Should the committee abolish in-season promotion to Prem and return to end-of-year committee decisions?
Vote yes or no above.
See Nick Penfold's discussion on the main slalom page...
Promotion to Prem - In or end-season
-
Slow_n_dirty
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 12:46 pm
- Location: Winchester
Nick,
For an alternative view point:
You could overcome the "Bias" as you say by stating at the beginning of the season how many up and down. There would be then no arguements as the rules are transparent, much in the same way the selection rules are clear.
This hasn't been proposed as a motion yet, but could be a compromise option. I am sure the decision to propose to return to end of season promotion was not done lightly.
Furthermore, if anyone would like to look at the make up of the current committee I think they'd be hard pressed to find a group of individuals with greater integrity or dedication (only a couple still have children active in the sport to my knowledge), so with the greatest respect I feel you're a little out of order to imply otherwise. Of course if any paddler is unhappy with the way our sport is being managed, they have the option to vote on people they do trust.
Closer to home, how likely is it that your family would be affected by this decision? Could this mean that they might miss out out on "in season" just want to put that in to context.
End of season promotion would allow more than this years 8x K1M, thereby the majority of paddlers they would be much better off as places for promotion are down to the wire. There might be some very rare cases like Craig, but on balance it most would be better off.
Finally I would like to state I am not strongly in favour of one or the other, though I do like to see balanced arguements.
With the greatest respect
AG
For an alternative view point:
You could overcome the "Bias" as you say by stating at the beginning of the season how many up and down. There would be then no arguements as the rules are transparent, much in the same way the selection rules are clear.
This hasn't been proposed as a motion yet, but could be a compromise option. I am sure the decision to propose to return to end of season promotion was not done lightly.
Furthermore, if anyone would like to look at the make up of the current committee I think they'd be hard pressed to find a group of individuals with greater integrity or dedication (only a couple still have children active in the sport to my knowledge), so with the greatest respect I feel you're a little out of order to imply otherwise. Of course if any paddler is unhappy with the way our sport is being managed, they have the option to vote on people they do trust.
Closer to home, how likely is it that your family would be affected by this decision? Could this mean that they might miss out out on "in season" just want to put that in to context.
End of season promotion would allow more than this years 8x K1M, thereby the majority of paddlers they would be much better off as places for promotion are down to the wire. There might be some very rare cases like Craig, but on balance it most would be better off.
Finally I would like to state I am not strongly in favour of one or the other, though I do like to see balanced arguements.
With the greatest respect
AG
think im on the right tracks a few years back i had 5 top ten results and on the old system would have been promoted to prem like iwas way back
Only thing was the lack of numbers raceing as i did not get 4750 points as some races there was only say 35 and not 60 etc so the points were far less as to if they were 60 get the point
I belive in end of seasons ranking as at least its fair and you can see an out come
But a big thing if there is a low number of entries then there needs to be a change of hoe the points are given out :;): ie less entry less points more enrty more points
Start with one and the less points the better and it does not matter how many enter a race etc
Only thing was the lack of numbers raceing as i did not get 4750 points as some races there was only say 35 and not 60 etc so the points were far less as to if they were 60 get the point
I belive in end of seasons ranking as at least its fair and you can see an out come
But a big thing if there is a low number of entries then there needs to be a change of hoe the points are given out :;): ie less entry less points more enrty more points
Start with one and the less points the better and it does not matter how many enter a race etc
lets get it on
I don't think the points are wrong in the case you state Fison. It might be unfortunate that the top 10 are always strong even when there are only 30 paddlers, but on face value top 10 when there are 30 is alot easier to achieve than top 10 when there are 60. This part of the system works just fine.
As for ending in-season promotion. There is a statement somewhere that says this would remove the need to keep the number of races down, which should benefit me therefore I should be in favour of it. However I don't actually believe this will happen, partly because I think those who are in favour of returning to end-of-season only also want to reduce the number of races to make it like Div 1 of 10+ years ago, and partly because the more races you have the more it is likely to congest the top end of the rankings regardless of how you promote people. I also don't actually think it's the right thing for the sport to hold back paddlers from Prem when they're good enough already, so I vote against.
If it were to happen then I believe it should also be by points total, rather than committee. Then to control levels the points total can be adjusted (in advance - i.e. adjust for the next year if numbers are wrong). This removes any potential committee bias (not saying there is any, just this way avoids it), and more importantly gives paddlers something tangible to aim at.
