[punatic]

But that does not take into account the altruistic nature of judging. 
Or do egos play a part in judging too? 

[gmac]

I'm almost afraid to enter this fray but what if you separated the Ninkasi Award from the NHC?  Before you kill me, hear me out.

Up here we have a Canadian Brewer of the Year Award that goes to the brewer that accumulates the most points from sanctioned events.  It's not the result of just one "event".  This would allow the serious "competitive" brewer to satisfy their desire to pay entry fees and ship beer.  It would keep some people from shotgunning the NHC to get points because by the time you get to the NHC (assuming you have the NHC as the final event of the "brewing year"), people will have a sense of whether or not they are close.  Reward the best of show at NHC more.  Or, keep things the way they are and come up with something different for people who want to compete all year and work towards the big prize.

I think it would also encourage entries into smaller competitions if they are "sanctioned" because people would want to get more points. 

Anyway, just a suggestion.

[bo]

I'm almost afraid to enter this fray but what if you separated the Ninkasi Award from the NHC?  Before you kill me, hear me out.

Up here we have a Canadian Brewer of the Year Award that goes to the brewer that accumulates the most points from sanctioned events.  It's not the result of just one "event".  This would allow the serious "competitive" brewer to satisfy their desire to pay entry fees and ship beer.  It would keep some people from shotgunning the NHC to get points because by the time you get to the NHC (assuming you have the NHC as the final event of the "brewing year"), people will have a sense of whether or not they are close.  Reward the best of show at NHC more.  Or, keep things the way they are and come up with something different for people who want to compete all year and work towards the big prize.

I think it would also encourage entries into smaller competitions if they are "sanctioned" because people would want to get more points. 

Anyway, just a suggestion.

That's the way chili cook offs are done. You accumulate points for various sanctioned events and those with the highest or at a certain level, get invited to the finals.

[hopcircle]

     I don't think the NHC is broken and needs to be fixed.  It is just fine as it is.  It wasn't until the last two years when regions reached limits that anyone said boo about this.  I think brewers even admired Jamil and Gordon for their ability and dedication to home brewing.  That being said, I do have one possible solution to this issue.
     How about for the first week of the entry period you limit the amount of entries to 5 per person.  After the week it over open it up for unlimited entries again.  If you have 15 beers you want to enter, if there is still room, you can go ahead and enter the remaining 10 after the initial week is up.  No one can complain that they didn't get a chance to get their entries in, given they had a week. 
     Obviously, I'm throwing out 5 as the initial number but the staff at AHA has the actual data and could figure out the best initial number to limit.  Easy math.  I don't think you can keep adding regions making the 2nd round bigger and bigger.  I don't think you can raise the limit per region after seeing what happened last year in the New York region.  Plus, you don't want more inexperienced judges doing larger portions of the judging, which would happen.
     Of course feedback is one of the great results of entering beers into competitions.  However, if feedback is the only reason for entering beer into the NHC than you can't cry if you didn't get your beer in.  There are competitions out the wazoo all over the country in all times of the year you can enter and get feedback from.  This sounds like sour grapes.  It's as close as most of us not so highly tuned athletes will get to having a chance for gold.  It's our olympics man!  Don't water it down!

[bbkf]

     I don't think the NHC is broken and needs to be fixed.  It is just fine as it is.  It wasn't until the last two years when regions reached limits that anyone said boo about this.  I think brewers even admired Jamil and Gordon for their ability and dedication to home brewing.  That being said, I do have one possible solution to this issue.
     How about for the first week of the entry period you limit the amount of entries to 5 per person.  After the week it over open it up for unlimited entries again.  If you have 15 beers you want to enter, if there is still room, you can go ahead and enter the remaining 10 after the initial week is up.  No one can complain that they didn't get a chance to get their entries in, given they had a week. 
     Obviously, I'm throwing out 5 as the initial number but the staff at AHA has the actual data and could figure out the best initial number to limit.  Easy math.  I don't think you can keep adding regions making the 2nd round bigger and bigger.  I don't think you can raise the limit per region after seeing what happened last year in the New York region.  Plus, you don't want more inexperienced judges doing larger portions of the judging, which would happen.
     Of course feedback is one of the great results of entering beers into competitions.  However, if feedback is the only reason for entering beer into the NHC than you can't cry if you didn't get your beer in.  There are competitions out the wazoo all over the country in all times of the year you can enter and get feedback from.  This sounds like sour grapes.  It's as close as most of us not so highly tuned athletes will get to having a chance for gold.  It's our olympics man!  Don't water it down!

+1 

[repo]

Reading most of these I feel like it's either a comedy central skit of some kind or a mix of kingpin meets dodgeball meets best in show.  It's unfortunate there is not enough room for everyone who wanted to enter. What occured this year was unprecedented, people had a resonable expectation to sign up at their leisure. Now they know they better not hesitate to sign up. Next year they will have no one to blame but themselves, or possibly their internet service-sign up for 4g now.

[dbarber]

What occured this year was unprecedented, people had a resonable expectation to sign up at their leisure.

