MOTIVATED - 2015-10-28 1:38 PM Houston. There is a proposed rule in the WPRA...that hasnt been decided on yet...whether they are going to put a limit on the rodeo count you need to qualify for the NFR. 

MS2011 - 2015-10-28 1:39 PM I'm confused....I was pretty sure they could count 100 rodeos?  (that is the current limit.)  

MOTIVATED - 2015-10-28 1:42 PM No you are right...I meant "minimum" limit...to where someone would have to make (just and example) 50 rodeos in order to qualify for the NFR even if they had enough money won on only 30. Does that make sense? I wasnt very specific.

ropenrun - 2015-10-28 1:53 PM

Kind of off topic from the original post but I hate to see the "minimum" amt become a rule.   Reason being is I have a good friend who made the NFR on about 28-32 rodeos (can't quite remember now) and she didn't win any of the  $50K rodeos to get there like Houston, etc)  She just made sure she went to the rodeos she knew her horse would excel ground wise  and made amazing runs at them all and fortunate enough to hit paydirt at the ones she went to. Now that doesn't happen often but it worked for her. But the minimum limit would penalize an exceptional rider and exceptional horse.  I'd rather see them do away with counting those limited or invite only rodeos that they are allowing to be counted.JMO

BigStarBound - 2015-10-28 1:27 PM

I'd hate to see the minimum amount rule be set in place also.
Lisa is number 2 for 2015 and I'm pretty sure her rodeo count is in the 30s!

Tbred - 2015-10-29 3:13 PM

So it's kind of like if you belong to an association, you aren't eligible for year end awards if you don't make a certain % of the shows.  That's what they are trying to do by setting a minimmum number of rodeo's right? 

Crowned Image - 2015-10-29 12:37 PM


thats how I read it.

Kaye - 2015-10-29 1:46 PM  If they want to change it to protect entries at rodeos then I can see the reasoning, but for the lucky few that can go to 30 and make it I think the rodeo count should stay low, maybe min 30.

I am fine with the big money rodeos like Calgary too. They are not invitational, so everyone's got a chance at going to them. If you win Calgary you earned your right to compete there. As long as they have qualifications with year end stats or tours then I have no issue with it counting. I dont understand why it is not fair, or why people think that way. If you win Calgary and get to go then you earned it. You had the best horse at that time and in the end that is all that matters at any rodeo; having the best horse that day at that moment. You have no guarantee that you will even make another run in your life. Your running against everyone else that qualified (and everyone else that tried and didn't succeed technically), so I never get that argument. If you go to 100 rodeos and qualify, or 30 and qualify, in the end you have had to beat someone to get there. 

That said I don't think true invitational rodeos with no qualification rules in place should count. I don't think there are any that do though. 

SassyPirate - 2015-10-29 2:24 PM Calgary IS inventational! It is solely up to Calgary who competes.

Kaye - 2015-10-30 3:45 PM  Sorry you are wrong, Calgary has a system. Look it up on the WPRA site, but if you don't want to look it up before you post. (Apparently that's the case) Here you go:



 

Kaye - 2015-10-30 4:45 PM


 Sorry you are wrong, Calgary has a system. Look it up on the WPRA site, but if you don't want to look it up before you post. (Apparently that's the case) Here you go:
 

Kaye - 2015-10-30 3:45 PM


 Sorry you are wrong, Calgary has a system. Look it up on the WPRA site, but if you don't want to look it up before you post. (Apparently that's the case) Here you go:
 

ropenrun - 2015-10-30 3:52 PM Yikes!  Easy Tiger...

SassyPirate - 2015-10-30 3:59 PM You my dear, seriously need to cool it with the attitude because frankly it sucks and you are ignorant. I would consider Calgary Invitational because they make their own rules. To me that is invitational. They can change those "qualifications" any time they please. As they did with the wagons this year. It isn't an OPEN RODEO, not everyone can enter! Hence it is Invitational But since you know are an expert, obviously what I think doesn't really matter.

Kaye - 2015-10-30 4:00 PM  Lol.. don't **** me off hey! And all that was information available for free on Google! I am protective of the right to compete, don't come from the generation that we all need a trophy for showing up, you want it bad enough go get your hands dirty then. 

Kaye - 2015-10-30 4:00 PM


 Lol.. don't **** me off hey! And all that was information available for free on Google! I am protective of the right to compete, don't come from the generation that we all need a trophy for showing up, you want it bad enough go get your hands dirty then. 

