Question About Finals

[Debbie Meier]

The regional thread had me thinking, are the top dogs and handlers in the nation making it to the finals? If not, why? What is preventing the top dogs and handlers from participating in the Finals?

 

Deb

[kelpiegirl]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[KathyF]

Some of them are going to the World Trials.

 

Kathy

[Debbie Meier]

Are both answers based in fact or opionion.

 

If the top dogs are not making it to the finals due to money problems I don't see how having a regionals is going to help. Am I mistaken that once upon a time when money was tight that other organizations big national events were suspended (during the Depression (sorry for the dirty word) and during wars). Is it possible that things have gotten to the point where we need to promote the handlers to compete closer to home and support their local economies?

 

If times are really getting as bad as some fear, we may need to start thinking different to survive, we have been programmed to think that bigger is the answer to all problems, but maybe smaller could be just as effective or more so.

 

Deb

[juliepoudrier]

Top dog/handler or not, I think the main things keeping folks from the finals (or any other big trials) are time and money. In many cases, it's both. This year, some of the top handlers are indeed going to the World Trial. I'd guess that for those competitors, time and money aren't a big concern (or at least not big enough a concern to keep them home ).

 

As something of an aside, I think Pearse mentioned in another thread that time is a big issue. I have an acquaintance who quit working and started just concentrating on working and trialing dogs. He started winning a lot more and he credited his improved performance with the fact that he had, as an unemployed person, much more time to concentrate on his dogs and his handling.

 

I do think most of the consistent top handlers and their dogs make it to the finals regularly. It's the "diamonds in the rough," so to speak, who probably will disappear as time and cost considerations take a larger role.

 

ETA:

Debbie,

It is a fact that Tommy Wilson and Alasdair MacRae are going to the World Trial instead of the finals. There are others, as well, but since these two are two of our top competitors in the US, I think naming them is sufficient. There is a list of all WT competitors on the USBCHA web site.

 

As for keeping things more local, I imagine that's already happening. Trials I might have driven 5 or 6 hours to attend are no longer a consideration for me. As with regionals or finals, even local trials have to deal with the reality of having enough sheep to hold a trial. Given the economy, I don't see the numbers of local trials increasing, but rather the opposite.

 

Here's an example of the points system. I have two open dogs. One has 21.6 points this year and is at 189 in the standings. The other has 12 points and is at 340 in the standings. The year I went to the finals in Sturgis, I think the cut off was around 10 points. If it's the same or nearly so this year, then had I entered my dog with 12 points, she'd likely have gotten in. If the finals accepts only the top pointed 150 dogs, and my dog at 340 gets in, then a whole lot of dogs with more points than her apparently didn't enter. I'm sure there are a bunch of reasons why folks don't enter, but for me the reasons are time and money, and I'd be willing to bet that one or both are also the reason for many of the folks who don't go. This illustrates one thing about our finals, which is that the true top 150 pointed dogs for the year don't generally all go to the finals anyway....

J.

[Debbie Meier]

Thanks for the reply Julie, I guess I have to wonder, why go down the list, if out of the top 150 dogs only 50 want to go, just base the Finals on that, wouldn't it be cheaper to produce, fewer sheep, fewer days? I would think that the level of competition would be quite high and for those that want to qualify for the next year, either they will haul harder or work harder to get their quality of work better so that they can earn more points at fewer trials. I guess the way it is set up right now, it's not a true Finals "Best of the best" so to speak, it's more of an invitational with a entry limit, open slots are filled by priority base on points accruel.

 

I think your right, alot of it comes down to money, these days pretty much everything comes down to money. Unfortunately, for people to spend the money they have to get value in return, some are happy with entertainment value, others look at it as a business. I wonder what could be done to entice the top 150 to invest their money, what return would make it worth their while? I also wonder if in the long run that trialing solely for entertainment value is hurting the dogs, does it need to be a certain percentage business to give people a reason to breed better and train better? I was thinking about the PGA and PBR, golfers and riders have to stay above a certain level to stay on tour, it makes the guys fight harder to stay on the tour, being on the tour gives them sponsors and creditials, it's business first, fun second.

