Entries from December 2007 ↓

What is the best way to split tournament fees? I’ve received several requests for information on this topic. Of the roughly 347+ racing clubs (information taken from NAFA Growth Trends 2006) there are probably that many different methods used to split tournament fees.The clubs that I have raced with have split the fees equally between the dogs on each team, which is probably the easiest way to do it. However, it may not be the fairest method since heats may not be split equally between all of the dogs on the team. If your dog only runs a small number of heats for a weekend, you may feel cheated, and it may not stop there. After all, if you had to travel some distance to a tournament, pay hotel expenses, and meals only to get a few heats, you may really feel cheated.

I have heard that some clubs pay the tournament fees from club money and then after the tournament the fee for each dog is calculated based on the number of heats each of the dogs ran. This is probably a fair way to accomplish this but it does take some amount of time to figure out. Moreover, the club may need a fair amount of working capital depending on the size of the club, number of teams, and how many tournaments the club attends.

How does your club do it? Inquiring minds want to know!

Larry

I know the Measuring debate has taken on a few twist and turns after my post, Large Chest Penalty so I would like to take a few minutes to summarize the debate. The post itself wasn’t very long, only two paragraphs, because I wanted the picture to tell the story. If you’ve read the first couple of comments, I think you’ll agree the picture did tell the story, but then it slipped into another realm when this comment was posted…

The wicket didn’t do this to this dog. BREEDING did! Life isn’t fair for this dog….not just flyball.

If you read my responds, you know that I rather lost it. I took it personal. If you know me, you know that I’m all of 5 feet 4 and 1 half inches tall. I have to throw in the extra half inch because I think I deserve it, but if anyone ask me my height I tell them I’m 5 feet 5 inches.

After that rampage was over, the same person made another comment…

I say, set the jumps where you want to jump. Declare your jump height. Forget measuring.

This seems like a radical departure to me. It’s like, we can’t figure out what method, both are unfair, so let’s not measure at all. I read a comment from another post that said “…I think that there is room for another organization - maybe called NOFLI - where we don’t even have jumps, just a box. ” This is what I think of when someone suggests using declared jump heights. It just seems like a lazy mans approach to me. I could be wrong.

Julia then posted an excellent comment on a “scientific method” to determine the best method of measuring. This is probably the best approach I’ve heard on this issue. I’m no scientist or engineer, but I bet there are a few people out there that could do this.

Then we received this…

More and more, I think the solution just may be a radical departure from the “status quo”. I don’t believe that keeping the wicket is in NAFA’s best interest. I also don’t believe that measuring the leg bone will resolve these issues either. Debating “which” method is better is also leading us further down the “measuring” rabbit hole.

Rabbit hole - By extension, the term has also come to signify any event, which triggers a completely unexpected, bizarre situation or paradigm.

How does measuring trigger a completely unexpected, bizarre situation or paradigm? If you figure this one out let me know.

Jackie made a good comment about jump heights based on breeds. This sounds good but the only problem would be mixed breeds. However, the idea may be worth exploring.

Summing it Up

1. It is the Dog’s Problem
2. Declaring Your Jump Height
3. Rabbit Hole Reasoning (may have something to do with 2. Declaring your jump height)
4. Scientific Method to Determine the Best Method (my favorite)
5. Jump Height Based on Breed

Which approach sounds like something worth pursuing?

Larry

Addendum

The subject of an Electronic Measuring System was brought up, which really does sound like the best solution for measuring. I have it on good information that this was even suggested to the BOD sometime back and was deemed too expensive.

The system is such where the dog is walked down a path in front of the system i.e. through sensors while several different measurements were recorded. The information is then sent to a laptop computer and run through some algorithm where the correct jump height is given.

I suggest that this method be explored further even though cost maybe a precluding factor.

Gloucester Cathedral Choir - In the Bleak Midwinter

A Prayer For Peace

Let us pray that strength and courage abundant be given to all who work for a world of reason and understanding, that the good that lies in every man’s heart may day by day be magnified, that men will come to see more clearly not that which divides them but that which unites them, that each hour may bring us closer to a final victory, not of nation over nation but of man over his own evils and weaknesses, that the true spirit of this Christmas season ~ its joy, its beauty, its hope, and above all its abiding faith ~ may live among us and that the blessings of peace be ours ~ the peace to build and grow, to live in harmony and sympathy with others, and to plan for the future with confidence.

Merry Christmas from all of us!

I received a photo of a dog with a large chest and short legs that drives home my point on how the wicket penalizes such dogs. The photo below pictures a Labrador/Corgi mix, which weighs 60 pounds and measures 16 inches in NAFA and jumps 12-inch jumps. In U-FLI the same dog would jump 6-inch jumps. Even if NAFA adapted the 5-inch vs. 4-inch calculation, the dog would still jump 11-inch jumps.

For all of the wicket advocates out there, tell me how this is fair. I will concede that jumping 6-inch jumps may be too low but 11 or 12-inch jumps are too high for this dog. Every dog with this same make up that plays in NAFA events is being unfairly penalized.

Larry

The 2007 NAFA Regional Champion winners have been selected and announced but has anything changed from last year or the year before that? The Regional Champions race against other clubs in their region but isn’t the outcome pretty much assured from year to year? The same club is selected year after year and all of the other clubs are left with nothing. If there are several fast clubs in the region, they may switch back and forth each year but for the most part club placement is pretty static.

I wrote about this before on my post, Focus on the Championships. I still think that NAFA should look into this so more clubs get a share of the recognition. After all, there are more clubs out there than just Division 1. The people that race in other divisional levels need a larger share of the recognition. After all, they pay the largest percentage of the bills and deserve a chance to win at their racing level.

I know that people have proposed this to NAFA, yet nothing has been done. Did this just die or was it buried. What happen to the suggestions submitted to the BoD on this?

Cynosport® Flyball Championship

The Cynosport Flyball Championship that NAFA has supported over the last couple of years is a meaningless championship. Sure, it’s a good way to promote Flyball but is it worth the cost? Could the money spent on this event be better utilized by some other advertising means?

I say that it is meaningless because the only clubs that benefit from this tournament are the clubs that can afford to attend the event. Winning means nothing, because it does nothing to change the outcome of the Regional Champions and overall Champion and the cost is way out of proportion to what is provided to the Regional Champions.

Cynospost vs. Regional Champion Cost

Any club fortunate enough to place first in the region for Regular and Multi Breed is awarded a plaque that cost $25.00. Only one plaque is given per club. If other members in the club wish to have a plaque, they can purchase one at the cost of $25.00 per plaque. The cost for Regional Championship plaques for 2006 came to roughly $750.00 (30 clubs x $25 = $750).

Now let’s look at what NAFA spent for awards (Shirts and Ribbons) at Cynosport. For 2006, NAFA spent $2928.37 for awards. They had about 24 teams (some from the same club) for a total of around 13 clubs. So let’s figure it out, for simple numbers lets just say there are 5 people per team, times 24 teams, for a total of 120 awards. Therefore, $2928.37 for 120 awards comes to an average of $24.40 per award. If you look at the overall cost of Cynospost, NAFA lost $7,038.63 in 2006 for this one event. I’m assuming this year, 2007, it should turn a small profit because of the 50-team entries but we will have to see the numbers when they are published.

For a meaningless event, as I explained above, it seems there’s a large disparity. The clubs that raced all season generated much more money for NAFA throughout the year, yet this one event (Cynosport) garnered a significant proportion of the award money. It doesn’t seem fair to me. Could the money lost on this event been better utilized promoting NAFA Flyball in another way?

Larry

Note: Information used in this post was obtained from the NAFA Profit & Loss Sheet.