NHC 2014 - Limit of 6 Entries

I just got my issue of Zymurgy and it looks like they're limiting NHC 2014 to 6 entries max per brewer. I read that they were doing it lottery style, but I didn't know they were cutting the limit by more than half.

They're also only allowing AHA members to compete. I like that change but I'm super bummed about the limit of 6. I've been planning for months and competing all over the place to hone my recipes and process to produce some great beers for this NHC.

Well, how would you like to see the number of entries limited?

Bobby_M said:

Well, how would you like to see the number of entries limited?

Click to expand...

I'd like to see it limited by qualifying in other sanctioned competitions. Maybe either only allow 1st place winners, or if that is too limiting, allow 1-3rd place winners a spot in the competition. That would increase demand for local competitions and help to build better local homebrew communities I think.

I don't think the national competition is a place to just get yearly feedback on the 6 beers people brew a year. That's putting a pretty fine point on it, but it conveys my current opinion.

Don't start whining yet. Save it for when you don't win the lottery and don't get to enter any.

I agree with Cadilla Candy - The NHC shouldn't be a competition for anyone and everyone. It's become the de-facto national championship of homebrewing. Winning there should mean something. Like all major competitions in anything, one should have to qualify to enter. It should be invitational. I said it a year ago and I still feel that something like this is the way to go: any BJCP-sanctioned competition over N entries (E.g., 300) becomes an NHC qualifier. A gold medal earns you the right to enter 3 beers in NHC. A silver, 2. Bronze, 1. BoS: another 2. Max entries: 10. Something like that. Maybe you have to enter NHC in the category you medaled in locally, maybe not. But as the premier, most prestigious national competition there needs to be some sort of pre-qualification. The 1st round used to serve as the gatekeeper, but it's grown too large for that now.

TNGabe said:

Don't start whining yet. Save it for when you don't win the lottery and don't get to enter any.

Click to expand...

I judged round I NHC 2013, so I'm guaranteed 2 spots.

I think prequalifying is a fine idea, but the massive amount of administrative overhead probably makes it impractical for the short term. For sure, some coupling between BJCP and AHA is necessary and all entries into qualifying comps would have to have your AHA member number associated and databased. When you log in to the NHC registration page, you'd put in your AHA number and see the list of beers you've placed with this year and select which ones you plan to enter. The efficacy of the prequalification hinges on the premise that the majority of NHC entries today are beers from brewers who have not medaled previously. What if 90% of current entries would have already qualified?

I agree that it adds significant overhead, but currently the AHA membership and interest in participation in its premier event has grown far larger than the governing body and employees can handle. The AHA, itself, needs to grow to meet the demand being placed upon it.

In the past I have read many comments on this forum from people who enter NHC and only NHC and are just looking for feedback. Those entrants at least would be eliminated. These people would be better served by local competitions. Local doesn't have to mean local to where you live since beer can easily and cheaply be shipped to within 300 miles of you within one day.

It is definitely worth studying the results of all the 300+ entry BJCP comps held in 2013 to get an idea of how many entrants would qualify for NHC if these comps were used at qualifiers. Results are reported to the BJCP, whether or not they are logged in some way to make the data mineable to those with access to it there is unknown.

I don't like the lottery, but I'm fine with a limit. I'd also like to see smaller competitions that lead up to it, right now it's a total crap shoot. There are many beers that get passed over simply do to the volume of entries, especially in categories like IPA.

Most competitions are using the Brew Competition software anymore (http://www.brewcompetition.com/). I haven't extensively studied the data structure, but all of the important info is stored. It would just be a matter of exporting it to the AHA in a format they can use for the registration process.

Possibly require that any sanctioned or qualifying competition use this software in order to pass the info along, or in the very least, provide some sort of excel sheet that the competition organizer fills out and then sends to the AHA, then the AHA pushes the excel sheet to their database.

There would be a ton of ways to slice the qualifying to get the numbers down to a reasonable number. Each competition has a max of 84 (including mead, cider, etc) 1-3rd winners right off the bat. Then you could say that you can only enter a beer in the same sub category that you won a medal in. So if you place in category 10 with an APA, you can 1 APA.

If that still leaves too many entries overall, you could cut it down to just the 1st place medal winners. So each competition passes on a max of 28 entrants.

