Scoring Finals at Champs

[knittingdog]

Hi Everyone.

I was talking with someone yesterday and this came up.  I know it has been brought up at least once before.

What if the scoring for Finals at Champs was changed so that the slate was wiped clean?  Your cumulative score would get you into Finals (thus rewarding those who were consistent), but it wouldn't play a part in who won the overall event anymore.  That way anyone who was placed towards the bottom of the 30% going to Finals would still have a chance to win overall. 

It would make things much more interesting!  Right now, if you are placed #6 cumulatively, you really don't have a chance to do anything but move into the #4 or #5 slot unless there is a huge upset at the top.  Other than the honor of getting to run, there is not reason to go all out on the Finals run.  If there is a wide spread, the people at the top just need to carefully run clean to maintain that.

It would also make the Regionals more valuable.  You might win at the Regional and get into Finals that way, but unless you are already in the top cumulatively, there is no chance of placing in the top 3.  If the slate was wiped clean for Finals, it would be much more meaningful.

I think NADAC is the only venue that scores Finals cumulatively.  I know I have a blast watching the Challenger rounds and Finals at AKC because it's anyone's game.

Thoughts?

Robin

[KarissaKS]

I've always been a proponent of the "slate wiped clean" format for finals. Makes things a lot more exciting at big events in other organizations.

I think cumulative scoring is very anti-climactic. And I say that as having won my division in 2017 -- I went into finals with like a 30+ point lead, so you can bet I was going to run that round as safely and conservatively as I could. Sure the dog in 2nd went balls to the wall to try to make things up, but I wasn't going to risk anything.

That is entirely opposite to my handling style and how I went into Finals and Challengers at AKC Nationals. The crowd really gets into those rounds as well.

[Carole & Pat Daggett]

In my opinion there is a reason its a 4 day event and not a 1 day test. You need to show consistency over all 4 days and that consistency should be rewarded.

Pat Daggett

[Chris Nelson]

This is one of those polarizing conversations.


What is more important, consistency, or that one nice run.

If it were to ever change it would have to be a vote.   Since I’m not gonna touch that decision myself with a ten foot pole


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Linda W. Anderson]

This is one of those polarizing conversations.


What is more important, consistency, or that one nice run.

If it were to ever change it would have to be a vote.   Since I’m not gonna touch that decision myself with a ten foot pole


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you, Chris, for your reply.  I really appreciate your willingness to take a vote on this issue.  I will keep my opinion to myself and vote if it ever comes to it.
Linda

[knittingdog]

What is more important, consistency, or that one nice run.

I guess my thoughts are that it takes consistency to get to Finals in the first place to be able to do that one nice run.   The first 6 runs are to weed out the best for that one final run. 

There could be two sets of awards - one set for most consistent over the first 6 runs and another for the all out final run.

Just more or less throwing ideas out there for discussion.  I'm sure I'm ruffling feathers, but I hoping for a civil discussion.  I may get shot down and that's fine as long as we maintain civility.

Robin

[Marcy Matties]

So I'll jump in on the side of "I like it the way it is."  I agree with the previous comment in favor of rewarding consistency.  For a great percentage of participants - just MAKING the finals is winning in their book.  And if they are down the line in the 33% they don't go into the final round thinking they're going to place - just ecstatic that they get one more run with their teammate.

To think that a dog who was maybe twenty down the list in total points could then have one great run and win the whole thing just doesn't seem right to me.  And in previous years I would have been very happy to just make the finals - and would not have felt that we should have a chance to win it all with just one run.

I have no data to back it up, but I would think that over the years there HAS been some shuffling around in placements between going into the final round and coming out of the final round.  Maybe not with those dogs further down the line - but between maybe the top 6 or 7.

I think there is plenty of pressure that handlers have to endure over the first rounds just to get into the finals.  I'd hate to see "all the eggs in one basket" if winners are determined by just the last run.   But then I'm not a big Las Vegas visitor either.  Maybe that's what separates those who like it like it is and those who'd like to see it change.  Some people appreciate high stakes gambling and some don't.  Different strokes for different folks.

