CSC Junior Classes

[EddieH]

How many CSC final areas actually have any terrain of TD5 standard?

[pgupnorth]

I advised all clubs earlier this year, that a review of the Compass Sport Cup was due and said I would solicit views. I have since then sat on this as BOF changed the membership structure which will impact on the measurement of who is a Cup or Trophy club. It will be Spring next year before any useful data will be available to see what the impact is.
So, in 2013 views will be sought via Club Captains on the competition. I have had some feedback, mostly about aligning some age groups to the colour course they would normally run, numbers of scorers and the scoring system. This will all mean only one set of changes to start in 2014. If you want something to debate - how about a third tier to the competition where there are only say 8 scorers and a name for the competition?

Peter - Compass Sport Cup Coordinator

[Big Jon]

The CSC has always been completely biased against clubs with many juniors and few experienced seniors. I guess it follows the actual demographics of middle England club, shame this is a demographic that is getting older every year with little replacement with juniors. Not having challenging courses for juniors is hardly encouraging for them. As to the number of juniors who score- its a joke, clubs with no juniors can do fairly well in CSC - what image does this give to outsiders?

[mappingmum]

how about a third tier to the competition where there are only say 8 scorers and a name for the competition?

I concur and propose the Compass Sport Quaich.

[mappingmum]

. . . an all inclusive event that allows for junior novices, but not adult novices?
. . . . . why there is no provision for adult novices when the junior courses are aimed directly at novices?

Exactly.
Try suggesting the CSC competition to an adult novice family with kids under 5, requiring split starts with designated courses of blue and brown. It's so unrealistic it's a joke.

Back to the junior argument:
On the other hand my son would have loved to run CSC competitively for the past 2+ years but is excluded because yellow isn't a counting course. Inclusive competition? Hmmmmm.

PS My thoughts on these issues already provided to the CSC co-ordinator.

[awk]

On the other hand my son would have loved to run CSC competitively for the past 2+ years but is excluded because yellow isn't a counting course. Inclusive competition? Hmmmmm.

Yes, inclusive. One might not agree with the decisions behind the yellow being left out (pressure on youngest juniors etc), but they were made for reasons that don't contradict that. Personally, I think the rule makers were justified, but understand why others might think differently.

Big Jon: a club might just about do well without good juniors, but without them it is certainly under a serious handicap. Equally, it needs experienced seniors. It's about strength across the board, not in just one area, so yes it is 'biased' against clubs with the sort of profile you outline. They can still compete in the competition, and beat other clubs with differing profiles. But if you want to win a competition where the emphasis is on junior strength, that's what the Jamie Stevenson and Yvette Baker Trophies are for.

On the CSCup/Trophy split, I would continue to argue that dividing clubs by size is the wrong way to go: it's a club's strength that matters, and size does not equal strength: splitting the competition into divisions with promotion and relegation would both enable this, and provide added interest to the competition.

[SeanC]

I might get blasted for this, but I'm reading this thread and I'm thinking "what other sports would want young juniors and novices scoring in their premier club competition?"

We've heard on the Future Champions Cup thread that juniors prefer their own competitions. So we could ditch the orange and light green at the CSC, and juniors who are advancing onto greens and blues could compete directly with the adults... ie something like this.

Brown - mens open
Blue - M18 -, M45 +, womens open
Green - W18 -, M60+, W45+

No separate points for different age and sex categories, just points for position on either brown, blue or green.

This would suit smaller clubs better, as the current requirement for a big range of ages is particularly hard. With just 3 courses the scoring for a small club could just be based on the fastest in each category for example. It would also be an easier sell for publicity (if we called the courses something other than brown, blue and green).

This might be seen as discouraging junior development in small clubs, but it might not need to work that way. There could be a system where juniors are allowed to compete for one (large regional) club for junior competitions, and for their (local) small club for the compass sport cup.

Adult newcomers... why not have a best newcomer prize at a local league where newcomers are more likely to go to?

[graeme]

How many CSC final areas actually have any terrain of TD5 standard?

