Event structure review

[SeanC]

I wonder if a lot of the heat in this discussion is due to geographical differences. A popular event in the spine of England is likely to attract competitors from several regions, whereas less popular district/regional events and events in English perhipheral areas such as Kent are likely to attract competitors from just one region. In that sense those that say there should be a 4 tier structure have a point, but it might not necessarily be caused just by the quality of the competition area.

With that in mind those going to the conference might want to consider the following structure:

1) Local events (as review)
2) Regional events (standard events in review, but those for one region)
3) Inter-Regional events* (standard events in review, but those that attract competitors from many regions).
4) National events: (as review).

This way name inflation means that events dont get downgraded. District events become regional events, big regional events become inter-regionals.

Unfortunately we may spend the next 10 years arguing about whether the Blando Bogtrot should be an Inter-Regional or a Regional, rather than doing something productive.

The other thing I would ask people to consider is to look beyond the hot topics of course length and course quality and consider competition quality. If one of the aims of the review is to improve participation then consider the punter who may not be too fussed about course quality and more fussed about after event banter and team competition. This is perhaps more important in the south where the forests limit the course experience. The easiest way to increase participation IMHO would be to extend genuinely exciting competitions such as the CompassSport Cup, YBT etc, have live results on the day, have somewhere for clubs to meet (and put their tents!). I bet we'll have a bigger turnout at Shorne at the CSC in January than this sundays district at Joydens Wood.

Finally, if you've kept up with this thread, and you've read it all and made some sense of it , award yourself a super black national ranking multi district inter regional championship standard in perseverance

*please think of a better name

[awk]

What The Loofa is completely missing, and so are others who refer to 'downgrading', is the whole point behind the proposals. What they are doing is providing a framework upon which meaningful and attractive competitions can be developed.

For those wanting to compete against national level competition, the proposals fairly tightly define the competition: that is the series of national events with a league type competition.

For more localised competition, the proposals define the framework. It's then up to associations and clubs to build their competitions on these. Thus the Scottish will almost certainly continue with the SOL; other associations will continue with their leagues, gallopens etc, whilst clubs will continue with their prestige events, such as November Classic, Dales Trophy etc. They might (and I hope will) tweak the format to create greater competition, but they will still carry on successfully (e.g. last time I ran in the November Classic, I competed in a class of only about 15 people - not a major incentive to be honest, however good the area was).

These events do not depend on being a "regional" event to be attractive - it's the quality of the area, planning, organisation and competition that makes them attractive, and that is up to the association/club, which is why some current regional events are attractive and some are not.

Events do not need a grade, nor indeed a tightly defined structure, for them to be attractive, as pretty much every other running sport has found, as indeed has orienteering as people are getting pickier about what events they attend (and it's not defined by their grade!). It's what your club and association make of them that will decide whether they are a high quality 'regional' event or a more 'local' event.

So, Andy, the proposals will only be a disaster if your region and clubs don't make use of them, and just produce a series of 'bog standard' events. You may not like the responsibility, and may not like the NGB for giving it to you, but that's the way they are designed.

[roadrunner]

These events do not depend on being a "regional" event to be attractive - it's the quality of the area, planning, organisation and competition that makes them attractive, and that is up to the association/club, which is why some current regional events are attractive and some are not.

I'm afraid I must disagree with you there, Awk - in my club we have a limited number of areas, and when we use them for district events, we get far fewer people than when we use the same area for a regional event, and that is in spite of the difference in price. You're right that the quality of planning etc is a key factor, but I would suggest that most people don't know how good the planning is until it's too late

If my memory serves me correctly, even the event name isn't that big a deal. I'm sure there was one year when our "prestige" event, the Concorde Chase, was colour-coded rather than badge (as they were called then), and I don't believe we had as many competitors.

I think that SeanC has made a very valid point - some clubs have a much better selection of terrain than others, while others have many more potential competitors within a reasonable distance, and this is bound to influence the popularity of different types of event. I agree with Awk that there's not much satisfaction to be gained by competing in a small class (though 15 doesn't sound that bad - I've seen far fewer), but wouldn't merging the unpopular classes get round this?

