Possible VT solutions

[Amy McGovern]

Fact : Other venues don't have VTs.

Lin, that is not true.  There are at least two other active video programs out there, and those are just the ones I know of!  Sure, AKC doesn't have one (that I know of!) but others do.

[KarissaKS]

There are at least two other active video programs out there, and those are just the ones I know of!

Do those organizations also have live in-person trials, and treat qualifying runs the same from both programs?

Please share.

Major agility organizations in the USA:

AKC -- No video program
USDAA -- No video program
CPE -- No video program
UKI -- No video program
ASCA -- No video program
UKC -- No video program
DOCNA -- No video program
TDAA -- No video program

VALOR (Virtual Agility League) -- Only offers video submissions, no live trials
NDAL (National Dog Agility League) -- Only offers video submissions, no live trials

Did I miss any?

[Linda L]

I'd like to add something completely different to the discussion.  We run double-run format in live trials, getting two attempts at every course.  Why not allow two attempts at each course in video runs as well?  Only one would count as a Q.  Maybe add a box when submitting the video if it was attempt #1 or attempt #2. 

Linda Lavolette

[evlcek]

I do not agree with punishing people who don't have the time to take off from work/school to attend trials 5 hrs away by increasing the fee of vt runs by 100%.  In addition this increase will make vt run throughs cost more than a trial for groups who rent the field,  vts have been helping bring in people from other venues, that might not be ready for a full fledge trial.  So we would have to pay more per run.  And jr handlers would pay more than at a trial too. What's the point in increasing?  To denture people from running vt. It's not going to cause them to go to more trials

[Lorrie Stelz]

The cost is the same as a trial run at $10. That is not unaffordable.

[evlcek]

But the club gets some of that money. And not when you have to rent your rings

[Chris Nelson]

You’re only paying for Q’s.  If you send in $30 for three Q’s that is a lot different then paying $80 to go to a trial for a day just for a chance at those Q’s.

The reason for making it more expensive is to make it more like a trial.     
If you would rather give that $10 to a club for a trial run that makes me more than happy.

If you decide to not go to a trial in February and do VT instead,  it is going to cost you more.   


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Chris Nelson]

So because there isn't a trial close enough to drive to, you should be able to VT all your runs, and get the same 10 point Q for $5?

I'm sorry but I just don't follow the mind set of this very well.
The alternative, is there are no VT's period.   In which case you wouldn't be trialing at all.

NADAC is the only major venue offering this.   I don't follow that we need to take something that is already a courtesy, and stretch it to the absolute max that is has to work absolutely perfect for every single person.     

Money that comes in from VT makes up absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things for NADAC.    Even with the price increase it will barely make a dent in the operating expenses.

At this point I truly am wondering why, we as NADAC are spending this huge amount of time and effort on a program that is pure courtesy to our competitors and takes away a huge amount of time from us running NADAC for the absolute lack of positive influence it has from our point of view.

The most emails we get every week has to do with VT.    The most issues we have to deal with has to do with VT.    The most complaints we get is about VT.

We're trying to be nice here and keep this program going because it helps some people.     But if it continues to detract from the overall picture of NADAC it's future will more likely be a complete halt instead of a revamp.

NADAC did quite well for nearly 18+ years with no VT program.   Every other venue seems to be doing just peachy with no VT program.    So us keeping it going is us being exceptionally kind since the initial reaction when all these issues came to light was to dump it entirely.

[JimmyS.]

But the club gets some of that money. And not when you have to rent your rings

5 hrs of driving I assume is somewhere between 250-300 miles, yes? And I am assuming that’s one way, yes? I won’t right out all the figures but I would guess, depending on the type of vehicle, your spending $50-$100 just in gas. Plus food. Plus hotel if you are doing multiple days.

Now you pay between $8 and $15 a run for EVERY class you want to run.

Now it’s extremely possible you have a better Q rate than me but I would be happy with half the runs I enter to be Q’s.

Low ball #’s........22 classes (max a 3 day trial can have) is $176. Fuel = $50. Hotel = $150
Total: $376

Even if you could run 22 classes for VT and Q’d every single one, you have saved $156 and 10 hrs of driving. And that’s low trial costs vs high VT costs!