There are 10 judging locations for NHC, each with 700 spots for a total of 7000 entries. I'm using some estimates for some of these numbers, but they're probably pretty close. Allowing the 1st place winners from local competitions to move forward would support about 250 sanctioned competitions. If the numbers are still off, specify that the competition must have over 200 or 300 entries to serve as a qualifier for NHC.

I like the idea of a qualifying comp...just don't know how practical it is. Let's say someone does win a medal at a preliminary comp...it only makes sense that are only allowed to enter in the specific category that they medaled in rather than have a "blank" entry. I agree that the NHC should not be the place to get your beers evaluated for flaws...local comps fit the bill nicely. My solution is/was to raise the entry fee substantially so that the brewers themselves will decide which beers they think are the best.

I also agree with the idea of qualifying comps...... Personally, I think it is ridiculous to use the NHC as a means of "getting feedback" on beer for the first time. There are literally dozens and dozens of great competitions where that can be done.

I think, ultimately, the AHA needs to decide if they want the NHC to be "the biggest" homebrew competition in the world, or "the best" homebrew competition in the world. It can be one, or the other - but not both. Right now, MCAB seems to be "the best" competition. NHC is sort of just becoming "the biggest." Either is fine. But, if the single most significant aspect of your competition is PURE RANDOM CHANCE........ don't pretend it is a "national championship of great beer."

I am absolutely fine with the limit of 6..... hell, I would be fine with 3-4 if I knew I could enter that many. I enter quite a few comps, and have managed to do pretty well. However, I don't pretend to think that I need more than 6 entries. I could have 4-6 very good beers ready to send in for NHC if I knew I had that many spots. But, when you start talking 10-15+, I think you are getting into the "shotgun" approach.

I don't think raising the fee is the answer. Someone's deep pockets should no more be the criteria of a national championship than random chance should be.

If they want the biggest homebrew contest in the world - keep doing what they are doing. If they want the BEST homebrew in the world.... probably need to start thinking differently. Again, either is fine, but don't pretend to be one when you are clearly more concerned about being the other.

Entry numbers aren't the limiting factor.

Website issues for sign up are.

I like the idea of AHA members only. that's one of the benefits of membership. I really don't like the lottery idea. According to AHA's site it is a benefit. "National Homebrew Competition: The NHC is the world’s largest home-made beer, mead and cider competition—exclusive to AHA members"
So as a member i feel i paid for this benefit and fully expected to use it.
I am fine with a limit, that forces me to send what i feel is my best.
as far as other smaller competitions go, i'm not thrilled with the randomness of judging as the "standards" are arbitrary at best. (IE: i've sent the same beer (same batch) to 2 different comps held a week apart and my scores are all over the place. in one it scored a 38 and the other a 26. at least this has been my experience.)

One thing I don't understand about the lottery yet is after everyone has entered are they just choosing random people to actually enter all of the beers they put in? Or, will they divide the number of entries, by the number of entrants and say "everyone can enter 2 or 3 or whatever".

I would hope EVERYONE (who wants to) could enter 2 beers before ANYONE was allowed to enter 6.

Anyone know if that is what they are doing?

Braufessor said:

I also agree with the idea of qualifying comps......

Click to expand...

The first round / final round system they use now is basically a qualifying system. Perhaps just expand on that with more first round contests.

AnOldUR said:

The first round / final round system they use now is basically a qualifying system. Perhaps just expand on that with more first round contests.

Click to expand...

Right. Just need more volunteer organizers and judges. Problem solved.

Didn't all this get brought up last year?

With how crappy the online registration has been the last few years, it's more or less already been a lottery: an IT one.

I'm also skeptical of a lottery system as I'm sure the Jamil's, Tasty's, and Gordon's of the world would miraculously have no issues getting their beers selected through the lottery.

I think that is the point of using existing BJCP sanctioned comps (which would already happen despite the NHC) as the qualifiers. The hard part is that not all comps are created equally. Some don't get enough entries to mean anything (requiring some kind of minimum entry criteria). Some comps hardly have any BJCP certified judges. Should an IPA that took gold in a comp judged by two non-BJCP judges, where it was only one of three entries be accepted? All of this would have to be managed.

Here's a thought... have the NHC final round simply be a shootout of all best of show winners over the course of the year. Even if you included BOS first and second runner up, you'd still be looking at about 600 total entries of what the collective deemed the best beers, meads, and ciders.

I don't think that anybody is using the NHC just for feedback. This year both the first and the final rounds will be using the "quick check" sheet for entries.

