[Joe Sr.]

However, if I recall correctly, we learned last year that if the number of enteries were to have been capped to 10 per member, we would have gained something in the neighborhood of 2% - 4% more availablity. While thats an improvement, in the scale of things, it wasn't seen as a solution.

That's critical information right there. Good to know.

[marty]

Drop the entry cost to $7, but it increases $1 for each additional entry

Someone entering 6 or less would pay less than the current fees (7+8+9+10+11+12= $57 instead of $60)

Someone entering 7 would be paying the same as current 7+8+9+10+11+12+13= $70, Someone sending 8 would only pay an extra $4

10th entry would cost $16, 12th if you're trying to fill a shipper would cost $18
20th entry would cost $26
70th entry would cost $76, but the total for 1-70 would be something ridiculous like $2324 instead of $700

The majority would pay less, those that stretch out to 12 to fill a shipper would have to think if it's worth it

Apart from whatever embarrassing math mistakes above are sure to be pointed out 

[gsandel]

I don't think raising entry fees is the way to go.  70 beers is a lot,  heck, 36 beers is a lot (other threads discussed stuffing 36 score sheets into one envelope)....obviously money is not an issue for these 2 hypothetical folks.  They will chase the Ninkaski award no matter the cost.  The problem is the award itself.  We are approaching the GABF proportions and similar rules should be applied.  Doesn't the GABF limits the number of beers to be considered for their breweries of the year award? Perhaps we should do the same....enter as many as you'd like, but pick your 6 best for consideration for the "ultimate award".

Otherwise, we can do what the Olympics has done, and move to a Summer beer competition and a Winter Beer competition...we already need more than one conference.  Just as long as we don't adopt a College Football BCS model. 

How about a Playboy Mansion model where the conference/comp never ends?  Charlie Papazian would look good in a smoking jacket.

[markaberrant]

Entering the most beers possible is not the purpose of the competition.  At least, not as I understand it.

I would say the Ninkasi Award certainly flies in the face of this.

[ccfoo242]

Aren't you effectively "punishing" more people who aren't able to submit if you don't have a cap?

Yes, and by having an entry deadline, you are also "punishing" those that procrastinate.  And by giving out medals, you are "punishing" those that didn't brew good enough beer.  And by allowing entrants to submit subpar beer, you are "punishing" the judges that have to drink them.

Nice straw man argument.

-Sent from the future.

[Joe Sr.]

Entering the most beers possible is not the purpose of the competition.  At least, not as I understand it.

I would say the Ninkasi Award certainly flies in the face of this.

Except that competition for the Ninkasi Award is not impacted by a limit on entries.  Such a limit may actually serve to increase the competitive field for the Ninkasi.

Edit: But I can certainly see where someone would submit as many beers as possible to chase the award.  So you make a good point.

[mabrungard]

The effects of the increase in the number of first round sites has not yet been experienced.  This summer at the second round, a bunch of judges are going to have to wrestle with even more entries.  That means that the judges that volunteer to participate in the second round may have to give up more of their convention schedule to attend to the competition.  I've done it in the past, I'm not sure that I'll continue to do it.  Hopefully there are a bunch of highly experienced judges at the second round to make this fear a non-reality!

It was great to hear the report from the SF bay area and the large contingent of judges that made their competition a breeze.  Having 6 or 7 million people within an hours drive does make it more likely that there are plenty of judges willing to make that short drive.  Hat's off! 

There are too many places like Indy where that population drops off to the million or two million range in the nearby metro area and the nearby judge pool drops off quickly too.  Especially when there are several 1st round sites within 5 hours of town.  We had over 50 judges signed up at one time for Indy and that would have made our 1st round a breeze.  Unfortunately, life gets in the way of a major commitment like driving several hours and spending a bunch of money to volunteer your time and judge.  We made it through, but it was a trial for some folks. 

Based on that tendency to run out of judges in an area, it appears to me that the 750 entry limit is a problem in some areas.  As mentioned above, having a Certified or higher judge in every judge pairing is highly desirable.  I think that if an area does not have a large population of judges with that experience, their capability to host that large an entry pool probably needs to be curtailed.  I realize that this could severly reduce the nationwide number of entries, but that might be a consideration.  Possibly those sites with high populations of experienced judges could grow beyond 750? 

Another option may be to further expand the number of judging sites across the country.  I don't like that option much since it places further strain on the second round judging.  But if the AHA can't support the judges enough to make them want to contribute their more of their time and money to judge at these first round sites, its a price that will just have to be paid. 

I've argued that AHA really needs to substantially increase the NHC entry fee and put that increased income directly to supporting the judges that do support the competition.  In the past, all I've received from these first round comps is a single lunch for each year's competition.  I've also received some door prizes at the comps,  but from what I can tell those prizes were courtesy of the local homebrew shops and not the largese of AHA.   A lunch is not what I would call 'support' and it certainly is not a sufficient lure for anyone traveling a long way.  Its no wonder that we were left lacking judges here in Indy. 

I've heard from members of the AHA competition committee and they have expressed that they have a problem with any sort of compensation to judges whether they travel far or not.  I have to say BS to that.  If that is the case, the competition committee needs to get 'compensation' out of their mind and insert 'support' in its place.  Right now, this competition is not supporting its judging pool. 

