items for discussion.

[Guest herbertholmes]

This may be redundent, as I thought I had already posted it. The board, in its enirety, is acting as a committee just now to review the national finals format. These are things individuals bring up from time to time. These are not being officially acted upon now, but discussed.

run 45 dogs back in the semi final(vs the current 40)

 

run 20 back in the finals (vs 17)

 

Add the scores from the 1st go and the semi finals to determine finalist.

 

Run a set number of dogs per day (currently we run to a time of the day tryin to get in as many dogs as possible)

thanks hmh

[Marilyn T]

So.. do you want opinions here? Is the format for Nursery in question also? Actually I thought the entire reduction of dogs in the Semi's and the Finals was due to lack of daylight in Tennessee one year (the finals were in November!) September finals certainly have much more daylight. As one who has run, waiting on the bubble is certainly nerve wracking, and when added to the general nerves of running in a big trial could be the one that puts you over the top. However, there is usually weather concerns, and it makes no sense to not try and get as many dogs in as possible each day in the qualifying. AS far as the semi's, I feel the more the merrier. 45 is certainly not a hardship most years. Also, 20 in the finals is easily do-able too. I say run as many as possible each day in the qualifying, 45 back into the semi's and 20 in the finals. Marilyn Terpstra

[Marilyn T]

Forgot to talk about adding up scores. Several years ago, Ralph was bragging he got the accumulation of scores dropped so everyone started over from scratch in the open semi's. He must have had a reason, maybe not purely personal. Frankly, if you accumulate scores to get into the finals, what is wrong with adding all three for the winner? (quailfying, semi and final double lift?) We let our double lift stand alone. We should also let our semi's stand alone too. JMHO. Marilyn

[amc]

I am and always have been in favor of accumulating the first go-round and semifinal scores to determine who makes it to Sunday. You reward consistency in that way. I wouldn't mind adding all three scores to determine the Champion, but I also think the double lift and international shedding work required in the Final tests a different set of skills, and allowing that score to stand alone, after a cumulative performance to make it to Sunday, still selects a mighty good dog.

 

On the subject of numbers: if you limit Open entries to 120 you could easily run 40 dogs a day. Not likely to be a popular option, I'll warrant.

 

Nursery: what happened to the rule that said all dogs run twice unless you have more than 70 entrants in which case the top X get a second run? There was also a provision in case you got more than 100 dogs entered...I think it was that a standard might be imposed on the first go-round?

[Guest herbertholmes]

Amy, I do not know what happened to the rule about the nursery runback you mentioned above. I saw that in place at one time, but I do not see it now. I will look back in the minutes at some point to find where it was dropped. Maybe someone who was on the board or a committe might remember?

I like adding the first two for a cumulative score to determine the finalist, then a clean slate for the final day. The board will give consideration for raising the numbers into the semi and the finals thanks,we need more input,, hmh

[amc]

I found it...or at least a lead toward it. In the 2000 Joint Trial Committee Proposal, item 10 states

 

"In the event that entries in the nursery finals exceeds 100 dogs only the top 60 dogs will get a second run. If entries exceed 140 then a standard will be imposed on the first runs."

 

This referred to the 2000 finals in El Reno, OK. The same verbatim language appeared in the 2001 Joint Trial Committee Proposal for the Klamath Falls Finals. The Board would have voted to approve the proposal at some point, but those minutes aren't on the website and I can't find mine.

 

Then, on the Board of Directors Conference call of 6/23/04, the following occurred:

The number of dogs to be run back in the nursery was discussed. Bruce Smart moved we run back 30, seconded by Beverly. Passed unanimously.

That would have referred to the second Sturgis Finals. I couldn't find any subsequent mention in the website minutes about how many Nursery dogs would run back at each year's Finals, but it does appear to me that the convention used to be that the Joint Trial Committee would put that in their trial proposals for each year, thus allowing for latitude in case of differing circumstances (trial location, time of year, etc).