 

Just some thoughts, I guess I'm having a tough time understanding how producing Regional Qualifiers would fix the problem, folks still have to justify the expense in what ever form they feel compelled.

 

Deb

[Mark Billadeau]

Debbie,

 

The Gettysburg finals were about 1.5 hrs from my house; the VA finals were about 2hrs, and TN was about 10 hrs. SD is 24hrs (2.5 days of driving), and OR is twice that. I estimate we'd spend $2000 in fuel going to Sturgis. Flying both of us, 4 dogs, and paying for someone to farm/dog sit while we're away is not an option. Distance does matter; distance adds fuel cost and vacation time.

 

As Pierce suggested, vacation time is a bigger issue, at least for us. Each year we may end up choosing between the Bluegrass and the finals.

 

Regionals, as a means for qualifying for the finals (in my mind) is not a way to reduce the cost to get to the finals; it's a means to have finals caliber trial every year within driving distance (and vacation time) of home.

 

Mark

[Debbie Meier]

Regionals, as a means for qualifying for the finals (in my mind) is not a way to reduce the cost to get to the finals; it's a means to have finals caliber trial every year within driving distance (and vacation time) of home.

 

Mark

 

Then, what would happen if rather then using Regionals to soley qualify for finals, give the regionals a higher point value, double point or triple points? I could see some of the existing trials wanting to be considered Regionals if their partipants could get higher point values. The HA could make requirements that the Regional meets a certain criteria in order to get the higher point total, fresh sheep, so long of an outrun, etc.. This gives people two ways to qualify for finals, haul to more small trials or haul to the regionals, could give you the best of both worlds, more final calibur trials along with not excluding a person that can't make it to both the Regional and the Finals. Is there such a thing as "Doubled Judged" two judges, two sets of points? That might be an option, let them have 3 judges so you get three sets of scores, three sets of points, the event itself could reward the combined high point earning dogs. Granted the judge fees would be higher, but you have the same sheep cost, worker cost, facility cost as on event. But maybe this is already being done.

 

There is always someone that has to haul, even those that have regionals in their district may have a long drive to get there, were kinda lucky where we are located, we can reach a large part of the country within a 24 hour drive. Do you think driving distance to events had any influence on the Open Handlers and trainers that have relocated to Missouri?

 

Deb

[kelpiegirl]

Mark

This is my feeling too. The regionals should have their own merit. I am wholly for a regional. I know of a HUGE field we could use- for free. Course, I don't know how big a field would be needed- how many acres? Hows that for digressing... Sorry.

 

Debbie,

 

Regionals, as a means for qualifying for the finals (in my mind) is not a way to reduce the cost to get to the finals; it's a means to have finals caliber trial every year within driving distance (and vacation time) of home.

 

Mark

[kelpiegirl]

Debbie

What I am thinking is that the regionals may be more popular in some cases- to the average joe, who may have the points needed, but has neither the time nor the money to get there. What's the interest in MO?

 

Then, what would happen if rather then using Regionals to soley qualify for finals, give the regionals a higher point value, double point or triple points? I could see some of the existing trials wanting to be considered Regionals if their partipants could get higher point values. The HA could make requirements that the Regional meets a certain criteria in order to get the higher point total, fresh sheep, so long of an outrun, etc.. This gives people two ways to qualify for finals, haul to more small trials or haul to the regionals, could give you the best of both worlds, more final calibur trials along with not excluding a person that can't make it to both the Regional and the Finals. Is there such a thing as "Doubled Judged" two judges, two sets of points? That might be an option, let them have 3 judges so you get three sets of scores, three sets of points, the event itself could reward the combined high point earning dogs. Granted the judge fees would be higher, but you have the same sheep cost, worker cost, facility cost as on event. But maybe this is already being done.

 

There is always someone that has to haul, even those that have regionals in their district may have a long drive to get there, were kinda lucky where we are located, we can reach a large part of the country within a 24 hour drive. Do you think driving distance to events had any influence on the Open Handlers and trainers that have relocated to Missouri?

