Please take a look at the thread I started about the 1st round of NHC.
If it’s true that one guy entered 70 different beers, someing must be done to spread the love around. I know we all have fun with NHC, and I love getting judging sheets back as much as anyone. But many folks didn’t even get to enter a beer.
Please folks, do something.
Also to everyone else, please give your opinions as well. I"m I the only one concerned about this? If so, then nothing should change. However, if many folks think the rules should be changed, let’s let the GC hear what we have to say.
Can you state your objections, please?
Many people did not get to enter becasue they were not online in a two-day window.
If I’m the only that feels this way, then OK, I’ll shut up.
What you’re asking sounds reasonable to me.
-Sent from the future.
I have no idea if it’s true that one person entered 70 beers. It seems apocryphal, but it should be easy to find out the truth. I’m not sure how I feel about it if it is true. The entire process is under review, though.
Is the problem that one brewer maybe had 70 entries, or that the competition currently allows a max of 7500 entries?
Deciding how to deal with this depends on the long term goals of the AHA and NHC.
I’m not sure I like the idea of “punishing” a person who has worked hard to have 70 entries. I’d prefer to encourage an increase in the entry per region cap and getting more volunteers. Not to mention getting the info out there to possible competitors that this competition fills up extremely quick and registration ASAP is important if you want to paricipate.
If it is true, it has to be a statistical outlier and not the norm.
Assuming its true, and recognizing that there is a cap on overall entries, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to have a limit on the total number of entries a single brewer can have.
Aren’t you effectively “punishing” more people who aren’t able to submit if you don’t have a cap?
I don’t know the logistics involved in increasing the cap on overall entries, but it seems that a reasonable cap on individual entries should be a pretty easy thing to implement and would impact relatively few people.
someone had to hit an awful lot of different subcategories to do this.
Yes, and by having an entry deadline, you are also “punishing” those that procrastinate. And by giving out medals, you are “punishing” those that didn’t brew good enough beer. And by allowing entrants to submit subpar beer, you are “punishing” the judges that have to drink them.
As Denny has said, the entire process is under review. I’ll point out that except for the last two years this hasn’t been a problem.
Our hobby is growing by leaps and bounds, last year the AHA growth was (I believe) 23%, With this rate of growth, and nothing else changes we would need to increase to 1200 cap for next year (2013) (working from when we were meeting demand). Many centers can just (barely) handle the 750.
The solutions are not simple, but we will certainly listen to suggestions.
Again, the entire process is under review.
Some things need to happen first before you up the number of entries per region. The main thing is you will need to train and certify a lot more judges. Even at the 750 cap, I would bet that among the many pairs of people judging beers across the US and Canada this year, neither person was a ranked BJCP judge. When I organize a competition I like to have at least a Certified or higher ranked judge in each pair of judges. This was hard for us to accomplish the last few years with competitions in the 400-500 entry range.
In my opinion, we should strive for quality not quantity for all competitions, but especially our national competition.
As Denny stated, the process has been reviewed for several years now, and continues to be a challenge. Changes have been made to try and accomedate the increases in entries. Up until now, there has been a aversion to placing caps on entries, but as an option it is not off the table.
One of the primary hurdles has been the number of available qualified judges. While it is easy to say just add some more regions, or add more enteries per region, there are only so many judges in the available pool. The NHC is the largest homebrew competition in the world, and it had to be capped or the results would have been either rushed and/or incomplete feedback - an undesirable outcome.
I favor limits, and I have voiced this in the past. However, if I recall correctly, we learned last year that if the number of enteries were to have been capped to 10 per member, we would have gained something in the neighborhood of 2% - 4% more availablity. While thats an improvement, in the scale of things, it wasn’t seen as a solution.
In the long run, I would encourage members who are not already BJCP certified to go to www.bjcp.org, look it over, and consider going through the learning process and becoming a judge. After 18 years of brewing that is what I did last year. I was likely one of the last groups to test out under the old method. Once I get a few points under my belt I will be Certified and I can become a small part of the solution.
And as an added bonus, I learned more about brewing, history of brewing, beer styles and general beer information last year than I had in several years. I believe by studying for and taking the exam, I have incrementaly improved my knowledge of the brewing process and how to make better beer.
Right. I think you’re stretching a bit too far there.
Entering the most beers possible is not the purpose of the competition. At least, not as I understand it.
Giving out medals, judging, etc. is the purpose of and/or integral to the competition.
As far as deadlines, you snooze you lose.
That’s critical information right there. Good to know.
Drop the entry cost to $7, but it increases $1 for each additional entry
Someone entering 6 or less would pay less than the current fees (7+8+9+10+11+12= $57 instead of $60)
Someone entering 7 would be paying the same as current 7+8+9+10+11+12+13= $70, Someone sending 8 would only pay an extra $4
10th entry would cost $16, 12th if you’re trying to fill a shipper would cost $18
20th entry would cost $26
70th entry would cost $76, but the total for 1-70 would be something ridiculous like $2324 instead of $700
The majority would pay less, those that stretch out to 12 to fill a shipper would have to think if it’s worth it
Apart from whatever embarrassing math mistakes above are sure to be pointed out ;D
I don’t think raising entry fees is the way to go. 70 beers is a lot, heck, 36 beers is a lot (other threads discussed stuffing 36 score sheets into one envelope)…obviously money is not an issue for these 2 hypothetical folks. They will chase the Ninkaski award no matter the cost. The problem is the award itself. We are approaching the GABF proportions and similar rules should be applied. Doesn’t the GABF limits the number of beers to be considered for their breweries of the year award? Perhaps we should do the same…enter as many as you’d like, but pick your 6 best for consideration for the “ultimate award”.
Otherwise, we can do what the Olympics has done, and move to a Summer beer competition and a Winter Beer competition…we already need more than one conference. Just as long as we don’t adopt a College Football BCS model. 
How about a Playboy Mansion model where the conference/comp never ends? Charlie Papazian would look good in a smoking jacket.
I would say the Ninkasi Award certainly flies in the face of this.
Nice straw man argument.
-Sent from the future.