Eloy should host *all* Nationals (long)
Livendive
to "all USPA Board Members, the USPA Director of Competition, Skydiving
Magazine, the NSL, Airspeed.org, Omniskore.com, and several veteran
competitors and judges." His other attachment "2001 US NATIONALS SURVEY -
SUMMARY Prepared by Bryan Burke at the request of Larry Hill" and my
thoughts will be in subsequent posts.
Blue skies,
Dave Todak
To: USPA Full Board Date:
May 23, 2002
Re: US Nationals Site Selection
From: Bryan Burke, USPA # 17458
Dear Members of the USPA Board of Directors;
I am writing to you as a former Board member and a concerned USPA member.
Although I expect my request will proceed through the Competition Committee
as a formality, since the whole Board is involved in this issue I am
contacting every one of you to request your serious attention to this
matter.
I have a number of friends in the competition community, including many past
and present National Champions in FS, CF, and AE, most of the Nationally
rated judges, and dozens of perennial competitors who simply compete out of
love for the sport. Conversations I have had with these people over the past
few years indicate that our Nationals selection process is badly flawed. I
am unfamiliar with the history of how this process was invented when the
Board decided to leave Muskogee, but history has shown that because the bid
is not always awarded to the most deserving bidder, competitors must often
suffer sub-standard weather, facilities, and staffing at some Championships.
While this in itself is alarming, more alarming still is a complete lack of
accountability from the Board of Directors. Competitors are astonished to
learn that the site is chosen by secret ballot, that bids are not available
for public review prior to the selection vote, that the bid minimums are
woefully insufficient, and that the Board's examination of the bids is
rather cursory. Judges find it incredible that bids are accepted without
confirmation that bidders really have access to experienced staff or
essential equipment.
The history of site selection in the 1990s indicates that internal Board
politics, not merit, determines who wins the honor of hosting the Nationals.
The politics of moving from dz to dz seems to outweigh everything else. The
best bidder never wins if they recently hosted the event. And yet in the
recent Nationals Survey, designed and supervised by the Competition
Committee, not a single respondent mentioned moving the Nationals from place
to place as an important consideration in site selection. I have attached a
summary of that survey for your inspection.
I believe that several reforms are necessary to remedy this problem and
ensure that the National Championships is always hosted by the best
qualified venue. These reforms are so important that I am asking the Board
to implement some of them immediately at the coming Board Meeting, prior to
moving on to the site selection process. Implementing these reforms will not
affect the bidders themselves, but will go a long way to ensuring that the
next Nationals host will indeed be the most qualified. At the very least,
the voting needs to be brought into the open at this meeting, and all Board
members should be allowed to vote.. Transparency in the process and
accountability from the Board must exist if the Board is to regain
credibility with Nationals participants.
Finally, I request that the Competition Committee and Executive Committee
act immediately to approve that all bids for the 2003 Nationals be posted on
the USPA web site as soon as they arrive at headquarters so that interested
competitors may review themand offer comments to the Board at the coming
meeting.
Thank you,
Bryan Burke
Section 10-1: Site Selection Reforms
1) Individual Board members should be accountable to the membership for
their votes. The vote should be recorded by name.
2) Bids should be available for public scrutiny prior to the site selection
vote. (Obviously, this will have to wait until next year unless the site
selection is postponed until the winter meeting.)
3) The conflicting values of Governance Manual, Section 1-2.3.C. 2 and 4
should be reconciled by recognizing that the responsibility of the Board
member to represent his constituency takes precedence over the conflict of
interest issue. No Board member should be prevented from voting on the
Nationals site. A public vote would mitigate the potential conflict of
interest issue.
In support of a public vote, accountability would increase confidence in
the Board by eliminating the perception that this important decision is made
with little or no regard for the concerns of those most affected by it, the
people competing and servingthe competition. Secret ballots are
understandable in the case of actions involving individuals, but on a matter
of such importance as the US Nationals site a secret ballot is
unconscionable. About 600 USPA members attend the Nationals every year; this
is a businessmatter affecting hundreds of USPA members. They have a right to
know whether or not their representatives are acting in the competitors'
interest.
In support of publicizing the bids, many Board members do not have much
expertise in the field of competition. They may not be aware of how
important things like reliable weather and sufficient creeping or packing
facilities are. Even if they are current on the needs of the National
Championships, they may not be familiar with the bidder or proposed site.
