STQT format discussion

BassNFly · June 05, 2011, 09:16:30 AM

A lot to consider here so I kept it down to two pages

To be clear, Mike, the FTNB statement is considered a joke and not a practice. 99% of club fishers are out to have a good time with friends, (including those who don't own a boat!) That's the club fishing attraction.

I have an interest in keeping another circuit viable (RMTS,) so consider that up-front when reading my statements. The whole reason that circuit got started is because no one could get either Federation to do it, so a group got together and did it on their own.

One reason that in the past other circuits have not survived is that once someone starts one and has some success somebody else wants to start one and then both have to split up the available pool of bass tournament fishermen in Colorado; and then neither one survives. I wager that a circuit with considerable payout will survive better than one that might get you to divisional, even if it has some payout. For that reason I would like to see the Fed remain a one tournament format. Frankly, if we did not have the RMTS I would have liked the Fed to be a payout circuit, and I proposed that many times in the past without success, but since there is now a successful circuit option I do not see a low entry/payout percentage circuit being a draw when there are other options.

Also keep in mind that in the past when the CBF had a circuit there was several practices in place:

A: Most of the entry fee went to a payout AT THAT TOURNAMENT, and some of the entry went to the federation treasury, if I remember correctly it was a 70/30 split, but that may not be right. The tournaments were held as fundraisers for the federation instead of fundraisers for the State Team.

B: There was a "Club Only" option, where a participant could pay less and fish the tournament but was not fishing for a State Team spot. This might appeal, since apparently there are many federation members who really don't care to be on the State Team.

C: Another practice, at least in the club I am in, was that the club had fewer events because the fed had a circuit; i.e. the fed had 4 tournaments (best 3 of 4) and the club had 5 club tournaments. When the fed went to a one tournament format the club started fishing 7 tournaments. There are only so many weekends and they are already so crowded that one has to pick and choose which tournaments to go to. Do you think most of the clubs will cut the number of weekends they hold events?

Boater/Non-boater: valid complaints that I have heard are that many non-boaters don't feel they have the same chance but have to pay just as much, and that the State Team is invariable mostly comprised of boaters, which is a fact. I would propose, at the peril of getting death threats from boaters, that the Qualifier be comprised of boaters and non-boaters, competing for 6 boater spots and 6 non-boater spots. If I enter as a boater I am competing for one of 6 spots, not one of 12. We might actually have non-boaters scrambling to secure a boater instead of the other way around.

A trade for this might be that the format changes to a pro/am style, where the boater runs the front all day. This might also appeal to more boaters to participate and not turn their $50,000+ rig over to someone he does not know who might or might not have experience running a boat, and then after the damage is done try to collect and pay for it when that person might have had to scrape to attend the event.

In my experience, most of the non-boaters I have drawn take little time on the front even though they have the right to, but I would be willing to trade 6 spots guaranteed to go to non-boaters if that would increase the numbers participating. Many of the non-boaters are younger and just getting started in families and careers. They are the future boat owners and important to growing membership and participants.

Team concept: I think that the reference here is advocating for a "boat weight" payout each day. I think that would be a good idea and was part of the past federation circuits.

Payout: money talks. More will choose to fish the qualifier if they could win money at the event, not wait until the next year to get gas money to go to divisional. As far as funding the team, let the State and the team fund itself with fundraising events and soliciting cash from sponsors. It can be done, but few want to put much effort into it.

Prizes/products: State sponsors should be supporting the state; i.e. we have listed sponsors who do not even give prizes for the qualifier (not a single thing was given away or drawn at the last qualifier.) If they want to be on the state website a sponsor should at least provide products for prizes or fundraising. If they want to be on State Team shirts a sponsor should at least provide some cash or sellable products to help pay for the trip. Right now we require team members to support companies for free or maybe for a couple of shirts. That's not enough. Those items that we get to sell to members, like the cases of oil, we should be selling as fundraising monies for the State Team (and other causes.) We also need to look at the coffers; why should a state with so much cash NOT be supporting the State Team? That was fine when there was little cash in the bank, but not now. Most of that cash came from forcing the team wear a sponsored boat company's shirt, so at least some of that money should fund State Teams. For all these "state sponsors" and State Team requirements, the only funding the team gets right now comes from its own tournament. That's BS.

It was suggested that the clubs "qualify" anglers to come to a State Team qualifier: that's fine up until the point where certain members will want the State to dictate to the clubs how they qualify. Do they have to at least have one or more tournaments? Can it be a paper club without events? I do not want the state to be dictating any requirements to the clubs. If you want the clubs to send a certain number to the qualifier then they get to decide how they will pick those members. Keep in mind that this will likely split up larger clubs or at least create small ones. In Missouri, where each club can send 12 boaters and 12 non-boaters to a one time State Team qualifier, over 70% of the clubs have no more than 15 members (almost everyone gets to go!) That is in a state with well over 5,000 members. They will also stay in a larger club for the larger club tournaments, but also start a small 'mother club' so that most will be able to go to the State Team tournament.

