[CQ-Contest] WRTC Selection Criteria

Rick Tavan N6XI rtavan at gmail.com
Tue Feb 27 00:59:10 EST 2007

It is true that someone will always be (or feel) disadvantaged. But there
are ways to reduce the actual disadvantage substantially. One way would be
to use one set of boundaries (Selection Areas) to determine where
competitors will come from and a different set of boundaries (Propagation
Areas) to determine with whom they compete in the qualifying events. A
Propagation Area would be designed to have a minimum ham population and
roughly consistent propagation. There could be plenty of them. Within a
Propagation Area, the highest score in a qualification event would receive
100 Qualification Points, a score of 80% of the highest score would receive
80 QPs, etc. The Selection Areas could be designed with roughly equal ham
populations or differently populated Selection Areas could send a number of
competitors (or captains) to WRTC that is proportional to population. The
ops in each Selection Area who collected the most QPs would be offered
positions as team captains. But their success in qualification events would
be based on score comparison with ops in their own Propagation Areas.

You still have to draw boundaries with this system and there still will be
whiners complaining that they were disadvantaged. But at least you resolve
the dilemma of having more totally diverse propagation areas than you have
delegates. This would be particularly helpful in continents like North
America and Europe that have large ham populations. It would not work as
well in Africa or Oceania with small ham populations because it would be
difficult to establish meaningful Propagation Areas. It would also require
some organizational presence outside the WRTC host country.

/Rick N6XI

On 2/26/07, Tom Haavisto <ve3cx at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Bottom line?  No matter what criteria is used, someone will always be
> disadvantaged.  And, somehow having the host country have 100 plus teams in
> an effort to make things fair for everyone just does not seem fair to the
> host...

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list