Clunn's Take On 'Major Mistakes' And Sport-Selling

(Editor's note: This is part 1 of a 2-part Q&A with legend Rick Clunn about stronger fields, the state of the sport, and changes he'd like to see.)

BassFan recently spoke with Rick Clunn, and the conversation quickly turned to this week's Bassmaster American Major at High Rock Lake in North Carolina. Specifically, his conspicuous absence.

He didn't qualify for the event, which uses a combined Angler of the Year (AOY) points total to fill the field. He finished 34th in last year's AOY race, but is currently 80th in the race. Added together, it wasn't sufficient to make the American cutoff.

Below is the conversation in Q&A format, in which he addresses the American field, the state of the sport as a whole, and where he thinks things have gone wrong. Note that he draws a distinction between the original Bassmaster Elite 50 (E50) qualifying system, and that used currently for the Majors.

The method by which BASS qualified anglers for its Elite 50s, which then became the Majors, changed frequently. For reference, here's a synopsis of the various systems used.

For the E50s, BASS took:
> The Top 20 active anglers on the BASS all-time money list
> The prior year's Bassmaster Classic champion
> The current Bassmaster Angler of the Year (AOY) and BASS Rookie of the Year (ROY)
> The Top 27 in cumulative points standings from the previous three tour seasons

That formula was similar to the one used for last year's American, Legends and Memorial Majors, with the difference that only the Top 10 all-time money-winners qualified, and a two-season cumulative points total was utilized.

This year, however, BASS phased out the all-time money and qualified 47 anglers for the Majors through the combined 2-year AOY points.

BassFan: Is it a disappointment not to be fishing at High Rock this week?

Clunn: Yeah, it's a big disappointment. In several ways it is. Throughout my whole career, one of the backdrops has been that I'm always trying to maintain and elevate the credibility of our sport. Especially with the guys who were part of the early group, the hardest battle we fought was maintaining credibility.

Part of that credibility has been having a legitimate field, and the quality of that field.

I really liked when they came up with the concept of the Majors. It wasn't just lip-service – it was truly an outstanding field to compete against.

But that's changed?

All the tournament organizations, it doesn't matter which one, have always professed, "We've got the greatest field on the planet Earth." But that was never completely true.

Probably the best tournament all those years was the Bassmaster Classic at times. It still had a lot of 1-year wonders and flukes, but usually those are functions of the format.

I really have grown tired over the years of calling all these donkey-fishermen thoroughbreds.

The way they set it up 3 or 4 years ago (for the E50s) – for the first time, that was an outstanding field. There were no flukes – no 1- or 2-year wonders – because it was based pretty much on some length of performance over time. That's really, to me, what determines a good angler from a so-so angler from a great angler. And that's in all sports. You're defined by your performance over time.

I sat in on a lot of the early brainstorming (for) the (E50s), and one of the things we talked about – the original idea – was to have the Top 12 or Top 10 all-time money-winners, then have rest of field made up of performance over the last 3 years. I was hoping it would be 5 (years), but it was still a step in the right direction. That way, you do away with at least the 1-year or 2-year wonders – the flukes.

Those first (E50s) really were outstanding fields to compete against.

So do you feel you should be fishing at High Rock this week?

I feel like I should be there – that I deserve to be there. My performance, over time – I'm not going to be bashful about it. I think it's as good as anybody's has been. But I'm not there.

In the (American) field are at least six guys who've never made a (Bassmaster) Classic, at least six who've made only one, and another six maybe who've made two or less. So about half the field will be made up of unproven players. That wasn't the original concept behind the Majors.

Couldn't you make the argument that the Majors are based on 2-year combined performance, which kept you out, so that might be a little bit of sour-grapes?

There's a big flaw in that statement. It's not even a 2-year average. It's a year and a partial year. Let's at least make it a true 2-year average.

The process basically says, "You've got 1 year and a few tournaments (to qualify)." How can you say you've got the best field you can have when over a dozen guys participating have never qualified for more than one Classic?

The only guys I agree might not be flukes are the (BASS) ROYs. They're not responsible for the process. So I'm not picking on Derek Remitz this year. But (Steve) Kennedy shouldn't have been in (the Majors) last year. He should be in it this year. He's reigning ROY.

There's talk now that the Majors might be cancelled after this year – that they're financially unworkable. Aside from that, what about the base concept itself – a series of "super-events" – is that something that can work long-term in the sport?

It was one of the best marketing models they've ever had. The model was really supposed to have top fields, (based) on performance, like mini-Classics held in strategic areas to promote the sport somewhat at the level the Classic did, but throughout the year at different intervals.

If you take Dardanelle (site of the first-ever E50 in 2004) – with the late start and late weigh-in so kids could be out of school and the fathers could get off work and come to weigh-in – the amount of people who showed up for a regular event was enormous. From that standpoint, I thought the marketing idea was really going to work.

And here's another fallacy in the whole thing. They had a great model (after Dardanelle), but what they did is get rid of the great model, instead of getting rid of the people who can't sell the sport.

What do you mean by that?

One of the things that's been incorrect since ESPN came in is they don't know how to sell the sport of fishing. They sell it completely wrong. It's unfortunate, but it's the old paradigm of selling advertising – that is has to be based on Nielsen Ratings. But everyone knows that's obsolete. It's one of the most phony ways to rate anything.

Our sport is one of the best in the whole world of sports, but they won't get somebody in there who knows how to sell it. They're trying to sell it on a ratings system, and we're not going to stack up on a ratings system.

We need to go back and study how golf was sold in the early days. It never was a great buy until Tiger Woods came along. They first sold golf from a love-affair basis. They created the love-affair between the people and a corporate America willing to support it, whether it was economically a good buy or not.

Fishing should be sold from that angle.

– End of part 1 (of 2) –