SassyPirate - 2015-10-29 5:59 PM


You my dear, seriously need to cool it with the attitude because frankly it sucks and you are ignorant.

I would consider Calgary Invitational because they make their own rules. To me that is invitational. They can change those "qualifications" any time they please. As they did with the wagons this year.
It isn't an OPEN RODEO, not everyone can enter! Hence it is Invitational

But since you know are an expert, obviously what I think doesn't really matter.

MOTIVATED - 2015-10-28 2:02 PM

I do not disagree ^^with either of you. I think if you dont have to run a horses legs off to qualify that is great. I also wish they wouldn't count the limited/invitation rodeo money earnings in the standings as well. I think if they didnt do that then women wouldnt be "forced" so many miles to "catch up"...some would still go as much...but the majority wouldnt I dont think. Its crazy that they "force" women to go that many miles but then out of "safety" to the horse wont let them Bute them before a run. If my horse is truely 3 legged, crippled, Bute is not going to help lol. If they were really concerned about equine health...they wouldnt have them go all the miles and make as many runs as they do. Its just something that I dont ever think will change though. They say that if you want to win a National Title but dont want to go the miles to get there...then you should win your Circuit Finals or be top 2 in the standings to go compete at the RCNFR instead...and essentially run against most the same girls that will be at the NFR...

cheryl makofka - 2015-11-02 12:29 AM No one is forcing any of the women to put on the miles, it is a choice. It really frustrates me that everyone believes they are entitled to run at the big dollar rodeos and if they can't, then it shouldn't count towards finals. The women who get invited or qualify to these big money rodeos have paid their dues in some way so why should the rodeo allow someone who is ranked 5890th in wpra a chance to compete at Calgary? Joan Winther is an example, she was not in the top 15 the year prior, but hustled her but and qualified for Calgary and won it. I believe in if you want something you need to work for it and pay your dues, things shouldn't be spoon fed to contestants.

Kaye - 2015-10-30 5:02 PM  If they are sanctioned by the WPRA then you have to have a qualifying system of some sort. Sucks about the wagons, but barrels are not invitational. 

svincent - 2015-10-29 2:57 PM Ditto.

ozcancrasher13 - 2015-11-02 8:55 AM

Just throwing this out there to play devil's advocate....and constructive conversation

There is a minimum rodeo count for every other "finals" in the PRCA/WPRA associations.  Circuit Finals and All-American Finals have minimum counts, so why would it be so wrong for the NFR?  No one says you have to run your top horse.  Lisa doesn't run Louie at every rodeo, even when he's healthy. And, like someone just mentioned above, Fallon hauled colts the last few months.  Every one of those girls has more than one horse.  The proposed count minimum wasn't outrageous.  You need to support the association and its rodeos that provides you with the opportunity to win $100K+ in 28 rodeos.  

Saying they shouldn't have to enter is almost contradicting what people are saying about the PRCA's new by-laws.  By not allowing the members with ownership in the ERA to compete, it will ruin rodeo because the "big names" won't be entered and that is who people want to see.  

GLP - 2015-10-30 4:58 PM I don't think she was wrong, sounds like the definition of invitation in rodeo terms to me. Many define invitation as being asked/allowed to enter as opposed to entries being open to all members. I have seen on this site many calling Houston, San Antone, etc. invitational because only certain people can enter and if they don't want to go/can't go, only then is the next person down the list invited.

ozcancrasher13 - 2015-11-02 8:55 AM Just throwing this out there to play devil's advocate....and constructive conversation



There is a minimum rodeo count for every other "finals" in the PRCA/WPRA associations.  Circuit Finals and All-American Finals have minimum counts, so why would it be so wrong for the NFR?  No one says you have to run your top horse.  Lisa doesn't run Louie at every rodeo, even when he's healthy. And, like someone just mentioned above, Fallon hauled colts the last few months.  Every one of those girls has more than one horse.  The proposed count minimum wasn't outrageous.  You need to support the association and its rodeos that provides you with the opportunity to win $100K+ in 28 rodeos.  



Saying they shouldn't have to enter is almost contradicting what people are saying about the PRCA's new by-laws.  By not allowing the members with ownership in the ERA to compete, it will ruin rodeo because the "big names" won't be entered and that is who people want to see.  

