[dkfick]

That is exactly why there needs to be quite a few of these prequalifying competitions.  I mean there are only 84 medal positions at a competition (28*3).  So it would take quite a few different comps.  I think if it's spead out there shouldn't really be a 'jump' for any of the competitions... Except I could see a bit of a bump on the competitions that would be towards the end of the schedule getting closer to the first round.

[macbrews]

I think your assumption that entries would not increase in these pre-qualifier competitions is not a good assumption. For example, we run a competition circuit here in the Midwest called the High Plains. If you (or your club) wins in one of those designated competitions you get points towards brewer of the year or club of the year. You better believe that A LOT of the entries in those competitions are because of the circuit it is attached to.

Let's say that my club's annual competition is already at 500+ entries. Imagine how many more entries we would have if it was one of only a certain number of comps to be part of the 'pre-qulaifying round' for the NHC. 100? 300? Yikes. There just isn't enough support/volunteers to run that big of a competition.

Unquestionably it would potentially increase the number of entries, especially in the final quarter of the year.  Since the FOAM cup has been a MCAB qualifier, it has seen an increase of around 350 or so to 750.  Part of the reason is that it is the second to the last qualifier of the year and people are trying to get in to the MCAB.  Each competition would just need to cap their entries at a level that they could handle.  If they were concerned that too many "outsiders" would flood the available slots, then have two entry periods.  One for club members and then open it up to all.

Mac

[Jimmy K]

Unquestionably it would potentially increase the number of entries, especially in the final quarter of the year.  Since the FOAM cup has been a MCAB qualifier, it has seen an increase of around 350 or so to 750.  Part of the reason is that it is the second to the last qualifier of the year and people are trying to get in to the MCAB.  Each competition would just need to cap their entries at a level that they could handle.  If they were concerned that too many "outsiders" would flood the available slots, then have two entry periods.  One for club members and then open it up to all.

Mac

It wouldn't be right to have a qualifier that gave members of one club (or any other group) preferencial registration. It would provide them with an easier route to qualification than other brewers get.

[macbrews]

Unquestionably it would potentially increase the number of entries, especially in the final quarter of the year.  Since the FOAM cup has been a MCAB qualifier, it has seen an increase of around 350 or so to 750.  Part of the reason is that it is the second to the last qualifier of the year and people are trying to get in to the MCAB.  Each competition would just need to cap their entries at a level that they could handle.  If they were concerned that too many "outsiders" would flood the available slots, then have two entry periods.  One for club members and then open it up to all.

Mac

It wouldn't be right to have a qualifier that gave members of one club (or any other group) preferencial registration. It would provide them with an easier route to qualification than other brewers get.

If you have a 100 qualifiers, I don't think it would be an issue.

[AmandaK]

Unquestionably it would potentially increase the number of entries, especially in the final quarter of the year.  Since the FOAM cup has been a MCAB qualifier, it has seen an increase of around 350 or so to 750.  Part of the reason is that it is the second to the last qualifier of the year and people are trying to get in to the MCAB.  Each competition would just need to cap their entries at a level that they could handle.  If they were concerned that too many "outsiders" would flood the available slots, then have two entry periods.  One for club members and then open it up to all.

Mac

It wouldn't be right to have a qualifier that gave members of one club (or any other group) preferencial registration. It would provide them with an easier route to qualification than other brewers get.

Exactly. Exclusivity is not the goal here. Increasing the volunteer base is the only long term solution I see. More volunteers, more first round sites, more entries can be judged at both the regionals and the nationals, more people are happy.

[macbrews]

Unquestionably it would potentially increase the number of entries, especially in the final quarter of the year.  Since the FOAM cup has been a MCAB qualifier, it has seen an increase of around 350 or so to 750.  Part of the reason is that it is the second to the last qualifier of the year and people are trying to get in to the MCAB.  Each competition would just need to cap their entries at a level that they could handle.  If they were concerned that too many "outsiders" would flood the available slots, then have two entry periods.  One for club members and then open it up to all.

Mac

It wouldn't be right to have a qualifier that gave members of one club (or any other group) preferencial registration. It would provide them with an easier route to qualification than other brewers get.

Exactly. Exclusivity is not the goal here. Increasing the volunteer base is the only long term solution I see. More volunteers, more first round sites, more entries can be judged at both the regionals and the nationals, more people are happy.

I agree that increasing the numbers and quality of the volunteer base is critical.  I am not sure that I think that there is a need to open up the total number of entries.  Is 8250 enough?  How many bad beers did you taste in the 1st round?  I tasted a lot.  The answer involves a method to increase the quality of the first round entrants.  Having 5000, ...or whatever, pre-qualifying spots based upon that brewers performance during the year and still allowing 3000+ spots for those who either got robbed and didn't medal, didn't have time during the rest of the brewing season or just want an opportunity to compete is pretty fair.  I don't think that there is any exclusivity to such a system.  In fact, I think it is very inclusive.  It gives all those who are interested, several options to get an opportunity.  It also gives them the entire year to secure a spot.  The quality of the competition will increase.  Everyone will be happy....

Well maybe not......

Compare that to a lottery

Mac

[dkfick]

Unquestionably it would potentially increase the number of entries, especially in the final quarter of the year.  Since the FOAM cup has been a MCAB qualifier, it has seen an increase of around 350 or so to 750.  Part of the reason is that it is the second to the last qualifier of the year and people are trying to get in to the MCAB.  Each competition would just need to cap their entries at a level that they could handle.  If they were concerned that too many "outsiders" would flood the available slots, then have two entry periods.  One for club members and then open it up to all.

