Qualifying Competitions (US Nationals)

[obelisk477]

Hi guys,

I just attended US Nationals, and was amazed at the number of people that attended this one event. It seems that the numbers are growing year by year (the actual numbers are about the same for the last few years, but I think that has something to do with location), and if this trend continues it might make sense to have smaller qualifying regional competitions that you have to place well enough in to get to the national competition. I just wanted to put this idea out there to have a place to discuss it.

Some Pros:
- Adds an element of legitimacy to the nationals. There are many other competitive sports/events that have this structure in place, where the best are at nationals each year.
- Helps reduce dealing with the logistics of a large tournament, allowing for a somewhat smaller staff. If you took 32 people from each 'region' then you would never have above a certain number of people to deal with. It would also help to weed out noobs/ poor times (although this has it's complementary con/ see below)

Some Cons:
- Not in the spirit of the 'anyone can compete' rule. The WCA has said anyone gets at least a chance to compete in every competition (not sure about the specific regs on this), so being more restrictive could have some negative effects/seem 'elitist'.
- More competitions might actually be more logistically difficult and stretch out the resources of an already stretched completely volunteer staff.

TL;DR - It might be that qualifying competitions for national competitions become necessary if the number of people attending gets just too large.

 

[TheOneOnTheLeft]

The size of a competition can be limited by the venue size. If a venue can only hold, say, 500 people, then you limit that competition's registration appropriately. This is a far more likely way the size of a large national or continental championship will be restricted. Anyone fast enough to qualify in a regional championships would almost certainly be aware of the opening time for registration for this competition, and so would be able to get a place. It also doesn't disallow local competitors, or those who are less competitive, but see large competitions as a place to see friends from across the world.

 

[Kit Clement]

Anyone fast enough to qualify in a regional championships would almost certainly be aware of the opening time for registration for this competition, and so would be able to get a place. It also doesn't disallow local competitors, or those who are less competitive, but see large competitions as a place to see friends from across the world.

I strongly disagree with this part of your statement. Many notable/fast cubers have missed the registration deadline for US Nationals in the past, and a competitor limit will only further complicate this matter.

 

[Aussie]

I really like the idea of this, but would you be able to qualify through events like 6x6 and 7x7 or would it only be 3x3?

 

[YouCubing]

Ugh, no. I'd never be able to go to Nats again. I'm too much of a nub.

 

[Rnewms]

No. Everyone should have a chance. The cutoffs prevent those who are too slow from taking up too much time. There are many more cons you are not considering.

What if a good cuber has to travel far to get to any regional competition? A national competition justifies travel expenses, but now they'll have to cover expenses for their qualification, and they'll be barred from Nationals if they don't perform to their expectations.

Local casuals are more willing to sign up for a National competition than a regular event. Why would we want to make this hobby less inviting?

 

[PenguinsDontFly]

To be honest I think this is not a great idea. One of the fun parts of these events is the inclusiveness, and the non-competitive atmosphere. I think this could be a serious note to that. Until 20000 people want to come to nats this is fine.

theres no one better than the 2015 champ to give imput on this! yes, I also agree. what I find so awesome about US nationals is how many people go. it looks like the ultimate cubing experience. 3 days with 500+ awesome people who just want to have fun. now why would you want to mess that up?

 

[Kit Clement]

To be honest though, Nationals is getting to the point where it's not going to be feasible to hold. We nearly matched last year's total in a far more remote part of the country -- had we done it in the NY area or some other large city, I think the competitor count would have approached 700 this year. Some form of qualification system will need to be in place soon, because those kinds of totals really make the way we run a competition now incredibly taxing/near impossible. I don't think we should force qualifications for the more popular, fast events (2x2, 3x3, Pyra, Skewb, etc.) but there are some events (4x4-7x7, FMC, Mega, BLD) that are just really a time suck and could allow for more competitors to compete in more popular events.

(edit) Clarification: FMC is not really a time suck, but it's an organizational nightmare as we can't easily get a breakout room that can actually fit everyone.

