[CQ-Contest] Thoughts On Leveling The Contest Playing Field

[Eric Hilding]

When football teams compete, there is really a level playing field.  It's 
not just the ground, but essentially everyone wears the same type of 
equipment down to the jockstraps.  I played football in High School.  No 
different than in contesting, setting aside the radio hardware & antennas, 
at an individual and/or team player level, it boils down to skill, 
strategy, decision making, "fair play" and some "luck".

Luck has been defined as: "When preparation meets opportunity" :-)

As someone already pointed out, unfortunately, life is not always "fair" ;-(

I'm all for leveling the playing field in contesting, but all the proposals 
I've read thus far simply won't cut the mustard.  But thanks to computers 
and digital databases, there are some semi-ethereal things which *could* be 
done to get closer to the goal (pun intended).

Assuming that 100w category stations are not runing 10KW, then the 
bru-ha-ha boils down to QTH & antennae.  Or does it?  Here are a few 
thoughts to chew on for those hell-bent on pursuing the matter further.

IMHO, the *only* way to even remotely approach any degree of "levelness" 
would require some fancy computer programming to take into account the 
following (and apply an "adjustment" factor for *each* 
station/participant).  This would also require, of course, a "Contest 
Adjustment Factor Committee" to decide upon how the final mix would take place.

1. Tower or antenna height by itself is a sham, because it does not take 
into account terrain benefits (or vice-versa).  A 5el monobander on a 120ft 
tower in Death Valley, California, might still get squashed by a 3el 
tribander on a 40ft mast up on a 5,000ft mountain peak depending upon the 
time of day and angles involved and QTH of who is on the other end of the 
contest exchange.   However, the ultimate contest-sponsor computer program 
could run every entrant's Lat/Long coordinates and antenna height above 
ground through Dean's nifty HFTA program.  Deviations from some type of 
established "baseline" would be one adjustment factor.  Oh my gosh...one 
can't overlook "stacked arrays", etc. in the formula I should think.

2. I'm not an antenna guru, but it would seem to me that some of the 
aspects of #1 above would have more weight + or - depending upon 
condx/propagation.  There might have to be an hourly adjustment tweak or 
refinement tied to real time propagation data.

3. Geographical QTH would definitely require an adjustment factor.  Perhaps 
an algorithm taking a rolling average of the previous 5 years worth of log 
submitters in the SS (as an example), could then calculate by band the 
advantages or disadvantages of a particular QTH vs. the concentration 
centers of contest participants.  Like, Californians can't enjoy the 80/40m 
"local" range pool of QRP/Low Power/Low Antenna QSO possibilities within 
the high-density areas enjoyed by "East Coasters".  This most certainly 
would require an adjustment :-)

4. There are probably additional "factors" which would also need adjusting 
that just haven't come to mind yet, except one for "age".  75 year old CW 
ops can probably not do a full 48 hour contest without sleep, so to insure 
the field is as level as possible, here's another factor to consider 
"adjusting".

5. Certainly, those who have invested thousands (or hundreds of thousands) 
of dollars ... and the considerable time involved...in putting together 
first-class state-of-the-art SO2R contest stations should *not* be punished 
for doing so.  Therefore, it would appear the only way to truly level the 
playing field would have to also give consideration to those who have 
paid-the-price in a big way to play the game.  True equality is also 
deserving of the responsibility to share by all.  So it would seem that all 
total investment costs in rigs, towers & antennas (plus time  at a 
reasonable rate, because "time is money") would need to go into the 
mix.  The only reasonable solution here would seem to be that contest 
sponsors would total up the station "investment(s)" by *all* participants, 
and then *all* participants (who would reap the equal benefits of playing 
on a level field) would share in an equal pro rata amount of the total as a 
Contest Entry Fee...albeit it after the fact....when all entries have been 
submitted.

A. The Big Gun stations would probably be due credits or reimbursements.

B. The Little Pistol Contest Stations would receive "Invoices" to pay for 
the privilege of NOT having to make big investments of money & time 
building a Super-Station, but WOULD reap the benefits of having the Big Gun 
scores adjusted downward to the "level playing field" that all have the 
same opportunity of playing on..

Hmmm...somehow, this all seems quite reasonable, but I'll sleep on it.

73...

Rick, K6VVA