I agree that the entries maxing out in 3 days is unprecedented, but so was the conference selling out in 2 days.  Given that, people should have had a pretty good idea that entries were going to fill up fast.

[hopfenundmalz]

What occured this year was unprecedented, people had a resonable expectation to sign up at their leisure.

I agree that the entries maxing out in 3 days is unprecedented, but so was the conference selling out in 2 days.  Given that, people should have had a pretty good idea that entries were going to fill up fast.

I agree, David.  If anyone was surprised, they were not paying attention.

The hobby has become popular and is growing.  How to deal with the growth will keep the Governing Commitee and the AHA staff (which is 3.5 people or so) busy for the next several years.

[denny]

And let me point out that hate mail to the AHA staff won't help with the situation.  I'm sure most people are sympathetic to their plight, but after hearing about some of the things that have been sent their way, I'm appalled at the way some people act.

[hopfenundmalz]

And let me point out that hate mail to the AHA staff won't help with the situation.  I'm sure most people are sympathetic to their plight, but after hearing about some of the things that have been sent their way, I'm appalled at the way some people act.

Just saw a post on facebook that makes me think they are taking a lot of flack.  Sad.

[bluesman]

What occured this year was unprecedented, people had a resonable expectation to sign up at their leisure.

I agree that the entries maxing out in 3 days is unprecedented, but so was the conference selling out in 2 days.  Given that, people should have had a pretty good idea that entries were going to fill up fast.

I agree with this David. I had my finger on the trigger knowing the speed at which the conference sold out.

[bo]

Someone is trying to organize an Occupy AHA protest over at Facebook.

[markaberrant]

My suggestion last year was to go from 2 rounds to 3 rounds.

Say have 20 1st round sites at 500 entries each = 10,000 entries (33% increase).  2nd round could be 4 sites with 420 entries each.  Then the final round would only have 336 entries to judge and would presumably be the cream of the crop, and you could also get away with only using National judges or higher in the final round, and it wouldn't be such a burden for the Conference itself.

There are pros and cons to this:
- increase the number of entries, and allows room for growth (you could increase 1st round sites to 25, or entries/site to 600, boosting total entries again to 12,000-12,500, and still not have to add another 2nd round site).
- lightens the load for all judging sites, very easy to judge 336-500 entries.
- increases coordination effort for the AHA, as you would have 3 rounds and 34 sites to coordinate.  This is not insignificant, they do A LOT of work already, though maybe increased entry revenues could allow more staff to be added?
- 1st round would likely have to start in Feb, 2nd round in April, 3rd round at NHC.  We all know what time can do to certain beers, but it also allows the opportunity to rebrew fresh entries.
- entrants may have to ship 3 entries to 3 different sites if they advance to the finals.

That being said, I have zero beef with the way things are run now.  Decisions regarding the competition are not taken lightly, there are a pile of people working very hard every year to make this thing work, I don't think anyone could predict the insane growth over the last few years.

Just my thoughts,

[richardt]

Good ideas, Mark.  But I'm not following the math for round two.  Probably a typo.

20 first-round sites x 500 entries/site = 10,000 entries total (math is OK here).  Assuming entries are evenly distributed across all 28 BJCP categories (which we all know they are not), that comes to nearly 18 entries per flight.  Realistically, some categories would have an abundance of entries, while others have a relative deficiency of entries.  IME, we've had multiple flights (2, 3, or even 4) in the really popular categories (like IPA's) just to keep the number of entries manageable for the judges in each flight and limit palate fatigue/intoxication.

4 second-round sites x 480 entries/site = 1,980 entries.  Error is in red.

From each site, I'm assuming only 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place winners in each of the 28 BJCP categories will get pushed on into the second round (assuming each one scores 30 points or better in the first round, of course).  All other entries that scored above 30 points (but did not get 1st, 2nd, or 3rd; i.e., "honorable mention") would not get pushed on into the second round.  The AHA NHC competition guidelines do state:  "...scoring a 30 or better does not guarantee advancement to the Final Round."  If that's the case, then the math would look like this:

20 first round sites x [1 second round site/5 first round site] = 4 second round sites.

28 categories/first round site x 3 winning entries per category x 5 first round sites = 420 entries per second round site.  Flights (1 of 1) would have 15 entries.

28 categories/second round site x 3 winning entries per category x 4 second round sites = 336 entries in the final round.  Flights (1 of 1) would have 12 entries max

I think this is certainly worth considering.  I do like how it opens up the number of first round judging centers and involves more local judges closer to their homes.

[udubdawg]

so it's currently 11 sites with 750 entries and 3 winners in 28 categories for max of 924 final round entries?
And obviously 750 entries is too many for many potential judge sites to support?

I'd say add 11 more (or however many more is reasonable) sites but make them 1/2 size.  375 instead of 750 entries.  Or use 400 and 800.  Large sites move their gold and silver winners to the final round, while small sites only move on gold.  Let local clubs choose which size competition they can support.
22 sites at 1.5 winners per site is the same 924 final-round entries, but max entries increases 50% to 12375.

I'm sure there's some obvious flaw I'm missing, so flame away.   

cheers--
--Michael