Which events should be ranking events?

[Nottinghamshire outlaw]

In the latest Rules Group minutes I spotted the following:
"Ranking only at levels 1 and 2 could be the carrot to attract registration of events at level 2."

Personally, I am not motivated by the ranking scheme but many are and the new single ranking list has opened up the possibility of acquiring a ranking to more people IF (deliberate capitals) the regional league type colour coded events are included in the ranking scheme. However, if Rules Group is successful in restricting ranking to Level 1 and 2 events the 'basic' colour coded event would presumably (under the 4 level structure) be at Level 3.

I fear that this will mean that the ranking scheme is, therefore, restricted to those people who choose to travel to L1 and 2 events - not a developmental move. Is there to be any wide discussion of this or will a small 'group' determine which events should be classified as 'ranking events'?

[graeme]

This question has an answer. Do the math.

You need six events to get ranked. We want local orienteers to get ranked. At best people go to half the events in their region each year (this based on SOLs). So we need about 12 events per region, about 10 regions...

...and so the answer is that a minimum of 120 events per year need to be ranking events for the ranking list to meet its aims.

When the membership voted to have four tiers instead of three, there was no suggestion that...

Read all about it here...

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/d ... ucture.pdf

Level 3 = ranking. Proposed, accepted and not to be criticised by corporately-responsible BOFocrats like me.

[IanD]

A lot of people have no interest in the Ranking List.

However, among those that do have an interest, most seem to me pleased with the extension of the ranking list to the traditional colour-coded events. When the membership voted to have four tiers instead of three, there was no suggestion that restricting the availability of ranking points was one of the reasons for the proposal.

So I would expect that, in the 2011 world, the third level of events would continue to earn ranking points.

[awk]

The proposal to the AGM on four tiers was very clear that level 2 should be targeted at the 'best' of the events equivalent to the old age class regional events, 'high profile' urban events and a relatively limited list of others (mostly those hosting BOF competitions such as the Compass Sport Cup and Harvester). If that proposal is respected (and I believe it has to be), then there will be a lot fewer events at new L1 and L2 than were organised at the old C1/2/3. Limiting the ranking list to new L1 and L2 would therefore, IMO, be a major retrogressive step, making the ranking scheme far more exclusive, rather than inclusive. Especially if, as has been argued, it's deemed that urban races shouldn't be included in the ranking scheme.

So - either L2 has to be expanded big time, or the ranking scheme has to include L3. To me, there is no question that the second route is the one that has to be followed.

[PKJ]

Is there to be any wide discussion of this or will a small 'group' determine which events should be classified as 'ranking events'?

Maybe there'll be a proposal for next year's AGM...er.. to change what was agreed at this year's..

[Mrs H]

I'm actually not sure you are right about what the supporters of the 4 tier system are expecting or want form the ranking list. the ones that I have been exposed to are very much the ones who want their badge events back and want age class ranking to match it - with the short courses runners taken out of the equation needless to say. whether that is what they were voting for or just what they thought they were voting for is another matter but it is a subtext to what has taken place.

most people on nopesport claim not to be interested in the rankings. It would be interesting to hear from someone who actually does look at the ranking lists to hear what they think of the situation. Come on - own up - are you a closet ranking geek (sounds a bit dirty doesn't it?)

[Eeyore]

Come on - own up - are you a closet ranking geek (sounds a bit dirty doesn't it?)

OK I'll admit to being interested in the Ranking list and I believe it does encourage people to go to events and compare themselves against others. I don't care what ages run the same course as me even though my points are probably lowered by the presence of youth. I orienteer for fun, but I like to know if I am improving year on year. I'm only a relative newcomer to the sport and find the ranking list an interesting diversion. I feel I have improved and my progression in increased ranking points shows this to be so. Just being compared to the narrow 5 year age bands is fairly pointless (no pun intended). I also think that only getting ranking points from a minor set of events is a real backward step. We should only exclude genuinely 'local' events from the ranking list calculations. I would rank anyone irrespective of age when running a TD5 course. It encourages competition and friendly rivalries.

[DaveR]

OK I'll admit to being interested in the Ranking list and I believe it does encourage people to go to events and compare themselves against others. I don't care what ages run the same course as me even though my points are probably lowered by the presence of youth. I orienteer for fun, but I like to know if I am improving year on year. I'm only a relative newcomer to the sport and find the ranking list an interesting diversion. I feel I have improved and my progression in increased ranking points shows this to be so. Just being compared to the narrow 5 year age bands is fairly pointless (no pun intended). I also think that only getting ranking points from a minor set of events is a real backward step. We should only exclude genuinely 'local' events from the ranking list calculations. I would rank anyone irrespective of age when running a TD5 course. It encourages competition and friendly rivalries.

I completely agree with Eeyore, the ranking list should be as inclusive as possible, including as large a number of events as possible.

[SeanC]

I doubt many people who have been to less than 6 ranking events take it seriously. Currently about 25% of my club have been to 6 events. Another 30% or so have been to 1 to 5 ranking events.

It depends what the aims are. If the aims are to increase participation, looking at those ranked in my club, the ones who've been to between 1 and 5 ranking events this year are the ones more likely to drop out of the sport - these are the ones stepping up from local events, do lots of other sports etc. The ones who go to 6 or more will keep going till the end of their days.

