Scoring proposal for clubs: No mediocre folks allowed
Qualifying standards for masters nationals? Well, not quite. But one of the proposed rule changes before the Indy national convention of USATF puts us on that slippery slope. Under Item 91, submitted by George Mathews on behalf of Carroll DeWeese, Rule 331.2(a) would be amended to add: “For purposes of Club scoring, no performance with less than a 65% age-graded performance standard will be awarded points toward Club Championships. Athletes may retain their finish place, but not be awarded points for their efforts. Reason: To protect the integrity of competition for Club Championships.”
Of course, the intent of this rule is to neuter rookie-friendly clubs like Brooks Fleet Feet Racing of Sacramento — and keep them from picking up “easy” points by “packing” events with newbie runners, jumpers and throwers.
Methinks this is a solution without a problem. Where’s the outcry demanding a qualifying standard for club scorers at nationals? Hear the outrage? Didn’t think so.
I fear the Rule of Unintended Consequences. This plan might serve to discourage folks from entering unfamiliar events for the fun of it. Or it could penalize athletes who give their best effort on behalf of their club — ones who might very well exceed a 65% age-graded mark if they didn’t get tripped by a stray leg or foul on their best try at the triple jump pit.
Besides, this introduces yet another level of complexity to the already overwhelmed computer operators in the press box, who prepare results for dissemination. At Charlotte nationals, Tom Surber of USATF Media pleaded with me to find a way to lessen the load on the hired computer hands, who were inundated with demands from all sides for speedier results.
Alas, age-grading in club scoring is a can of worms we can’t afford. And a bad precedent to boot. Sends the wrong message about who should compete in masters nationals.
17 Responses
One positive unintended consequence might be for the rule to offer a very realistic target for “newbies” as they are just getting into the sport. The 65% age grade mark, and being able to contribute points to one’s team, could be a very rewarding “victory” of sorts, and a great motivator for people just getting started.
John has a point – it could be a motivator for folks “just getting started” but on the other hand – it could motivate them to stay home for fear of not making the mark.
I agree with Ken- it is a solution without a problem. Frankly I do not give a fig about club championships and points. I belong to a small club, we do not recruit nationally, we have enough problems recruiting locally. As an all women’s club – we do not attract many younger women who prefer to train with co-ed clubs, we have no sponsorship so we cannot give away fancy running gear. Without sponsorship we cannot help members with expenses associated with travel to national championships. This seems to be a problem between a handful of clubs fighting it out for “glory” at the two national masters track meets each year. It is not an issue for the majority of clubs represented at the national masters track meets. It does not seen to be a problem at national x-c races.
So – now another layer of complications will be introduced to the scoring just to deal with the – what – the alleged outrage of a few folks who do not like the fact that a handful of women in a handful of events looked like they did not know what they were doing? This is about the newbies from Brooks Fleet Feet isn’t it.
Come on guys – get a grip. Why not do what you really want to do – have entry standards for national masters meets. Do that and it will be the kiss of death for the meets. Entry fees pay most of the cost, fewer entries – the more likely the meet will run in the red – and who in their right mind will bid for a meet when they are fairly sure it will not pay for itself. Or are you expecting the USATF national body to share more of the raised dues money with the masters.
I support Carrolls propostion 100% and thank George Matthews for “bringing it to the table”. This issue has NOTHING to do with Brooks or any other club it has to do with INTEGRITY.A “championship” in any athletic event should reflect a significant level of 1) skill/expertise 2)TRAINING 3) commitment to training ie: DEDICATION..and last but not least 4) PERFORMANCE!!!!!remember folks this is a SPORT a COMPETITION….NOT how many “bodies” one team or the other can actually afford to get to the “championship”.In fact I think 65% is a generous number for point scoring. I think National Titles should mean something MORE than that the athlete “showed up”. I fully support standards for individual titles as well. We are talking about OUR National Championships…they need to have substance and credibility. I totally agree participation is essential…and yes i want more people to participate BUT if the way we attract these “athletes” is rewarding poor results what are we saying about our sport???
I have no dog in this fight, but just for context, the “medal standards” at the WMA meets are set at what level in terms of age-graded percentage?
