PDA

View Full Version : 28h. CYCC Qualification rules - Brammall amendment



Bob Gillanders
01-19-2011, 02:27 PM
Lyle or Stuart, please post motion here ASAP.

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 03:12 PM
Motion – Adding Pre-Qualifiers for CYCC

December 21, 2010

Moved: Stuart Brammall:; Seconded: Bob Armstrong

That section 1003 of the CFC handbook be amended to include the following:

(e) The top ten rated players in each age category in the country (as of may 1st prior to the CYCC).

Commentary:
Thus the text of section 1003 will be:

1003. Players: {Motion 2009-13 2009 AGM Nadeau/Lavin}
The following players shall be eligible to participate in each Youth Tournament provided they comply with the formal entry requirements of Article 1007:
(a) The qualifiers from that year's YCC's.
(b) The qualifiers from the CYCC to the WYCC of the previous year.
(c) The highest rating of each age category {open & female} of each Province {as of May 1st prior to the CYCC}
(d) The host organizer may nominate three players for each category from the host location. {Amendment of Original Motion Barron/Langer}
(e) The top ten rated players in each age category in the country (as of may 1st prior to the CYCC)


The reasoning behind this is quite simple; these are our best players… and to exclude them would be detrimental to both the event and to the resulting WYCC team. It also ensures a minimum of ten players qualified in each section

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 03:22 PM
The above motion was drawn up in consultation with a few CYCC parents who are dissatisfied with the current system.

I have done some more thinking about this, and have a new idea:

I recognize that we do not want people to qualify by rating to not play in the YCCs, however I still have concerns about the YCC system, specifically I do not see that we can be sure to have enough volunteers to run them every year. To this end I would like to propose a compromise--

Potential Motion (in need of seconder):

That section 1003 of the CFC handbook be amended to include the following:
(e) If less then 12 players have qualified for an age goup by May 1st through the means outlined in sections 1003, (a)-(d), then the top players by rating in each age group (provided they have played at least ten rated games in the last year) will be added to the qualified list until 12 are qualified in each group.


Commentary:
This will ensure that each group always has twelve qualifiers, but will motivate the top players to play in the YCCs bcause if they do not and the twelve spots are taken they will not be able to play. This will sufficiently protect the event if in any given year the YCCs fail.

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-19-2011, 03:31 PM
(e) The top ten rated players in each age category in the country (as of may 1st prior to the CYCC).

somewhere should be added "with minimum 10 played games per year". Or maybe 20 :rolleyes:

Fred McKim
01-19-2011, 03:33 PM
I think your original amendment is simpler and better.

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 03:34 PM
somewhere should be added "with minimum 10 played games per year". Or maybe 20 :rolleyes:

Agreed, and I changed the post.

Fred McKim
01-19-2011, 03:36 PM
somewhere should be added "with minimum 10 played games per year". Or maybe 20 :rolleyes:

I think this is making it too complicated. Most of these kids, I would think are playing all of the time.

One added feature to this amendment is that it allows for the few kids living outside the country the opportunity to qualify.

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 03:36 PM
It was simpler, and perhaps better... however I felt that this should also be discussed as a possibility; the apparent opposition to the original motion (Barron) should, I hope, be satisfied with this.

Ken Craft
01-19-2011, 03:37 PM
A better alternative rather than trying to fix a flawed system would be to rescind 2009-13.

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 03:43 PM
Yeah, I tried to argue that for a couple of months after the fall meeting... and met with ample resistance and no support. I am trying to make the best of a bad situation...
As I said, for some reason our youth coordinator has commited himself to this system... to the point that a member of the CYCC organizing team had to seek me out to have this brought forward.

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 03:45 PM
Also, please note that this places no restriction on players qualifing after May 1st... It ensures that invitations can be sent out to twelve players on May 1st, and further players can qualify after that through more YCCs if they occur.

