Event Structure - four levels!!

[RJ]

So graeme, you don't know which level of event was which for those events you attended. I agree it doesn't really matter in one sense. But it would appear to matter to others..... because we have a three tier system being thrust upon us. There was nothing wrong with the four tier system.... it was geographically intuitive.

We don't just have events.... we have events of particular standards and aimed at particular 'O' participants. The regional event was the problem in the past..... if people were going to travel long distances then they had to know the standard would be there. The regional level of event was the area that should have been overhauled.... not the whole of the system. Make sure the regional event (L2) is of the right standard and has the type of competition that the competitors want..... all the possibilities that awk outlines.

Strange that we all forget that the L1 events are run in age classes! Do we not need preparation for this level of competition?

The current L2 events don't necessarily spell quality where people are prepared to travel long distances. We are currently being encouraged to register our Cumbrian Galoppen events as L2. They certainly aint just 'local' events.... they have a following Cumbria-wide, so to label them L3 is ridiculous. But just because the Galoppen on Ling Fell is now being registered as a L2 event would give some people the impression that it was worth travelling from Birmingham.

I see your arguments, awk, about the way you want the various competitors to 'compete' against one another. But it would work just as well in a four tier system with the regional event properly 'quality assured'.

[Wayward-O]

There are good and bad in everything. Although the implementation of the new structure is not perfect, I would not wish to return to the previous system.

What is good:
1. The new system allows me to enter the course that is right for me. Last year to get the run I wanted at a regional event, I'd need to EOD and run the risk of no maps being available. This year, most events have allowed me to pre-register for the course I want to run (the on-line entry for some early events did not allow this).
2. Greater flexibility in event format for Regional level events.

What is bad:
1. The loss of the Junior Ageless classes and awards. Nothing has replaced what was a very good incentive scheme for the juniors.
2. Lumping all events below Regional into one big "local" category. Now everything from a good weekend Colour-Coded Yellow - Brown event through a CATI to a weekday evening 2 course + novice event is nominally at the same level, which is patently stupid.
3. As a result of the restructuring, Brit-O have tried to enforce the £2 entry fee reduction at all events. What happens in practice is that we carry on as we have done previously and completely ignore this stupid edict. Does any club comply for their CATI / true local events?

I would welcome a move to a 4-tier event structure, but not if this meant losing the changes already made at Regional level. What is required is for the Local event level to be split to differentiate the old District events from the CATI and true local events.

[roadrunner]

Roadrunner - where did you get the indication that only L1 events would be used for rankings; I missed that.

It took a lot of finding on the BOF website, but it was from the Development Committee minutes of 6th June: http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/downloads/documents/governance_minutes_development_06_06_09.pdf
This somewhat contradicts what martyn said, so maybe things have changed since then; if so, that's good.

As far as age class competitions are concerned, what RJ originally said was:

Regional events are where you compete in age classes..... call the courses by colour, but allocate an age class to the course, so that people can compete against their peers and rivals.

I don't think that necessarily precludes anyone running any course they choose, which seems to be the main argument against age-class events. I do agree that there's no need for so many age classes, though - I've seen continental events in the past where the organisers say they will merge or split age classes according to demand (so for example M21 and M35 could be merged if there weren't many M35s, while M55 could be split if oversubscribed), and I think this is a good idea that could be adopted here. I seem to recall reading somewhere that an age class was to be provided at certain events (BOC?) if there were at least three eligible BOF members, which I would say is far too few: I think the minimum should be about 10 entries.

[greywolf]

It took a lot of finding on the BOF website, but it was from the Development Committee minutes of 6th June: http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/downloads/documents/governance_minutes_development_06_06_09.pdf
This somewhat contradicts what martyn said, so maybe things have changed since then; if so, that's good.