 

Deb

[juliepoudrier]

Regionals, as a means for qualifying for the finals (in my mind) is not a way to reduce the cost to get to the finals; it's a means to have finals caliber trial every year within driving distance (and vacation time) of home.

I agree. It gives everyone around the country a chance to attend a "championship" of sorts every year instead of just the one year in three that the finals may be within reasonable driving distance.

 

As for your (Deb's) comments about PGA or PBR, these have been discussed before. Where there is a lot of $$ for sponsorships, big things can happen. Unfortunately, time has proven again and again that sheepdog trialing just doesn't attract the average American the same way golf or bull riding do, which of course means it also doesn't attract a lot of money. What's possible with sports in which there is a lot of public interest (and money) just isn't possible in what is pretty much a niche sport. The American public in general just isn't that terribly interested in the more agrarian type sports. Bull riding is full of danger, and that's what excites the imagination and gathers the viewers (or attendees) and therefore the advertising dollars (and let's face it, each ride lasts just seconds--the average attention span of the average TV viewer). Most folks who don't have a direct interest in livestock and the use of dogs to manage them find stockdog trialing akin to watching paint dry, unfortunately.

 

My original idea with a regionals system was that if a yearly championship were more local, then perhaps more folks would maintain their USBCHA memberships each year, which would give the HA a steadier membership and income. If the number of dogs who went to a national finals were reduced, then while some expenses of putting on a finals would not be reduced (cost for judges, for examples), others would (cost for sheep, set out, etc.) on the basis of numbers alone. Then perhaps grants could be made available to the competitors who make it into the finals as a means of encouraging them to go. Grants and the like don't solve the issue of time off, but if, for example, I had to take leave without pay to go to the finals because I didn't have enough leave to cover it, perhaps a small grant would offset that some. The catch (in my mind) is that you wouldn't want someone who ranked in the 500s or 600s in the standing attending the finals and receiving $$ to do so, and that's where regionals or a combination of points and regionals or some other system entirely perhaps would make sense (that is, you reduce the total number of dogs that go to a national finals from 150 to some other number, which has the added effect of reducing the overall cost of the finals).

 

I really think, though, that instead of folks listing all the reasons why change can't work we ought to put our collective heads together and try to figure out a way to make the system better than it is today. Maybe that means something completely different than what we have now, but I honestly don't see how the current system is a true test of the top dogs in this country simply because all the top dogs don't attend each year....

 

J.

 

J.

[TotallyTerry]

Debbie,

 

I think that the top dogs that do have a chance of winning generally are taken by their handlers to the finals each year. There is a huge difference between a dog that is simply qualified to go to the finals and a dog that has the capability of winning the finals.

 

Unless they are stable blind, the handler usually knows realistically the chance his dog has of winning the finals or at least making the top 17.

 

I think because of the recession and high gas prices, many of these qualified handlers going to just participate will be the ones that won't travel the distance to the finals because of the expense this year. It won't be worth the expense for them to participate. If you really think you have a winner and want to prove it, you will find a way and make the sacrifice to go. It is a really easy brag to say that my dog was good enough to win but I decided not to go because of the cost. No one can disprove your brag BUT your dog has not proven he was that good either. That is my theory which has no data to back it. Guess that just makes it my opinion.

 

This year is probably the only year that you will not see as many of North America's best dogs at the Finals. Sadly the World Trial has the same date. Alasdair MacRae's and Tommy Wilson's dogs considered many based on their track record to be the odds on favorites to win at the Finals, will be at the World Trial. Happily, IMHO they have the capability to become World Champions.

 

Regarding the Regionals, I don't know how you can consider them ever to be a Finals caliber trial when only Regional dogs and handlers can enter so the competition is not as strong. Hopefully, regionals pro-ponents are not promoting Regional trials for their own personal purposes to eliminate competition.

 

The USBCHA allows no points for a Regional Trial. It is an invitational trial and eliminates certain competitors. A sucessful invitational trial is Soldier Hollow. Even though you get no points, the payback is great. It draws the crowds and the handlers because only the best are invited each year from the entire North American continent.

