Discussion: OCIN plans to change rules on US Relays Champs

I like the 0/6/12 idea. I do think that it would make it easier to field not only good "elite" teams, but also open up the next rung to a lot of clubs that have no hope in the current 4-point, but can't get enough women and/or old folks together for an 8-point.

That said, we're talking about a championship event that is less than 2 months away. Any change in the rules at this point is completely out of order.

# Posted 2006-02-09 11:20:33

ebone:

BAOC is one of few clubs for whom the 4-point requirement is a severe restriction on team make-up. For Cascade, the point requirement has, at times, been a restriction on our team configuration, but mostly it has not cramped our style much. As the sport develops, it will probably make sense to lower the point requirement to three, then two, etc. I think that Cascade's best possible relay team right now would probably have between 2 and 4 points.

# Posted 2006-02-09 16:11:05

distracted:

Isn't the idea of a National Championship to find the best teams, and so including the best runners? Whereas the system described first is effectively a handicap relay, and is does exactly that to the best teams by restricting who can run in them.

The 0/6/12 idea is a good one, especially if there's a limited number of runners and you want to maximise the number of teams out there. You then have a situation similar to the Harvester Relay in the UK, which has an Open class (the '0' class here), in which the best men's team can be found, and a Handicap class (the '6' class), in which the top all-female team is crowned women's open champion, but also where any other handicap team can run - it's an inclusive system. There's the added advantage, with only a few categories, of the event still having enough people in each class so it feels like you're actually involved in a relay.

# Posted 2006-02-09 17:11:18
Hammer:	0/6/12 is an excellent idea - as distracted said it is inclusive. 0/6/12 with three three person teams would be even better...

# Posted 2006-02-09 17:45:42
jjcote:	Out of curiosity, how many US clubs, if they were to put together a team of their best four runners, would wind up with a zero-point team? And how many would have less than four? For my own club, RMOC, I think our best team last year probably would have had three points.

# Posted 2006-02-09 18:51:23

randy:

I can only immagine the pandalerium that is going on there now. Might as well pull the pin...toss a grenade into a crowded room and then plead for everyone to remain calm.

Yeah, you got it dude. I'm being told that my comments are offending people, so I'm done. Far be it for actual facts to clutter the matter, like the one that a majority of the sanctioning committee has expressed opposition to at least one tenet of the race in its proposed from. The sanctioning committee apparently has no jurisdiction over how sanctioned races are conducted (or asserting such leads to hard feelings, which is certainly not why I got into orienteering).

For the Douglas Adam's fans, I'll just put a big SEP field around the whole thing :-)

# Posted 2006-02-09 18:53:36
j-man:	I like that 0/6/12 idea, too. But, more than anything, it is too late to be changing the rules for a meet <2 months away -- for which, many people have already made plans. Well, I guess it is not too late to not go as an act of protest...

# Posted 2006-02-09 18:54:57
Bash:	Is OCIN's proposal posted anywhere? Their rules aren't posted on the FP web site.

# Posted 2006-02-09 18:54:59
j-man:	Randy -- how could your comments offend people? You said exactly what I would have. I guess next time I think about posting on the USOF clubnet I should pull out a fingernail instead.

# Posted 2006-02-09 19:01:21
Hammer:	>how many US clubs, if they were to put together a team of their best four runners, would wind up with a zero-point team Not necessarily 0 - but less than 4.... Another question could be. If there was a zero point category would there be more desire for US clubs to develop/attract/train etc. more people so they can enter zero-point teams?

# Posted 2006-02-09 19:23:24
Joe:	I would prefer to see the minimum point team at 2. it forces you to have at least one elite woman. maybe 2-6-10. our clubs best 4 would be about 6 points. mass start = mass confusion.

# Posted 2006-02-09 19:54:03
Sergey:	Existing system is well accepted for many years - there is no need to change it.

# Posted 2006-02-09 20:23:14
ebuckley:	SLOC's best team would include Anna Shafer-Skelton (3), David Frei(1), and myself(1). I'm not sure who the optimal fourth would be, but clearly we'd be well over 4 points. As much as I love SLOC, any system that would give us a chance in the elite relay category is a very broken system. We don't have any top M or F 21 runners and that really should be a requirement for a winning relay team.

# Posted 2006-02-09 20:23:41

If you're mucking around with things, you might also consider the requirement that every team have at least one woman. If I had my way, the international elite relay format would be two men and two women, likely run in the order W-M-M-W. I think if the IOF really wanted to get orienteering into the Olympics, going with just that one race (no individual events, at least to start) would have the most promise. But that's a separate issue.

Modifying aspects of the relay is a fine idea. That's how the current relay system evolved. It's significantly better now than it was when the old relay system was first abandoned in 1991.

I have to wonder (facetiously) if the three-legs-start-together idea is just a distraction: develop a big uproar about that, then say, "ok, never mind, but how about these other minor issues?", and everybody says "fine". :-)

# Posted 2006-02-09 20:26:19

Here it is - the proposal by OCIN:

Dear Orienteers,

Open period for comments on proposed point structure for 2006 U S Relay
Championships: Please comment between now and 11:59 pm EST on 12 February 2006
All of these changes are permitted within the USOF rules for relay
championships. However, we want to allow a brief comment period
before finalizing
them. As in recent years, there will be 4 legs. A brief rationale for
proposed changes is presented at the end.
Some of these ideas will undoubtedly generate some strong feelings.
Please limit your comments to the proposed changes versus the system
in use for
2005 (I.e. not proposing another change not already under consideration), and
please be respectful to other people's opinions.

Mike Minium, 8 February, 2006

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

1. The following table for point values is expected to be used for the 2006
U.S. Relay Championships:
Changes from 2005:
A. males younger than age 14 get 1 additional point.
B. males older than 70 get 1 additional point.
C. orienteers of both genders, age 35 - 39 lose 1 point.

age male female
-14 3 5
15-16 2 4
17-20 1 3
21-39 0 2
40-49 1 3
50-59 2 4
60-69 3 5
70+ 4 5

2. Additionally, it has been proposed that point categories be consolidated
as follows:

4 point teams: teams with members adding up to between 4 and 9
points.
approx. leg difficulties: orange, brown, green, red
10 point teams: teams with members adding up to 10 or more points.
approx. leg difficulties: yellow, orange, brown, green

(changed from 4, 8 and 12 used the last couple years, 4 and 8 only prior to
that).

3. Finally, it has been proposed that to reduce the total time consumed, the
first three legs be started simultaneously. The final leg would still be run
head-to head based on cumulative elapsed time of the preceeding legs.