Vladimir Birarov
01-19-2011, 04:05 PM
I am trying to make the best of a bad situation...
Stewart,
Can you, please clarify what makes this situation "bad"? Since new rules were announced we have 2 YCCs completed and other 11-12 on their way. Plus last year WYCC qualifiers, plus 3 local players per section. It will definitely assure sufficient participation in CYCC, and all who suppose to qualify will qualify.

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 04:12 PM
It's bad because next year there might not be any YCCs. (or rather, just OYCC, BCYCC, AYCC, and NOYCC)

Have you ever stopped to think why YCC have not been happening for the past many years? Here is why: there is no demand for them.

I personally think that forcing players to play in events obviously below there skill level to "qualify" (when it is already clear who plays chess at the required level) is something akin to extortion.

Quite frankly if I was a youth player I would be considering boycotting these YCCs, simply for the reason there is no control over how strong they have to be, what time control they use, or whether they are held in kid's parents basement.

That is why it is a bad situation.

And if you spell my name like that again I will be forced call you Bladimir.

Vladimir Birarov
01-19-2011, 04:34 PM
It's bad because next year there might not be any YCCs. (or rather, just OYCC, BCYCC, AYCC, and NOYCC)
Any reason or just gut feelings? :)


Have you ever stopped to think why YCC have not been happening for the past many years? Here is why: there is no demand for them.
You're absolutely right. Now we do have demand for them.


I personally think that forcing players to play in events obviously below there skill level to "qualify" (when it is already clear who plays chess at the required level) is something akin to extortion.
I don't think anyone will play "in events obviously below their skill level". Taking example of Ontario, where we have 10 YCCs, whoever thinks his "skill level" high enough to qualify from OYCC will go directly there, everyone else will pick another YCC.


... simply for the reason there is no control over how strong they have to be, what time control they use, or whether they are held in kid's parents basement.
Right again! But it's understandable and forgivable in our first year of running YCCs.


And if you spell my name like that again I will be forced call you Bladimir.
All right, you can boycott my posts ... :p

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 04:44 PM
I suggest you look up the results of the Northern Ontario YCCs, where you will find instances of individuals with negative performance ratings... something which I did not realize was possible until I saw it. If you think those events are suitable qualifiers... well, we will disagree.

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 05:44 PM
Bob A. has agreed to second the new motion.

I leave it to Lyle or Bob G. to determine whether it needs a new thread. I would like to have both this motion and the previous to be considered.

Motion follows:

///////////////////////////////////////////////////

Motion – Adding Minimum Qualifiers for CYCC

January 19, 2011

Moved: Stuart Brammall:; Seconded: Bob Armstrong


That section 1003 of the CFC handbook be amended to include the following:

(e) If less than 12 players have qualified for an age group by May 1st through the means outlined in sections 1003, (a)-(d), then the top players by rating in each age group (provided they have played at least ten rated games in the last year) will be added to the qualified list until 12 are qualified in each group.

///////////////////////////////////////////////////

Commentary:

Thus the text of section 1003 will be:

1003. Players: {Motion 2009-13 2009 AGM Nadeau/Lavin}
The following players shall be eligible to participate in each Youth Tournament provided they comply with the formal entry requirements of Article 1007:
(a) The qualifiers from that year's YCC's.
(b) The qualifiers from the CYCC to the WYCC of the previous year.
(c) The highest rating of each age category {open & female} of each Province {as of May 1st prior to the CYCC}
(d) The host organizer may nominate three players for each category from the host location. {Amendment of Original Motion Barron/Langer}
(e) If less than 12 players have qualified for an age group by May 1st through the means outlined in sections 1003, (a)-(d), then the top players by rating in each age group (provided they have played at least ten rated games in the last year) will be added to the qualified list until 12 are qualified in each group.


This will ensure that each group always has twelve qualifiers, but will motivate the top players to play in the YCCs because if they do not and the twelve spots are taken they will not be able to play. This will sufficiently protect the event if in any given year the YCCs fail.

