Discussion: US Champs format

I'm moving this to the main discussion from Cristina's log as it seems to be getting a bit of traction. I am willing to champion the following proposal (which is not really mine - I believe Randy suggested something very similar a few years ago). I'd like to get a first round of feedback as I expect there is a LOT of resistance to this sort of change. To make it fly, there would also have to be a fair bit of support.

Here's the original post:

One suggestion I've not seen is separating the age group champs from the "real" champs. Most other sports do this and it would allow the fast masters and juniors to run open without giving up their shot to win an age group title. Presumably, this would improve the depth of field in both. To pull this off and still cut down on champs weekends, I'd go with something like this:

Official US Championships: Sprint, Middle, Long. IOF distances. Only F21 and M21 count as champs events. Other courses/classes can be offered if the host club wants to attract more entries. Could also be combined with team trials.

Age group/relay champs: 1 winner-take-all classic distance event for each age group on their regular course. Relay champs the following day. Mixing the relay with this group makes more sense because our relay points format encourages using people who do well in their age group, but not necessarily open. Getting away from the 2-day combined will certainly meet with some resistance, but in most age groups, the results hardly change after day 1.

Off year champs: On years that there is no North American Champs, have another weekend with a night-O and ultra long.

Interscholastic/Intercollegiate/ROGAINE: I don't think these compete with the other champs events, so they can probably be left the way they are.

You've got my support, although I'd like to see a Night O Champs every year if possible...

I don't much care one way or the other about a Night-O champs... but it seems quite silly to me to have a champs event for something that we hardly ever do.

I like the suggestion of having separate Open and Age Group champs. Especially since we have so many strong runners over 35 (or, to a lesser extent, under 21), but mostly because the whole reason I brought this up is because I would to see us have one really big champs weekend. I can't think of a better way of making it a big attraction than what Eric suggests.

this was close to happening around 2003. it was called the "open champs"

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%...

Ken - with your link, I accessed the AP discussion about the rejection of the proposal but could not access the proposal itself (clicking on 'here' yielded a dead-end for me). So I don't know what the 2003 proposal was.

Under Eric's proposal, would there be any reason not to combine Open Champs and Team Trials? If separate, it would dilute both, yes? And I would really hope that A-meet courses would be offered for the 'rest of us'. Michigan was fun!

For Europeans, my impression is that national club Relay champs are really BIG. In US, US Relay champs seem unimportant for most USOF members and clubs. 1-day Age Group US Champs + Relay champs appeals to me personally because it is the first suggestion I've heard that might promote US Relay Champs into a significant championship event (maintaining some variation of the three point-based team categories, please).

When you have your open champs, it's important to have WYO too (Eric's proposal leaves this up to the club). We want all our events to be inclusive of kids/families, including parents who'd like to compete in open but want to be able to be there with their kids.

Separating the open champs from age group champs is certainly nice in that it allows people to run twice for championships, but seems to me it only increases the number of different championships, which is fine, but I thought counter to the idea that we have too many as is.

I don't really care so much about what we call our races.

We didn't get many elites to the long-O, short-O, night-O champs this year, did we?

I love night-O. I don't have any problem with there being a championship race for something that is only done rarely. Otherwise it might not happen at all!

Night-o should be nurtured. Curious if holding US open champs as a team trials event adds unwanted pressure to the team selection. Not sure if we need both an age group champs and an open champs.... but empathize with all the juniors that would like to race both elite and their category, I think the Shirminator can probably live without two medals though if we continue to make the juniors pick a category. And finally... CSU will be at the relay champs this year and we're very excited about the relays being held on the same weekend as the sprint series finals.... as we think they will have a large draw to deepen the field. Maybe this is a combination that we should keep in concert.

but empathize with all the juniors that would like to race both elite and their category

I think the bigger question is that of the 35+ crowd (including some 40 and 45+) who can compete and do well (often winning) in M/F-21+. The idea is for both the "open" champs and the age group champs be more competitive by allowing these guys the opportunity to do both.

StoraMoo won't scare anybody... unless he joins USOF.

http://home.comcast.net/~rshannonhouse/042702BOD.h...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/usoteam/message/110

Note that the second link ken lists is only available to you if you are a member of the usoteam YahooGroup.

2nd link, copied:
Given the recent developments in international scheduling, I would
like to bring up the following

Proposal:

Flavor 1:

The M-21+ and F-21+ US Classic Orienteering Championships shall be a
part of the yearly US Team Trials. There shall not be Championship awards for
the M-21+ or the F-21+ category at the US Classic Orienteering Championships.