Rationale:
age -14 males: Below age 14 or so, boys and girls are much more similar
physiologically and developmentally. Therefore, the normal 2 point bonus for
females is too big a differential. Clubs should be given a greater reward for
taking the risk of using a younger, less experienced orienteer.
age 70+ males: Again, physiological ability starts to converge with
like-aged females (not to the same degree as with the young kids). Again, an
increased reward for taking a risk, this time on someone who will
probably navigate
accurately but at a reduced speed.
age 35-39: This is a quote, not my words: "There is no sane physiological
explanation for the MF35 category in
orienteering. Its existence was probably justified in post-WWII conditions in
Europe. All other endurance sports I know have an age-40 masters' cutoff in
agreement with the data showing that trained endurance competitive capacity
peaks in late 20s and decreases very slowly afterwards, with a
steeper drop-off
not until late 40s, in both genders." Data suggests that maximum perforamance
in endurance athletes typically has decreased by no more than 3% by age 40,
but decreases more steeply after that. The negative: 2 of the 7 US eligible 4
point teams in last year's champs would not be eligible in 2006 (without
substituting a member).

points consolidation: The original proposal had the minimum points for
any team being changed from 4 to 5 or possibly 6. However, this (changing to
5) would have eliminated 2 of the 7 teams that were eligible last year by
itself (and 3 additional teams when combined with the 35 - 40
change). Therefore,
we felt it was too radical a change to implement for this year on such short
notice (now 2 months away). Here is a quote from the discussion: "...(The
objective is)... to arrive at a point value that is an index of the
competitors
who are interested in participating in the Relay Champs. I.e. look
at historic
Relay Champs entries. Think of a point system similar to the one currently
used. Then calculate the average point value of a person, times
four. This should
determine the cutoff for the top competitive category. I.e. if, in the
current point system, the average participant is 1.5 points, then the top
competitive category should be 6 points. Then clubs will be thinking
of how to best use
their runners on a competitive team, instead of sequestering the old folks
away in the 12-pt category. The current proliferation of categories
dilutes the
value of a win and does not make team-forming strategy its most inclusive."

starting the first 3 courses at once: This reduces wait times and some
of the need for "catch-up" starts. It can be wet & chilly to be
hanging around
waiting & relay events by their nature take a long time to complete. By
still having the last leg start in a chase format, you keep the competitive
head-to-head excitement of the final leg, but speed up the overall
process. The
idea of starting ALL legs simultaneously was dismissed because it
would greatly
diminish this competitive excitement.

# Posted 2006-02-09 20:36:36

mikeminium:

Hi all,
Two notes on the discussion.

First: The proposed changes were posted on clubnet. They are now available at:
http://www.ocin.org/flying_pig/pigX/relay.html

Second: These are proposals presented for discussion and public comment. They aren't a done deal.

It looks like Greg has also just posted the changes here, but he used the incorrect table for age/gender points.

The correct points are:
age male female
-13 4 5
14-15 3 5
16-17 2 4
18-20 1 3
21-39 0 2
40-49 1 3
50-59 2 4
60-69 3 5
70+ 4 5

Mike Minium

# Posted 2006-02-09 20:37:24

speedy:

Relay is Relay and it's NOT a goat-style competition with a mass start.

In case of eliminating 1 point from 35-39 age group, I like an idea of having 0-6 point (or so) open category. Otherwise, it's really hard to combine best relay team. My point is, if someone's age is between 21-39 and 1 point is eliminated, then person should have a chance to run in the top team (in current system 4-points team). Otherwise, there is no reason to participate in relay at all.

# Posted 2006-02-09 20:37:46

j-man:

JJ's idea is interesting but I don't see how it makes O more appealing to the Olympics other than it is different. I need to review the events, but I don't recall them having mixed relays in running events in the Olympics. Are you going for the beach volleyball effect? I don't know that a mixed O relay team gets there...

I thought from a pure competitive standpoint, a relay should contain the fastest x number of non-bionic/drug-enahanced/whatever humans, independent of whether they are men or women. There are other valid reasons to have mixed teams--and I find those credible, especially in O--but once you mandate a certain gender/age composition you have to acknowlege that you are no longer expressly seeking the fastest team -- you are checking boxes.

# Posted 2006-02-09 20:42:45

jj's last paragraph beginning with "I have to wonder (facetiously)" is a concise and accurate account of how this bid has made its way to this point through the USOF sanctioning process (not just the committee, but the entire process). It appears that the final "sanctioning" of this event will be made on clubnet, by decree, telephone survey or mob rule, at 11:59 pm EST on 12 February 2006. Randy's assesment (although not posted here) is 100% correct.

# Posted 2006-02-09 21:11:33

Tundra/Desert:

The open, 0-pt relay has been the standard until PG made up the core of the current rules in 1991 (?) The goal of having the 4-pt category is obviously not to make it easy for a club to field the best team, it is to promote inclusiveness. Early (pre-1991) Relay Champs suffered from lack of such, and low attendance.

If we are going to start rewriting relay rules,

OCIN's point is that USOF Relay Rules leave the exact point allocation and category composition to the host club. Earlier Relay organizers mostly chose not to utilize this freedom. I will agree that at this point is is a bit too late for a dramatic change of the status quo. However, note that, sadly, the orienteering population is mostly aging, and thus the 4-pt restriction has become mostly a non-issuewhat was meant to promote inclusiveness now is just a rubber stamp on what otherwise already is the best team for most clubs. Thus the introduction of 8-pt and 12-pt categories.

Note that in about 2009, Leif, John F, and Robbie will be about the only 0-pointers left in USOF.

# Posted 2006-02-09 21:18:50
Swampfox:	I can't imagine what in Randy's clubnet comments could be considered offensive to anyone. They were well reasoned, evenly stated, and went right to mark.

# Posted 2006-02-09 21:22:47

Let us look in to the roots of this issue:
The desire to change the format of this relays comes from the fact that we have two championship events on the same day, that shell never be done in the first place, but it is a fact already (and that was done without sanctioning, by the way). We are 99.99% amateur athletes in this country, and what is the fact - amateur organizers of events too. Any one who studied exercise physiology knows that during a short race (sprint winning times ~15 min) most competitive orienteers will run in anaerobic mode for some part of the race , and therefore accumulate lactic acid in their muscle sells. Without having professional massage and professional medical help on that day, many of us will seriously underperform in a second race on that day - it is a fact. Therefore, they are asking us to sacrifice one of two championship events (to some degree of course).
The only solution, in my opinion, for the problem of the duration of relays, without compromising the nature and the spirit of the relays, is to make length of the courses shorter.