[awk]

You misunderstand me roadrunner. I wasn't talking about standard regional/badge events. I was specifically talking about the more prestigious events, such as the November Classic. They are more prestigious because of the high quality reputation that they've built up.

What the new system would do is get us away from the current 'one size fits all' approach, and put the emphasis back on the organising associations/clubs to promote the event as they see appropriate, rather than leaving it to the grade at which it is classified to do the job, often unsatisfactorily both in terms of customer satisfaction (witness the increasing instance of regional events at or less than district size) and in terms of the lack of variety and exclusion of all but one type/style of event.

So, take your example of that colour coded Chiltern Challenge. Under the new scheme, if the organisers wanted to, they could beef the event up: more courses, age/gender class competition added (but don't have to do all the 50+ classes unless feel that's appropriate, might even just have one or two on each course), prizes etc. (Of course that's only one element - if the area's naff for instance.....!). If they wanted it lower key, then equally that's possible. However, what they don't have to do is produce either (a) a limited range of courses defined solely by colour or (b) the full range of 50+ classes, with no other option. Pretty much the sole 'restriction' is that there must be an open race on all courses. However, the structure provides a 'language' which will enable people to understand what orienteering is offered.

This may take a bit of rethinking by associations and clubs to fully take advantage of the system, maybe even a bit "out of the box", but it won't for instance prevent the South Eastern clubs from having their weekly 'badge' event, if that's what they want, nor will it prevent others from a different emphasis. What it it will do is enable a wider range of race types to be incorporated into the mainstream of orienteering competition and enable clubs and associations to better tailor their competition structures to local needs within a recognised framework, which is what the current system is increasingly failing to do.

[SJC]

...... and put the emphasis back on the organising associations/clubs to promote the event as they see appropriate, rather than leaving it to the grade at which it is classified to do the job, often unsatisfactorily both in terms of customer satisfaction (witness the increasing instance of regional events at or less than district size)

But it doesn't need a single 'Standard Event' to do this, just a recognition by some clubs that the events they are putting on as Regional Events today should be District Events, leaving the likes of the November Classic to be promoted as 'proper' Regional Events.
The turn out at the small Regional Events should be telling the clubs organising them that they have been getting it wrong.

[awk]

It may not for that one small part of what I was discussing, but it helps, whilst it's important for the rest. Even for events like the November Classic, the current structure is limiting, requiring 50+ distinct classes, yet still managing to significantly restrict both what people can compete on and, in many cases, the competition available.

A more flexible, responsive and inclusive structure is needed in its place that doesn't just see events in terms of the current district' and 'regional' events, but encourages development, including new types of events. That does need a simpler, single set of standards. If clubs were only to put on straightforward 'Standard Events' or the equivalent of current district/regional events, then they would neither be making best use of the standards, nor doing much for their own development.

[Brian Hughes]

Are we not in danger of 'fiddling while Rome burns'? The pressing need is to get more 21 and 35 year olds into the sport. The MADO experience has conclusively shown that this is best achieved by concentrating a series of low-key local events in a small geographical area with an intelligent population (University town, research establishments) close by, backed by a press campaign. Changing the event structure will not address the problems faced by all sports and activities (not just Orienteering) of getting youngsters to participate. Changing the event structure will mean a mammoth job of implementing change, not least re-writing all the British Orienterring documentation, deciding how Fixtures Group should 'police' the standard Event, etc, etc, effort that would be better spent in attracting newcomers to the sport. No one has persuaded me that Changing Event structure will impact on Participation.

I find it difficult to be totally objective, I come from the M60 class who like the M55s and M50's always find good competition at a Regional Event. We want to compete against people of our own age as often as possible, ideally every weekend. Running a 'colour' just does not have the same attraction, and there is always the fear that under a new system, M60 (say) would be linked to a hopelessly short course like the current Green. (I agree with Goders that courses are too short generally, but that is a separate issue). Is there any mileage in making other Regional Courses more competitive by going up in 10 year gaps until 50 e.g. 21,30,40,50,55, or similar?
I would not presume to speak for these people, of course.
My group should be ignored at peril, we may be 'stuck in our ways' but we do bear much of the mapping, administrative and planning loads in clubs and Associations.

