[theDarkSide]

I wonder if QUAFF or ASH or the Zealots win next year, does all this talk go away and will it return if the BN wins the following year?

[udubdawg]

I wonder if QUAFF or ASH or the Zealots win next year, does all this talk go away and will it return if the BN wins the following year?

some of it would go away.

some if it would not.  I think you know this.  I'll say for like the 5th time:  I don't care who wins; I want the award to be meaningful.

if BN is out, the award is a landslide in favor of QUAFF until they get bored or some other club gets big enough.  Not meaningful either.

[Phil_M]

Again, I don't have a dog in this fight.

After reading through all of this, splitting the COTY into any sort of category (regional, size, etc) will still favor the larger clubs. I don't see that as a solution, and next thing you know we'll be having this discussion about each category leader instead of BN.

I think the simplest solution would be to leave the rules as-is, but make sure each club award (COTY, Radegast, Gambrinus) has the same sort of "prominence."

I also think that a clearer line needs to be drawn between non-profit clubs and businesses. I realize that the BN club is "separate" from the business, but they certainly aren't like the average club in that area.

[mchrispen]

Something that hasn't been brought up, but since we are talking club size... then you will require the AHA or BJCP to have a formal list of clubs and their membership. Assuming we are somehow weighting club size v number of winners 1st & 2nd round. I know a few brewers that rotate their club affiliation and would explode if you took that option away... plus then it is on the brewer and the club to re-register if they move or transfer. That responsibility will most likely fall on the club and you have a new controversy.

I am a Zealot, and frankly we are small enough that would could easily compete with BN or Quaff based on scores v membership (especially weighted toward 2nd round), but not willing to take on the controversy that would result. Frankly a few very excellent homebrewers carry us in competition.

I personally value the Gambrinus and Radegast over the CoTY. If there was an AHA/BJCP official circuit, similar to the MCAB or the Texas Cup, in the mix, then the Texas Carboys would dominate (the Bradleys... seriously) although they occasionally list the Zealots as their club. Working to manage such club swapping would be overly complicated.

At this point, I have no real issue with the BN winning the CoTY year after year. Good on them. In a few years another very large community will displace them, maybe. Eliminating or redefining the CoTY is another option that should be considered.

[braufessor]

The clubs that I know are about training, sharing, education, encouragement, camaraderie, feedback.  Those are things worth cheering for.

...so I'd say an award for best competition club seems perfectly natural.  *shrug*  but I get that its not for some people.

I agree.  There is recognition (Radegast) for the club that does a great job at these many aspects of what a great club might do.

And, NHC IS a competition.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with having an award for the club that does the best job, overall, in the competition.  However, right now, it is meaningless because of the overwhelming disparity of entries between clubs. 

The more I think about it, the more it seems that going toward a "winning percentage" (top 3 in first/second round) would not be so bad.  Set a minimum number of entrants per club to qualify for the team award. 

Would clubs be selective on which beers they entered..... sure.  But that does not eliminate anyone from entering.  A club could certainly evaluate what it wanted to enter to represent its club.  If someone's beers were not good enough to make the cut, then they could enter them on their own anyway.  NHC is generally a mediocre competition to enter for feedback overall.  If someone is just getting going, their beers are so-so, and their club gives them feedback that they are not up to standard yet..... There is nothing inherently wrong with that.  Take that feedback, learn from the better brewers in your club, up your game and take a shot at representing your club the following year.  In the mean time, enter some of the other 100's of competitions.  Enter NHC solo.  If someone feels a club is too focused on competition and not enough on the other elements..... they might choose to join and support another club.

Competitions are about competing.  NHC, in particular, is about trying to medal and see how your beers do agains the best of the best.  There is nothing wrong with having a team/club aspect of that - in addition to the other awards.  The problem is that the playing field is completely uneven.  "Fixing" the prospect of the BN dominating it really changes nothing at all, other than to let 3-4 other clubs fight it out.  Still a meaningless award that comes back to "most entries has the best chance of winning."

[slobrewer]

The Radegast Club of the Year Award has its place in recognizing and highlighting the valuable contributions of clubs to the community but it's a totally different animal than the NHC Club of the Year.  The Radegast is essentially a beauty pageant and is subjectively evaluated by a panel of judges from the AHA Governing Committee.

