Rules Changes----Advancement

Wed Mar 9 03:42:17 AKST 2005

Mark, although most people don't park in a class, I have experienced  a 
couple instances where a guy actually wins the DC in his class one year,  takes the 
next year off for whatever reason, then he returns back in his old  class. I 
appreciate the fact that he returned and like the added attendance, but  some 
of his fellow competitors may not agree.

What I am saying is a Checks and Balances system needs to be in place such  
that this type of situation is controlled. I admit it doesn't happen often and  
may not be viewed as a big deal by the higher class pilots, but it raises the 
 eyebrows of the guys it affects. At present the policing is supposed to be 
done  by the DVP. As a past DVP, I didn't care for the idea of telling someone 
when to  move. 

The DVPs need a better tool. At the same time, the tool needs to be  flexible 
enough so that that the guys without enough skill aren't forced up.  I've 
seen this situation also. 

Careful schedule design and more frequent change may alleviate some of the  
concern. The parkers could, in effect, start fresh every year, just as the new  
guys entering a class. That places different burden on the group designing  
schedules and on the AMA CB approving them. 

regards
MattK

In a message dated 3/8/2005 8:38:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,  
DaveL322 at comcast.net writes:

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......

I know you and  Don are working hard at it. We on the sequence committee are
as well. I  don't think changing the box is going to help us. I really don't
think  changes to the weights or sizes is going to help us....

I want to weigh  in here so to speak on something that I feel will help
pattern grow in  changes to the rule book. I feel most changes to the rule
book are going to  make us more elite or a more secret way you have to do
things. Guys that  are even in our ranks don't read the rules so why make
them even more  specialized..and so on.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050309/a109b49d/attachment.html