SLOC A meet

greenspun.com : LUSENET : orienteer kansas : One Thread

Mikell Platt wrote: It ain't great news for the Heartlands: sanctioning for the proposed SLOC "A" meet was voted down, 3-3 (apparently a tie isn't good enough). Steve Shannonhouse, Mikell Platt and Bruce McAllister cast votes in favor of sanctioning while Paul Regan, Julie Weeks, and Tom Hollowell voted against. The fact that the sanctioning request came so late in the game was probably the decisive factor, but it was not the only factor.

-- Swampfox (mikell@sprynet.com), January 11, 2000.

Talk about counting your chickens before they're hatched: the January ONA, p. 16, has an ad for the SLOC meet. The fourth line says: "An Orienteering A-Meet Sanctioned by the United States Orienteering Federation". Apparently not.....

Mary Jones

-- Mary (maprunner@juno.com), January 11, 2000

Answers

The SLOC home page says, "Note: Not yet sanctioned by USOF as an A Meet." It is a shame that the meet apparently won't be A-meet status.

-- Michael (meglin@juno.com), January 11, 2000.

I would guess that 'A meet' status would not take away from what will be offered by the event organizers. My understanding is only that it will take away from the possibility to adding to ranking status... and consequently may decrease the turnout.

I wonder if it's time for a rival US Orienteering organization to be created that would sanction such events. After all, orienteering is NOT a growing sport by any means. (Look at how the average age of OK is only increasing.) And it seems that anything that will help the sport would be beneficial, like having a good number of A meets throughout the year. But I'm not yet in the position to begin creation of the USOA (US O' Alliance), so will only continue my musings of 'what if?'

By the way, how did St Louis manage to get an ad printed with the A meet sanctioning when not sanctioned? Could we do that? And didn't the relays get awarded in a less than timely fashion? Geez... if I don't stop with the questions, someone will be prodding me to be on the BOD. Ack!

-- Fritz Menninger (fpmenninger@hotmail.com), January 11, 2000.


Salt Lake Olympic Committee = SLOC.

St. Louis Orienteering Club = SLOC.

I wonder if a bribery scandal could have anything to do with the sanctioning decision?

-- Michael (mike_eglinski@kcmo.org), January 12, 2000.


Maybe the "sanctioning commitee" needs a liason who will take it upon itself to help if there are problems with sanctioning packages. Didn't NEOC just get awarded a championship event in just about the same time frame as SLOC wanted an A meet sanctioned? Surely they should have said no you guys were sanctioned for an A meet and to award you a championship when you don't have your act together would actually be saying were a bunch of morXXs who have a double standard. Opps now I sound like Al. Surely there was enough time left in the year to award the relays to another club that had their act together.

-- Dan (daniel.meenehan@umb.com), January 13, 2000.

Isn't the official reason to sanction A-meets a way to see that the meet officials attempt to reach a fairly high standard in their organization? Since SLOC has put on A-meets before it seems there would be little question they can do it again. Why would there be a prejudice against having a short time interval between the application for A-meet status and holding the event? Perhaps someone on the sanctioning committee could explain what it is they look for when deciding whether to grant A-meet status or not. For instance, how many bids are rejected each year? I heard from someone (on the '99 WOC team?) that there was a person high up in USOF that believed it would be better if there were fewer A-meets in the US each year (I don't know why it was he or she felt that way). Perhaps one of those people who voted against SLOC was this person?

PS-- Suffice it to say, the names Paul Regan, Julie Weeks, and Tom Hollowell have been "noted".

-- Mook (everett@psi.edu), January 13, 2000.



Is the normal number of people on the sanctioning committee 6?

-- Mook (everett@psi.edu), January 13, 2000.


There are 7 people currently on the sanctioning committee; Bruce Wolfe didn't vote on the SLOC request (he may still have been in New Zealand).

Offhand, it seems it has been very rare that a sanctioning request has been disapproved.

-- Swampfox (wmikell@earthlink.net), January 13, 2000.


There is a growing firestorm over the denial of sanctioning and it looks quite possible that the BOD may intervene to reverse the decision. Unfortunately, as the Heartland Sanctioning Rep (a purely nominal designation in practice, in fact, I only recently understood that there were such things as regional representatives) I have been ambushed by pawnee and various western tribes have taken an arrow in the back and am leaking copious amounts of blood. My surgical team pronounced the wound to be serious and can not guarantee my continued mortal existence. Naturally this news has left me feeling a little downtrodden and I may resort to eating chocolate chip cookies if things get much worse.

-- Swampfox (wmikell@earthlink.net), January 14, 2000.

To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them! (Shakespeare)


-- Mook (everett@psi.edu), January 14, 2000.


Perhaps the two "camps" on this issue are divided along lines of those who believe their responsibilities are to uphold the letter of the law and those who believe their responsibilities are to uphold the spirit of the law (and by so doing occasionally bend or loosely interpret laws)? There is something in the sanctioning guidelines that says a bid to hold an A-meet should be submitted at least 12 months prior to the meet, otherwise there should be a lot of hoops to jump through and other bureaucratic nonsense. Sanctioning board members who wish to rely on the guidelines will naturally be biased against approving a meet that is only a few months off. Sanctioning board members who feel their job is to further the state of orienteering will look at the guideline as more of a suggestion, then determine based on other criteria whether to grant approval, noting that some clubs will achieve the same work in 1 month that some other clubs (ie. ALTOS and DVOA) could never achieve even if they had years. I think the sanctioning rules are a big part of the problem - a 12-month time period seems quite excessive.

I bet SLOC will put on a good meet regardless of the A status. As far as I can see, the only difference between good local meets and A meets is the amount of publicity and possibly field sizes - having A meets is a good way for competitive people to plan to be at the same meets as other competitive people.

Ultimately SLOC might benefit from all of this controversy: they might be spared from doing the silly stuff and will be able to concentrate on doing what matters well. Meanwhile, they have captured a tremendous amount of publicity and may pull in a sympathy vote to boot!

-- Mook (everett@psi.edu), January 14, 2000.



Like a naughty dog caught squatting over a wet spot on the rug will begin slinking away slowly into the shadows with his tail between his legs, so to has the SLOC web page quietly removed all mention of "A-meet" in connection with their March 2-day meet. It's kind of sad when you think about it.

Hopefully SLOC's meet will work out alright in the end and they will host future A-meets.

-- Mook (everett@psi.edu), January 17, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