Discussion: 2014 US Relay Teams

Has there been debate on proposed scoring for the Relay Champs?
Only one 0-pointer, i.e. a 3 pointer cannot run on a team with only 3 points.
Actually, I like the new format overall, can live with the one 0-pointer, and think some change in necessary, after the previous 2 years.
Should be a great event.

Is there more information about this proposal somewhere?

Champs bid is being discussed by the board tonight (A meet was sanctioned today).

I assume the Board net and / or DVOA bid is not private.
I am not privy to any of the politics, i.e. if the board does not like the format, I'm not sure how negotiations would go.

[begin quote]

• Ages 17-20 or 40-49 receive 1 point
• Ages 15, 16 or 50-59 receive 2 points
• Under 15 years of age or 60 and older receive 3 points

A female orienteer receives 2 points, in addition to any age points.

A team can contain at most 1 male between ages 21 and 39 (inclusive).

The final deviation: there are 3 divisions: 3, 6, and 9 point teams. Each team must have 3 runners (and no one can run more than one leg.)
[end quote]

What happens if a team has >3 runners?

What's the reasoning for the 1 male 21-39 rule? Seems kind of specific, on top of having a relatively simple points system.

The board had a phone-in meeting tonight and awarded the 2013 Night-O and Relay Championships to OCIN for the December meet this year. Next year's relay and IC championships were not awarded to DVOA that had a bid for them because there is talk by QOC of also hosting the relay. Because the decision did not have to be made before the regular Board meeting October, the decision was put off until then. There seem to be some pluses to the DVOA meet with a different format for the relays but some details are still being worked out and there will be conversations between the clubs and also between the clubs and the board before the meeting.

Damn, I was going to do a couple of relays next year and thought this thread was about me but sadly I was mistaken.

DVOA can give their own motivation. Sanctioning approved the request as reasonable. Given the completely disastrous turnout at recent relays, we were willing to allow experimentation.

@bshields: It rules out teams of the form M21, M21, F20 as 3 point eligible.

Ahhh of course. It should be called Feet-O

I don't sanction that comment.

Thanks for clarifying that M21+ M21 = 2*M21.

Is there some excess of elite F20s?

No, I wouldn't say that there is an excess.

But if you did happen to have an F20, the proposed scheme implicitly discourages forming a 3pt team that includes her, or anyone from a class worth 3 or more points, because you necessarily "waste" points by doing so. The only way to form an =3pt team (presumably the optimal total point value, or else the point of having a point scheme is... unclear) is to have at least 1 individual who is worth exactly 1 point, i.e. an M17-20 or an M40-49. Not exactly a burgeoning demographic. Furthermore the only way to include an F on an =3pt team is for her to be F21 (again, somewhat scarce). If you have a standout F20 or F40, you'd be handicapping your 3pt team with her, relative to optimal.

Of course, you might say that those people will find a place on a 4 or 5 point team. Perhaps so, but that would be handicapping the team, at least nominally. Given that the 3pt category will presumably be the "premier" division, as the 4pt category has been for many years, it's kind of disappointing to have so few ways of putting together an =3pt team.

Not exactly a burgeoning demographic

Indeed, we're now at a point at which M40–49 have become scarce, the bulge is up in the early to mid-M60s. Sorry for pointing out the obvious.

Not sure what data you're looking at. I just grabbed the most readily available stuff - number of ranked orienteers from latest rankings. The older demographic bulge is clearly from 45-55. There is also a huge spike at HS age, most likely from those who run at the IS Champs.

...and think some change in necessary, after the previous 2 years.

There seem to be some pluses to the DVOA meet with a different format for the relays...

Given the completely disastrous turnout at recent relays, we were willing to allow experimentation.

Turnout at the last two relay championships has been disappointing, I gather. And the evidence that this was because of something that could be improved in the relay format rather than other factors is... what exactly? I don't have any beef with the format DVOA has proposed - maybe I'll think of one later after I know more than the capsule descriptions given above - but I'm going to be really annoyed if attendance goes up and it becomes conventional wisdom that this was because of the new format and had nothing to do with, among other possible confounding factors, the meet being held in the NE in April rather than in Missouri in late October or Ohio in early December.

Don't forget about that Tuesday in Colorado.

Either it's too late or I'm forgetfulness-proof on that score because I have no idea what you're referring to. Maybe less cryptic comments so those of us who may never have been in Colorado on a Tuesday know what you're getting at.

The Relay Champs were in Colorado on July 20, 2010, which was on a Tuesday.

@smittyo

The M45+ rankings contain a number of M50+ runners who run up. This is particularly common with the advent of SML format events.

With Brendan's correction (and similar for M65s running up on M55 and M60), I'm not even five years off as to the peak of the buldge. Maybe two or three.