Entering the NHC is about winning/placing. I doubt few people enter with poorly executed beers on purpose just to get feedback.

I wouldn't be in favor of BJCP events being qualifying rounds.

I recently judged at a large event (over 700 entries). I thought the "mini-BOS" judging was patently unfair. They didn't do it any different than anyone else, but they were judging beers that been opened and unrefrigerated for up to three hours. They were throwing out beers (some they had judged themselves) that now had off flavors. It seemed that the standard for medalling was how a warm, flat beer tasted after three hours. Not how a beer tastes served under the best condition possible.

The actual scoring was fine, but determining medals from beers that came from five tables was a joke.

Spartan1979 said:

I wouldn't be in favor of BJCP events being qualifying rounds.

I recently judged at a large event (over 700 entries). I thought the "mini-BOS" judging was patently unfair. They didn't do it any different than anyone else, but they were judging beers that been opened and unrefrigerated for up to three hours. They were throwing out beers (some they had judged themselves) that now had off flavors. It seemed that the standard for medalling was how a warm, flat beer tasted after three hours. Not how a beer tastes served under the best condition possible.

The actual scoring was fine, but determining medals from beers that came from five tables was a joke.

Click to expand...

This is more a criticism of how BCJP comps are run in general. It doesn't change the fact that they would still be the best ways to weed out the worst beers. You'll always have subjectivity and flukes and there's nothing you can do about it until mass spectrometers are used to determine stylistic purity.

I'm not a shotgunner, but I hear people stating they're fine with a limit of six beers because they should be able to pick their best six to send in. I don't doubt that you or I or any other good brewer really can tell his or her 40+ point beers from their 20 point beers. Problem is, the judging at the first round of NHC is quite poor. Many sites are still finding themselves begging for judges a week before the judging date and end up taking the "we need judges; anyone will do" approach. There aren't enough qualified judges to ensure only highly ranked or well-experienced people are judging NHC. As a result, you can end up with a beer that you know is a 35-45 point beer any day of the week getting a 23 and other **** beers scoring a 41 and moving on. People took to shotgunning NHC first round to account for this wild variability in judging quality. Anyone who brews 50 batches in a year is likely a pretty good brewer, meaning most of the shotgunners' beers are probably 30+ point beers. But with the crap-shoot that is the first round, those folks knew choosing their six best wouldn't ensure they had six move on to the finals. I don't doubt that most of the beers Jamil or Gordon brewed when they were winning were very good, but they probably wouldn't have won Ninkasi multiple times if they were limited to six entries. Not because they're not good enough, but because the entry limit and the lottery system essentially makes the NHC worthless as an indicator of brewing prowess. With these new rules in place, winning doesn't mean you beat the best of the best; it means you won a lottery and got lucky with the judges that tasted your few entries.

Yooper said:

I don't think that anybody is using the NHC just for feedback. This year both the first and the final rounds will be using the "quick check" sheet for entries.

Entering the NHC is about winning/placing. I doubt few people enter with poorly executed beers on purpose just to get feedback.

Click to expand...

I've entered for feedback. The comments seem to be more productive at the big national competitions than some of the local comps I enter.

I think advertising that they're going to use the short form is a good way to weed out entries looking for feedback.

I won't enter beers/meads where I'm looking for feedback if the short form is used.

TNGabe said:

Don't start whining yet. Save it for when you don't win the lottery and don't get to enter any.

Click to expand...

Boom.

A lot of interesting thoughts here. In my experience & opinion, the key issues have been hit on: unreliable judging in the local comps, and the increased costs/requirements that would be associated with expanding the comp in any sense.

AHA really pressed for legalizing home brewing in all 50 states and finally achieved that goal. To me, the next major goal needs to be expanding the pool of qualified judges, improving the training process, and implementing a QA program to monitor feedback. Of course, the issue is with volunteering. Would you be willing to pay more for AHA dues or for entries if it meant you consistently got useful and fairly accurate feedback? Perhaps the AHA could offer discounted memberships for judging?

One thing that bums me out is that apparently first round judging is going to the quick checklist form for judging. That might keep some people from entering though. You are paying twice as much as most comps but not even receiving a full scoresheet. I think we need to get over the fact that the beers that win at the NHC are NOT the best homebrewed beers in the country due to the factors already covered. Just like the beers that medal at the GABF aren't necessarily the "best" beer. They just won this time due to a variety of factors.

