If you guys don't see a problem with the way the NHC is operating right now, and that it's clearly caused by a lack of willing judges and site organizers, then I'm not sure what planet you're on.
I think everyone is just taking that as a given. Obviously increasing the number of judges can only help. But even if there were a thousand new BJCP judges available tomorrow, the constraints on the NHC would be the same. As it stands the there will almost certainly be 924 entries. That means that if you limit judges to three flights of 12 beers, you still only need 77 judges for the second round. That's pretty hard up against the number of cats you can successfully herd throughout a single day. Increasing the number of first-round sites allows for more entries, but doesn't address the logistical nightmare that is the second round judging.
Oh really, _that's_ the bottleneck?
I judged NHC in Oakland, CA a few years ago and didn't really try to figure out the overall process. I was told where to sit, and then we ranked a few beers and were done. My judging partner, who I assumed was a high ranking bjcp judge, turned out to be an Apprentice/Novice or Recognized Judge that spent his spare time outside the building smoking cigarettes. Nice guy, but I'm not sure why he was judging the NHC. But that's another matter.
If the second round is the bottleneck b/c they're judging almost 1000 entries, then the solution is to not re-judge all the 1st, 2nd and 3rds. You have to trust your judge centers to rank the entries in order of best (1st) on down for the top three. Are they actually throwing out the work done by the 1st round judge centers? Why would that effort be discarded?
If you trust the Round 1 judge sites, then you're only judging around 300 entries using 28 BOS-style tables.
The solution is simple. It's a BOS style competition . Let's say you're judging Dry Stout. You set the 11 1st place entries from the 11 Round 1 judge centers out on the table and pour them for a table of 4 well qualified judges. That's almost a 3 oz sample per judge which is plenty. Out of those 11, they pick the one that best represents the style. That is first place overall, 1st BOS Dry Stout. The 2nd place beer from the same Round 1 judging center is then moved up onto the table b/c there is a chance that it might be the next best dry stout at the competition. It is poured and tasted against the other 10. Of those 11, the best one is chosen and it is the 2nd BOS Dry Stout. Which ever one is chosen as 2nd BOS, you move the beer that was sent underneath it from the same Round 1 judge site up onto the table to make it 11 on the table again. Then you choose the best one from those 11. That's 3rd BOS Dry Stout.
You might find that the top 3 came from the same judge center. You might find that the top 3 came from all different judge centers, or any combination. But the root idea is, you don't re-judge all the beers. You have to trust the Round 1 judging centers to put them in the right order.
This way you could have a BOS style 2nd round for 11 judging centers, up to 30. 11 would be a piece of cake. I've been on BOS's with 30 beers on the table. It can be done. Then you could have 30 Round 1 judge centers.
The argument might be that because of the length of time between the 1st and 2nd round, someone's 2nd or 3rd from Round 1 might age better and end up actually being better for Round 2. My counter to that is, well what about 4th place, and 5th place? Maybe they'll be better for Round 2 too, why don't they make it on the Round 2 table. The beer that wins will have to be the best beer on the table TWICE; Round 1 and Round 2. THAT beer deserves the BOS.