Indeed.
The under 14s get to run a TD3 course with (this time) a 17 minute winning time.
The under 18s run a course as hard as it can be at 35% of the M21 long course.
And when they grow up, they can get to be World Champion by winning a TD3 course with a 15minute winning time, or a hard-as-it-can-be course at 35% of the M21 long course.


As I said elsewhere, more of a problem is that people aren't actually competing against each other. Here's how I'd do it.

3 courses. Long middle sprint (brown, green, orange). Two competitions...
Open competition. Fastest three (?) to score on each course.
Age group competition. Time-adjusted-for-age handicap competition like WAVA do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_at ... ded_tables Five highest scorers to count.

Advantages
- a competition for the club with the fastest runners (even universities)
- run whatever course you're best at.
- no arbitrary demographics, M44s are as useful as M45s.

Jon: What are you on about? There's only two courses which can't be won by juniors, and the majority (6) were won by juniors (Blue Men, Green Women, LG Men, LG Women, O Men, O Women) compared with seniors winning 2 (Brown and Blue Women), and vets winning 2 (Green Men, Short Green Vets). The competition is massively biassed towards juniors, which is no bad thing.

PS: where are the rules anyway?

[SIman]

where are the rules anyway?

That one I can answer - here.
What they should be is more difficult.

[NeilC]

For those that are keen on allowing adult novices to run a suitable course, how would you propose doing this? With the M18s they can run down as far as Light Green. For the adults either you let M21s (say) run down as well, or you have to define novice in some way. Are there fair and easily enforceable ways of doing the latter?

[AndyC]

I would suggest that the ranking scheme could identify novice adults to some degree. If you have more than say 500 points you're not a novice (either because you've shown some competence or have done some events) -maybe 1000 points might be better?

[madmike]

I would suggest that the ranking scheme could identify novice adults to some degree. If you have more than say 500 points you're not a novice (either because you've shown some competence or have done some events) -maybe 1000 points might be better?

Less than 1000 pts and a BMI of more than 28 perhaps?

[King Penguin]

On the CSCup/Trophy split, I would continue to argue that dividing clubs by size is the wrong way to go: it's a club's strength that matters, and size does not equal strength: splitting the competition into divisions with promotion and relegation would both enable this, and provide added interest to the competition.

e.g. this year 3 West Midlands clubs in the final, because the qualifying round had a large number of clubs in it and OD won the qualifier and were in the top 3 at last year's Final.
Next year it is most likely only one of those 3 will make it to the final, as OD were knocked down to 4th this year. This year's 7th & 10th place finalists probably will not be at next year's Final. Equally, there may be clubs from other regions which would have been in the top 10 at the final had they been able to qualify.
Now we have a unified ranking list, maybe qualification for the (division within the ?) final should be based on adding up points from within this rather than a qualifier event where it would be theoretically possible for the 3rd best club in the country not to get through if they were in the same qualifier as the top club ?
If numbers of runners become a problem, maybe each club should be restricted to max. n+2 entrants in each class (where n = max. allowed number of scorers, so 8 on Brown & Mens Blue, 6 on Womens Blue & Green etc.), and more clubs allowed to attend ?
Not saying this would be better / the best way to go, just throwing it into the pot for discussion.

[graeme]

For those that are keen on allowing adult novices to run a suitable course, how would you propose doing this?

Pretty simple, anyone can run any course, Long, middle or sprint. Then account for age using something like athletics do with WAVA.
So e.g. if mharky, McNovice, Alex and I get picked for the club sprint team, then

Open competition results
1. mharky 14:00
2. Alex(M14) 17:35
3. graeme (M50) 17.36
4. McNovice 21.00

Handicap results
1 Alex 13.52 (17:35/1.3)
2 mharky 14:00
3 graeme 14:08 (17:36/1.25)
4. McNovice 21.00

Taking handicaps of 1.3 and 1.25 for M14 and M50 respectively.

[Dave]

One might not agree with the decisions behind the yellow being left out (pressure on youngest juniors etc.

but why would there be pressure on the youngest, when you've made clear in your posts that this is not a competition but a participation event to see who can give themselves the biggest warm feeling for do-goodery.