Discussion: Making A-meets easier to host

An Attackpoint thread a few months ago, combined with a survey of club presidents, clarified some accurate common perceptions about A-meets. OUSA would like to share those briefly, and get some feedback about possible ways to help.

Most A-meets are put on by just 6% of OUSA clubs, who have gotten very good at repeat delivery of a high level of event. Other clubs can achieve the same level of national meet, and typically do it intermittently, out of a sense of club pride and obligation to the community. But the effort required to do that can stretch a variety of local skill sets, burning out volunteers without attracting newcomers. It's a ton of work, constantly weighed against the upside.

OUSA is considering two ways to improve this situation. The first is availability of consulting or operational expertise in areas of strong need:
-- Mapping
-- Registration
-- Training events
-- Course consulting
-- Event management (finish line, real-time results processing, social activities, etc)
-- Marketing & promotion.
Yes, we currently offer some of this today for A meets. What would be different here is the packaging of it to a certain standard, so that a club wanting to hold a good A meet could subcontract out, for a cost, the critical skills they don't have or find onerous.

Ideally delivered, this would allow some mapping-focused orienteers who all their own coursework (but subcontract the event management) to deliver the same quality meet as good organizers who subcontract out the course design functions. From an attendee perspective, there is no visible difference. And just as importantly, the consulting relationship keeps the club in charge.

What do you think? Would this be useful? Is it realistic?

The second major area of focus would be a multi-year championship calendar, so the critical A-meets each year would be covered first, with enough lead-time that infrequent A-meet hosters could ramp up gradually. End result: more variety in where championships are hosted, and fewer urgent hosting emergencies that get routinely filled by the same A-meet-heavy clubs.

Thoughts?

Bob

Change the name from orienteering to feet-O and then you won't have to worry about these problems or any lawsuits either.

Some of the ideas are worth pursuing, but it still comes down to a club wanting to do an A-meet in the first place.

How many US clubs are there - really - that want to do an A-meet AND would also say they want to outsource the running of the meet?

Following up on Greg's point, are we asking the right question?

Before I start this, want to clarify that I'm not taking a point of view. Just trying to figure out what problem we're solving for, before we figure out what the solution should be. I have attended countless A-meets, made friends across the country, and am very thankful to all those who have made these experiences possible for me.

The points raised primarily address the question of "how do we lower the bar to hosting an A-meet?"

Some other questions we could ask include:

1. Why should a club host an A-meet? And, for event directors & course setters at A-meets, why do they do it?

I'm not intended to imply that there aren't good reasons to host an A-meet or be a course-setter or event director. I'm honestly trying to understand what motivates some clubs/individuals to invest time/energy into this when other clubs/individuals choose not to.

2. Would these benefits/motivations from (1) apply to other clubs or individuals in other clubs? Or are there reasons why some clubs/individuals are more likely to benefit?

For example, if your club is located within a 5 hour drive of 500+ orienteers who have ever attended an A-meet you're probably more likely to get a big turn out (and more proceeds, more classes with strong competition, more general good feelings) than if your club is more isolated geographically.

3. Does anything "poison" the experience and prevent clubs from wanting to host in the future? If so, what can OUSA do to prevent future events from being "poisoned."

For example, if something went wrong with a meet that a negative experience (for runners or organizers) despite lots of good work & time invested by organizers, it might make people reluctant to put in the time again. Or perhaps if a meet had super low turn out. Or... ?

4. Lastly, do more A-meets actually benefit the goal of OUSA? If A-meets take X times as much work as a local meet, do they bring X times the benefit? What is the optimal #/distribution of A-meets per year (per orienteering population)?

How do we optimize the ratio of (lots of people doing awesome orienteering) to (volunteer work required) as a whole?

Good questions ... and worthy of follow-up using more than an AP thread likely to veer off due to - woah! did you see that tumbleweed go by?

Ok, I'll bite.

For my local club's most recent two A-meets, I was a course setter for one and the event director for another.

1. Why should a club host an A-meet? And, for event directors & course setters at A-meets, why do they do it?

For course setting, I did it because a) I was asked, b) I knew I would do a good job, and c) it seemed like it would be a lot of fun for me to do. For event directing, I did it because a) it was something that I wanted to do for our local junior community, b) I knew I would do a good job, c) I wanted to restore some of my club’s credibility from previous A-meets, and d) it was a good time in my life to do it.

2. Would these benefits/motivations from (1) apply to other clubs or individuals in other clubs? Or are there reasons why some clubs/individuals are more likely to benefit?

The situation here has the following:
-- our big local season now has over 350 starts per event
-- we’re not really close to other large populations of orienteers
-- our terrain is generally pretty terrible, so it’s not that enticing for non-locals to come

Basically, in terms of attendance, we’re already putting on 8 A-meets a year. Since we’re not really an orienteering destination for others, it seems like going through the extra effort to be an A-meet may not be worth it. Related to this is that the best terrain in the state is not really all that geographically convenient (2-5 hour commutes), nor are they seasonally convenient (mountain pass closures, snow-covered venues, summer weekends that have a lot of local competition). The exception to this, in my opinion, is Interscholastics, which is why I wanted to host this in 2012. This event is unique in that a) we have a LOT of local juniors, b) we don’t need any uber-fancy, technically “wow!” terrain for it, c) it’s got a specific demographic nationally (we’re going to get a lot of kids no matter what, even if the discriminating orienteers skip it because of our not-so-pleasant terrain). I think most orienteering situations around the country are different from each other, so I think you’ll find different motivations for hosting (or not hosting) big events.

3. Does anything "poison" the experience and prevent clubs from wanting to host in the future? If so, what can OUSA do to prevent future events from being "poisoned."

Yes. Unreasonable negativity.

For course setting, it was my first time course designing for an A-meet, so I spent a lot of time and effort on it (I’m a perfectionist). I had a well-respected vetter and a well-respected international course consultant. Heading into the event, I thought I did everything right, but looking back at it, I feel like I was a failure, because I was publicly accused of intentionally deceiving people. As a volunteer, it was a big turn-off to have a big volunteer project of mine trashed like that. On the plus side, one of my club members bought me a six-pack of beer.

For event directing, there were a lot of frustrating, and in my opinion, unfair, politics that I won’t get into here, as these politics are probably only specific to that event and that year. Secondly, there was some intense volunteer-bashing about another high profile event the weekend before mine. Here I was a week before my event, scared to death that I would screw something up and receive the wrath of the national orienteering community (thankfully, everything worked out mostly ok). Maybe it’s because I’m a coddled millennial-ish “kid”, but I think it’s ridiculous that there can be so much negativity out there aimed at a bunch of volunteers trying to do good things for a bunch of non-profit groups.

For me, it’s about risk vs. reward. In my two experiences, the risk is personal (and club) embarrassment, and the rewards are personal satisfaction, some thank-yous, and a six-pack of beer. I think the standards are so high for A-meets right now that I don’t think it’s worth it for me to do it again. I’m continually impressed by the amazing jobs that were done by volunteers at the 2010 and 2012 NAOC’s, which keep raising that bar.

A week after the event I directed, one of my club members asked me “Would you do it again?” I thought about for a while, and answered no. It’s not that I wanted to rewind and never direct that event in the first place, it’s that I didn’t really want to direct another one in the future. I’ve only got so much time and energy devoted to orienteering-related activities, and I’d rather spend it elsewhere. I’d rather start a grassroots series of urban orienteering. I’d rather direct a series of beginner-friendly local events. I’d rather design courses in corn mazes. I’d rather make maps. I’d rather promote orienteering at adventure runs. I’d rather coach kids. I’d rather organize an unsanctioned sprint festival. I’d rather start an ARK-like program.

For me, all of these little projects have a much, much higher return in the risk vs. reward department.

Great input, as usual, Pink_Socks.

Not-so-pleasant terrain, really? I've only been there once a long time ago but I remember really enjoying it. Also the day we spent hiking in the mountains afterward. Based on that I always thought we would probably be back some day.

Not-so-pleasant terrain, really?

This comment was specifically for the venues we used for 2012 Interscholastics/Intercollegiates, which are very green relative to other A-meet venues. On the west side of the Cascades, most of the terrain is either too vegetated or too steep. It's terrain that we use here all the time, and it was really our only option for IS/IC, since it's a spring-only event.

We do have a few really nice, summer-only, areas on the east side of the mountains like the stuff at Salmon La Sac and Teanaway, but even those locations don't have huge swaths of wide open white woods.

