates a poor environment for overall performance development. While the objective was to provide three quality events (fall, spring and nationals) thus enhancing training and skill development, this has not been successful. Shooters cite limitations imposed by school, work and lack of funding. In a world championship or Olympic year, the fall and spring match scenario seems to work better. Moving the CAT selection to Nationals also frees national team budgets to do more training and international travel since the coaches are not funding selection matches. The Coaches do not finance athlete participation at nationals other than for residents. This brings us back to the age-old conflict of using the nationals as USST selection vehicle for the elite shooters rather than as a membership participation event to better accommodate the desires of the general shooter base.
**Correct insofar as represented; however, not directly relevant to issue of schedule compression. Indirectly supports (vice refutes) need for schedule compression.**
Changing the pistol schedule is not as easy as it may appear. The rifle and pistol schedules must mesh. Those discipline events must overlay to make effective use of range time and volunteer labor. We cannot justify the additional expense of having days of only rifle or pistol events.
**Correct insofar as represented; however, not directly relevant to issue of schedule compression. Insofar as anyone is suggesting the reduction of days allocated to the match, cost savings estimated by Bob Mitchell of $1,500 per diem suggest that schedule compression is an effective cost reduction strategy. A simple overlap of OTR and MFA days would potentially save 3 days @ $1,500 = $4,500 immediate cost savings for each match. Again, point supports (vice refutes) pursuing schedule compression.**
We did run the rifle nationals longer in 2004 to accommodate shooters participating in the Milan World Cup. The additional cost was approximately $1,500 per day, which is not acceptable. We also have to consider time and work involved with range change over between events/disciplines.
**See note above. It is difficult to see how compressing the schedule would make the schedule longer.**
It may be easy to ask volunteers to work additional hours but that decision is not without challenges. Volunteers are key to conducting our competitions. Most are over 50 years of age and they will not nor can they work longer days if we want them to return for future matches. We currently receive pushback from 25 and particularly 50-meter staff as a result of long days, hot weather, insufficient help and little appreciation. When we ask them to run extended practice following a match and finals, they are not pleased.
**While volunteer preference is a key concern, conversations with actual volunteer staff during 2003 USASNC indicated that the depth and nature of this sentiment is currently up for investigation, as it did not appear to be shared by the actual volunteers themselves. However, schedule compression would neither create nor reduce the number of actual hours worked by volunteers in total. Schedule compression would reallocate those hours worked across a finite, shorter scheduling horizon.**
Employing temporary staff/volunteers is not an option. We continually have problems with folks who want to help a few days or partial days. We need people on the job every day that are knowledgeable and capable to provide the quality
competition and safety oversight our members deserve.
**Unless USAS is proposing this course of action, evidence does not suggest this course of action is warranted as a result of the schedule compression issue. If it is warranted by other factors (declining volunteer participation, etc.) that is a separable management issue.**
It is also surprising how few volunteers we get in Columbus considering this is the home of the USAMU and many retired shooters. We also operate with half to one-third the volunteers used from say ten years ago and that is considering the change to electronic targets. We typically have volunteers doing more than one task.
**The semantics of "paid volunteers" aside, perhaps the core issue of volunteer resourcing needs to be addressed by a more effective mechanism than stretching the schedule. The implication of the points being raised is that we are retaining volunteers by keeping the schedule long, and the workday short. That is a surprising claim to be made by USAS; however, if it is true, then there are perhaps other issues not yet raised (external to the issue of schedule compression) that need to be addressed.**
This reduction is necessary to control costs. It has been policy since the 1990s that we operate USAS conducted competitions on a breakeven or small profit basis. We can no longer operate events at significant losses without impacting athlete programs.
**See notes re: cost reduction through schedule compression. This point supports, rather than refutes, schedule compression. In addition, volunteer pay (?) is part of the cost mix. Offers have been extended to analyze the business case of running competitions to the USAS on a pro bono basis by qualified consultants. At least one of these offers still stands; although USAS has not availed itself of these opportunities to the best of my knowledge. If USAS prefers to pay for those services, that is an alternative. Even the best run businesses in the world seek expert assistance from time to time. Maybe that is how they got to be the best run businesses in the world in the first place . . . I'm sure there are universities in the state of Colorado who would be absolutely delighted to take on the arduous and arcane task of seeking operating efficiencies as a class project for some MBA students. For free.**
One of our major goals is to increase the athlete pool.