Vladimir Birarov
01-19-2011, 06:03 PM
I suggest you look up the results of the Northern Ontario YCCs, where you will find instances of individuals with negative performance ratings... something which I did not realize was possible until I saw it. If you think those events are suitable qualifiers... well, we will disagree.
And I suggest you, Stuart, not to mix all the problems into one discussion. You amendment
(e) If less than 12 players have qualified for an age group by May 1st through the means outlined in sections 1003, (a)-(d), then the top players by rating in each age group (provided they have played at least ten rated games in the last year) will be added to the qualified list until 12 are qualified in each group. comes to ensure that we won't miss any of our best players, and I'm trying to say that this year alone shows that they will have enough YCCs and other ways to make it without this amendment.
I believe, no one will argue that having 14 new junior CFC tournaments is a good development. Quality of qualifiers and qualified players - it's completely different story, and we'll need to deal with it at later stages when minimum YCC infrastructure will be in place.

Bob Armstrong
01-19-2011, 06:05 PM
Bob A. has agreed to second the new motion.

I leave it to Lyle or Bob G. to determine whether it needs a new thread. I would like to have both this motion and the previous to be considered.



Hi Stuart:

I take it you mean discussed when you say considered.

But I think we can't have both motions voted on - if both passed, the second one passed will replace the first one, no?? I think we have to chose after hearing debate, which one seems more acceptable.

Lastly, and here we go again - how do we get rid of the first motion, now filed?? We've been in a procedural morass about " withdrawing a motion ". I think the Chair would have to ask the assembly to cancel the motion or some such thing - and if one governor objected, I don't know if that governor can force the motion to a vote, now that its been filed. Can the procedural legal beagles ( of whom I am not one - I've never used Robert's Rules of Order ) tell us what to do, if Stuart and I decide that we want to proceed with the new version, rather than the old version, that is currently on the florr for vote? I hate to do this to everyone....at some point, someone knowledgeable has to draw up a set of procedural explanations for the CFC on these motion problems that are continually arising, and no one for sure knows the answer.

Bob

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 06:14 PM
You amendment comes to ensure that we won't miss any of our best players, and I'm trying to say that this year alone shows that they will have enough YCCs and other ways to make it without this amendment.

No, no that is not the reason at all, in fact if twelve are qualified by May 1st then the proposed motion has no effect, regardless of who the twelve are... they could be the bottom twelve.

The purpose is to ensure a minimum number of players are qualified for each section. I realize already that you don't care about the quality of the participants.;)

Suppose we have 9 weak players qualified through YCCs in Northern Ontario, Newfounland, and Northwest Territories--- the proposed rule would then qualifiy the top three players in the rating list in addition to these 9.

Bob Armstrong
01-19-2011, 06:19 PM
Just want to say that I prefer the new version of the motion over the old.

I think the predominant desire is that the YCC's have as many participants as possible, and that it be the main qualification route.

I see the extra system qualification route as a back-up for the YCC system.

But I will go with the version the majority of the governors seem to want. They are both an improvement.

Bob

Valer Eugen Demian
01-19-2011, 06:44 PM
...
I personally think that forcing players to play in events obviously below there skill level to "qualify" (when it is already clear who plays chess at the required level) is something akin to extortion.
...

I am not sure how much experience you have in dealing with juniors and their cycle up to CYCC, but your statement is absolutely not true! Having less players interested to play in provincial YCCs (because they are top rated...) is the exact opposite of what you actually need: more kids involved in chess.

One simple example of how one junior can be in top 10 and play only at CYCC year after year is the example of a junior who stops playing in junior tournaments and plays only in adult ones to keep their rating high.

Nowhere in the World what you propose is acceptable. Every junior player - except those finishing top 3 at the nationals and qualifying for the national team - MUST play in the national cycle year after year simply because that cycle decides which one is the best junior in the country.

It is truly disturbing to see one jump to all sort of conclusions and "great" ideas, coming up with all sort of motions based on "blitz" thinking. I am sorry, but we should not govern this way!