 

Call me silly but I would always consider it more of a Finals caliber trial where MacRaes, Wilsons, Fogts, Lambert, Ladd, Glenns, Miliken, Knoxs, Henrys , Holland, etc. and any good up and coming new handler/dogs are able to participate and do particpate versus a Regional Trial where probably 80% or more of them would be ineligible to compete. Could it be that the success of Kingston, Bluegrass, Edgeworth and Meeker is because they are open and draw from all of North America.

 

Which would really show the caliber of your handling and your dogs talent, to place in the middle of a pack of the aforementioned caliber or to win a Regional by eliminating these outside competitors?

 

Julie, you may think that I am being negative because I state why change won't work. I am not against change but against change only for the sake of change , or change largely to benefit the person proposing the change. Brainstorming is a grand idea but a concrete plan needs to come from it. Then there is the adage, "If it aint broke, it doesn't need fixing."

Then again, if one plays the devil's advocate, it makes people come up with reasons why something can work or ways to make their ideas workable.

 

I really admire your unemployed friend. Life is about choices. He made a choice to devote all his time to making his dogs better. Not many have the courage or are willing to make the sacrifice to do that.....but then that becomes the choice we made.

 

Why do you need Regionals to reduce the number of dogs eligible to compete to 100 at the Finals? Why not take only the top 150 dogs, and not replace any of these 150 dogs that did elect NOT to attend with lower placing dogs? Or simply just take 100 dogs? (I am not sure I would favor either method but it would be easy to do) Has anyone ever did a financial projection to see if limiting the number of dogs to 100 from 150 really would save that much money?

[Mark Billadeau]

Terry,

 

It's not just the competition that makes the caliber of the trial; it's also the field and/or the sheep. We regularly compete against many of those (and others) on your list but I wouldn't consider most of these trials on caliber with the finals, Bluegrass, Edgeworth, etc.

 

Mark

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Likewise the Bluegrass and Edgeworth would remain the caliber trials they are, regardless of who showed up. The field/sheep would test the dogs. And that's what would be interesting about Regionals - it's what's interesting about the National Finals overseas. It's easy to find information on what kind of field and sheep on which any particular Team dog achieved their place.

 

I like the idea because I think it would benefit the breed as a whole. I've talked to top breeders/handlers who feel the same (all of whom would be as a matter of course at the top of the Finals cut under the current system).

[TotallyTerry]

Mark,

 

Actually if you get a good field and good fresh sheep, you won't be able to keep the best competition away.......unless they are not eligible to enter.

 

You and I both agree that more high caliber trials with fresh sheep are desperately needed.

 

Terry

[amc]

The Western States Regional Championship in 2007 (Corvallis) was a USBCHA sanctioned Open trial, and also a Soldier Hollow qualifier. It was an excellent trial with a testing course and great sheep. All that's required is to award the "regional" rankings to those actually eligible for them; sort of like running a class within a class. It's a model that can serve the purpose of establishing regional rankings but still offering the benefits of an 'Open' trial.

 

 

Lots of us have long thought that a 100-dog finals would be great, but that idea meets resistance each time it's brought up. The finals heretofore have been largely a social event in many ways, and people don't like the thought of not being able to go if they want to (more or less). Maybe economic circumstances will work to change that perception in the future.

 

Amy

[Debbie Meier]

I guess I tend to look at thing from the direction of what is best for the Association rather then the individuals. I could see why some of the top breeders/handers would support regionals, it would give each them another opportunity to work in a finals type setting with less travel. I could see why the handlers that don't have the faith in their dog to win finals or place high would like it, it gives them a chance to run in a finals type setting with less travel. All are good reasons to have a trial in each region that is finals caliber, but does it need to select the finals dogs?

 

If the top dogs are getting qualified to the finals, what other purpose other then individual purposes would the regionals serve?

