Analysis: 2010-2012 Master National Events

In this analysis we examine the last three Master National events and the unprecedented growth we have experienced from 2010 to 2012.

The analysis is part of our continuing effort to better plan for future events and identify the forces driving both growth and impacting individual event management. This analysis focuses on growth in entries, the composition of entries, various pass rates and the availability of manpower resources as the event unfolds.

Please take a look so you can better understand the challenges and opportunities the Master National Retriever Club faces in preparing for the future.


This entry was posted in Event Information - General, MNRC Board News & Updates, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Analysis: 2010-2012 Master National Events

  1. Tracy Wight says:

    Looks like you need a Master National Open (spring) and a Master National Amateur (fall) OR a Master National by Region.

  2. Doug Zahniser says:

    Thank you for that great presentation. As a member on the board of a club, I really would like more information to assist with our decision. I see your analysis only includes the years of 2010 – 2012. In order for us to completely evaluate things, I would like to see a history of the event leading up to the most recent change that occurred in 2010.

    I would be interested in obtaining the following information for at least 5 MORE years, meaning 2005 through 2009:

    1. # Dogs Qualified to enter
    2. # Dogs Ran
    3. # Dogs Qualified (passed)

    Also, it would be interesting to also see the # dogs qualified to enter for the years of 2010 through 2012 also, since you only include the number of dogs ran in your analysis.

  3. 1jmccurry says:

    Your analysis is a great way to show participation growth in The Master National. But, where is the MN growth coming from and why? Last year, at Alabama, was my first experience at a MN event. It was awesome! Unfortunately, we went home early. However, we got to witness and participate in a wonderful aura that surrounds the event. We were part of the volunteers who show up, do a great job, and help make the MN an exceptional experience. So, being a part of the action out in the field as a qualifier, or, taking a turn behind the scenes as a volunteer, all contributes to the success of our event. Geography, I think, has a very real effect upon the numbers. Put that along with our economy, and the site becomes an important factor to a lot of qualifiers. The 2013 MN should draw many new qualifiers from the Midwest and beyond. Plus, many more from either coast, who may have been reluctant to travel across the USA before this year. Location, location, location, an all important part to the success of any event. But, I think a real contribution to the increased numbers, is our opportunity to participate in a great working experience with our dog. Primarily, pass or failure comes down to the honesty of your dog in it’s field work, and how you perform as a handler. We had to qualify that way in order to attend the event. Personally, I would hate to be eliminated by a critical judge who says the dog’s head was too far ahead of the knee, or, your dog beat you to the bucket, or, he raised up to all fours on the flyer. Or, any number of other nit picky stories I have heard about. Why even consider attending an event like that, unless you have a robot trained animal that may meet their expectations. It would be interesting to view a similar analysis of the Grand’s numbers over the last five years. I have a good idea where any decline, or, a lack of substantial increase has gone. As an amateur handler, I prefer my chances of realistic success at the MN. Understand, this is not an attempt to put down the Grand. They do a very good job as well. A lot of folks attend both events. I just looked at the MN numbers and offer up my interpretations to consider. I think it will continue to grow. We all need to lend a hand where possible to help make it a continued success. Another idea, may be to follow up on those dogs that qualified, but did not attend the MN, to see where that input might lead. Looking forward to a Great time at Flint Oak in mid-September. Hope to see you there.
    Jim McCurry
    Kearney, Nebraska

    • Sandy Berube says:

      Interesting Jack. If a pro is handling their own dog, is it considered a Pro run dog in your analysis? Did I get counted in your Pro bucket even though I ran my own dog, but am married to a pro? Thinking that’s a subset that should be considered in your analysis. Also, agree with Doug Z. with regard to date range; a 3 year window seems tight when attempting to measure a trend. Data presentation without summary conclusion leaves much to interpretation of the intent of the analysis. It would be a shame to assume we should focus on the people (pro vs amateur) and not the quality of the dogs running. The elephant in the room still remains the same…how do a number of dogs get the invitation to run at the Master National level. Again…focus should be on the dogs and the qualification process, not who’s running the dog. Then we’ll see the “best of the best” at the Master National. Just my two cents. Thanks.

      • Mia DiBenedetto says:

        Thanks for your comments Sandy and they certainly will be passed along to the MNRC Board. With regard to your question about dogs counted. The dogs were classified by the HANDLER’S status therefore you were not counted as a pro dog. I’m certain you will have an opportunity to chat with the Board members during this year’s hunt test season and can talk with them about your points. They are listening and trying to gather as much input as possible. Very Best Regards. Mia

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s