KCBS Involvement

[Slamdunkpro]

Originally Posted by Jorge

It came into play 9 or so years ago. The reasoning follows the logic Brad laid out.

Originally Posted by gettinbasted

Yep. It used to be a problem. Points/draws/qualifications follow the chief cook not necessarily the team. If he/she is not in attendance they don’t get credited to him/her.

I could have 2 head cooks for my team under the current rules, but all of the results would apply to the cook who served as the head cook at each contest.

This is a major problem and it goes back to KCBS being run like a street level stickball game. If the head cook is required to be in attendance it should be stated in the rules - it's not. Therefore they are NOT required to attend. and one correction to Brad's quote "Points/draws/qualifications follow the KCBS number listed for the team, not the team name or head cook name (all that's on the check in sheet is team name and HC number). If he/she is not in attendance they don’t get credited to him/her - this is not what the rules say. They say the points follow the head cook's NUMBER.

One correction - The now defunct Sam's Club tournament DID have a requirement that the head cook be present. Perhaps this is where the misconception that the head cook was required to be present at all events came from.

[manmeatbbq]

Originally Posted by Slamdunkpro

It is for KCBS. Their revenue is solely based on volume. Volume of members, Volume of contests, Volume of competitors.

The KCBS can still profit from being behind both. The Pro (teams that cook more than 15/yr) cook makes up the smallest demographic of cooks in the world. Teams that cook under 10 contests a year are the vast majority of the current membership. There are even a large following of backyard cooks. If done right, you can grab a bunch of backyard cooks that never thought about a comp and get them involved in doing a contest or two. If the KCBS had a different league if you will and had a similar points chase and ceremony for that "league", I think you would get excitement back in the comp world for the "not-Pro" teams.

If you want to make comps cheaper for many teams, this would be the way to do it. Don't dumb down the system to try to bring the occasional comp cook into the same category as someone out cooking 20+ contests.

On a side note, the KCBS doesn't currently offer many benefits of being a member. There are a few that have been added, but outside of being able to be in a points chase, not too many reasons to join the organization. We talk about the value proposition and the declining membership. If you don't live near a Restaurant Depot or go to one even if you do, it is hard to justify paying to be a member. If you plan to cook a lot and want the opportunity to be recognized at the banquet, then joining is a must, otherwise, why join if you are only cooking a few contests a year?

[Slamdunkpro]

Originally Posted by manmeatbbq

On a side note, the KCBS doesn't currently offer many benefits of being a member. There are a few that have been added, but outside of being able to be in a points chase, not too many reasons to join the organization. We talk about the value proposition and the declining membership. If you don't live near a Restaurant Depot or go to one even if you do, it is hard to justify paying to be a member. If you plan to cook a lot and want the opportunity to be recognized at the banquet, then joining is a must, otherwise, why join if you are only cooking a few contests a year?

Judging is the primary benefit of membership

[manmeatbbq]

Originally Posted by Slamdunkpro

Judging is the primary benefit of membership

Doesn't sound like a very good value proposition to me.

[manmeatbbq]

Originally Posted by manmeatbbq

Doesn't sound like a very good value proposition to me.

BTW... I am a lifetime member, not that that matters. There just isn't much value in being a member. Why can't KCBS find meat partners to offer manufacturer coupons every year to teams for product? I mean, get with Prairie Fresh or Smithfield (even though they seem to be moving away from comp teams product) and provide a mailer to each team each year they pay their dues that includes some manufacturers coupons for meat. This can be done with specific brands or stores to provide a way to feel like you get something out of your membership.

[midwest_kc]

I love where this conversation is going. I have a few ideas in my head I think I'll flesh out over the next couple days and try to post them here. The value proposition, combined with improved judging training/standards I think is the key to working back into a growth phase of KCBS.

[tduffy]

So far the only benefits I see from my membership is voting for candidates that will ultimately not do what they said they will and regret voting for them............ and seeing my name a long ways down in the TOY standings. I'd say it's a waste of money but I invest $1000 in contests where KCBS manipulates tables by seating judges by scoring averages in turn creating more TODs than it prevents so the 35 bucks or whatever it is these days isn't much in the grand scheme of things.