Why use an example of a theoretical 3 point F-20 as opposed to say, PG. Is this just gratuitous male bashing?

My concern about the 1 0-point constraint on 3 point teams is that it might reduce the number (or quality) of competitive 3 point teams and thus reduce the prestige of winning the 3 point category. This is a very old personal bias. Now, it seems that the 6 (nee 8) point category is the most competitive and therefore the most prestigious competition.

Breaking up the 2 elites is likely to increase the competitiveness of the club's second best team (and maybe of the club's best team if it moves to the 6 point category).
Allowing 2 elites on a 3 person team, does stretch the concept of a club team. Maybe in the distant future we can have competitive elite relays, but that is not where the US is today.

That relay was part of a five-day meet (2010 Rocky Mountain Orienteering Festival, July 17-21). It wasn't a random standalone Tuesday meet....

Agreed, there are lots of people (anyone worth 3+ points) who would be effectively cut out, or at least discouraged, from the 3pt category by these rules.

I think the root of the problem is that the runner point allocations are large and unbalanced relative to the team point limits. Ruling out 2xM21 doesn't really solve that problem, it just shifts things around and makes it harder to make teams.

The original proposal was to rule out more than one M21-39 or F21-39, not just more than one M21. This was altered after it was pointed out it would make F21-39 runners almost impossible to have on the winning 3-point team. Again, DVOA can answer for themselves, but the impression I have is that the point is to force clubs to use a variety of types of runners.

What it says to me is that the point system is perceived to be broken, and requires a clumsy patch.

Right. All this discussion of problems with the details of the format change, but I haven't seen anywhere a description of what the goal of the format change is supposed to be. Not saying that there isn't one, but, what problem in the existing 4-person team format is this aimed at solving?

I am not commenting on the point system but the desire of the new format is to make the relay a shorter event. The four person team format can lead to large differences in finish times. The first finishers have left before the last finishers have completed the course.

Well it's easy to solve that problem. As long as we're patching up the rulles, just add one requiring teams to finish between 1.0 and 1.1 times the winning time.

The too long of a time for a relay is a chronic one in the US, and manifests itself because of the great diversity in the ability of the competitors.

Course setters must realize that they are not setting the course for M21s, and reduce the course lengths. We are not Sweden and our woods are thicker.
The goal should be for the winners to be done in 20-30 minutes per leg, the whole thing a 1-2 hour event.

On reflection, the relay at the NA last October was pretty good in that respect.

Hmmm. Having run in a couple of North American relays, I thought I would suggest it round here when the periodic gotta-fix-the-relay time next came round. Don't tell me its not perfect!

Even at 25 minutes/leg for winners, that's 1:40 for winning 4-person team. Does that translate to about 3 hours for many 6/8 & 9/12 point teams? If yes, still too long. Therefore, I support 3 members/team.

NAOC 2012 3-person Relays: Median time for these 14 'select' elite & junior teams was almost exactly 1 hour. Good model?

Also, small clubs might find it slightly easier to find 3 (or 6) members to travel vs. 4 (or 8).

I for one am glad that at least some DVOA members have come around to acknowledging no points for M35–39 after fighting tooth and nail against it in 2006. I guess the relevant people have grown up.

Merely noting my two cents to the proposal:

- The reduction to three legs instead of four seems reasonable; in addition to reducing the total time of the event, the change should increase the number of teams by 4/3 for free. It should also encourage smaller clubs to field teams.

- The point system looks sensible at first glance, though it might require some revision in the future to make it fairer.

- I don't understand the constraint that relay teams have at most one M21. This only applies to the 3-point teams anyway, since there isn't a way to make a six point team with two M21s. It doesn't seem to me that 2xM21 + 3pter is at all advantageous compared to other ways of making 3 point teams, especially if all three legs are of comparable difficulty. This rule seems to add unnecessary complexity to an otherwise elegant set of rules.

Rereading the proposal, I can't seem to find a description of the course requirements for the various point-value categories, and that seems to be a significant omission.

I really like the inclusiveness and use of juniors on the Yellow and Orange legs to achieve a competitive team. I think you don't want the relay champs to be too short. I'd think an hour is too short.

The primary rule change I support is slightly shortening the legs. Most relay setters seem to do it anyway. The worst I've seen was the relay champs that I set in 2006, because I didn't know any better. Above someone recommended 20-30 minutes per leg. That's way too coarse---I recommend assigning a winning time range for each of the five courses: YOBGR

Here's my recommendation:
Yellow: nominal 15 (12-18 min)
Orange: nominal 18 (15-21 min)
Brown: nominal 20 (17-23 min)
Green: nominal 25 (22-28 min)
Red: nominal 30 (27-33 min)

4pt: GOGR: 98 min
8pt: OYGR: 88 min
12pt: OYBG: 78 min

One mass start at about the 2-hour point should let most people see the finishes, and still have a large percentage of the runners finished by the 3-hour point.

