Discussion: 2008 Sprint Series current standings as of 4/18/2008

2008 Sprint Series current standings have been updated. You can check them out on http://www.sprintseries.org/. Email at USSprintSeries2008@gmail.com if you have any questions or corrections.

Yahoooo 8 th place!!! I am almost positive It will be all downhill for me from here :)

8. Nikolay Nachev M21 COC 133

Go, COC!

3. Holly Kuestner F20 COC 188
8. Nikolay Nachev M21 COC 133
1. Eric Bone M21 COC 222

Any whispers about the finals date or venue yet? I'm keeping all my fall plans up in the air in order to schedule around the finals.

I have the following to pass on about possibilities for the Sprint Finals --

Right now there are two proposals. One is from a group in the Bay Area led by Vladimir Gusiatnikov. It would be held in McLaren Park in San Francisco, the date suggested was Sunday, November 9.

The second proposal dates back to an inquiry I made last fall to CNYO to see if they would be interested in staging the Sprint Finals in conjunction with the North American Champs, with the sprint(s) on Friday September 26 near Syracuse, NY.

I talked to Mark Dominie last weekend at Rochester, and there is definitely an interest.

The advantage of the BAOC proposal is that there would be more flexibility to structure the event as desired. The disadvantage would be that it might well draw a much smaller field.

The advantage of the CNYO proposal is that it might well add to the appeal of both the Sprint Finals and the North Americans. The disadvantage is that there is less flexibility.

Mark is interested in putting on two sprints on Friday afternoon, with the combined time used for determining the NA Sprint Champs. If we were to use this for the Sprint Finals, then the thinking is that it would be done somewhat similar to last year -- two sanctioned sprints, both with high points (100-pointers?) for the Sprint Series. The difference is that there would not be the final head-to-head mass start for the top 6 men and top 6 women, at least that is the current thinking. Rather, the start list for the second sprint would be seeded with the leaders in the Sprint Series going out last, to at least add some entertainment value. Under this scenario, the first sprint might start about noon or 1 pm, the second sprint about 3 or 4 pm.

If there was a strong desire for a third head-to-head final, then start times for the first two sprints would have to be moved up, starting perhaps at 11 am. I'm not sure if this gets to be a problem. I'm also not sure if folks want to run 3 sprints, with two more days of racing to come.

All this sprinting will be on a Friday, which may also be a problem.

My gut feeling is to go with the tie-in with the North Americans, since I think both events will benefit from that. But I am open to suggestions or ideas, including suggestions about the structure of the finals. Just keep in mind that we can't tinker too much with the format -- such as making the second sprint an interval start for everyone except for the top 6 M/F -- because that wouldn't be fair as far as the NA champs results go.

Comments? Either post them here or send to me at pg@crocker.com

Just to be clear, the San Francisco event would not be a BAOC event, or not primarily anyways... more detals on the event's organizers later. But what we can promise is 3 or 4 new ISSOM maps in a mixed urban/open forest setting, some pre-event activities on the preceding Saturday including, if desired, a seeding race on another new map, great Sprint-standard maps to warm up on (Berkeley, Stanford, Golden Gate Park), and the next weekend there is a 3-day (Fri, Sat, Sun) BAOC A meet in beautiful hills. Mid-week training events will be organized, should the Sprint Finals happen in SF.

The SF group is interested in Sprint Finals 2009, should 2008 not be possible.

Both options for the finals sound really good, and I would likely attend either way. I have a slight preference for having them at the NAOC to conserve travel funds, since I'm already planning to attend. I don't think the lack of a head-to-head final is so bad (although I sure do like the head-to-head racing!)

I also like the idea of having them at the North Americans but I think it would be a shame to lose the head-to-head final since I'm not sure, even with a seeded start in the second sprint, that it will be possible for spectators to tell who's winning and by how much. Personally, I was fine running the relay the next day after the last sprint series finals so I don't think running the NA middle race the day after the coming one would be a problem.

I second Jon about keeping the head to head finals.
Haven't had the chance to go to the sprint finals last year, but the head to head race really sounds like fun both to participate and watch.

I like the SF proposal, though personally I'm more likely to be able to attend North Americans due to geography. But the SF proposal allows for an extra six weeks of race season leading up to the finals and the North Americans would serve as additional big point sprints in the series itself.

I would guess that you will see far better attendance at the Sprint Finals if you hold it in conjunction with the North American Championships. A lot of people who wouldn't necessarily bother to make a special trip anywhere for sprint races will already be making the trip for the weekend races, and many will opt to come a day earlier. I am sure you will see more of the top runners at the North American Championships, anyway.

I think that having three sprint races on the afternoon before what will be a big weekend of racing is probably a bit much. Two should be no problem for most runners though.

