Discussion: USOF Championships proposal

The following message was on USOF's club net --

The proposal to restructure US Championships which was presented at the AGM and appeared in the October ONA will be on the agenda at the USOF Board meeting this weekend. If you have strong opinions either for or against this proposal please make sure that your representatives hear your thoughts prior to the meeting.

Clare Durand
USOF President
Championships task group chair

-------------------------------

I've posted the proposal here in case your ONA isn't handy.

There is no date indicated for when it might take effect if it is approved by the Board. Perhaps 2010?

For 2009, so far we have a "US Classic Champs (1 day)" already approved for Wisconsin in October, and a bid for the Middle Champs from Cascade OC in Washington in June.

No sign yet of any interest in the Sprint or Relay Champs, though perhaps there are plans in the works. Nor Ultra-long or Night or Trail-O.

My representative board member will not be able to make the meeting, hence, I will voice my opinion here.

I like it. If I had a vote, I'd vote yes.

And might I suggest, if possible, scheduling the s/m/l individual champs with the team trials in the spring; I know this won't always be possible, but it would be nice. Then the classic champs could be in the fall. This would provide an important event to train and peak for in each of the spring and fall season. Again, I realize that this might not always be possible due to the constraints of the hosting clubs, but if it works out, then it would be nice.

Thanks Peter. Regarding Assumption 1--are there other major sports beside golf that determine their champions based on multi-day, discrete events/stages? I guess there are lots, but I am curious to see the list.

"are there other major sports beside golf that determine their champions based on multi-day, discrete events/stages?"

A couple come immediately to mind (I'm guessing there are more):
- Baseball world series
- Tour de France (and other staged bike races)
- Two-game total goal soccer playoffs

Of course--I guess the major US sports championship series are kind of similiar. Thanks.

Ignoring the ultra-long and night-O champs, which I suppose happen irregularily ...
1) The existing structure (2-day classic, sprint, middle, relay) has 5 days of competition.
2) The proposed structure (2-day classic, sprint, middle, long, relay) has 6 days of competition.
Is this proposal moving things in the right direction? I thought the whole idea was to simplify and reduce the list, not expand it.

I think it is time for the US to axe the two-day classic. I'd suggest:
1) US Individual Champs (Sprint, Middle, Long) on one weekend (preferably in the fall).
2) US Relay Champs (+optional Ultra-Long, Night or Goat Champs) on a second weekend.

I don't see why there would be much resistance to the conversion of the US Champs 2-day classic into a weekend of orienteering that included Sprint, Middle & Long. Most orienteers are most worried about "getting their money's worth" ... surely 3 races (S,M,L) yields enough orienteering to be a true championship weekend.

The Tour de France isn't a Championship, it's a Grand Tour. Road cycling always does championships (World and National) as single events. Track cycling does have the "omnium" which is based on points over several disciplines - a lot like what gymastics does in the Olympics for the team medal.

I like Brian's proposal.

Back on topic, I agree with Brian. I'm not so concerned about the number of days as the fact that they are held as separate meets. The key individual events should be placed in one, easily identifiable, National Championship Event that is (hopefully) attended by just about everybody who is seriously a threat to win.

Thanks, Peter, for posting the article.

I for one also like the S/M/L set-up, rather than 2 classic days. It mixes things up and doesn't favor one particular orienteering style.

The course/class survey done a few years back (comments on survey here) asked if USOF should follow IOF rules and 59% answered "yes," which seems to support heading in that direction. [note: edited % which I had misread, though it still supports my premise.]

Personally, I am not a fan of requiring sprint, middle and long championships to be bundled into a single weekend. As distinct types of events, they each have their own requirements for map and terrain. I would rather have the championships be on "excellent" venues on 3 separate weekends than have one or two of them be mediocre because terrain or map didn't lend itself as well to the third event.

Likewise, a club may not have the interest or resources to feel they could do more than one championship event well. The Badger O' Club plan for a 2009 1 day classic is an excellent example... great terrain for a classic or long style championship, but they have no interest in over-extending their resources by trying to add additional championship days on the same weekend. I see a requirement to bundle the championships as unnecessarily diminishing the number (and location) of clubs which could potentially host championships.

Plus, I like having opportunities within the year to run championships in different types of terrain in different regions. On a personal note, I'm physically slow in New England rocks, and not fast enough at pure running to excel in the open, high altitude of Wyoming. Although I enjoy both areas and more, I wouldn't want to have to run all three championships in one year in a single terrain type.

Each type of race also requires its own training and recovery time. Granted, for those few elite athletes who are training for WOC, you have to be prepared to run all 3 disciplines plus a relay in just a few days. But for the rest of us, I'd rather prepare for one specific championship at a time.

Additionally, more clubs in more parts of the country get to use the publicity / promotion benefit of hosting a championship event, when events are spread around the country and the calendar rather than being clumped into a single weekend.

I've long been a defender of night and ultra-long championships, but I've come to believe that it would be acceptable to drop them as official USOF championship events, since they aren't IOF recognized disciplines. And, although I enjoy the traditional US 2-day classic, along with many other people, I also wouldn't mind seeing it become something less than an official USOF Championship.

But, I really don't want to see the remaining championships forced into an "all eggs in one basket" formula where they have to be tied together in a single weekend.

I am not convinced of S/M/L. I personally like battling it out in the 2 day classic format and don't think that one can complain about not getting enough of O. I can see how packing S and M and another day of (classic) can provide for another quality meet.

Mike makes good points, and he and z-man show there is not one answer to this problem.