If we must change I would suggest a 4 part structure, call them what you will.
1.Championship Events. BOC, JK, BOC Middle etc etc,
2. Major Events 6 Day, CROESO Lakes 5, Regional Champs (only if on quality terrain), National Events (but restoring the ranking points differential is essential to give an incentive to travel)
3. Regional Events
4. Local Events (Current C5's- 4 courses or less and C4's 5 to 10 courses)
In that way it is quite clear that only the local events would be non age related, (I treat these as training events, doing Brown for fitness and going back to retry legs if I mess them up, something I would never dream of doing with other M60's snapping at my heels!).

Finally I am not in favour of going back to the idea of Regional championships, which was tried in the past and presumably failed then. Many regions have few quality areas. Why stop (say) the Lakes or Scotland putting on 2 or more Nationals in a year if they have the terrain and the resources? Championship events should be held by all Associations but they should not be 'Nationals' except when they are on quality terrain.

Fully in favour of a single rankings List.
Brian Hughes (M60 HOC)

[graeme]

Are we not in danger of 'fiddling while Rome burns'? The pressing need is to get more 21 and 35 year olds into the sport.
The MADO experience has conclusively shown...

I have a completely different take on MADO. In the last 20 years I've seen various initiatives succeed: there are three common features - well advertised and well presented events (i.e. welcoming, personal, good planning, fast results), regularity and, especially, a high level of enthusiasm for the organisers.

MADO has a particular "local events for local folks" format, which is fine because its what the organisers want to do, but I don't see the format as the major cause of success.

The other common feature of success is that the organisers feel ownership of their event. I think its unlikely that MADO would be as successful if you were made to follow a BOF prescription for how a mini-league should run.

So if the proposal look like fiddling, maybe they are, but the alternative is to be dictatorial, which is surely worse.

The proposals make one major change which will, I think, affect the M21s you seek. In standard events they will be able to choose which course to do, rather than forcing novices into my class (M45L is M21S, and most novices dont want as long a course as I do) at any event above fourth rate. (OK, so there is the Balkanised M21V, but that really isn't very inspiring).
Only at national events will novices have their options determined by age rather than ability.

[distracted]

I think there was much interesting discussion and feedback on many of these issues/proposals at yesterday's conference, which will now be taken forward through the relevant channels. There are problems both with the existing set-up, and problems are being foreseen with that proposed. Although I can see the need for change, I have not yet seen an aim/set of aims that are driving the direction of the change and justifying what is put forward, just a "this is happening, this will fix it" argument. For instance, the issue of participation, which was primarily the topic of a separate discussion at the conference yesterday, could form the basis of one of these aims. If this is an incorrect viewpoint, please correct me.

I will be interested to see what comes out of the review group/relevant committee, who I gather are meeting next weekend, now they have the views and opinions of members.

Finally I am not in favour of going back to the idea of Regional championships... Many regions have few quality areas.

The proposals put forward "Area Championships" - i.e. Northern, Midland, Southern, Scottish and maybe Welsh. Whereas there may be a lack of quality areas in a region, across regions I would think that this is not such a problem. If this means the Lakes holds the Northern Area Champs every other year, so be it. As was discussed yesterday, the ranking list weightings will only influence attendence for those who care about their ranking - it would be interesting to find the proportion who do. In an ideal world, the promise of event quality - terrain, courses, organisation etc - would be the greatest influence.