Flavor 2:

The M-21+ and F-21+ US Classic Orienteering Championships and Short
Course Orienteering Championships shall be a part of the yearly US Team Trials.
There shall not be Championship awards for the M-21+ or the F-21+ category at
the US Classic Orienteering Championships or the US Short Course Orienteering
Championships.

Objectives:

(1) To give our best runners a chance to compete in their appropriate age
groups at the US Championships (I'll call them "Age Group Champs" from now
on).

(2) To increase competition strength at the M-21+ and F-21+ US Champs by
providing an opportunity for everyone to compete without sacrificing a
chance to also compete in their age group at the Age Group Champs.

(3) To ensure race quality appropriate for the Championships. At present,
the M-21+ or F-21+ race length at the US Classic Champs is often unsuitable.
Flavor 2 will ensure a one-day Classic and a one-day Short Championship,
the format preferred by most M-21+ and F-21+ runners.

(4) Flavor 2 only: To provide a target time of the year for the M-21+ and
F-21+ competitors to train to peak for, presumably a month or so before the
World Champs. Presently, the various US Champs are spread over the course
of the year, and recently, the Short Champs has been consistently scheduled
early in the spring.

Discussion:

In 2000, of the top 20 M-21+ and 20 F-21+ USOF-ranked competitors,
7 and 12 were age 35 or older, respectively (my count is based on personal
information, and may be off slightly). Some of these competitors may want to
enjoy the respect coming from winning their appropriate age groups. More
importantly, opening up the M-21+ and F-21+ Champs to everyone will
approximately double the number of participants (judging by the number of
M-21+ and F-21+ course participants at the Team Trials compared to A-meets
held the same year in close proximity to the Trials). With the increased
number of participants at the M-21+ and F-21+ ("Open"?) Champs, the best
runners will be pressed to train and compete harder in order to deserve a
high-placing spot; this impact will most likely be due to the juniors trying
out the harder courses, not the masters hanging on. The fact that we don't
have many juniors now who are ready to challenge the older folks doesn't mean
we won't in the future. Again, the juniors will benefit from being able to
race with the "elites" and still have a shot at the Age Group Champs. The
Age Group Champs were held separately from the M-21+ and 20 F-21+ Champs/Trials
at least once, in 1993.

What the "elite" runners want for a Championship is quite different
from what the rest of the US O-world wants. And the "elite" does not just
mean the young guns. The controversy was most obvious after the 1998
Classic Champs. The one-day format was very well received by the M-
and F-21+'s, but was viewed as questionable by most other categories'
runners. Many M-21+ and F-21+ runners have publicly expressed their support
for a 90-min and a 30-min weekend race format. In order to be competitive on
the world scene, we need to train for the same courses we would face in
international competition. It is never typical to have 2 days of 70-80-min
racing in such competition. If we decide that we'd rather focus on shorter
Classic races of WOC qualifying length, or the focus shifts in the world scene
in some other way, we can do that, too, on a year-to-year basis. We can
introduce the Sprint format without the event organizers feeling pressured
to have the Sprint for all age groups, for example. Proposal Flavor 2 also
enforces the Short as a part of the Team Trials; our best luck on the Men's
side so far at the WOC has been in the Short, and we don't even select our
WOC Team on the basis of a Short race at this time.

There may be objections saying that with another Championship
event, we are starting to ask too much from USOF clubs. However, at the
present we need to beg the clubs to put on the Team Trials anyway. Making
the Trials a USOF-sanctioned Championship event ensures that the Trials will
be put on, properly scheduled in advance, and held up to the quality specified
in the Rules of Competition (which will need to be modified). The M-21+ and
F-21+ Champs/Trials organizers will be free to have the rest of the age
groups compete in whatever (legal) format they choose.

There will invariably be complaints from, say, Z99+ runners like "zhe
used to always compete in Z-21+, and now zhe is in my age group... how can I
ever win anything... it's unfair!" I wouldn't take those too seriously.

There will invariably be complaints from, say, Z99+ runners like "zhe
used to always compete in Z-21+, and now zhe is in my age group... how can I
ever win anything... it's unfair!" I wouldn't take those too seriously.

Well, you better, because those are exactly the complainers who get these ideas torpedoed at the AGM. I've put on enough A-meets to know that one reduces the number of trinkets at one's peril. This objection needs to be met head-on.

