CURC Scoring System

CURA Scoring Proposal

November 30 2018

Change in Scoring System

CURA’s vision statement is to promote and celebrate excellence in Canadian University rowing by crowning national rowing champions in the spirit of fairness and inclusiveness.

It has been assumed that intent of the current scoring system is to award a championship to the best overall team. As you will see below efforts have been made in the past to achieve this goal. Experience over the years however has led of some coaches and athletes to the view that the current points structure is biased to small boats and to lightweights in how points are accumulated to win a championship.

Criticism of the current points system may be valid and the current system can fall short of rewarding the best overall team. If this is indeed true, CURA should consider further adjustments to scoring to achieve the desired outcome in crowning our national champions. If fairness and inclusiveness is our vision, the current system short-changes the largest team event at the championship, the 8+.

Some background:

The CURC points system has been revised once before in 2008 to help make the event “promote an overall ‘Team’ focus.

Here is the rationale from the 2008 AGM minutes:

V_o_t_e_ _o_n_ _C_U_R_C_ _E_v_a_l_u_a_t_i_o_n_ _C_o_m_m_i_t_t_e_e_ _p_r_o_p_o_s_e_d_ _p_o_i_n_t_s_ _c_h_a_n_g_e_ _f_o_r_ _2_0_0_8_,_ _c_h_a_n_g_e_ _t_o_ _P_l_a_y_i_n_g_ _R_e_g_u_l_a_t_i_o_n_s_ _– _H_o_w_i_e_ _C_a_m_p_b_e_l_l_ _

• _Howie summarized the committee’s recommendation that the CURA should re-evaluate the proportionality of points awarded for events and finish positions at the championships. He offered the rationale:

􀂃 _Promotes an overall ‘Team’ focus of the CURA, which he said should be the central focus of the organization;

􀂃 _And that with the increased number of participants the new point structure will allow the small schools to earn some points, and that this will be attractive to their athletic departments.

􀂙 _MOTION – Carol Love: To accept the proposed schedule of points put forward by the CURC Evaluation Committee that was circulated with the minutes of the January 2008 CURA meeting.

􀂙 _SECONDED – Craig Pond

􀂙 _DISCUSSION

o Volker didn’t agree that a 10^th place in an 8+ event should earn a better point standing than a single sculler who comes first. He feels that it “promotes mediocrity”

o Howie and Rick suggested that CURA requires a Mission Statement that outlines the core values of the organization

􀂙 _VOTE - 11 in favour; 1 against (UWO)

Here is the points system used up to 2008 and the current system that was adopted.

Canadian University Rowing Championships Scoring

System Up to 2008

As you can see the only difference is in the increase in points allocated to the 8+. This appears to be a step toward improving the “overall team focus” but was this actually achieved?

In most years, the current system has done a pretty good job of rewarding well rounded teams but there have been some years where 1-2 outstanding athletes, especially lightweights, can have enough influence to win a championship even through 14 athletes comprise a full team.

If it is the intent of the CURCs to crown a Team Champion, that team should be expected to be competitively represented in all boat classes and not just rely on outstanding performances in a couple of events. The largest team event, the 8+, is underweighted in the current point system. This is an issue to resolve as failure to promote well-rounded teams can lead to “gamesmanship” of the championship, which ultimately undermines the depth and quality of the events and what it should take to win a championship.

A really effective points system will strike the correct balance of making the 8+ and 4+ the most relevant to win a championship while at the same time giving enough weighting to the small boats so they have a more meaningful contribution to the points total. An effective points system will also reward consistent high placing between events.

Here are a few examples that highlight how the current system could fail to award the banner to best overall team.

1. A team can win by placing highly in 5 of 6 events and not have to perform well in the 8+, the event involving the largest part of a team.

2. A team can win by placing well in the 8+ but failing to support a full team or withdrawing from small boat events to support the 8+ or 4+ if their small boat can not make a meaningful contribution to the points total.

3. In the currently system, the 4+ is just as important as the 8+ because the points drops are relatively similar. E.g. a 1st in the 8 and 3rd in the LM4+ is equivalent to a 1st in the LM4+ and 3rd in the 8+. This shows the more significant “team” boat is undervalued. Also, the differences in points between places outside of the top 4 are only 1 point per position in events other than the 4+ and 8+. This can make athletes who have qualified for the ‘A’ final conclude that if they aren't in the medals, that coming 4th, 5th or 6th doesn't really matter. It should matter.

UBC alumni and current National Team member Ben de Wit with a mathematics background has done a thorough analysis of the current CUs points system and has provided some alternatives that would better reward a well rounded team to win a championship.

Mr. de Wit states:

“A more effective system may be having a more significant difference in points between each finishing position. The relative value of points between events is more important than the absolute values between events. Also within events, a linear point drop in better than the current progressive one which has the effect of making lower ranking finishes matter less and discourages participation in small boats unless you have a crew than can finish in an “A” final. Other rowing organizations use linear point drop systems. In US collegiate rowing, the IRAs and NCAAs use a linear point drop system as do World Cup points.”

E.g. NCAA Women’s Champions

22 Teams

4+ worth 22 points for the win, drops by 1 point down to 22^ndteam

JV 8+ worth 44 points for the win, double 4+ value, drops by 2 points down to 22^ndteam

Varsity 8+ worth 66 points for the win, triple 4+ value, drops by 3 points down to 22^ndteam

Please see the attached spreadsheet that compares the current system to one that rewards a more well rounded team, V4. In reviewing men’s final points totals of top 6 placings over the past nine years, the new system is consistent in crowning the same champion, but the 2012 championship would have been awarded differently. In reviewing the top 3 women’s placings over the past 10 years, there is also one year, 2012, where they would have been a different champion. Changes in placing behind the champion would have occurred in 6 of 9 years for the men for top 6 crews. Women’s placing changes would have occurred in 2 of the past 10 years for top 3 crews.

We propose that CURA work to find an improved scoring system to correct the flaw of bias toward small boats and lightweights. The amount of time invested by all our athletes, coaches and our universities needs to be well and fairly represented to match CURA’s vision and make CURC the most valid test of what it takes to win a university championship in Canada.