# Posted 2006-02-09 21:34:24

Tundra/Desert:

Greg, there are Sprint Quals and Finals on the same day at the WOC, and you do have to haul in the Quals, just ask Yuri O. And in the early 1990s the Middle Qual and Final were on the same day (but the courses were shorter than now). The second USOF Short Course Champs in 1995 had two races on the same day, both of which added times for the Championship. The same was true in 2003.

and that was done without sanctioning, by the way

Sanctioning signed off on having both the Sprint and the Relay Champs on the same day; request submitted 22 November 2005, approved shortly thereafter. The point, category, and mass-start changes were never submitted to Sanctioning because OCIN viewed those as items it was free to establish within USOF Rules according to its view of competitive fairness and participant enjoyment.

# Posted 2006-02-09 21:34:53

distracted:

My first point earlier was primarily "what is the purpose of the US Relay Champs?"

Are they meant to act as a National Championship? If so, why not remove restrictions and make everyone in a particular relay class run on the same set of gaffled courses. Then you have real relay head-to-head racing, and there wouldn't be any qualms in declaring youself US Open Relay Champs, for instance.

Or, seeing that there are different leg lengths/difficulties, is it acting as a club competition more like the 25 manna in Sweden? i.e. participants in several age groups with restrictions who can run certain legs. Is this because of the relatively low number of people in clubs in the US?

It seems more like the latter to me, and I think that might make it unique in terms of a "national" championship... If it is a handicap relay champs, call it that.

# Posted 2006-02-09 21:36:17
eddie:	You can't immagine how happy I am to see you post this, Greg. We should establish that we have not spoken before about this issue, nor have I influenced you in any way to post this (except for that large case of banana flavored Gu packets I sent you).

# Posted 2006-02-09 21:38:18
Tundra/Desert:	Anyone can run any legs, but your team must have enough points to win the Championship, and meet the club and citizenship requirements. So, it's neither.

# Posted 2006-02-09 21:38:57

Note that in both cases of what Vlad quoted, both races on the same day contributed to a single result and a single named champion. Everyone had to run both races on that same day to get a result. This is not the case for the US Sprint and Relay Champs on the same day. its not an issue of running two races on the same day. Its an issue of naming two different champions in two differnet disciplenes on the same day.

# Posted 2006-02-09 21:42:26
Tundra/Desert:	I agree with Eddie. But, extrapolating, there are multiple races at the WOC, and one wears you more than another, and some people are running a few and some, them all and winning them all, too.

# Posted 2006-02-09 21:44:28

j-man:

This is a tangential point, but if the USOF rules are such that they allow "point, category, and mass-start changes" to be effected by the host club, they are bad rules. And there may be other permissable changes as well.

These are bad rules because they seemingly allow a host club to do whatever they want to achieve competitive fairness and participant enjoyment.

While I don't doubt that a hypothetical small, iconoclastic club who earned the right to do the relays may make decisions of the same caliber as those deliberated on by the national body, it seems silly that they should have the lattitude under the rules to implement changes that can so completely alter the flavor of a national "championship." I don't mean this in a pejorartive sense, but it would seem that USOF has no "standards."

Anyway, I'm really not well-informed on the USOF rules so I may be completely wrong. This is just the impression I'm left with...

# Posted 2006-02-09 21:45:59

There were one, or possibly two dissenting opinions on this very point in the second sanctioning request by OCIN - the issue of two champs in one day. The sanctioning committee saw this as something that should be a Board level decision, since it was precedent setting. As such, the decision on this was tacet approval by the sanctioning committee, pending approval by the next higher authority. By current USOF rules, that authority is the Executive Committee (i.e. the president's office, not the USOF board). The EC approved the change request allowing the two champs events on the same day.

# Posted 2006-02-09 21:49:49
eddie:	And now we are left with a time squeeze as one of the primary arguments for a mass-start first leg. A time squeeze which was brought up explicitly in the second sanctioning change bid, and bidder said there was no problem holding both events the same day...the same bidder that is now proposing to mass start the first leg in order to save time.

# Posted 2006-02-09 21:51:53
ebuckley:	Actually, from a physiological standpoint, racing the day after a sprint is more damaging than racing a few hours after.

# Posted 2006-02-09 21:54:03
eddie:	More damaging to what? My legs or my relay result?

# Posted 2006-02-09 22:28:14

Ricka:

Between the proposed 4/10 categories and past two years 4/8/12, I strongly prefer the 4/8/12.

First, the 12 point category has been an immediate hit. Clubs can include 2-3 juniors and have a competitve team - great boost for the juniors! For example, the Breseman's have prospered with it and SLOC's first Relay team in years had two juniors run great legs 2 & 3 in Colorado (team was hurt by a fumbling M55 4th leg- ugh!). Also, if you haven't noticed :), most Brown and Green competitors have slowed down quite a bit and feel more comfortable on 12-point teams - ie they sign up!

Second, most 7-9 point teams will not be very competitive against most 4-6 point teams. I'd prefer going for a top 5 8-point team finish than top 20 4-point team fihish.
Finally, the top 8-point teams (eg CSU) are fast and competitive, but would usually not match the top 5 4-point teams.

Logistically, there doesn't seem to be that much diffrerence between two or three categories since most courses for the third category already exist. Plus one more set of trophies.

# Posted 2006-02-09 22:40:35

More damaging to what? My legs or my relay result?

Both, actually, but I could have been more clear that I was referring to the ability to run well (and therefore, the result). I assume that some temporary damage to muscle fiber is considered a reasonable price to pay for winning a championship.

It's true, that at the truly elite level, a massage or similar therapy would be in order. I think that mandating that for US sprint and relay champs is taking things a bit too seriously. The relay is rarely won by seconds and even if it is, it's highly unlikely that the difference will be because one of the competitors goofed off during the sprint.

That said, if a meet director decides to run two events on the same day, it's their responsibility to take care of the scheduling without bastardizing the event. We did it last year with the short course and relay in Intercollegiate Champs and it was generally regarded as a success (although it sure was a lot of work for our meet crew and I'd only do it again if both events were run from the same area).

I'd much rather see the courses slightly shortened than have legs run simultaneously. Far from a negative, that standing around waiting for teammates is much of what makes relays fun (even if it is in the rain).

# Posted 2006-02-09 22:45:12
GregBalter:	To Vlad - they are Professionals, or semi-pros - the people who make it to the finals @ WOC sprint.

# Posted 2006-02-09 22:45:48

Ricka:

Due to the toal length of the Relay event, especially with two events in one day, I have some sympathy for the mass start - perhaps 2 legs instead of 3?

But how would it work? When each team's 3rd runner comes in, does the 4th runner start? Then it would be total time, not head-to-head, yes? If not, how long would 4th runner wait? If based on leading teams' total of 3 runners, the 4th runner on 'average' teams could have a long wait after their own 3rd runner comes in. Also, the logistics of getting 3 times totalled for the stagferred 4th runner could be hairy for teams close in total times.

