28i - CYCC Qualification rules - Brammall(2) amendment

[Bob Gillanders]

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.

[Bob Armstrong]

I will repeat my post from the original motion thread, since this new one has been opened for discussion

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

[Stuart Brammall]

I agree that they are both an improvement, and will take either over none, though I think I still prefer the first option.

Still more preferable would be if someone could find a different way to promote participation-- I would like to see the CYCC remain the best of the best for youth players.

[Bob Gillanders]

There seems to be some confusion here.
I haven't had a chance to explain it yet,

My intention is to allow all the amendment motions ( e, f, g, h, i ) to go forward to vote independently. You can vote yes to all if you like. Yes, that would cause some overlap. Certain kids would qualify under several rules, but that is not a problem.

The objective here is to loosen up the rules enough to ensure that enough kids get qualified so that the CYCC is a success. People are arguing about how many YCC's we need, but the truth is, we are not quite sure. We are exploring new territory. Keep in mind we need to qualify a lot more than the 150-200 we expect to attend. Not all the kids who qualify will attend. The best example is Northern Ontario. 77 kids have qualified, but Ellen expects only 20-25 will make the trip to Richmond Hill. So we should probably be looking to qualify say 500 kids. Just guessing here.

I would encourage everyone to vote Yes to several of the motions. If everyone votes Yes to only one, they will all end up being defeated.

I repeat, and will keep repeating it. The objective is to qualify all the kids that want to play at the CYCC, within reason. The objective of weeding out weak players in the first year of qualification system is a distant second.

[Stuart Brammall]

There seems to be some confusion here.
I haven't had a chance to explain it yet,

My intention is to allow all the amendment motions ( e, f, g, h, i ) to go forward to vote independently. You can vote yes to all if you like. Yes, that would cause some overlap. Certain kids would qualify under several rules, but that is not a problem.

The objective here is to loosen up the rules enough to ensure that enough kids get qualified so that the CYCC is a success. People are arguing about how many YCC's we need, but the truth is, we are not quite sure. We are exploring new territory. Keep in mind we need to qualify a lot more than the 150-200 we expect to attend. Not all the kids who qualify will attend. The best example is Northern Ontario. 77 kids have qualified, but Ellen expects only 20-25 will make the trip to Richmond Hill. So we should probably be looking to qualify say 500 kids. Just guessing here.

I would encourage everyone to vote Yes to several of the motions. If everyone votes Yes to only one, they will all end up being defeated.

I repeat, and will keep repeating it. The objective is to qualify all the kids that want to play at the CYCC, within reason. The objective of weeding out weak players in the first year of qualification system is a distant second.

And that's why we're all sick in the head... we could have just encouraged people to run junior tournaments and had an open CYCC and the event would have been the same.

[Michael Barron]

And that's why we're all sick in the head... we could have just encouraged people to run junior tournaments and had an open CYCC and the event would have been the same.

Stuart,

The problem is - how "we could have just encouraged people to run junior tournaments" ?

Any ideas?

The qualification to CYCC is a good motivator - we already see a lot of activity this year.
Unfortunately, not in every province...

But it's just the first year!
This year almost everything is acceptable.

After CYCC we will analyze what works and what doesn't, and make the necessary corrections to the rules.

[Christopher Field]

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.

The wording should be: "If fewer than 12..."

[Ken Craft]

The qualification to the CYCC is a terrible motivator, Michael.
There is no real enthusiastic interest in the 5 provinces east of Ontario and I have heard no enthusiasm out of Manitoba or Sakathchewan. The CFC is supposed to be a Federation of provincial associations. I don't hear enthusiasm for the process coming out of 7 of them. Don't let that stop you Michael for continuing to trumpet it. Of course, Upper Canada knows best.

[Bob Armstrong]

In my opinion, what I call the Itkine/Brammall original CYCC amendment cannot simply be voted on as simultaneously being able to be put into the CYCC section with the revised Brammall amendment ( 2 ). The two overlap. They are alternatives, and one must be chosen over the other as far as I can see.

I note that Stuart prefers the Itkine/Brammall original amendment. Though I feel the revised Brammall amendment (2) may be superior, I am caught by the fact that we brought the Itkine/Brammall original amendment specifically on behalf of a CFC member, Victor Itkine, a member of the CYCC Organizing Committee, the Youth Committee, and a CYCC parent. Members cannot bring motions on their own - they require governor assistance. Since both amendments are significant improvements in my opinion, and either are acceptable to me, I have now decided to maintain my role as assisting Victor, and I will be voting for the Itkine/Brammall original amendment and against the revised Brammall (2) amendment. Victor has also privately advised us that he prefers the original over the revised.

My second point goes to how to vote on these two motions, since they are really alternatives. If they are just both straightforwardly voted on independently, and both should pass ( a distinct possibility ), then we will have two competing sections for the CYCC section, that are in conflict. I don't think this issue should be left to the Handbook Updating Subcommittee to sort out re making the CYCC section then consistent. I think we should deal with it now, and configure the voting so both cannot be passed simultaneously.

I see two possible ways of doing this. One is to make them into one vote, where we have to chose A ( the Itkine/Brammall original amendment ), B ( the revised Brammall amendment (2), OR C ( neither ). The other would be to somehow stagger them and make one follow the other - that is for example, first vote on the Itkine/Brammall amendment. If it is defeated, then going on to the revised Brammall (2) amendment poses no problem, and it can either be accepted or rejected. Should the Itkine/Brammall amendment pass however, the voting instructions for the second motion shall state that should the revised Brammall amendment ( 2 ) be passed, it will REPLACE the just passed Itkine/Brammall amendment.

I put these 2 possibilities on the table for the President and Secretary as notice that I don't think it is as straightforward to deal with these alternative amendments as has been assumed up to now. Maybe someone has another solution?

Anyway, that is my assessment of what I perceive as a logistics issue with these two motions. Do others agree that there is a problem here?

Bob

[Ken Craft]

There is indeed a problem. That being the 2009-13. All the debtae here has just shown why it should never have been adopted in the first place.