As a past A-meet director, I think it all boils down to: is there a small, congenial group of experienced orienteers in the club, who enjoy working together? IMO getting onto the A-meet track is all about personalities.

An absence of A-meets is not necessarily about skills, availabilities or finances. It IS about having one or two people in the club (1) who are "real" orienteers (not adventure racers), (2) personally enjoy and seek out more ways to work with their club members, and (3) have a bit of organization ability. If a club has even a single "sparkplug" like this, A-meets will inevitably follow. I'm sure we all can identify some of these obvious sparkplugs; but we need to inspire many more.

When the ED was initially hired, with my check I wrote USOF staff that I hoped part of his responsibility would be to systematically visit individual clubs one-by-one, and work to identify undeveloped and hidden resources (people, terrain, maps, potential new orienteers) that entrenched club management, either through inertia or ignorance, had failed to develop. And then write a formal confidential report to USOF and the club, detailing development opportunities for these neglected resources, and providing cross-pollination from other clubs he'd visited.

Because I believe orienteers, by their very nature, are extremely talented...every last one of them. And getting a strong O program established nationwide is only about motivation...for all of us!

OCIN has benefited tremendously from those unreal ones, them adventure racers, who have set wonderful courses at several Flying Pig events. And these events were greatly helped in the resource department by the Executive Director. If a club can't or won't avail itself of the resources that are out there, out of spite, jealousy, or a superiority complex, oh well.

T/D I believe I was honored to be meet director of your first O event in the US...way back in 1994? And you were a "sparkplug" even in those days, coming up from downstate Indiana on the bus, with a roll of potential Chicago-area O maps under your arm.

But we all know who the sparkplugs are at OCIN. And yes, they've spread their motivation far and wide, even to their adventure racers. If the ED has been involved at OCIN, I believe it is only because he's been repeatedly invited by the club.

Disfunctional, lazy, uninformed clubs who have the "Oh well" attitude, are not likely to invite scrutiny by the OUSA ED. But isn't that where the greatest opportunity for change exists?

LOL at the adventure racer flamebait. 1/3rd of our fall calendar is hosted by adventure racers. If not for AliC, 2/3rds of events thus far would be won by AR. First in line to staff our biggest promotional event of the year? AliC and AR. Thankfully our president celebrates the resource rather than looking down on it. If the rumored interest in A meet hosting comes to fruition, I imagine a significant chunk of labor will be AR. Consider yourself fortunate if you have AR types in your organization.

For several years now, the board and executive of Orienteering Ontario have been 50%+ people who came into orienteering via adventure racing. If you welcome and involve everyone, you might get to do less thankless volunteer work. (And believe me, the board is thankless.)

Yeah, the AR comment is ridiculous. For most volunteer roles, no orienteering experience is necessary. In fact, I would support outsourcing event direction, registration, marketing, awards, website, graphic design, etc, because you don't really need people with orienteering skills to do any of that.

As soon as you outsource things that require competence to people who have no inherent vested interest in them, for example graphic design for your T shirts, people will expect to be paid. As soon as people are paid, you can't maintain $10 local and $30 A event fees. Orienteers are cheap and there is no known remedy for that. Therefore, the original plan is not implementable.

I can see why Clark's words (shades of " real Americans") would rub people the wrong way but it can't actually be controversial to say that putting on a successful A meet requires at least one or two people who are highly experienced orienteers or techical aspects of the event are liable to suffer, can it? Some adventure racers are also experienced orienteers and I wouldn't hesitate to travel to an event in which they played major roles on the technical side but I wouldn't trust someone coming out of AR and relatively new to orienteering to put on a good orienteering event without at least some assistance/supervision from someone more experienced. I've been to a local event in the US helmed (event direction and course setting) by adventure racers and it wasn't awful (at least not once another orienteer who ran before me had moved one or two of the bags that were mishung to at least roughly where the map said they ought to be) but the course design was pretty uninspired. In particular, on a map mostly consisting of garden variety moderately large scale spur and reentrant systems with occasional dry ditches, it barely made any use of a fairly large section of the map with a lot of interesting manmade contour detail (mining remains).

@MrW: LOL indeed.
Are we really having this adventure racer vs. orienteer vs. rogainer discussion today? In southern Ontario there are very few people who call AR, O or Rogaine their primary sport that wouldn't also train and race in at least one if not both of the other nav sports each year. As such southern Ontario has a great nav sports community that by working together makes race organization and admin work in each of the sports not only easier but I'd argue possible. The lines between these sports and what different athletes train for has become so blurred now in s. Ontario that the community as a whole is stronger because of it.

On the question of making "A" meets easier to host it was actually the explosion of AR in southern Ontario that led my club (GHO) to change the approach we took with races. AR in three short years from 1999-2002 had grown bigger than orienteering had in the previous three DECADES. It was a game changer for our club. We realized that the rules-heavy, volunteer time heavy aspects of "A" meets was not worth it if we wanted to grow membership and participation. AR proved that you could get large numbers of more local and regional participants doing nav sports without the pages and pages of rules.

GHO (former HKF and Niagara clubs) used to host 2-3 "A" meet weekends a year in the 80's. That became one weekend a year in the 90's and for the last 10-12 years GHO only hosts an "A" meet weekend once every 3-4 years. During the last decade of reduced "A" meets we have interestingly grown to be Canada's largest club.

shades of " real Americans"

Wait until your club gets into a discussion about "real" orienteering, with the majority opinion being that anything short of a seven-course event on a perfect map isn't, and therefore isn't worthy. If there is a surer way to drastically limit the already cliquish field of potential contributors to the handful of well aged faithful, I don't know what it is.

Woah! did you see that tumbleweed go by? It's a real tumbleweed.

Is there any questioning of use of the term "A Meet" in the US?

Canada has started to transition to the term "Canada Cup" to signify a national level race. I think non-Orienteers have an easier time understanding the concept. This is especially true of competitive athletes from other sports.

OK, here are some concrete suggestions for making an A-meet easier to host, by means of reducing complexity and manpower requirements.

1) Stop handing out control descriptions as part of the start-line process. For years and years they used to be in the meet packet, and then somebody got the bright idea to hand them out somewhere between the first callup and the actual start. (Probably because somebody noticed it being done this way at the O-Ringen.) Cut it out. There's nothing in the rules requiring this, and it just makes for one more thing to have to deal with when you're getting ready to start. Even more of a hassle if it's raining and everything is damp or wet (including your hands), you need staff to be there and help some people with tape or pins or whatnot, and you need a table and a tarp or something... stop it! Just give out the descriptions in advance. "Oh, somebody will figure things out, remember when Shar---" STOP IT! This never seriously made a difference, trying to eliminate this bit of "unfairness" is splitting hairs and pales in comparison to plenty of other inequities that we can't begin to control. Handing out descriptions in the callup process helps nobody. Make life easier for organizers and competitors alike by distributing them in advance.

2) One call-up line. There's no need to send competitors through a long series of lines, waiting a minute at each, before they get to the start. The Rocky Mountain 1000-Day operated with a skeleton staff and high attendance for many years. How did the start work? There was one line. A minute before your start, you were called up and stepped past the line to where the maps were, a few meters beyond that line. Then after a minute had gone by, you started. Can't get much simpler than that. And it's even simpler now than it used to be, because reassigning start times for people who showed up late used to be kind of complicated. Now you just find a time, tell the latecomer to punch the start box, and off he goes.

3) "Wait", I hear you say, "but then people will see which way the earlier competitors go". Yeah, they will. They'll go right down the trail. Everybody goes down the trail. To the same first control, which is out of sight. The first White control is on everybody's course, and then they diverge. And I'm not talking about a remote start triangle, either. Banish those. With a couple of exceptions like for relays, where you sometimes have to make allowances for printing clarity, the start triangle should always be at the place where you get your map and the clock starts. Remote start triangles are an abomination. If you want someone to go to a place, we have a mechanism for that. It's called a "control". But... but... they use remote start triangles in Europe! Yeah, they do, but Europeans are stupid.

Easier A-meet? Cut down the size of the start crew, and the complications and hassles for everyone.

I find Orienteering A-meets to be one of the biggest joys of my life. I hold in the highest esteem the meet officials who dedicate their time and expertise to these events. They do it for the purest of reasons.

Many years ago I realized that since I enjoyed these higher levels events so much that I needed to be a part of making them happen. So I went about developing the skills and became a periodic course setter or meet director. (About 10 A-meets so far.) I don't mind the occasional criticism that comes with directing or course setting events. In fact I welcome it as a learning experience. Since there is always room for improvement in such a complex endeavor.