 

Also, if the HA decided to change to a regional qualifying system, there would have to be a quick move to secure the proper facility, get volunteers, find sheep and all the rest of the stuff, and it has to be done quick so that each region can be represented soon, or the change would need to be done so that next years finals is based on the old system with Regionals held next year for the following year. That's really a lot to try to get done, what happens if it flops? Would a compromise be to set up regionals based on the produced on the West coast (I hope I read it correctly), once you get two seasons of each region producing a regional then see if there is still a need to change the way finals teams are selected? Basically it would put the horse back in front of the cart, change has to happen in small steps to be successful.

 

I think that having a finals caliber event in each region could be beneficial as a whole, especially if you have areas that don't have them, although you have to wonder why. I would give everyone an opportunity to run their dog in such a format and also giving people a reason to train so that they can, hopefully increasing the level or work in all regions. Another test for the regionals would be to have it as an invitational based on handler/dog teams points within the region, have a limit, but if the limit is not filled open it to teams outside of the region. This would ensure that the numbers would work, it would also tell you if you can get enough participation from the individual regions to produce that style of event. I guess all I am suggesting, change the packaging and build safety checks in, if the regionals are successful, worse case scenario each region would have a finals caliber event being held approx. the same time each year. Hmmm, how does that effect things, the timeing of all the regionals?

 

Deb

[juliepoudrier]

I think because of the recession and high gas prices, many of these qualified handlers going to just participate will be the ones that won't travel the distance to the finals because of the expense this year. It won't be worth the expense for them to participate. If you really think you have a winner and want to prove it, you will find a way and make the sacrifice to go. It is a really easy brag to say that my dog was good enough to win but I decided not to go because of the cost. No one can disprove your brag BUT your dog has not proven he was that good either. That is my theory which has no data to back it. Guess that just makes it my opinion.

I disagree with this statement on some level. At last year's finals, when the announcer introduced the top 17 competitors, one thing they had in common was that they had all been competing in open for at least 10 years. I'm sure there are plenty of people who attend the finals "just because they can," with no thought or hope of winning, but I would be willing to bet that there are just as many with good dogs who could win on a given day who will be kept away because of expense. I don't buy the "if they thought they could win, they'd find a way to go" argument. The fact is that a national finals win doesn't gain one a whole lot other than bragging rights (no giant purse to offset the expense, etc.), so even if you think you can win, if the cost is too great, what's the point in going out and searching for sponsors or whatever? Maybe you'd get a few extra breedings or something off that win, but unless you're making a living off selling dogs or lessons, a win at the finals isn't going to change your situation a whole lot (unlike the other examples presented here--PGA and PBR). Now I know I'm sounding negative too, but I guess for me it comes back to bringing the best of a region together to showcase them, especially in areas where a region might be able to really capitalize on public outreach. I've got a meeting, so I'll have to finish this thought later....

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

The Western States Regional Championship in 2007 (Corvallis) was a USBCHA sanctioned Open trial, and also a Soldier Hollow qualifier. It was an excellent trial with a testing course and great sheep. All that's required is to award the "regional" rankings to those actually eligible for them; sort of like running a class within a class. It's a model that can serve the purpose of establishing regional rankings but still offering the benefits of an 'Open' trial.

Amy

 

 

Amy, was there a limit to the number of entries? Was there any concessions given to teams that represented the region so they were ensured a chance to compete?

 

Deb

[Debbie Meier]

"(unlike the other examples presented here--PGA and PBR)"

 

Julie, I think you misunderstood where I was going, I'm trying to figure out and offer ways to make qualifing or staying in the point standing worth while for people. Both organizations rank competiors, you want to try to be as high in the rankings as you can so that you can continue to compete at the big events. Yes, you need to stay in the rankings to keep your sponsors, but even if there are no sponsors, as you pointed out in trialling, just the requirement of having to be ranked in the top 100 so to speak, to be able to compete at the big events would be enough to keep people pushing. When you consider their finals, a guy that is ranked number 1 in the nation may not end up the world champion or in this case national champion.

 

Deb

[Laurae]

Rankings? I'm just a novice, but...ick!

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I could see why some of the top breeders/handers would support regionals, it would give each them another opportunity to work in a finals type setting with less travel.

