Just got the email from NSCA on yearend review. They really lowered the CCR and upped the punches. This has the potential to impact some shooters if they accept the re-classification. We will see how this plays out (and time to get the popcorn!)
Whether you're a greenhorn or a seasoned veteran, your collection's next piece is at Bass Pro Shops. Shop Now.
If a shooter has accumulated FEWER THAN the following required minimum number of punches in their ending class for the year and if their calculated CCFR (Current Class Finish Ratio) in their ending class for the year is greater than 0.400, the shooter will be reviewed and down-classed. Number of punches earned per class, to be down-classed:
Master Class – fewer than 15 punches;
AA Class – fewer than 7 punches;
A Class – fewer than 6 punches;
B Class – fewer than 5 punches;
C Class – fewer than 3 punches;
D Class – fewer than 2 punches.
I don’t think so. I think you’ll see a much more even distribution among all classes.I pointed this out to a friend that’s is state delegate and it went right over there head. A few years with this set of rules C&D are going to be packed
Well I was one of the first 150 members of NSCA. And the class averages were a system worked very well I thought The notion of ”sandbagging “ an average over a year to me was more trouble than it was worth It seemed to me.Perhaps the" extremely high volume of opt out requests" is an indication that the membership just does not like the current classification system. I have not been an NSCA member since the very beginning, but when I took time to read the old NPA Classification system, it sounded like a better system to me. The logic of the tweaked average of NPA seems difficult to fault. Classes were established based on current shooting performance only. I would be interested to see a few posts on this thread by members who played under the old system in order to learn what they thought about it. Do they think one is better than the other ?
So you’re saying this guy can compete with Brandon Powell? He belongs in a class with Zach K?I don't understand this issue at all. I know a local shooter who punched into M class in 2019, and earned punches in that class for 2019-2023 of 2+11+13+16+12=54. Now for 2024 he's downclassed to AA. First shoot of 2024, he won AA morning and afternoon, and afternoon tied the highest M class score.
What you're talking about with mandatory downclassing is forced sandbagging.
So your vision of Master class is a group of 10 -15 shooters??So you’re saying this guy can compete with Brandon Powell? He belongs in a class with Zach K?
That’s nonsense. You are using one instance to come to a crazy conclusion. If no-one opts out, classes get adjusted to have similar shooters classed together. It wouldn’t be perfect, but it will adjust things to better represent shooters skills.What you're talking about with mandatory downclassing is forced sandbagging.
While that seems absurdly low, it is vastly a more accurate # of Master class shooters than the current # of shooters classed as Master.So your vision of Master class is a group of 10 -15 shooters??
Steve
That's not a reasonable argument. Because a golfer, say, can't compete with Scheffler, McIlroy, etc., does that mean he shouldn't try to qualify for the US Open? I don't know how many M class shooters there are, but fewer than 10 could compete with Brandon or Zach. You're making an argument for 25 classes vs 7 classes. Or maybe 5 or 6 classes above AA, including a pro class?So you’re saying this guy can compete with Brandon Powell? He belongs in a class with Zach K?
No?
Then maybe the problem isn’t that he’s in AA now. Maybe the problem is that there are guys in AA who would be more accurately placed in B Class.
I can give you more than one instance in my shortish career. And, why would you complain about taking the money from M class shooters that can't hit a barn door? I'm guessing because there is no real money in sporting clays. It's the hobby of Kings, and no adjustments to the classification system will turn it into a real sport, with real prize money.That’s nonsense. You are using one instance to come to a crazy conclusion. If no-one opts out, classes get adjusted to have similar shooters classed together. It wouldn’t be perfect, but it will adjust things to better represent shooters skills.
The lack of mandatory down classing is why I get excessive punches throughout the year at smaller local shoots. We have a plethora of Master classed shooters that would have to be shooting at barn doors thrown broad side to post a score in the 80’s.
Nationwide? No.So your vision of Master class is a group of 10 -15 shooters??
Steve
??That's not a reasonable argument. Because a golfer, say, can't compete with Scheffler, McIlroy, etc., does that mean he shouldn't try to qualify for the US Open? I don't know how many M class shooters there are, but fewer than 10 could compete with Brandon or Zach. You're making an argument for 25 classes vs 7 classes. Or maybe 5 or 6 classes above AA, including a pro class?
It would be nice if EC members read this thread. I think you and I comprise the majority thinking inside M class for the mid level normal M shooter. I am also fairly confident the other classes will welcome having more participants in them.I’ll be very clear: I am in favor of making the existing classes as accurate as possible, on both a local and national level. I think the new changes go a long way towards doing that. Not far enough, until down classing is mandatory, but I applaud them for what they’ve done so far.
Agreed.It would be nice if EC members read this thread. I think you and I comprise the majority thinking inside M class for the mid level normal M shooter. I am also fairly confident the other classes will welcome having more participants in them.