Prestigious Invitational Qualifications - Should they be changed

[Plowboy]

Originally Posted by Jeff_in_KC

have all state winners come to KC for a real world series of BBQ.

Or Philly in January.

[ique]

Originally Posted by Jeff_in_KC

If they REALLY wanted to do it right, the thing to do would be to have the grand champions from all contests within a state compete at a contest that KCBS actually puts on in that state with that contest being designated the "state championship".

That would be fun.

Originally Posted by Jeff_in_KC

But then KCBS could sponsor a National BBQ championship and have a big invitational to have all state winners come to KC for a real world series of BBQ.

Isnt that basically the ARI?

[Jorge]

Originally Posted by Jeff_in_KC

But then KCBS could sponsor a National BBQ championship and have a big invitational to have all state winners come to KC for a real world series of BBQ.

ique raised the same point I was thinking of when I read this.

One of the things that I think is so special about the Royal Invitational is that anybody with a GC is in. Anybody willing to make the trip can cook, and each entrant has the opportunity to cook against the best of the best willing to show up.

Making it more exclusive by narrowing it to only 1 cook per state does nothing to elevate the level of competition in my mind. It just makes it more exclusive.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Scottie

I mean, I still don't understand why the Jack doesn't invite all of their past champs back. Especially if they have qualified for the draw with a GC...

Thats probably nothing more then available space.

[musicmanryann]

Originally Posted by Scottie

I mean, I still don't understand why the Jack doesn't invite all of their past champs back. Especially if they have qualified for the draw with a GC...

In golf if you win the Masters, the US Open, British Open, etc., you qualify for life--it doesn't even matter if you can swing a club anymore--you are part of an elite fraternity of individuals.

[KC_Bobby]

psst - US Open is only 10 years for auto qualifying

now back to your scheduled programming

[musicmanryann]

Originally Posted by KC_Bobby

psst - US Open is only 10 years for auto qualifying

now back to your scheduled programming

Oops--You're right. My brain doesn't really turn on until the afternoon. Well the Master's anyway.

[BBQchef33]

Originally Posted by SmokeInDaEye

FYI, I'm not going to the Jack or Royal this year because I don't believe I'm ready to do them right (ie teammates, vacation time, and money). I'm simply in this discussion because I think the rules need to be better defined.

get your arse to the Jack and AR... you may only have this shot and you'll kick yourslef if u dont. Weren't you one of those who busted my balls when I considered defending my title at Sayville instead of going to the Jack. Now i know why.. u had it fixed. BTW, being to the jack, If i HAD to choose one this year, I would say the Royal, but you MUST get to the Jack if u draw.

Originally Posted by SmokeInDaEye

I'm all for more contests, I'd just prefer they were scheduled for the season and work with the big shows to do it legit, not twist some things a couple weeks in advance (or at awards). They don't add games to the hockey season and they don't add extra holes in a golf tourney (unless it is a playoff).

Not really feasible. Some contests can be pulled out of a hat in 2 months if they can find a festival or event that already has an infrastructure in place. Others can take a year to plan because they are standing on their own. Would you prefer NO contest as opposed to one popping up on the calender in August because a September car show pulled out and a BBQ contest was pulled together in its place? We got Sayville 2007 done in 4 months only because we had an infrastructure in place with their festival.

Some states, us included,(but not for long,) don't have the luxury of multiple contests having time for a year of planning, and take what they can get for venues, so if someone is willing to host a contest, I say go for it! I do think KCBS does require 3 month advance notice for sanctioning, but sanctioning is not required for the Jack and AR. f an organizer can satisfy the requirments of the 2 big contests without sanctioning, more power to them.

Regarding limit the amount of StCh, I believe the more shots and wider geographic area thats covered, the more folks would compete. We have to recognize that there are ALOT of folks that would not consider traveling 300-400 miles to contest. If we want the hobby to grow, and with growth will come more contests, more exposure, more sponsors and with that comes bigger payouts, then we would want that extended demographic, but if your just lookin out for numero uno, then of course one would frown on more competition.

Originally Posted by DivaHerself

The process for the two contests works well if the criteria are conscientiously applied and followed. Do mistakes occur? Sure they do, in any human-run organization they're bound to happen. If a team is aware that they're included in error, it's up to them whether they decline the invitation or not -- it's not as if everyone around them doesn't know the circumstances too.

"State championship" is a nomenclature issue. You all know that on any given day one team could have some amazing fluke, put it all together for once, hit all the right tables -- and never perform that way again. Is that who you want for your sole state representative? Allowing multiple qualifying contests and multiple entries into the draw opens the door for teams who perform consistently, weekend after weekend, and more typically represent the tenor of competition in their area.

