Ah, so we’re getting somewhere. So that’s a change from the previous 2023 season then.
Let’s say though for arguments sake that a club has been running 6 matches per season, and gets full attendance at them all, which has been quite normal in the region for the past three/four years. That’s a bit different than the sorta extreme examples you used. But I get it.
This is to try and get larger attendance numbers at each match in the southeast region, right? Yes? No?
Nothing to do with falling attendance at some larger matches?
I could see it going both ways. I'll use the "easy" example again in a different way. Club A has 6 matches per year and Club B has 6 matches per year. They are close enough they share enough shooters to be significant. All 6 matches for both clubs are for PRS regional points in the same region.
Club A's matches are significantly easier and that results in more shooters showing up for easier PRS points.
There's a couple ways to view this as league management:
- Just let people vote with their wallet. Do nothing.
- We're trying to create a competitive environment as well as make sure there are still enough "easy" matches for the newer or more casual shooters. We will limit some matches enough that people who want points will have to go to other venues, and the casual shooters can still shoot the "easy" match even though its not for PRS points this month......as they don't care about the points.
Now, there's obviously other things like a larger venue losing attendance because other clubs start hosting matches more local to some shooters, which in turn means less shooters travel further to the larger venues. Now things get a bit dicey. One could argue that the large establishment has been around longer and will continue to be around, so it may be worth looking into how to possibly "protect" the venue. The problem is always going to be criticisms of favoritism and such. Which is tough.
I'm sure most of us have seen local shooter communities "harmed" by too many clubs. Meaning you have one or two clubs that have pretty good attendance (say 50 or so per month. clubs with 80+ or more a month are a totally different animal).......and are doing things pretty well overall. But for whatever reason one, two, or three clubs pop up in the vicinity. Now those 50 shooters a month have other options which seems good on its face. But they can't just shoot every weekend (most can't, some can) and they have to choose where to shoot.
Next thing you know, you now have three matches a month that have 20 or less shooters. People stop showing up since so small, or an MD stops the good match because it's not worth their time anymore for 20 or less. Then that area/region has to rebuild everything once they all die out. Happens fairly often.
So, as a regional director of a league, you may find yourself in a tough spot when say K&M (just saying that because you used it as an example) starts losing attendance because smaller clubs start popping up that syphon shooters. If the reason is because people don't like the K&M matches, so be it. But if the reason is simple due to locality and such......you're in a much, much tougher spot.
If you as a regional director believe there's a fair chance that the other clubs will fizzle out, but K&M will still be there when the dust settles, you may find that it's in the league/region's best interest to impose limits as to not destabilize the region.
Not saying any of these scenarios are what's happening. Just that things can be much, much more complicated that someone just watching out for a range like K&M. Regardless if they are right or wrong, they may actually be attempting to make tough decisions they believe are in the best interest of the region/league in the long run.