I've often thought that an annual spring NAOC with M/F 21 only that doubles as WRE and team trials and/or elite champs for the respective countries would be a step in the right direction for North American orienteering. Last year we had a very good field at the NAOC. There should be A race each year that attracts the continents very best to race head to head with the Kjellstrom trophy as an added bonus.

I believe Randy suggested something a few years back.

http://www.mapsurfer.com/ol/ol_ar105.html

Here was my log entry on the subject. A bit (well very) overblown and crufty, but there might be some stuff worthwhile.

Bottom line -- sprint/middle/long the premiere formats, dump or reduce some of the other stuff. Seems to be echoing some of the thought here.

It was a very tough sell my 6 years on the board. Bottom line, a majority of USOF (or at least USOF's representation) did not want change.

Perhaps times are changing. Maybe the lack of a 2008 classic champs indicates something.

Good luck with it, I'm off the board and promised myself I wouldn't get in this debate anymore, but I support change here, FWIW.

The Open Champs was a political hot potato. The 2003 proposal was a mistake; it did have significant BOD support, but not enough support of the kind of members who like to decide what's best for others. Not much has changed, so I don't think there will be popular support for a similar proposal at the present time.

As one who has never run Blue and was very relieved to move down to Green, the only negative I feel about the Team Trails/Open Champs 3-course format is if there is no attached A-meet. I enjoy hanging around the Team and Open competition and I enjoy running a quality Green course in championship terrain. Without an A-meet promise, it can easily be interpreted as an elitist proposal (and thus be killed). Once or twice the Team Trials (or Relay?) had one radio/spectator control and/or an announcer - done well, that adds a lot! General runners, family members, and young 'uns can get caught up in the excitement.

I actually found Eric's second proposal (1-day Age Group Champs/Relay weekend) as appealing, but likely more controversial. If indeed 2008 has no US Classic Champs proposal, might a proposal for Age Group/Relay have a chance?

Without an A-meet promise, it can easily be interpreted as an elitist proposal

It seems to me that if there's ever an appropriate place for "elitism", it would be at an elite national championships! Seriously, I think that's a big problem with our nationals structure - they are just rebranded A-meets. The elite national champs should be a step up from that. Of course the host club would be encouraged to offer something for everybody else as well, but the Nats races should be something special.

I think there's some historical precedent that changes occur when somebody offers to step up and do something their own way. Waiting for policy from on high is less productive. The relay champs reform started in 1991 with no policy changes on the part of USOF, and the rules only caught up a couple of years ago. If there's a vacuum in 2008, innovation may have an opportunity to fill it.

Why can't there be an "attached A-meet"? E.g. at most Team Trails, which follow the "Open Champs" format, there's a regular A-meet for non Z21 competitors...

There certainly could be, and it would probably be a good marketing move for the host club to do that. USOF Rules do provide for something called an "elite A-meet" (I think), however, with reduced class structure, and there is the question of whether it would be okay for the Z21 Champ to be such a meet if that's what the host club wanted to do. The Team Trials have on occasion in the past been such a meet -- 1989, 1991, and 1993 come to mind.

I don't know to much of the history of this, or to much about the orienteering community in general. SO this is just coming from personal experience.
I think to promote the sport it would be good to have the team trials as the US champs for the elites. I think that it would be good to have the Us champs for all the other age groups at the same time to get many more people there to watch and cheer on the The M and F 21 runners, maybe starting them later in the day. I also think that we should try and consolidate the champs, because there are so, many. I think if we consistently had the Champs on a long weekend in the spring with Sprint Middle Long and relay, it would bring many people and become an event for man people to come to. Instead of going to this championship or that. I terms of night O I don't know how that would be fit in but if it could that would be great. The champs would then be Sprint Middle long relay and possibly Night O. Yes this would be a long weekend but I think if it was organized well people could work it out in there schedules. Then there would be one Us champs Team trials and clubs could feel free to put on what ever A meet format they wanted to. We wouldn't have to look for four different clubs to put on champs. Last yes I think it would be nice for people to be able to compete in there categories and then against the elites. But I think it is a sacrifice to move and a good challenge to try and compete with the best. I think we should try and encourage people juniors to race there age groups unless they feel ready. I think have this as one big event will give young juniors the goal to try and get better and be able to compete with the elites. This process will take time to develop. But one thing I think we should all consider is weather we are trying to make quick results happen that are not maybe the best ways. Or are we going to strive for a better system that may take a 10 years to start turning out results but will definitely be a solid base. This will take a change in system which is necessary. My thoughts are just questions. I think every one should consider this, and what they think. Keep up the discussion.