Phunhog said:

One thing that bums me out is that apparently first round judging is going to the quick checklist form for judging. That might keep some people from entering though. You are paying twice as much as most comps but not even receiving a full scoresheet. I think we need to get over the fact that the beers that win at the NHC are NOT the best homebrewed beers in the country due to the factors already covered. Just like the beers that medal at the GABF aren't necessarily the "best" beer. They just won this time due to a variety of factors.

Click to expand...

While it may be true that it's not the "best" beer in the country, when I judged the final round of the NHC, there wasn't one bad beer in the bunch. In fact, all of the ones I judged in Category 8 were very good to excellent. The first round definitely weeded out the bad to "pretty good" entries. We did a good job with scoring them, although they all were far better than average.

When I judge local and regional competitions, there are plenty of beers with off flavors, oxidation, overcarbonation, etc. Few are "very good" to "excellent" as a rule. The final round of the NHC definitely was not on the same level.

If one is to use the lottery system to determine entrants, then one just as well use the lottery to pick winners.

That's a little harsh. Short of a qualifing system (that would put a huge burden on the already understaffed AHA) a lottery is the best way to deal with the number of entries coming in. My only consideration would be to give top three BOS winners in any BJCP competition with (say) 200 or more entries a pass into the first round.

Since the 2014 NHC is going to limited to AHA members only, this BJCP judge will not be judging NHC even though the Atlanta site is "only" six or so hours from where I live. I suspect that I'm not the only BJCP judge that feels this way, and since one of the limiting factors that the AHA likes to claim is a lack of BJCP judges it seems an odd way to alienate your judging pool. I have little interest in judging a competition where I'm going to be excluded for entry because I don't have a membership. I seriously expect this to be a problem with a nationwide competition drawing on a limited pool of judges.

Paying $50 for an annual membership and then $12 an entry (assuming the 2013 AHA fee) just to enter a competition isn't worth it to me, especially since the 2013 competition was so poorly run from the online registration to the long delayed release of scores. I'd rather spend my time judging local competitions and entering the Carolina Brewer of the Year circuit and MCAB circuit.

But to even attend the NHC itself, you must be an AHA member. I don't see the connection between paying the $38 fee to be an AHA member and being a BJCP judge.

I pay my AHA fees, not just to go to the NHC, but to support the goals of the AHA. I also pay my local homebrew club dues yearly, to be a part of that group. I don't think restricting the NHC competition to AHA members is unfair or unjust.

I think it is a good thing that the NHC is only open to AHA members. Why should a dues paying member be shut out of their own comp? Now if after a week or two if there are some spots available (doubtful) then open it to the general public.

Yooper said:

But to even attend the NHC itself, you must be an AHA member. I don't see the connection between paying the $38 fee to be an AHA member and being a BJCP judge.

I pay my AHA fees, not just to go to the NHC, but to support the goals of the AHA. I also pay my local homebrew club dues yearly, to be a part of that group. I don't think restricting the NHC competition to AHA members is unfair or unjust.

Click to expand...

I don't think restricting the competition to just AHA members is unfair or unjust. I just don't think that they'll get the same level of support from the BJCP judges that they have had in the past. Myself, personally, I don't think I would go out of my way to judge a competition that I would be excluded from entering. Judging at the Atlanta site would require food, lodging, and travel expenses that I'd pay out of my own pocket. Being a part of the competition, interacting with the judges/stewards, meeting new people, and yes, knowing that my entries are out there on the floor somewhere, is enough for me to justify the costs in time and money. Judging a competition that I can't enter doesn't have any appeal to me, and I suspect you'd find many other BJCP judges who feel the same way. Anyone can judge, you don't have to be BJCP, but complaints about quality, knowledge, and consistency are why the AHA wants the BJCP involved.

The NHC as a competition used to mean something but now it's just going to mean that the winners are the best within the AHA. Maybe that's something worthwhile but it had a lot more appeal to me when it was open to the general public.

Darwin18 said:

Since the 2014 NHC is going to limited to AHA members only, this BJCP judge will not be judging NHC even though the Atlanta site is "only" six or so hours from where I live. I suspect that I'm not the only BJCP judge that feels this way, and since one of the limiting factors that the AHA likes to claim is a lack of BJCP judges it seems an odd way to alienate your judging pool. I have little interest in judging a competition where I'm going to be excluded for entry because I don't have a membership. I seriously expect this to be a problem with a nationwide competition drawing on a limited pool of judges.