Quick Silver
Hong Kong
I don’t think it is necessary to implement a standard. The reason being, looking at the results from the last national championships, most performances were already what we consider quality performances. So what if a few of the events have “substandard” results, most do not. Besides, the events that this is happening in are already under represented, let them run so that new blood can be attracted. In turn, the performances will improve.
If that’s not good enough, how but this “WORRY ABOUT YOUR OWN PERFORMANCE AND TAKE PRIDE IN THAT AND DON”T WORRY WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE DOING!!!!!!”
Poor George Mathews, a quest to find the meaning of diversity. A Club Championship—-yes !!!! YESSSS!!!!! inclusion,healthy competition for all— thats it —-Clubs— no ad or subtract-hoc. —— o they can play but cannot score.
But wait, all are not happy with the spread of diversity ——— integrity of Club Competion must be protected.Why are we suddenly concerned about this issue—-INTEGRITY—-
The complaint about “standards” has been around for some time. There will always be those who think that a national championship should have entry standards or else it is just a glorified all-comers meet for masters. On the other side there are those who think that the only way to encourage more participation is to allow whoever wants to participate to pay the entry fee and come “play”.
Unfortunately there really is no middle ground here. But really – how many of the “mediocre” performers do we have? Are we talking about a large number of folks out on the track or in the field looking like newbies at the local senior games?
It is true that sometimes there are “competitors” who do not seem to know what they are doing. I have seen that at WMA meets -how many of you remember “Sunbonnet Sue” at the WAVA meet in Eugene in 1989? And then there are some of the athletes at the far end of the age spectrum whose skills have diminished with time and no longer look very good out there. Do we toss them all out in the quest for “integrity”?
And who gets to be the “decider”?
I suggest that the solution to the problem that Ken suggests really does not exist (and I agree with him) is to have medal standards. WMA has medal standards, I think the National Senior Games has them, so why not USATF Masters meets? Frankly I do not think there are too many folks who really want to spend alot of money going to national masters track meets to make a public spectacle of themselves. Imposing entrance standards will diminsh the number of participants. Maybe that seems like a good idea for some events in which there are large number of competitors but for many events and especially for the older women and men, imposing entry standards – ie – prove that you met it within the last year – will result in even fewer participants. IF that is the desire – to have a national masters track meet only for the elite – good luck in finding a pot of gold to fund it. We are amateurs, not professionals, this is a hobby, not a profession, some may still be hoping to replicate past days of glory in college and post collegiate days, but for the vast majority of us, it is about having fun, staying healthy, friendship, and good competition. It should not be about exclusion and elitism. All I can do is train hard and compete to the best of my ability. If that results in a performance that does not meet some standard, then do not give me a medal. I doubt there are too many people who want a medal for just showing up.
I will never understand a person making a BOLD statement like “WORRY ABOUT YOUR OWN PERFORMANCE AND TAKE PRIDE IN THAT AND DONT WORRY WHAT OTHERS ARE DOING!!!” and then they dont sign the letter they wrote!!! Hows that for INTEGRITY??? Whoever you may be……i say this to YOU >>> I do ALL i can to give my best performance.. i am also a MEMBER of Masters Track and Field…what happens at the National Masters Championships does in fact matter to me..i feel “sub standard” performances (as you in fact called them ) should NOT be rewarded..i did NOT say people should not participate…consequently i have an opinion that i can actually SIGN MY NAME TO…. Francis A Schiro
I think we need to work to satisfy people on both ends of the spectrum on this issue and that’s what this rule is intended to do.It does not restrict anyone from participation in our National meet. We don’t want to do that I have seen cases where an athlete comes the first time to our Nationals and has not had enough training and has average results only to come back a year or two later after his or her average performance to do very well.On the other hand we do want the club championships to mean something to those who are serious about that.We don’t want to see people walking events and taking National titles and points with those kinds of efforts–it doesn’t mean they can’t get out there and do their thing in their own way–they just should not win points or titles with that level of effort. I think their is a happy medium that can be reached and for the folks that don’t care why are they so vocal about not caring just let it go–because this stuff does mean something to others–Hey we are just trying to work it out where everyone who has a strong feeling about this gets what they want.