Wow.. (and please dont take this as a shot) but this seems very elitist. YEAH! I want them to represent. They deserve it.. IF they won fair and square. A sanctioned event will for the most part ensure that and being a big name heavy hitter does not entitle anyone to a free pass.

ANY team that wins a contest, regardless of history or circumstances SHOULD go, and be proud to go and represent. (unless they got in by cheating).

I dont care if a team has 50 wins, or ZERO wins and took a GC on the first time out. They did it, they made it, they worked for it that day and got the brass ring. If they beat top teams good for them!!! But I for one will never look down on a team for achiving a win or expect them to pull out because they hit their table of judges 4 times.

Originally Posted by SmokeInDaEye

100 percent my point. "State Championships" are meaningless if there's one every month. And to have new qualifiers added last minute or sometimes after the fact seems disrepectful to all of the competitors who never had a shot because the contests weren't properly announced (if announced at all) to the masses in a timely fashion.

Disrespectful to teams to add qualifers?? Thats like saying its disrespectful to have top teams attending September contest because a new/starting team one the title in June. Why is it disrespectful to give more teams shots at the big one? Should an organizer NOT take on a contest opportunity for 15-20-25 teams to compete because it will have an affect on one or two teams shot at the draw? I think not. Is it watering things down, yes, but that the way things are.


I see nothing wrong with having multiple state champions. Its just a bragging right to tell your friends and family. Limiting a state to one championship will do nothing but stop folks from making it to THAT contest and thin the field of those lucky enough to be able to travel far, or live close. Again, not everyone want to travel 400 miles.

Ok, part of me would agree that there should be one champion and that determination should be from a final contest among ALL of the state champions. If thats not feasible, another alternative is that THE state champion for each state is the one (state resident)with the highest individual score of all THAT states contests. That can be the team with the official bragging rights.

All winners should still go to the royal.. and Jack(or draw). The more teams you beat at the national events, the more you have to be proud of. I'd rather win in a field of 120 Grand champions than a field of 50 out of the 120 that got picked out of a hat.

Originally Posted by Jeff_in_KC

If they REALLY wanted to do it right, the thing to do would be to have the grand champions from all contests within a state compete at a contest that KCBS actually puts on in that state with that contest being designated the "state championship". Then all winners of each state championship contest are invited to the Jack. I'd add an additional requirement that there needed to be at least ten contests per state to do a "state championship" contest (what good is a three team event? Not worth the expense.) otherwise, the Jack just does a draw for that state. And if a team won more than one contest in a state, the reserve grand team gets an invite to the state championship contest, making reserve grand worth something other than a little bigger paycheck.

And if the Jack didn't want to participate in this new system, that's cool... let them continue their way. Nothing wrong with that. But then KCBS could sponsor a National BBQ championship and have a big invitational to have all state winners come to KC for a real world series of BBQ.

Jeff for KCBS BOARD!!!! Thats another good solution.

[Nitrofly]

Hey guys and girls

I have been reading this all day.
I have one suggestion that I'm sure
the Jack might even like.

Have a state run off.. New York is has
eight state Championships. have a cookoff
with all eight winners cooking against each
other. The winner gets the invite to the Jack

Kanas has say 40 state Champions they compete
for the invite to the Jack.
No money winner goes to the Jack

[SmokeInDaEye]

Originally Posted by BBQchef33

get your arse to the Jack and AR... you may only have this shot and you'll kick yourslef if u dont.

I am looking for a way to make it happen but work comes first in this economy so I am being realistic. If things change, all the better.

As for the rest, the flaw lies when some states can have multiple 30 plus team contests but can only get 1 or 2 certified by the state yet other states throw around proclamations like a whore on prom night.

So what's the solution? Stay away from contests in those states despite the organizers bending over backwards for 6 mos plus to get teams there in favor of a last second promise of a shot at the royal/jack? It depends on where your priorities lie, I guess.

[BBQchef33]

Originally Posted by SmokeInDaEye

I am looking for a way to make it happen but work comes first in this economy so I am being realistic. If things change, all the better.

As for the rest, the flaw lies when some states can have multiple 30 plus team contests but can only get 1 or 2 certified by the state yet other states throw around proclamations like a whore on prom night.

So what's the solution? Stay away from contests in those states despite the organizers bending over backwards for 6 mos plus to get teams there in favor of a last second promise of a shot at the royal/jack? It depends on where your priorities lie, I guess.

hey... she wasnt a whore, she was just friendly.


anyway... that a whole notha' issue... the states where the govs office is making that determination IMO, is overstepping the bounds.. they are creating local 'rules' and applying them in a way that is not uniformaly applied nationwide. dont agtree with that either. Its not their place. All states should work the same.


ps, dont understand last paragraph. u mean stay away from the contest in the staes where govs office s butting in?

[Jeff_in_KC]

Originally Posted by ique

That would be fun.




Isnt that basically the ARI?

