Mens Open - no longer big?

[Wayward-O]

Just been looking at the start list for the NW CompassSport Cup & Trophy qualifier at Watergrove. Entries by course (listed by entry) are:

Blue Men (85) - Large
Green Men (55) - Small
Green Women (49) - Small
Brown (44) - Large
Blue Women (31) - Small
Short Green Vets (30) - Small
Orange Men (28) - V Small
Light Green Men (22) - V Small
Light Green Women (15) - V Small
Orange Women (15) - V Small

This would indicate that only the Blue Men course should be Large. Is this entry profile replicated across the other regional qualifying events?

[Adventure Racer]

Fair? Did somebody mention fair? Exactly why does the CSC need to be "fair" and who defines what fair is? All it is is a club competition with some sort of inbuilt bias - any tinkering with the scoring would just make it unfair in a different way. It would seem that in general Brown no longer attracts enough runners to justify being a "large" course, however it does still cover a 25 year age range of people who can only run that course, as opposed to at most a 17 year range for other courses (and people in that age range can also run up to Brown).

As for having to compete against clubs much larger than you in the Trophy - what do you suggest, having a Compass Sport Plate, or maybe moving the size cutoff so those "big" Trophy clubs have to compete in the Cup against clubs much larger than them?

Until 2 years ago, our club had never qualified for the final. Still got a decent turnout to any qualifier - personally I always enjoyed competing for my club even in the days when we had no hope of qualifying. At last year's final we certainly weren't going to win, or even threaten the podium, yet lots of us (including plenty of those who knew they weren't even going to score for the club) happily travelled well over 100 miles. Why can't people in other clubs just enjoy a day out orienteering with a bit of a difference, along with the chance to compete for their club - surely there's a point even if you're just trying not to finish last in your qualifier?

[sketchweppers]

Until 2 years ago, our club had never qualified for the final. Still got a decent turnout to any qualifier - personally I always enjoyed competing for my club even in the days when we had no hope of qualifying. At last year's final we certainly weren't going to win, or even threaten the podium, yet lots of us (including plenty of those who knew they weren't even going to score for the club) happily travelled well over 100 miles. Why can't people in other clubs just enjoy a day out orienteering with a bit of a difference, along with the chance to compete for their club - surely there's a point even if you're just trying not to finish last in your qualifier?

Personally I share your views, but came to the conclusion that I was unusual. In fact it was probably my first Compass Sport qualifier that really got me going on orienteering. I had only been orienteering about 4 months (having not done any running since being forced to do sports day at school) and I needed to be able to run a blue course. I tried my first blue just before Christmas and it took me well over 2 hours so I was a bit disheartened. However at the CST event in the following January I was actually a counting scorer for my club. Since then I have done several blue courses and am very proud of my 'blue badge' - I don't usually come in par, but it is a good target for me to aim for.

Our club usually gets a very good turnout at our regional league events, and we had a good number of class winners last year. Alongside the individual class winners we also have been the winning club for the last couple of years - worked out on total points/membership number. I guess this gives people motivation - it is an achievable goal. If the goalposts are too far away it is a disincentive I guess.

Most of our older club members just don't seem to want to travel too far for their orienteering these days. However we did manage to get a team in the Peter Palmer relay last year and we have got through to the YBT final and this is helping to motivate our juniors.

[graeme]

happily travelled well over 100 miles.

Lightweights
But I completely agree with you. We had a bare 13 scorers at the CSC final this year (and came third!). Disbar one of our Brown runners and we wouldn't have had a full team, and probably wouldn't have come.
Sure there are different levels of "unfair" rules, but an "unfairness" that makes raising a team impossible is the only type which will stop whole clubs taking part.

(I do think FVO have done enough to deserve promotion to the Cup though...)

[Slowtochide]

My club is probably typical in that we have an aging membership. 4 experienced M40's have turned M45 in the past 2 years, making it impossible to fill our 3 mens open places in the Compass Sport Cup without someone running up. Looking at the numbers pre-entered on brown at Ranmore, the M20-M40 numbers seem similar to the numbers on the men's green, and much smaller than men's blue.