 

Actually the ones I've heard discussion this were in favor for reasons related to the improvement of competitive levels, accessibility for local competitors (particularly full-time farmers), and the improvement of the breed in general. I didn't think to second-guess their personal reasons for support. I know two in particular never have to worry about travel costs anywhere and probably a third I have in mind, too. One of them specifically scorns, quite regularly, the idea of his dogs needing "practice" or having to run in a particular setting to do well in that setting. So I know that's not a consideration for him, anyway. Can't speak for the others I'm thinking of.

[Pearse]

The Western States Regional Championship in 2007 (Corvallis) was a USBCHA sanctioned Open trial, and also a Soldier Hollow qualifier. It was an excellent trial with a testing course and great sheep. All that's required is to award the "regional" rankings to those actually eligible for them; sort of like running a class within a class. [stuff deleted]

Amy

 

Amy,

 

If the trial is an open trial, what guarantees that all of your eligible regional qualifiers get in? What happens if you have 50 spots and 100 entries?

 

Pearse

[juliepoudrier]

Debbie,

I did understand you--incentives are valuable to help people stay in the race and work to be better than everyone else. If you gain something by being the best or being consistently near the top, then that's certainly incentive to keep at it. My point is that the incentives just aren't there in sheepdog trialing, and as I said before, aren't likely to be. Most of us who trial do so for the enjoyment/love of trialing, not because we're going to become rich or famous from it. That's the point I was trying to make in response to Terry's post--I believe that there are people who will choose not to spend the money or time to go to finals even if they think they can win because there's no real incentive to do so. While it's possible to believe that these same people just want to be able to brag without "putting their money where their mouth is" I honestly believe that since this is a hobby for many of us, we have to choose between that which makes economic sense and that which doesn't, regardless of whether we think we can win.

 

As for regionals vs. finals, I guess my feeling is that having a sort of regional championship trial actually is more incentive to continue to compete on a regular basis. Maybe I view things differently than others, but for example, the finals will be in Oregon next year. There's no way I'll make that trip (time- or moneywise) and the trickle down to that is that I probably won't bother to trial very much next year, except perhaps to get mileage on my youngsters. I don't need to spend time and money gaining points for a finals I don't plan to attend. Now maybe I'm not much competition for others and maybe I'm one of those who has just deluded myself into thinking my dogs are better than they are, but with the economy as it is, I think that it's entirely possible that others--perhaps those with better dogs--will make the same decision. (Why else do we have dogs entered in the finals right now that are way, way down in the standings?) What does that do to local competition? If there were a regional championship I could attend, then I might actually go ahead and spend time and money trialing next year because I know there'd be a championship type trial within some sort of reasonable driving distance that I'd be aiming for. So I think it does help competition locally to consider a regional championship system. I guess that speaks to the point Becca is making--if there's a regional competition then presumably the best of a region will be there, and folks will see those dogs showcased--dogs they might not ever see working on a finals type course if they have to depend on attending a national finals somewhere across the country.

 

But maybe the larger question is where is the "sport" of sheepdog trialing headed? At least one acknowledged top handler commented to me that the current economy would change the face of trialing. Maybe that's worth considering and maybe not, but I think that regional championships is one way to deal with that changing face.

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

Are there other ways to create incentives? I think incentives not only drive the desire to get out their and compete but also promote new and renewal of memberships. Geri just posted the membership numbers of each district on another board, I was surprised that the membership numbers were as low as they were, quite frankly. Here is a link:

http://kensmuir.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=...6cf7cf7d2#15844

 

Based on those numbers if you based regions on districts, only one district has enough members to get 100 entries for a regionals if the regional is exclusive to region members. If, indeed the reason that the district that has a regional in it has a better membership due to the regional, then there is big reason to produce regionals in other areas, especially following the format that is already proven to work.

 

I don't know that using them as Finals qualifing is necessary, atleast not at first, if after things are up and running if it seems like the right thing to do, then yeah maybe. I still wonder though if after regionals are up and running if the same discussion comes forth, some people will want them closer, or opportunties closer to them, then requesting state specific events, but maybe if the regionals grew the membership it would be warrented.

 

Deb