Scoring Finals at Champs

[Chris Nelson]

After the first regionals this year we put in a rule that any single dog entries for regionals needed to earn at least 300 points in order to earn the invite.

We’ve done combining of divisions in the past and I don’t want to go back down that road.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mstomel]

I think it is interesting that a lot of people are talking about consistency being the important factor here. I always perceived speed being the important piece of the puzzle when scoring is based on time plus faults. When a super fast dog (and there are tons of them) can have a fault and still be placed higher than the slower no fault dog, isn't that favoring speed over consistency? Should the Champion be a dog that made a mistake but was speedy over the dog that was perfect but a bit slower? I dont even know the answer for sure.
Kudos to Chris and NADAC for even opening this up for discussion. This is one of the things that makes NADAC so different from other venues.

" isn't that favoring speed over consistency?"  -- I don't think so.  It comes down to a matter of degree.  How much slower?  How many fault points?

Last year at the Regional event, my boy Cody was competing with a superfast dog.  Cody was clean and solid and reasonably quick.  The other dog was superfast but had trouble with the DW contact and staying on course.  They were in a dead heat after 3 runs.  Sadly, Cody went off course in round 4 and fell behind.  The point is the consistent correct performance had value just like the super speed.

I don't think there is any way to make it "right". I've seen the very slowest, walking-through-the-weaves slow, dogs win a national event becasue the second place dog knocked a bar. Even though that second place dog was 30+ seconds faster. I personally don't think an agility venue should ever encourage people from taking risks (I'm not talking safety risks of course, just taking a risk and laying that jumps, or encouraging speed, etc). I know some national events don't even have a SCT, not sure if NADAC is that way or not. I guess I would think if you weren't doing time+Faults, the SCT would need to be tightened up quite a bit to prevent those issues. And I say this with a consistent dog who isn't fast. She can make SCT, but she isn't going to beat her strongest competitors even if they knock a bar or take an off-course. I didn't like the feeling of competing against another team, but that is my issue. I would be more inclined to go to champs again if I was in stakes because I don't feel there is direct competition against another team, just me and my dog against that mean ol' course designer. Or... I could just get over my competition anxiety and run my dog, but that seems less likely.

[Lorrie Stelz]

just my opinion, I agree that I think your cumulative score gets you into Finals, but it's a wiped clean slate for the Finals run.  I also think the number running in Finals needs to be reduced greatly.

My boy Kaiden was perfectly clean in all runs, and quite fast in UT Champs, until round 7 when he had 2 mistakes.  He was 3rd going into that round.  He fell to like 7th after that.  I was devastated as we were never that close to a placement in Finals.  Knowing we were not going to get a placement no matter how well we ran in Finals (I think we ended up 5th or 6th), I put it all on the line to push him as hard as I could since we had nothing to lose.  And, that was fun!!  Personally, I think Finals is much more exciting to have a slate wiped clean.  You are rewarded for consistency to get to Finals, and if you reduce the number in Finals more than it is now, the few dogs running for final placements would be so exciting!  It's kind of like when we have fun "time to beats" on rare occasion at trials, with Tunnelers, etc.  It is much more exciting seeing everyone pushing for everything they have rather than just going out and running.  That's the way it was when "Time to Beat" was first introduced in AKC. Everyone was cheering and screaming. Then, shortly after it became just another class.  I'd like to see it changed, but that's just my feelings.

[arne]

I absolutely love the way Champs is currently run with the overall cumulative score determining placements.  For me that is what makes Champs exciting and unpredictable. You can be on top of the world for 5 rounds then suddenly one wrong twitch sends your dog the wrong way and drops you down several placements.  That is what makes it so fun.  That is what adds to the tension before a run.  That is what makes Champs something I look forward to running all year!

If it were a clean slate last run, so much of that excitement would be gone.  If I had a rocket dog all we would have to do is make the top 33%.  We could easily blow a round or two and still win. One bad round is no big deal. No tension. Only the last round would be exciting.  I would be going all the way to Champs for one round.   I currently have a fast consistent dog, but not a rocket dog.   Even the way Champs is set up now with cumulative score deciding placements, we are certainly not going to be anyone's favorite to win.  But with a cumulative score venue, if we have some fantastic runs and things go our way -- hay it could happen.  How fun is that.  If it is a clean slate last round, however, with 10 or so dogs in the finals, it is highly likely that 6 or more dogs will run clean.  At least 2 or 3 of those will be rocket dogs. We would have no chance.  For me, much of the excitement of going to Champs would be gone.

If it were to come to a vote, I absolutely love it like it is currently run!

Arne Lindberg

[KellyDittmar]

Very late thought to this party - I was just thinking about this again yesterday - specifically these things:

* Should finals scoring be cumulative or winner take all?
* Why are there no placements for the finals round?

Would the addition of placements/ribbons for finals help those folks who want to see more of an "equal playing field" in the finals round? In that way - the winner of the round would at least be placing/recognized as opposed to possibly getting no recognition today (in the event that someone outside of the top three cumulative score dogs won the finals round).

[Chris Nelson]

We've been discussing this at length, and we're thinking about just opening it up to a vote.

There will be three options.

Option 1:
Finals round gets placement ribbons.    If this happens there would be no big award  given out as a secondary 'clean slate' award for the finals round.   If ribbons are being done.