I suppose I’m confused.

I totally understand that upset feelings about a price increase, nobody likes price increases but, when you look at the numbers, it still seems rather fair.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lorrie Stelz]

I agree, Jimmy and Chris!  And, outside of reasons completely prohibiting people from attending trials-- weather, work, I don't understand why people would rather do VT, besides for financial reasons. I have the best time at trials!  You see many people from all over the region, you cheer each other on, you celebrate achievements together that were earned in the trial setting. You have a whole weekend to do special bonding with your dog(s). I'm a classic example of tight income, a work schedule that makes me work half the weekends a year, missing close ones because of that, and having to drive up to 9.5 hours one way to trials. But, I do it because I love the trial experience and I'm trying to support the clubs offering trials. I've watched my region lose 5-6 trials a year over my 13 year agility career and I don't want to lose anymore. The trial is the ultimate setting of you and your dogs skills. I'm sad that some people would rather do VT than trial. I know a lot of people have limited trials in their areas and I can understand the need for VT there. I just hope that people would put their main effort into keeping the trials they do have supported and use VT sparingly.

[BeckyAH]

My last trial was local - no travel fees.    My entry fees to that trial were 135.00.  I had 14 runs, getting me a 2.00 per run price break (YAY!)  I Qed 4 times.   It was not my weekend, and that's just how it goes.

That works out to 33.7 dollars per Q.

As opposed to a VT event where I'd pay 4.00 per run or 20.00 for 5.  So,  I'd pay 45.00 for 14 runs, + 40.00 for the Qs  (which are the only runs I'd have to submit).  That adds up, total, to 85.00.   That's STILL a sixty dollar/nearly 50% savings over attending even a local trial.

I don't think it's going to help cheating and I've got some grump about price increases because I'm a human with limited money (and also because I'm confused about what this has to do with cheating) but I'm not seeing a problem on that front, nor seeing how it suddenly becomes more expensive than a trial - even for a group of people renting a field.  If you could guarantee a 100% Q Rate it would work out somewhere between 1.00 and 4.00 per run more expensive, but I have had that precisely ONCE.

It's also still far, far, cheaper than the per cost run of any other venue.

And on a completely pragmatic level, that I hate myself for saying because not excluding people is a thing I actually care about a  LOT personally: keeping people in NADAC who don't attend trials and support CLUBS isn't a very sound business priority: and giving people an incentive to NOT go to trials and support clubs even less so.

THAT SAID: I like the VT program and our club hosting events where people can video and submit does support my club (and I'd happily pay more to support them on that end, too, at least when I could - I love my club).  I don't want to see it go for those reasons, or just because I really do think it's a nice thing for a lot of people and I don't want them to lose it.

[evlcek]

Actually that's about 200 miles,  I get it. You want to make it comparable to a trial, but like I said that supports the club,   We can't always go to trials. We would love to go to more, and support more clubs, but they are too far for us because of traffic. 200 miles is not equally timed everywhere in the country.  I still feel a  100% increase isrxcesdive, especially since it dosn't support a club

[Maureen deHaan]

But the club gets some of that money. And not when you have to rent your rings

Actually - by supporting the club - which is awesome - you are actually supporting everyone who wants to get together to play with their dogs - all the $$ that clubs take in goes toward the running of the trial - at least in my area - there is very little $$ left over for a "profit" if you will - when all is said and done
 

[Dheavner]

I think it is a PRIVILEGE that NADAC allows us to do VT Runs.  And I hate to hear that some people have taken advantage of that privilege.
No matter what Chris decides to do he is NOT going to make everyone happy.  And being allowed to vote on some of the items is also a privilege.
Since it is a privilege and a choice that we make to do VT runs, I think NADAC should charge $20.00 for each submitted run.  There is so much complaining here on the forum and Chris just asked for possible solutions (Complaining is not a solution).
Thank you Chris for all the hard work that you do.  And Thank you for being considerate to the members and allowing them to vote.

[Dheavner]

Question.....I read that the results of the voting will be posted Dec. 10th.....but when will any of the new rules take effect?