Concerning total time for Relay event, I'd prefer 3 legs with perhaps a 3/6/9 structure (though SLOC's top team seems to still be 1-point short).

# Posted 2006-02-09 22:49:54

I'm also not sure how much time would actually be saved by starting the first three legs simultaneously. You're going to need some time to compute the last leg start times, even with e-punching. That means that the total time saved will be the fastest team's two fastest legs minus the time to come up with chase start times. Maybe 45 minutes, probably more like half an hour. Not worth changing the format for.

The slow teams are still going to start WAAAY after the fast teams unless the plan is to just start everybody en mass after all the competitive teams are on course. But that's just another form of "catch-up" starts which is supposedly what this format seeks to avoid.

# Posted 2006-02-09 22:55:44
GregBalter:	To Eric - The moment we start to take this sport seriously - we may expect that in distant future we may have some success on international level, because the rest of orienteering world does.

# Posted 2006-02-09 23:54:20

>There is no sane physiological explanation for the MF35 category in orienteering.

Agreed! Masters should start at 40 and increase in 10 year age groups thereafter -especially now with sprint, middle, long. Makes it similar to trail running rogaine and AR masters cut-off levels.

Back to the relay....
AR is a team sport that friends of similar abilities (and usually ages) can do together in teams of 3 or 4. That same team could not enter the US relay champs together if they were a 20-39 male team.

# Posted 2006-02-10 00:11:39
Ricka:	As Vlad mentioned, the 4-point rule was implemented in the early 90's. The former Open Category 'makes sense', so what problems created the need for the 4-point fix? Do those potential problems still exist or are there better ways to address them? USOF wouldn't want to return to the Open category if the same problems were likely to arise again.

# Posted 2006-02-10 00:16:54
eddie:	The US relay champs is a club champs. All team members must be from the same USOF O-club. Its not an open relay champs in that sense. Of course that doesn't address the value of a "worthless" (0-ish) points category. Worthless teams are always allowed to run, but don't get trinkets if they win. Last year all the worthless teams got beat by 4-point teams.

# Posted 2006-02-10 00:25:09

The "old" relay system had several separate relay events all going on in parallel (Men, Women, Masters, etc.). It was poorly attended, and the same teams won every year: BSK for the Men, NEOC for the Women.

In 1991, DVOA asked for permission to use a different format: one category for all teams, and each team had to include a variety of people, but the definitions were vague (having to do with what course the people "normally" run).

In 1992, NEOC put on the relay, but with more clearly defined criteria for team membership (the point system that has survived almost intact to this day). 4 points required for a team.

A couple of years later, WCOC added an 8-point category, but it wasn't a championship category at first. Same courses as the 4-point.

In 1997, the 8-point category was shifted to a shorter set of courses (Cascade hosted that one).

The 12-point category was added still more recently (CTOC?).
[edit] Greg's comment following this one is correct. The first time a 12-point category was offered was 2004, OME.

# Posted 2006-02-10 00:36:47
GregBalter:	I believe 12 point category was added by Maine OC two years ago

# Posted 2006-02-10 01:12:25

The moment we start to take this sport seriously - we may expect that in distant future we may have some success on international level.

Perhaps, although some might argue there are larger cultural forces at work. At any rate, the place to start would not be the Sprint champs (which are new) or the Relay champs (which, as has been pointed out, are not designed to produce elite teams). I would suggest US Classic Champs (or, better yet, adopting the international standard of Sprint/Middle/Long) and US Team Trials as more appropriate venues for developing elite competition. As meet director for the latter, I can assure you no gimmicks or last-minute rules changes.

# Posted 2006-02-10 01:26:09

On the M35=0 point question, I have long argued that M&F35 are silly classes. I stood by that argument by running Blue exclusively until I was 40.

Greg, however, makes a good point. If you're going to get rid of those classes, you need to make a corresponding adjustment in the points or you toss a whole bunch of top orienteers out of the race. Assuming that a typical 4-point team will contain 1 or 2 people in M35, reducing the points for elite to 2 would seem to solve the problem. Knock the other from 10 back to the original 8 and you've got a system that should work for just about everybody.

# Posted 2006-02-10 01:47:32

j-man:

This just goes to show how events can be interpreted by people differently. Somehow, I didn't think this relay adjustment was about redressing the long-standing ill of MW35 classes at all, but was really more along the lines of tossing a whole bunch of top orienteers out of the race. (Or, stated differently, making the relays more inclusive.)

Because of this I wouldn't have thought that introducing a 2 point category would be congruent with the organizers' motives.

Thoughts?

# Posted 2006-02-10 01:52:02
Swampfox:	It's my opinion also that M&F 35 hurts, rather than helps, orienteering here in the US, by thinning out even more what is already often too thin competition. Were it up to me, I would have ditched those classes long ago!

# Posted 2006-02-10 01:54:21
Spike:	In Stocholm some years ago (maybe 1991?), they briefly experimented with an M30 class. It was quite a bit harder to win M30 than M21.

# Posted 2006-02-10 01:55:03
eddie:	It sounds like its about time to propose that change officially, so lets plan to do it at the AGM this year.

# Posted 2006-02-10 01:59:03

While Clem may be on the mark, I don't see how disqualifying the cream of the crop from a championship event makes it more inclusive. Unless a club happens to have an top woman over 40, a 4 point team can barely afford one 0-point runner. Two is particularly difficult to work around. That means that teams will generally only have one male runner between 20 and 40 years old. Granted, USOF is getting older, but this is getting ridiculous.

# Posted 2006-02-10 02:02:06
j-man:	I think we need to take over some preschools and start indoctrinating the next generation.

# Posted 2006-02-10 02:06:17

bmay:

It seems to me that the points should be based on physiology (in which case there isn't a good arguement for the existence of the 35 age class - master's should start at 40 and so should the 1-point).

The point classes for relays should then depend on what type of event one is trying to produce. I'd argue that the system should allow the top women to be part of a winning team in the most prestigious class. I'd be inclined toward 2/6/10 for the relay categories.

As for mass-starting the first 3 legs, then starting the last runners based on calculated total time - that is the most ludicrous suggestion I have heard. The fundamental aspect of a "relay" is that racer's run sequentially and the competition is "head-to-head" - not calculated on a spreadsheet.

# Posted 2006-02-10 02:20:20

Swampfox:

Brian, if the proposal to mass start the first 3 legs had been put to the sanctioning committee, there's *no way* it would have made it out approved. That's not a bastardization of the relay as Eric Buckley put it, it's not even a relay. It would just be a flat out weird event. There's nothing inherently wrong with weird events (the Prologue/Chase qualifies, I'll happily admit), but this sure wouldn't be the US Relay Champioships.

I'm still curious to see if anyone is going to step forward to claim responsibility for the idea. Ha!

