regionals

[tucknjill]

Yep Geri, I understand that and do support hubs idea and understand the whole geograpical issue, less points available etc... and I do agree with Glenn to a point and I will run regardless and if I get in I get in...BUT I still think it would be good if you could incorporate some sort of safety net such as Denise is suggesting until they get the bumps ironed out.

[bcollie]

I could support a dual qualifying system as it sounds like it would make it more likely to pass. The only downside I see is if you allocated so many spots for each region and so many at large through qualifying points, you could theoretically end up going way down in the points before you got your 20 (or whatever number it was) that had not qualified at their region.

[Shoofly]

A question - would the at large spots be divided up by region, or just to the top dogs in the points that didn't get thru by way of the regional. Say there are 21 at large spots available - do 7 go to each region?

[Denise Wall]

Good question, Robin. In your example of 7 by region, it would help equal out the unfairness in the points system in the different areas.

[Denise Wall]

Geri,

 

Yes, you could end up going down the points pretty far this way. You've done regionals enough to be able to look back and see how the points and regional placings differed so you're in a good position to advise on the appropriate number of points dogs accepted that would still be competitive in the finals.

[cgt]

In the regional finals + regionally allotted at-large points slots option, which I think I like...

 

Would the points only come from trials in the region - or from anywhere? (Aren't the Western regional rankings - from District 1 - based upon points only from District 1?)

 

charlie torre

[ccnnc]

Hey all, great discussion...

 

Here's one take on qualifying points, FWIW...

 

Under the current setup, those with the highest qualifying point totals from local trials get to run in the first round of the Finals and their progress in the competition is solely based on their performance in the first round.

 

Since regionals will eliminate the need for the current first round under the current finals structure, it seems logical that qualifying for the regionals should follow the same criteria as the current first round, i.e. highest accumulated qualifying points.

 

Then, as in the current system, the best scores in the regionals get to continue in the competition, i.e. attend the finals.

 

Under the current system, a bad draw or some other factor can totally eliminate a handler because there is only one preliminary run.

 

In the proposed regionals, the top handlers, self not included, could recover from a problematic first run by beating the odds in the second.

 

As always, my logic suffers from the fact that it is my logic. What d'ya think?

 

Colin

[Jennifer Glen]

OK, let me take my opinion to a different angle. I before mentioned how this could punish good handlers (if they have a bad day at the regionals, they couldn't go to the finals) so let me show how it could punish the so so handlers too. I consider myself a so so handler. I slog around all year (and this includes when I lived in district one) gathering a few points at a time. Enjoying myself but still working hard to gather enough points to get to the finals. Now you are telling me that I have to go to the regionals and lay it all on one run. Handlers like me need more than just one run to qualify to go to the nationals. I guess all the little local trials will be nothing but training grounds. I would suspect it would make attendance drop in the local trials and perhaps eliminate alot of the local trials 'cause they don't matter. But maybe the point of this is to eliminate handlers like me (and most of the trialing community) from going to the Nationals. I guess that I don't see what is wrong with the current points system. It allows everyone to have a chance to go to the finals whether you are good, and qualify by winning a few big trials, or by not being as good and going to several trials to get points. It also promotes many local trials by encouraging attendance

As for having the finals in a different region every year, isn't that already in place? The only reason it isn't in the east is because there are no bids in the east. It's hard and expensive for them to get sheep. We can't force them to have a nationals. How would a regionals open up bids for the nationals?

I come from district one which is an area that is realy pushing for this regionals, but how many of those who do well in the district one regionals go to the finals anyway? Less than 10, probably closer to 5. So what is the point of having them as a qualifier for the nationals when none of those people go to the nationals anyway. Maybe I'm wrong on this statistic, Geri, you could tell me better, but I'm pretty sure about that. Unless of couse it is held in the west.

Jenny Glen

[amc]

One point you are missing, Jenny, is that Hub is proposing something like 26 dogs per Region that would go to the Finals. Say you run 80 dogs at the Regionals (and I like the idea of qualifying for the Regionals by placing in the top 20% of a sanctioned trial once....that would keep the local trials healthy and necessary!) That means you'd only have to wind up in the top 32.5% of the entrants to get a ticket to the Finals. Even if 100 dogs ran at the Regionals you only need to be in the top 26%. It's not like you have to win or be second to qualify...