As far as compensation for this. I can't begin to figure how much I would charge. In fact expecting money seems pretty crass for such a noble and artistic endeavor. Most of these special people I know that put on meets feel the same way.

The best way to encourage people to hold more A-meets is for the individuals in the Orienteering community to show appreciation for their efforts. So the next A-meet you attend find out who the meet director and course setters are. Grab them by the arm and give them a big thank you!

Remote start triangle is a barrier to host A-meets?

Possible barrier: expecting a banquet or some kind of organized social event. This is also something that could easily be "outsourced" to a non-orienteering friend or relative. "Hey, we're hosting this big race, you're really good at organizing parties and stuff, could you help me out with finding a restaurant and making some group reservations, etc?"

Another one: expecting local meets to have 7 courses and everything perfect. If local meets are a lot of work, it's natural that volunteers may have less energy for the big events.

Thanks J-J...our meets can always use a dose of common sense. But I think Geoman has really captured the message that OUSA should sell to all the club staffs that are not presenting A-meets regularly: the opportunity to give hundreds of people a wonderful weekend, make a major impact on our sport, and gain widespread peer appreciation.

These "intangibles" are tough to quantify and sell. I know...I had to do it for years here in Chicago. But the Chicago club, along with several other Heartland clubs that used to present annual A-meets, only presents A-meets sporadically now. In our case, nothing for ten years, despite being at a major national transportation hub, and enjoying huge local meet attendance!

OP bobfo's suggestions show that OUSA at least recognizes the problem. But aren't they attacking a symptom, rather than the problem itself: motivation. And IMO it is going to take more than "throwing money" at the dearth of A-meets to motivate individual club staffs to step up.

Their ED is a charming guy. But how often does he speak at length with the individual Heartland club presidents? And discuss their manpower, finances, and plans for 2014 and 2015? And simply ASK them to put on an A-meet next year? Other than sitting in Maryland and waiting for A-meet sanctioning requests to come in over the transom, how involved is OUSA in guiding a national A-meet program, so that we have multiple A-events to choose from every weekend, as they have in the nordic countries?

It won't be easy to begin providing frequent oversight to these OUSA-sanctioned clubs that are accustomed to operating at their own pace. They're spoiled. Some of these presidents might decide they can't be "hassled" and resign. But won't that be good riddance? The ED might even have to chair a local club meeting a couple of times while fresh new management is motivated and recruited. But don't we all know at least a dozen people in our club whose potential has never been tapped? And all they really need is motivation, reassurance and guidance from above to "get with the program?"

Yeah, that's right. Volunteer hundreds of hours of your time, or we'll hassle you right out of the sport. Where's the smile on your face, you lazy good-for-nothing? Get 'em, boys!

I'd love it if thank-yous paid bills. There's a market of event organizers out there, they don't make much, but they get by.

Those who insist on noble and artistic reasons tend to be independently wealthy, retired, or in possession of a job at which compensation is not directly related to time or performance. The trend in the United States is that there are very few of these jobs left, skewed towards the very upper age of employable individuals. For me, every hour I spend on organizing an event is an hour (a) away from the family and/or (b) that could have been spent making a lot more money any event organizer out there makes.

The issue I raised above is separate from event director's compensation (or lack thereof). When a club wants to outsource, the noble and artistic reasons, however worthy, are gone. Here's a graphic designer (for a T shirt), or perhaps a party organizer (for that social event), and you want them to do what they do in their actual job, for you for free? I'm surprised orienteering clubs don't harass restaurants into giving them food for free.

Somehow orienteering clubs got through with harassing mappers to work for free, but that's easy: only a few people can actually map. Many can (or think they can) direct events, and certainly many more can design T shirts.

Until the culture changes from "how can you help ME have MY fun for cheap?" to "how can we have a sustainable activity that invests in its future, perhaps at the cost of a number of near-term sacrifices?", it's going to be year-for-year aging.

...tend to be independently wealthy, retired, or in possession of a job at which compensation is not directly related to time or performance. The trend in the United States is that there are very few of these jobs left...

Believe me T/D, many who are in that category are also concerned that wealth distribution in the US is skewed toward the 1%...and becoming more so. Do you think OUSA should try to solve this problem?

Most orienteers got into the sport only for the joy of running through the woods on a beautiful fall morning...nothing more. Like any of our hobbies, sports or avocations, we expect to GIVE not receive: money, time, effort...no matter what our income level may be.

Americans at all levels tend to be generous when motivated. What OUSA has not done so far IMO, is to motivate and develop that generosity of money, time and effort...from all of us.

I think the culture should stop limiting itself to those who are independently wealthy, retired, or in possession of a performance-insensitive job. I was at a trail run yesterday. There were four principals, ages between 25 and 45. It sold out of a 300-participant permit, gross sales about $14k. I only saw happy faces. A number of people came to volunteer in exchange for free race entries (some took the #67 with me from Berkeley BART). They couldn't seem happier as well.

I also frequent board meetings of the local orienteering club. The youngest person at these meetings is 39, the average age is in the mid-60s. Since August, one board member passed away and one is struggling for his life. I hear the constant drumbeat to volunteer and see the lack of enthusiasm among club members on the message board. I sometimes come to local events. I see well-aged event directors who seem short of helpers, barebones organization compared to other outdoor events, small fields, little post-event socialization.

You can chastize people all you want pointing out their crassness for apparently not having fun providing deeply discounted entertainment to people who can well afford it, but this party can't last much longer if my understanding of human life expectancy is correct.

Like any of our hobbies, sports or avocations, we expect to GIVE not receive: money, time, effort...

Chitownclark has put his finger on a key issue. Most of us actually *don't* expect that. Although I spend many hours volunteering annually, it just wouldn't be possible to "give" to every sport and hobby I get involved with - and if I had kids or a super-time-consuming job, I might not have time to volunteer for *any* of my leisure time activities.

As T/D says, there are lots of events where we can just pay an entry fee and do something. Most marathoners or 10K runners don't do any volunteering for their sport. That's the market orienteering is competing in. Sure, the entry fees are higher for a trail run or a 10K but many people would rather pay a little more and save their precious time for other aspects of their lives. We want those people to become active in our sport too! Most professional event directors are happy to arrange a trade of volunteer time for free or discounted entries for those who want or need to save money.

Our local nordic ski club has two different membership rates. If you pay the higher rate, you are welcome to volunteer but there are no requirements. If you pay the lower rate, you are committed to particular volunteer responsibilities. (If I were managing the program, I'd probably make it a rebate at the end of the season based on volunteer contribution but apparently they aren't having problems with the current system.)

I know there are lots of us who spend more time volunteering for orienteering than we spend doing the sport, and that's not sustainable, even in clubs with younger board members. So the question of "how can we make it easier?" is an important one.

... the local orienteering club. The youngest person at these meetings is 39, the average age is in the mid-60s...

Aren't we both saying that O management in the US has become too cozy, comfortable...and calcified? And younger talent is going elsewhere to donate their time, money and effort...while the same old entrenched club management just continues to turn the crank of least resistance? At the same time OUSA has no plan to shake things up, challenge comfortable old programs, and pave the way for new talent and energy to enter club hierarchy?

I'm not sure how 300 trail runners generated $14 000 or ~$50/person...for a trail run? But if you were one of the principals, congratulations for planning such a popular profitable event, that was accessible from public transit and thus to the other 99%.

I'm sorry I didn't see your name on their staffing list 'cause IMO your "local orienteering club" still has one of the best programs in the US. And there are certainly other clubs that need a shake-up and external help and motivation far more.

Many thanks for the excellent feedback so far. Not too many tumbleweeds on this thread. I'm getting four big takeaways on this thread:
1) Some functions of an A-meet not core to orienteering expertise can functionally be outsourced, but the cost to do so would likely jack up the entry fee beyond what orienteers will pay. Not likely to succeed.
2) Some clubs in the US and Canada have deliberately prioritized growing the sport locally over holding regular A-meets. They even embrace variants of O such as rogaines and AR, and are thriving.
3) Some other clubs have had trouble gaining younger-audience traction with O. Organizers are aging out, and there are hopes that an OUSA management shake-up (shake-down?) will fix both this and the reluctance to host A-meets.
4) Ultimately, the decision to host an A-meet is all about local desire and a core group of experienced volunteers. Recognizing contributions appropriately can help. We are not yet good at this.