My stance is that fewer US champs are better, ceteris paribus. In fact, I think ideally there would only be one "US Champs." Once we start talking about multiple weekends, clubs, seasons, you lose clarity and focus and prestige.

That is not to say a single US Champs can't have multiple events or disciplines.

I am sensitive to the idea that some of these proposals may make hosting the event more onerous and may be prohibitive for some clubs. However, and I only say this as the Devil's advocate, but is that a bad thing?

The Olympics can't be held by every nation. Some can't pull it off, but many would like to. It takes resources, infrastructure, and verve. Some may say it requires insanity and is a big boodoggle. But, countries generally want to host the Olympics and bend over backwards because it is the sine qua non of sports.

With a proliferation of championships clamoring for attention, we don't have a counterpart of the Olympics in US orienteering.

Who is the US Champion? Would it be better for the development and publicity of the sport if we could identify him/her?

Anyway, I'm not suggesting we follow the Olympic model and seek to coerce US Orienteering into that mold. I would like to say that if you eliminated all the other "championships" and had a single weekend, that we would magically double attendance at the next US champs and therefore such a course of action may be justified from a cost/benefit analysis. But, that simply would not happen.

However, perhaps over the long term, such clarity and focus would be a good thing?

You could deal with the "bundling" issue by encouraging, but not requiring, the SML individual events be held on the same weekend. It would work well if whichever event wasn't bundled into the Individual Champs weekend was then added to the Relay champs event instead. I think it is important to minimize the number of events that incorporate US Champs races.

Every time I see "SML" the voice in my head says "Sara Mae and Larry"...

Every time I see "2-day classic" the voice in my head says "axe it".

I really like bmay's idea. A relay and ultra long Champs weekend has the potential to be very attractive.

Are WRE and other major international sprints always urban venues these days?

Of the WOC Sprint Finals, 2001, 2004, 2005, and 2007 were park/forest/some city and 2003, 2006, and 2008 were cities. 2009 is likely to be in a city as well.

While I disagree with Mr. Minium's points, I don't want to dismiss them too quickly as I believe his views are held by a large portion of the US Orienteering population. I believe the schism comes from the fact that we have two very distinct populations participating. The first is the group Mike identifies as "the few elite" who are fit, competitive on most terrain types, and legitimately gunning to be the US Champion. In most sports, this is the only group that is considered when designing a Championship format. However, in US orienteering, that population is simply too small to support a meet. Therefore, the wishes of the next tier need to be considered.

I don't have hard data to back it up, but I'm pretty sure that the uniform view of the elite is that SML on one weekend is the way to go. While it doesn't produce a single US Champion, it does produce a legitimate Champion in the 3 individual disciplines of WOC.

Rather than mess with this internationally accepted format to bring in more competitors, I'd like to see it rolled into Team Trials and the respective M-21+ and F-21+ winners each day be crowned US Champions. The rest of the Team Trials meet (including optional non-championship age group competition), would run as it has. That still leaves the age-group championships, which, as Tom noted, could be held in the fall giving a nice balance to the season. This could stay 2-day combined, as that format is popular among the broader population and the distances could be chosen by the host club (with approval from sanctioning, of course). M-21+ and F-21+ could be offered, but these would not be considered championship races.

Under such a format a clear distinction would be made between the "US Championships" and the "US Age Group Championships", much the way Veteran's World Cup is quite distinct from WOC. Both meets would be every bit as viable from a hosting standpoint as Team Trials and US Classic Champs are today. The majority of amateur sports both here and abroad operate this way.

That is a very intriguing proposal Eric.

Exactly,... what he said.

Rather than mess with this internationally accepted format to bring in more competitors, I'd like to see it rolled into Team Trials and the respective M-21+ and F-21+ winners each day be crowned US Champions. The rest of the Team Trials meet (including optional non-championship age group competition), would run as it has. That still leaves the age-group championships, which, as Tom noted, could be held in the fall giving a nice balance to the season. This could stay 2-day combined, as that format is popular among the broader population and the distances could be chosen by the host club (with approval from sanctioning, of course). M-21+ and F-21+ could be offered, but these would not be considered championship races.

This is exactly what some of us (me and Eric Bone, mostly) proposed in 2003. The proposal was passed by the Board, and then it was voted down at the AGM with screams of public outrage. It should not be too hard to find the coverage of the scandalous saga on AP. Try to resurrect this at own risk. We still have pretty much the same people in pretty much the same positions, just aged by 5 years, so I don't see how the response will be any different.

The key difference between the current proposal and the 2003 version is that the current one retains the MF21 groups at the "Classic" Champs. The individuals who murdered the 2003 proposal were mostly complaining about the fact that removing the MF21 groups will kill any sponsor interest in the "Classic" Champs. Since 2003, we've had exactly zero title sponsors at the "Classic" Champs, but the argument is sure to be brought up.

Not that I want to reprise this, and I'll check the archives, but you are saying that it was passed by the BoD and then raised before the AGM and voted down? So, it passed muster with the board, but not the people?

Well, I certainly supported it back in 2003 (not that that counted for anything then or now) and would do so again. I don't think that having a proposal rejected, even vehemently, is cause to abandon it.

It might be useful to identify the real reason behind the objection (I'm quite sure sponsorship is a red herring - if people really cared about that, we'd have sponsors). I have a pretty good idea of what it is, but since it's a highly inflamatory statement, I'd want to seek out some of the key opponents and confirm before stating it.

Anyway, my point is, the opposition who shot down the 2003 proposal is still around and will vote the same way. We have to have a two-day Classic Championship and we have to have MF21 categories at it and their winners have to be called U.S. Orienteering Champions of some kind. This is hardly negotiable. This will only become negotiable when there are no clubs willing to put on the silly two-day thing. This is already almost happening in 2009, so wait a couple more years and the two-day Classic thing will die by itself. No need to stir up emotions now.

