Time to stir the kcbs bod pot again!!

Tarheel said:

Well I think we have got the judge thing stired up good.There are some options and we can all agree that some of those options need to done sooner rather than later.

Now for another topic, what are your views on the sanctioning of contest. It seems to be that the current board has been using a rubber stamp for the most part without reguard for existing contest or weither or not a contest is ready. Examples would be approving contest where there is just not enough teams to support it. Should there be closer attention paid to other factors to ensure a sucssesful contest by the kcbs or just approve it and collect the money.:shock:

Click to expand...

I'm getting to this late, after a weekend of catching up with the 'honey-do' list.

I've listened to the meetings after the fact, and in some cases I believe you were pleading your case. I believe I understand the issue, as well as your concern. The first part of my answer is that yes, we need to take a closer look based on recent experience and continued growth. My proposed solution would be regional sanctioning committees to provide information and suggestions to the BoD based on personal knowledge and experience. There should be no question that members within a given region would have sufficient contacts to assess the level of interest in proposed contests. That type of input would carry more weight with me when it was time to vote on sanctioning.

That being said, being the first contest in an area should not guarantee exclusive rights to a date or area of coverage. If an organizer wants to phone it in, after 'X' number of years, and someone else can put a better package together then I think the new organizer deserves a shot. I think that in that case, there needs to be a greater level of scrutiny to insure that the organizer is going to be able to produce what they promise. That burden should fall on the BoD and office staff (letters of agreement, contracts, etc...). The teams and judges will vote with their feet and checkbooks.

Going a step further, I know that there are issues and concerns about some of the larger contests with larger prize lists. There were conflicts with Sam's Club this year, and I know for a fact that some teams had to make choices regarding that series and the Royal for example. That shouldn't happen, and is avoidable with proper planning. Using regional committees I think that it would be possible to get enough information to determine what contests were considered to be "crown jewels" for each area and plan accordingly to avoid conflict. It doesn't guarantee that there won't be a conflict, but it's a step in the right direction and involves membership in the process.

I think it's possible to find more balance to benefit everyone, if EVERYONE is willing to contribute.

tmcmaster said:

So why does a CBJ have to cook with a team for Master status? Because clearly something about a judge cooking with a team is required. Why only for Master Judge?

Click to expand...

Doesnt seem like a bad idea for that master judge certification. There is a chance the judge could learn a few more things about barbecue.

The idea that judges would be more compassionate if they cooked with a team is the part that I disagree with.

ique said:

Doesnt seem like a bad idea for that master judge certification. There is a chance the judge could learn a few more things about barbecue.

The idea that judges would be more compassionate if they cooked with a team is the part that I disagree with.

Click to expand...

Of course... I think if they cooked with a team they would have a better understanding of BBQ as a whole.

Tarheel said:

Now for another topic, what are your views on the sanctioning of contest. It seems to be that the current board has been using a rubber stamp for the most part without reguard for existing contest or weither or not a contest is ready. Examples would be approving contest where there is just not enough teams to support it. Should there be closer attention paid to other factors to ensure a sucssesful contest by the kcbs or just approve it and collect the money.:shock:

Click to expand...

Here in the Kansas City area, there are so many teams that we can have two or three contests across the region on the same day and not lack for teams at any one of them. I know that's not the case in many other areas and I do believe KCBS needs to look a little more closely at what they approve for sanctioning. There needs to be some sensitivity to the established contests and some attention paid to the "50 mile rule".

Tarheel said:

Well I think we have got the judge thing stired up good.There are some options and we can all agree that some of those options need to done sooner rather than later.

Now for another topic, what are your views on the sanctioning of contest. It seems to be that the current board has been using a rubber stamp for the most part without reguard for existing contest or weither or not a contest is ready. Examples would be approving contest where there is just not enough teams to support it. Should there be closer attention paid to other factors to ensure a sucssesful contest by the kcbs or just approve it and collect the money.:shock:

Click to expand...