 

[IRNjuggle28]

No. Everyone should have a chance.

It doesn't matter if everyone should have a chance, because in this circumstance, not everyone will. The OP is describing a hypothetical scenario where cubers definitely will be kept out of Nats, and the only question is whether they'll be kept out because they didn't register in time, or because they didn't qualify. This isn't about *choosing* to deny cubers anything. I have no idea how close Nats is to becoming too big (and I'm sure other people in this thread will know) but this is definitely worth a discussion, and I'm glad the discussion is happening before Nats potentially has to turn cubers away, not during or after.

Local casuals are more willing to sign up for a National competition than a regular event. Why would we want to make this hobby less inviting?

If we know for sure that cubers will be turned away, I'd rather have local casuals miss Nats than fast cubers who could qualify through regionals. I think dedicating the time and energy to cubing that's necessary to become fast does make fast cubers a bit more deserving of a spot at Nats than local casual solvers. Yes, ideally they'd both be able to go, but this specifically deals with a situation where not everyone can go. This is a competition to see who the best cubers in the US are. If someone has to not go, it should be the casual solvers who are nowhere close to the best in the US.

I think limiting competitors at Nats should only be done if necessary, and I'd rather see everyone be able to go, of course.

Regional competitions completely independent of Nats have also been discussed before, and they're a nice idea.

EDIT:

theres no one better than the 2015 champ to give imput on this!

Yes there is--the organizers. Kit just said it's getting impossible. He knows. The top competitors don't necessarily.

 

[henrysavich]

Suggestion: move US nationals to more and more remote locations each year to get the same amount of people, just more devoted each year.

Venue suggestions

2016: Phoenix (remember that nats is held in the middle of the summer)
2017: Hawaii
2018: American Samoa
2019: Arctic Canada (American enough)
2020: Detroit Slums
2021: Dan Cohen's Backyard
2022: An abandoned coal mine in the middle of the Appalachians, only accessible by 3-day hike
2030: The Moon

 

[PenguinsDontFly]

EDIT:
Yes there is--the organizers. Kit just said it's getting impossible. He knows. The top competitors don't necessarily.

well oops I meant drew's post made it clear that nats is an awesome, inclusive environment. he probably has the best imput on the fun aspect of this topic (srry failed to specify that). obviously organizers know better about how hard it is to manage hundreds of people.

 

[4Chan]

Suggestion: move US nationals to more and more remote locations each year to get the same amount of people, just more devoted each year.

Venue suggestions

2021: Dan Cohen's Backyard

LOLOL, it was a surprisingly workable venue.
The grass and lawn was really nice.

 

[kcl]

If something like this is implemented, I think it should be either qualification by current official average.

 

[biscuit]

If something like this is implemented, I think it should be either qualification by current official average.

This. I think that there should be something like "top 50 in the last year for each event" or something like that (50 may still be high though.)

 

[obelisk477]

If something like this is implemented, I think it should be either qualification by current official average.

I think what happens with this though is that you miss out on people who would otherwise be good at something either because they have never done it before or because they have improved greatly. If someone came along who had a 7:00 5BLD success in the past but had DNFed all the 4BLD attempts, then probably they would be considered worthy of competing in 4BLD at nationals, but they just either haven't competed in that category or have improved alot.

 

[kcl]

I think what happens with this though is that you miss out on people who would otherwise be good at something either because they have never done it before or because they have improved greatly. If someone came along who had a 7:00 5BLD success in the past but had DNFed all the 4BLD attempts, then probably they would be considered worthy of competing in 4BLD at nationals, but they just either haven't competed in that category or have improved alot.

I don't mean to imply that a certain person could not compete at nationals. I think a reasonable way to thin down early rounds would be seeding top competitors into later rounds. If a certain competitor did not have a good official average, they could still qualify for later rounds at nationals based on their times in the first round.

