4 Levels

[EddieH]

I understand your reservation Clive, but I just don't think that your nightmare scenario will happen - I don't think the regions (a sufficient number) will allow it.

If you really do think there are a few other "regionals" that need protection, just vote against the motion and start lobbying for the far simpler solution of getting them accepted as level 1.

[distracted]

Clive - as far as I'm aware/can elucidate from other minutes, it seems that the Fixtures document you refer to which describes how allocation of regional events works - by association fixtures secretaries taking 'bids' for events to National level and agreeing them/teasing out conflicts - is how that part of the system is currently working. As I understand it, but could well be wrong, this method is of Fixtures Group's own devising and has not been questioned/approved by any other groups.

The two parts of the minutes that conflict are (1) a report from Fixtures Group based on a recent meeting and (2) an outline of what is now part of Guideline A on the Event Structure. So they've come from different groups, and the discrepancy between the two hasn't been picked up by anyone until now.

So is the current method the way it should be working/is best? Should regions have more control? Are things seen by clubs as restrictive/are they actually restrictive in the types/levels of events they put on? I don't know.

But I would imagine that clubs are still putting on the events that they want to and would do so irrespective of what level it is/could/should be at. I can't see that a slight change in authority of who's in charge of fixtures allocation of certain events is reason enough to make drastic changes...

[SJC]

I can't see that a slight change in authority of who's in charge of fixtures allocation of certain events is reason enough to make drastic changes...

Except that it isn't a drastic change, just a reflection of what is actually happening.

A small number of Regional events do have a national status and need to be scheduled and managed as such. The majority don't, but at the moment still need to be sanctioned at a national level if you want to call them a Regional event. This is why you have the 2a / 2b situation where people do want the 2a's to go through this process but not the 2b's. The four level structure is just clarifying this and would devolve all the genuine Regional events (the 2b's)down to the appropriate level of authority.

If you really do think there are a few other "regionals" that need protection, just vote against the motion and start lobbying for the far simpler solution of getting them accepted as level 1.

This might be the compromise solution. However it still leaves four levels. Just that they now include 1a and 1b rather than 2a and 2b.

[NeilC]

A small number of Regional events do have a national status

But which ones (apart from those hosting named competitions such as the Yvette Baker Final etc) ? Every club is going to feel that their big regional deserves fixture protection so who is going to decide and using what criteria?

[Mrs H]

Precisely! (mind you might be fun to be on that committee - imagine the "incentives" coming your way)

[Clive Coles]

Yes Distracted

The Working Arrangements Document was drafted by the Fixtures group last spring. It was presented to the Events Committee and, as far as I can tell approved. The Events committee contains representatives of each group ~ each group therefore should know what the arrangements are. It is stored as a downloadable document on the BOF web site for all to see. As the recent Events Committee state "it is working".

The document was drafted in the knowledge as to how authorities were operated through the on-line Fixture registration process i.e

Level 1 requires authority by National Fixtures Secretary once both Fixtures group and Major Events group have sanctioned the Fixture.

Level 2 requires authority by National Fixtures Secretary once sanctioned by the Fixtures group.

Level 3 can be authorised and registered by Club Fixtures Secretary.

I argued until I was blue in the face for Associations to have an authorisation role. I lost this argument.

BOF would not give way ~ that's how their Computer system had to be. They have enforced this situation through the Fixtures registration system.

Now, it is possible there has been a change of mind. BOF might be changing the computer system and are waiting until the next meeting of the Fixtures group before announcing a system change to the Association Fixtures secretaries. At this moment however the Computer system still appears to be working as it was last spring. We are mushrooms "in the dark" waiting for the door to open.

In our Region we have got around this problem by keeping most of our old district events as level 3 events. Our Sunday morning programme is overseen and authorised by our Association Fixtures Secretary. By agreement, Clubs only exercise their authorisation role for old style C5 events. The old C4's are authorised by the Association Fixture secretary following our Fixture planning meeting.

We don't therefore operate a 2a & 2b split like AUK. In fact we currently operate a 3a & 3b split. Regional differences to overcome the same problem .

Now we know that ranking points cannot be earned on Level 3 events we may well need to upgrade our 3a events to 2b. But that will increase the work load on the National Fixtures committee. A waste of their time.

It's a silly situation. Why do we need to play such games ?

[distracted]

However it still leaves four levels. Just that they now include 1a and 1b rather than 2a and 2b.

Interesting you state this, given that you have said in the past that 1a and 1b already effectively exist as those events franchised by British Orienteering (e.g. JK/British) and those run by clubs e.g. Area Championships... Given the way things are scheduled, what's the difference between an area champs and a "regional event that has national status"? Do you want to split those two up as well? It's like asking whether colour-coded events near a regional boundary, or local events near a club boundary, should be at different levels to those which won't interfere with any other club plans - just because their fixtures allocation might take a slightly different path.

