Pat,
I agree, but the proper direction towards a possible solution is to
recommend what would be more "fair". No set of rules regarding scoring is
ever going to be 100% fair, especially in this contest where LOCATION plays
such a great part of the Q count AND the mults.
There will NEVER be a semblance of truly "fair" scoring unless a factor of
distance is instituted in the scoring, a la Stew Perry Distance Challenge.
For example, replace the simple points per Q based on country/continent,
etc. with a points per Q scoring based on distance and replace the
State/Province/Country mults with multipliers of the CQ zones since this is
a CQ contest. Make the report the Zone # and the State/Province/Country
simply to have a similar exchange but one that is meaningful.
Plaques, Certificates, etc. could still be sponsored for
State/Province/Country winners. The Grid Square and CQ zone would be part
of the log submission for scoring purposes.
Sure, it will change the flavor of the historical CQ 160 contest but it
would definitely make the scoring more realistic and "fair".
If the "Contest Committee" and Director of the CQ WW 160 desire to make any
changes is unknown, but it sure would be nice to have ALL logs
simultaneously scored in a different manner just to see what the results
might be AND give some hard data towards a scoring change possibility.
My "dos centavos" for some thought and for someone with time and number
crunching ability/availability to do a trial run on a few logs to see what
the results would be. As a starter, use NA5NM, NN1N, K9NR, VY2ZM, D4B, a
couple of top level EU stations, a couple of top level JAs and any others
who would provide a good reference to see where the chips fall. I predict
the top dogs will still be top dogs BUT there will be a significant closing
of the gap between similar equipped stations/ops no matter where they are
located. Suddenly the top level JAs will appear way up the list because of
the distance factor.
Milt, N5IA
One of the ops at NA5NM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barkey, Patrick M." <pbarkey@bsu.edu>
To: <CQ-contest@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 10:08 AM
Subject: [CQ-Contest] Time for a fix
Does anyone else have a problem with this:
Single op:
NN1N 955 59 52 10 440,892 YCCC
Multi op:
K9NR(@WB9Z) 1329 59 42 30 350,470 SMC
All these guys are my friends, and I'm not picking on anyone
individually.
But when a New England station that operates 10 hours beats a full-blown
W9 multi-op by 25% there is something wrong with the contest rules.
I think the CQ 160 guys need to throttle-back on the 10-point rule for
inter-
continental QSO's. Its kinda hard to get psyched up back here for this
kind of beating otherwise.
- Pat
N9RV
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|