As to combining Team Trials and the SML Champs; seems to make perfect sense, but again no need to legislate it to possibly create opposition from clubs who will wonder if all these requirements add up to too much stuff. The best is for those of us who support this idea to set the example for that with our own clubs for the next two, three years, and voila, around 2012 we have the premier spring three-day event, the Team Trials/Individual Champs, with good following, and the "other" Champs should find its destiny through natural selection. If those who are so devoted to preserving it really have a point, it will have its audience and we will be proven wrong.

I really don't care at all what the format of the championships is (provided it isn't a sprint...) provided there is a small number of individual championship races, and provided the relay championships gets emphasized too. Two weekends with championships only. The important thing is to minimize the number of weekends with championships in them. Everything else - everything else - is secondary. (I actually like the two-day classic format, but SML is fine too - just pick one and stick with it).

My one point of disagreement: I am against Team Trials being used as any kind of US championships with the current segregation of the trials start group. You cannot design unfairness into the race format like that. It's comparably silly to this. I'd personally prefer to see Team Trials also be canned as a separate race, and just use the results of the immediately preceding US champs (require one to be held in between the two annual WOCs, either in the fall or the late spring or early summer). The effort at getting WOC-terrain relevant areas is nice, but it's a bit of a red herring given the current standard of US orienteering, since the people that are best in M/F-21 on one terrain type are very likely to be best on another also.

In the review of the plethora of US Championships and the recent controversy at the NAOC is the USOF also reviewing Champs eligibility rules? (ie., this relates to what I will call the Wil Hawking's rule but please don't call it the Will Hawkin's rule).

feet: does your stance on this have anything to do with the CSU US Champs relay experience from a few years back?

[ducking]

Interesting idea by feet to can the Team Trials. Worth discussing in the ESC, in my opinion. That would reduce the number of "important" weekends for MF21's to travel to, anyway.

Call me old-fashioned, but I like the two day total classic champs and always have. I am not against change, but I have really enjoyed the format and especially the pressure that comes on day 2, either to keep the lead or to chase down the leader. But I understand that I am in the minority and that my opinions are not in line with IOF's standard.

Anyway, if I had to write a proposal, I would have two championships week-ends:
1) 2-day classic champs
2) Sprint/Middle/Relay, with the sprint either on the Friday afternoon or Saturday afternoon - there is a whole separate discussion for that, so I won't get into it.
At least one day of the classic champs and one of sprint or middle should be a WRE.

Kill the night and ultra-long champs, and don't even think of a Goat Champs!! (Not that night and ultra-long races aren't fun - I would love to see more ultra-long A-meet days, but they don't have to be US Champs.)

People are saying that it's bad that there is no single "US Champion", but compare to other sports: there is no single US champion in running or swimming or biking, nor is there a single world champion in orienteering. I think it's perfectly legitimate to have a US Sprint Champion, US Classic, Middle, and Relay Champions, just like most other countries have. What I don't understand is the idea of a one-day US Classic Champion *and* a two-day US Classic Champion. Can someone explain that one to me?

Hammer>>what's wrong with US Champs eligibility rules?

People on student visas qualify to represent the US at NAOC under USOF's rules, but would not qualify to represent Canada. See previous long discussion.

I'm not an elite, and I prefer the S-M-L format for the following reasons:
-- Three races instead of two
-- More variety in terrain and/or course design
-- It's what they do internationally

For those people who like the pressure and thrill of the traditional two-day classic format, I'd suggest one that we create an "Overall US Champion" category, that would combine scores from the sprint, middle, and long races, similar to what they do in a decathlon. You'd still have your Sprint Champion, Middle Champion, and Long Champion, but you'd also have a combined-race effort for people to shoot for.

I'd like to bundle everything into two weekends. I'm fairly new to A-Meet orienteering (~3 years), and I've always been confused by the when/where/why/how behind all of the US Championships. Maybe sponsors would be more interested if the focus was on only one or two weekends a year?

What I don't understand is the idea of a one-day US Classic Champion *and* a two-day US Classic Champion

It's a one-day Long Champion. The Long for Blue is at least 110% of the Classic (90 min winning time vs. 70-80 min). The distinction is fine indeed.

Many interesting ideas I find in this thread and here is yet another view:
Every time I hear 3 days of championship racing in a row I think: not again.
How many US Orienteers among all people who come to A-meets and championships even train three days in a row, forget about race. What are we testing on a third day? Who can run and navigate better with half dead legs? That kills the whole idea of orienteering as a sport: to navigate well at maximum speed one can sustain for whole duration of the race.
Do not forget we discuss here US championship events which include all age categories not just M/F 21+.
Here is another warning: lately we see the lack of interest in organizing US champs from clubs - even for two day events. No matter how much easier some may find organizing sprints that still ads difficulty to the whole event logistics.
Also I see where Mike Minium is coming from, and I like his argument, I think that spreading all championships around is not the best solution - it dilutes event value, and for orienteers who are interested in all championships ads expenses.
Just like Boris and Z-man I love two days championships, they have some nostalgic value to me and I am sure to many more Orienteers in US, but in the name of progress I say we cut it, time to move on.
I would propose the following structure:
One Championship event: Sprint and Long - 2 days (15-20 min, 90-100 min for elite)
One Championship event: Middle and Relay - 2 days (30-35 min, 4 legs current point system).
Optional: If there bids - 1 day super long (110-130 min) - and leave the format to the organizers open: one man relay, goat type race - mass start, or classic staggered start.

