|
|
 Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
  
| They just announced they will not include Calgary, Houston or the WPRA finals in tallying total won bumping Tiany to number 4 and Tuff to number 1. She would have been the 4th woman to have the honor to wear #1 and the women compete in only one event making it even more impressive.
Edited by rodeomom3 2017-10-25 6:11 PM
|
|
| |
|
 The Bling Princess
Posts: 3411
 
Location: North Dakota | I don't know about you, but what a crock of BS. I know it's just a back number but still. If the money counts to get them there, than why shouldn't it count towards how the back numbers are given out?? Some things make zero sense to me, this being one of them. |
|
| |
|
 The best bad guy on the internet
Posts: 3519
Location: Arizona | I was just reading all the FB comments. It just makes no sense!! How disappointing for Tiany!! |
|
| |
|
  Champ
Posts: 19623
Location: Peg-Leg Julia Grimm | I didn't know the American had anything to do with the PRCA. But ya the rest is BS. If it counts for the NFR then it should count for the back number. Petty BS is what it is. Can't have a woman being the #1 back number can we. |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 150
| OregonBR - 2017-10-25 5:22 PM
I didn't know the American had anything to do with the PRCA. But ya the rest is BS. If it counts for the NFR then it should count for the back number. Petty BS is what it is. Can't have a woman being the #1 back number can we.
Especially two years in a row! Why change now when the season over? If they wanted to change should start in 2018 so everything would know the rule up front. |
|
| |
|
 Saint Stacey
| This has been a rule for awhile. The PRCA just finally decided to enforce it. What they screwed up was the timing. It should have been mentioned much sooner than 2 days before the end of the season.
The women are the only ones that get to count earnings from Houston and Calgary. So if you really want to split hairs here. Tiany was at $250,000 WITH her Houston and Calgary earnings. Sage Kimzey was at $237,000 WITHOUT any of his Houston and Calgary earnings. So if the men were allowed to count their money from those two rodeos then Sage would have been #1, not Tiany.
Keep in mind that the ladies of the WPRA are guests of the PRCA at the NFR. Before cussing the PRCA, maybe we should ask where was the WPRA during this? |
|
| |
|
Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| I'mlost - 2017-10-25 5:44 PM OregonBR - 2017-10-25 5:22 PM I didn't know the American had anything to do with the PRCA. But ya the rest is BS. If it counts for the NFR then it should count for the back number. Petty BS is what it is. Can't have a woman being the #1 back number can we. Especially two years in a row! Why change now when the season over? If they wanted to change should start in 2018 so everything would know the rule up front.[/quote It is the WPRA finals, not the American, I don’t know why I put American Edited by rodeomom3 2017-10-26 7:46 AM
|
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 113
| SKM - 2017-10-25 6:08 PM
This has been a rule for awhile. The PRCA just finally decided to enforce it. What they screwed up was the timing. It should have been mentioned much sooner than 2 days before the end of the season.
The women are the only ones that get to count earnings from Houston and Calgary. So if you really want to split hairs here. Tiany was at $250,000 WITH her Houston and Calgary earnings. Sage Kimzey was at $237,000 WITHOUT any of his Houston and Calgary earnings. So if the men were allowed to count their money from those two rodeos then Sage would have been #1, not Tiany.
Keep in mind that the ladies of the WPRA are guests of the PRCA at the NFR. Before cussing the PRCA, maybe we should ask where was the WPRA during this?
 |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 518
Location: from the valley | Unfortunately, if the rule was followed this would have not been an issue. It is hard to point fingers at either association, when I am sure both knew the rule. Ultimately, both associations are to blame. It just sucks that Tiany got the wrath of it.
|
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 542
| Well ya kno she might just actually win it for real next year..... she def has no lack of horse power |
|
| |
|
 Take a Picture
Posts: 12841
| rodeomom3 - 2017-10-25 6:12 PM
I'mlost - 2017-10-25 5:44 PM OregonBR - 2017-10-25 5:22 PM I didn't know the American had anything to do with the PRCA. But ya the rest is BS. If it counts for the NFR then it should count for the back number. Petty BS is what it is. Can't have a woman being the #1 back number can we. Especially two years in a row! Why change now when the season over? If they wanted to change should start in 2018 so everything would know the rule up front.
