Adv. class @ nats

[jmpwme 0]

I'm not a huge fan of the "cut-off" plan either, especially in the form presented by Doug. I certainly don't want my class determined on 3 rounds of skydiving. We all know that this is not enough. What if Majik or Airspeed has some strange issue and gets an amazingly low score causing them to miss the cut? Would they be in Advanced and out of the hunt for the world meet based on 3 dives? It doesn't happen often, but it does happen, this is skydiving!!! If there was a system in place to rank teams on an annual performance that would be better. BUT - these ideas are not new. USPA is simply not in a position, and frankly neither is NSL right now, to monitor teams all year. Players sub in, sub out, sometimes 50% sometimes 75%, its all over the board. It would require a complete restructuring and be both a rule drafting and logistical nightmare. But even this is not the largest issue with this plan.

The largest issue would be to change the thinking of competitors. Most competitors would tell you that they don't want to see Nationals as a boogie, they want to be in the hunt for something. The current system does that for the largest number of competitors. To use a cut-off or ranking system, the glory would have to be in making the cut. The honor of saying "We qualified for Open". This is a radical shift in thinking. As Alex mentions above, its differnet to be in a medal race. It feels like there is something more at stake.

There would be no "We qualified for Advanced" honor because the dive pool is different than Intermediate. Accordingly, some fix might need to be made there as well. If not, we are back to the same issues we had before the Advanced Class was created. Essentially, open and intermediate. And - what would an Advance Class medal really mean. This is a step backward, not forward.

The three classes we now have work great and provide the most competition for the most people. We don't need to change them. The only changes we need are to fix a few minor inequities and even those aren't so bad.

I do differ with Ron. Although I would certainly agree with higher medalists not moving down, I actually like the move up rule. It keeps people from squatting which is why it was created. Now, perhaps the 25% should be changed to 50% to allow pieces to stay together. At a minimum medalist in a higher class should be treated the same as a gold medalist in the subject class. IMO - this is really the only fix we need.

One final point - the current system does not prohibit anybody from jumping with the teammates of their choice. The rules just say they may not be eligible for a medal in a certain class or have to go guest. Given that the "cut-off" system would likely not change things at the top of open, top advanced class teams that make the cut would not be medal contenders. Accordingly, there is effectively no change from the current rules. Teams that can't contend for Advanced medals now, would not be medal contenders under the new system either.

Steve.

[apincus 0]

I second Ron's comments.

Alex

[bliston 0]

Two quick points:

1. You can't depend on a "over the course of the year" ranking system to place teams for the simple reason that not every team even has a league in their reason (the northeast for example). Even if everyone was active in a league, how could you fairly place pick-up teams?

2. Would four classes solve all the problems? Move the pro teams to a PRO category. Have OPEN be a place where past advanced class champions and the strongest non-professional teams could still compete and have a shot at a medal (also a good place for P/C teams). Have ADVANCED be a place for trained teams who want to do the whole draw and are too experienced to be in INTERMEDIATE, which should be reserved for new teams with members who aren't ready to do the whole draw.

I recognize that we have to draw the line somewhere about the number of classes we create, but maybe FS has grown and changed in ways that merit a forth class.

Ben

Mass Defiance 4-wayFS website


sticks!

[skykittykat 0]

Just another thought to throw into the ring - what about a system similar to the UK? There, the classes are basically divided by total jump numbers per team. Eg, a junior class team cannot have a total of more than 900 jumps between 3 jumpers and one jumper can be wild card jump numbers (this is all post Cat 10).

Liz

[kallend 1,623]

For "medal eligible" teams (part of) the rule is that you cannot have competed in another country's nationals within the past three years. Applies to each team member.

Why not a parallel rule for eligibility in class. In order to be eligible for advanced, you cannot have competed in open for the past three years. To compete in intermediate, you cannot have competed in open or advanced in the previous three years.

Pretty simple to understand and enforce, record keeping is easy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jmpwme 0]

Ben - A fourth class is a great suggestion, but USPA has not wanted to go this direction so the battle has been fought along different lines. If this did happen, how many teams would be in Pro? Maybe 6? How would you define who is eligible for Open? Open would be a great class and so would Advanced if properly defined. USPA's point has been exactly the point you made, "you have to draw the line somplace, everybody can't get medals". They are also concerned about how to define "Open" and the redrafting of the rules.


I think the new class would have great support among competitors provided that the current problems with the rules are fixed at the same time, otherwise, its out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Steve.

[dgskydive 0]

There wasn't much that people could complain about this year.

Look at the Rebels Dave. Nina is a player coach for sure. THey where a quest team becasue of her so it wasn't an issue for most people, but I did here a few complaining about them.

The only reason that I didn't make a fuss about them being in Intermediate is because of Steve. He had less them 300 jumps and did VERY VERY well for them, but if Willy had been around and they used Nina and won. Even as a guest team. That in my mind would have been wrong. I know that they would have to. With Willy on the team they would have had over 2000 jumps a piece and been a team for at least two seasons. Then they hire a jumper like Nina (who I love by the way) and go beat up on true Intermediate teams.

Same thing for advanced. People are worried that all there work during the season will be for nothing if a team goes and hires a big gun or two to come whoop on people. I know (as do you) a lot of the big guns and most of them aren't going to do something that will get them laughed at by the rest of the big guns.

AS for you not making any money from Jamba and Tunnelvision. Good on ya! Jumping with friends is better then making money right? WE both may have to think about that one.

It is just disheartening to see world class jumpers jumping in lower divisons. Makes the weekend jumper think they won't ever win. May even keep people from competing. Just my .02

Dom

[Albatross 0]

Having been on player coached teams and looked at this cafefully, I honestly don't think there is an answer. Look at Juggernaut in 2002 and tunnel vision. You ahve Juggernaut who trains and does well in AAA all year then goes Intermediate and destroys the competition. OR Tunnel Vision where the members have Very low jump numbers with TONS of tunnel time and do really well. Then look at teams like Mark Brown's Tons of jumps but little 4-way.
Like many things in this sport we can try to draw hard rules but they will always be flawed. Someone will NEED a medal and they will figure out how to get one by sandbagging. Ultimately we all know who sandbags and they get what they deserve and I Hope they enjoy their tarnished medals

Chris