[SPAM] RE: Rules Changes----Advancement

Tue Mar 8 19:36:53 AKST 2005

Bob - 
Excellent point- I agree with you, let's let it work and see. Should help
the guy who flies occasional Intermediate / Advanced and who'll beat a
couple guys a contest but never dominates and never really masters his
sequence. So let him stay in his class and fly til he gets it! 

Of course, I think this thread spun off of the eternal question about
getting more guys into pattern  - and I've never heard the mandatory move-up
policy given as a reason for not trying pattern... 

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Bob Kane
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 10:04 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Rules Changes----Advancement

The 4 year points window is just going into effect
with this rules cycle, maybe we should let it work for
while before tweaking it.

--- David Lockhart <DaveL322 at comcast.net> wrote:

> Mark,
> 
> It is rare and an exception - I guess I don't see
> the harm in keeping a rule
> around that would give "us" some teeth to prevent a
> trophy hog.
> 
> I am a little concerned (as MattK) that if we
> totally deleted the point
> system, we might encourage a trophy hog.
> 
> I'm thinking we have room to adjust the point system
> without deleting it.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 8:07 PM
> Subject: RE: Rules Changes----Advancement
> 
> 
> Dave,
> 
> Have you actually experienced any "trophy hogs"? 
> Maybe I'm naïve, but I
> haven't really experienced this.  We've on rare
> occasion had someone "hang"
> in a class for an extra half season in hopes of
> doing well at the Nats
> before moving up, but even that's been rare.
> 
> We always talk/worry about the trophy hog, but I
> guess I see that as a
> hollow fear from my end.  Just curious what you've
> actually experienced in
> the sandbagging ranks.
> 
> Mark
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On
> Behalf Of David Lockhart
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 7:42 PM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Fw: Rules Changes----Advancement
> 
> I agree with Matt that changes in this area should
> be made with caution.
> 
> I like the idea that a pilot could fly a higher
> class for fun and to test
> the waters, and then drop back to their regular
> class.
> 
> I like the idea that somebody having an off year
> (reduced time or equipment
> in a given year) can drop back a class to make it
> easier for them to compete
> and have fun.
> 
> I have no problem with a pilot "demoting" themselves
> to stay in the event
> and have fun (so long as they don't end up
> perpetually at the top of their
> new chosen class).
> 
> I think very few people are interested in forcing a
> pilot to "move up"
> simply because they accumulated enough points -
> pilots should move up when
> they have aquired the skills to fly in the next
> class, and when they are
> clearly superior to others in their class - ie, they
> are sand-baggers /
> trophy hogs which I don't think are good for the
> event.
> 
> The point system is rarely used - but I think it
> would be easy enough to
> enforce - most NSRCA Districts track points for the
> annual District Champs
> using some kind of system.  It wouldn't be too hard
> to use data captured in
> the District Champs tracking to figure out AMA
> advancement points.  I think
> we are fortunate that most pilots do move up at
> appropriate times, but
> having a mechanism in place to pressure a few
> exceptions is a nice option to
> have.  I would absolutely support using the AMA
> advancement point system to
> force a pilot to move up who clearly belonged in a
> higher class, but stayed
> put to be a trophy hog.
> 
> To that end, I think the point system should remain
> on the books - and maybe
> we could modify it such that it would be more likely
> to force trophy hogs to
> move up, and less likely to ever push a career guy
> out of his class.  There
> are a number of ways that could be done.
> 
> Dave
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 5:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Rules Changes----Advancement
> 
> 
> I believe that this may open a different can of
> worms. It's true that some
> guys attend contests simply for the fun and
> camaraderie of the flying, but
> there is a whole nother set of troops that attends
> to compete. In my
> opinion, this is the largest of the two, by wide
> margin. These folks want to
> win, place or show and really try hard to do their
> best. The former group
> may not care as much about doing its best; just
> being there is good enough.
> But it is still an extremely important group
> nontheless.
> 
> It seems to me that there are a bunch of guys,
> (Masters in D3 is a good
> example) that are very good in their present
> class(most of us are quite
> evenly matched), and some of these may decide to
> drop down a class and park
> for a while. Taking that skill level down to
> Advanced could demoralize the
> Advanced level guys that want to really compete, and
> could actually have the
> exact opposite effect from that desired. I wouldn't
> want any Advanced
> competitor to leave the sport because of an infusion
> of Masters class guys
> re-entering the class
> 
> We agree on the fact that the points system is silly
> and unenforceable.
> 
> Having said all that, I wouldn't be aversed to a
> trial run of such a rule.
> Reconvene after the trial period was over and make a
> decision on its
> success--failure. Then make a final decision and
> have buy-in from the CB up
> front to either make a change, or not. Having CB
> buy-in up front will
> alleviate some of the acremonious debate we have
> seen in past issues.
> 
> I recommend caution either way. This indeed is
> unchartered territory, at
> least in my 27 years, and demands careful thought. I
> like the fact that the
> committee is thinking in different and challenging
> ways to improve the sport
> for everyone, eventhough THIS committee's charter is
> to build schedules and
> not rules.
> 
> 
> MattK
> 
> PS- one more thought on this: it may turn out that
> no self respecting
> Masters competitor will move down to Advanced, or
> Advanced down to
> Intermediate. Then this suggested approach could
> work. Convincing the AMA CB
> will be the trick
> 
> 
> 
> In a message dated 3/8/2005 4:20:51 PM Eastern
> Standard Time,
> patternrules at earthlink.net writes:
> From: Troy A. Newman
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Sent: 3/8/2005 2:18:31 PM
> Subject: [SPAM] Rules changes Advancement
> 
> 
> Buddy,
> I have been really quiet lately. I don't think the
> changes you are looking
> at are going to increase pattern participation. The
> weight and box limits
> in my opinion are good and don't need jacking
> with......
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===

Bob Kane
getterflash at yahoo.com

__________________________________ 
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.

To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.