This is really rough---I'm thinking the times should be for a representative runner (A Brown runner for Brown, for example), but maybe it should be defined as an M21, and the YOBG times shortened.

I personally would push for the Red (~M21) and Green (~F21) courses to be approximate 75% models of WOC relay distances (which are 30-40 minute winning times for elites).

I've been wirebrushed over relay rules before, so I suggest a cautious approach. I really like the four-person relay, but I think it is often set too long. I think the 3-leg relay hasn't been adequately defined to know if it is acceptable. The questions I've seen indicate it's too much too fast.

Perhaps some upcoming A-Meet will schedule a 2-event Saturday with one of those being a 3-leg relay with some point-category rules just to see how it works.

And finally, is it possible for someone to get some data and show whether M35-39 should be 0 or 1 points? And maybe do the same for juniors? Maybe people immediately think of the one or two outliers in these categories and neglect the nominal. I don't know. But seeing the last few relay champs and how these really unexpected teams get medals shows how cool these rules really are, and how we really should try to get them right.

I may be misunderstanding things but I thought that DVOA's proposed format was just for the relay event they were organizing and not necessarily a "Rule" that needed to be followed by other clubs organizing relays in the future.

Good luck gaffling O and G, or O and Y for that matter.

In 2009, I gaffled the 4-pt Orange with the first 4-pt Green leg. It wasn't terribly difficult, admittedly.

It would appear that we are big time, and not even the last definition:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gaffle

It would appear to have been added by one Jonathan Howell of the Walton Chasers Orienteering Club in 2011. Big time.

http://no.wiktionary.org/wiki/gaffel

hey now.

"A team can contain at most 1 male between ages 21 and 39 (inclusive)"

Oh no! I definitely think the rules need to be less restrictive rather than more if we want to get more participants. Spreading the M21-39 runners (who are often the strongest) over different classes/categories and risking many of them not wanting to (or even being able to) participate at all does not create a better relay in any way.

I don't know the background to the current restrictions and I actually struggle to understand why we don't simply let the best clubs win (i.e. have an Open category without restrictions) like they do in most other countries' national Champs. Even with the current rules (which are less restrictive than the proposed new ones) it's not hard to imagine a club that would have three-four runners good enough to fight for medals in the "elite" category but who would de facto not be allowed to participate. That, if anything, is reverse discrimination.

That said, I'm all for decreasing the number of legs to three (which would enable more clubs/teams to participate and result in more teams per class = more "relay feeling", as well as reduce some of the disadvantage of the smaller clubs) and still have relatively short legs (winning times around 35-45 minutes per leg). This would also be in line with the changes that have been made for the relays at WOC, the Swedish Champs, and so on, in the last decade or so.

It's also more than reasonable to remove the points for M35-39. Valentin Novikov - turning 40 next year, Thierry Gueorgiou - turning 35 next year and Eric Bone - also turning 40 next year (I think), are just a few examples showing the absurdity of that rule.

To sum up, if I were to create a new format for the relay Champs it would be something like one "open" category (3 legs) without restrictions, one 4 point category (3 legs) and one 8 point category (3 legs). No further restrictions (and no points for M35-39). As the orienteering population grows older (according to T/D's scenario) the 4-point category could be changed into a 5-point one and the 8-point into a 9-point one.

Yeah, around here the 35 age group is just about extinct. I've got just as much chance of a national title in M35 as I have in M65. The other source of recent thoughtfulness is the suggestion that you bus people to "remote" starts a mile away. OK maybe necessary because of the ageing that T/D describes, but the course is going to have to be at least a mile to get back. Does anyone finish the courses?

according to T/D's scenario

It's not my scenario, certainly not something I wish for. It's cold hard data.

So since no one's mentioned it, will the 2014 US Relay teams not be?

Eric Bone
Boris Granovsky
Ross Smith

Alison Crocker
Sam Saeger
Hannah Culberg

Not if I can help it...

T/D, what I meant was simply the scenario described by you (and which I see as highly likely to materialize). There are no cold hard data about the future, however (and any scenario by definition refers to the future), and it's not impossible to imagine a surge in the number of younger orienteers in the coming decade, making my suggested future age adjustments of the point categories unnecessary.

But this is all off topic... let's better discuss what to do (if anything) with the relay.

Cedarcreek is correct that we need to see the specifics of a 3-leg Relay option. I'll take a stab at it by modifying his outline.

Yellow: nominal 15 (12-18 min)
Orange: nominal 18 (15-21 min)
Green: nominal 20 (17-23 min)
Red: nominal 25 (22-28 min)

3pt: RGR: 70 min
6pt: GOR: 63 min
9pt: OYG: 53 min

I think it would be exciting for many teams in all 3 categories to be finishing in the 55-80 minute time frame. I hope that nearly all teams would finish under 2 hours. With short leg lengths, more people will be able to push hard. OYG caters nicely to families and juniors. No Brown, one less course to set.

