Interesting ideas?

[SeanC]

I'm being a bit of a troll here , but there are some interesting ideas in the latest event operations minutes. Hope no-one minds me pasting them on nopesport...

http://www.britishorienteering.org.uk/D ... inutes.pdf


8 Progress Report from the Competition Structure Workgroup
A paper highlighting the discussions of the workgroup to date was considered and after much
discussion it was agreed that the following points should be discussed further by the working
group and, if the workgroup agreed, at a later stage by the wider membership:
a) A move towards a single British Orienteering event at Easter rather than 2 major
events (JK and BOC) should be seriously considered; the single event could
encompass the British Championship events Sprint, Middle and Long and might
maintain the JK label ie ‘The JK British Championships’. It was thought that the
reduction to a single British Orienteering major event could achieve several benefits
including; enable resources to be placed into a single event that could be
significantly enhanced; the event could be managed by a small group of people in
the fashion of the Scottish 6-Day Event organisation; the use of Easter for the
British Championship could be advantageous and enable more elite and non-elite
orienteers to take part. The festival type events will still be able to be run alongside
the Championship.
Issues were raised around the details of such an event however members felt it
could work and the details ironed out at as the idea is progressed.
Members agreed that this idea is worthy of further consideration however it was
recognised that both JK and BOC are emotive subjects and a wider discussion is
needed before the workgroup can put forward any recommendations.
b) Below the Championship there should be 6 Regional Championships utilising
National Events where possible, SOA, WOA, NIOA, North, Midlands, South
c) The number of Regional events should be reduced. It seems that the number of
entrants is the key issue with regard to putting on age class events below national
level rather than the level of the event.
d) Where the entry sizes permit colour coded course should be used for all other
orienteering events; this should reduce the workloads on the volunteers organising
such events and make better use of officials. The size of the events, the quality of
the courses and the quality of officials should all enhance these events. The
number of courses on offer would determine the category of the event (C3/4/5).
e) A move to single ranking lists for men and women should be effected if possible.
f) A Club Weekend to host CompassSport Cup/Trophy on Saturday and British Relay
Championship on Sunday should be built into the fixture list and promoted into
being a significant event.
g) Members felt that adopting these recommendations will reduce the problems with
differentiation between the event categories (C1 through C5) although it was
recognised that there is a need for wider discussion with the membership.
Action: 8 Events Committee to ask the Competition Structure Workgroup to consider the
outcomes of the discussion to date and firm up on their views as to the
recommendation and options that should be discussed with a wider forum (LW, asap)

[mharky]

that all sounds rather good, i'm impressed.

[Kitch]

An alternative would be to treat the British Champs with the seriousness it deserves rather than treating it as a "Festival"

if thats what the age classes want then fine
but I'd like to see BEOC maintained

BEOC was instigated because BOC could not be relied upon to provide suitable areas at a suitable time of year, (or - dare I say it - get the controls in the right place), though the will to hold it separately from BOC seems to have dwindled recently.

Whilst there may well be a need to simplify/rationalise things for regional and district I think its a bad step to apply this to our premier races

[graeme]

Please not that these are NOT recommendations from the Events Structure Workgroup. Rather it is the EOC discussion of a ESW report which hasn't been published. Only (e) and (g) refer directly to the ESW recommendations.

[Oldman]

The news item posting the minutes also said this:

With regard to the minutes, please note the following point:

Competition Structure Review: During an agenda item members of the Events Committee discussed a progress report from the workgroup established to review the competition structures within orienteering. Committee members recognise that the issues discussed are emotive to many members and wish to reassure members of British Orienteering that no decisions have been made and that a wider consultation will be required prior to any recommendations from the Competition Structure Workgroup and Events Committee being made to Council.

[The Loofa]

Some old ideas and some new ones. My pennorth for it is

b c d have been around for ages and I count myself with those banging heads on walls wondering why we hadn't done them years ago. However I'd be happy with the same number of Regionals as now provided half of them were sprint or middle distance and linked (i.e the day before) a "classic" Regional.

e (ranking list) is unclear. Merge L and S for each age class? I'd agree with that but I think it means one list for all men and one for all women. I don't see the point in that as it seems about as useful as merging men and women into one list for all

a+f is the interesting one. I think they count as a linked idea. I heard this raised at the March Fixtures meeting. It's not in the minutes, so probably a post-meeting idea. I don't recall anyone looking keen and I'm certainly against. Its basically one of JK/BOC being ditched with a relay going as well. It doesn't seem consistent with the idea of more professional support for these weekends. I read Mike H's bit in Focus about not having a new group of volunteers re-inventing the wheel twice a year and agree with it. Surely if we make moves that way we can continue to make two big weekends happen. (of course there is the more pragmatic reason of needing 2 weekends worth of entry fees to pay for any professional support)

Do you think this group remenbered that the JK Trophy is the prize for the winners of the Mens premier Relay?
And anyway who was on it and how was it formed? We've seen Graeme all excited about it, but who else?