If the bids are published two months in advance of the selection process,
the public will be able to discuss the options and competitors will have a
chance to inform their representatives about the relative merits of bids.
Furthermore, some bidders have misrepresented the extent of their facilities
and/or ability to fulfill the obligations of the US National Skydiving
Championship host. Skydivers themselves are most qualified to examine the
bids. Since they are the ones most affected, and most knowledgeable, posting
bids in advance of the selection vote will greatly improve the quality of
the Nationals.
As a corollary to this, I suggest that the selection of the site be changed
to the winter meeting. This will allow both the board and bidders to learn
from the competitors about the successes and failures of the most recent
Nationals. As an veteran Nationals bidder and host, I can say with
confidence that a winter meeting still allows plenty of time for a qualified
bidder to prepare.
Section 1-2.3.C of the Governance Manual outlines the responsibility of
Board Members. If the "conflict of interest" policy is adhered to as
written, some members might not be able to perform their obligation to
"represent the interests of the regional or national constituency for whom
that board member represents." For example, there are currently three
directors with Florida addresses and two each from southern California and
Arizona. The Florida and California directors are able to, and perhaps
expected to, vote for bidders in their area. Although both National
Directors from Arizona were voted in largely due to the respect they have
among competitors, neither of the Arizona directors can vote for Arizona,
although their nationwide constituency very much wants them to, because
conflict of interest is defined as exclusively financial.
I suggest that a public vote will address this by making Board members
responsible to their constituency, with or without a possible conflict of
interest. At the very least, National Directors are subject to removal by
the entire membership, so blatant conflict of interest can be addressed by
the membership rather than the Board on the matter of site selection.
I am petitioning you, the members of the Board, to change SCM Chapter 10,
US Nationals Site Selection Process, in the following ways:
1) Section 10 - 1.1 F. Change to read "Current USPA group members must
submit proposals to USPA headquarters by 5:00 PM EDT, 1 November, so that
the bids may be published on the USPA web site by 15 November and decided on
at the winter Board Meeting." Intheory this new bid date could be
implemented immediately by postponing site selection of the 2003 Nationals
until the winter meeting, but at the least it should be applied in the fall
of 2003, for the 2004 Nationals.
In the event the Board is not willing to change selection to the winter
meeting, change Section 10-1.2. C. to add "Bids meeting the minimum
requirements will be posted in their entirety on the USPA web site at least
one month prior to the summer Board Meeting." This will entail changing the
due date in Section 10 - 1.1 F to 1 May.
I have already checked with USPA Headquarters and the individual
responsible for maintaining the web site has informed me that posting bids
on the web site is a simple procedure that will not cost the organization
anything other than a little staff time.
2) Section 10-1.3: Site Selection. Change to read as follows:
D. 4.b. A 10-minute question-and-answer period will follow each
presentation. If any time remains after Board Members have asked their
questions, Board Members may recognize questions from the gallery.
E. Voting
1. Bidders will be cleared from the gallery. The gallery will remain open
to all other USPA members.
2. A maximum of 30 minutes will be allowed for discussion among USPA Board
Members after all the bids have been presented.
3. Voting Procedures:
a) The vote will be by roll call in open session.
b) No Board Member will be denied the opportunity to vote,
regardless of their relationship to bidding parties.
4 and 5. Adjust these paragraphs to reflect the changes above.
Section 10.2: Minimum Site Requirements
10-2.1B: "Aircraft capabilities for all events at the rate of 50 - 60 jumps
per hour."
There were 78 4-way teams at the 2001 Nationals. 70 teams is the minimum
that should be expected. A site with 50 jumps per hour would take seven
hours to complete one round of competition. To complete 4-way would take a
week of jumping at the minimum capability.
Now that the events are combined at a single venue and it is necessary to
run more than one event at a time, it becomes imperative to have a minimum
lift capacity of 150 jumps per hour, which is sufficient to complete four
rounds of 4-way per day.
10-2.2 F: "For S&A, a 1,600 square foot enclosed space, 40 x 40 minimum,
suitable for public grading of Style." This is one of the few requirements
that is vastly more than needed. It is highly unlikely that more than 20
people at a time will ever watch public grading of style. To require some
public space is fine, but this minimum is excessive.