Nancy Hunter - 2015-11-02 10:53 AM Sorry if this is posted in the wrong place, I am not much on blogging. But I feel the need to visit this subject on rodeo count. When this proposed rule in the WPRA came up I was contacted and asked my opinion. First I said seriously with all the issues like bad ground, timers that malfunction etc this is what is on the agenda. But alas it was. I said it seems harsh to make a person run at more rodeos than they want to or can afford but if the rule is added for a minimum number then it is only right to add a maximum number like we had years ago. One can debate this for days but I don't see how you can punish those of us who wish to travel less over those who want to travel all the time. i did read a post about how it's not fair because you can't give bute, I don't want to debate the drug rule, but Fuzz has been tested many times and he runs on bute now and then and we have always been within the WPRA rules. Please read the drug rules you can give many things to keep your pony happy all within the rules. On limited rodeos. There are very few in comparision to the number of rodeos one can enter. Houston for example, a person can run at over six hundred rodeos the year before move up into the top fifty and be qualified for Houston the next year. I think that's a pretty good qualifier. I am from the older generation of thought process where things are earned not entitled, I have wanted for years since 1976 to run at Houston. I paid my dues worked hard to get a horse that could qualify me. Nothing comes easy we all know that this is a hard game. One day you are at the top next day it's start over time again. Fuzz will soon retire and I will be at start over time. I will be once again trying to find a horse and qualify for Houston and paying my dues again. For all those who have expressed kind words to Fuzz and I, thank you, there is nothing special about me other than I have Fuzz and Fred, who have made all my dreams come true! Best wishes to you all and your ponies. Nancy Hunter #NFRGLITTERLIKEGOLD2015

Nancy Hunter - 2015-11-02 10:53 AM Sorry if this is posted in the wrong place, I am not much on blogging. But I feel the need to visit this subject on rodeo count. When this proposed rule in the WPRA came up I was contacted and asked my opinion. First I said seriously with all the issues like bad ground, timers that malfunction etc this is what is on the agenda. But alas it was. I said it seems harsh to make a person run at more rodeos than they want to or can afford but if the rule is added for a minimum number then it is only right to add a maximum number like we had years ago. One can debate this for days but I don't see how you can punish those of us who wish to travel less over those who want to travel all the time. i did read a post about how it's not fair because you can't give bute, I don't want to debate the drug rule, but Fuzz has been tested many times and he runs on bute now and then and we have always been within the WPRA rules. Please read the drug rules you can give many things to keep your pony happy all within the rules. On limited rodeos. There are very few in comparision to the number of rodeos one can enter. Houston for example, a person can run at over six hundred rodeos the year before move up into the top fifty and be qualified for Houston the next year. I think that's a pretty good qualifier. I am from the older generation of thought process where things are earned not entitled, I have wanted for years since 1976 to run at Houston. I paid my dues worked hard to get a horse that could qualify me. Nothing comes easy we all know that this is a hard game. One day you are at the top next day it's start over time again. Fuzz will soon retire and I will be at start over time. I will be once again trying to find a horse and qualify for Houston and paying my dues again. For all those who have expressed kind words to Fuzz and I, thank you, there is nothing special about me other than I have Fuzz and Fred, who have made all my dreams come true! Best wishes to you all and your ponies. Nancy Hunter #NFRGLITTERLIKEGOLD2015

Nancy Hunter - 2015-11-02 10:53 AM

Sorry if this is posted in the wrong place, I am not much on blogging. But I feel the need to visit this subject on rodeo count. When this proposed rule in the WPRA came up I was contacted and asked my opinion. First I said seriously with all the issues like bad ground, timers that malfunction etc this is what is on the agenda. But alas it was. I said it seems harsh to make a person run at more rodeos than they want to or can afford but if the rule is added for a minimum number then it is only right to add a maximum number like we had years ago. One can debate this for days but I don't see how you can punish those of us who wish to travel less over those who want to travel all the time.
i did read a post about how it's not fair because you can't give bute, I don't want to debate the drug rule, but Fuzz has been tested many times and he runs on bute now and then and we have always been within the WPRA rules. Please read the drug rules you can give many things to keep your pony happy all within the rules.
On limited rodeos. There are very few in comparision to the number of rodeos one can enter. Houston for example, a person can run at over six hundred rodeos the year before move up into the top fifty and be qualified for Houston the next year. I think that's a pretty good qualifier. I am from the older generation of thought process where things are earned not entitled, I have wanted for years since 1976 to run at Houston. I paid my dues worked hard to get a horse that could qualify me. Nothing comes easy we all know that this is a hard game. One day you are at the top next day it's start over time again. Fuzz will soon retire and I will be at start over time. I will be once again trying to find a horse and qualify for Houston and paying my dues again.
For all those who have expressed kind words to Fuzz and I, thank you, there is nothing special about me other than I have Fuzz and Fred, who have made all my dreams come true! Best wishes to you all and your ponies.
Nancy Hunter
#NFRGLITTERLIKEGOLD2015