Is that an accurate summary?

On to the second major point of the original post. What are thoughts on a longer-term OUSA calendar of the A-meet championships only, perhaps 2-3 years out, so the essential meets are covered without emergencies? This isn't about maximizing A-meets, but about giving those we must have the maximum support for success.

but the cost to do so would likely jack up the entry fee beyond what orienteers will pay. Not likely to succeed.

How do we know? I'm not saying charging more for A-meets is necessarily the answer, but I think it's worth investigating properly. Road runners and trail runners often pay $20-30 for a 5k or 10k, and a fancy A-meet is definitely worth more than that to me. I think budget local casual events/training are great and necessary, but maybe we should look at what distinguishes A-meets and what they are really worth the consumer.

ETA: In other words, I feel like the difference between A-meet and C-meet should be bigger. I know some clubs have unique circumstance (lots of JROTC competitors and few adults, for instance) that don't allow for this, but in general I don't see why not. Make local stuff more casual --> people have more energy to volunteer, and the A event is more special and a competitive highlight for runners. You can charge more, but still be quite reasonable, and maybe, if your club wants to go that way, an event director can be compensated with a non-insulting payment. Finally, reward volunteers with free entries or other perks rather than guilting people into feeling that they have to volunteer.

It was suggested before, but again, I think clubs need some help with hiring a mapper for field-checking and producing fine maps.

It is reasonably easy to get a base map and some basic updates but there is no incentive for a local orienteer to field-check a map thoroughly -- much of the fun of running on it is gone once you finish the mapping.

This does not have to be tied up with A-meets but would make hosting them easier. We have many half-finished maps or maps needing updates that are just fine for local events but not good enough for making an A-meet possible.

younger talent is going elsewhere to donate their time, money and effort

You just don't get it (nor does the majority of OUSA or club membership). Youngfolk aren't going elsewhere, or anywhere, to donate anything. They are especially unlikely to donate to independently wealthy olderfolk who can well afford to pay for their entertainment. Youngfolk I see working at trail races either get paid cold cash well above minwage (if they are indispensable to the success of the organization), or get free entries at roughly twice minwage, counted at these entries' face value. At the very least, they get barter in goods that's well worth their time.

The $50 average fee at a trail run may come as a shock to those who rarely or never get out of the 7-course cocoon. When they are over the shock, they duly congratulate themselves on their club's savviness and denigrate those silly people who would throw money at the wind. What they get in exchange for their snottiness is an inbred aged clique that doesn't have any perspective whatsoever on how to act in the world in which their activity is one of 2000+ others, as opposed to perhaps 200+ two decades ago, and simply cannot survive on merits alone. This applies to the local orienteering club.

No I was not one of the trail run's principals; I am not employed (for money) by any of the local trail running companies. I help them as much as I can to put on well attended, memorable events, so that the enterprise can go forward; I don't help trail companies for nothing.

Aren't we both saying that O management in the US has become too cozy, comfortable...and calcified?

No. What I am saying is that the whole scene is cozy, comfortable, and calcified, and can't see the impending die-off even when signs are ample. The leadership at the local club has been nothing short of visionary in the past couple years. The membership rejected their vision and went back to the cozy ways.

There is no shortage of vision among OUSA's leadership, either, but clubs are mostly immune to the vision and the leadership chooses not to push the vision. Maybe that's for the better.

So you are saying that a club organisation based upon reciprocal obligation has no future?

Not within the current state of the outdoor event market in the United States. It was a valid model in the past for orienteering and other sports. It's gone in all those other sports. It's probably OK for charitable activities that are not sports, perhaps other hobbies that aren't labor-intensive, and it's almost certainly OK in other parts of the world where people get 6-week vacations and in general have a lot more security in their relationship with their employers.

The "reciprocal obligaion" term really hits the nail on the head. The system is putting this obstacle in front of anyone who wishes to take part, and it may well be higher than the technical threshold.

there is no incentive for a local orienteer to field-check a map thoroughly -- much of the fun of running on it is gone once you finish the mapping

That's when a club should go and hire a mapper. Wait, those aren't readily available. But in a market, wouldn't labor be available given the right price? Bingo.

And then there are the market failures...

Makes me glad not to live in the land of the 'free'.

On topic: IMO an excellent map makes running a successful A-level event much easier. Many potential problems evaporate before you even start. A excellent map of quality terrain... No problem with entries, especially if its new terrain.

Mildly on topic: The cozy, comfortable calcification of local clubs is a problem for Sport, regardless of the code. No amount of national level leadership and strategic planning can reach the coal-face if the people running clubs have a vested interest (however petty) in the status quo. Until you bring these people onboard (or throw them to the fish) with your "fancy new plan" you will be stymied. It's a people problem and as such it benefits from a personal approach. The example may seem out of place here, but witness what New Zealand Rugby League are doing now with "More Than Just A Game". Top brass meet personally and regularly with club execs/boards to prove the value of their strategy by measurable increments.

Orienteering is rule-bound and can be labour intensive, which can be a weakness. OTOH its about as 'light' as a sport can get. Our infrastructure is land access, maps, flags and specific expertise. We are nimble, low impact. An O event appears and disappears like a ninja. We have a structural flexibilty many sports would envy. As such we are well designed to surf the currents of change. We want our club leadership to be willing and able to make a considered leap from one current to another at the right times. This requires a level of awareness not commonly associated with committees; a worldly awareness of trends & opportunities; and a self-awareness, a habit of honest reflection. I don't know how to develop these traits in the multitude of O clubs we love, especially not in the US context, but in NZ's case we could start by talking more. A deliberate, regular, structured discussion between club execs. Face to face as much as possible... Easy for a Kiwi to say...

Lastly, can I hold up Vancouver's GVOC as an example of this flexibility? Lacking runnable forest but sitting on a wealth of parks, campuses & urban terrain, they chose to develop what they had. They now have a huge library of sprint maps. Some of them are top notch sprint terrain, others bland to an orienteer's taste-buds. Not to worry, 52 weeks a year GVOC uses its maps to run a low key Wednesday training event. This is a gateway to new orienteers/members, being local, cheap, accessible courses etc... They've reflected on their progress and recognised they can make more effort to blood new course-setters. And so they hop onto another current.. Also, they built their own website to streamline the administration of their club. Its excellent - look it up if you haven't seen it. I have great respect for this group and how they operate.

Is there any questioning of use of the term "A Meet" in the US?

Personally, I don't like it. It sounds like a generic rating scale, and it doesn't really roll off the tongue well. I went to a meet that was an A meet.

If I were rebranding, I'd call 'em either the Orienteering USA National Series or the Orienteering USA Elite Series. (Tangent: I'd also have Orienteering USA encourage and sanction a series like the Orienteering USA Adventure (Running) Series, which would be nationally sanctioned and advertized, and focused toward the trail runners, paraders, etc.)

The Canada Cup approach here wouldn't really work, since America's Cup envokes sailing, and we're already getting some aquatic confusion as it is.

Volunteer activity is generally an outcome of each volunteer's passion and available time. Volunteers all have different passions and resources. When one volunteer doesn't share another's passions you sometimes see fingers being pointed at them as being 'in the way' or 'calcified'. Does anyone else see the irony in this thread - that one group involved in the sport is being criticised for not putting enough effort into attracting another group with no time for volunteering? Outsourcing requires effort and maybe its more than most are willing to expend.

When I'm talking to non-orienteers, I usually tell them I'm going to a national event.

I feel like the clubs hosting the majority of the A meets have one of two things: a (relatively speaking) large pool of volunteers, or one/a handful of really driven individuals who somehow never seem to tire or burn out. (At least, not visibly.)

You mean "A meet" isn't short for "America meet"? :-)

J-J wrote:

1) Stop handing out control descriptions as part of the start-line process. For years and years they used to be in the meet packet, and then somebody got the bright idea to hand them out somewhere between the first callup and the actual start. (Probably because somebody noticed it being done this way at the O-Ringen.) Cut it out. There's nothing in the rules requiring this, and it just makes for one more thing to have to deal with when you're getting ready to start.

The IOF Rules (pdf) state:
18. Control descriptions

18.4 For interval start competitions, separate control description lists for each competitor on each course shall be available at the pre-start or in the start lanes, but shall not be available before that point.

I personally disagree with that for juniors in general and the Interscholastic Champs specifically. I agree with it for two specific reasons:

1. It's representative of IOF. It is pretty easy to load the sheet into a clue sheet holder in 30 seconds with practice, but if duffing it ruins someone's race at WOC, I think it's a small detail we might want to get right at an A-Meet.