The meet date and points are now announced on AP, but still no description of course legs. Has this been decided yet?

Course lengths will be posted an appropriate amount of time before the event.

Bear in mind, this is for the April 2014 US Relay and Intercollegiate Championships.

As an aside, course lengths haven't been posted yet for the 2013 US Relay Champs or the DVOA A event happening in three weeks.

Frankly I'm less interested in course lengths, which obviously can't be known until course-setting is complete, than I am in a description of what the course design strategy will be.

Something like Ricka's post just above showing where a yellow or orange runner can be fit into a team would be fine in determining whether a family is even interested in attending or not.

It should be broadly similiar to past relays in that there is an opportunity for an orange runner in every category.

Below the course colors are merely indicative. The "blue" leg, for instance, would be 7K or shorter, and everything else proportional. While there is little difference in technical difficulty for brown and above, the labels below are meant to allow everyone a common frame of reference. "Orange" will be of orange or less technical difficulty, and on the short side.

Also, leg order may change, but probably not.

3 Point
1) Green
2) Blue
3) Orange

6 Point
1) Brown
2) Red
3) Yellow

9 Point
1) Orange
2) Brown
3) Yellow

Anyone whose A-meet course is Orange is worth 3-5pts. Anyone whose A-meet course is Green is worth 2-4pts. Why would you design the 3pt courses with a 5-9pt team in mind?

Why would you design the 3pt courses with a 5-9pt team in mind?

I think the proposed no more than 1 M21/35 per team rule strongly suggests that in the organisers' minds, the best 3 point teams are likely to feature members running down from their age-appropriate A meet courses.

Certainly if you throw an orange course at Balter (2pts), he will be running down. You then throw a green course at Wyatt (1pt) and he's running down too. But it could've been Green-Red-Blue, and nobody would be running down. So... why choose to set up the course structure such that 2 people are necessarily running down?

I mean, the only situation in which you have a <6pt team running their regular courses is if you have an M14, an M50, and an M21, which is 5pts. And really, if you wanted the M14 to be able to run on a team with a fighting chance in the 3pt category against Zhyk, Wyatt, and Balter, wouldn't you have to pair him with... say... 2 M21s?

If Balter is running down, maybe we should throw oranges at him.

Wyatt running a Green course is not running down. He's running a short technical course, and running it hard. Balter on Orange, running hard, is only barely running down. Don't think of these course colors in relation to what people would be running at an individual Classic event, other than that they will be manageable for people who normally run those courses.

Yes, but why, after cutting M14s out of contention in the 3pt category by forbidding their pairing with 2xM21s, do the designers then about-face and encourage their participation by throwing an orange course into the mix?

M14 (3 points) on orange == running up
M16 (2 points) on orange == normal age group course. This person on a 3-point team is going to need a team mate with 1 more point.

I am with Brendan on this one.

Don't think of these course colors in relation to what people would be running at an individual Classic event
That's exactly what we should be thinking. The whole point of the courses colors given for each category is that, to direct the clubs to choose which person is running which course.

Given the rules below for the 3 point category the rules contradict themselves and force at least one runner to run down:
1. 'No more than one M21' ---> 2 members must have points
2. 'One of the courses is Orange' ---> 1 member must have 3 points

By providing the easiest courses from which an n-point team could be build, the participation possibilities are maximized. Further reducing difficulty to courses does not do anything positive to the event, it only detracts from the satisfaction of the team members having to run down.

@fossil: I stand corrected on the M14 point.

The colors indicate the technical difficulty of the courses, and their lengths relative to one another. That's all.

Relays are supposed to be fast and fun. Keeping the technical difficulty down will keep the competition tight and the races exciting. If everyone runs "down", will probably be a fun event.

I wonder if it wouldn't be better to skip out on the colors and just used 'advanced - 4km' or 'intermediate - 3km' instead. The colors are loaded terms.

Keeping the technical difficulty down will keep the competition tight and the races exciting.
True when there are enough teams of equal ability. With the lack of depth we have, keeping the difficulty down will make the competition more predictable and less exciting. On the extreme end example if everyone runs 'down' enough we will have a 5K relay.

On the contrary, keeping the difficulty on par with the majority of the 3 person teams participants (not the lowest common denominator of an optimal team) will make for more interesting and unpredictable race.

I'm all with Nikolay here. Making the relays easier on the technical difficulty don't make them more interesting for anyone and, as mentioned by Nikolay, predictability is the key. The higher the difficulty, the less predictable the outcome of the event is - and the more interesting it will be to follow (Does anyone remember the women's relay at WOC in France a couple of years back? - by far the most exciting relay ever to watch, if you ask me, thanks to the ultra difficult terrain and many mistakes). With people like Balter running an orange-level course, the outcome is very predictable and uninteresting.