The WPRA FINALS are in Waco I believe. The ladies have all kinds of events. Breakaway, tiedown and team roping to name a few |
|
| |
|
Saint Stacey
| streakysox - 2017-10-25 8:11 PM
rodeomom3 - 2017-10-25 6:12 PM
I'mlost - 2017-10-25 5:44 PM OregonBR - 2017-10-25 5:22 PM I didn't know the American had anything to do with the PRCA. But ya the rest is BS. If it counts for the NFR then it should count for the back number. Petty BS is what it is. Can't have a woman being the #1 back number can we. Especially two years in a row! Why change now when the season over? If they wanted to change should start in 2018 so everything would know the rule up front.
The WPRA FINALS are in Waco I believe. The ladies have all kinds of events. Breakaway, tiedown and team roping to name a few
Yet the WPRA scheduled it over the Prairie Circuit Finals so the qualifiers had to chose where to run. Given the WPRA Finals had a berth into Houston...that was a pretty crappy thing to do to the Prairie girls. I can’t remember the details, but there were a lot of very unhappy Prairie girls.
Seriously the PRCA and WPRA need to ban together and pull it together. |
|
| |
|
Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| SKM - 2017-10-25 10:23 PM streakysox - 2017-10-25 8:11 PM rodeomom3 - 2017-10-25 6:12 PM I'mlost - 2017-10-25 5:44 PM OregonBR - 2017-10-25 5:22 PM I didn't know the American had anything to do with the PRCA. But ya the rest is BS. If it counts for the NFR then it should count for the back number. Petty BS is what it is. Can't have a woman being the #1 back number can we. Especially two years in a row! Why change now when the season over? If they wanted to change should start in 2018 so everything would know the rule up front. The WPRA FINALS are in Waco I believe. The ladies have all kinds of events. Breakaway, tiedown and team roping to name a few Yet the WPRA scheduled it over the Prairie Circuit Finals so the qualifiers had to chose where to run. Given the WPRA Finals had a berth into Houston...that was a pretty crappy thing to do to the Prairie girls. I can’t remember the details, but there were a lot of very unhappy Prairie girls. Seriously the PRCA and WPRA need to ban together and pull it together.
I read many comments that they asked for a time slot on another day that would allow them to try and make both and WPRA would not accommodate them. The announcement that the top 2 average card holders qualify for Houston was also made last minute, they extended entries to the finals to allow more to enter but at that point commitments/plans had already been made. |
|
| |
|
 Expert
Posts: 1718
Location: Southeast Louisiana | Is there maybe a Facebook page or e-mail address that someone can post where we can send our grievances?!?! So our opinions, as fans, are not falling on deaf ears. I'm not a wpra member, but I do follow the pro girls and I would like to direct some comments to someone who is in a position to make a difference! It's just wrong. If they were going to make a change, they should have said something like "ok, we are going to change the rule to what everyone is used to and award back numbers accordingly." They should not have yanked the rug out from under her feet like that. It's just wrong. |
|
| |
|
 Extreme Veteran
Posts: 488
Location: torrington, wy | SKM - 2017-10-25 6:08 PM This has been a rule for awhile. The PRCA just finally decided to enforce it. What they screwed up was the timing. It should have been mentioned much sooner than 2 days before the end of the season. The women are the only ones that get to count earnings from Houston and Calgary. So if you really want to split hairs here. Tiany was at $250,000 WITH her Houston and Calgary earnings. Sage Kimzey was at $237,000 WITHOUT any of his Houston and Calgary earnings. So if the men were allowed to count their money from those two rodeos then Sage would have been #1, not Tiany. Keep in mind that the ladies of the WPRA are guests of the PRCA at the NFR. Before cussing the PRCA, maybe we should ask where was the WPRA during this?
You said it all. If you want to play you play by their rules not the WPRA's
|
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1718
Location: Southeast Louisiana | Someone needs to produce a Tiany Schuster protest shirt with her wearing NFR back number 1. Tastefully, of course. I know I'd buy one. |
|
| |
|
 I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | SKM - 2017-10-25 10:23 PM
streakysox - 2017-10-25 8:11 PM
rodeomom3 - 2017-10-25 6:12 PM
I'mlost - 2017-10-25 5:44 PM OregonBR - 2017-10-25 5:22 PM I didn't know the American had anything to do with the PRCA. But ya the rest is BS. If it counts for the NFR then it should count for the back number. Petty BS is what it is. Can't have a woman being the #1 back number can we. Especially two years in a row! Why change now when the season over? If they wanted to change should start in 2018 so everything would know the rule up front.