# Posted 2006-02-10 02:27:57

The funny thing about this is that it follows so closely the uproar over Micro-O in WOC finals. It's not that these ideas are bad (maybe they are maybe they aren't) it's that you'd think people would know by now that you can't make big changes in format without properly communicating your intentions well in advance. I don't think an email to clubnet seven weeks ahead of the event qualifies on either count.

# Posted 2006-02-10 02:47:10

randy:

The point, category, and mass-start changes were never submitted to Sanctioning because OCIN viewed those as items it was free to establish within USOF Rules according to its view of competitive fairness and participant enjoyment.

Jim Eagelton, however, has pointed out on clubnet how the proposed changes run afoul of other rules (specfically 34.1 and 34.5.3). The sanctioning committee is responsible for enforcing rules; aside from sending cops to Ohio, the only way I see to do that is to bring it back into committee and possibly strip sanctioning, or grant the club the waivers. A committee member has requested this. I don't think this is the best option, but I do think the committee should approve or reject the requested changes to sanctioned races, especially controversial ones, regardless of what the rules say. You can't have it both ways, saying the rules allow this, then violate the rules Jim cites.

So, I don't see why OCIN can't send this into sanctioning now. A rubber stamp on it from committee should make everyone feel better; a denial would send the appriopriate message, and have the appropriate result. If the club knows sanctioning is against this, and proceeds anyway, how will that be a good thing?

But, once people start throwing the "offended" card around when dealing with what you feel is fact and logic, the ship is usually sunk at that point. I know I don't really want to deal with it.

# Posted 2006-02-10 02:51:38

Here is how the drop of giving point to MF35 will drastically effect DVOA 4 point teams - Angelica and Vadim will each loose a point and instead of two 4 point team we will have to scramble only one, plus it kills the incentive to bring 4 people and motivate them to train for the Relays and come to OCIN event (everyone is paying their own expenses, we are not in Russia or Sweden). And on any given year you can find a number of teams which will be affected by that change of rules. I do agree that in individual races in this country at present time for MF35 are some what artificial, but it is now, I do not think that rules shell change according to current demographic situation in orienteering population.

# Posted 2006-02-10 04:33:09
jfredrickson:	If it is the US Champs, why the hell have we ever had a handicap on the race? It seems like creating a 0 point category is way overdue. Why do people keep pointing out how it may affect different clubs? Are we trying to set up a relay that will benefit certain clubs, or one that will define which club has the best 4-person team?

# Posted 2006-02-10 04:39:24

Are we ever going to have a real US Champs Relay competition with standard Men's and Women's categories, and of course a matching Junior relay. I know that the people in charge of this stuff in the US don't care about competition and simply want to make it fun for all the old folks, but one day it would be nice to have a real Relay competition that would give clubs some incentive to support the training of their best runners.

The handicap stuff is nice for the 35+ folks, but it is completely out of place on Junior and Senior level.

# Posted 2006-02-10 04:45:21

Sergey wrote: "Existing system is well accepted for many years - there is no need to change it."

Existing US results around the world are also well accepted. Do you think there is a need to change that?

Just because we have an established system doesn't mean it is the best one. If there are any changes we can make to further the development of elite Orienteering in this country, then I hope that everyone in the position to make that change will do whatever it takes to make it come about.

That kind of attitude has kept us down on the bottom for too long. It's time we start accepting that there are things we can do to further the development of elite Orienteering in our country.

# Posted 2006-02-10 05:29:26

Tundra/Desert:

this relay adjustment was about redressing the long-standing ill of MW35 classes at all, but was really more along the lines of tossing a whole bunch of top orienteers out of the race. (Or, stated differently, making the relays more inclusive.)

I suggested the MF3539 to 0 points change, and possibly increasing the 4-pt to 5 pts or 6 pts, while decreasing the total number of competitive categories to one or two. I didn't propose any of the other ones.

My motivation was not to toss out anyone, but to make those top orienteers include a junior or a female in their top team, in agreement with the spirit of PG's 1991/92 system. To me, its idea was "try to come up with the best folks you got in your club in a variety of age/gender conditions". As of the last Relay Champs, the recipe for a win was more like "try to come up with the best M35s/M40s, and possibly a nice F21".

# Posted 2006-02-10 06:38:28

piutepro:

I second John's opinion. I have for a long time avoided the relay champs, because they are not a relay but a handicap lottery. Why stress out a 12 year old girl or boy on a yellow course, because she/he knows that some reeeealllllly good runner waits desparately for her to come back?

Having grown up with real relays with people of the same age category on each leg, I was always puzzled (and bored) by the US system. It is an equalizer of the worst sort, taking the fun out of the competition. I would propose a straight forward system. Three leg relays for elite M and F, regardless of age, plus relays for juniors 16-20 years old and M/F 40-50, M/F 50-60 a.s.o. Maybe a mixed bag entertainment relay with a most complicated point system (maybe include the G factor, why not give weight, age, experience & ethnic points) for those people who want to run for the fun of having done it, too.

# Posted 2006-02-10 07:09:29
speedy:	Forget about any points. Just junior, open, master, and veteran categories for men, women, or coed teams. No restrictions for open category.

# Posted 2006-02-10 07:11:50

John, before you come down too hard on the status quo, you might try putting on an A-meet. It's an awful lot of work to have 5 teams show up. The points system was implemented to increase participation and in that respect it has been wildly successful. Nobody has been able to demonstrate, either by argument or by actually putting one on, that there is any real demand for elite relays in the US.

I strongly encourage you to prove me wrong by hosting an elite relay. I assure you that I will enthusiastically attend if at all possible.

# Posted 2006-02-10 07:15:02

There aren't enough people in the US clubs to do it that way. At least not as a club-based event. The US relay champs is a club relay champs. Thats different from an open relay champs. I believe jj gave some background on how and why the current handicap system developed - dig for it in the fray above. The main point was that if it was open *and* club based, two or three clubs would win every year - which is fine, except that many of the other clubs would give up hope of ever winning and stop attending. It would then dwindle to the point of only the top 3 clubs showing up with 6 people each to see who gets which color trinket. No one wants to host a national champs race that only 18 people show up for, and so it stops happening. If we had the plethora of orienteers that the old world has an open relay champs would be ideal.

So unfortunately some form of handicapping is necessary to keep the thing alive. Picking and choosing your team within the framework of the points system can be fun too. Changing the points system a couple of months before the race is not fun.

Also keep in mind that this is not the *only* relay held in the US each year, nor are there any limitations on what kinds of relays people can put on. There's a mighty fine and well attended one out in Wyoming every year. There was a pick-up relay in Oregon this summer. We have one at the Mid-Atlantic regional champs every year and its a blast. The special relay under discussion here is called the US (club) Relay Champs and is the primary club-vs-club race hosted by USOF. Its not intended to be an individual championships, or a "loose aglommeration of individuals" championships. Its for esprit de club, and I think its great fun.