My biggest concern with these rules, however, is the "only one M21-39 per team" thing. Is there any good argument for that rule (it was questioned already in the very first comment on the suggested rules above by Brendan, but I haven't seen any serious argument for it)? It seems like a completely unnecessary restriction on top of the relatively straightforward point system, and it should be a no-brainer that the more restrictions you have the stronger the advantage of the larger clubs over the smaller ones, given their larger selection of strong runners in each point category.

We don't need a hypothetical club with a strong F20 runner here to see the bad side effects of this additional rule. For me personally, for example, that rule alone will probably make the event in question much less interesting and I will most likely not consider it worth the travel. My club, CAOC, has two relatively strong M21-39 runners who together with a fairly strong 3 pointer (I don't have anyone particular in mind) would make a team that could at least push the DVOA and CSU teams to run for their medals, but forcing me and Maricel apart into different teams will make it significantly harder for CAOC to put up a competitive team in the 3 point category. The bronze medalists of last year's relay (COC with Eric and Nikolay) would also have been much weakened with the suggested restriction.

In short, by this seemingly completely arbitrary rule, you create a significant disadvantage for any club with either a strong 3 pointer or two strong M21-39 runners (or both of these), and, as shown by the examples above, that is very far from a hypotetical situation for "smaller" clubs (to which I would count all except DVOA and CSU).

I agree with Mattias on the 21-39 rule. You have this simple point system, but then make a very specific restriction. Really, the restriction makes 21-39's worth less than zero points on average. If you can't do 0+0+3 = 3, then those zeros are actually worth less than zero.

I disagree with the idea that putting Balter on Orange is boring. It's a way to meet the specifics of the race format and attempt to create a winning relay team. If he's feeling the weight of the team on his shoulders, he's still under pressure to perform, and that creates drama. Especially if you're trying to include juniors you really need lower difficulty courses for the Yellow and Orange. To state the obvious, the reason the relay rules specify Brown and Green and Red is so people can understand that it's advanced navigation and the distance is similar to those normal courses.

I disagree with the idea that putting Balter on Orange is boring
I already stated my argument on this. It still stands true for Balter and for the spectators.

It's a way to meet the specifics of the race format
And I am arguing the soundness of that race format proposed and introduced without solid reason.

If he's feeling the weight of the team on his shoulders, he's still under pressure to perform, and that creates drama.
No, it doesn't. For Balter Orange course will be probably close to trail running with a park map in a new park. Yes there is drama coming from the fact that there is competition going on, not the fact that Balter is on easier Orange course.

I think we should step back and look at what is the goal of the point system in our relays? Why was it introduced in the first place? Lack of participants depth, and thus lack of any competition. That's it. We would not be doing point categories if we have 5 - 10 clubs entries in each age group.

I have not been around when the point system was introduced, but here is how I see the current 4 team categories by their optimal and majority of participants.
4p - Elite category
8p - Junior/Veteran category
12p - Youth/Super Vet category

The point system collapses all age groups and gives the flexibility to the clubs to form teams. At the same time it loosely preserves the spirit of the sport's divisions by age groups. And more importantly the 4 point category is preserving the inclusivity and the respect of the M/F 21 category. M/F21 is open to anyone, and juniors, youth and veterans can strive to improve physically or technically to make the team of the club in that category. We want to crown the strongest club in the country and the 4 point category provided that. (Let me know if I am off with my reasoning here. But I think I am not. In the relays I have participated, I have not seen DVOA or CSU or any other team spread their strongest runners into the 8 or 12 point categories, provided they can run in a 4 point team )

So, for me the rule of only one M21-39 is just diluting the new premier 3 point category and reducing the achievement of being the strongest club in US. Plus the fact already stated that it's arbitrary and unsubstantiated.

And with all the talks of defining orienteering as a competitive sport and not geocaching or boy scouts activity, it's incomprehensible to me why at the one even selecting the strongest team in the country, clubs are not allowed to field their strongest team.....

From 1-2 posts long ago (above), I inferred that the rule of "only one M21-39" might have been originally part of a broader goal to 'spread out' talent on clubs' relay teams. I suggest that the "only one" rule may have made more sense in the broader (unseen) proposal but now this surviving remnant has little justification or appeal. Dropping it sure seems popular! (It's curious that any supporters are so quiet.) Can someone declare it DOA?

If we think of all Relay legs as "short Middle" in length/time, then the Br/G/R/Bl designations still make sense and are useful for a team to determine who runs each leg - not waiting until exact leg lengths are publicized.