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 07:11 PM
One simple example of how one junior can be in top 10 and play only at CYCC year after year is the example of a junior who stops playing in junior tournaments and plays only in adult ones to keep their rating high.

Nowhere in the World what you propose is acceptable. Every junior player - except those finishing top 3 at the nationals and qualifying for the national team - MUST play in the national cycle year after year simply because that cycle decides which one is the best junior in the country.



Once again, as I stated earlier the initial motion has been pressed for by a number of concerned members.

But also I believe you are mistaken. The difference in rating between the top player's in an age group, and those who qualified through the NOSCC is on average 764 points. If what you say were the case we could have 2000 level players using events organised in basements to qualify for the world championship. If I was a 2700 I would be boycotting any qualification event of that type. I see no reason why our juniors should suffer such treatment.

On a seperate matter, you seem to view the junior and adult rating pools as completely seperate-- I know this is not the case, at least not in Ontario, though it would be interesting to investigate to what extent the rating pools intermingle.

Valer Eugen Demian
01-19-2011, 07:17 PM
Once again, as I stated earlier the initial motion has been pressed for by a number of concerned members.

But also I believe you are mistaken. The difference in rating between the top player's in an age group, and those who qualified through the NOSCC is on average 764 points. If what you say were the case we could have 2000 level players using events organised in basements to qualify for the world championship. If I was a 2700 I would be boycotting any qualification event of that type. I see no reason why our junior should suffer such treatment.

On a seperate matter, you seem to view the junior and adult rating pools as completely seperate-- I know this is not the case, at least not in Ontario, though it would be interesting to investigate to what extent the rating pools intermingle.

Well, what you say does not apply in BC. Here in order for a junior to get his rating above 1600 it would need to play in adult tournaments. That is the reason why most junior BC players are underrated. Our pools of players is different.

Junior players play each other and if you want to consider the top 10, the majority of them would need to play exclusively in adult tournaments since the junior ones would not put them over 1500.

Higher rated players (not only juniors...) have the natural tendency to avoid playing lower rated players; now your intended ammendment gives them extra incentive not to play in the local YCCs. Logically this could lead to less juniors playing in junior tournaments (against lower rated players) with a negative effect on participation!

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 07:22 PM
It is truly disturbing to see one jump to all sort of conclusions and "great" ideas, coming up with all sort of motions based on "blitz" thinking. I am sorry, but we should not govern this way!

And as to this all I can say is that the only way to have things discussed is to have a motion; otherwise we would have a silent meeting. I am open to change my opinion on any topic here... however on this issue specifically I see no reason why ensuring a minimum number of players can be a bad thing.

The fact is that in the past there have been very few YCCs... I see know reason why we should not guard against the possibility that we cannot find enough volunteer to organize them in any given year.

Valer Eugen Demian
01-19-2011, 07:25 PM
And as to this all I can say is that the only way to have things discussed is to have a motion; otherwise we would have a silent meeting. I am open to change my opinion on any topic here... however on this issue specifically I see no reason why ensuring a minimum number of players can be a bad thing.

The fact is that in the past there have been very few YCCs... I see know reason why we should not guard against the possibility that we cannot find enough volunteer to organize them in any given year.

And what I said is why do you get involved in this when there's a Youth Committe having people with experience in this area who can take care of things?

ON, BC, AB and QC always have YCCs. The point is to get all provinces to have YCCs. Without those, you are just patching CYCC. We do not want that! We want a truly workable solution at provincial level and a widening of the base of the pyramid!...

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 07:27 PM
Higher rated players (not only juniors...) have the natural tendency to avoid playing lower rated players; now your intended ammendment gives them extra incentive not to play in the local YCCs. Logically this could lead to less juniors playing in junior tournaments (against lower rated players) with a negative effect on participation!