 

This is a great topic. I'll have more to say later, I'm sure.

[kelpiegirl]

Qualifyer:

I don't herd/trial. So, please be nice

Anyway. What I wanted to say was: I do agility. Specifically, USDAA agility. We have special classes called the Grand Prix and Steeplechase. These two classes are offered all year at regular agility trials, and are sort of high test classes compared to the regular classes. If you take first place in these events twice I believe it is, you get a bye into the semi finals. We also have regionals where if you win at the regional, you get a bye into the finals- can skip the semi's. If you don't do that well,(not sure what the criteria is, but you do have to at least place) you can go to the National/Worlds, and you start at the quarter finals, if you succeed you go to semis, and then the finals. I think this could be something that could be tailored to sheep dog trialing. That is, have the regular open trials, and have a few where you can enter a class that counts towards getting to the finals- set up the course any way you like. So, at one trial a person could run the regular open class, and also run the equivalent to the grand prix in agility. Then you also have 4 regionals. If you FEEL like it, you can enter that, and if you win, you win a bye into the finals. If you don't, remember, if you entered the equivalent to the Grand Prix held at the same trial as a regular class, and won two of those, you get a bye into the semi finals. I know I am probably being unclear, but what I am trying to say is if you do it this way, there is more than one way to get into the finals, and you also get to enter regionals with hot competition, and do with the win what you like. Many folks that compete in agility DON'T go to the finals because it is VERY far away for many of us. But, to win a regional is well, in my opinion, just as great. We think of it as our east coast nationals.

Julie

[amc]

Jenny wrote:

"I come from district one which is an area that is realy pushing for this regionals, but how many of those who do well in the district one regionals go to the finals anyway? Less than 10, probably closer to 5."

 

Last year at Sturgis, 32 of the 145 dogs were from District 1. That is 22% of the field. Of those 32, 11 made it to the top 40 semifinals, and 4 of those made it on to the Sunday Finals. Only 3 of the 32 dogs are currently in the national top 20, and most aren't even in the top 50. This is not because they aren't good, successful dogs, but rather that our trial sizes are smaller than in the East. Continuing to base nationals qualifying on this points system will discriminate against handlers in areas where moderately-sized trials are the norm.

[tucknjill]

I still dont see why we cant have a combo of both systems as Denise has said....? Is there some problem I am not aware of? (which is entirely possible.)

[juliepoudrier]

Amy,

I don't understand the discrimination comment. If 22% of the handlers at Sturgis last year were from district 1, then it's a little hard to believe that there's a huge amount of discrimination in the current system, especially considering that there are 10 districts, which would imply statistically that the folks from district 1 are doing more than okay despite the apparent odds against them. But then maybe *I'm* missing something. After all, I managed to qualify my dog without attending a lot of trials and without attending huge trials. I'm not saying this in defense of the current system--I guess I just don't understand the discrimination argument and wonder if it isn't just one of those hot button topics that will make folks close their minds instead of keeping them open.

 

By the same token, one could claim that having to run in a regionals (or in many of those numerous huge trials in the east) against the regular winner of the finals, as well as some of the regular top finishers discriminates against us more average folks.

 

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against regionals in principle, but I don't think it would hurt to have an alternate means of qualifying as well.

 

J.

[bcollie]

I think Amy's post was in response to Jenny's comment that the people in the west who do well at the regionals are not currently attending the finals. I think they are attending for the most part and in a year that the finals is out west, they will attend in even greater numbers.

 

Although there are 10 districts, 26.8% of the HA reside in District 1, so actually District 1 is somewhat under represented at the Finals. I think the concern is that if you tighten up the Finals to the top 100 dogs, making it a more manageable event, it gets even more lopsided under the current system. There are only 17 District 1 members in the top 100 placings and quite a few of those traveled out of the west to bigger trials to get their points.

 

Using a regional qualifying system helps take away this bias. Adding wild cards from the top points getters across the country who for one reason or another did not qualify through the regionals takes care of the fear of the bad draw keeping the national champion out of the finals. It sounds like a win win to me.

 

Geri

[amc]

Hi Julie,

 

The inequities of the points system will become more visible if the number of competitors at the Finals is lowered, as Herbert is suggesting (and which I support, by the way...150 dogs is too many!). In 2004, dogs which ranked in the 400s could still get in to the Finals, but if the total number accepted becomes 70 or 80, it will be a different story.

