Discussion: WRE in NA in 2007

with the new extras WRE (per region ), how many applications ( tentatives ) are to have FULL use of the 9 WRE in North America.
the federations COF and USOF will probably support the applications ( or already did ), however if the full quota was not riched, I think time is ticking. So far if I'm not worng COC ( in Saskatchewan ) has 3 (july) , and 3 spread in US ( march_NC_fundraiser ?, may_trials _MI and november_US champ_east coast ).Any interest in adding one in Ontario (either after US trials/michigan or Oct_Ontario champs ??

Ontario in October sounds good.

Or put another one on west coast or rockies to balance the US East/West WRE geographics?

Until I see something official from the IOF saying the proposal to allocate additional WREs to each region applies to 2007 and giving a new deadline to apply for the additional WREs, it seems premature to put much effort into discussing how to allocate them.

I'm not sure scattering them is the best approach (although I don't think it's a terrible approach either). If the goal of the additional events is to get more ranked runners (4 or more runs), then getting the events that are already hosting a WRE to pick up another day would be far more effective.

Until I see something official from the IOF [...], it seems premature to put any effort into discussing how to allocate them.

Once the word comes, it'll be a fire drill to get it all put together in time. It probably pays to be somewhat prepared when the time comes, at least having explored the options, found out who might be interested, etc.

The idea of adding a fourth WRE to the COCs was mooted, though the COF president expressed a preference for spreading the WREs around more.

Okay, that was a bit strong before I edited it. I'll agree that geographic dispersion of events probably isn't the best way to achieve the two goals of producing high federation rankings and more high ranked individuals. For the former goal, we'd presumably want to have WREs as much as possible at trials races and championships since these already attract strong and deep fields. For the latter goal, if I understood feet's point in an earlier thread, we presumably ought to hold some WREs in extremely technical terrain where there will be more variation in scores between those who have good races and those who don't. I see a certain tension between the two goals that I don't see any way of resolving other than by having enough people going to enough more than four WREs annually that nobody's bad days end up counting towards their federation's ranking.

You know, that is something I have always wondered about. There seems to be absolutely no reward for consistency under the IOF's rankings scheme. It almost feels like a complicated way of assigning points to races in the same way that we assign points to the individual Sprint Series races. Races become more valuable as the field becomes stronger and so one would think that a win over a stronger field indicates a stronger run, but the two aren't necessarily correlated. I could have the best run of my life at a race in NA and get 1000 points whereas a mediocre run against a more valuable field could score me more points.

What is the reasoning behind such a scoring system? Surely it can't be as accurate as the one that USOF and AP use. It seems unfairly weighted towards regions with more competitive Orienteers, and that is just another way of propagating the rich-get-richer scheme.

It also seems like there are many ways to cause errors in the system. If we get 10 guys running all 9 WREs in NA, and they all perform really well at 4 events, and extremely poorly at 5 of them, wouldn't that boost all of their results because their bad results would boost the point scoring for the people who race well in that race, but it wouldn't affect them because only their best 4 are counted. Although I guess the same could be said for any system that drops your worst races, but the more that you drop the easier it is for this to occur. Does anybody know why the IOF chose to drop every race after your best 4 and not do something similar to USOF and AP in which only 1 out of every 3 past your best 4 are dropped?

Maybe we should fly some top-ranked Scandi's out, and ask them to jog round..

Well that's the thing. It wouldn't affect their ranking any and it would boost ours. Surely the system should be better designed to prevent something like that.

In regards to adding extra WREs to events that already have WREs—I'll have to talk to Jan Lien if he feels comfortable about advising for two events in the timeframe usually reserved for one. I will be willing to advise for 2 in Michigan. (Should be some technical terrain there that can generate a spread! although there wasn't a great spread in similar terrain at Telemark).

Given IOF's operating mode, I'd say get things together now, or else they'll say "unfortunately no applications were received from USA or Canada before the deadline" at about the same time they announce the deadline.

Vlad are you the only WRE Advisor in North America? It seems like the continent is pinning its hopes on you being able to work on every event and not run one or two of them.

the system is how it is. agree with John F about the scoring points in NA. but we have to deal with. the good thing for having 9 WRe is that we might go deep to 20 places with 4 or almost 4 races. ( see where we stand now and we took it really serious only just before NAOC). we can stay good within the nations league table but won't be close to top 150 as individuals. that might change maybe later ( but because of good racing in europe not based on points from NA). period. we need them.

Or could I enter as, say Anders Norberg, and hope no one notices...