2. I haven't priced paper copies lately. I'm assuming it's 7 cents or so. But a full A-Meet packet would require at least 2 to 4 sheets of control descriptions if we gave every packet all the descriptions, and I personally know people who would object to that waste. Stuffing packets with the correct specific sheets is possible, but packet stuffing is scary enough and usually has too few volunteers, and errors would be likely. People who change courses would complicate it by requiring a way to distribute the correct sheets. We have in the past distributed a single sheet per race of "all controls" in packets, particularly for events with juniors, so the waste issue is probably not a big deal. My bottom line is---I think it's pretty easy to do this to IOF rules, or on a table near the start.

2. One call-up line...

I think the start should be as complicated as necessary to accommodate what needs to be done, and not simpler than that. I think it is reasonable to have a single call up line if the start is something like this:

1. Call up (Volunteer 1)
2. Check name on paper start list (Volunteer 1)
6. Select box with correct Map , write name on back (Competitor)
7. Verify Map (Volunteer 2?)
9. Start (Volunteer 2?)

I'm sure that can be done with one person at a small event, but not at a big one, especially if you want a high-quality event without glitches.

Now let's add SI:

3. Verify SI number (Volunteer 1?)
4. Verify SI is clear using an SI Check box

Add IOF Control Description rule 18.4:

5. Clue Sheet distribution (Volunteer 3?)

It's also been found to be a good idea to have a check box late in the start process as well as at my "step 4". This started as a way to verify the start time when a start box isn't used (WRE?), but morphed into a very clean "triple check" of missing runners. The early check box usually has multiple checks by obsessive orienteers, making it difficult to infer a start time or whether or not they even started:

8. SI Check punch for redundant "on course" proof

I'm not saying one line call-up is bad, I'm just saying there are several good reasons to have more than one.

3. Everybody goes down the trail. To the same first control, which is out of sight. The first White control is on everybody's course, and then they diverge. And I'm not talking about a remote start triangle, either. Banish those...Remote start triangles are an abomination.

I started using remote start triangles for two reasons: (1) Because the current rules require separate first controls for each course (widely "fudged"), and (2) several serious competitors asked me to.

I have learned to never underestimate the competitive drive in an orienteer. Some people don't care if there is visibility at the start line, and some people *really care*. (I get yelled at every once in a while for my practice and advocacy of using 99 for a Go control.)

I used to believe that there were two types of starts: Starts where everyone diverges immediately at the start point, and starts where everyone runs down a trail for a while and then diverges. But then several serious, respected orienteers pointed out that standing at the start point looking for the triangle on the map is a problem and unfair. They want a *corridor* so they can take off running and then find the triangle on the map as they're running. It made sense to me, so when I can't figure out a fair way to put the triangle at the start point, I use a remote triangle. Supposedly only a flag is required there, but I always fabricate an actual triangle, either on the ground or standing up, framed in survey tape.

Now, if the rule requiring different first controls was changed, I would still not like a common first control. I notice start groups line up sort of by speed, so pile-ups at the common control would probably not be a problem, but why force that "self judgment" at the start line? Others have said that you need to treat the competitors as if they are not in their right minds during the start procedure, and I completely agree with that. Make the start procedure as robust as possible. Make it simple, one step at a time. No surprises. Remote start triangles aren't perfect, but they solve a lot of little problems. And people seem to like them.

Note that I never expected my good common sense ideas to be accepted, even though they've been demonstrated to work well. Carry on...

I understand the reasoning behind the common first control, and as long as punches aren't a problem (i.e., you don't have 20 simultaneous starters trying to punch one e-punch unit), it does make sense for a consistent "triangle means you are here" approach.

The only pain I remember about control descriptions is having to chop them all up. But is that more of a pain than stuffing packets? As a competitor I really prefer getting them at the start. Actually, I'm fine nothing beforehand -- if there are bib numbers it's easier to hang them at the start and have people get their own there. That way a competitor just brings themselves and their personal equipment, the event-provided stuff is already at the start. The organizers don't have to hand out packets, or even sort the stuff by competitor.

With usual ~ ten starters evey minute you would need to have several units there (three?). I can't see buying more epunch gear and building all that extra would make hosting our event any easier. And those units does cost someting too. To make it more practical we simply doesn't need to puch there. Some streamers and a flag will do - money and work saved. And we can't call it a control because we don't punch there.

Descriptions in the meet packet? We don't have any met packets here, what do you have in there? Descriptions and bib numbers (if any) are usually just hanging somewhere at start place with no any gear what so ever to fix them - you are supposed to have your own clue sheet holder and your own safety pins for the bib. If you go there 20 mins before you start you get plenty of time to get things done. It would need work to make the "meet packet" happen, again can't see how it would make hosting any easier.

It is true we are stupid, but I don't think we would become any wiser by buying more punch gear and making some unnecessary work.

(I have been told making event easier to host was the main reason why they selected emit over SI here 1decade ago. Things must have changed by now, but back then it looked like SI would need tedious work - you had to program SI units and set times right, for every unit for every event, replace batteries quite often, and you could not set the time too early for (clock drift, sleep mode) and that was seen that all might cause extra stress and during last critical hours before the event you would have to focus to this instead of some more importat quality assurance tasks, like making sure courses, descriptions, maps and streamers are right and still there).

Jagge, with ten starters per minute, in the US your start crew's job would be done in twelve minutes, plus they'd have twenty minutes to make it back to man the finish.

We don't have any me[e]t packets here, what do you have in there?

Usually absolutely nothing useful whatsoever that couldn't be taken care of some other way. I wonder if clubs provide them because some people enjoy mindless tasks. ;-)

OTOH, the 'club folders' system here is nice, where a start list for the club + maps for the kids are included in one folder. I'm not sure that would really work in the US as people don't gather or travel by club to events, plus the kids don't get their maps before the start.

Meet information packets are definitely on the way out, replaced by information posted on line ahead of time. In most cases the meet information booklet being available on-line moves the organizer's printing cost to the participant. That is a big saving for the organizer; a small cost for the participant.
'Back in the day' registration packets were effective ways of distributing not only bib numbers and control descriptions but also information about the courses, including last-minute changes, information from sponsors, event souvenir t-shirts, banquet tickets and the like.
The other useful job of the registration package pick up was for the organizers to get waiver forms signed and to know if a pre-entered person actually showed up to compete. Without a registration check in how do the event organizers get proof those important waivers are signed and without the signed waivers what does that do to the organizer's event insurance? With the bibs at the start it seems possible for a person to by-pass the registration/ waiver table and go right to the start line.

Information booklets are on the way out here, replaced by a single sheet of paper with just the necessary details and no more. If we could only get rid of bibs. Any other agreements are part of the on-line registration process. If nothing else, a system such as eventor really eases the registration aspect of event organisation.

a self-awareness, a habit of honest reflection

So far the deliverable of self-awareness has been a discussion of the start procedure. A person or three can certainly be optimized out by streamlining the start, maybe one at the finish, here and there. These, as well pointed out, are warm bodies with no prior qualification needs. You can certainly optimize out the event packet and thus eliminate the most efficient path for the sponsors to deliver their stuff to the entrants. Wait, sponsors?

I believe the following two are true:

(1) The average attendee of an A event in the U.S. has aged almost a year over year since the early 2000s, and continues to do so. Patrick/Pink Socks has the hard data.

(2) The largest number of work hours in over 75% of Orienteering USA member clubs is done by people who fall into one of the three categories I mentioned above. I don't have the hard data for this, I doubt any 501(c)3 club is in the habit of measuring volunteer hours, the measurement would be just another volunteer task. And one of the categories is quite vague to define. If your club has hard data, prove me wrong at least to some extent.

To the two pieces of data, add life expectancy.

You can try all you want to shoot the messenger, or to aim instead at the ED (hired in 2009). You can also talk about good things. I personally make sure to post a thank-you to all organizers whose events I enjoy. Neither does much to the two issues. People won't be around for 100 years even if you thank them well.

The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. There are several Canadian organizations who have done things differently to a beneficial outcome, and there are other similar sports sharing the same environment with different models that seem to work. Perhaps it is a place for U.S. orienteering clubs to look, perhaps it's too much to ask.

Online registration saves us a lot of time but we collect waiver signatures at the event. Although an online waiver is legally valid for the adult submitting the online registration, it is not applicable to any other adult (e.g. spouse) included in that registration.