[Guest herbertholmes]

I would add that what we have been doing the past two years is status quo-- Just doing what had been done the previous year. This coming year. we will need to revisit the thing a bit as we could have a record breaking number of nursery entrant's in 07. Thanks for looking that up,, HMH

[eskillings]

I wrote this to my USBCHA directors when Herbert solicited input. Though I realize the conversation has moved ahead -- I think the points about the need to do statistics to determine qualifying for the Finals themselves and to consider how dogs are chosen to run back/advance to the next round are still relevant.

 

If I don't get a chance to talk to you re: the issues Hub raised, these are my thoughts.

1. # of dogs to run back. If the trial is really well organized and there are no inclement weather conditions it may be possible to run back more dogs in the Semi and Final rounds. Maybe 45 and 18 respectively. Though returning to the 'old' numbers (50 and 20) seems a bit rash as there were reasons the decision to run lower numbers was made in the first place. Speaking as a Finals organizer it is really nice for spectators and media to be able to see the awards ceremony, and I imagine nice for the handlers to have someone to applaud them too.

 

2. Re: Qualifying to run back. Has anyone looked at this statistically in terms of who makes it to the Final day? Why was this brought up as an issue?

I don't know if it makes sense to modify who runs back since only those going on to the semis have two runs. If all dogs had two runs you might actually be selecting more consistent dogs this way, but since only those that run back would have their 2nd score counted this is less likely to make a difference. Statistically averages only make a difference if you average all the competitors. Maybe some of the dogs that qualified to go through to the Semis had the run of their life in the first go and over the course of their careers have been only mediocre or lucky, and some dog who was just below the cut had a bad sheep, or one of the worst runs of their life.

This only makes a difference (if any at all) to those at the bottom of the 17(or twenty). In 2006 two dogs got in that wouldn't have under this system. They both failed to get scores. Two didn't get in that would have with combined scores but the difference between those that made it through and those that didn't was just a point or two and that could be accounted for by the vagaries of judging. I don't think it would make it any more 'fair' to do combined scores rather than sudden death. I'm not saying its a horrible idea only that, though it might make some difference individually for a few (not unimportant if you are one of the few in some particular year) it really might not do anything to make qualifying 'more fair' if that is the goal.

If we really want to make things topsy turvey and change the system completely, to make things 'more fair' we could limit Finals entries to 90 or so dogs, let all run through twice and combine scores. The first run could be with three sheep and a single and the second with a marked shed. We could look at this statistically and see if the bottom 60 qualifying dogs ever make it through and place in the top ten or seventeen anyway.

I think if we decided to reduce #s at the Finals a more 'fair' points system would have to be developed. As, whatever anyone might say, dogs in the East do have a distinct advantage over dogs in the West in terms of ability to get points. The top dogs are going to be the top dogs weather East or West but again its when we get down to the plebes which is what this argument is about anyway, a mediocre team in the East can get a lot more points than a mediocre team in the West.

 

Ellen

[Pearse]

At the 2005 Finals, there would have been a difference of 3 teams in the final round if 1st and 2nd round scores were combined vs top 17 scores from the second round. The three teams who would not have made it in under combined scores all finished with scores, all in the top 10, two in the top five.

 

We could look at this statistically and see if the bottom 60 qualifying dogs ever make it through and place in the top ten or seventeen anyway.

Yes, occasionally.

 

As far as running back more dogs goes, there are about 690 minutes of daylight/day in late September (a few more in Texas, a few less in Minnesota). Running 40 dogs back in round 2 gives 17 minutes per run for a marked shed and single and including time to set and exhaust the sheep. Increasing to 45 runs gives 15 minutes. In the finals, running back 17 gives 40 minutues/run if you run dawn to dusk, 34 minutes if you run 20 dogs.

 

So as Ellen said, if the trial runs like clockwork, and the weather cooperates, and the sheep aren't too hard to set and exhaust, and not everyone uses all of their time, more dogs could be run in the second and final rounds.

 

The judges, organizers, setout and exhaust crews need to be considered as much as the handlers before upping the numbers by too many. Not to mention that a one hour thunderstorm on Saturday could throw a serious spanner into the works.