The WPRA FINALS are in Waco I believe. The ladies have all kinds of events. Breakaway, tiedown and team roping to name a few
Yet the WPRA scheduled it over the Prairie Circuit Finals so the qualifiers had to chose where to run. Given the WPRA Finals had a berth into Houston...that was a pretty crappy thing to do to the Prairie girls. I can’t remember the details, but there were a lot of very unhappy Prairie girls.
Seriously the PRCA and WPRA need to ban together and pull it together.
You can only have one Chief and when the barrel racing was taken over by the PRCA, everyone had a come apart. In the 70’s the WPRA Fought hard to be part of the PRCA and when it finally happened they were having fits. Can’t have it both ways. |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 113
| Nita - 2017-10-26 9:00 AM
Someone needs to produce a Tiany Schuster protest shirt with her wearing NFR back number 1. Tastefully, of course. I know I'd buy one.
Why? She isn't number 1 per the rules |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 113
| Nevertooold - 2017-10-26 9:15 AM
SKM - 2017-10-25 10:23 PM
streakysox - 2017-10-25 8:11 PM
rodeomom3 - 2017-10-25 6:12 PM
I'mlost - 2017-10-25 5:44 PM OregonBR - 2017-10-25 5:22 PM I didn't know the American had anything to do with the PRCA. But ya the rest is BS. If it counts for the NFR then it should count for the back number. Petty BS is what it is. Can't have a woman being the #1 back number can we. Especially two years in a row! Why change now when the season over? If they wanted to change should start in 2018 so everything would know the rule up front.
The WPRA FINALS are in Waco I believe. The ladies have all kinds of events. Breakaway, tiedown and team roping to name a few
Yet the WPRA scheduled it over the Prairie Circuit Finals so the qualifiers had to chose where to run. Given the WPRA Finals had a berth into Houston...that was a pretty crappy thing to do to the Prairie girls. I can’t remember the details, but there were a lot of very unhappy Prairie girls.
Seriously the PRCA and WPRA need to ban together and pull it together.
You can only have one Chief and when the barrel racing was taken over by the PRCA, everyone had a come apart. In the 70’s the WPRA Fought hard to be part of the PRCA and when it finally happened they were having fits. Can’t have it both ways.
My favorite year running pro has been the year of the PWBR. |
|
| |
|
The best bad guy on the internet
Posts: 3519
Location: Arizona | Like someone mentioned on FB, maybe the PBR, WPRA, & The USTRC need to get together and have one big Finals. |
|
| |
|
Saint Stacey
| Nita - 2017-10-26 6:52 AM
Is there maybe a Facebook page or e-mail address that someone can post where we can send our grievances?!?! So our opinions, as fans, are not falling on deaf ears. I'm not a wpra member, but I do follow the pro girls and I would like to direct some comments to someone who is in a position to make a difference! It's just wrong. If they were going to make a change, they should have said something like "ok, we are going to change the rule to what everyone is used to and award back numbers accordingly." They should not have yanked the rug out from under her feet like that. It's just wrong.
The rule was already there. The PRCA just never enforced it. There was no “change” other than to enforce a rule on the books.
So, what you are saying is that you want to contact the PRCA (since the NFR is THEIR rodeo and they INVITE the WPRA ladies as their GUESTS) and you want to tell them that the WPRA guests shouldn’t have to follow the same rules as the PRCA men? I’m sure that will go over well.
My knee jerk reaction was to be mad too. But if you REALLY think about it, the PRCA was well within their rights to say that the women needed to follow the PRCA rules as far as the money earned applied to determining the back number at THEIR NFR.
Thank goodness this is only about a back number and taking the Houston and Calgary money out didn’t actually apply to the standings. |
|
| |
|
 A Somebody to Everybody
Posts: 41354
Location: Under The Big Sky Of Texas | SKM - 2017-10-26 5:06 PM Nita - 2017-10-26 6:52 AM Is there maybe a Facebook page or e-mail address that someone can post where we can send our grievances?!?! So our opinions, as fans, are not falling on deaf ears. I'm not a wpra member, but I do follow the pro girls and I would like to direct some comments to someone who is in a position to make a difference! It's just wrong. If they were going to make a change, they should have said something like "ok, we are going to change the rule to what everyone is used to and award back numbers accordingly." They should not have yanked the rug out from under her feet like that. It's just wrong. The rule was already there. The PRCA just never enforced it. There was no “change” other than to enforce a rule on the books. So, what you are saying is that you want to contact the PRCA (since the NFR is THEIR rodeo and they INVITE the WPRA ladies as their GUESTS ) and you want to tell them that the WPRA guests shouldn’t have to follow the same rules as the PRCA men? I’m sure that will go over well. My knee jerk reaction was to be mad too. But if you REALLY think about it, the PRCA was well within their rights to say that the women needed to follow the PRCA rules as far as the money earned applied to determining the back number at THEIR NFR. Thank goodness this is only about a back number and taking the Houston and Calgary money out didn’t actually apply to the standings.
