|
|
 Own It and Move On
 
Location: The edge of no where | Cindy Hamilton - 2014-12-02 12:36 PM Tinkerbell - 2014-12-01 8:57 PM SKM - 2014-12-01 5:00 PM HorseMommyFiveO - 2014-12-01 2:50 PMI don't know much, but it seems to be a good thing to count big payouts toward NFR qualifications. It allowed someone with a lot of talent to qualify without completely sacrificing time with her family (am I wrong about Nancy hunter)? Nancy Hunter is not the norm. She won Houston for $50,000 and also drew a decent check at Calgary. Yes, she has the talent to make it to the NFR even without those two rodeos. But Houston pretty much promised her a spot with minimal traveling. It did help her as far as family time went. But without the huge Houston and Calgary payout she would have had to travel. It's sort of sad that winning one of the only two huge rodeos pretty much guarantees you an NFR spot. Especially when they are limited to who can enter them. I guess I just feel that if those two count, they should be opened up like all the other rodeos and not just opened up to a small, hand selected few.
I dont think it should count.
I know I've read somewhere the rules to qualify for Calgary, it seems like they've tried to make it as fair as possible....which makes me ok with it counting toward the NFR.
Qualifying positions, fill order and drop down rules are as follows:
- 1 position = 2012 Calgary Champion
- 6 positions = 2012 WPRA Pro rodeo standings (Drop down until filled)
- 4 positions = 2012 CPRA standings (Drop down until filled)
- 4 positions = 2012 WPRA Tour standings (Drop down until filled)
- 4 positions = 2013 WPRA Qualifying standings (Drop down until filled)
- 1 position = 2012 RNCFR Champion (Drop down to 4 positions, (Finals only) then go to 2012 WPRA Tour standings)
I have no idea how Houston contestants are selected?
|
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 591
 
| Cindy Hamilton - 2014-12-02 10:36 AM Tinkerbell - 2014-12-01 8:57 PM SKM - 2014-12-01 5:00 PM HorseMommyFiveO - 2014-12-01 2:50 PMI don't know much, but it seems to be a good thing to count big payouts toward NFR qualifications. It allowed someone with a lot of talent to qualify without completely sacrificing time with her family (am I wrong about Nancy hunter)? Nancy Hunter is not the norm. She won Houston for $50,000 and also drew a decent check at Calgary. Yes, she has the talent to make it to the NFR even without those two rodeos. But Houston pretty much promised her a spot with minimal traveling. It did help her as far as family time went. But without the huge Houston and Calgary payout she would have had to travel. It's sort of sad that winning one of the only two huge rodeos pretty much guarantees you an NFR spot. Especially when they are limited to who can enter them. I guess I just feel that if those two count, they should be opened up like all the other rodeos and not just opened up to a small, hand selected few.
I dont think it should count.
Unfortunately it is unlikely, at least in the near future, that there will be "equal opportunity" for all. There are so many big paying rodeos that limit entires. San Antonio, Austin, Reno, the list goes on and on. Most of the Gold and Silver tour qualifiers are limited - I know Salinas is an exception, but there are more that are limited than are not. Another big problem is that at these BIG rodeos there is NO PARKING and NO WARM UP. There is no way they could accommodate 200+ barrel racers if entries were able to be unlimited. The ground is also a problem to keep consistent. The arenas and committees don't have the proper tools nor know how to use them to keep the ground even for that many girls. I sat in on some WPRA meetings where Carolyn spoke about how some committees were really offended by the barrel racers and don't want to deal with that many of them. The committees would rather not have the barrel racers because of their complaints and how rude they are! They are perfectly happy running 30-50 girls and want the BIG NAMES. If you really want to see change, we as barrel racers need to get in with the committees and HELP them, not just TELL them what we think needs to be changed and do nothing. There are always a lot of suggestions, but not a lot of actual work being done on those suggestions. Another reason WPRA doesn't want to let go of Calgary and Houston is so many women worked for so long and hard to get equal money for the women in rodeo. How does that look saying "well if we can't have everyone we don't want to come now". You can't always have your cake and eat it too! It would be insane for WPRA to dismiss these committees and the prize money they are now putting up because the committess will say "don't come" before they let everyone in. Maybe there are some better compromises that could be worked out than are currently being run, but it is a give and take and both sides and not going to get 100% of what they want. If we really want to see change then we as members need to go to our circuit directors (or become a circuit director!) and find out how to go to the committee meetings and see what we can do to help change for the better. But going to those meetings is a lot of work, for little recognition and even less pay - it's usually volunteer and very few people want to step up and do that for very long, unfortunately. JMO. |
|
| |
|
 Saint Stacey
| MS2011 - 2014-12-02 11:43 AM
Cindy Hamilton - 2014-12-02 12:36 PM Tinkerbell - 2014-12-01 8:57 PM SKM - 2014-12-01 5:00 PM HorseMommyFiveO - 2014-12-01 2:50 PMI don't know much, but it seems to be a good thing to count big payouts toward NFR qualifications. It allowed someone with a lot of talent to qualify without completely sacrificing time with her family (am I wrong about Nancy hunter)? Nancy Hunter is not the norm. She won Houston for $50,000 and also drew a decent check at Calgary. Yes, she has the talent to make it to the NFR even without those two rodeos. But Houston pretty much promised her a spot with minimal traveling. It did help her as far as family time went. But without the huge Houston and Calgary payout she would have had to travel. It's sort of sad that winning one of the only two huge rodeos pretty much guarantees you an NFR spot. Especially when they are limited to who can enter them. I guess I just feel that if those two count, they should be opened up like all the other rodeos and not just opened up to a small, hand selected few.