Yes, I originally thought so BUT instead of 100 contest winners in the Invitational, you only have 50... one from each state, whichever team won the "state championship". Instead of going to the Royal automatically when you win an event, you automatically get to go to a real state championship contest to determine that state's representative to the Royal. Problem being the Royal would have to agree to that format.

Doing it this way could make it a BIG deal back at the state level. And the state winners have the pride of (most times anyway) representing their state in a national event. The media should eat it up and the sport of BBQ grows exponentially.

So what then if Andy, for example, won the New York "state championship" contest and represented NY as a KS resident? OK, then change it so that no matter where a person won an event, they got to compete in the state championship in their own state. So say Andy wins no grands in Kansas but does in New York, he competes in the Kansas state championship. Then you assure that every team representing a state at the Royal Invitational can be proud to represent where they're from. Contest sites at the Royal could be decorated with items from the home state and a big banner proclaims which state they represent. I think this could be huge!

Another edit: If the reserve grand at a NY contest Andy wins is from New York, that reserve grand gets invited to the NY "state championship" as well while Andy goes to the Kansas one.

[musicmanryann]

Originally Posted by Jeff_in_KC

Yes, I originally thought so BUT instead of 100 contest winners in the Invitational, you only have 50... one from each state, whichever team won the "state championship". Instead of going to the Royal automatically when you win an event, you automatically get to go to a real state championship contest to determine that state's representative to the Royal. Problem being the Royal would have to agree to that format.

Doing it this way could make it a BIG deal back at the state level. And the state winners have the pride of (most times anyway) representing their state in a national event. The media should eat it up and the sport of BBQ grows exponentially.

So what then if Andy, for example, won the New York "state championship" contest and represented NY as a KS resident? OK, then change it so that no matter where a person won an event, they got to compete in the state championship in their own state. So say Andy wins no grands in Kansas but does in New York, he competes in the Kansas state championship. Then you assure that every team representing a state at the Royal Invitational can be proud to represent where they're from. Contest sites at the Royal could be decorated with items from the home state and a big banner proclaims which state they represent. I think this could be huge!

Another edit: If the reserve grand at a NY contest Andy wins is from New York, that reserve grand gets invited to the NY "state championship" as well.

I gotta be honest, I love that idea! Wouldn't it however, be less of a change from the Jack format? Aren't representatives from other countries' already chosen in this way, i.e. they are the chosen delegates from their country to the Jack, rather than being drawn?

[Alexa RnQ]

Originally Posted by BBQchef33

Wow.. (and please dont take this as a shot) but this seems very elitist.

I see clarification is needed. I'm the last person who could be an elitist -- we came out of the backyard last year, remember? And I can easily think of more than one team who just got their first-ever KCBS GC that I would LOVE to see get the draw.

I was thinking more in terms of what you expressed better, "give[ing] more teams shots at the big one". When there's only ONE state championship, somebody somewhere is going to gripe that the "wrong" team won. We've all seen it in print where people claim that a particular invitational is meaningless because "the best teams weren't there". Multiple qualifying contests means more bites at the apple -- and yes, it does give more teams a shot than just the "usual suspects".

I have problems with run-off contests -- it puts yet another burden on the competing teams. What if a team has maxed out their competition budget on their qualifying contest(s), and just can't swing an additional runoff contest in terms of money or time off? Should their efforts for the whole season be nullified for that? At least the draw process doesn't put additional strain on a team's resources.

And that, I suppose, is why we have multiple invitationals. They are each different in character by reason of their selection process, and teams can choose which aspect satisfies their aims best.

[SmokeInDaEye]

Originally Posted by BBQchef33

hey... she wasnt a whore, she was just friendly.


anyway... that a whole notha' issue... the states where the govs office is making that determination IMO, is overstepping the bounds.. they are creating local 'rules' and applying them in a way that is not uniformaly applied nationwide. dont agtree with that either. Its not their place. All states should work the same.


ps, dont understand last paragraph. u mean stay away from the contest in the staes where govs office s butting in?

I mean should we punish organizers who work all year to get a large team following but can't get a state proclamation because the invitationals rely on how their state government interprets what is being asked of them? According to a quick glance at an unofficial Jack invite list Rod Gray did on his blog, it seems NYS is only outranked in number of qualifiers by IL, MO and KS while quite a few only have 1 or 2. Meanwhile, such nearby states as CT have 1, NJ 3, PA 2, MA and VT have 1 (I think), all with essentially the same teams competing.

There is no set criteria, ie 15 teams in place 1 mo before a contest qualifies for state sanctioning across the board. Or drop state sanctioning all together. What does it add?

Otherwise can't I go to a state that doesn't care what they give out to who, say I'm holding an "official" contest and get a proclamation then figure out how to entice 14 friends to come over to my backyard?