<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I will start off like Chris....... all
good points IMHO<br>
<br>
Being that we have 8 contest this year within 100 miles from where
Jean and I live, I will refrain from making too many comments as
to the number of contests required to attend (win) to be eligible
for district champ. I don't know that "forcing" pilots to attend
more contest to be eligible, would encourage them to attend more
or not. ?? You are either going to attend contest, or not. I
would like to weigh in on where the district championship would be
held. Perhaps all clubs who are interested in hosting the D7
Championship would notify the district VP of such interest. Then
all clubs interested would have their names put in a hat, and a
drawing would be held at the D7 meeting at the AMA Expo (or any
other radom method). It would then be known, then published where
it would be held. This process might be a little late for this
year.......or not, but this would open it up to all interested
clubs. I realize the reasons pilots like Bear Mountain.......
centrally located in district (not really, but that is a whole
different subject), somewhat predictable weather (not always, as
illustrated this past year) and very nice accommodations. Looking
over the records of those who attended the Fresno contest last
year, no one from AZ made it.......just a little too far perhaps?
But when it's been at Arvin, there have been a few who have made
it.....outer limits for most of the AZ guys? I really don't think
there is an easy answer for both subjects......people don't like
change? You'll please some, but not all. I do think at the
meeting Sean said this would be an experiment to see how it flies
(no pun intended). If it doesn't work out, we would go back to the
way it's done in the past. Thanks for reading......it's just
another opinion for discussion.<br>
<br>
Mike G.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 1/24/2015 6:40 PM, Chris Fitzsimmons via NSRCA-dist7 wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAO+gwkkfpSDA1xcy_cTjs4GyU2StswsQRa+UYHxNZ3kysbJKmg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Good points imo.. </p>
<p dir="ltr">I almost wanted to see if I could get reimbursed my
NSRCA membership.. I have a hard time attending a bunch of
contests financially like I used to. I guess it could be
perceived that the district champion will also be better off
financially. And that those who struggle financially to attend
may as well go fly a kite. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Having one or two extra contest wins needed will make
people attend their locals more, not travel up or down to far
from home contests imo. </p>
<p dir="ltr">If one of the goals is to get more out of district
pilots to attend our district championship, why raise their
counted contests to 2, and then raise the number needed to 4 or
5. Doesnt make sense for them. They still need to attend 2/3 in
district contests. </p>
<p dir="ltr">Chris</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 24, 2015 12:45 PM, "Anthony
Frackowiak via NSRCA-dist7" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:nsrca-dist7@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-dist7@lists.nsrca.org</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<br>
I did not attend the AMA Expo this year and I was not present
at the NSRCA meeting. I've been trying to find out what
happened as I hear there have been some changes to the D-7
District Championships format.<br>
<br>
Let me recap what I heard and please correct me if it is not
right.<br>
<br>
It started with Sean proposing that we increase the number of
contests that are used for the scoring from 3 to 5. It was
also proposed that 2 out of district contests be allowed for
the scoring. I heard there was a discussion and then a vote
either to accept these proposals or to leave it alone. I heard
the great majority wanted to have it left alone. There was
some discussion after that vote and it was proposed to drop
the number of contests to 4 and that there was never a vote on
that proposal. But from some sort of process that is how it
will be done.<br>
<br>
I have some comments regarding this format. Increasing the
number of qualifying contests just makes it more difficult for
those on a budget to be able to participate in the
Championships. I don't see that as a positive change. It's
hard enough for those with a more modest income to attend 3
and then the Champs. Why do we want to make it even more
difficult? I just don't see the logic in changing a process
that has been working so well. After all, the Class Champion
is pretty much the one who wins the Champs. I'll bet if you
looked at all the years results if you took away the scores
from all the contests it would always be the one who won the
Champs, if they were an NSRCA member. The only exception I can
think of was when I attended the champs in Masters and hadn't
flown three events. I can understand the desire to promote
participation at the events but we seem to be doing pretty
well at that with the system in place. We have more contests
and a general trend of more entrants. So I<br>
think this is trying to fix something that's not broke.<br>
<br>
As to the out of district contests I can see allowing one but
if we stay with 3 counting I don't think it should be two.
Also, exactly how will that be scored? The previous scoring
did not take in to account in the standings anyone who was out
of the district or not an NSRCA member. Will being a member be
included in these out of D-7 contests?<br>
<br>
Also, I hear that it has been decided that the district champs
will be going back to the Bear Mountain Flyers field. What
other considerations were attempted before making this
decision? Shouldn't all the clubs that hold contests at their
field in this District have a chance to hold the Champs? The
Champs used to move around and now it seems that it can't get
out of Central California. That is not fair to the entire
district nor to the many other clubs that hold contests.
Members in Arizona, Nevada and Utah have been excluded from
holding this event for too long. Shouldn't they have a chance
to make a bid for it?<br>
<br>
I have seen no discussion about these issues at all on this
list or any other outlet. Is the leadership seeking input from
more then those who attend the Expo?<br>
<br>
Thank you for your consideration,<br>
<br>
<br>
Tony Frackowiak<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-dist7 mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NSRCA-dist7@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-dist7@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist7"
target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist7</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
NSRCA-dist7 mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-dist7@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-dist7@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist7">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist7</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>