[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

[jonlowe at aol.com]

 Earl,
I have to agree.? I think trashing the whole advancement "system" is the best approach, except from Sportsman to Intermediate.? Peer pressure will do the job, and no one is formally tracking points anyway.? If the lower sequences, except maybe for Sportsman, are changed on a two year cycle, that will keep it interesting for the people who elect to stay in lower classes.? I think "declaring" your class for the year at your first contest of the year would keep people from cherry picking contests.

My understanding is that some countries (Australia?) make you prove you are ready to move up, rather than forced moves.? I'm not advocating that, but I think that moving when you are ready is better than forced moves.? I had a year in Advanced with sporadic competition that almost pointed me out the first year, back before the two year rule.? I stayed away from a couple of contests late in the season because I was trying to stay within the letter of the rules rather than point out.? The second year I had more competition, with many fewer high placements.? If the advanced pattern had changed this year, and we didn't have the point rule, I might have stayed in advanced a while longer.? I'm clearly not competitive yet in Masters, although I am improving slowly.? My Dad can tell you that my first few attempts at Masters were rather scary.? 

Jon


 


 

-----Original Message-----
From: Earl Haury <ejhaury at comcast.net>
To: Discussion List, NSRCA <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thu, 7 May 2009 9:24 am
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System
















In the discussion regarding the Masters sequence / length 
a few competitors mentioned that increasing the difficulty would cause them to 
stop competing. Folks, this needs to be addressed! We can't tolerate a system 
where folks are forced to a level where they can't enjoy pattern and/or chose to 
quit.?


?


There are generally two views of the current system. One 
is that it is cast in stone and needed to?force the "trophy hound" to move 
to the proper class. The other is that peer pressure alone will result in proper 
classification. I think that there's a third possibility, some folks prematurely 
move to a higher class for the "prestige" of that class.?There's likely 
reality / unreality to each view?which supports that some process is 
needed. While there have been some changes to smooth the advancement 
process,?nothing has changed for a person who finds themselves in a class 
that exceeds their skills. I know - there's a process to petition for dropping 
to a lower class, but it's intended for hardship cases rather than being 
uncompetitive.


?


OK - going back to the first paragraph - how might we fix 
this? My suggestion is to change the rules so that folks who gather points in 
the lower percentile of a class for X number of events (or rounds, or time 
span?) have the option to stay where they are, or move back a class. The current 
advancement rules would be applied to folks in the upper percentile. It seems 
that this would provide an option for the casual competitor to seek a comfort 
level and retain a reasonable advancement process for the serious competitor. Of 
course there are administrative issues, probably best to simply use data within 
each district, as most already track points for district championships. A 
district based data set would also best weight performance within one's local 
peer group.


?


Just my thoughts - how about the group discussing this 
some.


?


Earl

 





_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion



 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090507/7cbd523c/attachment.html>