Paying $50 for an annual membership and then $12 an entry (assuming the 2013 AHA fee) just to enter a competition isn't worth it to me, especially since the 2013 competition was so poorly run from the online registration to the long delayed release of scores. I'd rather spend my time judging local competitions and entering the Carolina Brewer of the Year circuit and MCAB circuit.

Click to expand...

I am not a BJCP judge (hope to pursue it this year) but am an AHA member. But, I agree that a BJCP judge who is donating their time to help run the event should be able to enter beers, whether they are an AHA member or not.

Darwin18 said:

The NHC as a competition used to mean something but now it's just going to mean that the winners are the best within the AHA. Maybe that's something worthwhile but it had a lot more appeal to me when it was open to the general public.

Click to expand...

Interesting thought, but I wonder how many of the winners last year were non AHA members?

And I have to ask. Do you have a beef with the AHA that keeps you from joining?

AnOldUR said:

Interesting thought, but I wonder how many of the winners last year were non AHA members?

Click to expand...

I'm sure there was a good percentage. Most brewers and judges I know aren't AHA members, or if they are, they're periodic at best. Was that information released? I have the issue of Zymurgy with the winner's recipes, but that's on my desk at work at the moment.

And I have to ask. Do you have a beef with the AHA that keeps you from joining?

Click to expand...

Not at all. I think the AHA does a lot of good for this hobby and we need groups like the AHA to keep the hobby from slipping back and being mislabeled and to promote general education.

My issue with the AHA was with the 2013 NHC from registration, to inconsistencies, to lengthy delays in announcing the winners per region. If it's an AHA only competition that's fine. The NHC just will not mean the same as it has in the past.

Darwin18 said:

I don't think restricting the competition to just AHA members is unfair or unjust. I just don't think that they'll get the same level of support from the BJCP judges that they have had in the past. Myself, personally, I don't think I would go out of my way to judge a competition that I would be excluded from entering. Judging at the Atlanta site would require food, lodging, and travel expenses that I'd pay out of my own pocket. Being a part of the competition, interacting with the judges/stewards, meeting new people, and yes, knowing that my entries are out there on the floor somewhere, is enough for me to justify the costs in time and money. Judging a competition that I can't enter doesn't have any appeal to me, and I suspect you'd find many other BJCP judges who feel the same way. Anyone can judge, you don't have to be BJCP, but complaints about quality, knowledge, and consistency are why the AHA wants the BJCP involved.

The NHC as a competition used to mean something but now it's just going to mean that the winners are the best within the AHA. Maybe that's something worthwhile but it had a lot more appeal to me when it was open to the general public.

Click to expand...

Ah, I see what you mean. I'm glad you explained it further.

But by the same token, I judged at the final round of the NHC, and still paid all of those fees (including the full conference registration) as everyone else. In other words, the benefits of AHA membership are more about being a part of a great organization dedicated to the hobby and not about getting tangible reward. I don't see them dangling a carrot out to entice membership as what is happening- instead it is a bit of a benefit to members just as happy hour pints are, with an AHA membership card.

Since we had 300 BJCP judges at the final round, all of whom are AHA members as well, I would hazard a guess that many National and above judges are AHA members. I'm certified, not National, and I was in general one of the lowest ranking judges. Some are very active in the AHA.

Yooper - I don't think the final round is the issue. The NHC will draw a large crowd and with it a concentrated group of BJCP judges to it, but the issue has been the regional competitions. I don't see a lot of non-AHA BJCP judges going out of their way to judge a regional competition if they're going to be excluded. If the regional was held in Raleigh, of course I would go, but if it is Atlanta and I'm going to need to cover travel and lodging expenses I'll pass and judge other competitions instead. There's no real incentive for me to participate in an organization's event that's going to exclude me, unless of course, I pay the membership fee. I'm considering it just for Zymurgy alone.

Darwin18 said:

If the regional was held in Raleigh, of course I would go, but if it is Atlanta and I'm going to need to cover travel and lodging expenses I'll pass and judge other competitions instead.

Click to expand...

I used to judge in a completely different arena and was asked why I didn't judge competitions outside of Southern California. It was for the reasons Darwin stated. If I'm not being compensated and being excluded from the weekend's competition, why would I spend my money, time and vacation to judge the competition?