I realise outside of the scope for this year, but also I believe a points total for demotion should be set (and adjusted to keep numbers good). This would then allow a pro-rata system as suggested by Katonas to stop occassional Div 1's being demoted into a division they're too good for.
As for ending in-season promotion. There is a statement somewhere that says this would remove the need to keep the number of races down, which should benefit me therefore I should be in favour of it. However I don't actually believe this will happen, partly because I think those who are in favour of returning to end-of-season only also want to reduce the number of races to make it like Div 1 of 10+ years ago, and partly because the more races you have the more it is likely to congest the top end of the rankings regardless of how you promote people. I also don't actually think it's the right thing for the sport to hold back paddlers from Prem when they're good enough already, so I vote against.
If it were to happen then I believe it should also be by points total, rather than committee. Then to control levels the points total can be adjusted (in advance - i.e. adjust for the next year if numbers are wrong). This removes any potential committee bias (not saying there is any, just this way avoids it), and more importantly gives paddlers something tangible to aim at.
I realise outside of the scope for this year, but also I believe a points total for demotion should be set (and adjusted to keep numbers good). This would then allow a pro-rata system as suggested by Katonas to stop occassional Div 1's being demoted into a division they're too good for.
-
Nick Penfold
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 8:21 pm
Slow'n Dirty says "if anyone would like to look at the make up of the current committee I think they'd be hard pressed to find a group of individuals with greater integrity".
I agree, and I never intended to infer that anyone on the Committee is biased. My point was mainly that people who feel they should have been promoted, and are not, will always believe that there was bias against them.
I have cut out part of my editorial, which perhaps in any case undermined my point, and I'd like to apologise to anyone who thought I was questioning their integrity. I wasn't.
I agree, and I never intended to infer that anyone on the Committee is biased. My point was mainly that people who feel they should have been promoted, and are not, will always believe that there was bias against them.
I have cut out part of my editorial, which perhaps in any case undermined my point, and I'd like to apologise to anyone who thought I was questioning their integrity. I wasn't.
-
John Sturgess
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 12:01 am
- Location: Gedling, Nottingham/Long Preston, North Yorkshire
As with so much of these debates, this is only an issue because we try to use our Ranking System for two contradictory purposes.
On the one hand we use it to enable us to say how good paddlers are in relation to each other. Fine: that is what a ranking system is for.
On the other hand - and this is where the damage is done to the sport - we use it to dictate which races paddlers can race at. So paddlers cannot choose to race either on the water that they like best, or, for rapidly improving paddlers, on the challenging water they need.
And yes they can judge - but why should they have to? Almost all races in Germany, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, the USA, Canada, etc, and a majority of the races in France are open entry. They still have divisionally-split ranking systems. No other country does it the way we do.
We will continue to have these round-and-round debates until we decide to use our ranking system only as a ranking system, and establish open entry for all races.
On the one hand we use it to enable us to say how good paddlers are in relation to each other. Fine: that is what a ranking system is for.
On the other hand - and this is where the damage is done to the sport - we use it to dictate which races paddlers can race at. So paddlers cannot choose to race either on the water that they like best, or, for rapidly improving paddlers, on the challenging water they need.
And yes they can judge - but why should they have to? Almost all races in Germany, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland, Slovenia, the USA, Canada, etc, and a majority of the races in France are open entry. They still have divisionally-split ranking systems. No other country does it the way we do.
We will continue to have these round-and-round debates until we decide to use our ranking system only as a ranking system, and establish open entry for all races.
Im very confused, wasn't it agreed at the AGM for in season promotion to continue? it seems that there have been a number of promotions made, not just to Prem but also to Division One at the end of the season. What criteria is used to determine which paddlers go up and who makes the decisions, I cannot find anything in the yearbook which refers to this ???
-
Canadian Paddler
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
- Location: Peterborough
- Contact:
In season promotion from div 1 stays. As recorded In the thread for the motion
Page 57 of the 2007 year book, rule 3.1 deals with end of season promotion and demotion.
BUT it also states that as from the end of the 2001 season end of season promotion except into Prem was discontinued. This followed an AGM motion, when the AGM had the power to instruct the committee.
Either the committee were not aware of this rule, or decided to overrule it. I would be interested to understand which, and why.
Page 57 of the 2007 year book, rule 3.1 deals with end of season promotion and demotion.
BUT it also states that as from the end of the 2001 season end of season promotion except into Prem was discontinued. This followed an AGM motion, when the AGM had the power to instruct the committee.
Either the committee were not aware of this rule, or decided to overrule it. I would be interested to understand which, and why.