[manmeatbbq]

Originally Posted by midwest_kc

I love where this conversation is going. I have a few ideas in my head I think I'll flesh out over the next couple days and try to post them here. The value proposition, combined with improved judging training/standards I think is the key to working back into a growth phase of KCBS.

I agree that this is needed to get back in a growth phase. However, we can't discount what Brad had mentioned. KCBS needs to think outside the box they created. Why focus some much attention to growing the "Pro" team volume when the majority of teams don't cook a large number of contests each year? Not every baseball player that gets drafted by a MLB team gets to play at the MLB level. They all start in the minor leagues and work up to their time. There are way more minor league players than there are major league players.

[DoctorCueNC]

Originally Posted by tduffy

So far the only benefits I see from my membership is voting for candidates that will ultimately not do what they said they will and regret voting for them............ and seeing my name a long ways down in the TOY standings. I'd say it's a waste of money but I invest $1000 in contests where KCBS manipulates tables by seating judges by scoring averages in turn creating more TODs than it prevents so the 35 bucks or whatever it is these days isn't much in the grand scheme of things.

You’ve made it very clear you don’t like the seating program and that you don’t want a fair playing field for others, but stop letting your ignorance of statistics and modeling hurt everyone else by misinformation about TODs which are better with the scoring system.

[DoctorCueNC]

Also here is an article about a local canceled contest and the reason it’s being cancelled by the hosts. I think this is good insight for KCBS to learn from: https://www.the-dispatch.com/news/20...-off-cancelled

[eggzlot]

Originally Posted by DoctorCueNC

Also here is an article about a local canceled contest and the reason it’s being cancelled by the hosts. I think this is good insight for KCBS to learn from: https://www.the-dispatch.com/news/20...-off-cancelled

I agree with that article and its why I believe contests are falling apart. Organizers see no benefit to the "side show". A lot of effort goes into arranging an area for parking, water, lighting, bathrooms, judges tents, etc. And at least by us, 50% or more of the teams sit in their RVs and prepare their food - so what is the public getting to look at - a bunch of smokers cooking food they cannot eat? Friends not near me have asked if they should go to KCBS contents and I always tell them no unless something else (car show, music festival, etc) is going on that is of interest - there is 0 participation. Sponsors and organizers see this and put money and efforts elsewhere.

It is only compounding when contests cost $1,000 and the average joe sees teams doing this 30-45x a year and they know they cannot compete so they lose interest after a few contests.

People can complain about scoring - I am not a mathematician, but it always seems the cream rises to the top and the same teams are consistently winning - so to me, the judging is not that far off from where it should be. I am sure it can be improved but its giving overall consistent results.

Focus on getting teams more involved, driving down costs and getting audience interaction and you'll have a winning formula.

[tduffy]

Originally Posted by DoctorCueNC

You’ve made it very clear you don’t like the seating program and that you don’t want a fair playing field for others, but stop letting your ignorance of statistics and modeling hurt everyone else by misinformation about TODs which are better with the scoring system.

I don't want a fair playing field for others? How? Because I am against seating judges by scoring average? If it actually created a "fair playing field" whatever that is, you could say that, but it doesn't. But keep calling me ignorant. It doesn't change the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence that this seating system has improved a single thing.



But the real statistics are that nearly %75 of judges only judge 2 or less a year. Good luck getting any reliable scoring data off of that. And I will continue to make noise about it just like everyone who got pissy after they went to chip draw did. Maybe stop with your own ignorance before you attempt to pin that on me.

[Burnt at Both Endz]

Originally Posted by tduffy

I don't want a fair playing field for others? How? Because I am against seating judges by scoring average? If it actually created a "fair playing field" whatever that is, you could say that, but it doesn't. But keep calling me ignorant. It doesn't change the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence that this seating system has improved a single thing.

It appears to me that it cuts down on the table of angels and you can tell by fewer 700+ and 180 scores.

[tduffy]

Originally Posted by Burnt at Both Endz

It appears to me that it cuts down on the table of angels and you can tell by fewer 700+ and 180 scores.

I dont know how you can tell that. It's been in place for 2 weeks. When it was in place last year it wasn't like there was less 700s given out.

[manmeatbbq]

Originally Posted by tduffy

I dont know how you can tell that. It's been in place for 2 weeks. When it was in place last year it wasn't like there was less 700s given out.

Only 7 700s this weekend and 14 180s. Definitely seems like a short list to me.