[KarissaKS]

Taking 33% of the class into finals is a LOT of dogs. With the "clean slate" format it should be a little harder to make it into finals in the first place, so you wouldn't have the scenario of a dog with a high number of faults in earlier rounds winning overall. In the case of AKC NAC, due to the pool of dogs competing and the low percentage that make it into the finals, it is very rare for a dog with any faults in the first (3) rounds to make it to finals. That is the part of NAC that rewards consistency and excellence. Then the final round encourages everyone to go all out and have the fastest (hopefully) clean run because there is nothing to lose. They have some divisions (like Preferred and 24C) where dogs might be able to fault in a previous round and still make finals, but for the most part they have to be clean.

A finals round that takes 1/3 of the dogs entered is pretty large. I'm not sure how that number ever came about, especially given the cumulative format that means the dogs in the middle to end of the pack have absolutely no hope of making a placement. And placements aren't even given out for the final round itself.  :/

[Chris Nelson]

I would be more inclined to continue the main overall winners format as it is.

But, I would be very happy to have a secondary award, based on the finals run.

This would do a few things I like:

Still reward someone getting into finals, but give them a larger reward.   Someone may be in 8th place overall, but they could pull an awesome run out in the finals and get the {{Insert award name here}}

This would give a LOT more value to the Regionals.   Since winning regionals would get you into finals, and therefore gives you a shot at winning the {{Insert Award Name Here}}

There are some downsides to this, but it could be a decent middle ground.   It would also ensure that everyone who makes it into finals has some motivation to light a fire under their butts and run like it's the last day

[Linda W. Anderson]

I would be more inclined to continue the main overall winners format as it is.

But, I would be very happy to have a secondary award, based on the finals run.

This would do a few things I like:

Still reward someone getting into finals, but give them a larger reward.   Someone may be in 8th place overall, but they could pull an awesome run out in the finals and get the {{Insert award name here}}

This would give a LOT more value to the Regionals.   Since winning regionals would get you into finals, and therefore gives you a shot at winning the {{Insert Award Name Here}}

There are some downsides to this, but it could be a decent middle ground.   It would also ensure that everyone who makes it into finals has some motivation to light a fire under their butts and run like it's the last day

I really like your thinking here.  One "could" conceivably win both.
Linda

[Amy McGovern]

Small request:  could we put out placement ribbons for finals?  It's literally the ONLY run at champs without placements.  They can be self serve. But I sure would have loved a placement for that run!

[Chris Nelson]

Too much happening right before the awards ceremony to be doing all the things required to have placement ribbons.   There is a lot more to putting out placement ribbons then just setting them out.   And the time after finals is already too short.   No time to add in more work there




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[knittingdog]

I would be more inclined to continue the main overall winners format as it is.

But, I would be very happy to have a secondary award, based on the finals run.

This would do a few things I like:

Still reward someone getting into finals, but give them a larger reward.   Someone may be in 8th place overall, but they could pull an awesome run out in the finals and get the {{Insert award name here}}

This would give a LOT more value to the Regionals.   Since winning regionals would get you into finals, and therefore gives you a shot at winning the {{Insert Award Name Here}}

There are some downsides to this, but it could be a decent middle ground.   It would also ensure that everyone who makes it into finals has some motivation to light a fire under their butts and run like it's the last day

I LOVE this idea!  Love making the Regionals worth more!

Robin

[knittingdog]

Just a few more thoughts from overnight.

I have seen people get into the Finals and then leave since the big game didn't really matter for them at that point due to the placements.  Getting home sounded better and was more important to them.  Offering the award for the top run in Finals might have kept them there.

It would be interesting to see the actual numbers regarding how often someone in 5th or 6th place makes it into the top 3.   I bet it's relatively rare due to the spreads.  Kinda like when you take enough courses in college, it's very hard to move your GPA upward due to the inertia from what was built before.  Again, an award for the Top Run in Finals gives that person a chance at some kind of glory.

Robin

[dogrsqr]

I agree with Karissa that the percentage of dogs going into the final run would need to be less than it is now. I actually think there are too many dogs in the final run already.  It seems like years ago it was maybe the top 10 or 15 percent.  Either way with less dogs in the finals more people might actually stick around to watch the runs and the awards. 

Gina Pizzo