I dont think it should count.
Qualifying positions, fill order and drop down rules are as follows: - 1 position = 2012 Calgary Champion - 6 positions = 2012 WPRA Pro rodeo standings (Drop down until filled ) - 4 positions = 2012 CPRA standings (Drop down until filled ) - 4 positions = 2012 WPRA Tour standings (Drop down until filled ) - 4 positions = 2013 WPRA Qualifying standings (Drop down until filled ) - 1 position = 2012 RNCFR Champion (Drop down to 4 positions, (Finals only ) then go to 2012 WPRA Tour standings ) I have no idea how Houston contestants are selected?
How in earth is limiting a $100,000 winning check to 20 girls fair? |
|
| |
|
Saint Stacey
| Yes, the bigger rodeos do have certain limits. They are card carrying members only. They then usually fill with circuit standings from previous year,greatest money earned from previous year, current earnings. Numbers usually range from 60-100 or so. I have no problem with that. There's a big difference between 60+ and 20. Cheyenne does all card holders unlimited. Everyone runs in slack and they put the top 99 into the perfs with a short go in the last perf. |
|
| |
|
Elite Veteran
Posts: 747
| I think that the money that goes towards qualifying for the NFR should have to be won IN THE STATES. Money won in Canada shouldn't count... JMO |
|
| |
|
Own It and Move On
Location: The edge of no where | SKM - 2014-12-02 2:12 PM MS2011 - 2014-12-02 11:43 AM Cindy Hamilton - 2014-12-02 12:36 PM Tinkerbell - 2014-12-01 8:57 PM SKM - 2014-12-01 5:00 PM HorseMommyFiveO - 2014-12-01 2:50 PMI don't know much, but it seems to be a good thing to count big payouts toward NFR qualifications. It allowed someone with a lot of talent to qualify without completely sacrificing time with her family (am I wrong about Nancy hunter)? Nancy Hunter is not the norm. She won Houston for $50,000 and also drew a decent check at Calgary. Yes, she has the talent to make it to the NFR even without those two rodeos. But Houston pretty much promised her a spot with minimal traveling. It did help her as far as family time went. But without the huge Houston and Calgary payout she would have had to travel. It's sort of sad that winning one of the only two huge rodeos pretty much guarantees you an NFR spot. Especially when they are limited to who can enter them. I guess I just feel that if those two count, they should be opened up like all the other rodeos and not just opened up to a small, hand selected few.
I dont think it should count. Qualifying positions, fill order and drop down rules are as follows: - 1 position = 2012 Calgary Champion - 6 positions = 2012 WPRA Pro rodeo standings (Drop down until filled ) - 4 positions = 2012 CPRA standings (Drop down until filled ) - 4 positions = 2012 WPRA Tour standings (Drop down until filled ) - 4 positions = 2013 WPRA Qualifying standings (Drop down until filled ) - 1 position = 2012 RNCFR Champion (Drop down to 4 positions, (Finals only ) then go to 2012 WPRA Tour standings ) I have no idea how Houston contestants are selected? How in earth is limiting a $100,000 winning check to 20 girls fair?
While I'd love to see more contestant be able to compete for it at the rodeo, I do think it's at least a step in the right direction that they are giving competitors that have earned the right to be there a shot at some pretty incredible purses. It's freakin tough to get qualified to run there, so the rewards should be high for getting in. Not saying it's a perfect system, but I love seeing those that have met the qualification requirements win some real cash.
At least it's added money in the barrel race and they treat them well.....they can make barrel racing go the way of team roping if they choose to.
If we go with this train of thought... then it's unfair that the American will only take 10 to the Finals... LOL
Some of the girls have hauled to multiple qualifiers across the country this year to meet the requirements to run at Northside...where they will have to again qualify for a chance at the big $$$.
