62 isabout whete we were at as well. Hmmmmmmm.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
If the lottery results in some people having more opportunities to enter beers then that has a big impact on who can win ninkasi. I have to imagine few people really enter with the expectation of competing for the ninkasi but if you were one with that goal it would really suck to pull a low number in the lottery.
Why not treat the NHC as sort of the playoffs of homebrewing competitions? Rather than make it an open competition, set a requirement that beers can only be entered if they have scored a minimum score in one or more AHA-sanctioned competitions. It shouldn't be that hard to coordinate a database of results from sanctioned local competitions. The cutoffs could be set to allow the maximum number of beers the AHA can support appearing at the NHC. In the alternative you could require a beer to pick up a designated number of points to qualify where points are earned based on scores at sanctioned competitions. If necessary, the local clubs could be required to pay back a flat amount or portion of entry fees in exchange for becoming a qualifying event.
It's win-win. It focuses entries towards local competitions where brewers are more likely to get detailed notes. It also cuts out low scoring beers from the NHC infrastructure, which opens more spots for quality beers. Honestly, there is no reason for beers below 35 points being judged at the NHC.
how many entries (1-82) you would like to enter.
i still have a problem with huge number of entries per competitor, though i know that there are probably only a few who do that. decide which type of dark lager you brewed and enter it once, it doesn't need to be in all three categories
The pre-qualification argument to reduce entries is not a good one.
It isn't a good argument, or you disagree? There's a difference. The way I see it, the AHA has to implement at least one of three options:
- An entry fee high enough to discourage entries;
- An entry cap so low it reduces the number of entries;
- A qualification requirement that reduces the number of entries.
We can certainly disagree about which option (or which combination of options) is best. Personally, I feel #1 is inherently unfair and that we're already past the point where #2 could help. Since the average number of entries is 4.5 (in 2012), even with a cap of one per brewer the first round would likely fill up. On the other hand, beers that score less than 30 in the first round are ineligible to advance anyway. From the competitions I've judged/stewarded (relatively few, I admit) that's roughly the over-under for all entries. So right off the bat you can eliminate on the order of half the entries without having to reduce the "openness" of the competition. It would *still* probably fill up, but at least we could get back to the registration window being open long enough that most people have a chance.
As a model, I think the GC should look to other fringe sports that have to deal with this same issue (namely, a lot of amateur interest in the sport relative to the governing body's resources). Look at golf, or chess, or poker, or billiards. All have gone through these kind of growing pains, and they've all implemented some sort of qualification requirement for their open national championships. (To be fair, the WSOP also has a high entry fee.) If they didn't, the US Open would last six months and bankrupt the USGA.
Don't bump the price. That would make the amount you can throw at this a big part of your chances to win.
+1 Turning it into a rich man's game defeats the purpose IMHO.
I don't think so at all. What it will defeat is....I have 15 beers ready to enter. 10 average ones, 4 very good ones, and 1 outstanding beer but.....WTF....I will enter ALL of them! If you really, truly believe your beer is that good and could medal you will spend 30-50 dollars on a single entry. Let's emphasize quality and NOT quantity. If you are just looking for feedback on your beers....well there are a lot of other BJCP comps that will give you that and guess what??.....Many, many times it is the same judges as the NHC. As it stands now are the winners at this years NHC really the "best" or are they the "luckiest" for being able to get their entries in.
There were obviously issues abound with the registration, hence the need to suspend it after just a few hours. I am certain those in the know of everything that occurred will come to reasonable solutions in the future.
I for one also took time out off of work to ensure I was able to get my beers entered. Not sure if any else had my experience, but the email with the links never made it into my inbox until after 5pm. By that time, I had already found the posting from Janis with the links, but late enough that the two closest sites to me were already over booked, but in enough time to get into a third. Unfortunately, I got as far as entering me into the system and they suspended registration before I got any beers entered. So now I am kinda in, but no guarantees - if the system comes back up while I am at work because I can't take the whole week off, guess I am out even though I planned time off to get in.
I am sure the 15 limit came after much debate and by looking at the number of entrants/entry over the past years is way above what the average brewer is submitting.
Over the past several years, I have tried some different strategies on my way to "fame and glory" of winning in the NHC. Best I've done is to win in the first round, but never the second. My excitement this year being that the finals are in my back yard had me double the amount of entries I wanted in compared to the past. To help my chances, what I have done was to enter as many of the beers into recent, local contests and planned on submitting those entries that had either won in those contests, or scored 38 or better in categories that were flooded with entries but didn't win. My theory is, I am upping my game in the NHC and giving myself the best opportunity to get as many of my entries to the second round as possible. So, one suggestion to help improve the quality at the grand poobah of contests may be to require entries to the first round have placed top 3 in category at an AHA/BJCP sanctioned contest in the year prior to the NHC it is to be entered. This may alter the number of entries or brewers, or not, but would up the ante.
If the issue is system overload, pre-registration could simply be get your personal info loaded and number of entries you have to submit and then get a voucher from the system to get people into and out of the it quickly and efficiently. Then, following the pre-registration period, which could be pared down from a week to a couple days, or not, provide a couple day window for folks to enter the particulars of their entries and pay. Once the voucher expires, it is forfeited and can go back to general enrollment based on first come/first served if there are spots available at the site you are registered for. You can limit the vouchers per entrant at any number, you would allow time for people to get all their intended entries in based on first in/first out for the pre-registration (i.e. remove the complaint that I can't type fast enough or the system didn't process fast enough for me to get all my entries in), and like now, if you don't pay, you are out and others can get back in and possibly enter all the beers they want.
If all of this was already considered or tried in the past, I apologize for redundancy, there are a lot of folks with much higher brain function than me that will figure this out!
Let me work on Czech Pils recipe. 100% Pilsner malt ans Saaz hops. Shhhh... to not tell anybody. This is a secret recipe.In 2007, my brother and I won the chance to scale up an IPA recipe, and help brew it on A-B’s pilot brewery in St. Louis. At that time the pilot brewery was under the Michelob brand of A-B. I learned that they were brewing three, 10 barrel test batches, five days a week working on recipes for beers like Czech Pilseners, Imperial IPAs, German-style Dunkelweizens, Irish Red Ales and American Pale Ales . These beers were fantastic and would stand up quite well to the finest craft beer examples at that time.Why were they doing that? Working on recipes "just in case", developing less expensive versions for their craft partners, something else?
I'm headed that way this year - I'll make sure to scratch it off the list.
Actually, the only two things on the list are Cantillon and Westvleteren. After that, I'll have to do some research on what's close and worth going to.
theoman can chime in here more than me, but the only part of Delirium Bar worth going to is the Hoppy Loft at the very top of the building.
If you want beer mecca, go to Chez Moeder Lambic Fontainas (http://beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/21739). Every time I'm there it's really great.
When are you planning to be in Brussels?
Probably August - I told my wife we had to go to Europe before we had kids.
We each picked a country, and we're going to end up in Germany because her sister lives there.
In 2007, my brother and I won the chance to scale up an IPA recipe, and help brew it on A-B’s pilot brewery in St. Louis. At that time the pilot brewery was under the Michelob brand of A-B. I learned that they were brewing three, 10 barrel test batches, five days a week working on recipes for beers like Czech Pilseners, Imperial IPAs, German-style Dunkelweizens, Irish Red Ales and American Pale Ales . These beers were fantastic and would stand up quite well to the finest craft beer examples at that time.Why were they doing that? Working on recipes "just in case", developing less expensive versions for their craft partners, something else?