I've also taken a quick look at the Ninkasi award winners for the past 7 years to see how many medals it took to win.  In most cases, it was 4 or fewer medals.  Sometimes only 2.  (Gordon had 7 in '09).  That suggests that there should be no problem with limiting a brewer's entries to say 5.  It would also mean that a brewer would have to think long and hard about which of their brews they feel are most likely to compete well and place.  That would help prevent the entry of the relatively poor beers I sometimes judge in the first round sessions.  A higher entry fee would also help winnow out that chaff. 

I implore the competition committee to rethink the current NHC competition structure.  As I have said in the past, THIS is the top competition in the country and it carries the biggest bragging rights.  It gets all the press and accolades.  There needs to be more support for judges.  We need more highly experienced judges at every table. We need fewer poor contest entries. Maybe we need even more judging sites.  Maybe we need fewer entries overall in the national competition.  A lot of considerations for our representatives!

[hopfenundmalz]

Entering the most beers possible is not the purpose of the competition.  At least, not as I understand it.

I would say the Ninkasi Award certainly flies in the face of this.

Except that competition for the Ninkasi Award is not impacted by a limit on entries.  Such a limit may actually serve to increase the competitive field for the Ninkasi.

Edit: But I can certainly see where someone would submit as many beers as possible to chase the award.  So you make a good point.

You need to know that the tie breaker has to do with the number of first round beers that advance (don't know if it is weighted by 1,2,3- Janis does). The tie breaker has been used at least twice in my memory, including last year. There is the incentive to have more in the first round - the possibiltiy of more advancing to 2nd round.

[micsager]

Well, lots of good responses.  Thanks everyone.  Looks like our GC has some things to think about.  Whatever you guys come up with, always know we all appreciate your hard work and dedication to our hobby.   

[MDixon]

I know when I was Judge Director for the South Region we struggled with the number of entries (583) and ended up having to judge in two cities on the same day to find enough judges. It was a tremendous amount of work and we vowed we would NEVER do it again and have held to that vow. My hat's off to those who can handle the volume. To get to the point, 750 would be impossible for us to manage. So my suggestion would be a reasonable entry limit to allow those interested to enter and to hopefully lower the entry numbers (doubtful) so smaller areas with willing host sites could potentially step forward should someone decide they want to step up to the plate.

[ynotbrusum]

I don't know much about the competition, but the hobby has taken off like wildfire.  I prefer to spend my time brewing, rather than going through what sounds like a pretty time consuming and perhaps expensive process to become a BJCP level judge, so in fairness I don't enter the competition.  Maybe require anyone to become a judge and participate in judging if he enters more than x number of beers over a y period of time  and also to work toward BJCP certification in order to continue in the competition each year and require that they sit out two years if they don't do that.  Also support/compensate the judges who participate (free NHC registration, dues waiver, special perks or similar benefits) in order to further incentivize participation as judges.  Again, I don't know how the competition works and I have never entered, so this may be completely unreasonable for some entrants - just my two Lincolns.

[Hokerer]

I know when I was Judge Director for the South Region we struggled with the number of entries (583) and ended up having to judge in two cities on the same day to find enough judges. It was a tremendous amount of work and we vowed we would NEVER do it again and have held to that vow. My hat's off to those who can handle the volume. To get to the point, 750 would be impossible for us to manage. So my suggestion would be a reasonable entry limit to allow those interested to enter and to hopefully lower the entry numbers (doubtful) so smaller areas with willing host sites could potentially step forward should someone decide they want to step up to the plate.

Seems that, long term, three rounds of judging is going to be the way to go.  That would mean you could have lots more smaller/local comps for the first round (and for the second round for that matter).

[tomsawyer]

I don't think raising entry fees is the way to go.  70 beers is a lot,  heck, 36 beers is a lot (other threads discussed stuffing 36 score sheets into one envelope)....obviously money is not an issue for these 2 hypothetical folks.  They will chase the Ninkaski award no matter the cost.  The problem is the award itself.  We are approaching the GABF proportions and similar rules should be applied.  Doesn't the GABF limits the number of beers to be considered for their breweries of the year award? Perhaps we should do the same....enter as many as you'd like, but pick your 6 best for consideration for the "ultimate award".

Otherwise, we can do what the Olympics has done, and move to a Summer beer competition and a Winter Beer competition...we already need more than one conference.  Just as long as we don't adopt a College Football BCS model. 

All great ideas.  It'd be great to have two opportunities a year to attend the National conference.  You could even extend the Olympic model to the beere styles and split them into two sets, summer beers and winter beers.

How about a Playboy Mansion model where the conference/comp never ends?  Charlie Papazian would look good in a smoking jacket.

[nateo]

As Martin brought up, it's hard to get a lot of qualified judges in certain areas. Judges have lives, and travel costs money. I think entry fees should be raised to the point where it's reasonable to provide room and board, and maybe travel expenses for experienced judges to attend the comps.

They may be willing to give their time freely, but if it starts digging into their pocketbook I'm sure that dissuades potential judges. Unqualified people are always cheaper than qualified people. If the goal of the comp is to have qualified judges evaluate the beer, it's reasonable to expect a premium price.

[svejk]

Seems that, long term, three rounds of judging is going to be the way to go.  That would mean you could have lots more smaller/local comps for the first round (and for the second round for that matter).

I think this solution makes a lot of sense. There are lots of competitions going on all year, so it could be set up so that the top few beers from each category would qualify that person to enter in that category for the NHC.  Record keeping may get a little cumbersome, but I think any ultimate solution will have drawbacks.

Under this scenario, if somebody has the wherewithal to qualify in 70 categories, then that would be truly impressive.