|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Mar 16, 2014 18:42:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Mar 16, 2014 18:47:27 GMT -5
We implemented some new rules in Alberta. Overall very successful IMO. Our 2-foul, no-warnings system sped things up, and made for much more clean, fair starts that were a pleasure to watch. All slips went to straps, also played out just great - no more subjectiveness, and few complaints. Elbow hops still aren`t allowed in Alberta and I`ve come to appreciate this; some people fouled out, but to me this did not detract from the competition. CHEATING detracts from competition, every win that happened yesterday felt like a real win to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Mar 16, 2014 18:49:19 GMT -5
Top 3 qualified for Nationals in PEI - these are the ones qualified shown above. If they chose not to go, we go down the list 4, 5, 6,...
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisgobby on Mar 16, 2014 22:37:09 GMT -5
?? Don't ALL participants qualify for nationals?
|
|
|
|
Post by Will Sarty on Mar 17, 2014 5:18:29 GMT -5
That's absolutely correct.
Not only do all competitors qualify, if anyone participated in any aspect at the provincials (ie. MC, draw sheets, ref) they also qualify
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisgobby on Mar 17, 2014 11:43:21 GMT -5
That's what I thought Will, but Eric notified me that Alberta earlier this year decided differently. Only top 3 qualify. This seems ridiculous as nationals entrees have been down lately. And when nationals go back west, this will really hurt the entrees. Maybe Jeff can shed some light.
|
|
|
|
Post by Will Sarty on Mar 17, 2014 13:30:23 GMT -5
100% agree. Worst vote on something
My take, nationals falls under CAWF rules, therefore, every athlete that attended provincials in Alberta have the right under CAWF rules to compete at Nationals. The provincial body has no authority to stop this as long as the pay there provincial dues
This makes NO SENSE when we are trying to build the sport back up
|
|
|
|
Post by PinArm on Mar 17, 2014 19:51:13 GMT -5
From Alberta, only up to three competitors (plus Provincials staff) can enter the Senior class at Nationals.
The rule at CAWF is that each province decides who qualifies for Nationals from that province. Therefore, Will, you are mistaken where you have stated your take above, and your statement about the provincial body's authority is also incorrect.
Regarding the ridiculousness and nonsensical of nature of having a qualifier, I wouldn't make such inflammatory comments without some back up like just how often it is that there are four competitors from a province (Alberta, in particular) in the same class at Nationals. If this has never happened and is unlikely to happen, then how is it ridiculous to limit the number to three? For the last couple Nationals (in BC and Ontario), some classes were lucky to have four competitors all together!
There are a few reasons for "limiting" (read in the sarcasm) the number of Albertans to participate in Nationals. Firstly, there are not that many sports where your qualification to get to the next level is based solely on participation - or even worse, on paying for your "bye". Quite frankly, it is embarrassing to some to explain to friends that they had to participate at provincials (or pay their dues at least) when asked, "What did you need to do to get to go to Nationals?"
Secondly, the payment for byes (e.g. someone must work or doesn't want to travel for provincials) has been an issue discussed at Nationals for a few years - in particular for the discretionary nature of byes granted BY THE PROVINCIAL PRESIDENTS. The Alberta solution to the "bye controversy", announced three years ago at the CAWF AGM and again two years ago at the CAWF AGM, is to make the Alberta provincials a qualifier. We gave three years notice of this - and repeated it.
Thirdly, is the prestige of qualifying for Nationals - there should be some. I really think that there should be some prestige to qualifying for Nationals. Needing to place in the top three creates that feeling of accomplishment, like you have earned the privilege to compete at Nationals. Clearly, this point is closely tied to the first point (and even the second point), but the nuance here is that without value placed on the privilege to attend Nationals there is less likelihood that someone will go. If there is prestige in earning the right to go, then it is more likely that someone will go. Look to marketing for an analogy, if a company prices its product at $40 (instead of $20, which may provide a fine margin) it may actually sell more product because it is perceived as being higher quality. Why are we pricing ourselves at free?
Ideally, other provinces (or CAWF) follow suit in setting their provincials as qualifiers, which can lead to everyone knowing ahead of time who is likely attending Nationals. Ultimate matchups and eventually tournaments (like the Arnold) can require advance registration, so why not the same for our Nationals? It sure would be nice to know if the promoter needs third-place trophies in all classes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Will Sarty on Mar 17, 2014 20:13:42 GMT -5
There was certainly no sarcasm in my post. Im merely stating a point. We made great changes this year to try and add numbers to Nationals. people have been commenting over the past 3 years on why the numbers for nationals is falling. Now we see that Alberta is "limiting" there entries to Nationals.
Yes you have valid reasons and I fully understand that, but I have a right to disagree with those despite the ability to change them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Miller on Mar 18, 2014 13:58:12 GMT -5
Not sure yet, but it's very unlikely we will have more than 3 going per class even if it wasn't a qualifier. Gord and I will figure out who's actually going and that will shed light on whether our plan truly is limiting. I'll be able to comment on this more after we do that.
|
|