[juliepoudrier]

I understand that Amy, but for the average person like me who can't make it to the big trials or lots of trials in general, if it's lowered to 70 or 80 then I'd probably be shut out too, despite the fact that I live in the East. Just as I'm likely to be shut out in a regional trial where I'm running against Alasdair, Beverly, Tommy, et al. No big deal really, but I think we should avoid the discrimination argument altogether--it's distracting and as I said before will probably just make people close their minds when we want them open.

 

J.

[amc]

Julie, I guess 'discrimination' is not the right word; probably 'bias' is better. I think it is important to keep in mind that there are inequities in all the qualifying systems, but that some are structural, like the points system. I could support a regional qualifying system with some spots evenly allocated for each region through points, if that is what it would take to make the change.

[bcollie]

If you were to give the first 10 or 20 spots at the Nationals to the top point getters in the country and then allocate the remaining to the three regionals, then you would solve the problem of having to compete for spots at the regional level from the hot shots. They would already be in from being in the top points.

 

Currently 10% of the top 10 and 15% of the top 20 are from D1 which still indicates a somewhat unlevel playing field but having the rest of the spots coming from the regionals helps to level it out. Like Amy said, no system is completely without bias, but any system we design needs to give every good handler with a good dog an equal opportunity of being there.

[Shoofly]

Good thought Geri. I was thinking top qualifiers would come from the regionals then the number would be filled out with points dog but turning the idea on its head and giving top dogs the bye then filling it out with dogs not at the very top of the points makes a lot more sense.

[Denise Wall]

If we give the top points dogs the bye doesn't that reintroduce the points bias?

 

If on the other hand, we take the top regionals placers and then go to points by region we get rid of that bias.

 

Besides, I can personally attest to the fact that not all the people in top 10 points are hot shots

 

Edited to add, those people who are hot shots are going to get in whether they beat you in the regional or the points so what difference does it make which way? You'll have to compete against them at the finals anyway.

[bcollie]

Yes, there is some regional bias giving the top spots to the top points getters but it also seems to me that you should be rewarded for being in the top 10 in the nation. And you must be a hot shot, Denise, to be 4th in the nation! I could actually support any of these options. I think we need to figure out which one will garner the most support from the membership and all unite behind one.

[Shoofly]

Do you think awarding the bye to the top point getters might reward more consistent dogs, or handlers that are more "national", getting to more trials and doing well? Curious, no opinion here myself.

[Denise Wall]

I'm fine with any of these options too. I just hope we can get this proposal to the place where we won't run into the same opposition as last time.

 

There was a lot more unknown last time around. Since then, people have taken the initiative to hold regionals (thanks Geri and Amy and others) and show it can be done and done well. We also have the benefit of knowing the problems people had with passing this last time. I, too, hope we can sort through this regional proposal and get things squared away enough for the membership to unite and pass it.

 

I believe the USBCHA has had a real shot in the arm this year with a new, responsive, energetic president. We can now use his experience and our experience to make this proposal work for the membership and strengthen the HA.

 

PS Thanks, Geri. But if anything, it's the dog that's the hot shot.

[amc]

I like Craig's idea of exemptions for past winners, but I'd shorten the duration of the exemption. I would probably limit the exemption to the National Finals only also, so say the Champ and Reserve Champion teams (so it has to be the handler AND the dog)get a two-year pass to the Finals.

 

From a visceral standpoint, I'd like to see the primary method of qualifying be placement at the Regionals, with supplementary spots allocated based on points.

[Jennifer Glen]

Hey Geri! I like your idea. It rewards the consistant winners. (the reward being that it is not a MUST for them to make it to a regional) AND if you didn't do well all year, you can make one last ditch effort to get in by going to the regionals and trying to do well. Similar to how people run out in June/July to try and hit one more trial for points.

One question. What does this do to nursery qualifications? If we do nursery the same way, we would have to make sure that all of the regionals are held in the same month so that all of the nursery dogs have the same chance. (ie a young nursery dog will have a better chance competing in the north if the regionals are in September instead of a dog in District one who may have to compete in a regional in May due to the summer heat)

Jenny Glen