I also think(as do some others) that BOD members should not be able to organize,coordinate, and/or put on ANY contests as long as they are BOD members,seems a blatent conflict of interest that I don't know if it has ever been addressed,but I think it should be.

bbqczar said:

I also think(as do some others) that BOD members should not be able to organize,coordinate, and/or put on ANY contests as long as they are BOD members,seems a blatent conflict of interest that I don't know if it has ever been addressed,but I think it should be.

Click to expand...

OK so why is that? Organizers do not receive any kind of payment from KCBS for putting on a contest unless you happen to be chosen for one KCBS is running. What in the world could POSSIBLY be considered a "blatant conflict of interest" about being an organizer and on the board? As an organizer, I get the same assistance from my reps that everyone else gets, nothing special. And I pay out our contest's cash to KCBS for the number of teams I have and for rep expenses, just like everyone else. Can you please elaborate on your statement?

The 50 mile rule has been gone for at least 5 years.

Diva said:

The 50 mile rule has been gone for at least 5 years.

Click to expand...

Yep and in most areas, it needs to be back... or at least something similar.

Jeff_in_KC said:

Yep and in most areas, it needs to be back... or at least something similar.

Click to expand...

They need to dump that rule just for one area. The KC Region. Otherwise i would safely say it ahould be at least 150 miles and in some cases 200 miles.. 100 miles just isnt enough distance and hurts contests.

Tarheel said:

One of my biggest concerns is the lack of attention that is being paid to these request. Unless someone voices a concern it is approved. If other organizers do not know that a contest has a request in it may be approved and they wont know it until it comes out on the website or the bull sheet.

There was a contest approved in Hampton, Va. this year that was right at or less than the 90 day requirement. It got the rubber stamp, there was a Sam's club event that weekend and one in WV that weekend. Hampton had 13 teams. And in talking to a couple of the teams there it was not good to put it mildly. That contest should have never been approved because they did not have enough time to get it together not to mention the fact that teams and judges were already committed to the other two contest.

And to kinda answer Jeff below, the 50 mile rule needs to be scraped and take a look at cooker and judge density instead. GA is one of those states that are steeping all over each other and you are ending up with non qualifiers.

Click to expand...

Instead of the 90 day rule, how long should it be in your opinion for a first time organizer? I've got no problem with reasonable, additional requirements in those cases. As I suggested before I'd like to see letters of agreement or contracts for various infrastructure matters, roll in security as well. I think that it's reasonable to place a slightly greater burden on organizers that have no track record.

At the same time, I can't support any sort of blanket monopoly given to a contest based solely on past history of being average or better. That's why I proposed regional committees made up of members. They are in the best place to know the local issues, local teams, and local judges, to determine whether or not a given area is capable of supporting more than one contest. Just as I feel the BoD needs fresh outlooks and new ideas, I think organizers are in the same boat. The teams and judges deserve the opportunity to vote with their feet and checkbooks to determine who puts on a contest that they want to attend. Getting there first shouldn't be the ONLY criteria considered. If a new organizer comes to the board with evidence that he/she has a better location, improved amenities for the teams, greater prize pool, etc. and can substantiate that I think they deserve to be in the conversation. Otherwise we are doing a disservice to the membership. I'm in favor of doing EVERYTHING possible to make the situation work for all parties, but at the end of the day I'll cast a vote in favor of what I believe is in the best interest of the teams and judges. Without them, there are no contests.

Scottie said:

They need to dump that rule just for one area. The KC Region. Otherwise i would safely say it ahould be at least 150 miles and in some cases 200 miles.. 100 miles just isnt enough distance and hurts contests.

Click to expand...

Team density and saturation has been the phrase for several years. I think distance is part of the equation, but not the only factor.

tmcmaster said:

I think the easiest way to get CBJ's to cook with teams is for teams to volunteer. I know I for one would LOVE to have a CBJ in my site at EVERY contest. I would only ask for honest assessment of the finished product as a judge and to supply half of the 'refreshments' for the weekend.

I would also be willing to be part of a cooks consil to help the judges and judging classes be run more effectivly and give the judges and prospective judges a better working knowledge of ALL aspects of the cook. From set-up to tear-down.

