Actually, Bill, I think this is a rather neat idea. It opens up all
kinds of challenge possibilities.
The normalizing feature which Walter adds does what he says, plus allows
several other things:
** The categories do not have to be fixed in number and type for each
team. Since each score is normalized within its own category, a team
that puts in ten stations soab lp one tower, and has the top ten scores
in that category, will clean everybody's clock. That sounds like a real
leveler. But wouldn't be able to a very good job of estimating scores
until a good list on 3830. Need the top score in each category to begin.
Maybe if there are enough teams, we normalize using team scores only.
Also, if normalizing, teams could be other numbers than 10 and still
compete. If a team of seven, then multiply the total score by 10/7. If
18 teams, then total multiplied by 10/18. This could be an optional
provision. Something about your best 10 against our best 10...
Here in PVRC, we have local chapters, and filling out fixed category
list would be hard in an individual chapter, but it would be nice for
PVRC-NC, by itself to challenge SECC, using these rules, also
challenging other chapters.
Post stations in team to cq-contest 24 hours before start. DQ's and
non-submission take away from score, no after-the-fact substitutions.
Results computed from published scores, and/or corrections. EG, W4AN
score not in QST (bummer!) would still count for what ARRL said it was.
Again, nice idea.
73 y'all.
Guy.
Walter Deemer wrote:
>
> At 04:35 PM 6/14/98 -0400, W4AN wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >Team Challenge competition... Ten Unit team.
> >
> >#1: Multi-Multi - No limitations
> >#2: Mutli-Single - No limitations.
> >#3: SOAB Unassisted - No limitations.
> >#3: SOAB Unassisted - No limitations.
> >#4: SOAB Assisted - No limitations.
> >#5: SOAB Unassisted - Limited to one tower
> >#6: Ditto
> >#7: Ditto
> >#8: SOAB Low Power - Limited to one tower
> >#9: SOAB Low Power - Limited to one tower
> >#10: SOAB Low Power - Limited to one tower
>
> <snip>
>
> >The bottom of the list is weighted with more restrictions since their
> >scores will probably not be as big of an impact on the team score. Yet
> >they should be an important part of the winning team. The winning M/M for
> >the contest shouldn't decide this competition. The idea should be to make
> >sure every point on the list is important to winning.
>
> Maybe setting the winner of each category to 100 and "normalizing" the
> scores would reduce the impact of the multis and make the "bench" people
> feel more important.
>
> E. g.: W3LPL wins M/M with 10.0 megs. M/M's W4AN and K4OJ get 9.2 and 8.5
> megs, respectively. W4AN earns 92 points and K4OJ 85.
>
> Further e. g.: In L/P, KN4T wins with 2.5 megs, and the second and third
> place FCG L/P guys get 1.5 and .5 megs: 100, 60 and 20 points. Your top
> three L/P guys get 2.0, 1.75 and 1.5 megs: 80, 70 and 60 points. Your 210
> points beats our 180 -- and it was your #2 and #3 guys that got you the win.
>
> Just some food for thought -- but a GREAT idea!!
>
> 73, Walt, KN4T (ex-AC1O) Proud Member of THE Florida Contest Group.
> --------------
> WWW: http://www.4w.com/deemer; amateur radio, news, weather & financial info.
>
> --
> CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
> Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
--
--
CQ-Contest on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/_cq-contest/
Administrative requests: cq-contest-REQUEST@contesting.com
|