KCBS "lower level" ToY contest

[G$]

I agree. End of year TOY cash awards could add a whole new twists on a end of year contest. I felt this since they announced they were doing it.

I am one of those against a second tier. I am not wanting to hold anyone down because they don't cook 25+ contests a year either, as some have alluded. I now cook around 15 contests. Does that make a team a big dog? I'd rather my record speak, not how many contests I do. Will I ever compete for TOY? Nope. Do I feel I am slighted? Nope. I have an opportunity to finish a category in top 20 for TOY standings. That is more than enough reward for me and incentive.

Do you understand how a person could think that one (Or more!) additional smaller volume point chases could be a good idea (and promote more competitors), and also not feel slighted that they don't exist?

Rather than see more TOY awards, I'm in favor of more tournament style events such as Sam's.

Nice idea.

 

[Smokedelic]

one thing I may have missed, does cooking 30 contest automatically make you a big dog?

No...and I can prove it.:thumb:

 

[Q-Dat]

Still waiting to hear how this would be harmful. People are dismissing the idea, but nobody has given a reason why this would be bad for KCBS.

And I'm open to hearing a reason. But just saying you don't like it is not a reason.

 

[nukenight]

I need to ask this question, "Do we really need a Team of the Year?". The TOY is nice, but it is more an endurance race to see who gets the most points. Maybe we need to take a step back and really see if we need an award that everyone gripes about but few of us are in the running to win. Maybe we need to reward Grand Champions. In other words, recognize cooks who get their first Grand, 5th Grand, 10th, and so forth. Develop a system where we reward everyone who has excellence in BBQ by winning a contest, not just the 20 or so cooks in the Team of the Year chase. Develop a hall of fame concept where every year cooks are nominated and elected. If you really want to go after Excellence in BBQ, this is the avenue to go down. You could also reward new cooks who do well in their first season on the circuit. By the way cooks, 2/3 of KCBS members are judges. They don't get any recognition. Judges pay money to do their thing and get grief for it. I think we need to recognize judges who do a good job. If you have a team of the year, you should have a judge of the year. KCBS wants judges to be better and more consistent. Well, they need to reward those people who do that! I think we need to seriously re-consider the usefulness of a team of the year as it is currently configured. I do not want a participation award either. I want something meaningful. But I also want something meaningful for more people, judges included!

 

[SHBBQ]

No...and I can prove it.:thumb:

now taking the lead for best quote so far!!!! :clap:

 

[Pappy Q]

My opinion (not that anyone really cares) is that the current ToY is a very flawed system. Being able to cook 20+ contest but only have the best 10 count is ridiculous. Also the less than 10 really doesn't make sense to me. To me a true ToY is take your total points for the year divided by the number of contest you did for a per contest average. That puts everyone on an equal playing field. Of course the ones who "chase" the ToY won't like it because it takes their advantage away.

 

[Alexa RnQ]

^^ The shift to a "batting average" is good, with a couple of caveats:

It would have to be worked through a system of assigned values to placements in a contest, rather than straight points total, in order to overcome the discrepancy in average scores between different regions; and

In some instances, it would encourage a particular team to cook less, not more. If a team comes hot out of the gate with three GCs in a row, wouldn't the temptation be there to hang it up for the season while they've got an untarnished batting average? A team on a hot streak will cook regardless, but if there's a late-season slump, tell me it wouldn't cross a head cook's mind that they don't need to drag their average down.

I think the issue of assigned values rather than straight points totals is a much more pressing point, as the latter probably won't have much impact anywhere other than the head game.

Perhaps the answer would be to require a minimum (say 10) number of contests, but continue with the current practice of taking the 10 best scores over the course of a season.