I had an idea thoughts especially State Chairs

[JimPierce]

I had an idea I don't know A) how good it is B) if Wille and Dione would go for it.
Here it is I know with Nationals the state chair are qualified to compete but I know for me I will probably never use it. But what if we could use that spot to give to an athelete who we think deserves to go it would get more people to nationals possibly and you could not pick the same person again and they have to be from your home state.

Is it a good idea or not just wondering

[Steve Reid]

I never knew state chairs got an automatic invite to nationals. This is a very interesting idea.

[Alex Klotz]

While we're on the topic of the Wessels, is Dione a man or a woman? I'm not sure if it's Diane with an O or Dion with an E. I've never seen his/her picture.

[Tyler Schuman]

While we're on the topic of the Wessels, is Dione a man or a woman? I'm not sure if it's Diane with an O or Dion with an E. I've never seen his/her picture.

she is a woman. married to willie wessels

[Kevin Cronin]

While we're on the topic of the Wessels, is Dione a man or a woman? I'm not sure if it's Diane with an O or Dion with an E. I've never seen his/her picture.
I hope this doesnt come across as rude, but do you compete? I'm just a little surprised that someone is on this board and doesnt know the head of NAS

[Ryan Brown]

I think it is an interesting idea if it is used in rare situations for an exceptional athlete--i.e. a great athlete who for some decent reason couldn't make it to qualifying contests or maybe got hurt at the contest he went to or happened to run into some really exceptional competition.

On the other hand, my personal thought is that if you have any business competing at nationals then you will not have any real issue qualifying--it's not a high bar IMO. Nationals IMO is already too large. Because of the way strongman scoring works I think that huge masses of people tend to screw it up. I'm not going to go into in this post, but I think strongman scoring (1 pt per placement on each event) works best when there are 20 or less people.

Also the qualifying system is meant to encourage people to go to local type events to try to qualify.

[DaneGarreau]

On the other hand, my personal thought is that if you have any business competing at nationals then you will not have any real issue qualifying--it's not a high bar IMO. Nationals IMO is already too large. Because of the way strongman scoring works I think that huge masses of people tend to screw it up. I'm not going to go into in this post, but I think strongman scoring (1 pt per placement on each event) works best when there are 20 or less people.

Also the qualifying system is meant to encourage people to go to local type events to try to qualify.

I agree completely. It's relatively easy to qualify for nationals, if you have any business being there in the first place.

[Mike Landrich]

While we're on the topic of the Wessels, is Dione a man or a woman? I'm not sure if it's Diane with an O or Dion with an E. I've never seen his/her picture.


Did you do a GOOGLE search? A quick scan of the hits would've made it pretty obvious

[Billy Wolt]

I think it is an interesting idea if it is used in rare situations for an exceptional athlete--i.e. a great athlete who for some decent reason couldn't make it to qualifying contests or maybe got hurt at the contest he went to or happened to run into some really exceptional competition.

On the other hand, my personal thought is that if you have any business competing at nationals then you will not have any real issue qualifying--it's not a high bar IMO. Nationals IMO is already too large. Because of the way strongman scoring works I think that huge masses of people tend to screw it up. I'm not going to go into in this post, but I think strongman scoring (1 pt per placement on each event) works best when there are 20 or less people.

Also the qualifying system is meant to encourage people to go to local type events to try to qualify.

I think the bottom line is money. 200+ people from all weight classes paying $100 each is a lot of dough.

[Kevin Cronin]

I think the bottom line is money. 200+ people from all weight classes paying $100 each is a lot of dough.
I will be absolutely speechless if there's 200+ people at nats. Vegas was teh biggest ever and i believe that had ~150? i KNOW there were only ~80 in the LWs. And didnt UT only have like ~100 last year? you're still talking five figures, but that is half as much as 200.

