Jump to content
BC Boards

regionals


Guest herbertholmes
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest herbertholmes

what would people think about USBCHA getting tree sites to host regional trials to qualify for the national finals. Every third year each region would host the finals. The country would be divided into three regions along our current district lines, with the districts being divided into thirds, based on member population. That way each region would carry the same # of dogs to the finals. It would probably mean a smaller region on each end of the country, a larger in the middle. It would take some special funding from the membership to get something like this off the ground. Any thoughts? hh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest herbertholmes

THEY WOULD NEED TO BE PLACED SOMEWHERE. i WILL GET A MEMBERSHIP BY DISTRICT NUMBER OUT IN A FEW DAYS. i WILL WORK UP A PRELIMINARY DIVISION, JUST TO LOOK AT IT. herbert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of us that work full time and have limited vacation this would allow us to compete at a more "national" level. With our current system we do not have sufficient vacation time to qualify AND go to the finals.

 

I look forward to exploring this option more taking a look at the pros and cons.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Love it. I've always been for the regionals idea. I hope this revisit doesn't get bogged down in the details - it's worth a bit of give and take to get a good idea off the ground, if folks can agree to the general notion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to bog this down in details but some thoughts that come to mind:

 

When the finals are held in the east, I believe it generally costs more to put on, partly because of the lack of availability of appropriate sheep. (I'm *totally* against a regional or finals run on hair sheep, BTW.) So would the east region need to generate more money in order to put on a regional, and when their turn, the finals? IOW, will each region be responsible for its own unique-to-the-area expenses, or will there be some way to spread the cost across the board so each region is expected to come up with the same amount of money?

 

The timing of these regionals relative to the finals is tricky. If the regional trial is in a cooler area, it could be earlier but it seems as though the finals would need to be pushed later into the fall no matter what. How could this be worked out?

 

Someone else suggested this (I can't remember who) a while back during a similar discussion but I wanted to throw it out there again because it seems like a fair way to deal with qualifying -- If dogs from the regionals only are chosen for finals qualifying, there's a chance a good dog will miss out due to any number of reasons. If there are also a certain number who can qualify through USBCHA points, then there's another chance for that dog/handler team. If say the top 20 from each regional (60 dogs) is automatically qualified, perhaps another 40 of the top USBCHA points dogs who didn't qualify by regionals could qualify that way. That would leave us with 100 dogs for the finals, which is a much more reasonable number than what we have now.

 

Hub, if we do use regionals for finals qualifying, what kinds of numbers are you thinking will be allowed for the finals in that case? (I assume one advantage would be to cut the number of finals dogs, this lowering expenses for that event.)

 

Thanks again for the discussion.

 

Denise

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest herbertholmes

I put out the # 78 qualifying for the finals, 26 per regional. Take a big number to the regional 90, give all those two runs with aggregate score to the final. that would give each dog the opportunity to overcome some bad luck and climb back in on the second run.

 

I ran the numbers on another list earlier. here what I would prpose. Divde the country into three regions, district 1 and 10 then 2,3,4,5 then 6,7,8,9 the first region would currently have 205, mambers, the second 206, and the third would have 230, or so.

 

Then give each region the option of having one trial sending 26 dogs to finals, or two area trials, sending 13 dogs each. These options would have to be voted on by members in each region, and democratically approved. Each district would have to come up with $5000 each to provide financing for the whole operation. the short comings from each region could be overcome with extra money from the other two, provided that they all come up with the minimum of $5000. That is the key to this working, each district has to come up with 1500 to make it work, seed money for the first trials. This is a brief over view of my take on the whole deal. hh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the regionals system. (just my 2 cents). Like Denise said, it shouldn't come down to one trial for a dog that has been doing well all year. You have one bad run at a regionals and even though you were the top dog all year, you can't go to the finals. It doesn't reward consistancy which is what we all want from our dogs and should be breeding for. Any dog can have one good day. I'm not pointing fingers at anyone except myself. If my dog Bob has a good day (and once and a while he will win a trial) then he qualifies to go. He may have sucked all year(and usually does) but based on that one day, he's in. Conversely, Alasdair consistantly has good runs but once and a while it doesn't work. So he's kept out of the finals, but my dog gets in? Bad idea.

Jenny Glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking of a similar situation, the current World trial. Raymond McPhersen can't go. He's a 2 time international winner, but he didn't get a pen at his countries nationals (equivalent to our regionals) so he can't go to the World trial despite the fact that he could be a real threat. I think that is a shame.