The NHC COTY is based on blind judging of the beers a club brews.  Much like the overall medal race at the Olympics it's naturally going to be biased towards the organizations with the largest membership and resources that they want to spend towards winning.  Jamaica isn't going to win the Winter Olympics but they don't boo Russia or Norway at the closing ceremony.

[a10t2]

Jamaica isn't going to win the Winter Olympics but they don't boo Russia or Norway at the closing ceremony.

They might if Russia and Norway were allowed to enter more athletes in each event.

[klickitat jim]

I still submit that the only numbers thst count are how many 1st round placers and 2nd round medalers a club has. Not mere sheer numbers. If its just sheer numbers, that does not speak well of the BJCP.

Jim, it's too early here. Helps. Can you explain how this looks bad on the BJCP? Legitimately curious.

Because if sheer mass of random mediocre entries equates to a sure thing win, then the judges must not judging but just randomly advancing and medaling beers. I doubt that. I'm confident that the judges are selecting great beer, therefore it doesn't matter how many losers a club submitted

[oldstoneface]

Jamaica isn't going to win the Winter Olympics but they don't boo Russia or Norway at the closing ceremony.

They might if Russia and Norway were allowed to enter more athletes in each event.

Actually, Russia and Norway probably do get to enter more athletes in the event, but it's not because they have more people, rather it's that they have more athletes that qualify for the event. In comparison, this would be similar to requiring homebrewers to qualify to enter beer in NHC through winning other competitions. 

[oldstoneface]

I still submit that the only numbers thst count are how many 1st round placers and 2nd round medalers a club has. Not mere sheer numbers. If its just sheer numbers, that does not speak well of the BJCP.

Jim, it's too early here. Helps. Can you explain how this looks bad on the BJCP? Legitimately curious.

Because if sheer mass of random mediocre entries equates to a sure thing win, then the judges must not judging but just randomly advancing and medaling beers. I doubt that. I'm confident that the judges are selecting great beer, therefore it doesn't matter how many losers a club submitted

I agree with not making lower scoring beers a "penalty" as it will discourage newer brewers from entering in fear of harming their club. Where volume helps a club is the huge number of judging sites and categories they are able to cover. Granted there is a 15 point cap per category, but keep in mind that even though the club is capped, the individual still gets points/medal which essentially blocks any other club from earning those points.

[udubdawg]

Not that anyone asked, but if we gave COTY to the club with the most Final Round points, it'd be:

2015:  Austin Zealots (5 medals, 20 pts). Runner Up is St Paul, 4 medals and 18 pts.
2014:  WHO (4 medals, 20 pts).  Runner up is Minnesota HBA, 3 medals and 16 pts. 

side note:  I hope they manage to keep the entry limit at 5 or higher, for Ninkasi's sake.

if anyone's got a free afternoon, I'd be curious which other clubs would have won, post Gordon Strong/St Paul 3-peat.

[a10t2]

Actually, Russia and Norway probably do get to enter more athletes in the event, but it's not because they have more people, rather it's that they have more athletes that qualify for the event.

Sure, they have larger teams due to increased resources and such, but they don't accrue medal points for the athletes who don't actually compete in the events. The current COTY rules would be like if countries got a bronze for every athlete on the team, regardless of who was selected for the Games… Actually taking first in a race wouldn't win you the event if you were a small country.

[Phil_M]

In comparison, this would be similar to requiring homebrewers to qualify to enter beer in NHC through winning other competitions.

The issue there is you then penalize those who can't/won't enter another competition, even if they aren't affiliated with a club at all. It's entirely possible a home brewer is only brewing to the NHC schedule, and may not be able to fit brewing to another comp schedule into the mix.

I would be flatly against any regular entry rule changes to try and fix a club problem.

[klickitat jim]

So, apparently I didn't realize that clubs get points toward COTY for every entry submitted regardless of score.

[jeffy]

So, apparently I didn't realize that clubs get points toward COTY for every entry submitted regardless of score.

So is this your way of saying that it takes a good beer to win a medal, no matter how many are entered?