Problem is if you raise it too much, you might price out people who have outstanding beer. I can afford multiple entries, but if it goes up too much, I’ll just not bother out of principal, and possibly make me rethink my annual membership with the AHA.
I know there’s been talk of running this thing in three tiers before and I believe expense/staff time have been the two biggest killers of it so far.
I can just see poor Janis face if you tell she now has to find at least 10 more sites of reliable judges. 
yeah, talk about a thankless job. Janis works her ass off for this competition and I bet the only thing she ever hears is the people to bitch.
Didn’t some guy give her a big hug at a conference a couple years ago? :o
Probably not the thanks she is looking for. ( are the databases done yet? 
)
I totally get this!
However, I made the 5-hour drive to Dallas last year. And as many well-documented problems as that site had, I’d point out that us largely out-of-town judges DID knock out about half the entries that first weekend. People drove from Houston, Tulsa, Wichita, and beyond, to help out. 750 was just too many for Dallas that close to Bluebonnet.
I would make that drive again this year, but can’t make the 8-11 hour drive to Denver/Minneapolis/Chicago/Indy this year. So no judging for me. Hopefully Tulsa or KC will get it next year…
cheers–
–Michael
Asolutely, it is the biggest “con” to increasing the number of sites/going to a 3 round comp. Like I say, would need to crunch the numbers, see what the increased admin costs and effort would be, what the increased revenue would be, and see if it makes sense to hire more people. I personally don’t think there is anyway this thing can continue to grow at the rate it has been with just one paid staff person managing the whole thing. That isn’t to say Janis isn’t doing an outstanding job, I get to work directly with her and it is fabulous, but one person can only do so much.
I’m not following, so enlighten me–why would Janis (and the AHA staff) bear a larger burden if Mark’s ideas were implemented? Just delegate it to the comp organizer for each first-round site. Most homebrew clubs have easily managed their annual competitions involving 500 entries (or more). I know mine has. I think it really opens up your available pool of judges.
You could even have 26 sites total.
20 first round sites–none of which also serve as 2nd round sites.
5 second round sites–none of which serve as 1st or final round sites.
1 final round site.
No shortage of judges, IMO. No thorny issues of compensation for judges having to travel long-distances. Most judges would already live near one of these sites. Just be sure to reward them fairly (via BJCP judging points) for their efforts. I dislike judging multiple flights (e.g., 2 or 3 flights of 9-15 beers) and having it only count as one session (0.5 BJCP judging points). If it stays that way, don’t be surprised to see more judges saying “one and done” and going to hang out in the hospitality room. It makes it harder to get the comp done.
Each of those locations requires coordination on Janis’s part, wrangling on her part. Plenty of people say they can handle it, but then they flake or other circumstances arise and now you’ve got panic. There’s now three sets of mailings, another even more expensive round of supplies (to wade through 10k initial front). There’s coordination on transitioning beers between rounds.
I’m not trying to stop the idea cold, it has a ton of merit, but I think its being unduly optimistic to think it doesn’t increase the burden on Janis and the staff.
Exactly right, Drew. I think it’s great that people are trying to think outside the box to help find solutions, but a lot of the things that have been mentioned have already been discussed found to be unworkable. But please, keep posting ideas!
I think part of the solution is more 1st round sites capped at the current 750 entries, so to that end my homebrew club (FOAM) has volunteered to host the Old West region in Tulsa, OK (previously DFW) next year. Most of us have been traveling to help out our regional sites anyway, so we’ll just save gas money and hold one here next year! We just came off a successful year as an MCAB Q with our annual FOAM Cup competition in November which saw a 25% increase over the previous year’s entry #'s (626), but we required some out-of-state judges (10-15%) such as udubdawg to get the job done. Thanks again! :) Now with another round of new judging recruits from our 3rd year-in-a-row BJCP BiCEP/Exam we’ll ready for the “big dance” in 2013… even if no “foreigners” show up in the Sooner State to help us out. The real logistical problem will be how to handle 36+ entries/category in the final round as the NHC numbers approach the 10,000 mark! :o
Instead of limiting entries per person (check the numbers over the past few years and you’ll see the average # is about 4 per), or making a whole new round of judging (there aren’t the resources for this) how about limiting the number of entries per category.
There are only 750 entries for 28 categories, cap the entries per style category at 40. Total still capped at 750 (no not every category would be able to reach it’s max, but most don’t hit 40 anyways)
Want to enter something in 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 23? Then you better enter the first day as soon as it opens, because they will fill up. Have entries in the less overloaded styles? There will be about 500 entries left per region for those once the Big 6 categories fill up. Don’t want to risk not getting your Melomel or Doppelbock in? Go ahead and enter the first day as well, but you’ll probably be able to wait
Benefits:
Encourages people to brew new styles, go out of their comfort zones instead of Pale Ale, IPA, Stout, Belgian, Pale Ale, IPA, Stout, Belgian … These make up about 40% of NHC entries!
Simplifies Judging, no need to setup 4, 5, 6 judging tables to pass beers to a final round in the overloaded categories
- the AHA membership has grown
- NHC has grown
- Janis hasn’t cloned herself yet!
maybe we should work on number 3 above. seriously though, would it help to grow the competition by having the AHA hire another Janis-like workaholic to keep up with the growth of NHC?
I’m sure it couldn’t hurt, but I don’t know if the budget is there for it. Also, it wouldn’t solve the problem of having enough judges for the entries. AFAIK, the PNW region is struggling to find enough judges as it is.
Isn’t there a $750 x $10+ increase in income from having a new region?
Yes, but much of that $7500 goes to actually hosting the event - cups, printing, food for judges, etc, let alone paying for a person to help Janis.
Denny, are you talking about the first round or the second round? As far as I know there are no shortages for the second round, and we are sending a bunch of people down to Portland for the first round.
What is the process for becoming a first-round judging site for the NHC?
If a club (or group of clubs) is willing to offer, whom do they contact?
Janis.
She will expect your group to have a proven track record of running larger competitions and not have a competing site very close. Seattle tends to alternate with Portland, it makes it easier on the organizers and our judges can travel back and forth pretty easily. Not everyone makes the trip every year of course, so it reduces judge strain as well.
Seems like this sort of backs up someone’s earlier suggestion of “more smaller” first round sites. Rather than alternate between Portland and Seattle each year, why not do a half-size competition at each? Talk about reducing judge strain, travel strain, all kinds of strain.
Because more smaller first round sites creates a bigger second round. Besides, it seems for us the judge strain comes from the days committed t judging, not the number of beers judged in a day. This time of year is known as “competition season” around here, we have a lot of opportunities to judge so that creates a strain.
Not my quote, Tom.