 

[shelley]

It doesn't matter if everyone should have a chance, because in this circumstance, not everyone will. The OP is describing a hypothetical scenario where cubers definitely will be kept out of Nats, and the only question is whether they'll be kept out because they didn't register in time, or because they didn't qualify. This isn't about *choosing* to deny cubers anything. I have no idea how close Nats is to becoming too big (and I'm sure other people in this thread will know) but this is definitely worth a discussion, and I'm glad the discussion is happening before Nats potentially has to turn cubers away, not during or after.

Worth mentioning, this isn't just hypothetical - cubers have already been kept out of Nats. In 2014 and 2015 we had to close registration and not allow late or walk-in registrations. In 2014 in particular we were way over capacity for what our venue could handle.

 

[Deleted member 19792]

All I think about Nats should change is the location. Since the comp was held on the Far East coast, most people from the west coast wouldn't come. And vice versa. There haven't been Nats in the Midwest much before, where it is optimal for people from all over the nation to come. This may be biased coming from a Midwest cuber, but there are big cities and venues where Nats could be held. And, it would only take a day of driving to go to MO, CO, KS, etc. Of course, the wca probably has a map of where every competitor in the US is, and where the exact optimal location would be.

COMP IN THE SOUTH PLS








My thoughts:

As long as we are keeping a steady amount of competitors at Nationals, we should be fine. But as we approach a higher amount of competitors, we should start enforcing some form of cutoff for the more popular events. Or, not allow new competitors (or have a new competitors competition before Nationals to officially allow them?) Something like that maybe, it is 3 AM so I can't really concentrate on anything.

 

[rowan]

I was on staff this year and I had a few thoughts about the actual staff process & the competition:

- Perhaps create a full time & part time set up. I talked to a few people who used to staff Nationals but then stopped because the workload was so high. Perhaps these people could be coaxed into coming back if they only worked 4-5 hour days in return for free food, instead of 8-10 hour days for free food & hotel. Heck, I would work a 4-5 hour shift for nothing in return, just to help out the community, but the current Nats shift didn't leave me a lot of time to eat (I have to make my own food). I'm sure others feel this way and it would increase the overall number of staff members.

- If we're concerned about actual size of venue, perhaps we should consider limiting the amount of spectators first. Competitors don't need 7 members of their family viewing, especially now when a good portion of competitors record their own solves with a tripod and are there to hang out with their friends or meet new people. I think this is a much more friendly consideration. Competitors could each be given a certain number of passes for the event and families could be encouraged to enjoy the venue's surroundings.

- We shouldn't value a fast person missing out over a slower person missing out. I do not personally care if this makes the WCA look less unofficial. If someone misses a deadline, it is their fault. We don't need to ensure that all of the fastest cubers are there for the event to be successful.

- When I first joined the community, everyone insisted this was not competitive as much against each other as with themselves (aiming for PBs rather than records). A move like this would clearly ruin that atmosphere. I would enjoy competitions less knowing that if I didn't make times I would be barred from certain competitions.

Just some initial thoughts. I really think the community as a whole needs to stop making changes because they want to help faster cubers. There have been enough calls that shouldn't have been made just because someone was fast.

 

[tseitsei]

- We shouldn't value a fast person missing out over a slower person missing out. I do not personally care if this makes the WCA look less unofficial. If someone misses a deadline, it is their fault. We don't need to ensure that all of the fastest cubers are there for the event to be successful.

I'm American but I'll say my opinion anyway

IMO with "normal" competitions this is how things should be. Everyone should be allowed to compete.

BUT when we are talking about European championships, Worlds, or US nationals I think fast cubers should have the right to compete in these competitions even if that means that someone slower cannot compete because of that. In these big competitions where we award big titles (world champion etc.) we should (IMO) try to get as many of the really fast cubers there as we can.

Of course slower people can compete if there is enough room left in these competitions but I really think that we should try to get the Worlds best to compete in World championships and the USA's best to compete in US nationals.

Maybe that's elitist but that's how most of the sports do stuff.