[SCCC] CAC Club Competition Study status report from Ned Stearns AA7A

[David O Hachadorian]

I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion of the potential
club competition rule changes.

My comments are interspersed below. If you have comments, make
sure aa7a@arrl.net gets a copy. I'm not sure if he is on the
SCCC reflector.

Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
Big Bear Lake, CA
K6LL@juno.com


> Club Areas

>  The approach currently favored by the CAC is to allow
> unlimited- and medium-class clubs to define their club area as 
> EITHER a
> 175-mile-radius circle OR a rectangle (having the same area as that
> circle) with up to a 4:1 aspect ratio with the four corners defined 
> by a
> specific latitude/longitude.  The center of the club's circle, or 
> the
> four corners of the rectangle, would be submitted to the League
> annually, at the time of filing the affiliated club report.  A club
> could change its definition or center/boundaries not more than once 
> a
> year.

A 175 mile radius circle is 96,212 square miles in area.

Just looking quickly on a map, It looks like a rectangle of about
339 mi x 283 mi (95,937 sq mi) would cover from Morro Bay to Las Vegas,
all the way down to Yuma and San Diego. Sounds good to me!




> Attendance Requirements

>  Given the nature of club membership these
> days, as well as the ubiquity of the Internet and its ability to
> facilitate club operations, it has been suggested that the meeting
> attendance rules are no longer necessary.
>  One option currently being discussed would 
> require
> that a contester whose score is to count for any class of club
> competition be a "member in good standing" and leave the definition 
> to
> the individual club.

Sounds like a good idea to me. For the SCCC, I think there's more
action on the Internet and on the telephone than at the meetings.


>Number of categories.  We did not see a need to change the number of
>categories.

Agree

> Minimum number of entries for an unlimited-class club.  Data from 
> recent
> contests do not suggest a change in the minimum for the unlimited
> category (currently 51), but more analysis is needed.  It may be
> desirable for the definition to use the number of members, rather 
> than
> the number of entries.

I think it would be better to keep the rule as it currently stands.
There are a lot of SCCC members who don't submit scores regularly,
and it would be a shame to be forced into the unlimited category
with only a few scores submitted.

> 
> Expedition scores.  Currently a club member must operate within the
> club's territory (except for DXpeditions in the ARRL DX Contest).  
> It
> should be workable to count scores from any location (appropriate to 
> the
> contest).

Sounds reasonable.

> 
> Multi-operator scores.  Currently, if at least 66% of the operators 
> in a
> multi-op entry are members of the same club, the entire score goes 
> to
> that club.  We have recommended dropping the 66% requirement and,
> instead, allocating the multi-op's score among participating clubs 
> in
> proportion to their numbers of members among the operators.

Sounds ok.

> 
> Guest operator and station licensee.  Currently, for the score from 
> a
> single-operator entry by a guest operator to count toward a club's
> score, both the guest op and the station licensee must be members of
> that club.  This requirement on the station licensee should be 
> dropped.

Sounds good.


Dave Hachadorian, K6LL
Big Bear Lake, CA
K6LL@juno.com

--
SCCC on the Web:          http://sccc.contesting.com/
Submissions:              sccc@contesting.com
Administrative requests:  sccc-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems:                 owner-sccc@contesting.com