One thing that has become particularly clear in recent times is that people aren't prepared to travel as far to a run-of-the-mill event. They'll happily go to a local event because it is convenient. They'll probably go to the bigger events that they know have quality terrain/will give a quality experience - JK, Scottish 6-day etc. But the average orienteer is becoming more picky - they are realising that just because an event has "regional" in the title doesn't guarantee it'll be any good!

You can get a good idea of this by looking at pre-entry numbers for recent "southern" events - the club's "biggest" events. The first few I'd probably go to irrespective of the level of event, because of the terrain:

Burnham Beeches - 494, Star Posts - 493, Leith Hill - 426, Nettlebed (Chilterns) - 424

But after that, I'm getting a bit more sceptical as to whether it'll be any good:

Verdley Wood (new area on the South Downs) - 341, Sheepleas (Mole Valley) - 264,
Grovely (Sarum event) - 258, Sutton Park - 246

And then there on areas that don't have a very good reputation:
Thetford Forest ~ 170 each day, Croydon Hill (Quantocks) - 68

Yes some of these figures will have been skewed by other events taking place on the same day - I don't profess this to be a full statistical analysis. Yet Leith Hill was a CSC round which, although some may not have otherwise attended, many who had to go to the New Forest probably would have. Whilst Star Posts clashed with the Northern Champs and the Edinburgh weekend! But the numbers are probably lower than the clubs would have expected a few years back - e.g. 575 at Chiltern Challenge and 765 at Concorde Chase in 2007 - as the demand for these types of events is now lower?

On many of RJ's earlier points - "the regional is a different beast in the North-West." What happened last year then, RJ?

Two events with great turnouts, as you'd expect - one a great area, the other a very distinct brand:
Northern Champs at Graythwaite - should have been Level 1 - 989 runners
Twin Peak weekend - 517 Day 1, 538 Day 2

But then your standard "different beasts" that you've been arguing so much in favour of differentiating give (LOC, BL, SROC, WCOC) - 391, 315, 310, 238 while the Cumbrian Galoppen attendances are 324, 292, 264, 254, 234, 217, 209, 190, 177, 174 and 168. So three of your "different beasts" get fewer runners than the best attended galoppen and one of them hardly beat the average Galoppen turnout?

It's clear that the nature of the UK orienteering scene is changing and has been doing so for some years. I'd say to the extent that the need for a national-level fixtures coordination is rapidly decreasing, as the need for locally based opportunities increases. Clubs are going to try to avoid close fixture clashes because otherwise it's detrimental to them - choice of dates will continue as it always has done - by looking at the existing schedule to see when is best! It works on a top-down process anyway - the best events are set well in advance and then you fill the gaps. At a regional level, you talk to the association secretary who may come back and says "X OC already have taken that date and the club will change things - why do you need someone at National Level to do this? And if a club feels the attendance at their event will be lowered because of a clash - as illustrated with London/Caddihoe - they will act on it.

To summarise - the notion of a "regional with National status" could apply to a diminishing subset of events, and clubs are savvy enough to avoid clashes with these events anyway, as they are with there own 'big' events. I don't see national fixtures need to get involved in this except as a last-stop mediator. This for me isn't a great enough "advantage" of a 4 level system over what we have now and hence I don't see why event levels should change on this basis.

[seabird]

We don't therefore operate a 2a & 2b split like AUK. In fact we currently operate a 3a & 3b split. Regional differences to overcome the same problem .

Now we know that ranking points cannot be earned on Level 3 events we may well need to upgrade our 3a events to 2b. But that will increase the work load on the National Fixtures committee.

Clive, if I recall this 2a 2b nonsense (sorry "notion") was an invention of yours not of awk. Again it is a typical orienteers attempt to overcomplicate a very simple situation. I have had plenty of discussions with awk and the concept has never arisen.

As plenty of people have pointed out Level 2 comfortably encompass a whole range of events which can be differently branded. This can be everything from the 2 course Edinburgh Urban race to 13-14 Course Age class cross country events. awk has talked about branding smaller scale and larger scale cross country events differently.

There are some events that are regular fixtures in the programme, White Rose, Caddihoe Chase, SINS etc. There is absolutely no reason why clubs cannot get these in the National Fixtures planner well in advance. This will allow clubs in neighbouring regions to take note of them and probably plan their events for other dates. However i can think of no reason whatsoever that these events, including my own club's Dales Trophy, should be afforded protection, the way they have wanted in the past.

If the events are good enough they will attract the competitors whatever else is on.

So quite frankly, I foresee with the 3 levels, a diminishing role for the National Fixtures committee, rather than the reverse.

[Clive Coles]

Seabird

I agree with you !

I don't want the Fixtures group to have a growing role over regional events. Let them stick to the National scene.

I don't think they want this responsibility either. it's forced on them because BOF have insisted in designing a computerised Fixtures registration process with just 2 levels of authority [NFS & CFS].