**Perhaps strategies for increasing the athlete pool (see multiple threads in this venue) beyond the current approach (?) need to be investigated. We all benefit from an increased pool, and increased quality of that pool. perhaps USAS is willing to open a dialogue with the membership (the entire membership) on that issue. Many of the members of USAS could provide a wealth of experience and expertise in manaigng large and diverse organizations, to include not for profits and governmental agencies. In addition to understanding (and loving) the sport, many of them know how to make things work. Current channels for communication are woefully insufficient to support this dialogue. Hopefully, there are still at least a handful of members who would be willing to participate fully, actively, and enthusiastically if some effective mechanism for participation were provided.**
Pistol has not had
the junior farm system as other disciplines have had. We are directing
resources at developing effective youth air pistol programs through the new progressive position air pistol program that Martin is initiating. It will
take some years before this program produces top-level international
shooters. While we are seeing a decline in pistol shooters attending the
nationals and team selection matches, the number of participants in the
Junior Olympic program is increasing. We are limited to the number of
competitors we can invite to the national in the Olympic Shooting Center but sport pistol and free pistol entries continue to increase.
**Indirectly related issue. Is it to be proposed that the increased pool of competitors would prefer a longer schedule? This seems unlikely. Is it to be proposed that a larger pool of junior shooters would be more willing to put up with a longer schedule? A superficial consideration of this premise might seem so; however, many junior shooters have parents who are not outside the workforce with all the concerns of the older shooters themselves. Once a junior is old enough to act on a preference for a longer schedule, would they still have this preference? How many 18 year old college students working part time would prefer a 14 day competition schedule over a 6 day schedule? In addition, a marked shift in priority to accomodate the preferences of junior shooters at the explicit expense of adult shooters (abandoning the concerns of athletes 21 and older) will produce programmatic and systemic consequences. Many undesirable "Side Effects" would result from such a priority shift. Have the consequences of throwing away such a vast set of resources (adult shooters) been considered?**
Back to one of the original issues regarding Nationals schedule, the 2005
program is one day shorter than last year. Shooters might consider
specializing in one event if time and financial constraints prevent
attending the entire competition.
** Shooters have already been forced to make this choice. That forced choice could explain decreasing participation . . . ?**
The performances of many athletes doing so in shotgun and rifle have benefited from specialization. Another viable possibility is to eliminate separate training days. In the old days at Black Canyon there was no training provided other than the very first day and "zeroing" for 15-30 minutes before the first course of fire. World cups used to have training only the first day of the event. However, the desire of shooters and the trend has been to provide additional training and we have accommodated those desires. Again however, any such schedule change must be coordinated with that of rifle.
**The "classic resource assignment problem" from the literature applies. It appears as though a straw man has been created: "Either A or B." Several alternatives were explored, presented, and discussed at the competitor's meeting (see comments above) and in this forum. These alterantives are available for consideration at any such time as USAS is willing to consider the question of scheduling efficiency.**
**As always, I trust my comments will be regarded in a positive light, as I offer them sincerely and "from the heart" in an effort to help the sport, my colleagues and friends in Pistol and other disciplines, and all parties involved in International Shooting. It is my intent to help build, not tear down, the resources and organizations that comprise the wonderful sports making up the Olympic Shooting events. Please feel free to respond in this forum, or through EMail at leslieswartz@erinet.com and I promise that I will respectfully consider all feedback, pro or con, and will try to provide any "value added" I can back to you. Thank You for your kind time and attention."
**NOTE: Remaining verbiage re: USAS commitment to needs of members and shooting community, USAS interest in hearing from members and considering inputs, etc. etc. snipped.**
**Snip two paragraphs of introductory remarks from previous posting.**
During the rifle-pistol meeting this summer at Fort Benning you did
circulate a survey and there was discussion regarding shortening the
nationals schedule. That discussion was not thorough and did not address
many points.
**Arguable opinion; not shared by many. Tangential relevance.**
Approximately one-half of the pistol competitors attended that meeting. Since that meeting, we have spoken with many pistol shooters and Buddy DuVall did a survey himself. Input we received indicates shooters want to shoot two times over each event course, they desire quality training time and do not want to shoot two matches in one day. Buddy only received nine responses to his survey and had to solicit a portion of those.
**Opinion based on anecdotal report from biased source; small sample size; invalid sample.**
Tuesday morning Mary discussed these nationals schedule alternatives with shooters here for a camp and came away with the same result.
**Opinion based on anecdotal report from biased source(s); small sample size; invalid sample.**
Two years ago at nationals free pistol training was only provided in the afternoon following another competition. Competitors complained strongly and at that year's competitor meeting the consensus was to have a training day between events, which we have provided.
**Opinion from inappropriate, invalid example. Observation reported not validated by other observers. Arguable conclusion. Anecdotal report from biased source(s); small sample size; invalid sample.**
The platform for all discipline national championship is to conduct a quality competition for the membership to recognize and honor our countries best Olympic style shooters and to select a National Team (NT) and National development Team (NDT). Some championships are used in the USST selection process, which may impact the schedule. Policies and Procedures dictate USST selection. Staff has established promoting the sport and increasing participation as an objective of the national championships as well. To this end we have added shooter clinics conducted by the National Coaches and resident athletes, added a noon time barbeque to provide a social experience as well as honor volunteers and life members, added more awards for 2005, added a new entry category this year and reduced fees for juniors and collegiates. The new entry category and junior grand champion award are specifically directed to newer and junior competitors.