Edited by MS2011 2014-12-02 2:50 PM
|
|
| |
|
Saint Stacey
| You can't compare the American to Calgary. At least the American allows anyone and their brother the ability to try and qualify. Calgary doesn't allow anyone the chance to qualify. |
|
| |
|
 Expert
Posts: 5293
| I don't agree that only rodeos in the USA should count for NFR, when they crown a champion at the NFR its a WORLD champion, not a United States champion. I think other countries where they run barrels like Brazil, Italy etc should have huge added money races that count if we are going to truly crown a WORLD champion. |
|
| |
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 591
| SKM - 2014-12-02 1:16 PM
You can't compare the American to Calgary. At least the American allows anyone and their brother the ability to try and qualify. Calgary doesn't allow anyone the chance to qualify.
Calgary allows you to qualify, it just takes a bit more effort to do so. People can get in through the WPRA qualifying tour. Those approved rodeos are open to all. It is then the contestant who must do well once they get there. Also, if you go through your circuit and qualify to the RNCFR, that champion goes (or they drop down if there is a duplicate qualifier. The top 5 for the current World standings also go, so anyone that was in the top from the previous year's standings already are in so they drop down. To get in the top you have to haul and do well at the early winter rodeos to get in. So while it takes more effort, it is possible. |
|
| |
|
 Good Grief!
Posts: 6343
Location: Cap'n Joan Rotgut.....alberta | Burn n' Turn - 2014-12-03 1:37 PM
I think that the money that goes towards qualifying for the NFR should have to be won IN THE STATES. Money won in Canada shouldn't count... JMO
OUCH...............!!!!!!!!!
m |
|
| |
|
Saint Stacey
| 3 To Go - 2014-12-02 2:26 PM
SKM - 2014-12-02 1:16 PM
You can't compare the American to Calgary. At least the American allows anyone and their brother the ability to try and qualify. Calgary doesn't allow anyone the chance to qualify.
Calgary allows you to qualify, it just takes a bit more effort to do so. People can get in through the WPRA qualifying tour. Those approved rodeos are open to all. It is then the contestant who must do well once they get there. Also, if you go through your circuit and qualify to the RNCFR, that champion goes (or they drop down if there is a duplicate qualifier. The top 5 for the current World standings also go, so anyone that was in the top from the previous year's standings already are in so they drop down. To get in the top you have to haul and do well at the early winter rodeos to get in. So while it takes more effort, it is possible.
Yes, I do realize all of that. I think you missed me point. No big deal. To each their own :) |
|
| |
|
Own It and Move On
Location: The edge of no where | 3 To Go - 2014-12-02 3:26 PM SKM - 2014-12-02 1:16 PM You can't compare the American to Calgary. At least the American allows anyone and their brother the ability to try and qualify. Calgary doesn't allow anyone the chance to qualify. Calgary allows you to qualify, it just takes a bit more effort to do so. People can get in through the WPRA qualifying tour. Those approved rodeos are open to all. It is then the contestant who must do well once they get there. Also, if you go through your circuit and qualify to the RNCFR, that champion goes (or they drop down if there is a duplicate qualifier. The top 5 for the current World standings also go, so anyone that was in the top from the previous year's standings already are in so they drop down. To get in the top you have to haul and do well at the early winter rodeos to get in. So while it takes more effort, it is possible.
This was the point I was trying to make.... you DO qualify to get to run there. Any female can jump thru the hoops to get it done.
It's not a 'we invite whoever the committee likes or so & so's relatives'. It's pretty well laid out as to what you must accomplish to get to run there.
|
|
| |
|
Elite Veteran
Posts: 1034
| I still don't see what's 'unfair' here. If you want to qualify, go win the qualifiers. If you can't, I guess you're not .... Qualified. LOL!! It's not like they only let certain people in on non-competitive grounds. |
|
| |
|
 Queen Boobie mascot
Posts: 706
Location: Mayerthorpe Alberta | Burn n' Turn - 2014-12-02 2:37 PM I think that the money that goes towards qualifying for the NFR should have to be won IN THE STATES. Money won in Canada shouldn't count... JMO
hahahahaha the age old contraversy of which of the border the money is won at and who should be allowed to run where. Usually the shoe is on the other foot with this topic up here in Canada
|
|
| |
|
| How about the Champions Challenge rodeos? That's a really limited number and pretty decent payout for one run. Plus, it's only the top riders from the prior years. Again, it keeps the top girls on the top.  However, you have to notice that the top 15 this year DO have quite a few new faces-so I guess it's possible to do anything you set your mind to! |
|
| |
|
Too busy outside!
Posts: 5417
| SKM - 2014-12-02 1:21 PM Yes, the bigger rodeos do have certain limits. They are card carrying members only. They then usually fill with circuit standings from previous year,greatest money earned from previous year, current earnings. Numbers usually range from 60-100 or so. I have no problem with that. There's a big difference between 60+ and 20. Cheyenne does all card holders unlimited. Everyone runs in slack and they put the top 99 into the perfs with a short go in the last perf.
I personally think that they all should be like Cheyenne- it would only mean more added money for the winners- |
|
| |
Folks on-line