Jenny Glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard the argument before about a bad draw at the regionals keeping someone out of the Nationals but a bad draw or a bad run could just as well happen at the prelims of the finals as well as at a regionals and for someone like Alasdair, it is not about getting to attend the finals but winning or placing high. At some point, someone could get a bad draw and there is no way to make that completely fair under any system, the current one included. The system under discussion is very similar to what they do in the UK where you have to do well at the Nationals to get to the International Supreme. We just need to think of our regionals as England's or Scotland's Nationals and our Nationals as the International Supreme. That is what it would more realistically represent if we make big deals out of our Western, Central and Eastern Championships. Maybe we should call them that instead of regionals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand that argument too Geri. But like I said, Alasdair can be good all year, mess up one run at the finals and not even get to TRY at the finals. I understand that a bad run at the finals can keep you from winning it, but to keep you from even getting the chance to try and win it would not be fair. I just think that a regional system can keep us from sending the best dog to the finals that year. This whole sport is not about rewarding the one good run I might have all year. I know some people argue that this way you wouldn't have to take as much time off of work, but you will still have to go to two big trials a year that will require you to take a week off of work for both of them instead of just hitting weekend trials and then one big one a year. You know that if in order to go to the nationals, you have to go to a regional, the amount of dogs and handlers that will be going to those regionals would mean that each regional would not have enough time to run all those dogs in one weekend. It would take several days to run all the dogs in district one. Then after taking time off for that regional, you'd then have to take more time off to go to the finals. You'd have to take every dog that entered. Maybe there should be two ways to qualify. Perhaps a regionals that has a certain amount of spots open, AND a certain amount of spots open for people with the highest points.

Jenny Glen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a huge fan of the points system we have. For one thing, I don't like to go to a lot of trials and the current system can become a trailer race. Plus, I've always felt it was unfair to the people on the West coast. But given that the points system will probably still be involved in qualifying for the regionals, why can't we use it to qualify some number of dogs who, for whatever reason, didn't make it in through the regionals?

 

Personally, I think it would help people accept the regional idea if there were some alternate way that they were familiar with to qualify for the finals. You can end up with similar numbers, say, 20 from each region and 20 from USBCHA points. That's only 80 dogs, half of which could make the cut for the second run and then 17 or however many for the International course. Maybe the points way of qualifying could be dropped as soon as people became more comfortable with the regionals. JMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I may have missed this- but are we talking about a regional trial where ALL dogs in open can compete or are we still making use of points to fine tune the number running at the regionals?

 

Seems like on the east coast it would entail having a rather large trial to handle all the open dogs- and make getting appropriate sheep alll but impossible.

 

I always thought that each region should decide how to pick the dogs that went to the finals based on the percentage of dogs. They could choose a trial or points accumulated or even for that matter a hat draw if thats what they wanted .

 

ex#

region 1 has 20 dogs running in open.

region 4 has 50 dogs

there are 1000 dogs in all the regions

so region 1 gets to send 2 dogs and region 4 gets to send 5 dogs.

And there are a total of 100 dogs + or- going to the finals.

 

That way each area can decide what works best with their environment.

 

So if getting good sheep for a trial was hard they could choose to use points. If an area was worried about a "bad run issue" they could choose points. Or if the heat was the main issue they could choose points.

Or if a region was concerend with a trailer race keeping good dogs out- they could choose a regional trial.

 

Everyone(except those outvoted in their regions decision) wins. And even they could win if they choose an every other year senerio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I have thought long and hard about this. I agree with Jenny Glen.

 

Use me as an example now:

 

Pretend it is in place this yr. The Regionals would be JUly 16, 17th. I have points with Tess and now have to go to regionls to qualify to go to the Finals.

 

My Father In law is dying of cancer. (this is true and they estimate a few weeks until he passes away)....he passes away and his funeral is that weekend. I really like my FIL and have dealing with this for the last 8 months.

 

I have going to trials all yr to try to Q for Finals. It will be Tess's last yr. Under the present system she has enough points.

 

So if I do not go to regionals, I do not go to the Finals.

 

I go to Regioanls and my mind is at the funeral and Tess' feels my depression.....we do bad. Or we get a bad run.

 

We do not go to Finals. Either way all that work/placing/etc from the yr does not count but one weekend is the only qualifier.

 

What if it on a weekend that some of the top qualifiers can not go?

 

What if the top qualifers went to regionals and did not place?

 

I think using Regioanls as a SOLE means for finals is a bad idea.