**Correct insofar as represented; however, not directly relevant to issue of schedule compression.**
In selecting the NT/NDT/USST there has never been a national coach in any discipline willing to select team members based upon one course of fire. In most competitions multiple courses let the better shooters' skills prevail. We have also seen this at the Junior Olympic Championships where the more highly skilled shooters have a poor performance the first day and come back with a more representative score the second course. While shooting multiple courses does require more days, the overwhelming consensus from shooters, coaches and parents is to shoot multiple courses at the higher-level competitions. There was a time when the USST selection for pistol was three separate competitions with one course of fire at each. The major complaint was that folks did not want to travel to shoot only one course of fire. Shooting one course of fire at the nationals would negatively impact the quality and integrity of the event. The nationals are to be a premier competition. Shooting one course of fire to determine the national champions would place the event in the same category/status as a local/regional event.
**Correct insofar as represented; however, not directly relevant to issue of schedule compression.**
For 2005 the National Championships will be the USST selection for the
Championship of the Americas (CAT) as well as providing the opportunity for open shooters to earn world cup participation berths. That being the case, it is felt that two match courses and one final should be the minimum for selection. We have used a fall and spring match to select the USST keeping the nationals out of the selection process. While this process has been successful in shotgun, it has not proven to be so in rifle and pistol. We have experienced poor participation, which not only makes it difficult for the match to work financially, but low participation also limits the field eligible for the USST and creates a poor environment for overall performance development. While the objective was to provide three quality events (fall, spring and nationals) thus enhancing training and skill development, this has not been successful. Shooters cite limitations imposed by school, work and lack of funding. In a world championship or Olympic year, the fall and spring match scenario seems to work better. Moving the CAT selection to Nationals also frees national team budgets to do more training and international travel since the coaches are not funding selection matches. The Coaches do not finance athlete participation at nationals other than for residents. This brings us back to the age-old conflict of using the nationals as USST selection vehicle for the elite shooters rather than as a membership participation event to better accommodate the desires of the general shooter base.
**Correct insofar as represented; however, not directly relevant to issue of schedule compression. Indirectly supports (vice refutes) need for schedule compression.**
Changing the pistol schedule is not as easy as it may appear. The rifle and pistol schedules must mesh. Those discipline events must overlay to make effective use of range time and volunteer labor. We cannot justify the additional expense of having days of only rifle or pistol events.
**Correct insofar as represented; however, not directly relevant to issue of schedule compression. Insofar as anyone is suggesting the reduction of days allocated to the match, cost savings estimated by Bob Mitchell of $1,500 per diem suggest that schedule compression is an effective cost reduction strategy. A simple overlap of OTR and MFA days would potentially save 3 days @ $1,500 = $4,500 immediate cost savings for each match. Again, point supports (vice refutes) pursuing schedule compression.**
We did run the rifle nationals longer in 2004 to accommodate shooters participating in the Milan World Cup. The additional cost was approximately $1,500 per day, which is not acceptable. We also have to consider time and work involved with range change over between events/disciplines.
**See note above. It is difficult to see how compressing the schedule would make the schedule longer.**
It may be easy to ask volunteers to work additional hours but that decision is not without challenges. Volunteers are key to conducting our competitions. Most are over 50 years of age and they will not nor can they work longer days if we want them to return for future matches. We currently receive pushback from 25 and particularly 50-meter staff as a result of long days, hot weather, insufficient help and little appreciation. When we ask them to run extended practice following a match and finals, they are not pleased.
**While volunteer preference is a key concern, conversations with actual volunteer staff during 2003 USASNC indicated that the depth and nature of this sentiment is currently up for investigation, as it did not appear to be shared by the actual volunteers themselves. However, schedule compression would neither create nor reduce the number of actual hours worked by volunteers in total. Schedule compression would reallocate those hours worked across a finite, shorter scheduling horizon.**
Employing temporary staff/volunteers is not an option. We continually have problems with folks who want to help a few days or partial days. We need people on the job every day that are knowledgeable and capable to provide the quality
competition and safety oversight our members deserve.
**Unless USAS is proposing this course of action, evidence does not suggest this course of action is warranted as a result of the schedule compression issue. If it is warranted by other factors (declining volunteer participation, etc.) that is a separable management issue.**
It is also surprising how few volunteers we get in Columbus considering this is the home of the USAMU and many retired shooters. We also operate with half to one-third the volunteers used from say ten years ago and that is considering the change to electronic targets. We typically have volunteers doing more than one task.
