> From: Ghsharp@aol.com [mailto:Ghsharp@aol.com]
> I certainly agree with Andy's suggestion to make your opinions known to
> Howard and Tasha. Just as a point of additional information, I
> believe when
> the change was made (for the '01 ProSolo season, IIRC) to 2 out
> of 3 events
> for points instead of the previous 3 out of 4, the reasoning was
> to increase
> entry numbers. There were a lot of complaints at the time that having to
> travel to a minimum of 3 events was a real hardship for some people,
> depending on where they lived and how close those 3 events might be.
The other difference then was that we had two fewer events. Adding two
events to the schedule increases the number of new participants that will
have at least the minimum number of events required to qualify for the
Finale. I haven't done hard number analysis (Winchell?) but I'd guess that
number to be at least 30 people.
So, generally-speaking, adding events without increasing the qualifying
standard for the Finale will cause problems. Changing the qulaifying
standard can either be done by increasing the number of events that count,
or by instituting some kind of "entitlement" standard as has been done this
year.
If you think about it, in a situation where one more event is required, the
only folks that are going to try and do an extra event are those in a
position for it to advance their position for the year-end. Someone who
does two now, can already do a third to help. If they do three now, they
can still just do three. But, if they are in a position to finish on the
podium for the year, they'd likely figure out a way to attend a fourth
event. So, in effect, you still get a year-end performance stratifier just
because it takes a lot more effort to attend an extra event. Best of both
worlds, IMHO.
--Andy
/// unsubscribe/change address requests to majordomo@autox.team.net or try
/// http://www.team.net/mailman/listinfo
/// Partial archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|