Would it be possible to start everyone in the second sprint in waves of 6 or 8? That way, you still get the head-to-head race, but everyone ends up running in a mass start. Seeding could be done based on either the morning's race only, or else the Sprint Series rankings updated after the morning results. Run the top seeds last, of course, and there you have it - exciting head-to-head final sprint, with lots of spectators.

The North American Championship could still be awarded based on the total time for both sprints, since everyone would have started in an interval sprint in the first round, and a mass-started sprint in the second.

Or for purists, the North American Championship could be awarded based solely on the first sprint (most sprint championships seem to be awarded based on a single race anyway - including World Champs and nearly every other national championship that I can think of off the top of my head).

I'm probably a purist, because I feel puzzled about this combined-time-from-several-races championships. Is it something lingering from this old-style 2 day Classic US champs? What's the logic here? No one is using this format anymore, even Canada has moved away from it now. Why suddenly introduce a 2 race combined sprint champs? The NAOC 2006 didn't have that format. No one else is using that format.

The sprint series has always had a playoff-style multi-stage finals. Using the first round to determine the NAOC champions would be kind of anticlimactic.

I think, in the case of sprint, the logic is no more complicated than giving people more orienteering time per competition day. I enjoy sprints but I'm perfectly willing to concede that adding another day to a trip in order to race for a mere 15 to 20 minutes can be a bit of a hard sell.

I have no issue with combining a championship weekend with many more races to make the trip worth while. Nor do I have anything against the sprint finals having playoff-style finals or whatever interesting and/or unusual format that makes it fun.

All I'm saying is that, in my opinion, the championship races should be single races. US champs, COC, NAOC, EOC, WOC etc. they should all be single race champs, that's the format the world is using.

There are other considerations involved, particularly if a championship can expect to have a significant number of spectators, in which case the drama of watching THE RACE is important (one of the reasons I think having a single race final for the sprint series would be better), but I can't see that a championship based on two or more races is less valid than a championship based on a single race, assuming all of the courses are designed appropriately for the discipline involved. The best sprinters should still win based on combined time from two or more sprints. In which case, if you've got interesting terrain sufficient to put on two sprints, why not?

Just so that I can get there, I would vote for the sprint finals combined with the NAOC. However, if two or more sprints are held on the one day, is there any fear of overwhelming the organizers with too many racers?

pi wrote: All I'm saying is that, in my opinion, the championship races should be single races. US champs, COC, NAOC, EOC, WOC etc. they should all be single race champs, that's the format the world is using.

I disagree that the WOC is a pure single race championship. In my opinion, the championship race gives advantageous starting positions to the best qualifiers.

NAOC -sprint should be one race ( the second one ). to get there have people "aclimatize" with a first sprint ( a qualifier - top 20-30 you name it ), have then the NAOC.. and third the Sprint series where going head to head for top 8 lets say will add excitment, spectators, a head to head race, and only 8 runners ( per gender) might get extra tired for th next 2 days.

the number of races to determine the NAOC champion , should be a joint USOF/COF decision.

Fair enough, qualification races are common, but the champion is not determined based on combined results.

I agree with everything that Nick is saying.

pi wrote: All I'm saying is that, in my opinion, the championship races should be single races.

In my opinion, they should not all be single races. I like a 2 day or 2 race championship.

I agree with everything Nick is saying, too.
as pi mentioned, the rest of the world has single day championship races. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) one of the original goals of the sprint series was to give NA national team runners experience so they could perform better at WOC, WC, WRE, etc. So let's keep the same format as those races. Have a qualification. Use it to seed the runners and create the start list. Have an individual start final to determine the placings.

I pretty much agree with Nick.

If the NAOC is to be a 2-race affair ... then I think the 1st race should do one thing only: Determine the start order for the final. Best start last as in the WOC. Given NAOC as a Continental Championship, we should be following IOF standards. That means Single, Individual-start races in Sprint, Middle, Long - no adding times from multiple races.

The real reason for having 2 sprints is just to give us more orienteering, which is great. But, there's no need to add the times from the two races together. The 1st race should be a "warm-up" for the real thing.

As far as the Sprint Series Finals, I don't think they should compromise the NAOC (so certainly no 6-8 person wave starts as part of the NAOC). I also don't think it's appropriate to use the Sprint Series rankings to seed the NAOC final - the 1st race should be used for that.

The question of whether to have the Sprint Series Finals as part of the NAOC weekend comes down to where it can fit in and whether people's legs will accomodate more racing. Maybe the Sprint series could be held first as a warm-up for the NAOC final (i.e., have the SS Finals instead of the proposed NAOC race #1, as long as everyone gets a chance to run). If the SS Finals is held after the NAOC final, and is only 1 heat for the top 6-8 runners, then I think a great deal of the SS Finals will have been lost (i.e., the excitement of multiple head-to-head races with lots of people racing, not just 6-8).