In standard events they (M21s) will be able to choose which course to do

Exactly - from the university point of view, if the only events offered of a weekend are regionals and you have an improving M21, he effectively has the choice between a Light Green and a Brown (M21S). Offer a choice of courses which can be chosen from to reflect that person's ability and that is going to be far better for someone like this. Which follows on to:

We want to compete against people of our own age as often as possible, ideally every weekend. Running a 'colour' just does not have the same attraction

This is an argument I'm hearing from many in your situation, but feel I have to ask - Why? The current regional event is, in effect, a glorified colour system with courses numbered, and age classes attached to courses. For example, if you ran at Salcey Forest today, you ran course 4, which had JM5M, JW5L, M35S, M40S, M55L, M60L, W35L and W40L competing. Now what happens to your age class competition when I combine those results into one class and call it 'Blue', for instance. Nothing.

Under the proposed new system, a large 'standard' event on a quality area would probably put on those 12 courses that were at Salcey today and recommend that M60s would run Blue (Course 4). If the age-class competition is so important to you all, as it seems to be for some, everyone will enter Blue. If it isn't important for some, they can enter a course that they feel suits their ability. The results can easily be displayed by course and by class, satisfying your need for age-class competition. However, an M21 could also come along and run that course for whatever reason. How can that then devalue the competition among the top M60s who want a competitive event? Having 7 other classes on your course doesn't seem to be devaluing things at the moment...

[Mrs H]

It's very kind of Brian and Graeme to class MADO as a successful initiative but I must warn other clubs thinking of trying something similar that - despite the contents of the Management committee notes posted last week - BOF rated the scheme so lowly that HOC failed to get placed in the top 3 of the 6 clubs who entered this year's Club of the Year competition. If you want to tick the right boxes you will be much better off putting your energies into schools development which I'm sure will produce legions of M21s in years to come! No matter what they say that is the message BOF is actually giving out and that is what I am going to start telling all the clubs who continue to contact me asking for information (that and 'ask the participation manager' - they will be paid for their time - i'm not!)

[graeme]

It's very kind of Brian and Graeme to class MADO as a successful initiative

Hate to rain on your parade, but I don't know enough about it to say one way or another whether its sucessful.

Your numbers suggest you are doing well with families, less well with the 21-35s Brian is rightly
concerned about. Your comment also adds to my conviction that a rigid BOF-imposed scheme isn't
likely to inspire the volunteers who actually make events happen.

The initiatives I've been involved with which I know were successful include...

OUOC in the mid 80s, mainly novices, no elite athletes, post-event pub and daily "training" at the level of running to the biscuit shop.

JOK, as a "second" club for diverse membership, keeping occasional orienteers in the sport through their 20s as they moved from area to area.

DVOA (my US club), with a money making ethos based on corporate events (welcome to the $50 orange course...), a huge multi-state umbrella club with local "chapters" giving regional identity.

INT in early 90s, via strong attachment to a running club, mainly 21s with many elites.

Scottish 6-day. Maintaining numbers while other BOF events fail, with quality events, well defined ethos (holiday event) and a competition structure independent of BOF.

And some failures as well, almost always due to lack of volunteer enthusiasm rather than structure.

[SJC]

INT in early 90s, via strong attachment to a running club, mainly 21s with many elites.

So all we need to do is find all the running clubs full of M/W 21s !
Unfortunately the age profile of the average running club matches that of the average orienteering club.
Plenty of vets; a few youngsters; and virtually no-one in the 21-35 year old age group.

[Lumpy Lycra]

The pressing need is to get more 21 and 35 year olds into the sport.

Why?

If it is just to replace the ageing profile, then why not focus on recruiting new families?

[Gnitworp]

A substantial proportion of this 'ageing profile' started orienteering before they were 35. They continue to orienteer because that's what they did in their 'youth' and they got hooked.

[Lumpy Lycra]

So recruit families and their children will also start orienteering before they are 35. Some (many?) will drift out of the sport, perhaps to return when they have children of there own. Actually most of the adult orienteers I know did not start before M/W35. Don't know if that Is a statistical oddity of HOC / my orienteering acquaintances but I really can't see that it matters.

I agree totally with Graeme that on enthusiastic organiser who knows their market is key to succes - so Mrs H can attract familes to MADO, and good luck to anyone spotting a new JOK or INT opprtunity. What I don't like is the suggestion that one group is intrinsically more "valuable" than another.