10-2.3 E. "Number of teams that can be accommodated by creeper area." Some
definition is needed. Asphalt surface such as ramp or parking lot space
should specifically be excluded from listing as "creeper area." Creepers
need smooth concrete. A sidewalk may be called "creeper area" by an
unscrupulous bidder, but the minimum space a 4-way team needs to creep could
be defined as a square of finished concrete 20 feet to a side.
10-2.4 A. "VCRs with half-speed capability." Not only is this only needed
for Style (one is sufficient) but they are incredibly hard to find, if such
a VCR is even made anymore. The Style and Accuracy community may need to
give this requirement some review - it is in the same category as a suitable
ground-to-air video system. If Skydive Arizona couldn't find one, most other
dzs are going to have trouble too.
10-2.4 I and J. Add "acceptable to the Chief Judge."
10-2.10B: "Proposed competitor registration fees." Add "including
videographers and alternates."
10-2.? The bid should include a nominee for Meet Director and Chief Judge,
along with a resume and written commitment from those individuals. These two
individuals are as important as any other ingredient in a Nationals and
should not be left to chance.
Review of Bids and Ranking by the Competition Committee
I propose that it become SOP for the Competition Committee to review the
bids and rank them by the following criteria. This ranking would then be
posted on the same web site as the bids for review by interested parties. It
would also be announced to the Board prior to the beginning of the bidding
process.
Price per competitor for each event, all inclusive. (Bids should be written
to reflect this.) Depending on a bidder's experience and opinions, some
hosts will bid with a low price for one event and a high one for others. For
example, Skydive Chicago's price for FS in 2002 was significantly higher
than Arizona's, but Classics and Free Events were significantly lower. Using
the comparison of the 2001 and 2002 hosts as an example, price could be
ranked as follows.
Skydive Chicago
Skydive Arizona
FS (entering all events) $766
$637
CF (all events) $510
$473
AE (two events) $366
$428
Classics (both) $195
$325
Sport Accuracy (six rounds) $94
$75
With Chicago lower in two events and higher in three, including the one
entered by three quarters of the total participants, Skydive Arizona should
rank ahead overall.
Concurrent time frame outweighs sequential schedule. This is to reflect the
overwhelming majority opinion of the competitors and judges, and the fact
that this format is much more attractive format to media. Concurrent gets a
1, Sequential a 2, and other (split the disciplines in time and space) a 3.
Experience with hosting previous Nationals, ranked by number. In other
words, if everyone who has hosted a Nationals in the past bid again, the
ranking would be Eloy in first, Perris and Deland in second, and Sebastian,
and the Ranch in third. Others who have some experience but have not hosted
the FS component, like Dallas, Orange MA, Raeford, and Elsinore, and dzs who
have never hosted an event, would be 4th.
Facilities. This combination would include aircraft, landing area space,
creeping space, packing and debriefing space, etc. Admittedly this would be
a subjective ranking to some extent, based on the experience of Committee
members as well as the bids themselves. This could be a simple four point
system - 1 for excellent, 2 for good, 3 for adequate, and 4 for poor.
This ranking would then be sent to the Board members and posted on the
bidding section of the USPA web site. I think this is important because in
the past there has been some bait and switch activity with the pricing
(quoting a price, then adding on extras once the competitors arrive.) There
has also been some vagueness about schedules, such as we saw this spring
with Skydive Chicago changing the schedule three times. If I wanted to book
time off work for the 2002 Nationals in the winter of 2001, I couldn't,
because not even general time frames had been announced. Price and schedule
details should be in the bid, not published months later.
With such a summary, a director or USPA member could glance at a table where
the bidders are listed and ranked. For example:
Schedule Experience Facilities
Price Rank
Perris 2 2
2 2 2
Eloy 1 1
1 1 1
Deland 2 2 3
2 3
Chicago 2 4 2 ?
2 4
A low rank would not preclude a vote for that bidder; there might be
intangibles that would sway some Board members to vote for a lower ranked
bid.
But it must not be done in secret.
Thank you for considering my proposal. I am available to answer any
questions you may have at this e-mail address. (removed)
Sincerely,
Bryan Burke
USPA #17458
Copies of this proposal and the 2001 Nationals Survey have been sent to all
USPA Board Members, the USPA Director of Competition, Skydiving Magazine,
the NSL, Airspeed.org, Omniskore.com, and several veteran competitors and
judges.
Livendive
"I wrote in message news:adja9b$11n1la$1...@ID-75676.news.dfncis.de...