And Thank goodness it was only all about the back numbers, it could have been alot worst like taking Barrel's out of the PRCA now that would be a hard subject to take.. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1718
Location: Southeast Louisiana | SKM - 2017-10-26 5:06 PM
Nita - 2017-10-26 6:52 AM
Is there maybe a Facebook page or e-mail address that someone can post where we can send our grievances?!?! So our opinions, as fans, are not falling on deaf ears. I'm not a wpra member, but I do follow the pro girls and I would like to direct some comments to someone who is in a position to make a difference! It's just wrong. If they were going to make a change, they should have said something like "ok, we are going to change the rule to what everyone is used to and award back numbers accordingly." They should not have yanked the rug out from under her feet like that. It's just wrong.
The rule was already there. The PRCA just never enforced it. There was no “change” other than to enforce a rule on the books.
So, what you are saying is that you want to contact the PRCA (since the NFR is THEIR rodeo and they INVITE the WPRA ladies as their GUESTS ) and you want to tell them that the WPRA guests shouldn’t have to follow the same rules as the PRCA men? I’m sure that will go over well.
My knee jerk reaction was to be mad too. But if you REALLY think about it, the PRCA was well within their rights to say that the women needed to follow the PRCA rules as far as the money earned applied to determining the back number at THEIR NFR.
Thank goodness this is only about a back number and taking the Houston and Calgary money out didn’t actually apply to the standings.
Right. The PRCA never enforced it before. That IS what changed.
I'd rather be able to tell them directly how we feel, as fans.
You're right. They were within their rights. It's still not right and it still makes me mad. As a fan of barrel racing. I don't think we should just be quiet and feel lucky they let the ladies participate. |
|
| |
|
Saint Stacey
| Nita - 2017-10-26 5:00 PM
SKM - 2017-10-26 5:06 PM
Nita - 2017-10-26 6:52 AM
Is there maybe a Facebook page or e-mail address that someone can post where we can send our grievances?!?! So our opinions, as fans, are not falling on deaf ears. I'm not a wpra member, but I do follow the pro girls and I would like to direct some comments to someone who is in a position to make a difference! It's just wrong. If they were going to make a change, they should have said something like "ok, we are going to change the rule to what everyone is used to and award back numbers accordingly." They should not have yanked the rug out from under her feet like that. It's just wrong.
The rule was already there. The PRCA just never enforced it. There was no “change” other than to enforce a rule on the books.
So, what you are saying is that you want to contact the PRCA (since the NFR is THEIR rodeo and they INVITE the WPRA ladies as their GUESTS ) and you want to tell them that the WPRA guests shouldn’t have to follow the same rules as the PRCA men? I’m sure that will go over well.
My knee jerk reaction was to be mad too. But if you REALLY think about it, the PRCA was well within their rights to say that the women needed to follow the PRCA rules as far as the money earned applied to determining the back number at THEIR NFR.
Thank goodness this is only about a back number and taking the Houston and Calgary money out didn’t actually apply to the standings.
Right. The PRCA never enforced it before. That IS what changed.
I'd rather be able to tell them directly how we feel, as fans.
You're right. They were within their rights. It's still not right and it still makes me mad. As a fan of barrel racing. I don't think we should just be quiet and feel lucky they let the ladies participate.
But we are lucky that they let the WPRA compete. The WPRA is its own association and not governed by the PRCA. If the WPRA wants to continue to be invited to participate at the NFR, they need to play by the rules the PRCA has in place.
You simply can’t be invited to someone house for dinner and tell them you expect a steak if they are serving chicken. You eat what they offer and be happy you were invited in the first place. |
|
| |
|
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | I don't have any problem with it. The rule should have been enforced before now is the only problem I have. If they changed the counts back to cover the other rodeos, Sage would be wearing #1. |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1718
Location: Southeast Louisiana | SKM - 2017-10-26 7:01 PM
Nita - 2017-10-26 5:00 PM
SKM - 2017-10-26 5:06 PM
Nita - 2017-10-26 6:52 AM
Is there maybe a Facebook page or e-mail address that someone can post where we can send our grievances?!?! So our opinions, as fans, are not falling on deaf ears. I'm not a wpra member, but I do follow the pro girls and I would like to direct some comments to someone who is in a position to make a difference! It's just wrong. If they were going to make a change, they should have said something like "ok, we are going to change the rule to what everyone is used to and award back numbers accordingly." They should not have yanked the rug out from under her feet like that. It's just wrong.
