Maybe with more time, and a better system to get more people shooting faster and waiting less time to shoot. That seems to be the biggest complaint from the eye of an outsider looking at what's been said. Change the way somethings done and you can chnge the outcome.
If time waiting between stages is really a big deal breaker, Steel Challenge would probably be the way to go. The stages are much simpler (five steel targets per stage) but you get to run each stage multiple times, and there's very little down time between shooters.
The downside, of course, is that the stages are pretty simple.
If you could break it down so the entire thing would take 2 hours, would it still be possible, you come you shoot and leave. If you won you get a call, hey , you won.I don't know if that's possible but if you want more intrest you sometimes have to change the way it's done.
Again, Steel Challenge can fill that niche. During the summer my local range runs a Wednesday Steel Challenge match. I show up at 5:30, shoot until about 6:15 and then go home.
Results are generally sent out via email.
Ever see a kid wait for anything. If you want to attract the youth of today it has to be faster.
I don't know, in the past couple of years, I've witnessed a significant influx of new shooters to the practical shooting sports, many of them members of Gen-X and Gen-Y. Downtimes are a bummer, but ultimately you can get out of that time what you put into it by helping out, speaking with better shooters and picking their brains for techniques and tactics and the like.
Not to say that the downtime is a positive. If there were a way to score, brass, tape, and set a stage in, say, less than a minute per shooter, I'd be all for it.