**The semantics of "paid volunteers" aside, perhaps the core issue of volunteer resourcing needs to be addressed by a more effective mechanism than stretching the schedule. The implication of the points being raised is that we are retaining volunteers by keeping the schedule long, and the workday short. That is a surprising claim to be made by USAS; however, if it is true, then there are perhaps other issues not yet raised (external to the issue of schedule compression) that need to be addressed.**
This reduction is necessary to control costs. It has been policy since the 1990s that we operate USAS conducted competitions on a breakeven or small profit basis. We can no longer operate events at significant losses without impacting athlete programs.
**See notes re: cost reduction through schedule compression. This point supports, rather than refutes, schedule compression. In addition, volunteer pay (?) is part of the cost mix. Offers have been extended to analyze the business case of running competitions to the USAS on a pro bono basis by qualified consultants. At least one of these offers still stands; although USAS has not availed itself of these opportunities to the best of my knowledge. If USAS prefers to pay for those services, that is an alternative. Even the best run businesses in the world seek expert assistance from time to time. Maybe that is how they got to be the best run businesses in the world in the first place . . . I'm sure there are universities in the state of Colorado who would be absolutely delighted to take on the arduous and arcane task of seeking operating efficiencies as a class project for some MBA students. For free.**
One of our major goals is to increase the athlete pool.
**Perhaps strategies for increasing the athlete pool (see multiple threads in this venue) beyond the current approach (?) need to be investigated. We all benefit from an increased pool, and increased quality of that pool. perhaps USAS is willing to open a dialogue with the membership (the entire membership) on that issue. Many of the members of USAS could provide a wealth of experience and expertise in manaigng large and diverse organizations, to include not for profits and governmental agencies. In addition to understanding (and loving) the sport, many of them know how to make things work. Current channels for communication are woefully insufficient to support this dialogue. Hopefully, there are still at least a handful of members who would be willing to participate fully, actively, and enthusiastically if some effective mechanism for participation were provided.**
Pistol has not had
the junior farm system as other disciplines have had. We are directing
resources at developing effective youth air pistol programs through the new progressive position air pistol program that Martin is initiating. It will
take some years before this program produces top-level international
shooters. While we are seeing a decline in pistol shooters attending the
nationals and team selection matches, the number of participants in the
Junior Olympic program is increasing. We are limited to the number of
competitors we can invite to the national in the Olympic Shooting Center but sport pistol and free pistol entries continue to increase.
**Indirectly related issue. Is it to be proposed that the increased pool of competitors would prefer a longer schedule? This seems unlikely. Is it to be proposed that a larger pool of junior shooters would be more willing to put up with a longer schedule? A superficial consideration of this premise might seem so; however, many junior shooters have parents who are not outside the workforce with all the concerns of the older shooters themselves. Once a junior is old enough to act on a preference for a longer schedule, would they still have this preference? How many 18 year old college students working part time would prefer a 14 day competition schedule over a 6 day schedule? In addition, a marked shift in priority to accomodate the preferences of junior shooters at the explicit expense of adult shooters (abandoning the concerns of athletes 21 and older) will produce programmatic and systemic consequences. Many undesirable "Side Effects" would result from such a priority shift. Have the consequences of throwing away such a vast set of resources (adult shooters) been considered?**
Back to one of the original issues regarding Nationals schedule, the 2005
program is one day shorter than last year. Shooters might consider
specializing in one event if time and financial constraints prevent
attending the entire competition.
** Shooters have already been forced to make this choice. That forced choice could explain decreasing participation . . . ?**
The performances of many athletes doing so in shotgun and rifle have benefited from specialization. Another viable possibility is to eliminate separate training days. In the old days at Black Canyon there was no training provided other than the very first day and "zeroing" for 15-30 minutes before the first course of fire. World cups used to have training only the first day of the event. However, the desire of shooters and the trend has been to provide additional training and we have accommodated those desires. Again however, any such schedule change must be coordinated with that of rifle.
**The "classic resource assignment problem" from the literature applies. It appears as though a straw man has been created: "Either A or B." Several alternatives were explored, presented, and discussed at the competitor's meeting (see comments above) and in this forum. These alterantives are available for consideration at any such time as USAS is willing to consider the question of scheduling efficiency.**
**As always, I trust my comments will be regarded in a positive light, as I offer them sincerely and "from the heart" in an effort to help the sport, my colleagues and friends in Pistol and other disciplines, and all parties involved in International Shooting. It is my intent to help build, not tear down, the resources and organizations that comprise the wonderful sports making up the Olympic Shooting events. Please feel free to respond in this forum, or through EMail at leslieswartz@erinet.com and I promise that I will respectfully consider all feedback, pro or con, and will try to provide any "value added" I can back to you. Thank You for your kind time and attention."
**NOTE: Remaining verbiage re: USAS commitment to needs of members and shooting community, USAS interest in hearing from members and considering inputs, etc. etc. snipped.**