BUCS 2011

[brooner]

This busa/bucs scoring system battered out on Nopesport waaaaay back in the days when Nopesport was "useful"

[Scott]

Bit late to change things for this year, but is there any reason why in future the B (and C) courses shouldn't be given points as if the first B course runner finished immediately behind the last A course finisher? That would have increased the number of unis with full teams by 67%

[Lucy.F.]

I don't know - surely then you'd get uni's putting in v good runners into the B course too to get the points? It seems mean for those unis who can't field full A course teams but I think the system is fair for those that can at the moment. Perhaps some sort of secondary prize for smaller unis or for the winning B 'team' or something? But then for the B team idea, in this years case it wouldn't work anyway - the smaller unis are putting their members on the A courses and only Edinburgh has a 'full team' in any of the B courses - the Womens. So perhaps something for top uni with 5 or less runners? And do it so it doesn't relate to how many runners they have (average position or something).

So I know what you mean but personally I agree with the current system for deducing overall winning uni.

[andy]

I don't know - surely then you'd get uni's putting in v good runners into the B course too to get the points?

As long as there is a maximum to count then it doesn't matter, if max (or more than max) people finish on the A course nobody on the B would score points for that Uni, only those who don't have a full compliment on A would gain any from B

[Scott]

I don't know - surely then you'd get uni's putting in v good runners into the B course too to get the points?

I wouldn't have thought so - perhaps I didn't explain it properly. The idea would be to stick with three men and three women to count, as at the moment, but to have a scoring system that goes like this:

Men's A Course (48 finishers)
1st Jack Smith XUOC 1pt
2nd John Smith YUOC 2pt
...
47th Bob Smith ZUOC 47pt
48th Mick Smith Surrey 48pt

Men's B Course
1st Jim Smith XUOC 49pt
2nd Nick Smith ZUOC 50pt
...

etc, with unis who are missing a runner scoring as if that runner had finished one place behind the last finisher on Men's C. There would be absolutely no reason to put your good runners on the B Course - as long as they finished, they'd be guaranteed to score better points on the A!

Anyway, just a suggestion.

[Lucy.F.]

Ah yes my mistake! That sounds a good idea to me. Anything to help smaller uni clubs out. My sister was in the situation that they had 2 runners who could do TD5 but their 3rd had only done TD3 so far - they'd weighed up the options and decided it wasn't worth the expense in the end (though also partly because they also wouldn't be able to field a fully comp relay team as its all TD5). If other clubs were in a similar situation it might help.
And it would mean beginners would perhaps feel they were contributing even more to their club.

[PeterG]

That system punishes very small clubs even more than the current one as anyone who still can't field a full team gets way fewer points. Orienteering is a very inclusive sport and its great that anyone who wants to run at BUCS can do so but at the end of the day its still a national student championship. Its supposed to test which club is the best at orienteering not which club is the best at bringing B or C class runners.

[Big Jon]

"Men's A Course (48 finishers)
1st Jack Smith XUOC 1pt
2nd John Smith YUOC 2pt
...
47th Bob Smith ZUOC 47pt
48th Mick Smith Surrey 48pt

Men's B Course
1st Jim Smith XUOC 49pt
2nd Nick Smith ZUOC 50pt"

What do you have against Surrey?

[EddieH]

I'll bet York will be delighted with second place

[Scott]

That system punishes very small clubs even more than the current one as anyone who still can't field a full team gets way fewer points. Orienteering is a very inclusive sport and its great that anyone who wants to run at BUCS can do so but at the end of the day its still a national student championship. Its supposed to test which club is the best at orienteering not which club is the best at bringing B or C class runners.

But at the moment, after the top two, it is pretty much just a test of which club is best at bringing A class runners. The very small clubs are never going to do very well, but at least by including the B and C classes in the scoring you might increase the number of middle-sized clubs who can field full teams (if you did it this year you'd increase it from 3 to 5) - and so get more positions in the overall university standings decided by orienteering ability instead of attendance. I reckon the smaller clubs would find it easier to encourage their non-A class runners to give up a weekend and make the trip if they were actually going to count for the team. And it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference to who the top two were

What do you have against Surrey?

I think it's a fair reflection of where Surrey's BUCS competitor is likely to finish

[s04]

.
.

[rocky]

s04 makes a very coherent reply. But who is this mystery new user?

Could it be the same person who said this a few years ago:

and that fact that it is my scoring system, created and devised solely by me with no other influence from any other scoring system.

[Mrs H]

ha ha ha

[Becks]

Now his post has gone, and I think it actually made sense!

[jjjl]

Top 3 in mens and womens - predictions?