Nancy Hunter - 2015-11-02 10:53 AM

Sorry if this is posted in the wrong place, I am not much on blogging. But I feel the need to visit this subject on rodeo count. When this proposed rule in the WPRA came up I was contacted and asked my opinion. First I said seriously with all the issues like bad ground, timers that malfunction etc this is what is on the agenda. But alas it was. I said it seems harsh to make a person run at more rodeos than they want to or can afford but if the rule is added for a minimum number then it is only right to add a maximum number like we had years ago. One can debate this for days but I don't see how you can punish those of us who wish to travel less over those who want to travel all the time.
i did read a post about how it's not fair because you can't give bute, I don't want to debate the drug rule, but Fuzz has been tested many times and he runs on bute now and then and we have always been within the WPRA rules. Please read the drug rules you can give many things to keep your pony happy all within the rules.
On limited rodeos. There are very few in comparision to the number of rodeos one can enter. Houston for example, a person can run at over six hundred rodeos the year before move up into the top fifty and be qualified for Houston the next year. I think that's a pretty good qualifier. I am from the older generation of thought process where things are earned not entitled, I have wanted for years since 1976 to run at Houston. I paid my dues worked hard to get a horse that could qualify me. Nothing comes easy we all know that this is a hard game. One day you are at the top next day it's start over time again. Fuzz will soon retire and I will be at start over time. I will be once again trying to find a horse and qualify for Houston and paying my dues again.
For all those who have expressed kind words to Fuzz and I, thank you, there is nothing special about me other than I have Fuzz and Fred, who have made all my dreams come true! Best wishes to you all and your ponies.
Nancy Hunter
#NFRGLITTERLIKEGOLD2015

Nancy Hunter - 2015-11-02 10:53 AM Sorry if this is posted in the wrong place, I am not much on blogging. But I feel the need to visit this subject on rodeo count. When this proposed rule in the WPRA came up I was contacted and asked my opinion. First I said seriously with all the issues like bad ground, timers that malfunction etc this is what is on the agenda. But alas it was. I said it seems harsh to make a person run at more rodeos than they want to or can afford but if the rule is added for a minimum number then it is only right to add a maximum number like we had years ago. One can debate this for days but I don't see how you can punish those of us who wish to travel less over those who want to travel all the time. i did read a post about how it's not fair because you can't give bute, I don't want to debate the drug rule, but Fuzz has been tested many times and he runs on bute now and then and we have always been within the WPRA rules. Please read the drug rules you can give many things to keep your pony happy all within the rules. On limited rodeos. There are very few in comparision to the number of rodeos one can enter. Houston for example, a person can run at over six hundred rodeos the year before move up into the top fifty and be qualified for Houston the next year. I think that's a pretty good qualifier. I am from the older generation of thought process where things are earned not entitled, I have wanted for years since 1976 to run at Houston. I paid my dues worked hard to get a horse that could qualify me. Nothing comes easy we all know that this is a hard game. One day you are at the top next day it's start over time again. Fuzz will soon retire and I will be at start over time. I will be once again trying to find a horse and qualify for Houston and paying my dues again. For all those who have expressed kind words to Fuzz and I, thank you, there is nothing special about me other than I have Fuzz and Fred, who have made all my dreams come true! Best wishes to you all and your ponies. Nancy Hunter #NFRGLITTERLIKEGOLD2015

Nancy Hunter - 2015-11-02 12:54 PM

That is a true statement 100 is the max. I heard a possible rule proposal of 35/75 it will be interesting to see what plays out. I wish the focus would go on other pressing issues and let the contestants determine how, where and when to enter that works for their horse and checkbook.