This actually dovetails with my thought that in a way it coudl be good for the sport in that plenty of people who qualify for nats dont go, whether because of money, other commitments, or it seems this year, many are complaining about the locale. why, i dont know, but aht is another issue. Part of me says why not, people enter contests they have no shot at winning all the time, but overall i think it's a bad idea. theres something about nats that's special because you have to qualify. yes, as ryan said, for those with a real shot at winning, its not terribly difficult, but it took me 7 shows to get my first invite to nats and i still remember how excited i was when i loaded the last stone, had locked up a second place finish and had punched my ticket to vegas. so it's nice to have goals, stepping stones if you will. Also, if chairs could pick who goes then a) it gets political and b) puts pressure on state chairs who may want to go themselves to pick someone more 'worthy' or something

[Alex Klotz]

I hope this doesnt come across as rude, but do you compete? I'm just a little surprised that someone is on this board and doesnt know the head of NAS

I've competed on a minor, minor level, and only in Canada. Like I said, I knew of her existence, just not the gender. And now I know.

[Donnie Rhodes]

I think this whole post is Retarded! Why post a question if you haven't even discussed it with the President of the organization? This is not a NAS forum and although many of us post our comments and provide information to others on this forum, I don't think Willie or Dione would appreciate NAS business being discussed on any forum but the Anvil.

There are qualifiers for a reason! I think Kevin has went out of his way to explain the reasoning for qualifiers. And just because you are a state chair doesn't mean you should sit on your butt and not qualify! That rule was established for those who couldn't qualify because they were too busy promoting contests or attending to other NAS responsibilities.

Whatever! You get my point.

Man, I can't believe I wasted my time reading or responding to this thread.

Kevin, sorry you wasted your time too!

[JimPierce]

The whole reason was to see what people think before bringing it to Dione and Willie becuase why bring something up if it will go nowhere. I know they like new ideas as long as you can give them helpful information.

I understand the whole qualifing process, this was just an idea since most of the state chairs I know no longer compete and I figure why not help athlete out who might have had issue with being able to qualify for nats (injury, family issues etc.) it would have to be a legit reason not just becuase the person doesn't feel like competing plus like I said it would only be a one time thing you could not send the same person over and over.

[Mike Landrich]

The whole reason was to see what people think before bringing it to Dione and Willie becuase why bring something up if it will go nowhere. I know they like new ideas as long as you can give them helpful information.

I understand the whole qualifing process, this was just an idea since most of the state chairs I know no longer compete and I figure why not help athlete out who might have had issue with being able to qualify for nats (injury, family issues etc.) it would have to be a legit reason not just becuase the person doesn't feel like competing plus like I said it would only be a one time thing you could not send the same person over and over.

Jim
Like Donnie said, this is NAS business. Whatever is discussed here will not impact Willie's or Dione's decisions. It should be discussed in private first. Willie is very approachable and I'm sure would appreciate a call on this rather than a continued public debate. Dione may be approachable too, but most of my contacts with her have been via e-mail whereas Willie has been by phone and in person. Some things should be discussed among the power players (in this case the Wessels and State Chairs) before being made public.

[barabas47]

Anyone who knows Willie knows he is a laid back guy that you could discuss this with.
But I honestly dont think he would care if this was discussed on here. I personally do not see the rule being changed bc someone would complain of favoritism and it would just cause problems IMO. We all know that there will come a time when the decision is difficult and someone who gets left out will be upset

[Jessejobe]

I do have to agree with people though if you don't qualify you don't deserve to go. I am a state chair and unless I qualified I wouldn't go. As many shows as there are plenty of people have chances.


Jesse Jobe

[Ryan Brown]

I will be absolutely speechless if there's 200+ people at nats. Vegas was teh biggest ever and i believe that had ~150? i KNOW there were only ~80 in the LWs. And didnt UT only have like ~100 last year? you're still talking five figures, but that is half as much as 200.