The rule was already there. The PRCA just never enforced it. There was no “change” other than to enforce a rule on the books.
So, what you are saying is that you want to contact the PRCA (since the NFR is THEIR rodeo and they INVITE the WPRA ladies as their GUESTS ) and you want to tell them that the WPRA guests shouldn’t have to follow the same rules as the PRCA men? I’m sure that will go over well.
My knee jerk reaction was to be mad too. But if you REALLY think about it, the PRCA was well within their rights to say that the women needed to follow the PRCA rules as far as the money earned applied to determining the back number at THEIR NFR.
Thank goodness this is only about a back number and taking the Houston and Calgary money out didn’t actually apply to the standings.
Right. The PRCA never enforced it before. That IS what changed.
I'd rather be able to tell them directly how we feel, as fans.
You're right. They were within their rights. It's still not right and it still makes me mad. As a fan of barrel racing. I don't think we should just be quiet and feel lucky they let the ladies participate.
But we are lucky that they let the WPRA compete. The WPRA is its own association and not governed by the PRCA. If the WPRA wants to continue to be invited to participate at the NFR, they need to play by the rules the PRCA has in place.
You simply can’t be invited to someone house for dinner and tell them you expect a steak if they are serving chicken. You eat what they offer and be happy you were invited in the first place.
Yeah, but I wouldn't put up with being told I was lucky I was even invited to dinner. As though I was beneath them and they were doing me a favor.
But, that's not really a good analogy. It's kind of an over simplification.
Excluding barrel racing from the NFR would alienate close to half of the fans who go to watch the NFR. It's a very big deal, the back numbers, and it's directly tied to endorsements and name recognition for future business endeavors.
I understand your point. I really do. I just don't feel like they're lucky to be invited to compete. Barrel racing only adds to the draw of fans to the NFR. I do agree with you that they need to play by the rules. The PRCA needs to be consistent with the application of those rules. Like you said in a previous post, their timing was terrible. I'm just more mad about it, lol. I just see it as a huge slap in the face to someone who worked very hard to get there, only to be told the PRCA is going to go ahead and enforce that rule this year.
Edited by Nita 2017-10-27 1:03 AM
|
|
| |
|
Saint Stacey
| Nita - 2017-10-26 9:50 PM
SKM - 2017-10-26 7:01 PM
Nita - 2017-10-26 5:00 PM
SKM - 2017-10-26 5:06 PM
Nita - 2017-10-26 6:52 AM
Is there maybe a Facebook page or e-mail address that someone can post where we can send our grievances?!?! So our opinions, as fans, are not falling on deaf ears. I'm not a wpra member, but I do follow the pro girls and I would like to direct some comments to someone who is in a position to make a difference! It's just wrong. If they were going to make a change, they should have said something like "ok, we are going to change the rule to what everyone is used to and award back numbers accordingly." They should not have yanked the rug out from under her feet like that. It's just wrong.
The rule was already there. The PRCA just never enforced it. There was no “change” other than to enforce a rule on the books.
So, what you are saying is that you want to contact the PRCA (since the NFR is THEIR rodeo and they INVITE the WPRA ladies as their GUESTS ) and you want to tell them that the WPRA guests shouldn’t have to follow the same rules as the PRCA men? I’m sure that will go over well.
My knee jerk reaction was to be mad too. But if you REALLY think about it, the PRCA was well within their rights to say that the women needed to follow the PRCA rules as far as the money earned applied to determining the back number at THEIR NFR.
Thank goodness this is only about a back number and taking the Houston and Calgary money out didn’t actually apply to the standings.
Right. The PRCA never enforced it before. That IS what changed.
I'd rather be able to tell them directly how we feel, as fans.
You're right. They were within their rights. It's still not right and it still makes me mad. As a fan of barrel racing. I don't think we should just be quiet and feel lucky they let the ladies participate.
But we are lucky that they let the WPRA compete. The WPRA is its own association and not governed by the PRCA. If the WPRA wants to continue to be invited to participate at the NFR, they need to play by the rules the PRCA has in place.
You simply can’t be invited to someone house for dinner and tell them you expect a steak if they are serving chicken. You eat what they offer and be happy you were invited in the first place.