# Posted 2006-02-10 07:42:47
jjcote:	I would propose a straight forward system. Three leg relays for elite M and F, regardless of age, plus relays for juniors 16-20 years old and M/F 40-50, M/F 50-60 a.s.o. That's exactly what we had up until 1990. I was there. It sucked. (IMHO)

# Posted 2006-02-10 07:43:17
coach:	Mass starting 3 legs and using a spreadsheet is ridiculous to call a relay. Most legs are just too long on relays. Better to have shorter and easier legs if you want to take less time. What kind of events and lengths of events we have is not going to improve our international standing, lots of training and coaching will.

# Posted 2006-02-10 08:01:38

I am surprised that Peter has not said anything so far on these issues, but the reason for eliminating 0 point category is very simple and it had presidents in the past: you create an artificial club (BSK in the past, CSU in present, and please do not start throwing stones at me for saying that, I AM NOT AGAINST THAT IDEA, and, both SCU and BSK are great clubs) and have four elite runners in it and here is a little sampling Kenny, William, Boris, Ross, I do not know history well to know who was on BSK team in late 80s. It was and it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for 95% of US Clubs to put together a team to compete against such team, we lose intrigue, and eventually interest in the relays (it is not like it is super big right now ether). I believe, that we shell respect history in that way, and do not repeat same mistakes 15-20years later. It is my opinion, that in order to have more or less interesting US Champs relay in 0 point category, the competitive group in so called US elite or blue runners shell have more then 50 runners in 20% range from leaders, and according to late Tangerine and young and growing Boogie Pepper we have only 24, plus, I would include 5 more guys who did not compete in 5 races in US. Not enough depth yet.

# Posted 2006-02-10 08:02:22

Ricka:

At least for 2006 US (club) Relays at OCIN, I propose that AP is surprisingly close to consensus.

1. Being so late in process, avoid dramatic changes, even those allowed by USOF. Much should have been addressed in sanctioning process.

2. Mass start - Very unpopular and hard to manage. Solution: Make the Relay legs challenging but SHORT - its more fun anyway.

3. Points - Hearing no protests from 14 and 70 year old females, the key debate is M/F 35's 1 pt. I suggest this decision depends on #5, below.

4. Categories - Three categories (Elite; Very Competitive, but not Elite; and Juniors and Rest of USOF) had great participation in Maine and in Colorado - let's keep it. The 8-pt and 12-pt categories were fun and very competitive. JF: Challenge a club Junior team to win the 12-point!

5. Points per category - The most contentious decision is 'points for Elite category' with 0-6 being suggested. (0-2 versus 6 is a tough philosophical decision for USOF in the future!) For 2006, I suggest 'minimal change'. 2 or 3 pts if M/F35 loses their point; 4 points if not. Then I favor Brian's 2/6/10 slightly over the current 4/8/12, or perhaps something in between. OCIN choice!

# Posted 2006-02-10 08:06:45
Swampfox:	The reason Coach keeps propounding for shorter relay legs (my silent sources tell me that he thinks anything over about 9 minutes is too much) has a lot to do with the average lifespan of the Saegermeister orienteering shoe. Simply put, this is not a shoe built to last.

# Posted 2006-02-10 09:18:29

After a modicum of research, I hereby revise my timeline of notable relay dates from above:
Dark Ages (sometime in the early 1980s?): First US Relay Champs
1991: DVOA gets special rules waiver for "single class" relay champs, with somewhat vague rules about team makeup; forking used
1992: NEOC hosts relay, institutes point system for team makeup; forking abolished
1995: DVOA adds 8-point category, but not as a championship category
1996: WCOC upgrades 8-point category to championship status, possibly as the result of a misunderstanding
1998: COC moves 8-point category to shorter set of courses
2003: CTOC uses same courses for 4-point and 8-point categories,and uses forking again (one year only for both)
2004: OME hosts relay, adds 12-point championship category in response to USOF BOD ruling due to a proposal from a club

# Posted 2006-02-10 09:50:23
GregBalter:	J-J - OME was in 2004, 2005 was in RMOC land

# Posted 2006-02-10 11:03:58

John F. wrote:
> give clubs some incentive to support the training > of their best runners.

There is a lot of merit in John F's comments. Yes training and coaching will improve results but quality domestic relay opportunities are not mutually exclusive from training. The relays might be the motivation for some to train harder - ie., their goal could be to make their club's top team (or not to be bumped off the top team). For some this is their only shot at a medal at a US Championship so that can be very motivating. This is what drives a lot of training in the Scandi clubs and in North American Adventure Racing teams. The desire to make the team mixed with the fear of not making the team.

Having a race where people of similar ages/abilities can race together is a great way to motivate people - given that they are all working towards a common goal. The current system allows for almost all categories to race together for a 'championship' except M21 and M35. The argument is that only a few clubs could field a team and the same clubs will win every year. So what! If there are only 2 women in F65 and one person wins every year does that mean we scrap that category? Nope.

I don't see this as a negative I see this as a positive as it is a great opportunity for all clubs to start developing athletes and putting postings on trail running and AR bulletin boards "Wanted fit male or female athlete to race on the XYZ club team for the US Relay Champs... following experience an asset". ;-)

AR has grown quickly because people are always looking for team mates and as such they do a lot advertisement for the sport. Our existing relay format works but there is limited reason why a person would go out and search for new blood to fill out a team because the existing approach is to see who is going to the race and make the teams from that.

John F's wishes in my opinion would go a long way to giving club's an athletic development purpose and not just an events hosting purpose.

# Posted 2006-02-10 11:40:14

Nev-Monster:

Regardless of what comes of this and what sort of event takes place in Ohio one thing is very very clear. Relays rock, we love to run relays, we love to talk about relays. If I posted something about the French Creek or the Vermont relays, people will respond like it's going out of style.

So why are there so few in North America? Why all this fuss over one race?

We need to have more relays. They are always the most exciting races, and we barely run them. It would be great if this changed.

# Posted 2006-02-10 14:40:09

I completely agree that the handicap idea is great for the 35+ crowd and is the key to getting large attendence at the Relay Champs. That doesn't mean that it works for those under 35. I don't think I need to elaborate on the reasons that Hammer gave for creating an open relay, I just hope that people start to realize that maybe we can do more to develop the support of elite Orienteers on the club level so that when our current Juniors start reaching the broke-college-student-yet-kick-ass-orienteer level some of them will have a club that actually cares about their development and will support them when mommy and daddy are too busy throwing parties in their kid-free house.