Team trials are not in the topic of this thread so I will stay out of that.

It seems to me that as long as we are "axing" events in favor of reducing the overall number of US championship events, the obvious thing to do is to forget any kind of S/M/L format (three championship events) and retain only the 2-day classic champs (one championship event). That way, it's perfectly obvious what the main event of the year is and who the US champion is.

Furthermore, aside from the fact that the IOF has adopted a S/M/L format for the world championships, it seems the only reasons proffered for switching to a S/M/L format are that a few people think it's better (a number of whom aren't eligible in any case). Seems to me that a few people prefer the 2-day classic, too, so until anyone takes a formal poll, please refrain from making unsubstantiated claims regarding the popular support one way or the other. As for the IOF question, I don't see this as a compelling reason to change what we've got. For one thing, this format is designed for elite competitors, whereas most people competing at the US champs are not elites. For another thing, the WOC events are spaced out over a longer time period and have preliminary qualifiers. I don't see that format being proposed anywhere. As a final comment in regards to the IOF argument, what kind of self-respecting Americans are you to be hopping on the international bandwagon like this? Personally, I get a real kick out of those stiff-lipped euro-types who get tripped up converting inches to microns.

USOF Board decision on Oct 25 (all actions effective for 2010):

We have tried to consolidate all the major championships (2-day classic, sprint, middle, long, and relay) into not more then 3 weekends / events, as follows:

U.S. will have a sprint-middle-long championship, which must be bid as a single event (There can be multiple clubs involved, A long weekend format is encouraged). This will take the existing US Sprint and Middle Champs and add a Long Championship. The main change here is that sprint, middle, and long championships must all be part of a single event rather than being spread in 3 different locations at 3 different times. Each of these championships will still get individual awards, but they must be held together.

U.S. Classic (Individual) Champs 2 day will continue to exist as a bid event.

U.S. Relay Champs will continue to exist. It can be bid separately or with one of the other championships. The Relays will be encouraged to be held every year.

U.S. Night and Ultralong may also be bid. If bid, each must be in conjunction with at least one other "A" meet race. If they are not bid for a particular year, they won't happen that year. In the future, the board may consider dropping official support (eg providing medals) for these two events, but at this point they are still supported.

U.S. Intercollegiate and Interscholastic Championships are unaffected by this board action and will continue as in the past.

This seems like a reasonable compromise. It won't make everyone happy, but apparently nothing will with respect to US championships.

I would personally like to see even more consolidation, but perhaps the market will decide over time?

Ok, I would really like to understand the rationale behind keeping the 2-day champs while adding a 1-day champs in a "10-20% longer" discipline. If I am to come back to the States for a single week-end, which one should I come back for? Which one matters and which one will be listed here?
I understand that change is good, but until one or the other of the two classic champs disappears, this seems like a step backwards.

If I am to come back to the States for a single week-end, which one should I come back for?

This will either become a Coke vs Pepsi thing, or a New Coke vs Coke Classic thing. Let's hope that SML isn't the New Coke, but I think that that website will continue to show the Classic winner.

kupackman>>If it becomes a taste thing, like you imply, then this is definitely a mistake - a great way to dilute the already thin field at our biggest events!

The S/M/L Champs - as separate entites - have been around for a while. They are still separate entities. The only change here is the requirement that they occur together at the same event. The long and short champs are often held at the same event already. The point being that folks only have to travel once to compete in these 3 individual titles. This is basically a no-op decision. An unwritten rule has become a written one, and we are left with the status quo.

Wait a second. If what Eddie says is correct, then I am confused. What used to be known as "long" champs was really ultra-long, as far as I understand. However, this proposal is adding a long champs that will not be the ultra-long distance, but just slightly longer than the each day of the classic champs, as Vlad described above. So, as far as I can tell, this new "long" is totally different from the old "long", which was actually the ultra-long distance.
For example, if you look here, you will see the following US championships listed for 2008: classic, relay, middle, sprint, and ultralong. No long. This tells me it's a new championship discipline that nearly duplicates the existing classic, as I've been saying. Or am i totally wrong here?

I wasn't at the board meeting, but I think this is all huge confusion over the difference between Long and Ultralong. I thought the term "Ultralong" replaced "Long" in the USOF vernacular officially last year. If thats the case, I believe the decision here is Sp/Mi/Ul will be one weekend, and the existing 2-day Classic champs another weekend. Mike's mention of a separate "Uberlong" champs single event above doesn't jibe, right?

Since Mike says "Night and Ultralong may also be bid", that implies that the L in S/M/L is what I think it is: a new, seemingly redundant, championship event. Can someone associated with the proposal please explain the logic behind this new championship?
[Again, I am not against the single-day Long, I am just against having two of nearly the same thing called "US Championships."]

Ugh, yes, please don't tell me that a proposal which was made to consolidate the US championships event structure has resulted in the *addition* of another event.

Right, that's exactly what it looks like to me, which is why I am sitting here and posting incessantly.

I think boris' interpretation is correct here. the L in S/M/L is a new championship, not replacing UL.

as an outsider looking in it seems that Boris' comment that "this seems like a step backwards" is true.

Rather ironic that an attempt to rationalize the championship structure has apparently resulted in an *addtional* championship that essentially duplicates an existing championship. Excellent!

