[NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

[Atwood, Mark]

Part of me likes the rotating sequence idea, but it falls pray to the ever changing "style" of our patterns.

How about instead of changing an entire sequence, we look to change a segment of the sequence every 2 years?  Throw 6 manuevers out, and add 6 different ones.  It would allow for some change, some tweaking of the difficulty, would allow new style maneuvers to be put in, without completely redesigning and testing  new sequences all the time.

It would also reduce the sudden learning curve.  You would have some of it memorized and "learned" going in.

And it could be done for every class, though I think Masters probably would like a complete new sequence more often.

As for advancement, I really think that EVERY class should be voluntary.

I'd like to hear someone name a trophy hound.  I'm pretty sure once they did...it would end right there.  Peer pressure and good natured ribbing is part of the game.  I hammer on Archie to move up to FAI at almost every contest!  He has goals he wants to achieve and that's great.  When someone is REALLY tired of him taking home 1st place in a local contest...all they have to do is....beat him.



From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Joe Lachowski
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 11:32 AM
To: NSRCA Discussion List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Advancement System

I'm for getting rid of advancement in the Advanced class for one. This is the class a number flyers who stick around seem to hit their skill level wall and disappear.  It also appears to be the smallest class attended at local contests these days.  At least in D1 it is.

I'd also like to see the option of being able to move back after one year in the next higher class. This would be a allowed one time only.

 To make frequent sequence change doable, instead of having to come up with new ones every 4 years or so, maybe we should just come up with a good set of say 4 for each class. You can rotate through them every 2 years and start from the first one all over again after they've cycled through. This could easily be done for Intermediate and Advanced. Probably even Masters. After about 8 years the pool of flyers for the most part will have changed in each class anyway. Establishing these sequences will probably take a well thought process of about two years by some dedicated people willing to take it on. You could also just change a handful of maneuvers in these sequences after the 8 year cycle to keep things a little fresh for those that are still flying a particular class after the 8 year cycle. This is a lot of work up front but in teh long run it is easier.

 As far as Sportsman goes, you just need one good sequence that teaches the basic skills to get you to Intermediate. The one we have now is pretty close if not good enough.

Just some ideas.

________________________________
From: anthonyr105 at hotmail.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 10:48:08 -0400
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(r) goes with you. Get it on your BlackBerry or iPhone.<http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Mobile?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Mobile1_052009>
________________________________
Hotmail(r) has ever-growing storage! Don't worry about storage limits. Check it out.<http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage1_052009>

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/20090507/132cac78/attachment.html>