Yuku free message boards

I think that there were 1098 shooters whose scores were reported for the main at the Nationals. Rather than try to "guesstimate" the revenues and numbers of shooters in the various events I think that a better assessment could be found by polling various range owners and asking what they believe their "price point" to be for break even on a tournament - by "price point" I mean what they have to charge per target to cover all of their expenses, before any profit. The main cost 91.66 cents per target. I'm too lazy to go get all the prices for the various side events and determine the cost per target for them, but I'm willing to assume that it is not very far off the price of the main per target cost.
Certainly there is some economy of scale involved in a shoot of this size but I believe that most ranges are making a profit when charging 65 cents per target, and I believe that they are making that profit after placing some of that 65 cents per target back to the shooters.
But I also don't believe that this issue will ever be addressed by the NSCA. An organization that does not provide any forum for its members to publically raise issues is not likely to expose itself to criticism by acknowledging those issues. Oh, yeah, I know, they will say to get in touch with your state delegate. But can anyone identify any case of an issue raised to a state delegate that was recognized in a public forum and then resolved by the NSCA?
I don't believe that the NSCA represents my interests in any way. But when they send the renewal I say "Baaaa" and send them my money, so I guess that I am part of the problem.
For example, I am a level 1 instructor. Or I think that I am. I paid for and successfully completed the prescribed course. Then, several years later I was told that if I wanted my name to be included in the magazine I'd have to send in a nominal fee - I think that it was $5. I chose not to do so partly on principal and partly because I don't believe that I've ever had a referral based on my name being in the magazine. So now there is no record of my being an instructor. I think that this is like the universities from which I was graduated telling me that if I wanted to continue to "have" my degrees that I'd have to pay an annual fee. And I think that is BS. I earned those degrees and they are mine and the universities have an obligation to acknowledge that. Just as the NSCA has an obligation to acknowledge that I am an instructor. But I am not listed on their web site, nor in the magazine. I believe that they simply see me as a revenue source, and if I am not willing to provide the revenue then they will not acknowledge me.
Further example - - I don't shoot tournaments much any more. But my wife and I decided to combine a vacation (can retired people take vacations???) with a state shoot in the state of our destination. I was assessed a penalty class because I had not shot the requisite 300 registered birds. Then some friends and I decided to participate in the Kreighoff Kup at the Nationals and again I was assessed a penalty class because I had not shot the requisite 500 birds. So the rationale is that because I don't shoot much any more I should be made to shoot against shooters above my skill level. Wow. That's intellectually valid. For those who want to tell me that this is to preclude sandbagging I'd ask that they explain just exactly how? The purpose of the rule is clearly and solely to generate revenue for the NSCA in its $3 per hundred assessment fee. It is my opinion that the rules of the NSCA are promulgated solely for the benefit of the NSCA, and the members are espected to "Baaaa" along with me.
Bottom line, don't ever expect the NSCA to address this issue. Don't ever expect any staightforward accounting of revenues and costs. But if you listen carefully you might hear them laughing on their way to the bank.
JPM