This actually dovetails with my thought that in a way it coudl be good for the sport in that plenty of people who qualify for nats dont go, whether because of money, other commitments, or it seems this year, many are complaining about the locale. why, i dont know, but aht is another issue. Part of me says why not, people enter contests they have no shot at winning all the time, but overall i think it's a bad idea. theres something about nats that's special because you have to qualify. yes, as ryan said, for those with a real shot at winning, its not terribly difficult, but it took me 7 shows to get my first invite to nats and i still remember how excited i was when i loaded the last stone, had locked up a second place finish and had punched my ticket to vegas. so it's nice to have goals, stepping stones if you will. Also, if chairs could pick who goes then a) it gets political and b) puts pressure on state chairs who may want to go themselves to pick someone more 'worthy' or something

Kevin,

I agree with you about the goals. I think that anyone who qualifies and wants to compete should go to Nats and have fun even if they think they have no chance of winning. I certainly wasn't trying to degrade the accomplishment of anyone that had the goal of qualifying for Nats and then goes to compete. Basically I was saying that there is a reasonable qualifying system in place and that if you really want it you can get there--for some it will take longer than others, but that's what makes it meaningful.

As for the money comment I'm sure that is relevant. It cost a lot of money to run a national type show and most sponsors will want lots of athletes since all of them are amatuers and none of them have a big name. This results in more exposure to their product. For a pro show you can market it differently by saying you have 12-15 of the best pros in the country. But without some sort of sponsorship it would be impossible to run a big show like the Vegas show regardless of entry fees based on my experience.

[Ryan Brown]

now having said all I said above, if I wanted to do Nats, I wouldn't hesitate to use my state chair exemption for me....lol

[Ryan Brown]

Jim
Like Donnie said, this is NAS business. Whatever is discussed here will not impact Willie's or Dione's decisions. It should be discussed in private first. Willie is very approachable and I'm sure would appreciate a call on this rather than a continued public debate. Dione may be approachable too, but most of my contacts with her have been via e-mail whereas Willie has been by phone and in person. Some things should be discussed among the power players (in this case the Wessels and State Chairs) before being made public.

I think there is a line about what can be discussed and what should not be discussed. As BJ said I doubt the "what-if" type discussion here would be any bother to Willie or Dione. It's harmless IMO.

Nothing is being "made public"--this is not an official NAS announcement. It is simply a post with a reasonable thought from someone interested in NAS. As someone who is fairly familiar with NAS and the qualification process I figured I'd offer my $.02.

BTW Jim I think in the limited situation you mention in your second post it is not a bad idea. Most of the state chairs have a pretty good idea about what is good at Nats and what is not. If the guy you select doesn't get at least top 15 then you lose your state chair...:)

[D.J. Satterfield]

As for the money comment I'm sure that is relevant. It cost a lot of money to run a national type show and most sponsors will want lots of athletes since all of them are amatuers and none of them have a big name. This results in more exposure to their product. For a pro show you can market it differently by saying you have 12-15 of the best pros in the country. But without some sort of sponsorship it would be impossible to run a big show like the Vegas show regardless of entry fees based on my experience.

Ryan,
I disagree with this. I pondered running Ntls. one year when I was still a state chair for them and here is what I came up with(as far as what it would cost me to do it in Omaha). These are estimates but pretty accurate. Everything assumed I would get 100 competitors, which I was confident of, if not more.
Costs
Venue $1500
Awards $450 (15 awards at $30 cost each)
T-Shirts $840 (120 shirts, 100 comp., 20 staff @ $7 each)
Airfare $320 (for both of NAS people to come in from St. Louis to Omaha)
Hotel Room (comped)
Sanctioning $2500 (this is what Willie told me it would probably cost as they have no set figure in place, it changes yearly)
Total
$5610
Lets just say $6000 to be safe and for the sake of discussion.

100 competitors at $100ea. = $10,000

Looked like a real good deal to me other than the headache of dealing with everything.