That's the BOF Development Committee response to the Interim Report for Consultation of the Ranking Working Group, http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/n ... 0-5-09.pdf which said something very different:
"the RWG proposes that Ranking Events be designated according to whether the
event meets certain key criteria, and not according to event Level..... All level 1 and 2 cross-country events will automatically meet these criteria. A proportion of
level 3 events could also meet these criteria, .... The RWG estimate that between 300 and 400 events per year could meet these criteria."
Development Committee are, like everyone else, entitled to their opinion...but theirs was a minority view

[NeilC]

(Once Rules Group have seen sense on the controller issue )

Seemed pretty sensible. Badge events (old level 3) were to be mapped directly onto the new level 2 events. This may not have been what the review group wanted but this is what was recommended (possibly by events group, possibly by someone else).

http://gborienteering.org.uk/news/news.php#events

Thus level 2 events retained the grade 2 controller and embargo that the old badge events had.

When the goalposts started moving and more district (old level 4) events were upgraded to level 2 then flexibility was allowed regarding controllers and embargoes. Third news item in link below.

http://gborienteering.org.uk/news/news_archive.php?bArchiveSearch=1&varRecordsPerPage=10&varCurrentPage=9&STdate_datefmt=1&STdate_d=0&STdate_m=0&STdate_y=0&FNdate_datefmt=1&FNdate_d=0&FNdate_m=0&FNdate_y=0&varCategory=16&pagespp=10#

When the goalposts finally stop moving then some decent rules can be written.

[graeme]

So graeme, you don't know which level of event was which for those events you attended.

Well, I do know, but it had no effect on what I actually did.

Coming back to the events I'm currently involved with.

(plug plug)

INT Club champs - New map, combined forest/urban. Limited helpers (no scope for instructing novices) ePunching. Assuming EUOC come, we'll have an international class field. Level ???
JOK Chasing sprint. four courses, broad age bands, 20 year reputation for quality racing. Level ???
Edinburgh Street Race Urban, attracts people from across the UK. Two courses. Level ???
Scottish Sprint Champs. (combined with BNOC, so we're planning for a National quality field) Level ???
Park World Tour: International invited field + domestic preentry. Two courses. Level ???

The old system simply didnt cater for any of them!

You identified an important use for a sensible level structure: to answer the question "Should I drive up from Birmingham for this event". Obviously the area quality plays a role (I dont imagine you drive TO Birmingham for a regional event) but also things like whether the map is up to date, whether you're using the event to train officials (so I can demand that the controls are in the right place etc.)

[RJ]

Graeme..... Levels for those events is a no-brainer. Your Club Champs is a 'local' event, L4. Perhaps old INT members living in Devon will know what to expect and will make the journey. But it is in the title.... Club Champs... those are the people you are aiming the event at.

All the others are L2, and will attract 'national' participants. The PWT event is quite obviously L1.

To say the old system didn't cater for any of them is inventing 'ridiculous' logic to the situation.

On the question of travelling TO or FROM Birmingham..... If the event is labelled as a L2 'regional' then it doesn't matter where it is.... it has been quality assured and will be worth the trouble to travel a long way to compete. I'll give it some thought and decide if I can afford to take part.... maybe I will, maybe I won't, but it is likely to depend on other factors than just the quality of the event.

The idea that the sport is of national extent, where people are prepared to travel the length and breadth of the country every other weekend is simply wrong. Some people can afford to, but a mass participation model..... no!

Those of you with good memories will know that the sport used to have five levels of event..... C5 (local, informal), C4 (colour coded, district), C3 (badge, regional), C2 (national), C1 (JK, International). Collapsing C1 and C2 was agood idea.

[Mrs H]

On the question of travelling TO or FROM Birmingham..... If the event is labelled as a L2 'regional' then it doesn't matter where it is.... it has been quality assured and will be worth the trouble to travel a long way to compete.

On a point of order - how would the quality assurance be done and by whom as the level of event would have to be declared at the point of registration - possibly before the planner has set foot on the terrain etc. It didn't work in the old system as regional events frequently failed to meet standards exceeding - or even equaling - district events.

Oh and by the way - can everyone please stop picking on Birmingham - it has the capacity to provide one of the greatest urban race venues in the country as the entire city is built on a minimum of two levels (canal and street level) it will be well worth travelling for and I for one look forward to the day when I run there.

[RJ]

........how would the quality assurance be done and by whom.....