I love reading the posts that come up whenever club scoring is mentioned. There is so much heated discussion over this “non-issue”, I just have to chuckle. How many scoring “novices” can we be talking about ?? I know they tend to stand out in cases of the “walking hurdler” and so forth, but really, how many people can we be talking about ?
I think it’s a given that qualifying standards are not practical, let alone fair. So we are not talking about excluding “novices” really. It’s just that many feel clubs should not be given points and individual champion titles be awarded for sub-standard performances.
This seems very reasonable to me. 65% AG standard seems very generous to me but I’m fine with it. I believe everyone who wins should get their gold medal
regardless of AG%. No problem here. You show up, you win, you get your medal. I don’t care if you ran unopposed. Good for you ! But no points ! No champion title ! Would any of these people affected by this rule really care anyway ? They got to participate and do there best.
I think a bigger issue, anyway, is that most smaller clubs would rather see club scoring by ten yr age groups than one big overall title. Only a handful of clubs run the spectrum of 40’s to 90’s in their membership.
Ooops ! Did I just start something ?
PS – Does anyway have any scoop on Millrose 2007 ?
Well, if you can read German, here are the medal standards for the German National Championships:
http://www.leichtathletik.de/dokumente/
ergebnisse/uploads/senioren
/Leistungsstandard.pdf
(Ken note: Sorry that the above link isn’t clickable. You have to paste is pieces into a single line first.)
When I first looked them up I said “Holy smoke!” In truth, the standards are motivating, to say the least. I say, set high standards for medals and use them to motivate athletes, not keep them away from our championships. Set lower standards for club points. Invite everybody but make it clear that you come to compete against and get motivated by the best.
Yeah, motivated, not snubbed. Make everybody feel welcome and invited and the medal standards will keep nobody away, on the contrary. Remember the veterans!
Stefan Waltermann
Here are my thoughts about this, which make me reluctant to support the proposal:
1) I don’t think the problem has been very well defined. “Protecting the integrity” of the sport is a rhetorical expression that doesn’t carry much weight without specific examples of how the integrity of the sport has been compromised. I don’t find it offensive, for example, that a person representing a club scores points as a result of a mediocre performance– it happens all the time in sports. I also don’t feel that sub-par performances by “newbies” or their presence on the awards stand does anything to tarnish the stellar performances of our sport’s top athletes.
2) I don’t think I could support a rule like this unless someone took the trouble to apply the 65% criteria to at least one or two past championships to illustrate how the outcome would have been affected. Would we have been better off with the rule or without it? Let’s look at some hard data before we adopt a new policy.
3) I don’t see a logical distinction between standards for individual awards (medals) and club awards (team trophies). I think the same criteria, if there is to be one, should apply to both.
4) If this proposal is intended to “level the playing field” between clubs with different philosophies or tactics, someone needs to define those two camps better so that we know exactly what we are talking about and what we are trying to change. How exactly is the current playing field not level?
5) I tend to agree that imposing AG standards on team scoring will in fact be a challenge to meet directors, unless Hy-Tek can build this into the scoring system.
Our sport has traditionally been very inclusive. Introducing an element of exclusivity can only be justified with a compelling argument that something is very wrong with our present system.
I’ll keep an open mind about this at the convention and listen carefully to the pros and cons. But for me to vote in favor of this, I need to be more convincing that it 1) fixes something that needs fixing and 2) doesn’t potentially do more harm than good.
I think Mr. Shiro said it best somewhere above – this is a SPORT, one which depends almost entirely on volunteers and meet directors with no financial backing, tough business when you think about it, but it is still just a SPORT and money is nil. Near as I can tell, masters track cannot financially afford to exclude anyone (setting arbitrary medal and club scoring standards would tend to discourage participation and just put the meet directors in the red further). It is becoming more costly to put on these meets, and volunteers are harder to find these days. Many volunteers and officials may have participated in the past (and some still do), and because of that, they are still involved, perhaps because they were welcomed as participants at one point. To tell someone new that they are probably not good enough at any point in time for whatever reason may lead them to try something different, we have a lot of choices for SPORT in this country. The SPORT is already intimidating enough, success and failure is very visible(perhaps one of the reasons for the lack of participation) and if someone has the nerve to try it, why should we discourage that? Clubs can help overcome the intimidation factor for “newbies” and standards will just increase the intimidation factor. The whole concept does seem to run quite contrary to the “diversity” initiative. Perhaps an initiative to increase participation would be better topic to discuss, does anyone have any ideas on that?