Option 2: There is a clean slate award for the Finals round.  Big Award for the best dog in that finals round.   No placement ribbons.

Option 3: The number of dogs that go into finals is reduced.   Something along the lines of the top 5 dogs.     All other dogs who didn't make finals get to run in a Challengers type event.   Winner takes all, clean slate.    Big award for the winners, no placement ribbons.   

Thoughts?

And before anyone says it, no we will not be doing more than one of those options together.   That is veering way to close to participation awards for my taste, and I do feel quite strongly about that topic.

[Linda W. Anderson]

We've been discussing this at length, and we're thinking about just opening it up to a vote.

There will be three options.

Option 1:
Finals round gets placement ribbons.    If this happens there would be no big award  given out as a secondary 'clean slate' award for the finals round.   If ribbons are being done.

Option 2: There is a clean slate award for the Finals round.  Big Award for the best dog in that finals round.   No placement ribbons.

Option 3: The number of dogs that go into finals is reduced.   Something along the lines of the top 5 dogs.     All other dogs who didn't make finals get to run in a Challengers type event.   Winner takes all, clean slate.    Big award for the winners, no placement ribbons.   

Thoughts?

And before anyone says it, no we will not be doing more than one of those options together.   That is veering way to close to participation awards for my taste, and I do feel quite strongly about that topic.

Clarification please-which of these is most like what has been done in the past?  Sorry, but none of them sound like it to me.
Linda

[Chris Nelson]

Correct these would all be a change from what's been done in the past.

Currently top 33% of dogs in each division go to finals.
No ribbons are given for placements in the final round, like what happens for the other rounds.

[Marcy Matties]

We've been discussing this at length, and we're thinking about just opening it up to a vote.

There will be three options.

Option 1:
Finals round gets placement ribbons.    If this happens there would be no big award  given out as a secondary 'clean slate' award for the finals round.   If ribbons are being done.

Option 2: There is a clean slate award for the Finals round.  Big Award for the best dog in that finals round.   No placement ribbons.

Option 3: The number of dogs that go into finals is reduced.   Something along the lines of the top 5 dogs.     All other dogs who didn't make finals get to run in a Challengers type event.   Winner takes all, clean slate.    Big award for the winners, no placement ribbons.   

Thoughts?

And before anyone says it, no we will not be doing more than one of those options together.   That is veering way to close to participation awards for my taste, and I do feel quite strongly about that topic.

Clarification please-which of these is most like what has been done in the past?  Sorry, but none of them sound like it to me.
Linda

Linda:  sounds to me like option 1 & 2 still have the cumulative scoring for overall winners including the finals round run.  They just have additional perks.  Option 1 the additional perk is that the Finals round top 8 get placement ribbons just like they do in the previous rounds.  Option 2 is no placement ribbons, but a big award for the dog that places 1st in that final round - no matter where they finish overall.

[Chris Nelson]

Personally, I like option 3 the best.

Finals gets fewer dogs running in it, which is good for the running of the event.

The dogs running in Challengers still get a fair shot at winning something prestigious, even if they have completely bombed the whole week.    And everyone in Challengers runs like their whole week depends on it, because it sorta does

[Marcy Matties]

Personally, I like option 3 the best.

Finals gets fewer dogs running in it, which is good for the running of the event.

The dogs running in Challengers still get a fair shot at winning something prestigious, even if they have completely bombed the whole week.    And everyone in Challengers runs like their whole week depends on it, because it sorta does

I'm on the side of like it how it has been.  But change always happens one way or the other.  But two questions/concerns ...

1.  Top 5 dogs make finals ....  Could it be something like top 5 + any dog that is within X # of points of the lead?  Kind of like how they do the cut in golf?  I'm sure lots of times no one outside the top 5 has a shot at moving up 3 slots.  But if the top X # of dogs ARE within a certain point range it seems that they could all be given a shot at winning one of the top 3 places.

2.  If all dogs that don't make finals get to run in the Challengers round then that is in effect a round 7 which would be even longer than the current planned "33% of dogs in finals on Sunday morning".  So the morning would be as long as it's always been when round 7 was on Sunday morning.  Yes, Finals will be much shorter, but is there any concern that the morning round and then awards - with Finals winners, Pre-Elite winners, Challenger winners, World Winners, Team Winners, etc. will go on longer than you'd like?

[MoabDiane]

Marcy has some points there!

I would also like to advocate for a “no change” option, with or without placements for finals.    I’ll go along with whatever, but kinda feel like the squeaky wheels are being heard  over the silent majority.

Diane

[Cathie Cage]

I think there should be no changes this year!!! It would not be fair to change what is already listed in the 2019 info sheet for champs at this late date. I think it should be revisited after champs. I think we should see how the change of eliminating a run on Sunday affects what time we get done.

[Jeanne Allen]

I think there should be a 4th option, don't make any changes and leave it as it has been all of these years.

[Chris Nelson]

I think there should be no changes this year!!! It would not be fair to change what is already listed in the 2019 info sheet for champs at this late date. I think it should be revisited after champs. I think we should see how the change of eliminating a run on Sunday affects what time we get done.

Oh we wouldn't do anything for this year that changes the schedule.

This would all be for 2020.

The only thing that we can decide for this year is whether the finals round gets ribbons for placements.     Or an award for a clean slate type of deal.

But option 3 isn't anything we could do this year, cause we won't mess with the published schedule.