# Posted 2006-02-10 14:49:29

Oh, and just to make this clear, I highly support the 0-6-12 (or whatever you want to combine with the 0 category) idea. As long as you have an open category for the elites (and maybe even one for Juniors) you can do whatever kind of handicapping you like for the masters categories to get all the wise and experienced folks to come out and kick butt too.

There is no doubt that we need to support the competitive spirit at all levels, and that is one the things that makes this sport so great. While I may act a bit disprespectful of the old folks at times, that is only because I am embarrassed that Peter is still better than me, and my real goal in the sport is to be at least half as good as Peter and Sharon are at their ages. The most important medal in Orienteering is of course the Laurels in the 90+ category at Oringen.

However, I do hope that we can design a Relay Champs that drives the competitive spirit in the Junior, Senior and Master levels while maintaining the fun side of our sport that makes it so great. One of the best things about the current Relay champs is that it is a fun event, but it isn't be a US Championship (despite being named that). I have hope that we can manage to keep the fun while further developing the competitive aspect.

# Posted 2006-02-10 17:14:39
j-man:	Based on Hammer's comments I think I want to defect to Canada. It's an easy choice - no bush and forward thinking!

# Posted 2006-02-10 17:16:05

>We need to have more relays.

Yes and we need to have more one-person relays (Farsta, O-Cross, etc) to prepare our athletes for international relays. Perhaps making a few existing individual races team events (like that Nor-AM Cities challenge a few years ago) will help.

For the record GHO is paying the entry for all our club members taking part in the 2006 US Relay Champs (in any point category) and are using this excellent weekend of orienteering to kick start the race season and motivate people to train and race. It is part of our "Boldy GHO" campaign to get people to travel to races outside of southern Ontario. Oh yeah and one of our top 1 point club members is sitting out the sprint and resting his legs for the relay!

# Posted 2006-02-10 17:30:14

As a reality check, I'd like to point out that the 1st place team in last summer's US Relay Champs had an M21 on it, and the second-place team had two M21s. The current rules do not exclude M21s. And in the case of the winning team (and maybe the second team as well), it's not clear to me that they could have done much better if they didn't need to have so many points when choosing which club members to put on the team.

# Posted 2006-02-10 19:30:00

randy:

I think we should spin a wheel and randomly assign points and categories on the day of the race. Or, we could have a totally open relay, but auction off the runners, as was done at the fundraiser in CT. That could alleviate some of the prospective race day boredom.

More seriously, I think John makes good points, especially in the ultimate sense. In the proximate sense, however, I think the best way to approach this problem is to look at who will probably show, and look at how the teams will fall out under the different scenerios. Which will be more fun? Will it simply be a wealth transfer from clubs that benefit under the present system to those who benefit under the new one? Will this exercise be repeated every year in various fora, some of which may or may not include the missing F14s and F70s, and go to those with the most elegant skills of pursuasion?

I think if we do tinker with the system, especially if we add a 0 point category, we should stick with it for several years to see if the (presumed) incentives or other presumed benefits are borne out.

# Posted 2006-02-10 19:34:02

AR has grown quickly because people are always looking for team mates and as such they do a lot advertisement for the sport.

That's certainly true. I've recruited a lot more people for AR than for orienteering. There's an important difference, though. A reasonably fit person can join an AR team and compete at a pretty high level very quickly assuming the team already has a good navigator. I've won USARA qualifiers with "novice" teammates (albeit, experienced mountain bike racers).

This is not true of someone on an orienteering relay team. You could maybe get someone fast enough on the yellow and/or orange legs in a few months, but to be competetive on the advanced courses takes time.

As it is, the relay format actually works pretty well for your typical 4-person AR team. The top teams are typically late-30's/early 40's and have one woman. That's 6 points under the current system.

# Posted 2006-02-10 20:14:45

kfredrickson:

I also think the time of 0/6/12 has come but, if there aren't enough clubs with 0 point teams we might want to begin by choosing those teams on a more regional basis: Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, etc. If there were just a few elite teams going head to head there might still be room for 4/8/12 categories on top of it. Were we to take this approach we should find funding to make sure that the runners who make the teams can all go.

# Posted 2006-02-10 20:16:34
eddie:	When is the next Canadian Relay Championships?

# Posted 2006-02-10 20:35:54
Hammer:	>next Canadian Relay Championships? This summer in Ontario: www.coc2006.ca But as far as I know it isn't an official championship anymore. In the mid 80's to early 90's it was province vs. province with M/F 21, junior and masters categories

# Posted 2006-02-10 20:53:09

As per jj's note, lamentably, I turned 35 last year. Although I did get carded a few weeks ago! So SVO's team had 5 points, and had there been a 0 points category we would have fielded exactly the same team. The same is probably true of the DVOA team - perhaps Gregory for Angelica, but she did just fine. And if you think we're over the hill, just look at the numbers for RMOC and OK :) CSU could have dominated a 0pt category, but with their star at WOC in Japan I guess they saw the futility in that. The best they could manage was 3 purdy gals and an old goat, and I can't even count high enough to figure their point-value. I preume they would have fielded the same team in the 0pt category (and done very well). So last year there would not have been much difference, but if a 0pt category had been known further in advance that may have changed people's plans. WOC was an extenuating circumstance last year for the M/F21s.

# Posted 2006-02-10 23:14:33

Promoting elite competition sounds fun, but just a reality check (hoping not to offend):

The age-and-gender category relays, and I remember them well, were horrible, to the point that people were talking about scrapping the relays. Three teams (if that) per category, 20 minutes between teams in the results. Even in the "elite" categories. I can't imagine anything more boring. What was the point of even having them? The image of ten elite teams competing head to head sounds appealing in an attackpoint thread, but that isn't the reality I remember. And looking at USOF membership, I can't see that being the reality now either, at least not with club teams.

4 points: two elite men, two elite women. I don't get the problem with forming elite teams...unless your club doesn't have enough elite women...which is the point about a flexible point system making it easier to form a highly competitive team, not harder. A lower point threshold might indeed make it more interesting for elite age males (but maybe less so for elite age females or top juniors?) Note that ARs generally have gender-mix requirements, and the open category, if any, is not for awards.

I don't really care if the relays are point system per se or not, but one big category beats ten tiny categories any day.

I think that kfrederickson has hit on the real answer...regional teams rather than club teams. (Or, completely open team formation.) This would allow the best to form teams much more readily, whatever the team formation criteria.

Have the relays become non-competitive? Last time I ran, the times were pretty close, and I didn't see elites and juniors sitting on the sidelines. (With age category relays, the times were not even remotely close (could have timed them with a sundial, literally), the relays were very uncompetitive (even huge errors were unlikely to change results), and lots of people were sitting on the sidelines unable to form teams (most people, in fact).) Let's innovate, but let's try something that wasn't already such a depressing failure year after year.

