I listen to this conversation every year lately. Honestly I can see both sides of the argument ("is it really a club if no one in it ever gets together in one location" and "it's the only way many people will ever have access to a club"). Both perspectives have valid thoughts on the situation.
Full disclosure: I am not a member of a club and never have been. Not because there are no clubs available to me (I know of at least two in my area) but because joining a club is just not my style. People generally describe me as "doesn't play well with other" and I'm not bothered by that.
If a national club cannot be beaten due to shear numbers would it make sense to ask BN to split the national club into regional units? Separate clubs but part of the same whole? How many regional club divisions would it take to make it worth the member's time and everyone else happy? Three? Four? Six? Maybe divisions like:
Mid-west (Upper and lower?)
Just a thought experiment for me. I'll never win a medal (I don't compete). I'll never be in a club that gets "robbed year after year" by a national online club because I'm not a club joiner. I don't have any skin in this game. It just seems to me that getting upset (either side) isn't going to find a workable solution (and booing seems a little childish, sorry).
Other crazy "solutions" like this come to mind but regionalizing things is the most workable one.
One dumb one: The one big club could be split into subs by making each club have the same number of users based on the first letter each members last name. When you join the national site you are assigned a "club" based on which one needs another person with a last name that starts with "D". What ever works to create balance.
To me, it isn't helping to complain about it. Look for a real solution.