[klickitat jim]

Ok, in all seriousness now. If there were a club near me and I had the time and ability to participate, if they had a goal of winning COTY I would not be interested in joining. If there was a club of brewers who lived to brew, share, and talk beer, and who didn't allow ear humping people about their day job, I would join that. It doesn't exist.

Like I said, I've not been to NHC yet, but if a crowd allows booing thats not in fun, im not missing a thing.

[reverseapachemaster]

Club identification is voluntary and optional so creating a rule that only certain clubs can be identified in the NHC is exclusionary, arbitrary and sure to cast off people. If the BN gets cut out because it lacks a geographic identity then that's going to cut out lots of people like Jim along with people who live in areas with active clubs but for choose not to be involved with the local club and lack the desire or resources to start a new club. If the standard requires local participation in a club then what about people who join a local club and never attend meetings? Is it acceptable to join the Austin Zealots when I live hours away and will not attend many meetings or must all entries be crosschecked against club meeting attendance? What if those people wrote in AHA? What if they wrote in the name of a local club but never joined?

If the line is drawn over a lack of geographic identity then what stops other clubs from later complaining that the large metropolitan clubs should be excluded because they span too large of an area? After all, if you cut out BN then you're just talking about a battle between several large regional clubs. There's no way a club in Independence, Kansas competes with QUAFF.

Wherever one thinks the line should be drawn and for whatever reason supports that division it is sure to cast division much like what exists now by permitting BN as a club. Shifting dissatisfaction from one group to another accomplishes little. Perhaps time would be better spent looking at why people feel drawn to claiming BN and how to bring those people into the fold of physical groups. For every Jim who lives in the wilderness there is probably a half dozen brewers who have easy access to a local club but either opt not to participate or do not know it is out there.

[AmandaK]

I agree with every point that Steve makes.

I think the way to fix this is to write your AHA GC and tell them what you think. Don't just do it now, do it all year long.

Here is a solution I've been proposing throughout the last year: make the CotY award similar to the GABF Brewery of the Year award. There are small, medium, and large breweries of the year. Say it is split into those categories... then your smaller clubs are only competing against themselves. The BNs and the QUAFFs of the world are only competing again themselves as well. There. Everyone's happy and everyone has at least a chance of winning. This system here does not work for the types of clubs we have anymore. It is VERY demotivating to know that you have no chance of winning ant of the big-club awards as a small or medium sized club.

What's the point of this award anyway? To motivate all of the clubs across the country to make great beer in order to become CotY? Or to have only the largest of the large compete against each other? I think the former is a much better way to look at the award. The latter is pretty boring and useless.

[klickitat jim]

Maybe COTY should have nothing to do with brewing awards, instead its selected by the gov board based on what club has done the best job of promoting home brewing and the AHA. Crap, never mind, the BN would probably win that too.

I think its either do the size break up like Amanda suggests, regional break up, or... if you cant beat em join em.

[brulosopher]

I agree with every point that Steve makes.

I think the way to fix this is to write your AHA GC and tell them what you think. Don't just do it now, do it all year long.

Here is a solution I've been proposing throughout the last year: make the CotY award similar to the GABF Brewery of the Year award. There are small, medium, and large breweries of the year. Say it is split into those categories... then your smaller clubs are only competing against themselves. The BNs and the QUAFFs of the world are only competing again themselves as well. There. Everyone's happy and everyone has at least a chance of winning. This system here does not work for the types of clubs we have anymore. It is VERY demotivating to know that you have no chance of winning ant of the big-club awards as a small or medium sized club.

What's the point of this award anyway? To motivate all of the clubs across the country to make great beer in order to become CotY? Or to have only the largest of the large compete against each other? I think the former is a much better way to look at the award. The latter is pretty boring and useless.

Fully agree, great points and idea.

[jvoeltz]

Maybe COTY should have nothing to do with brewing awards, instead its selected by the gov board based on what club has done the best job of promoting home brewing and the AHA. Crap, never mind, the BN would probably win that too.

Well, that's the Radegast Award. 

https://www.homebrewersassociation.org/community/clubs/radegast-club-of-the-year/

[denny]

Maybe COTY should have nothing to do with brewing awards, instead its selected by the gov board based on what club has done the best job of promoting home brewing and the AHA. Crap, never mind, the BN would probably win that too.

That's pretty much what the Radegast award is all about...and I wouldn't be so certain that BN would win it anyway.

[ercousin]

I agree with every point that Steve makes.

I think the way to fix this is to write your AHA GC and tell them what you think. Don't just do it now, do it all year long.

