[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

[Bill Glaze]

Very, very well put to both of you.  Unfortunately, this doesn't well address the occasional "trophy hound" out there.  And, yes, I believe we've all seen them.  I'm sure there can be arranged a compromise/combination "cure" for this, short of kneecapping the offender.  For a long time, I've advocated keeping points.  But--what do we do with them, and just who is to be tasked with this?  The latter is the big stopper.  I do feel, like Jon, that more frequent changing of sequences would help keep interest up, while ending premature advancement.  The changing of sequences would also, (and this is big) let the lower classes know that they are highly regarded--enough so to be treated with respect verging on that given Masters and FAI. I feel that respect is deserved; last time I looked, dues were the same for Sportsman, Intermediate, and Advanced.  The idea of 2 classes of Masters would also seem to have some validity.  We need to change the old way of doing business!  Still thinking.  And sitting behind an inch of heat-treated armor plate.

Bill Glaze
NSRCA 2388
AMA  2221
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Anthony Romano 
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
  Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 10:48 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System


  Good idea Earl. I think peer pressure alone will suffice but if we want an organize system this has merit. 
   Do we realize if we allow the other classes to become destinations then the sequences should change more frequently. 
   
  Anthony
   

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  From: ejhaury at comcast.net
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 09:24:18 -0500
  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


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Hotmail® goes with you. Get it on your BlackBerry or iPhone. 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  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/20090507/74c4c61d/attachment.html>