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
Thanks CP, I have had a look in the yearbook, didn't the committee agree last year that there would be no end of season promotion to Prem or was that just about the Div 1 winners gaining automatic promotion at the BritishOpen?
The promotions to div 1 remain confusing, especially in light of
p 57 of the yearbook, can the committee advise if they were unaware of the rule or if they have overruled it and why???
Did you enjoy your paddle today CP?????? ???
The promotions to div 1 remain confusing, especially in light of
p 57 of the yearbook, can the committee advise if they were unaware of the rule or if they have overruled it and why???
Did you enjoy your paddle today CP?????? ???
-
Nick Penfold
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 8:21 pm
Re-reading this thread I realised that Fison's argument is so weird that it needs a response, even if it is a bit late.
The 'line' for promotion was subject to the Committee's discretion when we promoted at the end of the year, but it was always somewhere around 4750 - that's why we chose to make 4750 the target.
Let's say, for the sake of simple numbers, that Fison's 'top tens' were all 6th places, and there were 50 paddlers in each race. In that case he gets 900 points for each race, and a total of 4500. I don't think 4500 has ever been good enough for promotion: in 2000, for example, the lowest scoring paddler promoted had 4725. And keeping high-scoring paddlers down tended to restrict the points others got.
Give or take a paddler, the in-season process promotes just the same people as the Committee would have done - they just go up a bit sooner.
The 'line' for promotion was subject to the Committee's discretion when we promoted at the end of the year, but it was always somewhere around 4750 - that's why we chose to make 4750 the target.
Let's say, for the sake of simple numbers, that Fison's 'top tens' were all 6th places, and there were 50 paddlers in each race. In that case he gets 900 points for each race, and a total of 4500. I don't think 4500 has ever been good enough for promotion: in 2000, for example, the lowest scoring paddler promoted had 4725. And keeping high-scoring paddlers down tended to restrict the points others got.
Give or take a paddler, the in-season process promotes just the same people as the Committee would have done - they just go up a bit sooner.
-
Canadian Paddler
- Posts: 1480
- Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 8:31 am
- Location: Peterborough
- Contact:
No paddle today, the weir was misbehaving, and I could not face a flat water sprint session with the fit paddlers. 
Hopefully the water will have gone through and it will be sensible for the weekend.
Last year we agreed to remove promotion to prem at the British Open, leaving promotion to prem in season and at end of season.
STill hoping for a reply of sorts from someone in the exec to the issue of rule 3.1, but to be fair, a united repsonse is required, ratehr than having (if it happened) one member saying they did not know of the rule, and another assuming it did not apply and a thrid thinking it had been agreed to override it.
It is too late to change it for this year - the promotions have been announced, but it would be nice to know the reasons, and whether it is likely to happen next year - i.e. was the AGM decision removed, so as to set expectations.
Also fascinated by how this helps manage the divisions towards a more pyramid shape - weren't we talking of draconian demotions, now we are promoting more.
But then it might not make a difference if John manages to 'plough the fields and scatter' :O and get a well reasoned motion to the ACM for an open divisional structure. Buts thats for another thread.
Hopefully the water will have gone through and it will be sensible for the weekend.Last year we agreed to remove promotion to prem at the British Open, leaving promotion to prem in season and at end of season.
STill hoping for a reply of sorts from someone in the exec to the issue of rule 3.1, but to be fair, a united repsonse is required, ratehr than having (if it happened) one member saying they did not know of the rule, and another assuming it did not apply and a thrid thinking it had been agreed to override it.
It is too late to change it for this year - the promotions have been announced, but it would be nice to know the reasons, and whether it is likely to happen next year - i.e. was the AGM decision removed, so as to set expectations.
Also fascinated by how this helps manage the divisions towards a more pyramid shape - weren't we talking of draconian demotions, now we are promoting more.
But then it might not make a difference if John manages to 'plough the fields and scatter' :O and get a well reasoned motion to the ACM for an open divisional structure. Buts thats for another thread.
All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers.
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
Old. Fat. Slow. Bad tempered. And those are my good points
I agree completely CP but find it rather worrying that no members of the exec have chosen to clarify the reasons for promotions. Given the number of demotions from div 1 to div 2, in both K1M and K1W I cannot understand how the descison to promote from div 2 was made, nor do I understand why there were no C1 paddlers promoted to Prem.
Its very confusing and clarity must be provided in order for paddlers to have clear targets and goals for next season ???
Its very confusing and clarity must be provided in order for paddlers to have clear targets and goals for next season ???
-
66-1146487544