I think people are failing to see that holding on to arcane tradition that
is Sweepstakes is dooming this contest. You can encourage all the
participation you want - frickin' pay people to enter. But they're largely
all going to come away with the same reaction after one or two attempts -
they'd rather watch paint dry on Sunday. Discussion of youth, HMOs, EMCOMM
is pie in the sky. With respect to youth, you're not going to draw them to
Sweeps more than once or twice if nothing changes. Adding 5 stations to
the log tally doesn't solve the problem. I know several younger hams and
they have found the event incredibly boring after the first several hours.
HMOs are interesting if you're motivated and you live in a place where
there ample stations (and willing stations) to do this. Works in the
Bay Area or DC; but, its going to be a significant challenge in Oklahoma or
Utah. N3QE is very motivated - ask me how I know. But not everyone is
like N3QE. You're asking people to spend 8 hours of their time to operate;
sleep; drive to another QTH (3 to 50 miles away); operate; then drive to
another QTH..... And please, let's not start with EMCOMM. This is an ARRL
pipe dream to give the League relevancy in a world where ARRL is becoming
increasingly irrelevant.
The problem with Sweepstakes at this point is - Sweepstakes. Evolve or
die. Other CW contests have increasing participation (WPX, NAQP, etc).
Sweeps is going the opposite direction.
73 Rich NN3W
On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 8:44 AM Jim Brown <k9yc@audiosystemsgroup.com>
wrote:
> Thanks Tim. There is strong consensus within the CAC that promotion is
> definitely an important part of the solution. I've pushed that very hard
> myself, pointing out how successful N6DE has been at it with CQP, which,
> as I understand it, attracted more logs that CW SS. Dean and the
> committee work recruit and coordinate expeditions to our many rare
> counties, some of them rather remote, to make sure that all have
> sufficient activity so that sweeps are possible on both modes, and
> ideally, on both days. Our committee's writeup of results this years run
> (first weekend in October), was posted to the CQP website in December. I
> think it ran more than 30 pages, with detailed results for counties and
> states.
>
> There are awards for single-day expeditions, for modes and power levels.
> Our team is extremely proactive. A month ago, I posted a link to the CAC
> reflector. https://www.cqp.org/Results.html
>
> And yes, most committee members realize that contest duration and one
> QSO per station are critical to leveling the playing field both
> geographically and between large and small stations to make the contest
> interesting for all participants. The only rule change for which there
> is strong consensus is to allow the use of more than one callsign by the
> same operator at the same station, counting each callsign as a separate
> entry. A lot of operators at multiple contest clubs have been trading
> stations to do this for decades. I'm told that N3QE has activated as
> many as four calls and stations in SS. I done so close to a dozen times.
>
> We are learning that club competition in SS has been seriously broken
> for a long time. When the gavels were up for grabs, multiple clubs in
> the large club category submitted close to a hundred logs each; since
> the same club, PVRC, has taken the gavel for close to 20 years,
> participation started falling a decade ago from the competing clubs. A
> similar situation exists in the medium club category. And one of the new
> members of our committee got a complaint from a club in his division
> that his Small club was beaten in a different contest by the
> contribution to the winning club of ALL of the points from a Caribbean
> expedition.
>
> I've made the suggestion that locally based teams could help boost
> activity in SS. I'm pretty convinced that it has in NAQP and Sprint.
>
> But any serious analysis of logs over the last decade clearly show that
> a large cohort of SS operators are aging out each year. Many factors,
> everything from health, being able to live where we can have a station,
> and so on. W6OAT, K4BAI, N6AA K2VCO, and I started out around the same
> time, and started working each other in SS, CD parties, and morning
> traffic nets before we headed off to school. We're very close to the
> same age. I'm 84. Another running buddy here was N3ZZ; he's four years
> older. K2RD has Parkinsons. So does NI6T. And K9OR.
>
> One of our members says the guys he represents are too burned out from
> CQWW SSB. Others blame football for Sunday's decline.
>
> In addition to promotion, we're thinking about recruiting new contesters
> from the many local general interest clubs. SS is not the entry point
> for new contesters, but there are many contests with simple exchanges
> and relatively low intensity that are great places to start. FD, RAC,
> NAQP, ARRL 10M, ARRL DX, CQWW and WPX ARE great entry points. So are
> state QSO parties.
>
> So a huge part of our challenge is replacing ourselves. We see
> contesting's (and ham radio's) future as attracting young people.
>
> Most of the committee view SS as an important part of training operators
> for EMCOMM.
>
> 73, Jim K9YC
>
> On 2/9/2026 8:34 PM, Tim Duffy wrote:
> > From: Tim Duffy [mailto:k3lr@k3lr.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 8, 2026 12:07 PM
> > To: Jon Zaimes, AA1K (jz73@verizon.net); 'Dan Kovatch'
> > Cc: 'Ward Silver'; 'Jahnke, Bart, W9JJ'; 'ac0w@arrl.org'; 'ag3i@arrl.org
> '
> > Subject: CAC Discussion about Sweepstakes activity
> >
> > Hello Gentleman;
> >
> > Last night was the Feb. CW NA Sprint contest. Many stations worked more
> than
> > 300 QSOs in four hours. Activity was at an all-time high.
> > What changed? Promotion. Aggressive emails to CW operators and assembling
> > teams via clubs and other active participants. Activity problem fixed.
> >
> > In my opinion, fixing the activity issue during CW SS does not require
> any
> > rule changes. It simply needs promotion. Get another 200 or 300 stations
> to
> > get on and the contest will be fine - just the way it is.
> >
> > Thank you for being on the CAC and for your guidance concerning
> contesting.
> >
> > 73
> > Tim K3LR
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces+k3lr=k3lr.com@contesting.com]
> On
> > Behalf Of Jim Brown
> > Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 12:55 PM
> > To: cq-contest@contesting.com
> > Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Should contest ops QRS?
> >
> > On 2/8/2026 6:54 AM, Mike Smith VE9AA wrote:
> >> My reply to him/all is below his question.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >
> > I represent the Pacific Division (NorCal, NV, KH6) on the ARRL Contest
> > Advisory Council, and the major topic for the last six months has been
> > how to save Sweepstakes. Participation has been dropping drastically, as
> > OTs like you and me have been aging out (I'm 84, my first SS was in '57).
> >
> > Solving this very difficult problem involves bringing a thousand hams
> > into contesting, first through the contests with easy exchanges, then
> > stepping them up to the more challenging SS. Working at the slower speed
> > that Fred practiced is critical to that effort. For more than ten years,
> > I've been part of a team with W6GJB and W6JTI that has won SS in 1A
> > Battery more than half of the years we've entered. We work only CW, our
> > speed tops out at 26 WPM, and we'll slow down for slow callers.
> >
> > There's a LOT more to contest math than sending speed. All of us who can
> > work faster need the little guys, the new guys, to work. This problem
> > shows up late Saturday night in SS (my rate went into the cellar around
> > 06Z, causing me to hit the sack before 08Z, my midnight), and we all
> > know that Sunday is dreadful. That's NOT because the contest is too
> > long, it's because our stalwarts are aging out of being able to
> > participate.
> >
> > 2025 CW SS had fewer logs than 2025 CQP. Think about that when setting
> > your sending speed. Contesting is no fun when we've run out of stations
> > to work.
> >
> > 73, Jim K9YC
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CQ-Contest mailing list
> > CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|