I think the complications & EXPENSES of hiring & scheduling buses to the starts (or the mile-long walk to the start) are worthy of withering scorn.........& why do we need a mile-long walk anyway?

...because that makes it possible to locate the Finish close to parking, shelters & support without routing runners through the same terrain twice. Also spectators, who find the Finish more exciting to watch than the Start.

... and because this often allows the course setter to design more enjoyable courses, getting beginner courses onto the most easy-to-understand trail routing, and the shorter advanced courses, into more challenging/interesting terrain. A remote start can also reduce climb, where that is desirable. A single start location doesn't necessarily address all these issues, but those are the factors, which vary with each setting.

An aside: assuming T/D is right about the characteristics of the most committed orienteering volunteers and the demographic bulge working its way through the A meet participation stats, does that not imply that before the eventual apocalypse there will soon be a golden age during which a huge proportion of the orienteering community in the US will be fairly well-heeled retirees with lots of time and energy to spend organising events?

Great point; the golden age may well come. At least here, there seems no shortage of enthusiasm to power two A events per year, plus the ski-O's, primarily from the groups I pointed out. Local events, however, seem hard to schedule and staff, and they don't seem to be growing on the same-venue year-over-year comparison, seven courses or not; almost exactly the opposite of the national trend. Perhaps the demographics locally are just a few years ahead of the national. It seems that lack of enthusiasm to put on and attend local events is at least partly due to, well, people becoming quite familiar with the venues over two or three decades.

So while the golden age is here, enjoy it while it lasts!

Different orienteers look for different events.

When I was new, I wanted to get to each and every local event. The A meets didn't interest me so much because they were A) far away, B) much more expensive, and C) I was likely to flounder.

The local meets on the other hand were all difficult enough to provide a great learning opportunity and easy to fit into my schedule and budget.

Some locals want more competition, some locals want less. Some want to train for national events, some want an event that draws in new members, some want a walk in the park...

Guess what kinds of events people are willing to volunteer more for, and what they want to promote on the club agenda?-)

To Cristina's point, the only way to avoid chopping up control descriptions is to give everybody a sheet with all of them (which is fine), or to not distribute them at all (you could put them on the map only, as part of the printing process, but people like separate ones). In other words, if you do as Jagge suggests and just have them at the prestart area, you still need to chop them up. But fair enough, I think one way to go is to have them at the prestart so that people can get all meet-supplied materials there, but if you do that, then you've taken the secrecy out of it, so you might as well distribute them in advance so that people can prepare them for carrying when they want to. But you don't need to put them in the meet packets, just put them on the web page.

If we had 10 people starting every minute, having two or three extra epunch boxes at the first control would be very easy to manage. It already happens at the last control, right? And at the first controls of a relay? But with usually a maximum of four people starting together over here, by the time they get to the first common control, they will be spread out enough that a single box is fine.

Nooo, having people print out their own is a waste of paper and time and time and hassle and aaaggggghhhhh. If you don't want to use a scissors, get them guillotined at your print shop.

They don't have to print out their own. They just have that option. I was envisioning that you'd also (primarily) have them at the prestart as Jagge mentioned, but anybody who wanted to copy the codes onto their control card memorize the codes or get help with the more obscure symbols or laminate them in a relaxed environment could do so if they wanted.

For a big race, the failsafe approach is tattooing.

ndobbs >> Wouldn't that add to the orgainizer's burden? You also have to consider the time it would take and a two hour prestart procedure may be a bit much for most orienteers.

If you publish then in web in advance you can't make any last minute corrections / changes just like that.

OUSA is considering two ways to improve this situation. The first is availability of consulting or operational expertise in areas of strong need:
-- Mapping
-- Registration
-- Training events
-- Course consulting
-- Event management (finish line, real-time results processing, social activities, etc)
-- Marketing & promotion.
Yes, we currently offer some of this today for A meets. What would be different here is the packaging of it to a certain standard, so that a club wanting to hold a good A meet could subcontract out, for a cost, the critical skills they don't have or find onerous.

Plucking one from my disorganised jumble of relevant thoughts, all the above seems aimed at lowering barriers to an increase in the supply of A meets. I can't help thinking this may be close to pointless even if it works to increase supply unless the demand for A meets rises commensurately, i.e. "if you hold it (an event), they will come" is probably a less useful prescription for our situation than "if a lot of people want to come (to an event), someone will find a way to hold it".

TD I'd love it if thank-yous paid bills.
It's maybe 25 years since I washed up in Philadelphia and did a spot of mapping, course setting and meet directing, and 10 since I last did anything Stateside aside from hauling in the odd kite. I didn't do it to pay my bills.

Since then innumerable nice American (and Russian :) people have given me rides, dinners, and beds; and good company, good advice and good sport. It may not have cost them much, but it has saved me hundreds and hundreds of dollars and enriched my life immensely. I can't put a precise value on the return for my small long-ago efforts, but it turned out pretty lucrative in the long term.

Youngfolk aren't going elsewhere, or anywhere, to donate anything.

T/D, I think you have a very jaded, very untrue statement there. The young people I know love to volunteer. Most the people I know who like to volunteer seem to like a situation where they can (a) be creative... not just artistic, but feeling like they are 'creating' something important, and (b) hang out with other young people.

If you don't see me around BAOC events so much anymore... It's partly health, partly job. It's largely because I can do other outdoor activities where I'm not the youngest person in the room, and I can feel more creative. But this isn't proof that volunteerism is dead.

Profit-motives will not necessarily improve things. You are right about one thing - young people won't volunteer to help somebody else make a profit. If clubs want to keep their volunteer-driven scheme (and I see no reason why they should jump ship), it's important that they make an effort to maintain their volunteer pool by showing transparently how all charges are reasonable, and profits are reinvested into the community.

jtorrance wrote: I can't help thinking this may be close to pointless even if it works to increase supply unless the demand for A meets rises commensurately, i.e. "if you hold it (an event), they will come" is probably a less useful prescription for our situation than "if a lot of people want to come (to an event), someone will find a way to hold it".

THIS!!!

Graeme, that's all nice and dandy; I'm not against altruism, however great the returns may be in the end. I just note that in the 25 years since, precious few relatively young Brits (or Russians) have washed up anywhere Stateside to contribute much to anything. The local club has been utterly dependent on people from elsewhere to surface and add to the waning enthusiasm, but at some point they just about stopped coming; the ones that do come have jobs, of the kind that if they aren't at the job, they are out, and there goes health insurance, and the green card if applicable.

In comparison, all it took for a qualified coach to surface was some funding. All it took for OUSA website to get redesigned to functional was some funding. (I'll stay off the ED discussion.) Funding doesn't come out of thin air. In other activities, there is a recognition that if you insist on non-compensation, you mostly get what you pay for.

Addressing burnout, there just isn't such in trail running after the all-volunteer model lost out. Well, there is, but it doesn't affect the participation. If you the event organizer lose interest or capability in regularly putting on quality events, someone else comes in (from another area or from another sport, as has happened on multiple occasions) and does it.

Profit-motives will not necessarily improve things. You are right about one thing - young people won't volunteer to help somebody else make a profit.

There's some muddying going on, perhaps on purpose. Profit motive and compensation are not the same thing. Most nonprofits and most 501(c)3 nonprofits compensate their principals so that these people can devote as much as possible of their energy to the cause. It's from recognition that it is more efficient for the qualified, dedicated person to contribute 40 hours a week for pay than it is for say 10 less qualified or less dedicated people to contribute 4 hours for free. For one, these 10 volunteers need to be coordinated so that they are on the same page and not pulling the blanket towards disparate goals.

I see the same with the Junior Coach: it doesn't take much to see that his full-time contribution to the organization in a couple years is far more than what several volunteer coaches have been able to achieve in decades. Somehow I see no Junior Coach bashing or accusations of un-noble motives. And I certainly see no bashing of mappers, those profiteers who dare ask for something close to minwage for weeks in the woods away from family.

On Ben's last point, it is almost exactly opposite to what I said in regards to trail runs; and the "almost" comes from volunteering for absolutely free, as is expected in orienteering, vs. volunteering in exchange for non-monetary stuff. People will gladly accept stuff as compensation for their efforts even if they know these efforts in the end serve to support someone. People who I see volunteering all know what they are in, and they willingly participate so that the cause can continue. If you don't like the fact that you are helping someone devote her or his full time to putting on memorable, sustainable events, and you don't like your two free entries, don't volunteer; there are enough people who will.

