Register | Login
Attackpoint - performance and training tools for orienteering athletes

Discussion: analysis

in: randy; randy > 2016-02-11

Feb 12, 2016 2:52 AM # 
I hope you realize I appreciate your ED analysis.

More than most, I appreciate results-focused assessments. Things that can be measured.

In this case, there are certain metrics that you cite that could be proxies for the health of US orienteering.

But, doesn't this association of the binary variable and your series sort of beg the question of what the metrics would look like in the absence of the ED? If orienteering was declining before the ED, how do we know if wouldn't have declined more without him?

There can be executives who run fast growing companies and declining companies. They both may be effective and worth a lot of money; they just have to do different things.

Anyway, I think there reasons one might criticize the ED project, but I think evaluating it is trickier than looking at cost and one measure of results, unless you can derive a functional relationship between the two (beyond extrapolating trends.)
Feb 12, 2016 5:01 AM # 
I think evaluating it is trickier than looking at cost and one measure of results

Oh please. Anyone rational looks at the costs and looks at the results of any endeavor. If there is something "tricky" in that analysis, then it should either be obvious or described. So far, at least to me and 675K spent with negative results, the "tricky" description hasn't hit any forum I read.

Look, I have no dog in this fight and it is not my money being spent. I just think the board has a fiduciary duty to look at this. Hopefully the "tricky" argument will be presented.
Feb 12, 2016 1:43 PM # 
I think it is tricky because most people around orienteering don't have the training in economics that you enjoy, and may be unable to discern the marginal impact of a factor in a complex system unless somebody spells out a neat model (like I think you want to.)

Let me say this differently. I would describe your argument thusly:

During President Obama's reign, which started almost 8 years ago, global land/ocean temperatures have meaningfully increased.

I hope I don't need to spell out how important this is, but I will. His failures mean that there probably won't be a sport, err, planet for our great-grandchildren to enjoy. Who cares about him making people happy today? Who cares about the Affordable Care Act he championed or the Obergefell v. Hodges decision he facilitated. Why should he get credit for those?

On the other hand, maybe all that doesn't matter, because there is a country to run. It may be going to hell, and we may not like it, but does that indicate that the office of the president should be eliminated? Probably not. People like Obama. He peddles hope. A lot of people voted for him. Who cares what your metrics from the CBO say?

Of course, I didn't vote for him, and don't support his efforts, so I ain't got no dog in that fight.

On that subject, let me just say ... the "no dog in the fight argument" is wasted words. "Bad air! Bad air!" Once you step into the ring, whether it is here or somewhere else, your sh*t will smell just like the other guy's. Your arguments don't get some magical sanctification because you stay out of the fray, unbesmirched by making the sausage.
Feb 14, 2016 4:19 AM # 
"the starts/A meet recession over the past 6 years"

Not that there's a universally agreed technical definition of recession for starts and/or A meets but based on the rechartering data I have access to, A meet activity (starts/days/races) has certainly been lower 2010 to present than in the preceding years back to 2002 inclusive but local event starts reached their nadir in 2009 and have rebounded somewhat since then (at least through 2013, up 4760 over 2009, slightly more than 10% - I don't have full year data for 2014 or any data for 2015).

I guess I agree with Clem that judging the ED's job performance is much more complicated than just looking at those numbers. But I think it's a travesty that, having adopted the strategic plan and the metrics in it, there wasn't a public accounting of the results, including attempts to extract some lessons about what worked, what didn't work and why. I said so, along with Clem as I recall, when they started the effort to formulate a new strategic plan with which to carry on after the term of that plan expired. But hey, I'm not an OUSA member, I guess you aren't either these days, Randy, and there apparently aren't enough people who are who agreed with Clem and felt strongly about it to force OUSA to do something other than sweep the old strategic plan under the rug.

I also agree there's no point discussing climate science with you. You've shown no interest in engaging with the evidence in past discussions and since you've already decided mainstream climate science has been proved fraudulent, I hold out little hope that you wouldn't simply dismiss any evidence you didn't like as fraudulent should such a discussion nevertheless somehow take place. Maybe you'll come around when Glacier National Park has no glaciers left. Or when the Maldives are underwater often enough to create a refugee crisis. Or when Miami becomes uninhabitable. Far be it from me to claim certainty as to what will be enough to make you abandon a position as entrenched as the one you've adopted.
Feb 14, 2016 4:25 PM # 
As someone who worked on the original strategic plan, and who appreciated the parsimoniousness and salience of that simple metric, I was disappointed when a new strategic plan--one seemingly more complex and discursive--supplanted it. I also feel, like jtorranc, "it's a travesty that, having adopted the strategic plan and the metrics in it, there wasn't a public accounting of the results, including attempts to extract some lessons about what worked, what didn't work and why."

On the other topic... I wish we all could be friends and have some good, clean fun debating climate science. randy and I could be like the Hart Foundation, battling against ... everybody. But, I demure, until perhaps I find myself under a palm tree somewhere after 2 or 3 drinks as my judgment recedes.

@randy--I'm very sorry that you continue to harbor so many grievances at orienteering. But, I don't begrudge them. If it makes you happy, I was never in the club clique either, and didn't get a $600 OCAD license. However, I never did the amount or quality of mapping to feel that I was entitled to one. I did want one, and so I went out an bought it, and it was money well spent. I try to guard against entitlement, and the problems it causes, (recognizing it is my birthright as a privileged white man, rather than as a poor boy from a poor family) but at the same time, I'm confused, because Lady Gaga says its OK to be born this way.

This discussion thread is closed.