That is why I suggested changing the motion... If each YCC qualifies three players per age group, the motion only has effect if less then 4 YCCs are held. I still think this is a compromise, since YCCs in areas besides the main centres generally qualify un-competitive players. We would only need 4 events like NOSCC and then all the good player would be forced to play in some weak event to qualify... even though they outrate those kids by some 650 points.

Valer Eugen Demian
01-19-2011, 07:31 PM
That is why I suggested changing the motion... If each YCC qualifies three players per age group, the motion only has effect if less then 4 YCCs are held. I still think this is a compromise, since YCCs in areas besides the main centres generally qualify un-competitive players. We would only need 4 events like NOSCC and then all the good player would be forced to play in some weak event to qualify... even though they outrate those kids by some 650 points.

Again this has been discussed by the Youth Committee. You have also not considered the fact more YCCs per province destroy the value of an important junior achievement (at least in BC): provincial champion! For some juniors this is the highlight of their chess career. Holding more than 1 YCC per province eliminates this... Not a very good side effect if you ask me!

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 07:33 PM
And what I said is why do you get involved in this when there's a Youth Committe having people with experience in this area who can take care of things?

ON, BC, AB and QC always have YCCs. The point is to get all provinces to have YCCs. Without those, you are just patching CYCC. We do not want that! We want a truly workable solution at provincial level and a widening of the base of the pyramid!...

I understand what you are saying, but as I said the impetus for this motion comes from Victor Itkine, who if I am not mistaken is a member of the youth committee, also CYCC organizer; I imagine he simply got to tired of trying to make Barron see reason.... The top ten players motion is his child, and I am representing him here. The twelve player minimum is my way of trying to compromise between the two systems.

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 07:36 PM
Again this has been discussed by the Youth Committee. You have also not considered the fact more YCCs per province destroy the value of an important junior achievement (at least in BC): provincial champion! For some juniors this is the highlight of their chess career. Holding more than 1 YCC per province eliminates this... Not a very good side effect if you ask me!

In fact I argued exactly this point immediatly following the fall meeting, and agree with you completely on this point... I think having multiple YCCs is stupid. Of course more tournaments is great but why do they need to be qualifiers?

Bob Armstrong
01-19-2011, 07:42 PM
For some juniors this is the highlight of their chess career. Holding more than 1 YCC per province eliminates this... Not a very good side effect if you ask me!

Hi Valer:

This is not the case in Ontario. There are many YCC's being held. But there is still the OYCC, which will determine our provincial champion. The elite players who want good competition, and want the title, will play in it and try to qualify in it.

Bob

Michael Barron
01-19-2011, 10:37 PM
Stuart,

This idea of Victor Itkine was discussed by the Youth Committe, and defeated.

I still see no reason to exclude our best players from participation at provincial level.
They have no problem to qualify, but we should encourage them to participate.

Beside, there is an issue of fairness.
With voluntary "rating gifts" we can't ensure the integrity of CFC rating system across the country.
Jason Cao is just one example.
But in general, young players in BC, where majority of "adult" tournaments are non-rated, or in SK, where such tournaments almost non-existent, are severely underrated.
In such situation we can't compare ratings from different provinces.

For example, in the last CYCC were 4 champions from BC (plus Jason Cao, who tied for first), and all of them were rated lower, than their Ontario rivals.

Stuart Brammall
01-19-2011, 10:58 PM
I understand that, and am not arguing against qualifying tournaments in general, I just feel they should be used to qualify wildcards.... I also see no problem with pre-qualifing players you already know will be competetive.

As I said months ago, I feel the best system for qualification (besides an open event ;) ) would be to have some sort of rating floor, and then in addition to have provincial YCCs to qualify anyone else who is competetive... Say qualify the top 20 in an age group, then hold the YCCs (and only one per province) and the top 3 in each age group who are not already qualified by being in the top twenty also qualify.

Unfortunately you don't really want a qualification system, what you want in an enforced participation system... they are not the same at all.

