[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

[Mark Hunt]

I would agree here with Mark that using the wording of "Guideline" is a good solution.

Regards,
Mark, D6




________________________________
From: "Atwood, Mark" <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2009 10:15:40 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System


WE HAVE TO CHANGE THIS!!!!
 
I will put forth the same suggestion that I have in the past.  REGARDLESS of how the points are determined, the wording should be changed that they are a GUIDELINE for advancement, not a mandatory system.  PERIOD.
 
I.e no restrictions on which class you fly.  This is supposed to be fun.  Some people will NEVER get past Advanced, or intermediate, and yet they will be in the top 3 at most local events.  But that’s the top 3 of 5 people.  And the bottom 2 there will likely surpass them at some point and move on.
 
Trophy hounds just don’t exist, or if they do, they don’t exist for long.  Let’s face it…we eventually get our fill and get bored and want to move up.
 
But someone that used to be a great Advanced flyer…moves to masters, but then kids, work, whatever cuts their practice time from twice a week to twice a year, would like to come to a contest, fly advanced again and at least feel competitive.  
 
This is just ridiculous that were so concerned with trophy hounds.  It’s not like they’re cheating…they’re just better than the guy they’re flying against. Isn’t that the goal??
 
Anyhow, I think we should propose that ANY advancement system be a quideline.  Simply something to give pilots an idea of when it’s right to move up.  But don’t force it, and don’t prevent people from flying in any class they want.    Let’s try it!  If it doesn’t work, at least then we’ll have learned a little more about what doesn’t work.
 
-Mark
 
From:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Earl Haury
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 10:24 AM
To: Discussion List, NSRCA
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
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.285 / Virus Database: 270.12.19/2099 - Release Date: 05/07/09 05:57:00
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090507/2acddd4a/attachment.html>