So, from our local viewpoint, not only does this list need to cover all 4 levels, whatever they are, but the number of qualifying events needs to drop from 6 to say ... 3.

Whether this would make dramatic difference I doubt, but every little helps so probably a good thing.

However this will no doubt make the top of the list a poorer measure orienteering talent... it depends what's considered more important.

[Billy Whizz]

Provided that /once the ranking system works with sufficient assurance, it can be used effectively to help with seeding of start lists for the Level 1 events which need it, with less (but still necessary) reliance on a 'tutored eye'.

[Marco Polo]

If you look at the 4 tier event structure summary table (Feb Compasssport page 10 or was on BOF web site). Level 3 events were indicated as ranking events. As this formed part of the proposal - albeit as an appendix- . I'd have to assume that the vote at the AGM was for new level 1,2 and 3 to be ranking events.

[NeilC]

Experience of the last few years tells us that there needs to be strong reasons for clubs to register an event at a particular level. With the power of the internet, viral marketing etc clubs can sucessfully run a big event, attract a national audience, yet only register it as a local event and in doing so avoid "complications" such as embargoes, controllers etc.

The re-drafting of Guideline A
http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/downloads/documents/events_guideline_a.pdf
attempted to define the three levels of event such that it should be obvious at which level an event should be registered - basically if the target audience is significantly those outside of your own club then it should be a level 2 (regional) event. To encourage clubs to register at this level all level 2 events became ranking events - my experience is that many local orienteers are interested in the ranking scheme.

As I understand it the AGM proposal was driven by the fact that there is still a percieved large difference between the old district (colour coded) and regional (badge) events. The proposers of the motion have made it clear that age class regional events would not be reintroduced but that the division between "district" and "regional" needs to be re-established. The difficulty of course will be defining this difference - one criterion that I have heard is that competitors would be willing to travel significant distances (hours), and would be willing to drive past a "district" event, in order to attend a "regional" event. A regional (new level 2) event would need to satisfy certain quality control criteria but these would not define the event level since such criteria could be satisfied by a local midweek event.

Back to to the driver for clubs to register at the higher level. One argument goes that registering at a higher level will indicate that the event is worth going to. For that to work though someone will surely need to police which events get registered at the higher level (level 2) - as currently happens for level 1 events. Another driver is that the higher level event could offer different incentive schemes - some have suggested (only suggested) that there could be a difference in ranking points between the new levels 2 and 3. Personally I have no problem with ranking points being awarded for all (non-relay etc) non-local events (but including night events!).

Anyway events committee are tasked with the implementation of the 4-tier structure. I believe that they meet tomorrow so perhaps we may get a glimpse into the future when their minutes are published.

[greywolf]

The consultation on the Rankings List demonstrated overwhelming support for an "inclusive" rankings list, incorporating old district/colour-coded events as well as new urban races. Simply put: more ranking events = more orienteers involved in (and hopefully motivated by) the list.

The inclusive list was a key recommendation of the RWG, and was accepted by the BOF Board. And then this year (as Marco Polo notes) the 4-tier system was sold to members with the top 3 levels contributing to rankings....

...so on what grounds exactly are Rules Group even suggesting revising this?...and if all the ranking events (districts, colourcodeds, urban) were to register as Level 2, then doesn't that demolish a 4 level system?

I have seen some f@@@ked up governance systems in my time, but BOF's system seems to consist mostly of committees whose main job is to undermine each other. Perhaps Rules Group should stick to ensuring that maps are printed as regular quadrilaterals or whatever it is they do...

[edit: Oops, that's Maps group. Rules group will be the ones dedicating themselves to sorting out the membership cards / BOF IT system / club eligibility mess. ]

[greywolf]

I doubt many people who have been to less than 6 ranking events take it seriously. Currently about 25% of my club have been to 6 events. Another 30% or so have been to 1 to 5 ranking events.

It depends what the aims are. If the aims are to increase participation, looking at those ranked in my club, the ones who've been to between 1 and 5 ranking events this year are the ones more likely to drop out of the sport - these are the ones stepping up from local events, do lots of other sports etc. The ones who go to 6 or more will keep going till the end of their days.

But the new list has only been running for a few months, and the numbers involved (whether with 1 score or 6 scores) appear to have increased considerably already...you need to wait till the end of the year and see how many of your club's members have 6 events then (and also make sure that your club registers all appropriate events)

[NeilC]

...so on what grounds exactly are Rules Group even suggesting revising this?...and if all the ranking events (districts, colourcodeds, urban) were to register as Level 2, then doesn't that demolish a 4 level system?

Surely RG are allowed to discuss this - just that unlike the car park discussions it gets minuted. I imagine that most ideas mooted at corporate brainstorming sessions go nowhere.

I have seen some f@@@ked up governance systems in my time, but BOF's system seems to consist mostly of committees whose main job is to undermine each other. Perhaps Rules Group should stick to ensuring that maps are printed as regular quadrilaterals or whatever it is they do...

No that's the job of Map Group - but thanks for your support anyhow Jon.

British Orienteering would be better off with no rules or guidelines - discuss.