Is it time for men's open to be a "small" Compass Sport Cup course? Discuss.

No. It's time for your club to go out and get more M21s (and W21s). I know that sounds a bit glib but SLOW recognised the problem some time ago and set out to target this age group. Until clubs do that then our sport will continue to be one with an aging profile. It takes a while but it can be done - just have a look at the numbers quoted earlier in this thread, the number of SLOW M21s dwarfs that of any other club in this match.

Unfortunately SLOW is very short on active juniors at the minute so we will suffer in the match because of that - but we won't be asking for a rule change to make it 'fair' to us by removing them from the scoring.

[SeanC]

I agree with you about M/W21's, and juniors too which we're also short of. In fact a recent effort with more events and publicity has doubled the numbers of our M20/40's at this Sunday's CSC.*

For small clubs, unless the heat is far away I think the CSC rules are OK. However there are lots of other competitions many small clubs are excluded from. I really don't see that this helps their development. I can see why people might think this. At the moment we have 2 juniors going to the British Champs. Not enough for a relay team. Perhaps if we put more effort in to recruitment we might get a third? And if we were allowed to have a combined team we might think " that's it ... problem solved"?

Except that we are doing our best, and increasing junior numbers. Kent has 3 new junior competitions introduced in the past few years. Some clubs will be exceptions, but the typical small club is only going to grow slowly as the resources available to it is smaller than a typical large club, and many of these new recruits will not travel. Meanwhile the existing small club juniors are punished by being excluded from competitions, and increasing the risk that they will find more accommodating sports than Orienteering whilst they wait for the slow increase in numbers.

Small clubs are probably the least likely to rest on their laurels as they know that membership reduction could = the end of the club. Rather than the sticks of exclusion from competition, support and encouragement is more effective.. practical support, equipment, advice, and yes rule changes where appropriate.

(sorry, Rant over, good luck to SLOW and the other teams this sunday).

* 1 + 1 = 2

[awk]

I've said this before and I'll say it again (ad nauseam!).

It's not the size that's so much the issue, but the strength. It's no real fun competing against clubs that are much stronger than you. Of course, a club that can turn out 40+ is likely to be stronger than a team of 15, but it wouldn't be a problem if the teams were still able to compete.

With that in mind, I continue to feel (strongly!) that the CSC should go over to a league system, where clubs compete against other clubs of a similar strength, with promotion, relegation etc (it would still be just 2 weekends a year). As it stands, the current format is not exactly the most interesting or inspiring for any but a very small minority of clubs (to put it mildly).

Certainly, I'd much rather see this than the National League suggestion that's the latest whizz bang idea for supposdely putting right what's not wrong.

[roadrunner]

I wonder for small clubs a pre-qualifying round might not be a bad idea competing against just one club, so long as the draw didn't bring up the same opponents every year (ie the big small club)? Possibly not such a good idea for the large clubs as there are less of them? Wasn't it like that in the past. One of our older members talks fondly about the time when the club hired a coach to play a club 100 miles away on their home forests and won.

Indeed - when I was on my club's committee some years ago, the first round was a head-to-head against one other club at any mutually agreed colour-coded event (not run by either of the competing clubs). I think this was in many ways a good thing; my club didn't really have a chance of making it to the final, but there was a chance of making it through the first round.

The question of how to get people to turn up also arises in my running club's cross country league; although we have a realistic chance of winning there, how do you get the slower runners to come? The argument they use is that, while you may not score for your club yourself, you can help by reducing the scores of runners from other clubs. Not sure how the CSC scoring works, but that argument might be true there as well.

[King Penguin]

The argument they use is that, while you may not score for your club yourself, you can help by reducing the scores of runners from other clubs. Not sure how the CSC scoring works, but that argument might be true there as well.

yes, the CSC and CST scoring works exactly like that.

[sketchweppers]

The argument they use is that, while you may not score for your club yourself, you can help by reducing the scores of runners from other clubs. Not sure how the CSC scoring works, but that argument might be true there as well.

yes, the CSC and CST scoring works exactly like that.

It doesn't make any difference if you come so low down the list - either you are at the bottom or all the people below you are not going to score either!