 

However it would be great to use it as another means for qualifying. Not just as the ONLY means.

 

Diane Pagel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally like the idea that Denise is advocating. Here's why. I get 3 weeks of vacation a year. With our current points system I can either spend my vacation going to several trials getting my dogs qualified and then have nothing left to use for the finals or I can go to a few trials and hope I have one or two good days (just like the argument against the regional system) saving enough vacation for the finals (I need about 1 week each for Open and Nursery with the current schedule). As it stands right now we are essentially excluded from running at the finals and will be so until I retire in 20 years.

 

So what is the point for us to be members? Other than the moral support of the sport, membership only offers us the opportunity to go to the finals, which under the current system we cannot (if I choose to stay employed).

 

The regional system is not perfect nor is our point system. But with the regional system those of us who have limited vacation time have the opportunity to go to the finals because: 1) we are not required to go the multiple trials (over 3+ weekends) to get qualified and 2) the time required to run the finals should be less requiring less vacation time to attend. Point 2 is the most important one since we will still need to compete often to be competitive at a regional.

 

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Denise, Jenny and all others who said they would like to see regionals used in Conjunction with the points system...I am also wondering about the regionals...and please forgive if I missed it above...who decides where they are going to be and where does the bulk of the financing lie? With the trial host? Will there be a bid package similar to the finals? It just seems like to me that there is a shortage of big, high profile trials of late...I am wondering if it will be hard to find sites to do three plus the finals..seems we have a hard enough time getting anyone to do the finals... Just random thoughts, sorry if I missed something..I have been away from the computer but wanted to quickly comment as this is very important. Thanks Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the last three years the Finals have been in Sturgis. In 2006 they will go to the far west in Klamath Falls again. There are already suggestions that it go there in 2007 also. Unless the USBCHA finds a way to make the Finals run in the east periodically it will lose support.

 

I think that Herberts proposal can add to the status of USBCHA in the east. Certainly, in the north east there is the NEBCA Fall Foliage Championship which is very prestigious. The winning dog becomes a byword.

 

I like the idea that dogs can qualify for the Finals by points or through regional placing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize in advance if this sounds harsh, but I think the arguments posted against the regional system so-far fall into the **** happens category. They may be unfortunate circumstances, and may well keep some good dogs from running in the finals, but that happens in life all the time.

 

Great athletes miss championship games due to family emergencies and some great baseball teams have failed to go to the World Series because of a single error in the ninth inning of the league championship. It's unfortunate, but that's just how it goes sometimes.

 

We've all had unfortunate things happen to us or have made decisions that in hindsight had a negative impact on of our lives. But that's sort of what life is......

 

I'm confident that a regionals system will have it's drawbacks - no system can be perfect, especially in something as subjective and complicated as sheepdog trialing. It would be a bumpy ride for a number of years while we iron out the details. But as a member who lives in a region with few trials and great distances I'm in favor of exploring it deeply to determine if a more fair system can be developed.

 

Glenn Firchow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest herbertholmes

In regard to financing: Before this couls get off the gruond, each district would be responsible for $1500 "seed money. They could come up with this money thru whatever means theychose, Benifits, raffles, ect,ect,ect. This would raise seed money, $15000, that would get the system off the ground. This money would go in trust to be used by the regionals only. the regions as mentioned above, would be divided under current memberdhip numbers, then leave an option in the by law change to change the district lines from time to time, based on membership numbers changing. Also, at the start put in the option to split each of the three regions into areas, giving each area 1/2 of the regions qualifying spots.(this would be done by the region members voting to have two trials instead of one. Keep your regionals twoo full runs, aggregate score so as to keep as much"luck", good or bad out of play as possible. 90 dogs to the region is not a bad # to take. I think all who wanted to qualify could do so, especially taking only regional pionts. You could qualify at a couple of week end trials, 5 points or less I would think.

 

As to host and the difficulty finding them: I believe this will open up the prospective host list. It will reqiure so many less sheep to start with, for both the the regional and the finals. I think it will give national sponsors more bang for their buck, as well as give local sponsors more reason to get on board. Thanks, hh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm on the fence with this issue, largely because I'm not likely to have the $$ and time off from work (I have even less vacation time than Mark) to go to finals, period. BUT, I don't understand the argument about trailer races and time off from work. If you go to a few trials and they are big ones and you do well, then it's likely you get enough points from those few trials to go to finals (under the current system). If you don't do well at those few (or even one, for example the Bluegrass, which could easily be a regional trial) big trials, then you won't have enough points to go to finals (though you could then go out and try and hit a bunch of smaller trials and hope to do well enough at enough of them to get enough points to go to finals). How is that so different from going to a regionals (one trial) and hoping you do well enough to go to finals? Especially considering (as I'm understanding this) that some sort of system (points?) will have to be used to qualify for regionals. I don't get the impression that regionals are open to all open dogs (otherwise such a trial would be way too unwieldy).