I suppose this only goes to underscore the awesome powers of decision making by committee. ; )

Boris is essentially correct - The "long" in S-M-L will be an IOF long. It is intended that the combined S-M-L events will become THE premier US Championship, with the 2-day classic possibly eventually fading. It was recognized that currently there are many people who love the 2-day classic and would have strong objections to it being dropped. Perhaps it will eventually fade away. See "Billy Wilson"s thread about voting with your feet. If you like it, go (or bid to host it). The coke / new coke analogy isn't bad... One of these events will probably eventually go the way of the 8-track and beta video. But, as Coca Cola found out the hard way, you don't just quit making something that a lot of people like, unless you want to incur their wrath.

The ultra-long will exist as a separate event only as long as clubs continue to host it and people continue to attend it. Ditto for the Night-O. Again, it was recognized that there are a lot of people who feel these should not be major championships, as they are not consistent with IOF; there aren't many events like them except for the championships themselves; and they are not necessarily attended or won by the best orienteers. But, there also are those who really like them, perhaps because its their only chance to win a championship medal, or maybe they just like the uniqueness. I think the board action is trying to say that these (Ultra-Long and Night) are not our most important championships, but we'll allow clubs who want to continue to cater to that niche market to do so, and the members of that market to continue to have the events. Maybe in time, they will fade away, but maybe they will prosper for years. In the meantime, their mere existence does not actually hurt anybody.

I don't see anything on USOF-bod or USOFclubnet that details exactly what was approved on 10/25/2008. Although, mikeminium's explanations are very helpful.

PG referenced this ONA article in a USOFclubnet post last week. The article clarifies exactly what "Long" means in the context of the USOF BoD championship proposal:

...
The Proposed Bid list:
1) US Individual Championships, to consist of three individual races, all part of a single event: Sprint distance, Middle distance, and Long distance (commonly referred to stateside as "IOF Long", this is a single-day Classic race with courses lengthened slightly from those used for a two-day Classic. The distance difference would be more pronounced for the Red and Blue courses. This is not as long as the current Ultra-Long format).
...

p.s. It seems clear now that the two-day Classic championship will be basically the same type of event as the new "Long" championship.

I don't have strong feelings about one format or the other. But, it seems silly to have two almost identical championships -- for all the reasons that have been previously mentioned (diluting attendance at both events, deciding who is the actual "US Champion", etc.).

I think that, in an attempt to please everyone by retaining the two-day format as a token or sacred cow, USOF BoD will ultimately please no one (or very few). While we wait for one format or the other to "die" by attrition, clubs will expend limited volunteer resources on events that might have lower and lower attendance numbers.

Maybe I've misunderstood the situation but I thought that the fundamental issue was not the number of champs races/distances per se, but the number of championship events that require traveling too. The proposal creates 3 primary championship weekends, 2-day classic, S/M/L individual and relay. These will be the focus of USOF efforts in recruiting hosting clubs and serve as focal points for the athletes to train around.

The other "champs" events will be secondary and will be held only if a club feels like including it as part of an existing A event. And I don't see the IOF long, ie, the L in the S/M/L format as redundant to the USOF Ultralong. However, if the distinction should be made more clear, simply up the winning time guidelines for the UL.

Regardless, of that minor ambiguity, it seems to me that the new proposal sets us up for three fine weekends of orienteering, each with their own flavor, and I suspect all well attended. I don't see why the 2-day classic and the S/M/L can't coexist indefinitely.

And I don't see the IOF long, ie, the L in the S/M/L format as redundant to the USOF Ultralong.

I don't think that's the redundancy Boris is talking about. We have the S/M/L champs weekend, and the L/L champs weekend (aka Classic, since IOF Long is approx US Classic).

Who gets the bragging rights? The guy who wins the L/L championship? Or the guy who wins the L of the S/M/L championship? Having both championships is like having a champion in a two-day, combined time 1600m event, and also a champion in the mile run.

Ah, ok. But regardless, is that such a big deal? Why can't one guy be the US L champ and the other guy the US 2-Day classic champ? One's a one-day race and the other is a two-day stage race.

The list Boris links to will be retitled "US 2-Day classic champ." We will start a new list "US S/M/L Individual champs" with three names for each age class.

The point is that we only have 3 major weekends of events.

Who gets the bragging rights?

Most people in North America don't give a crap about the mile, the two-day 1600 or anything except the 100 m and all the show-boating that goes along with. Obviously, the Sprint-Distance Champion should get the bragging rights :-).

But, is it the US Sprint champion ... or the Sprint Series champion that gets to brag ...

Yeah, so this is indeed a no-op. Its just a re-bundling of the existing champs, with no change to the total number.

Incidentally, lots of folks are talking in this thread like the US "classic" format is approximately the same as IOF Long. I strongly beg to differ. the IOF long is significantly longer than most US blue courses (70 min target winning time). One of the reasons many of the top US runners have been pushing for the longer longs at US meets (the S/M/L format) is to get us - all of us - racing longer, harder races here at home. Races closer to the IOF standards. If we want to fare better at WC and WOC races, we need to be racing these distances at home, and doing it often. Not just in our daily training, but in our regular national ranking races - the important home races.

Mike has done a good job of indicating what was voted on. There were two other things that came up.

1) The task group was given a further tasking to study whether we should institute some sort of "all-around" champion award at the S/M/L Champs weekend. If such a thing comes about, it would become the premier Champion listed each year. I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not, but we will be looking into it and welcome your thoughts on the subject.

2) As Mike indicated, there was a lot of talking about reducing USOF support for some of the minor championships - in particular Night-O and UltraLong. We may pass an official proposal on this fairly quickly (e.g. USOF no longer providing medals for these, or something like that). I would expect this to come up on an upcoming BOD agenda. The only reason we didn't discuss it further is we were already way overtime.

