T/D - The weighting is clearly an invention of my own...
I prefer A meets - sure there is a cost disadvantage, but the quality of event, terrain, map, and competition make up for that. Yes, I'd be unable to get to more than a handful a year, but since that currently isn't available, we're talking theoretical here. (Yes, I know if my monetary situation and schedule permitted, I could go to that many, but that currently isn't feasible...)
So the question is - why do clubs hold so few A meets?
Because it's a lot of work.
I don't know anybody who wouldn't like more if somebody else close by ran it...
ROC can hold a local event with about 16 volunteers - see our volunteer signup form here: http://roc.us.orienteering.org/volonteers.shtml
When we hold an A meet, the volunteer needs triple (or go up more than that), and the associated stress goes up as well.
So - If I'm designing a measure to compare how often local clubs have events, (and I was) I'm going to build in an incentive that allows a club that hosts A-meets to see a modest "bump" in their results. This puts the added stress and event needs into context.
And I would say that a club that could put on an A meet could very likely hold 3-4 local events instead of that A meet.
Could that number be 3, 5, or 3.6? Sure - but four seems like a nicer number to work with;-)
And as a comparison number - I no longer think events per capita is that useful. The raw number of events is good, and the events per club member could be another way to go.
All reasonable suggestions and modifications are on the table - so go ahead and outline a change with justification.