By the way, I really like the idea of 3 people starting at once, but for a larger relay, of say 8 to 10 person teams. 25-Manna, a relay south of Stockholm which has four people starting the fourth leg at once, was a hoot! Lots of excitement and fun. Maybe someone can try that someday for a relay at some event big enough to get enough teams (70 to 100 relay participants I figure could be enough for 8 to 10 teams of 8 to 10 persons).

# Posted 2006-02-10 23:16:29

Sergey:

2/6/10? With declining number of participants and aging of the orienteering community we really should start thinking about ADDING 2 points not subtracting thus moving to 6/10/14 categories instead :)

I think the current point system 4/8/12 is widely accepted by most of the USA clubs and there is no need to change it. It reflects demographic realities of the orienteering community in this country. Given ten fold increase in the number of participants we may start talking about changing the system.

What is really needed is renaming of USA Relay Orienteering Championships to USA Club Relay Orienteering Championships.

And, by the way, relay should stay a relay which is sequential running of the legs by the team members with passing the baton using hand or map.

# Posted 2006-02-10 23:26:53
z-man:	Looks like we've got another championship on hands. One US Relay Champs and the other US Club Relay Champs. Hmmm... now that's sounds interesting...

# Posted 2006-02-10 23:30:29

By the way, on the subject of more relays, and out-there ideas, should the US or Canadian Team Trials have a Relay event, now that they have Sprint, Middle and Long events? Arguably, the difference between Relays and the other formats is as large or larger than the difference between Sprint and Middle or Middle and Long or possibly even Sprint and Long. A short one-person relay would be a good way to test relay skill. And it's the one WOC format that there isn't so much training available for in North America.

Just for the conversation. That would be one way to promote relay competition amongst elites and juniors.

# Posted 2006-02-10 23:40:19

Well, you could have both a Club and an Open relay champs in one event, with everyone head to head. Have Open 0-point and 4-point categories (no club restrictions), and 4, 8 and 12 point club categories (or maybe just 8 & 12). If Open were a formal category with US Championship awards, rather than just a catch-all category for people who can't form valid teams, you might get some good people trying to form good teams nationwide, and Open might be hotly contested. Especially if club teams could also compete for Open.

(That might also bring the number of awards close to that of our norm of one award per two participants.)

# Posted 2006-02-11 01:18:12

jeffw:

I personally don't think that we currently have a "Club" relay championship if everyone in the club is not allowed to participate because of greencard status. We, the ORCAs, used to run in a DQ status because we didn't want to leave one of our club founders and chief mapper off the team. In at least one other club, the club president couldn't run on their relay team for the same reason.

On the team trials topic, Jim has a good idea with the one person relay mass start event to test relay running skills.

# Posted 2006-02-11 01:30:33

Re: One-person relay...

Yes, this is a good idea for team trials but also may make for an interesting team competition as well (in a non team trials setting) by taking the total time or placing of say a club's top 3 participants.

Putting all the top runners together on the starting line for a forked one-person relay race and you will get closer to that needed stress and feeling of an international relay. Also the qualifier races at WOC have a relay type atmosphere to them with the forking of the different qual. courses. Good idea.

FYI, GHO will have an O-Cross (one person relay) on the Monday after the NAOC in October (This "Wine-O" race is a non Champs race).

# Posted 2006-02-11 02:31:33
Tundra/Desert:	Thanks Jeff.

# Posted 2006-02-11 02:43:06

PG:

"I am surprised that Peter has not said anything so far on these issues"

Well, it's tax season and my priorities have changed a little from what they were a month ago in Hamilton when Spike accused me of being addicted to AttackPoint....

Priorities (yesterday):
1. Keep up with my work (that took care of about 11 hours).
2. Get the run in during the early afternoon (also has the effect of eliminating any opportunities for eating between 7 am and 9 pm, thereby assisting in the downward trend of the G).
3. Watch Survivor while eating dinner at 10 pm (we all have our weaknesses).
4. Finish up the ESC's work on criteria for the Team Trials (we hope to take a team of 5+5 to Denmark).
5. Finish a bit of advance planning for the Billygoat Sprints (Saturday afternoon before the Billygoat, 2 sprints, both just under 2K, both Team funraisers, both 45-pointers....).
6. And a couple of times glance at AP and notice, shit, there's a lot of discussion on the relay proposals, Eddie must be having a party there.

I managed to read the stuff early this morning. I think the mass stuff start is silly. It's certainly not a relay. And I have a certain fondness for the point system as it has developed over the years. That's not to say it should never be changed. But it shouldn't be done in a hurry the way it seems to be happening this year.

But I guess my main thought is that if more relays of one type or another are needed/wanted, then people just need to step up and organize them. They don't need to be championships, they don't need to be A meets. I've enjoyed some fine events that were done this way (the couple of inter-city challenges, DVOA's training weekend last March, Sandy's Water Gap weekend last Memorial Day, and the Hamilton training camp come to mind). Put together a weekend program, get the word out early, just make it happen.

By the way, with all the flak OCIN is taking, I should point out that the latest standings in the Sprint Series, posted on Monday after the weekend's tripleheader in Ohio, show the men's lead being held by Mike Minium. Yup, it's true, you can look it up at the usual place.

Back to work....

# Posted 2006-02-11 02:44:40
eddie:	Aren't green card holders eligible for the US individual champs events (short, long, individual, night, sprint)? If so, why not also for the relay?

# Posted 2006-02-11 02:55:42
jeffw:	In the instances I'm thinking of, it is a greencard status of zero--they didn't have one. I believe the rules are consistent across all the championship events.

# Posted 2006-02-11 02:58:38
jjcote:	> If so, why not also for the relay? Green card holders are, also certain visa holders (e.g. students) as of a couple of years ago (I don't know the specifics). But club members who don't have that sort of status are not eligible for any championships, relays included.

# Posted 2006-02-11 05:02:34
walk:	Green card - yes. But those here waiting, are not. Like those transferred by their work situation.

# Posted 2006-02-11 05:25:01
eddie:	If I get Canadian citizenship (in addition to US citizenship), I'd be only eligible in Canada. Is this bit true? Brian May has been doing this for years.

# Posted 2006-02-11 08:06:02

Last time I read the USOF rules, yes, because I live in Canada. (If I lived in the States, and had dual citizenship, I think I'd be eligible for both.)

Brian is a US citizen, and maybe a citizen only of the US I think. Therefore, if this is true, he's in the same situation that I'm in...US citizen living in Canada, eligible in the States but not Canada.

It all gets a bit complicated, these being orienteering rules.

# Posted 2006-02-11 17:44:08