What the BOD passed is further away from the task groups goals than what we proposed, but I do think it is a step in the right direction. Considering it was difficult to get Board members to even restrict or eliminate Night or UltraLong, elimination of the 2-day Classic format certainly would not have passed had it been proposed. I do think the redundancy we have now introduced is a good thing. Having the single day event in existence will make it easier for people to see the merits of the S/M/L champs format as our premier event instead of races scattered across the calendar.

Would be interesting to see which meet would get a better attendance in M-21 and F-21 categories, the S/M/L Champs or the TT which also has the S/M/L format.

There's nothing to stop them from being the same event.

Nothing other than the organizing club's limitations.

There is at least some support among Team ranks to self-organize the 2010 Trials in exactly the same vein as the 2003 Trials at Harriman. It will not be possible to do if there is also an SML Champs with 500 people to accommodate, and if the local clubs are lukewarm about it.

Now if you look at the 2003 proposal, it didn't put the cart before the horse. It introduced the Open Champs (ML, I don't think there was a Sprint with them at the time), to be held in the spring, as a bid event, and then it said by the way, these Open Champs should also be the Team Trials. This way there is no need for the Team to solicit a host for the Trials every year, the Trials happen automatically.

(William—SML/Trials format clash issues like start groups and such can be figured out; we think we're kinda smart and there are all these loop and butterfly things to spread people well, and we should be able to invent things if we have to.)

But at present, because there has not been an Open Champs/SML Champs, the Team has to go out and solicit a host for the Trials every year. The Team has so far been successful, but some (most) of the clubs that put on the Trials have been smaller clubs who in all likelyhood would not have been able to pull off the full SML Champs, and the Trials races had smaller atendance compared with an average A meet. Larger clubs with more resources have been bidding on events like the Middle and the Sprint Champs (in conjunction with other races). It is my feeling that these clubs' resources could have served the Team well.

Are the winning times for the "Long" race in the SML format spelled out somewhere (i.e., in the USOF rules)? Are they different for all the courses or just Red and Blue? If just Red/Blue are different, then the "long" in SML would be the same as the "classic long" for everyone else.

Where/how will all this information be publicized to the membership? I'm hoping someone will write an article for ONA -- if you do PLEASE also send it to me for the USOF website because then it's available online and searchable.

I just want to throw in my two cents. This strikes me as about the biggest change one could hope for from a historically slow-moving organization. While it creates a dilemma regarding the US Champion, it gives the opportunity for people and clubs to show what they want for that inevitable time when (1) one championships has withered, or (2) the board sees the need to address the dilemma. I think this is a great first step in the right direction.

Ok, this week's BOD decision seems sorted mostly. Can I ask: Will the current Ultralong Champs now become truly ultralong since we now seem to have a Long Champs as part of the S/M/L, or does it stay the same as now? That is, our current Ultralong is just a renaming of what we used to call Long.

If it doesn't change, then under the new ruling we have two identical "Long" championships. Someone could be named the Long champion and someone else could be named the Ultralong champion by running the same length course (or worse, the ultra could even be shorter than the long). Tom has already mentioned this.

All of this not to be confused with the two-day "Classic" Championships, which still exist as before..neither long or middle. (Minna might call it Brunch).

2 x brunch - kinda like second breakfasts.

Exactly! Second Brunch - sooo delicious!

Mike M's note implies that Ultralong will become a minor championship like night-O, only being used occasionally. However there has never been a true Ultralong championship in the US. It was just a re-naming of the old Long Champs. Now that there is a new Long Champs, Ultra ceases to exist (it never did exist really). We haven't added L to S/M/L, we've changed Ul back to L and bundled it with the S&M. Following the paper trail backwards I think we'll find there is no such thing as a US Ultralong champs in the rules. Is that right Clare?

I am really getting confused. What are those things which were purporting to be Long Champs in the US? Weren't these functionally equivalent to the so-called UL Champs?

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, no?

Lists of US Champions in selected races

Just because it only lists Individual (i.e., classic), Relay, Interscholastic and Intercollegiate doesn't mean US medals weren't given in Night-O, Long/Ultralong, Short, or Sprint races. It just means Robin only has/had a finite amount of time to put together lists, and those are the ones she focused it on.

This year's Ultralong Champs in Ohio (Flying Pig) is the same championship as last year's Long Champs in Colorado 5 Days (can't give link because colorado5day.com no longer exists, apparently, even though that's the link given on the RMOC site).

Listing of championships in the USOF Rules -- see 24.5 regarding Ultralong champs. Note that White/Yellow/Orange courses don't get extra-long courses, even at the Ultralong Championships.

My question again is: Will the new Long (part of SML) be longer than "classic" but shorter than Ultralong (for all courses)? I think that's what we need to get clarified.

I think the expectation for blue is:
L = ~90 minute winning time
UL = ~145 minute winning time

as Janet says, there was a UL champs this year, in Cincinnati.

Haven't we had things with a ~145 winning time for a while now?

yeah, but like you said, back in the day they were just called Long.

So we have had UL champs then? (I thought we did, just never called them such before the appellation du jour was devised.)

I am trying to understand Eddie's last post. We have had UL, at least de facto, if not de jure.

The current UL is not going away in any fashion. It could have, but it is sticking around. There is the question of the L in SML, but not the U in UL. Is that confusing enough?

I think the origin of the confusion is the WOC "Long."

A few years back the elite runners wanted the opportunity to run SML events, basing them on the WOC (world cup?) template. At minimum, US sprint and middle champs have happened as A-meet events. I don't know whether the Longs offered in conjunction with them (if any) are really classics or something else.