<snip a really long white paper submitted to the BOD and many other
organizations and publications>
OK,
So the DZO's took over our organization. USPA is now a trade association
for the money makers in the sport. It only stands to reason that the
biggest windfall USPA has to award (each year's Nationals) should become the
subject of political posturing and feverish catfighting, right?
WRONG!
USPA is supposed to be an organization for SKYDIVERS. Get rid of the Group
Member program. Let them join the SOA (Skydiving Operators Association),
which is, I believe, run by newly appointed BOD member Sherry Butcher.
Nationals is supposed to be for the SKYDIVERS. It's not a freaking jackpot
in which our biggest concern is who gets the money. It's a fun competition
about which I (and I'm sure many other skydivers) DON'T CARE which DZO gets
the contract.
Post all bids on USPA's website as soon as they're received at Headquarters?
Why in the world would we do that, unless it was so we could let some bidder
who had a position of power on the BOD lowball all other bids at the last
second and sneak his in just under the wire?
Here's what I think. Screw them all. Let's take our money and go
elsewhere. It would not be all that complicated to simply lease an airport
like Rantoul for a couple weeks each fall, and solicit Otters with a
fair-market value lease offer of x dollars per day/hour. Let anyone who's
interest in supporting skydivers and our annual championship lease their
planes to us. We could hire temps to do the day-to-day work at Nationals,
and since our National Director's don't have the day-to-day duties of a
Regional Director, we could charge them with coordinating everything in
advance.
If we could get rid of the Group Member program at the same time, maybe USPA
could get back on the track of being about skydivers, not DZOs.
Blues,
Dave
kallend
Livendive wrote:
>
> Or at least that's how I read the following paper that Brian Burke has sent
> to "all USPA Board Members, the USPA Director of Competition, Skydiving
> Magazine, the NSL, Airspeed.org, Omniskore.com, and several veteran
> competitors and judges."
He sent one to me too, and I fit in "none of the above". :-)
I interpreted it the same way you do.
Andy A
if we put one religous group into ghettos before sending them off to
"work camps" for their own benifit.
The conflict clause was made to stop Meglomaniac DZOs using their
positions to further their own intrests and it must be working if they
are getting their pawns to try change the rules back.
Use the nationals to continue developing our sport and spread the
knoledge not to build one buisness at our expence.
Andy
Jerry K.
Twisting history with circumstance: In AZ we have achieved Blue Skies
in our time.
Paraphrasing a DZO at the 2001 Nationals: It may surprise you to
learn that politics does play a part in the Nationals selection
process.
Directly quoting many of the competitors at the 2001 Nationals upon
hearing this: Uh...ya think?
Quoting some eloquent competitor in Florida, 1999: We are being held
hostage in a soggy hell.
One word, one number: Sebastian 1999
...bsrp
...jlk
Livendive
"Jerry K." <sky...@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:68C5EFA62031B9DC.45C787B5...@lp.airnews.net...
I'm certain you don't think Larry Hill's message was sent just because he
thinks he can put on a better Nationals than anyone else. That he has lots
of lift capacity and generally good weather is obvious, but any suggestion
that those benefits were his sole motivation are about as believable as the
charity mouths on TV who say "We're doing this for the children." No
they're not, and no he's not...they're all doing what they're doing for the
money. Well it's our money and our competition they're fighting over. If
child A and child B are fighting over child C's toy, what do you do?
(besides shoot yourself for having three kids). You take the toy away from
both of them and either hang on to it or give it back to child C.
I'm pretty sure this isn't even about *just* the money, as screwed up as our
BOD is right now. Let's just look at what's happened recently:
Mike Mullins and Billy Richards turn in their names as candidates for the
BOD.
Their names are selected as the "least qualified" and left off the ballot
despite two candidates with under 500 jumps.
Mike runs a simple write-in campaign with a platform that includes
eliminating the GM program, getting more AFF courses, and, regarding
finances "Big DZs can fend for themselves, USPA is an association of
individual skydivers and that is where the money should go."
Mike makes the BOD, garnering more votes than Larry Hill (fewest votes of
those elected) AND more than our President.
Roger Nelson also makes the BOD, along with partner in crime Mike Ortiz
(anyone heard from that guy since the election?)
A new forum starts on rec.skydiving called "Monday's with the BOD". This
isn't significant to this chronology except for the facts that it allows
Roger Nelson a place to vent in front of the BOD and quite a few individual
members at the same time and allows Gary Peek the opportunity to show the
folks who don't know him that his thoughts are somewhat similar to Mike's
(i.e. siding with individual jumpers). As an aside, Larry Hill chooses not
to answer any questions in this format.
