This Doesn't Make sense

Why is there a tournament of champions for elementary, middle,high, senior and Girls, but none for the Actual state champions? This could be another way to qualify for the US Championship!

I totally agree, and have had the same thought. The various invitationals at the US Open that you mention are great, but a tournament of State Champions and Women State Champions, with the winner qualifying to the US Championships, would be epic. I would guess that part of the challenge is that already, the highest U.S. finisher in the U.S. Open qualifies for the Closed, and maybe they want to limit the number of qualifiers into the closed to make sure it has the strongest field possible.

As a state champion myself, I have pondered this. My best reasoning is that this would require a whole new venue/schedule and they're not interested in that outlay. The scholastic tournaments run concurrently with the open, and the seniors event overlaps somewhat. Most state champions are strong enough to compete in the open and would likely prioritize it. Therefore, while in principle this is a fantastic idea, logistically/fiscally it doesn't seem worth it.

My guess is two reasons: (basically agreeing with FemmeTantra above)

1. Many of the state champions would prefer to win the US Open than such an invitational.

2. Lack of sponsorship - both money prizes and conditions (room & board) for the titled masters.

I agree with NM fpawn, while also noting in response t FemmeTantra;s comment that all of the Invitationals run on the same playing schedule. They have separate opening and closing ceremonies and other activities, but the rounds themselves are on the same schedule.

Note, however, that the titled players do not receive any special conditions from US Chess to play in the Invitationals (I don't think they do for the US Open either). The state they represent may give them a stipend, but many states do not offer any stipends to any of their representatives. I'd also note that there are players in all the invitationals with FIDE titles.

Why does your title look like that fpawn

I find it amazing (and cool) that for the invitationals almost every state is represented. The winners of the state Senior Championships mostly consider it an honor to qualify for the Irwin Tournament of State Senior Champions, even the GM's, and almost always elect to participate. I think fPawn is correct - state champions would likely not have the same level of enthusiasm; I would bet that a much lower percentage would participate in a tournament of State Champions. It's a significant expense for travel and lodging to go to the U.S. Open, as well as a significant time commitment. Many senior chess players have the means and time to participate in such an event, and the prospect of winning a significant prize is small. State champions are likely to be younger, and the time and money investment to play in such an event might not be worth it.

The Invitationals Committee works diligently to get players from every state for every event. NM volunteers1998 is right on target when he says that the seniors consider it an honor. I was privileged to represent my state (which I had just moved to a couple of years earlier) in the first two. I played for exactly the reason he described. As an A/B player, I had no chance to win anything except an upset prize gift certificate to the bookstore. I judged it worth the cost. The states whose seats we have trouble filling usually are ones where the players simply can't afford it.
In addition to the fact that younger state champions would have more trouble with the time and money investment, there is also the fact that some of the representatives in the existing events ARE the state champion too. And not just Irwin reps too - New Mexico's state champion represented them in the Barber!

They used to have an online blitz event for state champions. I think the format might have varied but when I participated I think it was east vs west and the final slower time control online game(s) were proctored. I remember USCF paid for me to proctor our participant from Mississippi a different year. The winner of the event got a spot in the US championship I believe.

One challenge with the invitationals is that states are doing a great job of providing stipends to invitational representatives so they can afford to go. But adding more invitationals is going to start to break that - it becomes too much money.

I would say in that case, State champion Trumps all, so he would go to the Tournament of State Champions, and 2nd Place in the middle school championship would play in the barber.

Well, AkashKadel, in DC. They hold a state championship and the highest finishing senior who is not state champion gets the Irwin spot. They want to spread the titles around. The last two years a senior who was also state co-champion chose the Irwin spot over the state title. It meant more to him. So I'd be very cautious about forcing that decision on players. Similarly, years ago Abby Hoffman could have played in the Denker or in the Girls tournament (which at the time was named after Susan Polgar). She had already won the Polgar tournament. She proceeded to win the Denker too,.

I asked @kasro about this, he said they need an endownment to host these events.

I feel like you, a State champion, would want a way to possibly qualify for the US Championship..

just gotta win the open. ez, right? i don't want to sully the championship. it's been done before and i respect the event way too much to try to create another back door

It would be hard for a 1900 to win the US open.

It would be hard for a 1900 to win a tournament of state champions too.