Since few premier 3-point teams seem likely to include an Orange level runner, I concur that the 3-point race should consist of 3 Advanced legs.

I have enjoyed participating in many US Relay Championships so I hope it continues. Having said that together with the US night-O Champs it is interesting that there is a national championship for a race format that doesn't happen very often. Makes me wonder if participation would be higher if instead there was an annual relay 'challenge' in the US that wasn't a championship and there were NO categories or point systems at all.

The world's biggest club relays (Jukola, Tiomilia) don't limit category participation and they are enjoyable because you have the World's best racing against each other AND racing against a bunch of recreational guys from the same work place among other types of teams/clubs. One category.

I think it would be fun to see how a team of juniors girls did against the best. How close can your team get to beating a CSU or Ottawa OC relay powerhouse? 4-5 people/team (orange, 2-3xgreen 1xred)???

Or is this idea just wishful thinking? Why? Well it appears to me that almost every event in the US is either a championship and/or a OUSA ranking race and/or a club ranking event. Seems there is no weekends available for events that are challenges or well 'club training'. Oh wait I forgot about the awesomeness that is the Billygoat and the HIghlander. (almost) no categories. All participants race each other. Fun times. Challenging. No strings attached. is that what makes these races awesome? Is that what the US needs but in a relay/team format?

I am reminded of the furor over DVOA's decision to have country relays at NAOC 2012. We took a lot of grief for that decision when it was first announced, but all we heard after the event was positive comments about how much fun it was to watch the action.

This fall DVOA made a bid to OUSA to host the US Relay Champs with a modified point system. We would like the US Relay Champs to be an event that clubs don't want to miss, that everyone wants to attend to support their club. We believe that our changes to the point system and and the number of legs is a step in that direction. Our bid was approved and we will be hosting the event in April with that system.

We hope everyone will come and participate. If you believe you have a better system, we encourage you to put together a bid to host the 2015 US Relay Champs and try it out.

We will also be debuting a two person coed relay as part of the Intercollegiate Championship the same weekend and are excited about the spectating opportunities for both the US Relay Champs and the Intercollegiate Relay.

More details about this combined US Relay Champs and Intercollegiate weekend will be forthcoming, but not until after our November event in a few weeks.

Historical perspective: For the first few years of the "new" relay format, the one with a point system (this format started around 1991-1992), there was in fact only a single category. The first year there were criteria for the composition of the team having to do with the courses that the members normally ran at A meets, then the following year it was refined to being based on points, with a minimum of four points for a team. After a few years, there was demand for recognition for teams that had more points, and an eight-point category was introduced, but with the same set of courses. This turned out to be problematic, as teams were faced with a weird decision of what category to be in -- I was on a team that finished 2nd overall, but we had nine points; were we the gold medalists in the eight-point category, or silver in the four? (We opted for the latter, so some other team got the eight-point gold, despite the fact that we beat them.) That was followed by changing the courses for the eight-point teams in order to eliminate that issue, and to get the eight-point teams finished in a more reasonable time. Then a few years after that, there was a move to add a 12-point category (some feel this was by some folks who felt they could field a strong 12-point team, and were looking for a way to get a national championship medal). So it really did start out as one relay category, and that was one of the positive features cited with this new system. Have we drifted too far from that?

@Sandy I am not sure how this post is related to the discussion here, or is giving any light to the issue.

I expect nothing less of DVOA putting an exemplary event. Not the issue discussed here though.
Changes to points system 4 8 12 to 3 6 9 and number of legs 4 to 3 is not the issue discussed either.
It is a specific participation restriction 'only one' rule I guess will call it, that undermines the event of finding the strongest club in USA.

I also am not sure that a bit for a National Championships Event should come with strings attached to an arbitrary ranking scheme or with a change to the existing one without public discussion. That discussion is happening now with some general agreement on the issues and ignoring it with comments like 'If you believe you have a better system...' does not help

But bear in mind that the evolution of the relay system has been possible precisely because clubs were free to try ideas and see if they worked. This was true from the very beginning, when DVOA proposed this radical overhaul of the relay event to have mixed teams, instead of a bunch of tiny age/sex category teams. None of these new ideas have been subject to public discussion. Now DVOA has another idea, as many clubs in the past have. If they try it out and it's unpopular, it will go away.

Well, J-J, if a suggested rule is unpopular to the extent that it is deterring people (primarily from the "elite" M21-39 category) from attending, it might not be worth trying. And, again, the issue is not that DVOA wants to try a new concept with fewer legs (3 instead of 4) and no points for M35-39. Those are both highly logical steps in the evolution of the relay format against which no one seems to argue. It's the arbitrary "only one" rule that is an unprecedented "own goal" if the plan was to make the competition more attractive.

If this rule (which effectively would have prevented two of the four top clubs of last year's competition from fielding competitive teams) is to be kept, I think, at the very least, that the motive/reasoning behind it should be made public.