Stuart Brammall
01-20-2011, 12:53 AM
So this is the sort of event I was worried about:

http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?t=4465

I have to admit I thought David had more class... charging kids $40, donating $6 to the CFC, no prizes, 30 minute games all in one day. Extortion.
Total. System. Abuse.

Although I thought I would get to call someone else on it first.

Bob Armstrong
01-20-2011, 10:32 AM
I have now considered both what I call this Itkine/Brammall original amendment, and the alternative revised Brammall amendment ( 2 ). These are altenative amendments in my opinion and cannot both coexist in the CYCC section should both be passed.

So I am now withdrawing my support for the revised Brammall amendment ( 2 ), though I did second it. I will be voting against it ( I think we should have to choose between the two amendments ). I will be voting in favour of this Itkine/Brammall amendment.

I have given a full explanation of my reasoning for this in a post today on the other thread dealing with the Brammall amendment (2).

Bob

Egidijus Zeromskis
01-20-2011, 11:10 AM
http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?t=4465

no prizes


Please reread an announcement.

Prizes: CFC Medals for the first three places.

Free refreshments will be provided

Fred McKim
01-20-2011, 11:16 AM
So this is the sort of event I was worried about:

http://www.chesstalk.info/forum/showthread.php?t=4465

I have to admit I thought David had more class... charging kids $40, donating $6 to the CFC, no prizes, 30 minute games all in one day. Extortion.
Total. System. Abuse.

Although I thought I would get to call someone else on it first.

I think that the idea is that the rest of the money goes to the winners for their expenses towards the CYCC. It should obviously say this.

Stuart Brammall
01-20-2011, 12:16 PM
I think that the idea is that the rest of the money goes to the winners for their expenses towards the CYCC. It should obviously say this.

Really? I'm pretty sure you are incorrect (again I know David fairly well).

But regardless I feel it only makes sense that we would regulate such events, rather than just allow a free for all...

Bob Armstrong
01-20-2011, 12:21 PM
Hi Stuart:

This is the first year of the system, and it is already late for getting YCC's off the ground.

We may have to tolerate less than favourable tournaments this time, because it seems too late to now impose regulation standards on them - a number are already on stream.

But I agree that some standards need to be imposed for next year, to prevent exploitation due to the " qualification " nature of the tournament.

Bob

Fred McKim
01-20-2011, 01:58 PM
Really? I'm pretty sure you are incorrect (again I know David fairly well).

But regardless I feel it only makes sense that we would regulate such events, rather than just allow a free for all...

If you're correct, this should not have been allowed as a YCC, in my opinion.

Ellen Nadeau
01-20-2011, 03:31 PM
Sorry I just returned from out of country and am catching up on the meeting. If I understand correctly, there was a lot of unnecessary discussion.

A variation was discussed along these lines:

e) If less then 12 players have qualified for an age goup by May 1st through the means outlined in sections 1003, (a)-(d), then the top players by rating in each age group (provided they have played at least ten rated games in the last year) will be added to the qualified list until 12 are qualified in each group.

I cannot conceive of any situation where this could possibly be implemented.
If we use the other criteria for qualifications and even assume there are 0 YCC's being run that year, The other means of qualification would have a minimum of 12 qualifiers per category by May 1st. Each province has top rated (10 provinces) = 10 players qualified. There has always been at least 2 players for each section in the CYCC's of the previous year so they would qualifiy this way that makes 12 players per section bfore YCC and before the host site nominates players.

I may have missed some important postings ,I'm trying to get up to speed before voting but this and any similar amendment is useless from what I see so far.

Stuart Brammall
01-20-2011, 04:11 PM
Sorry I just returned from out of country and am catching up on the meeting. If I understand correctly, there was a lot of unnecessary discussion.