Exactly.... The crux of the problem. Solve that and your event structure 'survives'. If the 'Events Review Group' had addressed that rather than rebranding and relabelling everything we wouldn't be in the hiatus we find ourselves.

[SeanC]

RJ - In your original post you asked if anyone agreed that the new event structure has been a disaster. A disaster would be if significant amounts of people stopped going to events, and from what I see the numbers going to regional and district events (the label seems to have survived) are about the same - though it's early days. A good word to use to get the thread going though.

One observation - clubs (in the South East anyway) seem to either display results on a class based or a course based format for regional events, not both. Is this because it's proving difficult/time consuming to do both? Or is it because the majority don't have strong views either way so the task does not seem worth it?

Final question: I can't be the only one completely confused by the many different BOF committees/groups. If there were half as many committees/groups meeting twice as often (maybe remotely rather than driving to Birmingham ? ), would things have been much smoother?

[IanW]

I hesitate to bring this up, because I know the organisers are reluctant to publicise the results as they are concerned that they may be open to accusations that the poll may not have been entirely representative.

Said survey was typical of much of the debate on this topic: featuring leading questions, and demonstrating a wilful representation (or to be charitable, a complete misunderstanding) of the new events structure, any results can hardly be regarded as an objective verdict.

Clearly their concern was justified! I wasn't involved, so I don't remember the exact question but the gist of it was simply to ask if people preferred age based or non age based competition. When around 90% of 800 people say that they prefer age classes then surely someone should listen. Even Mugabe doesn't know how to bias a question to get that sort of result! ( I didn't want to quote the figures because I haven't heard them officially, but I fear there is a danger of this getting buried)

It doesn't even matter if people understand the exact structure. They have experienced events organised under the new structure which appear primarily colour based and say that they preferred it when they were primarily age based. To satisfy that preference it isn't good enough to say simply that an age competition can always be grafted on to a colour based competition. I'm not against change and I understand the need for a revision, but surely it has to be done in a way which satisfies the majority of members that BOF represents.

I know that the results have been communicated to relevant people/committees in BOF and some people on this forum must know about it. (so someone can probably repeat the exact question and let us judge how biased it was!) Is it really just going to be dismissed as the majority being misguided/uninformed/wrong or is democracy going to be given a chance?

[Mrs H]

Just to add to the mix - make sure you take into account who was being asked - people who were prepared to travel a long way and pay a lot of money to take part in an age based competition. It's a bit like asking the delegates at a party conference who they want to win the next election. I guess if you want real fairness you are going to ask a similar number of people and at more local colour coded event.

[graeme]

I don't remember the exact question ... Even Mugabe doesn't know how to bias a question to get that sort of result! (

Well you should look it up then, it was more like "do you agree with the structure which removes age class competition" (the new structure doesn't do this anyway). The person who gave me the questionnaire first asked if I'd like a questionnaire to protest about the new structure, then gave us a long spiel about how I should agree with the proposition. To be fair, he didn't actually have a knife.

So I amused myself Mugabe-wise that day by asking people whether they thought people should be non-competitive on their preferred course at all but fourth-rate events. Nobody agreed with this proposition, although the "gist" is the same (and the old structure really did do that). It really isn't difficult to get whatever answer you like.

[IanW]

It's a bit like asking the delegates at a party conference who they want to win the next election

I'm not sure that is an entirely accurate analogy! I doubt most people attended the Scottish purely because they supported age class events.

Anyhow, I wasn't suggesting that the results of the aforementioned survey should be binding, simply that, to my mind anyway, I think it provides enough evidence that there is sufficient dissatifaction out there that a proper consultation is needed.

And I don't mean via club committees. I have been involved in those enough to know that they are not always representative of general membership opinion and do not always succeed in club wide consultation.

[mike g]

Even Mugabe doesn't know how to bias a question to get that sort of result!

It wasn't so much that the wording of the question was biased, but rather that the accompanying statement/explanation made clear that the organisers were looking for one particular answer and it was really a petition dressed up as a survey. Most of those who disagree with the organisers, or don't care much one way or the other, probably didn't bother to reply.