ACM Motion 6.3, Promotion from Division 3 - 'Just for Fun, to see what people think'

[Canadian Paddler]

At last year's ACM we proposed basing promotion from Div 2 to Div 1 on points from the paddler's best 5 events, with no change to promotion from Div 3 to Div2.
The ACM collectively took the view that 5 was too many for Div 2, and that 3 from div 3, 4 from div 2 and 5 frrom div 1 was too complicated.
They voted to base promotion on 4 events in both Div 2 and Div 3.
The result in Div 2 is quite satisfactory: the rate of promotion seems about right requires no further change. However, in Div 3 the impact has been drastic, especially in K1M, and we risk demotivating paddlers. The simple reality is that there wasn't a problem with promotion numbers at Div 3 level and maybe we shoudl let well alone.

e.g. overturning part of last years amended motion.

[Canadian Paddler]

Just off to check the minutes of the ACM, and the rules/regulations. Is it legal to propose a motion that directly overturns a motion accepted by a large majority last year?

Actually, I think the Exec has the power to reject such a motion, but not a duty, and this is at least couched as being good for paddlers.
But it seems bizarre to my old mind that faster in season promotion in Div 3 is good for the sport, but no in season promotion is good for the sport too

Must be me getting old and confused.

[Nick Penfold]

I drafted this proposal, but mainly because I want the ACM to discuss how well last year's changes have worked.
With feedback from the ranking compilers, who I circulated the proposal to, I think the proposal as it stands is wrong. It sets the bar so low that it will be hard for the leisure paddlers who are happy doing the odd Div 3 to avoid promotion. On balance I'd prefer Div 3 to go back to three-race promotion and the old points targets: second best is leave things as they are for another year.
By the way I've voted against.

[andy n]

Kind of tied in with this thread - why is K1M Div 3 to Div 2 promotion 3300pts but K1W and C1 Div 3 to Div 2 promotion 320pts?

If not enough K1M are gaining promotion from Div 3 then lowering the points to 3200 would make it a bit easier and equate with the K1W and C1's.

[Nick Penfold]

The discrepancy comes from a rounding error made by me, which we ought to sort out. But actually only one additional K1M would have gone up if the target had been 3200.

[mwilk]

However, in Div 3 the impact has been drastic, especially in K1M,

48 K1M have been promoted from 3 to 2 this season. That's 22% of those who've raced in Div 3 this year. If you just limit the calculation to those who've been to 2 races [1 event] or more, then 37% have been promoted.

If that's a 'drastic' impact, how many would you want to see promoted from 3 to 2 ?

[jim croft]

I don't know where you got your figures from but I have only had requests to send Promotion Certificates (as of todays date 27/11/07) to 37 K1M from the Division 3 Ranking compiler, 28 Junior & 9 Senior.

Jim Croft Slalom Admin

[katonas]

I don't know where you got your figures from ...
Jim Croft Slalom Admin

There are 48 names on the K1M div3 web ranking list with a 'P' by their name.

[jim croft]

The following could be the reason for the differece

The internet rankings are strictly unofficial. They are based on the results published after each race, before the various corrections ranking compilers have to make.
The ranking compilers are the authorities. If there's a difference they are right, and this page is wrong. If you are trying to sort out a problem, DON'T try quoting the web rankings to them.

If you have not applied for a bib the ranking compiler will cancel any points you get.

Jim Slalom Admin

[mwilk]

Even so ..... that's a big discrepancy; 37 official compared with 48 unofficial.

[Nick Penfold]

The (strictly unofficial) rankings I publish during the year are simply the results published race by race, consolidated into one table with the points calculated as if the race results were all strictly right and valid.
If you compare the higher divisions you'll find they are pretty close to the final rankings and promotions, and the match slips as you go down. This is mainly because paddlers in the higher divisions usually do stuff like getting valid BCU/SCA/WCA membership and applying for their bibs, even if we do have to chase some of them up.
Div 3 K1M is especially prone to entrants who never do or who, returning to the sport, quite rightly paddle in Div 3 but don't validate themselves by applying for ranking or bibs. The same happens in Div 3 C1 for slightly different reasons - mainly ranked K1 paddlers having a go but not doing the paperwork.

[John Sturgess]

I don't think the discrepancy is as odd as it looks. There are whole clubs (including one of Jim's) where almost all the paddlers only paddle at their own Club slalom. If one of those paddlers is promoted to Div 3 they don't actually have to do anything until just before next year's slalom: there is no requirement on them to apply for a 2007 Div 3 bib unless they propose to race in Div 3 in 2007.

[mwilk]

All understood now, but surely my original point still stands - whether they did get promoted or not, the system as it stands allowed 48 paddlers to gain sufficient points to be promoted from Div 3. Therefore, last years change hasn't had an adverse effect on motivation for Div 3 paddlers.
Whether or not it had a "drastic' effect depends on how many went up last season.

[jim croft]

A reminder of what I posted a few days ago.

I don't know where you got your figures from but I have only had requests to send Promotion Certificates (as of todays date 27/11/07) to 37 K1M from the Division 3 Ranking compiler, 28 Junior & 9 Senior.

Jim Croft Slalom Admin

[John Sturgess]

Easily explained, I think: those promoted to Div 3 only have to contact the Div 3 Ranking List compilers if they intend to race in Div 3. There are several clubs where paddlers only seem to race at their own club's event; so they don't need a Div 3 bib until next year.