Results and Rankings.

[Adventure Racer]

Well, it seems that a couple of changes have now been made. I've not had time to look at the effects in detail yet, although one of the most glaring anomalies on the old list appears to have sorted itself out under the amended scheme - Cat Taylor's 1423 points for winning W20S at Greythwaite last year has become a rather more reasonable 1195.

That will presumably be due to reinstating the tail which got cut off rather abruptly by the 100% rule (and hence increasing the sd of the results I think). I still think some sort of cutoff is a reasonable idea so as to eliminate the real outliers, but it's clear that no cutoff is better than the one we had.

[Scott]

That was the plan. I think the "bottom 10%" cutoff is still being used, which will hopefully be good enough to deal with genuine outliers without distorting things too much.

[DJM]

I think the "bottom 10%" cutoff is still being used, which will hopefully be good enough to deal with genuine outliers without distorting things too much.

This is correct.

[Homer]

On the face of it these changes appear to be an improvement. There are less obvious anomalies (personally my ranking is now far more realistic!)

However, a negative effect is that there will now be less opportunities to gain points, particularly for those who run the least populated courses. This will most affect M21's who tend to run Black courses at Level 2 (presently) events.
Of the three Long Distance Level 2 events which have offered a Black course so far this year in my region, only one has had the required 10 competitors in order to be used for ranking purposes (and only just!). This problem is probably more noticeable in other, less populated, regions.
How does this encourage competition in the young adult age range? Anyone after ranking points will effectively be encouraged to run down to Brown or even Blue.

[distracted]

How does this encourage competition in the young adult age range? Anyone after ranking points will effectively be encouraged to run down to Brown or even Blue.

I doubt ranking points are important enough for most 21s who are regularly running black to consider dropping down the courses...

[DJM]

However, a negative effect is that there will now be less opportunities to gain points, particularly for those who run the least populated courses

Yes, and the RWG recognised this point and did the sums to see how many courses might be affected too. In the end, it was a trade-off between maximising the number of competitors getting rankings points at an event and minimising the frequency of anomalous calculations. [NB the smaller the course size, the larger the chance of anomalies in the stats]

Previously, a "fudge" formula was used for courses with fewer than 10 ranked runners finishing, so it had long been accepted that the figure of 10 defined the difference between using the normal algorithm and the fudged one. Put another way, it defined the division between being able to rely or not rely on the sample size leading to a reliable outcome. Logic therefore dictated that the new minimum-for-ranking number should be 10 also.

How does this encourage competition in the young adult age range? Anyone after ranking points will effectively be encouraged to run down to Brown or even Blue.

Maybe. But it might work in the opposite direction too, with regular Black competitors encouraging others to join them, not just to make up the requisite minimum of 10 but also to improve the quality of the competition on the course - surely a laudable aim in its own right?

[Homer]

[/quote]
Maybe. But it might work in the opposite direction too, with regular Black competitors encouraging others to join them, not just to make up the requisite minimum of 10 but also to improve the quality of the competition on the course - surely a laudable aim in its own right?
[/quote]
I doubt this will happen. Another, arguably more serious, problem is the W21E course at National Events. The Northerns just had the minimum of 10 competitors, but the Southerns fell well short. OK, the 21's might not be too bothered as distracted says, but surely if the list is to be meaningful, these results must be included in some way?

[Scott]

Perhaps M45L should be on the same course as W21E (but with a different map scale*)? Just a thought, but it seems to me like unnecessary effort to plan a TD5 course at a national event if you are anticipating fewer than ten competitors on it. And there are generally enough M50L to be able to have a course to themselves without it being quite as silly.

*Please let's not have a debate about whether identical courses with different map scales should be ranked together.

[DJM]

Having controlled the Southern Champs recently, it became very clear that we should have combined W21E with another course, thus solving this potential problem. I will be suggesting this as an amendment to the current Area Champs Competition Rule.

[Adventure Racer]

*Please let's not have a debate about whether identical courses with different map scales should be ranked together.

Why not - I can see it being quite interesting?

[DM]

BOF Meeting Minutes 20th April ;

"Juniors will get ranking points for events on or after their 16th Birthday, change to be made to the ranking system to reflect this."

A step in the right direction but not nearly far enough in my opinion. For selection purposes all M16s need to run blue so why not include all M16s in the ranking points? Any 16 with a birthday late in the year is going to feel left out as a result of this decision - peers will be getting recognition through the year and a young 16 won't, so much for being an inclusive sport.

For the oldies who run the same courses as the second year M16s, they should make a point of running well early on in the year, before too many 16s come along and beat them and depress their points...

Strange decision.

[King Penguin]

BOF Meeting Minutes 20th April ;

"Juniors will get ranking points for events on or after their 16th Birthday, change to be made to the ranking system to reflect this."

A step in the right direction but not nearly far enough in my opinion. For selection purposes all M16s need to run blue so why not include all M16s in the ranking points? Any 16 with a birthday late in the year is going to feel left out as a result of this decision - peers will be getting recognition through the year and a young 16 won't, so much for being an inclusive sport.

For the oldies who run the same courses as the second year M16s, they should make a point of running well early on in the year, before too many 16s come along and beat them and depress their points...

Strange decision.

... and I suspect rather harder to implement than ranking all M16s.

[awk]

BOF Meeting Minutes 20th April ;
"Juniors will get ranking points for events on or after their 16th Birthday, change to be made to the ranking system to reflect this."
A step in the right direction but not nearly far enough in my opinion. .....
Strange decision.

It's so specific, I suspect that there may well be a fairly firm reason. Would be good for that to be explained, otherwise it'll be open to this sort of conjecture.

[SAL]

The M/W16s compete with one another on an equal footing, so I feel it’s unfair to treat them differently depending on when their birthday is. It’s also unnecessarily complicated. I don’t think British Orienteering know everyone’s whole date of birth in any case – hitherto they have only needed the year.
There seems to be a view that the ranking list would put undue pressure on the younger ones, so why not just include the 2nd year 16s (i.e. include them in the year of their 16th birthday)?

[Oldman]

BOF Meeting Minutes 20th April ;

"Juniors will get ranking points for events on or after their 16th Birthday, change to be made to the ranking system to reflect this."

Actually, that was from the Board meeting summary. Perhaps the minutes will have more detail?