Andy

[roadrunner]

I think the idea behind (e) is that you can gain ranking points at an event with colour-coded courses without having to run the course specific to your age group. If I remember rightly, this was the stumbling block when the idea of ageless classes was tried at a badge event a few years back, so it's probably an essential step if we want to move away from age-class events. It's not entirely new, either - I remember seeing in CompassSport such a list being produced (unofficially, and alongside the BOF ones) for a time many years ago.

[awk]

Do you think this group remenbered that the JK Trophy is the prize for the winners of the Mens premier Relay?

Of course it did and does. Please remember that these are all suggestions generated by Event Operations Group, NOT the review group; Event Ops have now put them to the review group for discussion. I would emphasise, the JK/BOC joint weekend idea is NOT the idea of the review group.

Note, the words
"and after much discussion it was agreed that the following points should be discussed further by the working group and, if the workgroup agreed, at a later stage by the wider membership"
precede this list of points.

In fact, of this list, the only ones that stem from ideas generated in the VERY interim report to Event Operations are (e), and to a lesser extent (b) [what Event Ops put back to the group was in fact just one of the ideas being discussed by the review group to give national level events more meaning].

And anyway who was on it and how was it formed? We've seen Graeme all excited about it, but who else?

Well it still exists, so its "who is on it" not "was". The group is chaired by Lynn West, and the membership consists of: Graeme, David May, Ed Nicholas, Ernie Williams, Roger Hargreaves, Richard Sharp-Harwell and me. I'm on it as I was nominated by YHOA, and others have been nominated either by associations or by their respective BOF committees.

[Kitch]

operations group
review group
working group

seriously ?!

[Knee Deep Mud!]

that all sounds rather good, i'm impressed.

I agree.

Yes, there are a few details that would need to be sorted out, but I certainly wouldn't have any problem if any of the ideas proposed for discussion were taken further and developed into workable ideas.

[Gross]

operations group
review group
working group

seriously ?!

I understand that BOF is seriously considering the suggestion to form a working party to consider and then review the most efficient way of getting volunteers to join the various groups

[SeanC]

I am completely confused about who on what committee said whatever to whoever. It's easier to follow a nopesport thread.

Anyway, back to the subject.

The Loofa wrote

"I read Mike H's bit in Focus about not having a new group of volunteers re-inventing the wheel twice a year and agree with it. Surely if we make moves that way we can continue to make two big weekends happen. (of course there is the more pragmatic reason of needing 2 weekends worth of entry fees to pay for any professional support) "

Presumably if merging BOC individual and JK resulted in a loss of revenue this could be made up from other sources - increased levies on smaller events, increased membership fees etc. If we're all going to more local events instead of far flung expensive events then we should have some spare cash in our wallets for a balancing levy increase.

Is the aim of all these recommendations to allow volunteers to spend less time organising big events and more time organising local events and on club development (which is presumably more likely to attract new members)?

[awk]

I am completely confused about who on what committee said whatever to whoever. It's easier to follow a nopesport thread.

Event Ops committee formed a working group to review fixtures. The working group (or review group) submitted an interim report to Event Ops. Event Ops discussed it, then made some suggestions of their own for the working group to consider.

Unfortunately, the Event Ops minutes made it look as if these suggestions were made by the working group. They weren't.

Sorry for the interchangeable terminology. Did make it look as if there were multiple groups running around. Probably still are, but somewhere else in the system.

Is the aim of all these recommendations

They aren't recommendations, merely ideas generated by Event Ops for discussion.

[SeanC]

Apologies for the careless use of the word "recommendations".

[greywolf]

e (ranking list) is unclear. Merge L and S for each age class? I'd agree with that but I think it means one list for all men and one for all women. I don't see the point in that as it seems about as useful as merging men and women into one list for all

One big list for all seems an eminently sensible idea, especially if it includes a wider range of events (CC, sprint, etc). M & W run the same courses more often than not, so why not have a common ranking? Once you have a big list (with everyone ranked only once, hurrah), you can always run whatever filters you need to find out who the top ten left-handed Scottish W55s are