Roger Nelson is awarded the contract for the 2002 Nationals.
Larry Hill sues Mike Mullins for patent infringement, apparently thinking
none of us can tell the difference between Skydive Arizona and Arizona
Skydiving - Coolidge. Larry - Get over it. Anyone who would look an
Arizona DZ up by name knows the difference between Eloy and Coolidge. Any
that are too dumb to tell the difference, you don't want anyway cuz they'd
probably just bounce.
Despite the fact the USPA's Executive Committee "never makes controversial
decisions during interim periods", they overturn Gary Peek's approval of the
WFFC's Group Membership application. Why? Because Mullins boys have jumped
there in the past.
Larry Hill has one of his lackey's send a long letter to the BOD requesting
interim action to fix a "serious" problem. The "problem"? Larry thinks
he's better than Roger and wants the money from Nationals to flow into his
pocket every year.
Oh goody...What's next on "The Daze of Our Wives"?
Blues,
Dave
Mr. MOM
<live...@aol.com> writes:
As painful as this is.........I wholeheartedly agree with you here Dave.
As I was reading all the mumbo jumbo, I too was thinking that an easy solution
would be to pick a neutral location (non DZ site), and have "businesses" bid
their services to the event. Not only would this allow multiple businesses to
participate in hosting the Nationals, but those businesses that actually care
about skydivers (as they all claim) over their own profits, can prove it by
sacrificing their own operation for a week or so by providing their services to
our competitors at cost or less (a little of that ole "giving back to the
sport" thing). So.........who would run the show by coordinating it all?
Yes........I also agree here. Our elected officials of course.
USPA SUCKS
http://www.skydiveworld.com/moms/
Blue Skys and Godspeed,
Mr. MOM
The only guarantee in Skydiving is...you WILL land !
Ann Poblenz
brrr. dont remind me... I still have nightmares...
Also, the only time I needed sunscreen on a weatherhold
:-(
Rev Jim
"Livendive" wrote
>
> Despite the fact the USPA's Executive Committee "never makes controversial
> decisions during interim periods", they overturn Gary Peek's approval of
the
> WFFC's Group Membership application. Why? Because Mullins boys have
jumped
> there in the past.
So, along those lines, why does Skydive Chicago still have a Group
Membership?
--
Rev. Jim
A-39869
"It's just what I do..."
Livendive
"Rev Jim" <wisky...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cfe5...@newsa.ev1.net...
>
> "Livendive" wrote
> >
> > Despite the fact the USPA's Executive Committee "never makes
controversial
> > decisions during interim periods", they overturn Gary Peek's approval of
> the
> > WFFC's Group Membership application. Why? Because Mullins boys have
> jumped
> > there in the past.
>
> So, along those lines, why does Skydive Chicago still have a Group
> Membership?
I don't *know* that Roger has put up underage jumpers, but Mullins certainly
ain't the only BOD member to do so.
Blues,
Dave
me
The nationals stopped being held in Muskogee for a variety of reasons
including that it ended up being a long way for everybody. It was hoped
that by moving it around, folks from that region could participate once
and a while without having to make the long trek. Muskogee also sucked
too. Not much infrastructure (skydiving wise mostly).
The process almost assuredly needs to be changed. It needs to
start with being more open. It also however, does need to continue
to recognize that moving it around benefits the skydivers. But
some minimum standards for facilities, staff, etc. should be established.
It shouldn't just be a "highest bidder" kind of fiasco.
Kevin O'Connell
Rev Jim
"Livendive" wrote
>
> "Rev Jim" wrote
> >
> > "Livendive" wrote
> > >
> > > Despite the fact the USPA's Executive Committee "never makes
> controversial
> > > decisions during interim periods", they overturn Gary Peek's approval
of
> > the
> > > WFFC's Group Membership application. Why? Because Mullins boys have
> > jumped
> > > there in the past.
> >
> > So, along those lines, why does Skydive Chicago still have a Group
> > Membership?
>
> I don't *know* that Roger has put up underage jumpers, but Mullins
certainly
> ain't the only BOD member to do so.
>
OK, then, a slighlty easier question. When did Rook start jumping, and if it
wasn't his father that put him out, who did?
