Re: [VHFcontesting] ARRL VHF+ contest proposals: input invited

[John K9IJ <k9ij@vx5.com>]

At 10:31 PM 2/20/2004 -0500, you wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John K9IJ" <k9ij@vx5.com>
> To: <VHFcontesting@contesting.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 10:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] ARRL VHF+ contest proposals: input invited
>
>
> > At 09:40 PM 2/20/2004 -0500, David Hinton wrote:
> > >John,
> > >
> > >You have to weigh the pro and con.  Extra points for 2.3G may encourage
> more
> > >participation on the higher bands but it would IMHO more discouraging to
> new
> > >entry level participants.  I believe it is more important to recruit more
> > >participants than it is to recruit existing participants to operate more
> > >bands.  Which is more important , one person operating 10 bands or 10
> people
> > >operating one band?  I believe if we attract 10 new people to operate one
> > >band in a contest that a significant percentage will expand to working
> the
> > >higher as well as they experience the fun of contesting.
> >
> > I totally disagree. You are making an assumption here that the new entry
> > level participant is going to start on many bands immediately and be
> > competitive
> > immediately and if they're not they aren't going to be interested at all.
>
> Sorry but I did not make that assumption at all.  I assumed that new
> particpants would more than likely begin with one band much the way that I
> did and as time went by a gradually added other bands.  I did not add 432
> this past year in order to get the extra points but soley for the enjoyment
> of the extra contacts. Most new particpants do not have numerous bands and I
> believe they are discouraged when they find they are not competive.  To
> attract new particpants they must be able to feel that they can be
> competitive in some way.

Dave,

Then the additional points for higher bands isn't going to make a lot of 
difference.
Your assumption that "Most new particpants do not have numerous bands and I
believe they are discouraged when they find they are not competive." Isn't much
different. And you say yourself, you added 432 for reasons other than to become
more competitive.

I disagree with that assumption. I think that for some, adding a band to become
more competitive is an incentive, but to add a band just to make more qsos for
the enjoyment of it, is just as much an incentive.

You're never going to be able to 'level the field' to a point where a new 
participant
is going to be competitive with the established contesters. Not without 
driving off
the highly competitive guys that have big bucks to build superstations. You 
just
can't do it.

Extra points for the higher bands provide a big incentive for people to go 
to the
extra effort (and believe me, it is an extra effort) to add those bands to 
their stations.
The difference between adding 432 and adding 1296 or 2304+ is significant. 
Additional
incentives like more qso points, or allowing the operators at Multi-Ops to 
bring out
their microwave equipement and put it to use are good incentives to 
encourage activity
on those bands, and we 'need' those incentives.

I believe that a much better incentive to encourage the entry level 
stations would be
to add a 'Limited Single' category. I've never quite understood the 
rationale of having
Limited Multi but not Limited Single.

John - K9IJ



> > Based on that assumption, then we should eliminate all the bands except
> maybe
> > Six and Two because the beginning contester isn't going to likely be on
> > 220Mhz or
> > 432/450 either.
> >
> > The extra points for 2.3G and higher bands are there specifically to
> > encourage more
> > participation on those bands. WE continue to 'need' to encourage
> > participation on
> > those bands.
> >
> > A MUCH better solution to encourage new participation and allow them to
> become
> > competitive sooner would be to add a 'limited single' category.
> >
> > John - K9IJ
> >
> >
> >
> > >David
> > >
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "John Geiger" <johngeig@yahoo.com>
> > >To: "Mike Hasselbeck" <mph@swcp.com>; <VHFcontesting@contesting.com>
> > >Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 9:17 PM
> > >Subject: Re: [VHFcontesting] ARRL VHF+ contest proposals: input invited
> > >
> > >
> > > > Well said Mike.  I can't see how the new point rules
> > > > encourage anyone to add more bands.  Since a 2.3G QSO
> > > > would count the same pointwise as a 6 meter QSO, I
> > > > would do better making a few WSJT skeds than I would
> > > > adding new bands.  Not exactly the way to encourage
> > > > activity on the higher frequencies.
> > > >
> > > > 73s John NE0P

-

John Rice  K9IJ
k9ij@vx5.com
Webmaster, Network Admin, Janitor
http://www.k9ij.com
http://www.suhfars.org
http://www.vx5.com/~teampf




_______________________________________________
VHFcontesting mailing list
VHFcontesting@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/vhfcontesting