Mac

It wouldn't be right to have a qualifier that gave members of one club (or any other group) preferencial registration. It would provide them with an easier route to qualification than other brewers get.

Exactly. Exclusivity is not the goal here. Increasing the volunteer base is the only long term solution I see. More volunteers, more first round sites, more entries can be judged at both the regionals and the nationals, more people are happy.

I agree that increasing the numbers and quality of the volunteer base is critical.  I am not sure that I think that there is a need to open up the total number of entries.  Is 8250 enough?  How many bad beers did you taste in the 1st round?  I tasted a lot.  The answer involves a method to increase the quality of the first round entrants.  Having 5000, ...or whatever, pre-qualifying spots based upon that brewers performance during the year and still allowing 3000+ spots for those who either got robbed and didn't medal, didn't have time during the rest of the brewing season or just want an opportunity to compete is pretty fair.  I don't think that there is any exclusivity to such a system.  In fact, I think it is very inclusive.  It gives all those who are interested, several options to get an opportunity.  It also gives them the entire year to secure a spot.  The quality of the competition will increase.  Everyone will be happy....

Well maybe not......

Compare that to a lottery

Mac

Agree 100%

[Jimmy K]

Well maybe not......

You've made the right decision if nobody is complete happy right?
 

Compare that to a lottery

You're proposing a lottery for the 'open' 3000 slots right? I agree that a simple lottery for all slots would be stupid. There needs to be a way for great brewers to compete without relying on luck. To be fair though, we don't know what the plan is and what you've described could still be quickly descibed as a lottery.

[reverseapachemaster]

I suppose it would technically be 3 stages... but really... who only enters the NHC each year?  I think that has to be a minority.  If you make the prequalifier competitions that are already established and existing it will not put much more (if any) strain on the judges in those areas.

I think your assumption that entries would not increase in these pre-qualifier competitions is not a good assumption. For example, we run a competition circuit here in the Midwest called the High Plains. If you (or your club) wins in one of those designated competitions you get points towards brewer of the year or club of the year. You better believe that A LOT of the entries in those competitions are because of the circuit it is attached to.

Let's say that my club's annual competition is already at 500+ entries. Imagine how many more entries we would have if it was one of only a certain number of comps to be part of the 'pre-qulaifying round' for the NHC. 100? 300? Yikes. There just isn't enough support/volunteers to run that big of a competition.

When I pitched this idea I pitched it with the assumption that more entries would be a good thing. I don't think that requires existing competitions to expand beyond their abilities. If we could easily do that then we could just expand the NHC's volunteer/judge pool and be done. I know my club sometimes struggles to get enough judges together to judge our smaller events (although part of that could be fixed by better planning). So it's definitely a legitimate concern.

I'm not sure we'd see 100-300 more entries at a competition, outside of maybe some of the very large competitions. It might justify running more small competitions or competitions attached to other local events. Maybe the NHC could provide resources to help facilitate competition operations/judging to ease the burden (e.g. setting up a system to locate and request judges for competitions). Maybe a set of entries should be set aside for BJCP-registered judges who accumulate a designated number of points in the year to help encourage people to judge. On the other hand, maybe the answer is much easier. With increased demand on club-run competitions, the clubs will give preference to members of homebrew clubs (or the AHA), which will entice people to join clubs, provide more financial resources to the clubs and make more potential volunteers available to help run the competitions.

[macbrews]

Well maybe not......

You've made the right decision if nobody is complete happy right?
 

Compare that to a lottery

You're proposing a lottery for the 'open' 3000 slots right? I agree that a simple lottery for all slots would be stupid. There needs to be a way for great brewers to compete without relying on luck. To be fair though, we don't know what the plan is and what you've described could still be quickly descibed as a lottery.

I am against a lottery.  My comment was meant to compare my suggested method with a lottery for the entire process which has been suggested.  I don't know how many AHA sanctioned competitions there are a year, but there appear to be well over a 100.  Some of them are not full, 28 category comps, some are.  There are obviously of lot of details that would need to be worked out.  There is no magic number of pre-quals vs at large entries.  I just think it gives the NHC a structure to build upon.

Mac

[bbkf]

Last year the final round was judged in a single session, for beer anyway.  There is already room there so long as that many good judges keep attending the conference. 

If they go with a lottery system and I get shut out, this National judge will be staying home.  I likely won't volunteer my time to judge at a first round judging site either. Don't piss off your judges and volunteers by excluding them or the whole thing will collapse quickly.


There are hundreds of competitions around the country for people that "just want quality feedback".  NHC should not be one of those competitions because the demand to enter is to high. 

[udubdawg]

Last year the final round was judged in a single session, for beer anyway.  There is already room there so long as that many good judges keep attending the conference. 

If they go with a lottery system and I get shut out, this National judge will be staying home.  I likely won't volunteer my time to judge at a first round judging site either. Don't piss off your judges and volunteers by excluding them or the whole thing will collapse quickly.


There are hundreds of competitions around the country for people that "just want quality feedback".  NHC should not be one of those competitions because the demand to enter is to high.

I tend to agree with your bolded statement, though I'll still show up to NHC/Final Round judging if I'm not picked. Wait, unless threatening not to show up will get me on the list? 

I think there are reasonably fair ways to give preferential treatment to winners/volunteers and give everyone else an equal chance.  Lots of them have been mentioned here, and I think all have some merit.

lottery of 100% of spots will lead to different uproar, not less uproar than last year, IMO.  Taking quality of the average competition beer into account I don't consider 100% lottery an improvement at all.

cheers--
--Michael