Keep in mind that any and all of these proposals need to be presented to the clubs for discussion way, way, way, before a Federation vote, and that this site get relatively little attention and there are only a few of us that comment at all.

As usual, just my two cents and no one else's.

Jeff Jones

Mike Garrett · June 05, 2011, 01:44:19 PM

Well said Jeff. I think trying to get the information to all of the chapters and members is the intent of this thread. Hopefully we can persuade the membership to come here, read, and post their thoughts before the next federation meeting.

Looks like I might need surgery for the colon problem...hoping I can put it off until the end of the fishing season.

BassNFly · June 07, 2011, 05:32:29 AM

I believe that very few people take the time to pay attention to this forum, and the few that do should not be able to make changes of this nature without full notification of the topic at club meetings well before a vote.

I can see the topic being brought before the next board meeting, assuming enough clubs show up to have a quorum, and the thought being, 'It's been on the discussion page for a long time, we should have a vote on it." I think that would be wrong.

If Jay would make sure that every club President has this proposal in time to bring it to their club meetings for discussion before it can be brought to a vote, I would be fine with that. The "intent of this thread" is mute since this page is not, in my opinion, a valid way to disseminate information to all (or a majority of) clubs and members. This is only used as discussion by very few members.

Sorry about the surgery. The important thing is to take care so we can go fish again. I had a good time fishing with you the second day at Truman. You taught me a few things with that Yum Dinger that you used.

BassinColorado · June 07, 2011, 06:54:30 AM

Obviously, everything has to go through the clubs for discussion (30 days) before a vote at the Federation level on almost everything. With that said, I also know that we have no other way to communicate things to the members for the past 3 years, except for this site. More gets talked about coming from this site than one might think. I would believe that 300 hits doesn't come from just 4 or 5 of us going in and out of this post.

The CBF BOD is not looking for anyone to be the webmaster, get the CBF website updated and get new information out to the members. I am not sure why the site is dead and not one BOD member is concerned, but that needs to get handled more sooner than later. Colorado is way behind on Federation marketing and just getting information out to those that care. Heck, we couldn't even get the standings for the past STQT posted by those with access availability and the state won a boat and took the Western Division title and not one word has made to the site from those with the access. Time to get access to others that may be interested in the purpose of the Federation.

I do know I have complained more than once about advertisements on the site, especially for companies that have given one person a rod, made mute promises for the state team members, or crazy things like that. The CBF needs to get "local state" monetary sponsorship for every ad or other marketing we place on it's nationally viewed site....period.

As far as the RMTS goes, I don't think it will be affected by a small 3 tournament circuit for the Federation. They have two totally different goals for the contestants. They are far enough apart from each other that there will be some that are interested in doing both, but probably not the majority. It would hopefully increase participation at the Federation level by giving everyone a better chance to make the team and shouldn't touch the participation at the RMTS, because they are very different, would be my hope. The CBF having a qualifying format may affect the number of club tournaments (7 is a lot), but each club will figure all that out on it's own, as it should be.

I think staying with the "one tournament for a week" format would work better if the members fishing it were limited and members had to qualify through each club. The split up of clubs could happen anytime, so the Federation may need to put some reasonable regulations on what constitutes a club, other than they have 6 members. Some regulations are good in every entity to help keep things balanced.

All in all, good input, except for some very descriptive words by Mr. G. You might want to remove real full names, and say "Someone told me from up north, blah, blah, blah," unless you mean to call a guy out, I guess, and you might just say "I am going to have surgery" rather than being so descriptive on where on your body that is taking place, silly dude.

Hope things come out well, Mr.G.

Dave G · June 07, 2011, 08:01:22 AM

Mr C. We have 2 "Mr. G's" posting on this string. Care to elaborate on which words you don't care for?

BassinColorado · June 07, 2011, 01:56:48 PM

Forgot about you, Mr.G! Just some friendly suggestions to the other Mr. G on some descriptive writings. It can accidentally get someone riled up...let me tell you!

Mike Garrett · June 07, 2011, 02:08:23 PM

I prefer to use my real name so everyone knows who is posting this crap!

BassinColorado · June 07, 2011, 02:17:48 PM

We all know who is posting stuff, by now.

BassinColorado · June 14, 2011, 08:30:11 AM

Well, looks like those interested have spoken, at this level anyway. The input has been interesting and inspiring. I will be presenting a proposal to the BOD to change the format of the STQT and see where it goes from there. It should get out to the clubs pretty quickly after I send it to the President, which will be later this week.

Thanks for all the thoughts on the subject.

Allen · June 25, 2011, 01:04:39 AM

I like the current format, less time, less weekends, less money. Don't try to bullish$t me with funny math, or lame duck timeframes. It will take more time, and it will cost me more money. How about we simplify this whole discussion, how many people would like to take 6 days away from their job and family to fish Pueblo, Ute and Navajo, versus how many people would would like to take 6 days off to fish Amistad? I am of the very strong opinion that you will drive away more members than you will attract. I talk to people as well.