I know Vlad isn't alone - there are at least two other qualified WRE advisors in North America. I swear I saw a list by country fairly recently but I can't find it at the moment.

One is Linda Kohn.

At the risk of going slightly off topic - isn't the WRE scheme a disincentive to run sometimes? Here is the situation -- As an "over the hill has-been" I personally don't care too much about my own rankings, but am interested in playing the game if it helps Canada's satndings, and helps to ensure we have enough ranked runners at our WREs. Now at NAOC, I picked up 711, and 681 points for a total of 1392 this year, and an average of 696. I am very likely going to JWOC as Canadian Team Leader and it looks like one of the public races (Australian Long Champs) may be a WRE. Not to put myself down too much - but as a 48 year old on a long course amidst stiff competition it will be difficult to earn points -- so maybe it is better to gamble that it would be better to 'hold" at an average of 696, and wait for the COC is Sask; instead of risking bringing down my average.

Have I understood the system/situation correctly; or am I missing something about what would be the incentive to go in the (potential) Aussie WRE?

I think the problem is that the WRE scheme does ok at evaluating relative performances in a single race, but it's already a stretch to extend it to an individual ranking scheme the way it is; then to rank countries using the individual rankings is a further stretch.

The particular problem here is that the scheme is not well designed for runners with small numbers of rankings (it would work a little better if all races had large numbers of runners and all runners had large numbers of races). If you had at least 4 WREs as intended, then there would be no such disincentive because you could drop your worse scores. For the ranking scheme to be internally consistent, I'm sure the designers would prefer to count only those with >= 4 scores as ranked. Would that be popular in North America? Thought not. Maybe that's why we have the current scheme as an ill-thought-out compromise.

John, in response to your question about why the WRE system allows you to drop all race after your best four, it's probably a holdover from the Swedis ranking system. In Swedish rankings, your six best scores count over the course of the last 365 days, and everything else doesn't matter. It seems to reward running a lot of races, rather than consistency, which seems a bit strange to me.

Also, just to play devil's advocate for a second (i know, feet, that's usually your job!), it's pretty hard to design a good system that will accurately create relative rankings for racers who don't run against each other. Obviously, the system would be more accurate if all of the US runners raced a few European races with lots of other runners present, or if tons of European runners came over to our WREs... This seems to me to be somewhat similar to US college football rankings: the committees of journalists and coaches create these national rankings, even though most of the top teams go the whole season without playing each other. Seems pretty arbitrary to me.

Ross, don't forget that potentially in AUS the winner might earn well over 1200 points, therefore 696 is probably doable, hard, but not too hard. it's also an incentive for you to train harder.
btw ..really appreciate what you and other not twenties any more went thru to get more points for the nation. thx

Thanks Nick. Yes you are right it does provide the training incentive. But you make NAOC sound like torture or some incredibly painful event though.... "what we went through...." Fear not, I have recovered.

The scoring confused Marc as well. He has won two WRE's here in Switzerland, both times beating the (at the time) world number 1, Dani Hubmann, but these races didn't give him a better score than being 5th in a qualification race at WOC. This is because WOC and Wcup races are weighted more than normal WRE's. At any rate, it's somewhat strange that beating Dani didn't create a better score. His ranking is also "somewhat" low (35th) because he "only" attended WOC and not the Wcup races in Estonia and France. This means the rich get richer scheme is only perpetuated when a nation gets 10+10 at the Wcup races versus a 1+1 nation.

Regarding what Sandra wrote: Its interesting that the World Ranking formulae are complicated relative to those of the USOF ranking system, and yet it apparently does no better than the USOF system at preventing runners getting more or fewer points for some races than it seems like the runners' performances merit.

On the other hand, some people have criticized the WR scheme for being susceptible to manipulation by well-ranked runners taking it easy. Gaming of the system is possible with any ranking system; it is only a question of how many (or what proportion of) bogus results are needed. The USOF system is somewhat more resistant to gaming, I think, although it may yield equally poor results in the case of an A meet day on which a high proportion of the field takes it easy for a U.S. Championship race the following day.

>But you make NAOC sound like torture or some incredibly painful event though.... "what we went through...." Fear not, I have recovered.

I haven't.

Adrian Zissos and Mike Minium are the other active WRE advisors in North America.

I believe that Sheldon Friesen is as well. He's IOF event advisor for the COCs next year.

I took the course, and could be an event advisor if my federation nominated me I understand, but alas I'm moving off continent, so it's not much help I'm afraid.

where U go Jim ?

I'm moving to the London Gatwick area in early December, for a 2-3 year assignment.