I cannot conceive of any situation where this could possibly be implemented.
If we use the other criteria for qualifications and even assume there are 0 YCC's being run that year, The other means of qualification would have a minimum of 12 qualifiers per category by May 1st. Each province has top rated (10 provinces) = 10 players qualified. There has always been at least 2 players for each section in the CYCC's of the previous year so they would qualifiy this way that makes 12 players per section bfore YCC and before the host site nominates players.

I may have missed some important postings ,I'm trying to get up to speed before voting but this and any similar amendment is useless from what I see so far.

It is 12 in each age group, not twelve total. This rule would guarantee a minimum of 72 qualified players total. If the YCCs and other rules ever fail to make 12 qualifiers in any one section, this rule will bring the section up to twelve players.

Fred McKim
01-20-2011, 04:15 PM
Each province qualifies it's highest player by rating for each group. Combine that with the top 3 finishers and Ellen's right.

I'd go with the top 10 rated CFC members on May 1 (keep it simple).

Stuart Brammall
01-20-2011, 04:18 PM
I cannot conceive of any situation where this could possibly be implemented.
If we use the other criteria for qualifications and even assume there are 0 YCC's being run that year, The other means of qualification would have a minimum of 12 qualifiers per category by May 1st. Each province has top rated (10 provinces) = 10 players qualified. There has always been at least 2 players for each section in the CYCC's of the previous year so they would qualifiy this way that makes 12 players per section bfore YCC and before the host site nominates players.


I read this a little more closely this time... this would be true if it were possible for provinces to qualify players in every section, however most provinces have no active players in many sections. I have a chart with the total number of active juniors by province somewhere.... just let me find it.

Stuart Brammall
01-20-2011, 04:29 PM
I have a chart with the total number of active juniors by province somewhere.... just let me find it.

Province...........U8.......U10.....U12.....U14... ..U16.......U18....
Alberta.............1..........7.........5........ .7........6..........5......
B.C. ...............6..........9........10.......10.... ...7..........6......
Quebec.............0..........2........1.........6 ........6..........2......
Manitoba...........0..........1..........1........ .1........3.........2.....
N.B. ...............0...........0.........1........1... .....1...........1....
NF .................0...........0.........0.........1 ........1..........0....
NS .................0...........0.........1.........0 ........0..........0....
NU...................0...........0..........0..... .....0.......0.........0.....
NWT ...............0...........0............0........0 ........0.........0.....
Ontario ...........15..........25........25+......25+..... 25+......25+.....
PEI...................0...........0............0.. .....3.........1..........0....
SK...................0............0...........0... .....2.........0..........1.....
YK...................0............0..........0.... .....0........0............0...


So that's the demographic breakdown... as you can see there are numerous 0 spots where there are no active (min. 15 games) juniors from that province or territory, in the specified age group.

I initially tried to use this chart to argue that any sort of qualification based on geographic locale did not make sense... and I stand by that interpretation.

Michael Barron
01-21-2011, 12:26 AM
I understand that, and am not arguing against qualifying tournaments in general, I just feel they should be used to qualify wildcards.... I also see no problem with pre-qualifying players you already know will be competitive.

As I said months ago, I feel the best system for qualification (besides an open event ;) ) would be to have some sort of rating floor, and then in addition to have provincial YCCs to qualify anyone else who is competetive... Say qualify the top 20 in an age group, then hold the YCCs (and only one per province) and the top 3 in each age group who are not already qualified by being in the top twenty also qualify.

Unfortunately you don't really want a qualification system, what you want in an enforced participation system... they are not the same at all.

Thank you, Stuart!

Glad to know that you support the qualification system in general! ;)

What we need this year - the qualification system that encourage participation.
After CYCC we analyze the results and make necessary corrections to the rules.

Sooner or later, we would be able to build the qualification system that you like... :D

Meantime we need to vote on this motion...

As I said months ago, we can't use ratings for qualification, because we can't compare ratings from different provinces.
The only way to qualify - is to play well in a tournament.

This motion discourages tournament participation, that's why it's bad.

On behalf of the CFC Youth Committee I ask all Governors to vote against this motion.