Super teams

Fritz made a valid point a page back that perhaps we should wait a few years and see if this new system is broken before changing it. He also asked if the current rule helped the problem of smaller clubs feeling like they needed to join others and become superclubs to be competitive. My answer to that is sort of. The rule that was originally proposed last year at convention was to get ride of the small, medium and large system and replace it with a club and superclub division. The issue become bogged down with how to define a club versus superclub and the championship committee decided to divide the issue into two parts. First, change the small, medium and large system to 1-10. Then, come back in another year and try the club versus superclub divisions. Rules are evalutated every two years typically at convention, three nationals will take place before this will likely be voted on. Democracy is not a fast process. Is this a perfect solution - probably not. As many of you have pointed out, the top places will be dominated by teams live a short distance from the meet. Anything short of a near and far division will not address that. Within any division we come up, there will still be small and large teams. What should we be looking for in a rule that addresses the team awards? If we can come up with something that encourages superclubs to actively participate in the meet, that is good. If we can come up with a something that encourages smaller clubs to also participate that is good. My thought was a club and superclub division still promotes participation among large and small clubs. Yes, there are some small superclubs and some large clubs. But overall, it would allow for more of the smaller teams to have a shot at placing at a national championship than our current system. I beleive that this will stimulate greater participation among these teams.

Fritz made a valid point a page back that perhaps we should wait a few years and see if this new system is broken before changing it. He also asked if the current rule helped the problem of smaller clubs feeling like they needed to join others and become superclubs to be competitive. My answer to that is sort of. The rule that was originally proposed last year at convention was to get ride of the small, medium and large system and replace it with a club and superclub division. The issue become bogged down with how to define a club versus superclub and the championship committee decided to divide the issue into two parts. First, change the small, medium and large system to 1-10. Then, come back in another year and try the club versus superclub divisions. Rules are evalutated every two years typically at convention, three nationals will take place before this will likely be voted on. Democracy is not a fast process. Is this a perfect solution - probably not. As many of you have pointed out, the top places will be dominated by teams live a short distance from the meet. Anything short of a near and far division will not address that. Within any division we come up, there will still be small and large teams. What should we be looking for in a rule that addresses the team awards? If we can come up with something that encourages superclubs to actively participate in the meet, that is good. If we can come up with a something that encourages smaller clubs to also participate that is good. My thought was a club and superclub division still promotes participation among large and small clubs. Yes, there are some small superclubs and some large clubs. But overall, it would allow for more of the smaller teams to have a shot at placing at a national championship than our current system. I beleive that this will stimulate greater participation among these teams.