Francis,
The fact that you responded the way you did proves that you are more concerned about others than yourself. The fact of the matter is the majority of people in the world do not know who you, me, or any other masters athletes are and don’t care. The only person the performance matters to is the person actually performing. These types of arguments are what made me walk away from competition many years ago. When I came back, I thought attitudes had changed, but obviously I was wrong.
Wow the discussion has become quite lively – and kudos to Ken for this blog and providing an avenue for discussions like this.
Dave Clingan’s response is the most measured of all so far. The first rule should be – do no harm – we need to be building up participation – not looking for ways to throw road blocks to participation, scaring off folks on the cusp of signing up and entering a national meet. As the president of an all- women’s running club I can tell you it is very difficult to get women to join a club that has training sessions on a track. This is not the case with younger women who participated in track in college, but for women who never participated in track in high school or college, it is very difficult to get them to come and try it out. Running for them is signing up for a local road race and running along towards the back of the pack. While there may be good numbers for women participating at the national outdoor meet in the 40’s age groups, the number fall off dramatically after that. Life gets in the way for many, some are injured, age takes a toll. At the NE masters outdoor track meet there are very few women participants. The women in the field events tend to be those who started with the senior games – many never go to the national masters track meet, they do not think they are good enough. I do not think that USATF masters needs to throw up road blocks to keep out older women with poor skills from competing, most of them are not coming anyway. Frankly I have not seen many younger women with poor skills turning up at nationals.
Drop the club championship and then the issue of awarding points for poor performance will disappear. Of course that is like chopping off an arm to deal with a pimple.
DQ those who step over hurdles rather than jumping over them, no points for a dq. In the race walk a person with improper form will be d.qe, no points. Let the officials decide who is and who is not performing within the rules. This is not the job of those watching from the stands. No where in the rules is there a place for awarding style points and certainly not for the decision about style points to come from the spectators.
Great Discussion and some revealing comments. I tried to do a little homework on this topic so let me fire away.
The 2007 Summer National Senior Games have minium performance standards for 11 track and field events. Has anyone complained to them about their elitist policy??????? They also have a healthy dose of sponsorship.
I agree with Mary Harada —– build up participation—– HOW?????? I have competed since 1994 and overall participation level is down. WHY?????
Club participation ( all for it ) —– could it be the answer , maybe—– but who will win out participation or competition.
I am puzzled by Ken Stone’s comment concerning Brooks Fleet Feet . How are they being attacked??? Their track coach has stated on another blog that his club is not concerned about medals, awards or a championship. Problem solved. What I would like is the Jamba Juice from Sacramento. The juice that can have me enter 15 events in a four day span in cookin NC heat .Put my order in for Ten Cases.
I agree that increasing participation, paying for meets via more entries, and not complicating scoring are all more important than “protect[ing] the integrity of competition for Club Championships,” at least at this stage in the development of masters running and track and field in the USA. When the sport becomes professional, high profile, prime time TV, advertising bucks, rolling in dough – then we can worry about standards,
Individual performances are the basis of this crazy sport of ours. But being part of a team is just as important. As GBTC coach Tom Derderian put it recently,
“A bad habit has developed in the club. The bad habit is to run hard during track workouts … but the rest of the runs become solo jogs. … We are training for racing. Your training partners are a team. You are not alone. … Training is hard. That is why we come together to support each other to train hard.”
If an athlete can support his team by scoring points towards club competition, even in an event he is not very good at, it helps the team and it promotes the sport.
If an event doesn’t draw stiff enough competition for you idealist hard core competitors out there, the onus should be on the organizers and you to bring the challengers, not on those who are bold enough to flaunt their mediocrity.
Rather than trying to stifle competition among clubs, we should encourage clubs to meet the challenge. Two can play the game of “stuffing the ballot box”. That is no secret. So let the games begin!
Mike Olivo, Greater Boston Track Club (GBTC)
Leave a Reply