K8CC wrote:
> For NAQP (which was intended to replace
> the ARRL Open CD Party)....When it came to the USA, the obvious multiplier
was "states".
Why were States the "obvious" multiplier when the long-stated intent was to
replace a very popular contest that used ARRL Sections as multipliers?
> I'd also point out that in SS, there is a section called
> "Maryland-DC" and it's on-air abbreviation is supposed to be
> "MDC" not "MD".
Why is that germane to a discussion of a contest that uses States, not
Sections, as multipliers?
In my opinion, Dave and the others who came up with the format for the NAQP
(still largely a domestic W/VE contest despite its more far-reaching name)
would have created a more interesting contest if they had selected ARRL
Sections instead of States for the USA multipliers. I believe all current
entrants and most potential NA entrants are fully conversant with the
concept of ARRL Sections -- either through the pages of QST, through local
SM elections, or through prior SS participation -- so I don't think use of
Sections harms the "simplicity" objective at all. To the contrary, there
are good reasons for NAQP (or one or more of the Sprints, for that matter)
to consider the use of Sections as USA multipliers:
* Excellent practice for copying Section abbreviations in the Sweepstakes
* A way to gradually entice more new contesters into the SS
* More fun being "rare DX" for participants in high-population states
(i.e., tends to level out the "participants per multiplier" playing field)
and tends to bring casual participants in "rare" Sections out of the
woodwork
* Greater opportunities for "bands/times" and "mults vs. QSOs" strategies
(when you're on the east coast, for instance, it's a far different matter to
make sure you work nine different California Sections than it is to be sure
of working a single CA State multiplier)
* Additional "legitimate" multipliers (based on actual boundaries of the
ARRL political structure) to chase
* Harder to get a "clean sweep" (which feeds the "strategies" comment
above)
By the way, I agree with the person who thought it would be good to add
Mexican provinces to the list of multipliers.
> My point is, in the end the rules are defined by the contest
> sponsor, and only their opinion counts...
Very true. However, ARRL has a well-publicized group (the CAC) as a vehicle
for receiving, deliberating upon, and acting on participant input about
their contests -- even if individual petitioners don't always agree with the
outcomes. Ditto CQ. It's not been obvious to me in past years that NAQP
provides a similar opportunity for input. Going forward, I would love to be
proven wrong.
Many of the threads on this reflector in past months have attempted to
address how to get greater participation in certain contests. Somewhere
during the past year I received an e-mail request from a major Sprint
competitor asking for input on what could be done to boost participation in
that contest -- especially in my call area. I responded in depth, but never
received any comment back, and have no indication that my opinions were even
considered or discussed. Now, THAT's a real interest booster! (Not.)
Sprints have certain other structural problems that make it highly
uncompetitive to be in the northern states but I, for one, would return to
the Sprints -- at least casually -- if the USA multipliers were ARRL
Sections. Since I know of no current participant who would quit entering
the Sprints if such a change were made, I conclude that there would be at
the very least a modest uptick in activity. I believe the same thing is
even more true of the NAQP. But we'll probably never know....
Bud, W2RU
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|