 

It's certainly not impossible, or even that difficult, to get enough points to go to finals under the current system, so I'm guessing the same would hold true for qualifying for a regional trial.

 

I've thought about the bad draw thing and it knocking someone worthy out of the finals when using a regional qualifier, but really, how often do you see the likes of Alasdair have a really bad day (or run)? What are the chances that a Jenny (sorry Jenny, but you are a convenient name to use) would get in but not an Alasdair? I think they're pretty slim, and as Glenn pointed out that sort of thing happens and it's really not the end of the world when it does. The consistently good handlers who run more than one good dog are not likely to be completely shut out of a finals no matter what system is used. And Hub's two runs/combined score idea would mitigate some of that anyway.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok now I dont mean to be stupid here...I am just trying to understand the many layers of this issue...is the main issue in trying to find a change (regionals) to eliminate the large number of dogs at the finals or to eliminate the advantage ppl in the east have at garnering large numbers of points at the large trials we have...? What benifit are you trying to accomplish by adopting the regional system and if it is to lower the entry at the finals, ok...but why dont we just cut it back to 100 dogs entered? Just trying to understand exactly what it is you want to accomplish, not trying to be argumentative. Thanks! Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glenn,

 

I want to make it clear that I'm supporting Hub's regional idea. I've always liked the idea of regionals and have even been involved in some discussions in the past about putting one on around here. Yes, it has its drawbacks, one of which that seems to really bother people is that one can be high in USBCHA points, even first, and somehow not get into the finals. This is one drawback that can easily be remedied to make this proposal more palatable to those who might not otherwise support it. I think 20 from each region and 20 from the points seems reasonable and still keeps the finals numbers down (80 dogs). But even 10 dogs from the points system would probably suffice to make people more happy with accepting the regionals.

 

Since we have the points system in place already, what is the disadvantage of using both, at least at first until all the bumps get ironed out? How will it hurt the regional proposal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sam,

I'm sure Hub will step in and give his reasoning, but I think (and I could be way off base, but this is how I see it) part of the idea behind going to the regional system is (a) you then have logical regions in which to hold finals. I think also that (:rolleyes: trial hosts could put on regionals as a step to hosting the finals (that is, the host gains the experience necessary to host a finals by first hosting a regional), which would presumably increase the pool of people willing to host a finals. Also, I would guess that it might be possible for potential trial hosts to © get more help from the trialing community if they (the trialing folk) had a stake in the result (that is, the trialing community would buy in, either by volunteering or with financial support, because their region's ability to send teams to the finals--through the regional trial--and ability to host a finals depends directly on that help). Last, (d) because districts would all have financial input into a regionals fund, there would be $$ available for hosting a regional trial, which takes some of the onus off the trial host to come up with the funding to hold a trial.

 

Most importantly, it allows for a cycling of the finals between the three regions of the country, which means that for most people at least once (and probably twice) every three years the finals would be within reasonable traveling distance--and all they'd have to do is somehow qualify those years.

 

Anyway, these are reasons that make sense to me.

 

All that said, I do think that at least at first it wouldn't hurt to qualify X number of dogs through regionals and then have "at large" slots available for dogs to qualify through strictly a points system.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal reasons for supporting this concept are two fold. 1) It makes for a more manageable event. As someone who has put on both regionals and nationals I can tell you that an event with less dogs and less days is much easier and much cheaper to put on. That's a no brainer. This will allow for more possibilities for trial hosts and sites. Since starting our regionals in 2000, we have had a different group put on the trial in a different area each year. From the handlers standpoint, yes they need to go to two events rather than one, but the regional one will generally be closer and since both events could be done in less days, it involves less week days away from work. It also gives more people the opportunity to compete at a finals type event with 100 (or whatever the number turns out to be) from each region qualifying for the region's championship. People who could not drive clear across the country to the finals could more likely drive to an event in their region.

 

2) It is a fairer method of qualifying. The geographical point bias under the present system is eliminated. If you were to just lower the finals to 100 dogs instead of the 150 to make the event more manageable, you would only be amplifying this point bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...