"if you hold it (an event), they will come" is probably a less useful prescription for our situation than "if a lot of people want to come (to an event), someone will find a way to hold it".

So assuming the statement is true, and I think it is, what does it say about the organization?

Events won't happen unless there are people who are already clamoring for a certain type of event. But where would these people come from? Where does the chicken and egg begin: how is the system going to pull in new folks and become sustainable? And how would the already-hooked people ever discover another type of event?

Did a lot of people want to do a mudder before there were mudders?

I know I wasn't continuously dreaming of an organized trail run with aid stations, post-race picnic, and prompt results in my sleep back in 1994 when I first tried one. Someone (an orienteer) said, this is what we are doing. I thought it sounded fun; I went. By the same token, I hadn't been thinking that 24-hour rogaines is what I would do with most of my life back in 1995. There was one, and it was fun.

One way to initially pull people in is through training classes. That sounds onerous to many. Neither my first trail run nor the first rogaine required any specific education process. I entered and I went, and it was fun.

I won't finish the thought; perhaps for another day.

In comparison, all it took for a qualified coach to surface was some funding.
Plus innumerable volunteer hours beforehand by coach and others. The coach came first, funding came afterwards.

One way to initially pull people in is through training classes. That sounds onerous to many. Neither my first trail run nor the first rogaine required any specific education process. I entered and I went, and it was fun.
T/D, many sports and activities offer training classes as a way to pull people in. They often charge for them. Onerous, by orienteering standards, you've got to be kidding. And done properly an orienteering class is fun.

I agree with blegg that your point of view on young people and volunteering is jaded and incorrect.

However, there could be meaningful, fast growth with just a few people working full time (as exemplified by what's going on in Ontario), at least in the NE, I don't know the west coast situation so well.

Just charging 20$ per local meet start won't work though, and this is the wrong track. You're not going to increase attendance enough to pay a salary just by having someone help put on more events.

If you want to do it, organise two local training groups, meeting once or twice per week, mixture of trail/off-trail running and orienteering sessions. Charge 40$ per month, get a total of 60-80 people and you have a quarter of your salary done. And that'll take up the equivalent of two days of work per week. Add to that three or four adventure run type races per year (for which your training groups created market) with 200 participants each and you can get closer to a salary. Supplement with a little corporate work and you might even be able to pay for healthcare.

It wouldn't be easy, but it could be fun. And it would rely on local club support.

T/D, just watch those blanket statements please. There's actually been a small number of imports to the East Coast in and just preceeding the three years since I arrived here, and I can list a whole bunch of things that happened as a result, including the Blue Mountain Team Trials, guerilla orienteering at the campus that shall not be named, and Junior Training Camps.

Do you know what puts me off doing stuff? People on internet forums who don't know us, don't come to our meets, and then say we contribute nothing.

I know that wasn't key to your argument and you probably just tossed that out there without thinking, but I wanted you to know it pissed me off.

And now I think I will go back to ignoring this thread and most of the other threads in discussion, and thinking about the awesome Junior Training that's going to happen over the next six months instead.

Since August, one board member passed away and one is struggling for his life. [...] this party can't last much longer if my understanding of human life expectancy is correct.

omg, i got white hair, and getting older by the minute. quick !! quick !! gotta do some meets and mapping before it's too late...

Do you know what puts me off doing stuff? People on internet forums who don't know us, don't come to our meets, and then say we contribute nothing.

Where did I say that? "Precious few" in my statements doesn't meen "none", it means two or three.

I think it is absolutely true that a good percentage of the good stuff that has been happening lately has been driven by the preciously few imports. That was certainly true of California in the 1990s and early 2000s; the later cadre are too busy getting that startup off the ground. What does that say about the much more numerous natives? Where would the sport have been if the imports didn't come? Is there a meaningful structure in place for sustainability?

In comparison, all it took for a qualified coach to surface was some funding.

Plus innumerable volunteer hours beforehand by coach and others. The coach came first, funding came afterwards.

Indeed! And those whose efforts I believe should be funded have all been contributing for free for years. Proven, delivered quality.

Just charging 20$ per local meet start won't work though, and this is the wrong track. You're not going to increase attendance enough to pay a salary just by having someone help put on more events.

Here's the nuance. Not "more events"; different and better events that would pull in more people, while upping the quality substantially enough that the established people still find at least some reasons to come.

Better events: Outsource (for pay) the onerous, nontechnical tasks, especially ones that are regularly done by professionals. Share the task-dedicated person between clubs. Get the most out of the task-specific person; have her curate the program. Leave to volunteers the fun tasks, the ones for which the task itself is the reward, like course setting.

Different events: Non-seven-course formats that have a lower threshold to participation, along Socks's idea of a national Adventure Run series or Dontgetlost's Raids. There's been ample evidence here that just having different events doesn't work for a large portion of the already faithful, so it'd end up being two (or more) series. But with shared resources, the new series would be easier to launch.

And in order for this to work, there needs to be funding. There's ample proof that outsourcing can't be supported by the present fee structure; it seems to me that a lot of the tasks are so unpleasant and unrewarding that if a club could justify outsourcing for pay financially, it would already be working. One club member summarized the reasons for why he doesn't volunteer this way: "It's just more of my day job".

Even tho T/D disagrees with my posts more times than not, I'd like to remind readers of this thread that he has a long, distinguished career as a meet director and consultant on our national scene...in part by implementing many of OP bobfo's suggestions years ago. Part of the citation that accompanied his 2006 USOF Silva Award read:

...It is hard to find anyone who is single-handedly responsible for more A meet starts that otherwise would not have happened (both recreational and competitive), at his own time and expense, than Vladimir Gusiatnikov.

Specifically, Vlad has taken the lead to organize A meets with clubs that otherwise would have difficulty holding them due to shortages of personnel and/or technical resources. These have been done as 50/50 fundraisers...allowing the US team to have some of its strongest finances in years to fund WOC competition and other initiatives, and generating revenue that the club otherwise would not have obtained....most of the starters are not elite WOC orienteers, but local, recreational, JROTC, etc...

Besides the benefits, the thing that makes Vlad's initiative so exceptional and worthy of recognition is the personal time and expense he puts into this. Vlad lives in the Bay Area, but in these instances (which have been far from California), he flies to the meet site beforehand on his own time and money, camps near the map to do and facilitate technical work for the meet, etc. Vlad is very quality oriented with these meets; for example -- taking more time than most to make sure of the map print quality, etc. He has the technical skill to do things right, the quality orientation to want to do things right, and the personal dedication to the sport to make sure these things happen....

Thanks Clark; this isn't about me or Becks or anyone. It's about going forward. The strongest obstacle to going forward is the culture that is bent on doing things the same way they have been done for 40 years, while the rest of the world is not.

There has been some interesting discussion about paid help vs. volunteers, which I imagine is going to be an issue of discussion for the foreseeable future. But there are things we can do now that don't touch on that discussion.

1. Rebrand the "A-meet" term, just like USOF became Orienteering USA. There has got to be a much more attractive name for national events or a national event series than "A-meet".

2. Loosen the structural requirements, and approach clubs that are holding significant events anyway and ask - do you mind if we include it on the national calendar and help publicize it, and perhaps provide a consultant to help on the event planning? National events (unlike A meets) should not need to have seven standard courses, or age categories defined in 5 year increments, or prescheduled staggered starts, or even point to point courses. Variety is good, experimentation is good, and orienteers will vote with their participation.

I can think of at least four areas that would need to be figured out if Orienteering USA went to a looser "national event" concept. First, there should be an expectation of quality for a "national event", and OUSA will need to define what the essential quality features are and how to support them. An example of quality is an expectation that all controls will be placed correctly and the map will be fair.

Second, national ranking should continue to be an important component of national events. How do we harmonize rankings (or even compute them) across events of different formats that may mutate from year to year?

Third, OUSA should get some money from national events (like OUSA currently does for A meets) in exchange for OUSA support. And local clubs should be encouraged to raise their fees for national events, both as a fund-raiser for the club and to give the event more prestige. However, event fees may be one of the sticking points for some clubs in that their membership may not want to produce events above a certain cheap price point.

Fourth, how are events selected for inclusion on the national calendar? I hate the word "sanctioning", as I think it has negative connotations for some clubs. But there will need to be a process defined for selecting events, lobbying clubs to participate where necessary, playing gatekeeper when necessary, ensuring national publicity, ensuring that basic quality measures are met.