[Ryan Brown]

Ryan,
I disagree with this. I pondered running Ntls. one year when I was still a state chair for them and here is what I came up with(as far as what it would cost me to do it in Omaha). These are estimates but pretty accurate. Everything assumed I would get 100 competitors, which I was confident of, if not more.
Costs
Venue $1500
Awards $450 (15 awards at $30 cost each)
T-Shirts $840 (120 shirts, 100 comp., 20 staff @ $7 each)
Airfare $320 (for both of NAS people to come in from St. Louis to Omaha)
Hotel Room (comped)
Sanctioning $2500 (this is what Willie told me it would probably cost as they have no set figure in place, it changes yearly)
Total
$5610
Lets just say $6000 to be safe and for the sake of discussion.

100 competitors at $100ea. = $10,000

Looked like a real good deal to me other than the headache of dealing with everything.

it's probably doable at certain venues. You can do contests expensive or cheap. If I were to take on Nats I'd probably want it to be really sweet. A sweet venue is usually pretty expensive from my calling around. Plus there are other charges like insurance for all parties (venue, you, ect.), hotel rooms for staff (maybe could be comped). It takes a lot of staff and I don't think it is reasonable to ask them in all cases to travel on their dollar and pay for hotel on their dollar if you are asking them to come and help.

I think the goal of a successful promoter should be to have the sponsorship pay for the event and have the entry fees as compensation for all of your time. Of course everyone values their time differently, but I personally think a promoter who does a successful nationals should be entitled to a good amount of money. It's a lot of work. Yes you do it for the love of the sport, but everyone involved loves the sport. The guy who steps up to the plate and makes it happen for everyone else should also get paid decent money and not feel bad about it.

This is all getting a little off topic though. My real point was that for money reasons it makes pefect sense for Am Nats to have a large number of competitiors--either because you need all the entry fee money and/or because your sponsors want you to have a large number of competitors. This fact makes it reasonable to have a looser qualification policy as compared to one where you narrow it down to the top 15 guys in the country or something. For me personally as a competitor I always preferred to compete in smaller fields, but that's probably because I had a glaring weakness in my OHP and couldn't win Nats on my best day because inevitably I'd take a 30 point hit on one event...lol

[D.J. Satterfield]

I agree, if I was to do it, it would be a top notch show. The venue I have listed is large 10,000 seat indoor auditorium. I would get sculptured trophies for all too.
With that many competitors coming in, you would get most of your staff's rooms comped. I have never had a problem with that.

I also agree, that having a sponsor would be the way to go and you(the promoter) should be compensated well. After all, you are making the company a ton of money. I was just trying to point out that there is alot of money to be made by hosting Ntls.

[Ryan Brown]

I was just trying to point out that there is alot of money to be made by hosting Ntls.


I agree. If you are willing to get out there and get some sponsors you could do it real nice and make some money as well.

Personally I probably wouldn't want to do it on entry fee money alone, but it is a lot of work to get out there and get the sponsors. For Nats though I'd think it would be pretty doable, especially in a normal economy. This year could be a little harder--not sure.

[Brandon Smith]

I think one of the big factors is location though. You can put on a top notch show for less in Omaha than the exact same level of show in Las Vegas or San Francisco for example. If you look at the same income of $10,000 ($100 for 100 competitors) in each of those cities it would be a much different price point overall.

For example using the general cost of living indexes:

Omaha - index = 81 - Cost $6,000
Vegas - index = 104 - Cost $7,700
San Fran - index = 187 - Cost $13,875

So you'd be in the red in San Francisco versus a profit of $4,000 in Omaha. Obviously it's a simplified example, but is one factor for a promotor looking to do Nationals.

[DKirby]

Ryan,
I disagree with this. I pondered running Ntls. one year when I was still a state chair for them and here is what I came up with(as far as what it would cost me to do it in Omaha). These are estimates but pretty accurate. Everything assumed I would get 100 competitors, which I was confident of, if not more.
Costs
Venue $1500
Awards $450 (15 awards at $30 cost each)
T-Shirts $840 (120 shirts, 100 comp., 20 staff @ $7 each)
Airfare $320 (for both of NAS people to come in from St. Louis to Omaha)
Hotel Room (comped)
Sanctioning $2500 (this is what Willie told me it would probably cost as they have no set figure in place, it changes yearly)
Total
$5610
Lets just say $6000 to be safe and for the sake of discussion.