As to 2a's & 2b's etc I think looking back it was something AUK & myself used in a PM and other people have adopted it as a way of categorising the variety of events that we are staging. It's only a simple way of talking about things. Once the debate is over you are unlikely to come across this categorisation again.

[awk]

We don't therefore operate a 2a & 2b split like AUK.

As I think I explained in my last post, we don't operate like that either. Some of our level 2 events are branded to create Superleague events, others are branded Urban League, etc. etc. So rather more brands than just 2a and 2b, and just to confirm, no sense of hierarchy either. Our Superleague events primarily need a certain number of courses to run the age classes (10 year bands), but aren't rated more highly than, say, Urban League (in fact, personally, I regard Urban races as more important), where there are significantly less courses.

Interesting what we are now seeing though, with level 1a/b, 2a/b, 3a/b all being discussed. The fact of the matter is that whilst a 4-tier scheme might initially look attractive, the fact is that there is no one consensus 4-tier scheme - everybody seems to have their own, and different, idea of what they should look like. Should be interesting if it gets past the AGM - there are going to be an awful lot of 4-tier proponents who land up disappointed.

[Roger]

Once the debate is over ...

Will that be just before or just after the Hades Winter Olympics?

[SJC]

Interesting what we are now seeing though, with level 1a/b, 2a/b, 3a/b all being discussed. The fact of the matter is that whilst a 4-tier scheme might initially look attractive, the fact is that there is no one consensus 4-tier scheme - everybody seems to have their own, and different, idea of what they should look like.

There is no consensus about the 4-tier scheme because every region has invented their own, either splitting the level 3 events into two categories or the level 2 events into two categories. In both cases ending up with effectively the same four levels. Creating two levels for the level 1 events would achieve exactly the same thing, and probably reflects better what is really needed. In all cases you end up with Local events, Regional events, national events, and then the current level 1 events that BOF controls.

But which ones (apart from those hosting named competitions such as the Yvette Baker Final etc) ?

There are more of these than people think. For example last year the Eyam Moor event
(Veteran Home International, Interland selection race) was placed in the same category as a seven course colour coded event, and according to the BOF table its target market was Experienced orienteers in the region prepared to travel for larger events plus
some members from adjacent regions. Not a very accurate description.

[distracted]

For example last year the Eyam Moor event (Veteran Home International, Interland selection race)

So we moved into the realm of "let's choose a single event which doesn't quite fit in with the current structure and use that to say the whole thing is broken" have we? Nice cherry-picking on that one.

Let's go along with you on this for a while. We create a new event level for this event. What "problem" exactly have we solved?

- That you can't tell that the event is an Interland Selection race and the VHI's from its level, but you can from its title... ?
- That the event might get a slightly wider audience than usual because it is an Interland Selection race, but you can't tell that from its level?
- That creating this new level of event magically tells everyone exactly what every event offers, whether it be a sprint, middle, long, ultra-long, chasing start or urban race?

Why this obsession with level - what difference does it actually make to what the event is offering the participant?

according to the BOF table its target market was: Experienced orienteers in the region prepared to travel for larger events plus some members from adjacent regions.

I'm sure you'll also be happy to define "region" for us in this case, especially as the event is particularly close to the edge of three different associations...

And I've just noticed that's a great bit of selective quoting! What does the line under the one you quote state, also as an expected audience for Level 2 events? This:

Orienteers selected for specified representative teams (club, region or country) or individual competitions.

I might be interested in what you have to say if you came up with a well-constructed argument, with sufficient evidence, to show that there is an inbuilt problem within the new structure that must be solved by creating an extra event level. Is there something that contradicts the vision that the Board have for our sport? Is there something that is dangerous for the long-term future of orienteering in the UK?

Given that events still seem to be happening across the country and most people now have more opportunities to go orienteering than ever before, I'm really wondering whether I've missed something blatantly obvious that makes event level so key to a small subset of people.

[awk]

There is no consensus about the 4-tier scheme because every region has invented their own, either splitting the level 3 events into two categories or the level 2 events into two categories. In both cases ending up with effectively the same four levels. [

So, splitting the level 3s into two categories is the same as splitting the level 1s into two categories? You say every region - we haven't, and I don't know of any others that have. (However, I'm talking about what people are proposing, not what actually happens on the ground).

Creating two levels for the level 1 events would achieve exactly the same thing, and probably reflects better what is really needed.

Except that isn't what's being proposed by many if not most 4-tier proponents.

In all cases you end up with Local events, Regional events, national events, and then the current level 1 events that BOF controls.

No you don't.

I think distracted has dealt far more effectively with the rest than I could possibly have done.

[Big Jon]

New system is not working - fact - there wouldn't be 24 pages of Nopesport discussion unless it was causing a lot of people a lot of problems.
I don't claim to understand all the arguments for and against the old system and the new system (and proposed newer systems) but why not just get on with organising lots of orienteering events for lots of orienteers.