Currently, it is easy for a club to say NO to holding an A meet, because it is a lot more work, and the club just may not see the benefit from a parochial viewpoint. Lets turn the paradigm around by encouraging clubs to seek national support for events that they are going to produce anyway. Let's make it easy for our clubs to say YES.

@skogrunner: So, in your plan there would be "national events" that might not be like our current "A-events", but would have equal status and share the same brand? If so, how would what we now call A-events be differentiated from other national events? Or would they simply cease to exist?

As for computing rankings based on non-uniform race structures, if anyone figures out how to do that, they would probably deserve to be nominated for a Nobel Prize in mathematics. :-D

Yeah, there are already enough problems with calculating accurate rankings when you have to include the various disciplines (S,M,C,L,UL,...?). You'd have to have a separate ranking system for each different format.

Also, do you have any specific events in mind?

...actually I think the current rankings methodology has held up pretty well since, I believe, peggyd and J-J first invented the "gnarliness-factor" and the iteration method to equalize courses and events over 20 years ago.

The rankings are useful, and the system is great, and it has its shortcomings. But since you evidently haven't seen them for yourself, I can't imagine there's anything I could say that would divert you from the righteous path you walk.

Great thoughts from Gary, and a noble attempt to get away from the topic of paid help. I can't help but note that the argument circled back to entry fees, which to me seem the chicken and not the egg. Whatever that may mean.

Clubs will want something tangible from OUSA in exchange for the "sanctioning" contribution so that the idea doesn't sound like a shakedown of an established event. (A consultant in itself doesn't seem like much of a value to many clubs out there, and to at least some, event consulting is burdensome meddling in their internal affairs.) That something—increased publicity, professionally designed webpages, help with registration and results—would require either a committed national-level volunteer or a paid professional.

skogrunner's idea is not crazy, or even all that radical. OUSA already sanctions and supports a wide range of top-tier events that are non-standard (Rogaines, Ultra-Longs, Sprints, night-O, Intercollegiates, etc...) Some of these are incorporated into rankings, some are not.

It seems like a perfectly reasonable proposition to suggest that OUSA consider developing a broader concept of what a "national level" event is, and find ways to support such events with advertising, course consultation, etc... We all know that the current A-meet format is optimized to serve the die-hards, and not exactly sucking in new participants. Wouldn't it be great if OUSA found a way to encourage clubs to spend their biggest production efforts on events that not only make us happy, but also have a chance at drawing in new participants?

And of course, there would be lots of problems to iron out. But why focus on those right away? Ranking implementation schemes should NOT be something that stops OUSA from evolving. Besides, one of our club members has already tweaked the algorithm to rank all runners and all courses (from white to blue) on a single list. And for the record, I believe he only has a PhD in physics, not math.

Just to make sure I don't get undue credit, I really don't deserve much at all for the rankings evolution. peggyd was in charge of USOF rankings for a number of years, but I never was. For a very short time I calculated a combined North American rankings for only the Red and Blue courses, using ideas that had been suggested by Larry Berman and Steve Templeton. The main innovation of theirs that was adopted at that time was that of basing the scoring on the aggregate of the entire field, rather than just the top few runners (this having recently become practical due to the use of a new technique called "computers"). However, there were a couple of other significant improvements that happened later, and Wyatt Riley (along with Bill Cusworth, I think) gets the credit, those being the use of iteration, and of using the harmonic mean rather than the 40th percentile (which I had even gotten wrong, as Berman/Templeton had proposed the 25th percentile, I think).

The only thing I deserve credit for is coining the term "gnarliness value". The concept had existed in the previous system, under the name "scoring constant", but I gave it a different name to make it clear that it was being calculated by a different method.

If J-J were to get some undue credit for some aspect of orienteering, it would not bother me. When I think of all the positive things J-J has done for the sport, there would be few if any people more deserving. To take only one example, how many Americans can claim credit for being a course setter at a World Championships? Not many! Well, why not take one more example: did you drink any water on the courses at the VWC in Minnesota? If so, do you know who you have to thank for that? Hope you don't need any hints!

Plus, I am almost positive that J-J has not even once accused orienteers of being cheapskates.

Accuse? oh, the indignation! Two words: Motel 6.

Get rid of interval starts. If you want to be a racing sport, conduct a race. Interval starts require more manpower, and are less interesting to consumers. I can't think another racing sport that thinks a race is people starting at different times. In fact, I can think of only one sport that thinks this is a good idea at all (golf, and well, golf is golf).

While it is obvious, prima facie, how race started races that look like races (as opposed to endless start windows and endless waiting for Godot experiences to see who has actually won the race) will reduce required manpower hours, the real benefit will come from putting on a race that people may actually want to participate in, therefore increasing the prospective pool of [volunteer] labor going forward.

Don't believe me, conduct a simple experiment. Hold a traditional trail marathon. Charge $100. Alot of people will come. Send all the excess profits to the junior team. Then hold a trail marathon with interval starts, and see how that goes. Then, maybe someone, somewhere, will believe me.

Its fine to be a niche sport. Its fine to argue that interval starts are essential to the core of the sport (just as it is fine to argue running thru thornbushes and poison ivy is), but don't expect these experiences to have mass market appeal. They don't. Its that simple. Recognize it, realise it, and adapt accordingly.

I agree (mostly) with Randy.
Most of the races that my club organizes are mass start races. We realized long ago it was the single easiest way to both save volunteer time and increase social aspects of race day. There is a reason why races like the Billygoat and the Salomon Raid the Hammer do so well and one of those reasons is the mass start approach.

It reduces volunteer time and also breaks down one barrier to entry - starting on your own. In a mass start race newbies feel more comfortable because this is what they are used to (unless they come from XC skiing but even that sport has gone to more mass start races).

With only one week to go until my club hosts the Canadian Nationals one thing that I have found interesting talking to the 30 or so juniors in our club that are taking part that weekend (most of which is their first "A" meet/Canada Cup experience) is they don't understand the difference in the sprint, middle and long and don't understand the interval start idea. Indeed for the youngest and oldest participants the races don't differ by that much. All interval start and distances differing by 1-3km.

I've often thought it would be more fun with more variety that a weekend of races started with an interval start sprint. With 1 minute intervals the race is over very quickly. Then later that day finished with a middle distance pursuit. Then the final day would be a mass start long (with some forking options).

If we want the sport to grow then we need a re-think of what a National event needs to be. Otherwise my club, and others, will likely continue to host most of our events outside the National level presence

Some other sports with interval starts (I'm sure there are others): Bike time trials; downhill ski racing and mogul competition; bobsled and luge.

But I agree with Randy's basic point that mass-start events are more fun, more social, and less volunteer intensive.

Thank you again Randy!

We have a conundrum don't we. At the top we want to measure individual orienteering ability and minimise luck. At the bottom those don't matter and the factors above may be more important. And we kinda want the bottom to look like the top so there's no transition or obstacle.

This discussion is about A-meets. Hard to avoid putting these in the "at the top" category isn't it?

The conundrum is that the data screams that the party will be soon over if there is no fresh blood. I respectfully suggest that this item be given adequate consideration.

The related question is what we think about the idea of keeping the party going if it means making it a different party. I suspect there are differing opinions on that topic.

Randy, T/D, you won't find many people here disagreeing with the idea of Hudson Highlanders and Billygoats being fun and perhaps even the highlights of the season.

But even the mass-start races are only races for the experienced, who know how to race in the interval start situation too. In the score-o/rogaine-y situation, it's just a treasure hunt for the majority of participants, let's see who can find the most orange and white things in 4 hours, yay. That's not a race. It's an event, which is fine, and it's wonderful to have events that feel like events.

There is certainly a lack of variety in what's on offer, with 5 or 7 course local events being the norm and this being the sole navigation training most people do. Lack of fun, regular training is a problem, and with more fun, regular training, people will race when they turn up to events, mass-start or time trial.

And as an orienteer, I want to be inspired by challenging courses. Me and the map taking on the world and a clock.

Well, the party is going to be different no matter what you do or don't do. People well past retirement age typically don't dance in the same way they did in their 20s.

My parents still liked to polka...

The problem with mass starts from a volunteer's point of view is that it means I cannot complete. With our usual B meet, I can work epunch with an early starter replacing me before starts close. We haven't found that it draws more people, either. It may draw different people, but the ones who prefer interval starts get turned off.

So the question, is the party for volunteers or for participants?

Has anyone, anywhere, created a stock and flow model of orienteering participation using observed data?