Late last year they changed the name of the "Long Champs" to "Extended" but there was discussion about that terminology so it became "Ultralong". There have been Long (now called Ultralong) Champs for as long as I can remember (attending a-meets since 1992), perhaps not every year, but at least as often as Night Champs. [I even remember one in western NY -ROC?- with a mass start.]

Amazingly, there still seems to be confusion on what the distances are.

Using Blue as an example, the races in existence in NA are:
1) Sprint = 15 minute race (urban or forest).
2) Middle = 30-40 minute race (used to be called "Short").
3) Classic = 70-80 minute race (historical standard distance for two-day total-time events in NA)
4) Long = 90-100 minute race (this has really been the distance of single-day races at the international level for a long time)
5) Ultra-Long = 120+ minute race (used to be called "Long").

Even if Ultra-Long US Champs have been relatively short in the past, they must really be "Ultra-Long" in the future to distinguish themselves from "Long" events.

Wasn't the old 'short' format about 25 minutes? Somewhere between contemporary sprint and middle.

I think it was, but it was back in the day before we had sprints.

These discipline names have been very confusing for this non-american observer, thank you bmay for putting numbers on them.

I think that whether we like them or not, nations need to follow the IOF names for the disciplines, anything else is a recipe for confusion. In doing so, we need to think of finals rather than qualifiers which are usually a bit shorter.

*sigh* I've tried and tried and tried to convince myself that this was all just a semantic misunderstanding. I didn't read the original proposal carefully enough. Sorry, that's my fault. It was all spelled out there.

I wanted desperately to believe that we hadn't just added yet another championship event to the heap. But we did. I can't believe it. I simply can't believe it. Every time a champs restructure proposal goes before the BOD they just throw another log on the fire.

Let's see where we currently stand:
US Sprint Orienteering Championships
US Middle-Distance Orienteering Championships
US Long Orienteering Championships
US Two-Day Classic Orienteering Championships
US Relay Orienteering Championships
US Intercollegiate Orienteering Championships
US Interscholastic Orienteering Championships
US Trail Orienteering Championships
US Ski Orienteering Championships
US Ultralong Orienteering Championships
US Night Orienteering Championships

Heck, I've got a fistful of medals from the US Canoe Orienteering Championships, and USOF doesn't have anything to do with that one.

J-J, don't forget the US Rogaine Championships - or should that be US Uber-Ultra Long Score-O Championships

Or we could just create a US Two-Day Ultralong Night Skiing Orienteering Championship. That way we would have an IOF compliant S/M/L weekend, a relay champs weekend, then a single event weekend that rolls all the other events into one.

Seems like the metric issue all over again. The rest of the world agreed to a consistent position long a ago.

Well, the new Champs structure is really very simple. Redundant but simple. Just, someone should have rewritten the course guidelines in the Rules first, and then pushed for the Champs rearrangement, but as usual, this hasn't happened. People will keep asking "what is it exactly that we're bidding for?" and you would love to point them to the Rules, but there aren't any, at least for the new Long, and all the names are wrong. I'd also love to say "just use IOF Rules and some common sense", but that won't fly with a lot of clubs.

Ok, I understand Mike's and Clare's points that introducing the single-day long will hopefully eventually lead to the demise of the 2-day classic, and I hope that's the case. Until then, we'll just have to deal with the ambiguity of having two different long/classic championships.

Follow the money trail: the more Championship days - the more sanctioning fees for USOF, so in a way it is a good thing (championship sanctioning requires higher fees than regular A-meet: reason - medals provided by USOF). We are not stingy - the more champions the merrier!

I don't know if it has been analyzed, but I would not be surprised if the cost of medals for smaller championships exceeded the sanctioning fees. If we give out 80 medals (a typical number) at $3.00 each, then it would take 480 adult entrants paying the 50 cent extra sanctioning fee to cover the $240 cost. Sounds to me like USOF is not making money on the medals even for major championships, let alone night and ultra-long which are lucky to get 200 entries.

What does anyone think of the suggestion that USOF discontinue medal support of the Night and Ultra-Long (clubs hosting these events could purchase the same medals as USOF or something different)? And, I don't necessarily think that the higher "championship" sanctioning fee should be dropped. We charged higher sanctioning fees for championship events long before we started providing the medals. Again, constructive comments welcome...

What, no US MTBO Championships??

someone should have rewritten the course guidelines in the Rules first

I see from the Board meeting notes that this is an action item, and that EricW is now on the Rules Committee. Not sure if the two are related, but both are positive developments.

Admittedly jumping into this discussion late...

The decision by the USOF BOD to keep the 2-day Championships was the right one. Year-after-year it is the largest drawing event among all the Championships (with the occasional exception of the NAOCs).

Just like "orienteering" by itself is generally assumed to refer to foot-O, "US Champs", almost always refers to the 2-day Classic. Perhaps at some point the S/M/L Champs will achieve that distinction, and the 2-day will fade in popularity. Until that happens, however, USOF would be wise to keep it around.

"US Champs", almost always refers to the 2-day Classic

Well, what other choice was there?

If the 2-day Classic were dropped, I'm pretty sure the S/M/L weekend would quickly become the "Champs Weekend" by default.

Until now, I guess it was a Hobson's choice.

Seems like the metric issue all over again. The rest of the world agreed to a consistent position long a ago.

The US is officially on the metric system. Andrew Johnson (1860s era president) signed the legislation.

I guess they were hoping we could have both for a while, and the one inconsistent with the rest of the world would "wither" :)

That is hillarious!!!

also late to this discussion...
I wouldn't let the non-IOF format scare you away from the 2-day. Replacing the L of SML by Relay would be my 2 farthings worth.

