CURA Survey

CURA Survey 2020

Interpretations – Dan Bechard

1. Over half of respondents indicated they had some sort of involvement with hosting CUs.

2. A majority are not satisfied with our events and believe something should be added. Responses

ranged from H2x, H4-, H4x, L4x and para. The responses in regards to suggested events to be

added was quite dispersed but the H2x came up the most.

3. A majority feel as though nothing should be removed however the L4+ was the most popular

response if something was suggested. Adding any events from question 2 and not eliminating

any events has scheduling issues particularly in short days of November with possible weather

contingencies necessary.

4. A majority are satisfied with the progression system. When something was suggested, it usually

asked to find a way to move towards heats/reps/semis/finals or heats/semis/finals.

5. Vast majority are in favour of keeping two days of racing. This complicates any move in our

progression system.

6. A majority are satisfied with the current team cap size. Of the respondents that are not satisfied

they were split between wanting a bigger cap to reward the investment in a big program and

greater depth, and smaller cap to allow more banner competition.

7. I stuffed this question up. There are no rules that place a cap on how many races one may enter

at CUs although three to my knowledge is the most anyone has done. Majority are satisfied

with the current rules. Of those that were not satisfied, a common theme was to lower the cap

to 2. Another common theme was that one HP athlete (particularly lightweight) can run the

slate.

8. A majority are satisfied with the number of locations we have. Of those that were not satisfied,

common themes were only allowing the event be hosted in locations that can provide 6 buoyed

2k lanes. Another noted that the location should be set 2-3 years in advance.

9. Open qualification had unanimous support

10. Although a majority are fine with the current points system, it was close. Responses varied

widely from those that were not satisfied. Common themes were that the system was

overweighting lightweights and did not have equal per-person points distribution. Important to

mention I am not confirming this in this report. I am only reporting what leads of programs

believe.

11. Vast majority are satisfied with lightweight rowing continuing as part of the CU.

12. The current weigh-in procedure has the majority of support. Common themes amongst those

not in support were to go to the standard FISA rules. IE 2 hours prior to the individual race.

13. The current weigh-in limit had unanimous support. Common themes for those that disagreed

wanted the weight to increase due to the time of season of our event. Again, I am not

confirming that this is reality or would help anyone. Its just what was indicated.

14. Almost unanimous support for boat weighing not being included at CUs.

15. Unanimous support for no composite crews.

16. Majority of programs recognize that the current entry fees are not enough to sustain the event

or guarantee its quality. Common themes from those that agree with the current fee structure

was that the LOC needs to do more to ensure a financially viable regatta.

17. Question 16 indicates support for higher fees however question 17 indicated that almost half of

programs have left behind what they deemed to be competitive athletes. A majority of those

were for financial reasons. Another common response was that the team cap size was the

obstruction.

I think the most important items that are linked to our sustainability as a league was touched on in

question 16 and 17. I would suggest the following:

1. I think the topic of appropriate fees needs to be addressed and voted on in November. Katie, its

up to you whether we work on this as a board or if you assign it to an existing

subcommittee. There is no question in my mind that the team fee needs to go up.

2. I think the topic of athletes left behind needs to be addressed and the best way to approach

this. There were two major themes. First was not having the finances to send athletes. The

second was the athlete cap prevents other athletes from participating. Again, Katie its up to you

whether we work on this as a board or if you assign it to an existing subcommittee.

These are the two items that in my eyes are most likely to threaten our league. Number one is from a

fiscal perspective. Number two is from a participation perspective. After that items of concern

becomes increasingly subjective however events offered, team cap and race cap may factor into

potential solutions particularly for item 2. It should be noted that changing anything associated with

these examples will have multiple consequences that should be considered.