|
|
 Popped
Posts: 20421
 
Location: LuluLand~along I64 Indiana | im curious (because im not an everyday follower) just a watcher in Dec but what rodeos did Nancy win to only have to hit 26 and be 6th in the standings??? the other top girls are in the 80's and 90's rodeo count.  |
|
| |
|
  That's White "Man" to You
Posts: 5515
| I think it was rodeo Houston. Again. |
|
| |
|
 Expert
Posts: 1525
 
| 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. |
|
| |
|
 Own It and Move On
Location: The edge of no where | 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.
I'm confused....I was pretty sure they could count 100 rodeos? (that is the current limit.)  |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1525
| MS2011 - 2015-10-28 1:39 PM 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. I'm confused....I was pretty sure they could count 100 rodeos? (that is the current limit.)
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. |
|
| |
|
Own It and Move On
Location: The edge of no where | MOTIVATED - 2015-10-28 1:42 PM MS2011 - 2015-10-28 1:39 PM 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. I'm confused....I was pretty sure they could count 100 rodeos? (that is the current limit.)
UGH..... if you're talented (and lucky) enough to make it in 20 rodeos..............then more power to ya! |
|
| |
|
Location: In my own little world | 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 |
|
| |
|
Expert
Posts: 1525
| 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...
Edited by MOTIVATED 2015-10-28 2:04 PM
|
|
| |
|
I just read the headlines
Posts: 4483
| 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
Completely agree with you. |
|
| |
|
 Extreme Veteran
Posts: 434
Location: Northwest Florida | 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!
|
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 393
| 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!
Calgary helped with that as did Houston for Nancy |
|
| |
|
I Am a Snake Killer
Posts: 1927
Location: Golden Gulf Coast of Texas | I just wished they wouldn't count the limited or invitation rodeos. Not fair when everyone doesn't have a chance to run at that money. But I don't think there should be a minimum. |
|
| |
|
 BHW New Catch of the Day
Posts: 9884
Location: Missouri | 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? |
|
| |
|
 I Chore in Chucks
Posts: 2882
Location: MD | 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?
thats how I read it. |
|
| |
|
New Info Detective
Posts: 1551
| It's a ridiculous proposal. Do away with counting the big bonus and the limited rodeos! Everything is more fair that way! To force someone to make a certain amount of runs on possibly an older horse or even a young horse, isn't in the horse's best interest. Just my opinion. |
|
| |
|
| 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. |
|
| |
|
The Resident Destroyer of Liberal Logic
Location: PNW | Crowned Image - 2015-10-29 12:37 PM
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?
thats how I read it.
Ditto. |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 393
| 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.
Calgary IS inventational! It is solely up to Calgary who competes. |
|
| |
|
| SassyPirate - 2015-10-29 2:24 PM 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. Calgary IS inventational! It is solely up to Calgary who competes.
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:Ladies Barrel Racing:
2014 Calgary Stampede Champion
Top six (6) from the 2014 WPRA pro rodeo final standings (drop down until filled)
Top four (4) from the 2014 CPRA Final standings (drop down until filled)
Top four (4) from the 2014 WPRA Tour Final standings (drop down until filled)
Top four (4) from the 2015 WPRA Qualifications standings as of April 1 (drop down until filled)
2015 RNCFR Champion (drop down to four positions, (Finals Only) then go to the 2015 WPRA Qualifications standings as of April 1.)
|
|
| |
|
Location: In my own little world | Kaye - 2015-10-30 3:45 PM SassyPirate - 2015-10-29 2:24 PM 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. Calgary IS inventational! It is solely up to Calgary who competes.
Ladies Barrel Racing:
2014 Calgary Stampede Champion
Top six (6) from the 2014 WPRA pro rodeo final standings (drop down until filled)
Top four (4) from the 2014 CPRA Final standings (drop down until filled)
Top four (4) from the 2014 WPRA Tour Final standings (drop down until filled)
Top four (4) from the 2015 WPRA Qualifications standings as of April 1 (drop down until filled)
2015 RNCFR Champion (drop down to four positions, (Finals Only) then go to the 2015 WPRA Qualifications standings as of April 1.)
Yikes! Easy Tiger... |
|
| |
Folks on-line