JimBo
>From: mom...@aol.com (Mr. MOM)
>As painful as this is.........I wholeheartedly agree with you here Dave.
Oh god......there was just a rift in the force.
jim
D-10154
Humanitarian.
Man small... why fall ? Skies call... thats all.
Dave McGrath
youngest to skydive. I think they were around 2 or 3 years when they did their
first tandems.
kallend
Dave McGrath wrote:
>
> Roger never hid the fact that his kids were once record holders for being the
> youngest to skydive. I think they were around 2 or 3 years when they did their
> first tandems.
>
4 and 5. Pictures hanging in the DZ.
Groovicool
regarding which DZO benefits from the Nationals. My concern as a competitor is
a safe, highly efficient, relatively predictable, convenient competition. I
don't want a nationals scheduled in a way such that you HAVE to be there for
10+ days to do 2 back to back events. The 2001 Nationals in Eloy had to be the
most efficiently run competition to date. When it's the 1st day of competition
and they're making 10 minute calls for load 100 at noon, things have to be
running pretty fucking efficiently. There is NO disputing that....ask anyone
that was in attendance. No probs with manifest, no probs w/packing, no probs
w/facilities, non-chaotic...and the list goes on.
The argument of making it closer for people across the different regions is all
fine and good, but I'd much rather pay a little more for a plane ticket to have
the nationals at Eloy every year than spend the money for an extra 4-5 nights
for a hotel because the weather blew ass or the planes broke or MPH, or
whatever.
So anyway that's my 2 cents worth and then some. Roger has big shoes to fill
for having a well run Nationals this year in chicago...I wish him the best.
For the good of the competitors, let's hope he can at least meet that
challenge.
blues,
arlo
Tandmterry
> Roger has big shoes to fill
>for having a well run Nationals this year in chicago.
Get back to us and give us your HONEST opinion afterwards. Good luck with the
nationals!
Terry
Groovicool
the type to totally bypass the issue and never tell you what I really
think...just ask anyone that knows me. ;)
I will assure you, however, that I will not form an opinion of SDC based on
anything anyone says about the operation there. I've never been to SDC, so I
have no preconceived notions regarding the operation of the dz or Roger.
Thanks for the 'good luck.' It's appreciated. :)
blues,
arlo
-----------------------
Livendive
"Groovicool" <groov...@aol.combiteme> wrote in message
news:20020606135516...@mb-cu.aol.com...
<snip>
Oh who the hell asked you anyhow? :-)
Blues,
Dave
ABG#1
W Faulkner
Groovicool <groov...@aol.combiteme> wrote:
>10+ days to do 2 back to back events. The 2001 Nationals in Eloy had to be the
>most efficiently run competition to date. When it's the 1st day of competition
I have to agree there. It was a blast being there and being able to watch the
RW events, the freefly events, the CRW and accuracy events all going on at once.
You got to hang out with people from different disciplines, and it was run extremely
well. I only hope wherever the Nationals are held from here on out can do as
well. I know I was extremely impressed last year.
W
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Wendy Faulkner Don't knock on Death's door.
faul...@eco.utexas.edu Ring the bell and run away.
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/~faulkner He hates that.
Groovicool
comfy writing about the BOD stuff....SOMEBODY had to throw a kink in it. :)
blues,
arlo
-------------------
Dave McGrath
Eloy. Just about every other one not in Eloy since '97 has had some type of problem
(hurricanes, rain, fog).
My gripe is that since it is in Chicago they had to move it up to the first week of
September if there was to be any hope of getting it all in. That means we have about 7
weeks less to train than if it was held the last week of October in Arizona. That puts
the northern teams at an extreme disadvantage. Especially since we had a lousy spring
and the intermediate 4-way teams have 10 new blocks to train.
Oh well. At least we have a built in excuse this year.
Dave McGrath
Skyquest.
pcb1
Looking at the calendar, we'll be out there so long we're thinking of just
buying a house. Maybe get a little a farm and raise some corn and winter
wheat. Lesseee...is that 10 days for four- and eight-way if the weather is
good and longer if it isn't?
I wish SDC well, too. My stronger wish is that we were all going to Eloy so
we would *know* the weather was gonna be good and we would know the
management expertise is there to make it run well.
Like you, I couldn't care less about the DZO politics.
PB
Fastsftail
the genius who came up with this "baby division" format for the nationals
should be beaten to death.
may i suggest
"fight nite at the ranch"
july 4th boogie