Sure, no problem with people expressing their opinions, and DVOA will undoubtedly take into account what people who decide to speak up on this particular forum have to say. Along with various other factors and considerations. But I do have some concern that some people expressing those opinions may venture into "How dare you?!" territory. Not saying it's happened here yet, but I've at least gotten a whiff that there may be some folks out there who would be pretty outraged if any changes were made that they didn't personally like. I can remember some people being pretty miffed 25 years ago at the suggestion that the new rules would mean that a team would no longer be able to field a team consisting of their three best runners. But it worked out pretty well.

Hey, half of Attackpoint went into how-dare-you on more than one occasion recently. Or was it just three or four people? hard to tell. It worked every single time.

"I can remember some people being pretty miffed 25 years ago at the suggestion that the new rules would mean that a team would no longer be able to field a team consisting of their three best runners. But it worked out pretty well."

As I have stated previously, I am in complete agreement with that 25 year old suggestion, since it makes little sense to me with any limitations on the number of runners of a certain age category that a club is allowed to field in what is supposed to be the "elite" category of the relay Champs. The obvious reason for why it still has worked out "pretty well" as you state is that there are very few clubs in the U.S. with more than three strong M21-35 runners (last year it was only CSU), so that problem is largely hypothetical for most clubs. Even so, I would personally much prefer (and I think any spectators would agree) to let CSU have two strong teams in the "elite" category than pushing runners like Mikkel and Greg (if taking last year's competition as an example) into the "Junior/Veteran category" as Nikolay aptly called it.

However, to go from allowing three M21-35 per team to only one M21-39 per team would, as I have pointed out above, make a huge difference in limiting the ability of a broad range of clubs to field competitive teams.

Have you all lost your minds?

People, it's a game. It's a rather silly game involving finding white and orange flags hidden in the forest. Yes, that's kind of fun. It will still be fun no matter what rules are implemented. Get some perspective.

If you were to offer me a game of chess in which I trade my queen and a pawn for two additional rooks, I would consider it as an interesting variation, and might have fun playing it. If you then told me I'm only allowed 2 rooks on the board, so too bad about those extra two I just traded, well, that would be a less interesting game, and not much fun.

Yes, you can play around with the rules. One would hope it comes with at least some reasoning. So far nobody has made any defense of this M21 rule. What is the reason for it? How might it make the competition more fair, or more competitive, or allow for more teams to be formed?

The conclusion I'm coming to is DVOA tried this format for their club champs, liked it, and applied it to the national champs without thinking any further about it. The M21 rule makes a lot of sense at a club level and no sense at a national level. If anyone can offer a reason for keeping the rule in answer to the problems presented here, then maybe it's worth a try. Otherwise, can we please not be so stubborn as to plunge ahead with an obviously wrong rule?

People, it's a game

No, no, I'm sure it's carefully controlled scientific research...

This is one situation where I'd opt for intelligent design over Darwinian evolution, thanks very much.

How many clubs have more than one relay-worthy M21–39? We (OCIN) have zero, BAOC has about one (just about everyone running Blue is 40 and over). (I am not trying to slight CSU transplants since they run for CSU, so I'm not counting them for BAOC.)

I've at least gotten a whiff that there may be some folks out there who would be pretty outraged if any changes were made that they didn't personally like

If you're whiffing in my direction, whiff elsewhere. The move to 3pt teams is likely going to have a much bigger effect on CSU's teams than the M21 rule - we have no 1 pointers, so our 2 pointers are comparatively less potent than in a 4pt system. But that just sucks for us, since it seems pretty clear that most clubs will have an easier time putting together teams under a 3person/3pt system. OTOH, nobody will have an easier time putting together teams with the M21 rule in place.

OUSA has better things to do than draft national rules for some silly game.

My club has members who can field a 15-point 3-person team. We won't have a "competitive" 3-point {edited from 3-person} team in attendance, even if we can find a suitable M21.

Maybe the champs should have a special 0-pt relay category (no medals, just glory) with just the CSU and DVOA M21s, while the rest of enjoy the planned event.

Hey, what the heck, give them medals, too.

Well, okay. :-) No sense being stingy. It's up to DVOA, though.

We should create a draft system and enter all free agents there then clubs pick and pay for runners (money go for us team, juniors etc... etc...) Actually I'll shut up. I don't know much about those team sports. I'll just go out in the woods and enjoy the rain by myself :)

It's sad to see that you are joking about having a 0-pt relay as if were a laughable suggestion, while, if you take a step back and think for a moment, that is actually the only class that should be an obvious part of any national relay championship (and is so in all other orienteering countries I am aware of).