Yeah, but I wouldn't put up with being told I was lucky I was even invited to dinner. As though I was beneath them and they were doing me a favor.
But, that's not really a good analogy. It's kind of an over simplification.
Excluding barrel racing from the NFR would alienate close to half of the fans who go to watch the NFR. It's a very big deal, the back numbers, and it's directly tied to endorsements and name recognition for future business endeavors.
I understand your point. I really do. I just don't feel like they're lucky to be invited to compete. Barrel racing only adds to the draw of fans to the NFR. I do agree with you that they need to play by the rules. The PRCA needs to be consistent with the application of those rules. Like you said in a previous post, their timing was terrible. I'm just more mad about it, lol. I just see it as a huge slap in the face to someone who worked very hard to get there, only to be told the PRCA is going to go ahead and enforce that rule this year.
Most people that purchase seats at Thomas & Mack don’t even know who is who as far as contestants go. They are there for the NFR Vegas experience.
So are you saying that Sage Kimzey didn’t work hard? Technically he did win more money. But the set of rules he had to follow didn’t show that fact. I’m pretty sure that everyone that qualified for the NFR worked hard to get there.
Edited by SKM 2017-10-27 6:56 AM
|
|
| |
|
 The Worst Seller Ever
Posts: 4138
Location: Oklahoma | No reason to get worked up about it really. Rules are rules for a reason, even if they haven't been enforced in a while. You can't co-sanction with someone and expect to bring your own rules to the table (that is not "fair").
No reason to add to the whiney culture we have now. If you don't like it move on and start your own association...wait, that didn't work... So either be a part of the game and play by the rules or do something different. |
|
| |
|
 Blond Bombshell..
Posts: 6628
Location: Hill Country of TEXAS!! | MeepMeep - 2017-10-26 8:59 AM Nevertooold - 2017-10-26 9:15 AM SKM - 2017-10-25 10:23 PM streakysox - 2017-10-25 8:11 PM rodeomom3 - 2017-10-25 6:12 PM I'mlost - 2017-10-25 5:44 PM OregonBR - 2017-10-25 5:22 PM I didn't know the American had anything to do with the PRCA. But ya the rest is BS. If it counts for the NFR then it should count for the back number. Petty BS is what it is. Can't have a woman being the #1 back number can we. Especially two years in a row! Why change now when the season over? If they wanted to change should start in 2018 so everything would know the rule up front. The WPRA FINALS are in Waco I believe. The ladies have all kinds of events. Breakaway, tiedown and team roping to name a few Yet the WPRA scheduled it over the Prairie Circuit Finals so the qualifiers had to chose where to run. Given the WPRA Finals had a berth into Houston...that was a pretty crappy thing to do to the Prairie girls. I can’t remember the details, but there were a lot of very unhappy Prairie girls. Seriously the PRCA and WPRA need to ban together and pull it together. You can only have one Chief and when the barrel racing was taken over by the PRCA, everyone had a come apart. In the 70’s the WPRA Fought hard to be part of the PRCA and when it finally happened they were having fits. Can’t have it both ways. My favorite year running pro has been the year of the PWBR.
I agree. That was a nice year for us! |
|
| |
|
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | I still can't get over that the WPRA fought for years to be part of the PRCA and once it happened they had a hissy fit and once again became an invited guest. IMO...very Dumb move. |
|
| |
|
Location: In my own little world | Nita - 2017-10-26 5:00 PM
SKM - 2017-10-26 5:06 PM
Nita - 2017-10-26 6:52 AM
Is there maybe a Facebook page or e-mail address that someone can post where we can send our grievances?!?! So our opinions, as fans, are not falling on deaf ears. I'm not a wpra member, but I do follow the pro girls and I would like to direct some comments to someone who is in a position to make a difference! It's just wrong. If they were going to make a change, they should have said something like "ok, we are going to change the rule to what everyone is used to and award back numbers accordingly." They should not have yanked the rug out from under her feet like that. It's just wrong.
The rule was already there. The PRCA just never enforced it. There was no “change” other than to enforce a rule on the books.
So, what you are saying is that you want to contact the PRCA (since the NFR is THEIR rodeo and they INVITE the WPRA ladies as their GUESTS ) and you want to tell them that the WPRA guests shouldn’t have to follow the same rules as the PRCA men? I’m sure that will go over well.
My knee jerk reaction was to be mad too. But if you REALLY think about it, the PRCA was well within their rights to say that the women needed to follow the PRCA rules as far as the money earned applied to determining the back number at THEIR NFR.