Here is a solution I've been proposing throughout the last year: make the CotY award similar to the GABF Brewery of the Year award. There are small, medium, and large breweries of the year. Say it is split into those categories... then your smaller clubs are only competing against themselves. The BNs and the QUAFFs of the world are only competing again themselves as well. There. Everyone's happy and everyone has at least a chance of winning. This system here does not work for the types of clubs we have anymore. It is VERY demotivating to know that you have no chance of winning ant of the big-club awards as a small or medium sized club.

What's the point of this award anyway? To motivate all of the clubs across the country to make great beer in order to become CotY? Or to have only the largest of the large compete against each other? I think the former is a much better way to look at the award. The latter is pretty boring and useless.

Why not just get rid of the first round medals in the Homebrew Club of the Year tally, and only count second round medals? The way it was done in 2012 and before.

My understanding is that first round is only meant to whittle down the entries for the final round, not be a standalone competition.

I wouldn't have as much of an issue with BN winning club of the year if they also won the most second round medals. By my count, Austin Zealots would have won COTY by 2012 rules.

2015: AZ = 20 pts, SP = 18 pts, BN = 10 pts

[AmandaK]

Why not just get rid of the first round medals in the Homebrew Club of the Year tally, and only count second round medals? The way it was done in 2012 and before.

My understanding is that first round is only meant to whittle down the entries for the final round, not be a standalone competition.

I wouldn't have as much of an issue with BN winning club of the year if they also won the most second round medals. By my count, Austin Zealots would have won COTY by 2012 rules.

2015: AZ = 20 pts, SP = 18 pts, BN = 10 pts

But that's not how it used to work. There was a Club Only Competition circuit that counted to the point totals, which was held multiple times throughout the year and had different categories each time.

[mchrispen]

What's the point of this award anyway? To motivate all of the clubs across the country to make great beer in order to become CotY? Or to have only the largest of the large compete against each other? I think the former is a much better way to look at the award. The latter is pretty boring and useless.

This. Why can't the rules state that you once you win, you are ineligible for some period - at least 5 years? Does that also devalue the recognition?

[theDarkSide]

Here is a solution I've been proposing throughout the last year: make the CotY award similar to the GABF Brewery of the Year award. There are small, medium, and large breweries of the year. Say it is split into those categories... then your smaller clubs are only competing against themselves. The BNs and the QUAFFs of the world are only competing again themselves as well. There. Everyone's happy and everyone has at least a chance of winning. This system here does not work for the types of clubs we have anymore. It is VERY demotivating to know that you have no chance of winning ant of the big-club awards as a small or medium sized club.

I like this idea and have sent an email to the competition subcommittee regarding it.  However, I'm not sure if this resolves the issue with the big clubs competing with the BN club.  I mean, it's what they are doing now and their biggest complaint is the ability of the BN to pull from across the country instead of a single region. 

I really don't know how this will be resolved without someone's "feelings" getting hurt, but anything to stop the booing at the banquet.  And next year, if someone else wins, I guarantee the BN CLUB will be the loudest ones cheering!

[jvoeltz]

And next year, if someone else wins, I guarantee the BN CLUB will be the loudest ones cheering!

As QUAFF did this year when BN won it. 

[ercousin]

Why not just get rid of the first round medals in the Homebrew Club of the Year tally, and only count second round medals? The way it was done in 2012 and before.

My understanding is that first round is only meant to whittle down the entries for the final round, not be a standalone competition.

I wouldn't have as much of an issue with BN winning club of the year if they also won the most second round medals. By my count, Austin Zealots would have won COTY by 2012 rules.

2015: AZ = 20 pts, SP = 18 pts, BN = 10 pts

But that's not how it used to work. There was a Club Only Competition circuit that counted to the point totals, which was held multiple times throughout the year and had different categories each time.

My mistake, my point still stands minus the reference to what I thought were 2012 rules.

Why not just go on total final round points for club of the year, then final points/entry for gambrinus?

Final round should be all that matters, you don't get a medal for first round do you?

[klickitat jim]

Just out of curiosity, how many people wrote BN down as their club on their entry sheets? Does anyone know? If not then how can  sheer numbers be a valid argument? If the argument is that its unfair to have so many winners, well isnt that the point? The only valid point is their wingspan, but dont the same rules apply to all clubs? If you want club of the year just get more members from the other regions. If the reply to that is that its not easy to get members from other regions, well was it somehow easier for Justin? I suppose, since I doubt he even cares.

[testingapril]

Final round should be all that matters, you don't get a medal for first round do you?

You get a ribbon for first round.

What's the point of this award anyway? To motivate all of the clubs across the country to make great beer in order to become CotY? Or to have only the largest of the large compete against each other? I think the former is a much better way to look at the award. The latter is pretty boring and useless.

The former would also be the point of the Gambrinus award. How do you fix the CotY award without making the Gambrinus award superfluous.