I think the transition to a 3-leg relay (which everyone seems to support) is an excellent opportunity to return the 0-pt category, and I am convinced that a 3-leg 0-point relay would be a very exciting, intense and fun event both for the participants and any spectators. Based solely on the (relatively low) participation in last year's event, I think there would be at least 5 teams fighting for the medals in such a race (2 CSU teams, at least one DVOA team, COC and CAOC). Setting the first "veteran/junior" class to 4 or 5 points (for 3 legs) as I suggested earlier in this thread would also ensure that the 0-point class would not be too small.

And William, of course it is a game, but we are also telling ourselves that we want to profile it as a competitive sport and it's at least my understanding that there is some intention to try to raise the level of the U.S. national teams when they compete internationally. And I can tell you for sure that having our best runners being "pushed" by juniors and veterans rather than their strongest national peers in the only national relay of the year is not the best strategy to reach that goal.

Speaking only for myself, I don't think there's any reason to think I'm joking, or that I think there's anything wrong with a 0-point relay.

And, just to be clear, "0-point" also implies "all male". So is the point to also have a female-only race?

And pretty soon we'd be back to the old pre-1990 relay format, which kind of sucked.

I don't agree that 0-point (or "Open" as I would prefer to call it) necessarily implies "all male" any more than the current 4-point category does. Rather than arbitrarily discriminate against some category of runners (as the suggested rule clearly does), the point with a Open category would be to allow the clubs to gather all their best orienteers (independent of sex and age) in one team - and thus enable an unrestricted "elite" class with all the top runners.

I realize that somewhat fewer females probably would make it to the "top" teams of each club with a 0-point relay, but that will on the other hand already be an effect of reducing the number of legs to 3, and I am not convinced that it's necessarily bad for anyone. The reduction of the number of legs to three will likely significantly increase the number of teams in the "elite" category, and I think very few females with national team ambitions (or close to that level) would not be able to end up in a team in the "Open" class.

Whether there, in addition, also should be a "females-only" class (which realistically only would have 2 legs), I think, should be up to the ladies themselves to decide, but I would assume that their interest in such a class would be quite low, since the best ladies probably would prefer the more exciting Open category with better "sparring" even if their chances to earn medals would be much lower.

Back in October, I posted this scheme for the current relay rules:

Here's my recommendation:
Yellow: nominal 15 (12-18 min)
Orange: nominal 18 (15-21 min)
Brown: nominal 20 (17-23 min)
Green: nominal 25 (22-28 min)
Red: nominal 30 (27-33 min)

4pt: GOGR: 98 min
8pt: OYGR: 88 min
12pt: OYBG: 78 min

I tried to achieve that with the relay championships on Saturday. Here's how it turned out. These are a bit longer for BGR because clue sheets should have been +300m because of Leg 85-95:

Y: 2.3km, 65m: 17:48 = 7.7min/km
O: 3.1km, 110m: 21:46 = 7.0 min/km
B: 3.4km, 110m: 30:55 = 9.1 min/km
G: 4.2km, 145m: 27:41 = 6.6 min/km
R: 5.2km, 225m: 35:38 = 6.9 min/km

4pt: ~117min
8pt: ~123min
12pt: ~120min

I know some runners came back before the next runner was ready. I suspect Brown was slow because of the small field (6 teams?) on 12pt. There was talk about whether I designed the courses to be too short. Partly that was me reacting to the weather and bad footing as I redesigned so close to the event with reasonably steady forecasts, but it was also intentional to try to make the relay not drag out over a long time. I was hoping the courses would encourage packs, but I didn't hear of many. The weather was what I consider to be among the worst possible orienteering weather: Cold rain at about 32 degrees F. A few times it really came down. Being soaking wet sucks the heat out of you so much worse than snow and 20F.

According to the AP event page, the organizers seem to have reneged on the M21 rule. Is that a real change to the rules?

We have asked the Sanctioning Committee for a modification - eliminate the restriction on more than one 0 point person per team - from our rules waiver. All the other rules changes (3 legs, different point categories, different age brackets) are still in effect. I don't know if we have gotten official notice yet as to whether or not this has been approved.

Ok, thanks.

To JJ's "Historical Perspective" comment back in Oct. and, specifically the formation of the 12 pt category. l drafted the proposed rule change after careful research and analysis that told me that there was a sizable body of young and old competitors that were being marginalized by the current system. They were not valuable on a competitive team and therefore did not participate. The new system is/was more inclusive. (It was mere coincidence that the new rules happened to fit nicely to a certain family team during the first year the 12 pt team came into being :)

That first time for a 12-point category, sadly, also marked the last time for another category: A-events in Maine.

/hijack

Thanks again to all the vociferous folks on this thread who had a pronounced impact in refining the format of this event. You spoke, we listened.

Just don't forget to register... Time is running out. It will be great to have lots of elite runners from the "C" clubs (and others, of course.)