Thank goodness this is only about a back number and taking the Houston and Calgary money out didn’t actually apply to the standings.
Right. The PRCA never enforced it before. That IS what changed.
I'd rather be able to tell them directly how we feel, as fans.
You're right. They were within their rights. It's still not right and it still makes me mad. As a fan of barrel racing. I don't think we should just be quiet and feel lucky they let the ladies participate.
As you stated "as a fan"... exactly how does this affect you as a fan? The same 15 girls will be there to watch, the same 15 in each event will be in the grand entry, it won't change your NFR shopping experience. It changes nothing that I can see for any fans other than your opinion differs from that of the implementation of something that has been in place but not followed. I can't see the PRCA taking the time to listen to your arguments and protests. If the issue is to be looked into, it should be that of the WPRA, unless they were well aware of it in advance too. If you want to question something...start there! |
|
| |
|
 Ms. Elvis
Posts: 9606
Location: Running barrels or watching nascar | Dash4KJ - 2017-10-27 7:48 AM
MeepMeep - 2017-10-26 8:59 AM Nevertooold - 2017-10-26 9:15 AM SKM - 2017-10-25 10:23 PM streakysox - 2017-10-25 8:11 PM rodeomom3 - 2017-10-25 6:12 PM I'mlost - 2017-10-25 5:44 PM OregonBR - 2017-10-25 5:22 PM I didn't know the American had anything to do with the PRCA. But ya the rest is BS. If it counts for the NFR then it should count for the back number. Petty BS is what it is. Can't have a woman being the #1 back number can we. Especially two years in a row! Why change now when the season over? If they wanted to change should start in 2018 so everything would know the rule up front. The WPRA FINALS are in Waco I believe. The ladies have all kinds of events. Breakaway, tiedown and team roping to name a few Yet the WPRA scheduled it over the Prairie Circuit Finals so the qualifiers had to chose where to run. Given the WPRA Finals had a berth into Houston...that was a pretty crappy thing to do to the Prairie girls. I can’t remember the details, but there were a lot of very unhappy Prairie girls. Seriously the PRCA and WPRA need to ban together and pull it together. You can only have one Chief and when the barrel racing was taken over by the PRCA, everyone had a come apart. In the 70’s the WPRA Fought hard to be part of the PRCA and when it finally happened they were having fits. Can’t have it both ways. My favorite year running pro has been the year of the PWBR.
I'm curious. Why did you like the PWBR so much? |
|
| |
|
 Not Afraid to Work
Posts: 4717
| Is there some kind of incentive for being #1 except "bragging rights?"
I am asking because I feel I am missing the point on why everyone is so riled up? I agree they should have enforced the rule from the beginning and likely should have given a bit more notice on the issue but just curious if I am missing something. |
|
| |
|
 Off the Wall Wacky
Posts: 2981
Location: Louisiana | stayceem - 2017-10-27 3:59 PM
Is there some kind of incentive for being #1 except "bragging rights?"
I am asking because I feel I am missing the point on why everyone is so riled up? I agree they should have enforced the rule from the beginning and likely should have given a bit more notice on the issue but just curious if I am missing something.
Just the social media drama of the week LOL.
I think Tiany sounded very eloquent in her response when asked about it. She admitted she wasn't aware that the rule existed, but that she did in fact agree with the rule.
She also said she wished people wouldn't say it only affected her, because it affected every contestant at the NFR this year. She said she only wished she had known sooner, just so it wouldn't have been a surprise to her-but also stated that her ignorance of the rule wasn't an excuse.
I don't know her personally, but I feel like her head is in the right place. She is unfazed by this, and I imagine will proudly accept and wear whatever her new back number is.
I think we could all learn from this situation... I have seen MANY parents or contestants get angry at a rodeo/barrel race when a rule they didn't know existed is enforced-then the president of the association gets his or her name stomped on.
Perhaps it has been an oversight the past several years, since the money counts for the ladies, they didn't think to subtract it back out for back numbers. But just bc it wasn't previously enforced isn't a reason to not enforce it.
Just my rule-book-reading, rule-following-self opinion!! So don't shoot me! |
|
| |
|
Saint Stacey
| stayceem - 2017-10-27 2:59 PM
Is there some kind of incentive for being #1 except "bragging rights?"
I am asking because I feel I am missing the point on why everyone is so riled up? I agree they should have enforced the rule from the beginning and likely should have given a bit more notice on the issue but just curious if I am missing something.