100 competitors at $100ea. = $10,000

Looked like a real good deal to me other than the headache of dealing with everything.

Would the promoter have to pay for the following or would it be covered by the sanctioning fee:
-Banquet?
-Both yrs I did Nats (05' and 08') there were a handful of pros there helping out. Most of them would have flown in or drove long distances. Even if you got them all comp hotel rooms (paired them up) I would imagine at a minimum you'd have to pay their airfare or cover their gas, and also a stipend on top of that, in part to cover meals, etc.

[D.J. Satterfield]

I am sure you(promoter) would have to pay for the banquet. The sanctioning fee doesn't pay for anything but the right to host the show, that goes with any level of show. I know when I was considering doing Ntls., I wasn't going to have a banquet as you hear alot of negative feedback about it, ie: people not showing up, people not wanting to wait to see who won or how they placed, etc.
I would have had a nice awards ceremony right after the meet, so everyone didn't have to wait to see who had won. Then have a restaurant, sports bar, etc. set up that those that wanted too, could go hang out for the night.
As far as bringing in pros to help, I am sure their way would be paid. I had enough state chairs and friends in my area, that paying people to come in, wasn't an issue. We all go help each other at our shows no matter what the sport is.

[Jeff Bach]

it's probably doable at certain venues. You can do contests expensive or cheap. If I were to take on Nats I'd probably want it to be really sweet. A sweet venue is usually pretty expensive from my calling around. Plus there are other charges like insurance for all parties (venue, you, ect.), hotel rooms for staff (maybe could be comped). It takes a lot of staff and I don't think it is reasonable to ask them in all cases to travel on their dollar and pay for hotel on their dollar if you are asking them to come and help.

I think the goal of a successful promoter should be to have the sponsorship pay for the event and have the entry fees as compensation for all of your time. Of course everyone values their time differently, but I personally think a promoter who does a successful nationals should be entitled to a good amount of money. It's a lot of work. Yes you do it for the love of the sport, but everyone involved loves the sport. The guy who steps up to the plate and makes it happen for everyone else should also get paid decent money and not feel bad about it.

This is all getting a little off topic though. My real point was that for money reasons it makes pefect sense for Am Nats to have a large number of competitiors--either because you need all the entry fee money and/or because your sponsors want you to have a large number of competitors. This fact makes it reasonable to have a looser qualification policy as compared to one where you narrow it down to the top 15 guys in the country or something. For me personally as a competitor I always preferred to compete in smaller fields, but that's probably because I had a glaring weakness in my OHP and couldn't win Nats on my best day because inevitably I'd take a 30 point hit on one event...lol

I thought of my usual style quote about venues I could say Brown but I won't. I am being nice today:D

As far as the original question on the thread I think the spot should be earned and not given from a state chair. Not my call but the original post asked opinions.

I understand the Chairs getting to compete as a courtesy but it sure makes for a lot of people to through off numbers. For instance though I was never a state chair, I suck at most events but have a good grip. Through in a static hold and I can mess up the point system. Not good.

[Ryan Brown]

I thought of my usual style quote about venues I could say Brown but I won't. I am being nice today:D

As far as the original question on the thread I think the spot should be earned and not given from a state chair. Not my call but the original post asked opinions.

I understand the Chairs getting to compete as a courtesy but it sure makes for a lot of people to through off numbers. For instance though I was never a state chair, I suck at most events but have a good grip. Through in a static hold and I can mess up the point system. Not good.

appreciate your restraint Jeff...:)

I completely agree with you about the messing up the points with so many people--that was what I was getting at above. When you have tons of people and some of them are not very good strongmen, but excell at one event then it cause issues. Herc hold is probably the best example.

I don't think most of the St Chairs even use their exemption though. When I was actively competing I never used it and I don't recall that many state chairs using it.