@brian, while those times are correct for race winners, the distances don't correspond (for 4-long at least), since none of us run as fast as a hubmann or a swisscheese.

Yeah, that's a whole other can of worms. Part of my confusion about the US Ultralong has to do with the specified 145 min WT - thats about the time I'd take to run a WOC IOF Long Final (90-100 min WT) relative to the winners. Its my feeling that this should be our real "Long" distance, and the UL should be much longer. The Highlander is the only true annual UL race I can think of in NA (various goats aside), and a fine race it is - 26.3 km, WT ~3.5 hrs. The WT targets in the US should be amped up so we start racing to those higher standards.

Here, I must respectfully (er, not quite) disagree with my esteemed colleague.

The Highlander is great and all, but it is a niche event. I hazard to say, it will always be one. I am against bestowing championships on niche events.

The WOC long final is something of a red herring. Here, I must lapse into irreverence. US people aren't in the habit of doing poorly in WOC long finals because they aren't used to running that distance. I think we are generally excluded from them because we can't run 10K. And I think there are lots of chances to race at that distance.

Sorry to be so caustic.

Regarding the ultralong: How many orienteers have an active interest in the ultralong race format? Apart from the Flying Pig US Ultralong Champs, I am unaware of any races meeting the ultralong criteria apart from "niche events," like goats, the Blue Hills Traverse, the Highlander and so on.

Regarding the Ultralong champs this year, 140 people ran the ultralong courses. Would that population have been significantly different if the course were a long instead?

The winning times were approximately 30-40% longer than the Team Trials Long. The existence of classic, long, and ultralong course lengths as specifically delimited courses appears redundant (and the existence of three championships). The classic and long course lengths are quite popular; why not remove what appears to be a superfluous US Championship event - the Ultralong - and possibly lengthen the championship Long by some small epsilon? The ultralong course competitions could still be held, but removing the "Championships" denotation would not appreciably detract from its meaning since it's the only official A-meet ultralong event held.

Its a matter of bootstrapping. If we are forced to run 15K at race speed our 10K times will be pulled up too. As it is, we are only forced to run 10K at race speed. The more often we have to run fast 15Ks, the more we will train for them. My typical training runs now are in the 12-15K range (most US M21 orienteering races are in the 8-12K range). If most races were 50% longer I'd have to increase the length of my medium and high intensity training runs to be able to run well in those races. I'm lazy, and will only do more work if forced :) And by forced I mean humiliated. If I had to race against Holger every week I'd work harder simply due to the shame of being whupped all the time. The fear of being "scalped" by Peter is highly motivational. And I'm sure the satisfaction of scalping others keeps him training hard as well.

So in lieu of having more top racers come over to kick our butts on a regular basis (which would be awesome), I think we should at least be running races that are the same length and difficulty as what those guys are typically running, and what we have to run when we go overseas.

When the Long champs (now called ultralong) was the only game in town it certainly made sense to have it, and often it was low in the "ultra" department. With the new IOF long added, the UL is indeed more a novlety like the night-O....rarely practiced here. The UL should have been dropped when the IOF Long was added by the BOD this weekend. And this all gets back to whether our WT targets should be for the current top US runners, or for a top world elite runner.

I appreciate the clarification, but the waters are still muddy (or the Morganfield is still McKinley?) Anyway, I digress.

We are not talking (or we weren't) about the fact that most races US M21s are running being too short. We were talking about the notion of an UL champs, or UL races in general.

That M21 courses are too short in the US is an old saw. Are they? I don't know. I do know that there is generally not slavish attention to hitting winning times for all courses in the US. [I think I now understand that winning times are set for a top US runner.] I suppose if we really wanted to make the problem acute, we could start running them like real elites. Then, they may be genuinely too short and there would be an incentive to change things.

As it stands, what is wrong with the lengths/times bmay cited? If we stop running like Americans, maybe I'll understand.

jman's last causes me to imagine "running like an American" joining the pantheon of sporting put-downs alongside "throwing like a girl" and.... I don't know what else, perhaps "skijumping like an Englishman". Not that it would make the slightest bit of sense outside orienteering circles. Or much within them.

Well, I was looking for a way to include Canadians in my aspersions but nothing offered the same rhetorical flourish :)

Bobsledding like a Jamaican?
True, its a bit chicken-and-egg. If we start dusting the targets regularly, courses will lengthen. You go first... ;)

There's the gauntlet!

Jamaican bobsledding deserves more consideration. I think it should be studied in business schools. It pertains to marketing and strategy among other things.

Prima Facie, having classic, long, and ultra long championships seems like having sprint, short, and middle championships. There is appreciable difference between Sprint and Middle courses, but short cannot logically coexist with the other two options.

Similarly, there's the argument that our courses are too short. Long and Classic courses are popular.

We should drop UL and gradually length Long (perhaps redefine to 100-120 minute winning time?).

this should be another thread but....

>How many orienteers have an active interest in the ultralong

Perhaps a better question should be.

how many non-orienteers would have an active interest in a 'true' ultralong of 3+ hours?

Me: "US Champs", almost always refers to the 2-day Classic

Kiki: Well, what other choice was there?

None until we had Short, Sprint, Middle, Long, etc.. My point is that, with all the different championship events, common O-parlance is to call the 2-Day Classic the "US Champs" and not "2-Day Champs", "Classic Champs" or "2-Day Classic Champs". This speaks to its status within a large segment of the US O-ing community.

At Preident Clare's request, I have written definitional language for course formats. It is currently in draft stage, being circulated for comments. In general, bmay's list is in line with what I have written. The "Classic" event is not included by name, but incorporated as a "Long" "on consecutive days".