I am of the opinion, and there is support for, making it a payout tournament completely. Forget funding the state team, use your winnings and support yourself. 90% payback, 10% to the federation. Let's see how that effects the turnout! Let's change the attitude that we need to be bankers for the state team. Pay them their money at the end of the tournament. If they piss it away, too bad, NEXT!

How was that for the most non-politically correct post of the year?

BassNFly · June 28, 2011, 02:36:36 AM

@Allen:
I like the Non-PC post, Allen. Though I think having a circuit will provide the best overall anglers, not everyone is out to make the team, many just want to have a good time at a place where most of the clubs don't already go for club events.

I don't think we can generate enough new people to have a decent payout AND pay for the State Team. We should just have a payout and let the Team fund itself. I would suggest a 70%, maybe 80% payout, just so that the state can better fund attendance at meetings and sending the kids to the National Championships. Though the state has enough in the bank that I think having a 90% payout right now is fine.

@Mike:
I, too, like to put my name on the end so there is no question who is authoring a post. All the regulars on here know who we are, but those that visit infrequently or are new do not know all the handles.

Jeff Jones

BassinColorado · June 28, 2011, 07:33:31 AM

If you just have a payout and do not have the funds for state team members, the chance for the top 12 to be guys that didn't win any money is possible. That guy gets no support to go fish at the Divisionals.

Some guys coming in just to take the cash would happen and may leave the state team without any financial support.

Interesting idea, but realistically, do we want the state team supported by the federation......yes. that is part of the bonus of making the team. How that happens can be looked into and adjusted, I would guess.

Mike Garrett · June 28, 2011, 08:35:55 AM

Good discussion guys! Does anyone know how many or what percentage fish only the STQT? Having some sort of a pay out would be a good thing...in my opinion. Making the state team should be the ultimate goal. While our federation coffers are in relatively good shape at this time, we need to remember those funds are to be used for a number of different programs including conservation, youth, and general promotion of the federation.

Having non-boater slots would, again ... in my opinion, probably increase non-boater attendance and interest in the tournament. As far as funding the state team, it should be a function of that tournament. Having a payout could be used as both an incentive to attend as well as providing some funds to the individuals making the team. In addition, the state team needs to have fund raisers. What those are...it's open for discussion. Since the team won a boat this year money shouldn't be a problem for the team this year.

Seems that food sales at Bass Pro works well as a fund raiser. It also provides the team with public exposure. I know we tried raffles in the past. How about a promotion that involves a day of fishing with a state team member for a donation of $150 to the Colorado Bass Federation ...funds to directly support the state team. Or, how about a fishing tournament where those who fished the qualifier but didn't make the team can fish for a cash payout with half the entry fees going to fund the state team? How about each chapter doing some sort of a fund raiser in direct support of the state team? Can the Federation use things like oil, trolling motors, electronics, and clothing as a means of funding for the state team? How about a huge "garage sale" of fishing stuff. How about selling advertising on the state team shirts?

I like Allen's thinking...each state team member should be responsible for their own expenses. Realistically, does that happen? I know in the past there were state team members who were given funds and by the time the divisional rolled around didn't have any money. Funds from the qualifier shouldn't be given to the team members until the divisional. I'm still in favor of having some sort of qualification for the STQT through the chapters.

It all starts with the chapters promoting the STQT and that promotion should be on going. Maybe what is needed is a person good at public relations serving as a board member at the state level. That position could work for public exposure and corporate support for the state team. Or, are we just beating a dead horse? Inquiring minds want to know.

BassinColorado · June 28, 2011, 02:54:37 PM

I think if we generate some activity in the federation, folks wouldn't mind holding down positions and all this stuff could happen. New energy is all the federation needs and the time is now while everything is in transition.

toobman · July 03, 2011, 09:53:00 AM

Hey How about we keep it in Colorado. Lakes would be Horsetooth, Navajo, and Pueblo.

Denver is basically in the middle so can easily travel to all 3.

Ft Collins to Pueblo 3 hours
Durango to Pueblo 4 hours

Durango to Navajo 45 min
Northern Colorado clubs to Horsetooth 30 - 45 min

I think someone has forgotten about the travel we would have to make from those of us up north. I think we should be included in this discussion. Plus if we want to increase participation I have the feeleing that the bulk may come from the clubs and anglers from up north.

When looking at Ute and Navajo we are making 2, 16 hour trips both ways to those two lakes. Denver could go to Horsetooth or Pueblo and be within a couple hours of either and still go to Navajo if they wanted. If there was only one 8 hour drive you may even see some of us northerners at Navajo. I would think the Durango guys would much rather make a 4 hour drive to Pueblo, than an 8 hour drive to Ute.

Frank Villa