Note that (I believe) there are some historical reasons why some of this is not in place now, and some of those reasons are no longer valid. Specifically, in the past there was not a Team Trials every year, because the WOC happened only in odd-numbered years (with the NA Champs on even-numbered years). Also, there was a desire for the Champs to occur at the "end of the season", which meant autumn since in those days, orienteering was concentrated in the northeast.

The Night-O Champs should, if possible, happen in the south in the wintertime, although this has happened only once (SDO). It's good to have the sun set early, but the temperature not be frigid. Having it in the summer sucks (for the finish crew, and for late starters). If the Elite Champs is going to be the Team Trials, then it should not include the Night-O, since that's not a Trials event and would thus be only a distraction to the aspirants.

So, has the question become, can (or will) DVOA bid to have the 2008 Team Trials also be sanctioned as the US Champs for all age groups?

I hope not, since that is completely contrary to my original proposal. If orienteering folks are seriousl about elevating the sport, they really need to think about getting the "elite", "open", whatever you want to call it, champs separated from EVERYTHING else. You will be really hard pressed to find a major sport that mixes in a bunch of age-group stuff with their open national championships.

This is not to say that an accompanying A-meet can't be offered; just that for this proposal to make any sense it has to focus on the open classes AND NOTHING ELSE. Sponsors get this. USOF doesn't.

I generally agree with the proposal to separate the Elite Champ/Team Trial event from the Age Group Champ event. But in the past this proposal has had objections from the US Champs event organizers, whose events were already on the calendar. One fear is that separating these events would have a detrimental effect on the attendance at the Age Group event. Thus increasing their financial uncertainty. It seems that it is getting harder and harder to have clubs step up and put on championships or even A Meets. (No Classic Champs bids yet for 2008?). Only a small portion of US Clubs seem to be volunteering to tackle these large projects. The concerns of potential meet organizing clubs need to be at the forefront of any decisions made. If not we may have fewer championships only because no one is willing to put them on.

My personal opinion:
I like the idea of a separate elite champs and age-group champs. However, I also very much like having the non-classic formats available as championship events to all age groups. So I would not support a proposal where the only format available for non-elite champs was classic. One of the reasons we have so many championships is that when new formats emerge it has generally been thought that establishing a championship in that format helps to encourage clubs to organize races in that format (we've had differing success with this). The outcome of reducing age classes to only the classic format could backfire into many fewer non-classic events than we have now (as few as they are).

The best solution I've seen that I like is to have two weekends which are sprint/middle/long annually. One would be a US Champ and the other a North American Champs. One would include all age classes and the other elite only. I'm not sure which should be which - probably given the IOF interest in high profile Regional Champs it would be better to shoot for the NA being the elite only champs, but I could go either way. Then there could also be a third US weekend with the classic/relay format.

"for this proposal to make any sense it has to focus on the open classes AND NOTHING ELSE. Sponsors get this. USOF doesn't."

To the contrary - one of the things that killed this last time is that we had a sponsor who came out against it. The sponsor clearly saw that in the US orienteering was a participatory rather than spectator sport. They weren't interested in the most elite event, they were interested in our champs being the largest event possible - ergo, age groups.

My presidential opinion:
So - how to make this happen? A group needs to form to put together a formal proposal for the board. The group should report to the VP Competition. Given recent history the group will need to show that the proposal has enough club and membership support to avoid being overturned. This means not only developing what you want, but selling the idea to the masses before bringing it to the board. I'd also recommend polling club leaders around the country and not just relying on internet input. We've seen a couple of issues already where the folks who were vocal on the internet did not truly represent the general membership and we had to reverse ourselves.

To the contrary - one of the things that killed this last time is that we had a sponsor who came out against it. The sponsor clearly saw that in the US orienteering was a participatory rather than spectator sport. They weren't interested in the most elite event, they were interested in our champs being the largest event possible - ergo, age groups.

I don't doubt it, but I think we're talking two different things here. Current sponsors view the sport as participatory, and that is a correct perception. However, if we want to bring in new sponsors at a significantly higher level, something has to be done to shift the focus to elite competition and generate a spectator base. The participant base is simply not large enough to justify any sponsor pouring much money into the sport.

I'm not saying that's a direction we should go; just that if we do want to go that route, these perception changes are crucial.

As for the larger points about club support, I couldn't agree more. No point in moving it forward if it's just going to get nuked at the AGM.

I agree Eric. While an existing sponsor may not like the idea, it's not clear what new sponsors might appear out of the woodwork if we shifted our focus and were successful in developing the spectator end of the sport.