Maybe I am in the minority on this, and if so, I will keep my opinions internal, but I think ANY process that gives the judging base a broader understanding of the entirety of the cook can not be measured in dollars or cents. The KCBS is (as far as I know) a non-profit entity, so spending money to fullfil the "teach" portion of "celebrate, teach, preserve and promote barbeque as a culinary technique, sport and art form..." should be emphasised.

Click to expand...

I would welcome a CBJ under my cook tent any time. The sharing of ideas, Q philosophies and experiences are worth it, and any time I can get another's feedback on my finished product helps me to continue to grow and improve as a cook.

After taking my judging class this past year, I think the idea of a "cooks council" at a judging class is excellent. I was disappointed that the only definition of what a score should be (like the difference between a 7 or an 8 ) came only from the one person teaching the class. He also did not allow table captains that night even though there were cooks/experienced judges physically there volunteering to do so. I would have liked to have a table captain during my class who could've answered MANY of my table's questions whereas the solitary teacher was not able to do. While he was truly experienced and passionate, and his opinion on what each score should be was appreciated and valued, scoring is too subjective not to have a second opinion...especially for a new judge. A Q&A period with a panel of cooks/judges with varying levels of experience at the end of the class would truly have been beneficial.

This past weekend, I had the opportunity to hang out with a team during turn ins who also happened to be hosting a CBJ for his master certification. No talk of specific rubs, injections, recipes, or techniques took place and only information that the cook wanted us to know was shared. As a cook, other than seeing the appearance of the boxes and watching their timing, I did not walk away with any more secrets than I had in my bag of tricks before. However, the conversations between the cook and judge were awesome! The cook was able to give the most detailed explanation (albeit his opinion) of what each category might be scored based on that day's finished product. It's those conversations that have the greatest impact with me as cook and a new judge.

smokin' peaches said:

This past weekend, I had the opportunity to hang out with a team during turn ins who also happened to be hosting a CBJ for his master certification. No talk of specific rubs, injections, recipes, or techniques took place and only information that the cook wanted us to know was shared.

Click to expand...

This is exactly how it can & should work, thanx!

Scottie said:

They need to dump that rule just for one area. The KC Region. Otherwise i would safely say it ahould be at least 150 miles and in some cases 200 miles.. 100 miles just isnt enough distance and hurts contests.

Click to expand...

The 50 or even 150 mile rule would destroy comps in Michigan. The rule should be smart enough to take in consideration the team density and past years team totals before making the decision to sanction.

Before the board starts invoking the 50, 100, 150 or whatever mile rule to protect comps they need to scrape the tarnish off the KCBS sanctioning "star". Around here organizers still talk about the Lakeland debacle. The other complaint I hear in the northeast is that KCBS sanctioning is expensive for what the organizer actually gets. Invoke distance rules in the tightly packed north east and all that will do is make NEBS, MABA, BBQ Brethren, FBA, GBA and other bodies busier. There are other sanctioning bodies besides KCBS. Comps aren't going to fold because KCBS says no. Given the choice between cooking another sanctioning body and not cooking at all cooks are going to cook.

I see a lot of your points here and I understand that to accomplish a fair solution, several factors need to come into play... mileage, team density, contest density and, to a degree, other sanctioning bodies (if KCBS really wants to "get the job" so to speak). What that says to me in looking at the bigger picture is that contests should never be presented to the board for approval without significant investigation and taking a look at all of these factors, not just mileage. Good thing we have a sanctioning committee! In that regard, I believe it should be filled by members of KCBS who reside in all regions of the country so that someone who should be "in the know" about team and contest density can have an input in nearly every instance. And to remain impartial, I don't believe any of them should be organizers.

So with all the talk of improprieties, lack of transparency, etc. within the BoD are any candidates willing to stand up for the writing and signing of a public Code of Ethics or something similar for all board members? I know an argument can be made that it really shouldn't be necessary, but in my opinion it sure would go a long ways towards suppressing the knee-jerk tinfoil hat instincts that a lot of us dues-paying grunts have.