Pretty much just bragging rights. But the amount of money won is what determines who gets to carry the state flag in the grand entry. High money earner carries their state flag.
I know on Facebook that people were saying the girls should just protest by not being in the grand entry. That’s horrible advice. For one thing, it’s a HUGE fine to miss the grand entry. For another, everyone that’s been in it says that it’s just an awesome experience and they can’t describe the feeling of being part of it. |
|
| |
|
Veteran
Posts: 150
| Just kind of a bummer I was excited to see a woman wearing the number 1! Just wish they would’ve left it the way it was this year and said moving forward we’ll do it this way. I see Kassi has last back number. That confused me for a bit but realized most of her money was Houston money. Very touching that they left #58 open to pay tribute to the shooting victims. |
|
| |
|
I Prefer to Live in Fantasy Land
Posts: 64864
Location: In the Hills of Texas | stayceem - 2017-10-27 3:59 PM Is there some kind of incentive for being #1 except "bragging rights?" I am asking because I feel I am missing the point on why everyone is so riled up? I agree they should have enforced the rule from the beginning and likely should have given a bit more notice on the issue but just curious if I am missing something.
Sponsors |
|
| |
|
Elite Veteran
Posts: 865
| Dash4KJ - 2017-10-27 9:48 AM
MeepMeep - 2017-10-26 8:59 AM Nevertooold - 2017-10-26 9:15 AM SKM - 2017-10-25 10:23 PM streakysox - 2017-10-25 8:11 PM rodeomom3 - 2017-10-25 6:12 PM I'mlost - 2017-10-25 5:44 PM OregonBR - 2017-10-25 5:22 PM I didn't know the American had anything to do with the PRCA. But ya the rest is BS. If it counts for the NFR then it should count for the back number. Petty BS is what it is. Can't have a woman being the #1 back number can we. Especially two years in a row! Why change now when the season over? If they wanted to change should start in 2018 so everything would know the rule up front. The WPRA FINALS are in Waco I believe. The ladies have all kinds of events. Breakaway, tiedown and team roping to name a few Yet the WPRA scheduled it over the Prairie Circuit Finals so the qualifiers had to chose where to run. Given the WPRA Finals had a berth into Houston...that was a pretty crappy thing to do to the Prairie girls. I can’t remember the details, but there were a lot of very unhappy Prairie girls. Seriously the PRCA and WPRA need to ban together and pull it together. You can only have one Chief and when the barrel racing was taken over by the PRCA, everyone had a come apart. In the 70’s the WPRA Fought hard to be part of the PRCA and when it finally happened they were having fits. Can’t have it both ways. My favorite year running pro has been the year of the PWBR.
I AGREE THAT IT WAS A GREAT YEAR WHEN IT WAS PWBR! WISH PRCA COULD TAKE OVER AGAIN. IT WAS WAY TOO SHORT LIVED. |
|
| |
|
 Elite Veteran
Posts: 889
Location: on the fine line between insanity and geniusness | Here’s my thought... Tiany was only #1 when she got to count rodeos that the PRCA guys didn’t. If they would have counted everyone’s winnings from all rodeos she wouldn’t be #1?!? Why raise a stink because they didn’t give her something she truly didn’t earn?? She set a massive single season earnings record! Be happy with what you’re blessed with! |
|
| |
|
Location: Not Where I Want to Be | Ashley Lynn - 2017-10-28 7:52 PM Here’s my thought... Tiany was only #1 when she got to count rodeos that the PRCA guys didn’t. If they would have counted everyone’s winnings from all rodeos she wouldn’t be #1?!? Why raise a stink because they didn’t give her something she truly didn’t earn?? She set a massive single season earnings record! Be happy with what you’re blessed with!
winna winna chicken dinna
|
|
| |
|
Shelter Dog Lover
Posts: 10277
| Ashley Lynn - 2017-10-28 6:52 PM Here’s my thought... Tiany was only #1 when she got to count rodeos that the PRCA guys didn’t. If they would have counted everyone’s winnings from all rodeos she wouldn’t be #1?!? Why raise a stink because they didn’t give her something she truly didn’t earn?? She set a massive single season earnings record! Be happy with what you’re blessed with!
Yep, you are right, I should have researched it more before posting |
|
| |
|
Nut Case Expert
Posts: 9305
Location: Tulsa, Ok | If it was me I would be way more interested in counting $$s than back numbers. Just saying!! |
|
| |
So the PRCA decided to change how back numbers are awarded