| Subject: Re: Offbeat Proposal |
Author:
Tim C
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:39:00 10/15/03 Wed
In reply to:
Terrie
's message, "Re: Offbeat Proposal" on 09:46:44 10/15/03 Wed
Nice to see the discussion forum is back. A word or two of explanation:
The qualifying idea was the one proposed at the last meeting. There was opposition, the current motion was counter-proposed, with the thought that a reduction in time would not impinge on the ability of teams to do the offbeat (which was confirmed by representatives of the offbeat protagonists), and was accepted by the original proposers, who were only interested in reducing the amount of time taken up by offbeat.
I think everyone welcomes constructive suggestions towards reducing the amount of time taken by offbeat whilst maintaining access and quality. However, I have my doubts as to whether this new proposal would actually achieve it. To me it sounds all too similar to the conservative parties suggestion that they will cut taxes, maintain public services, and all through 'cutting bureaucracy', which we all know doesn't work.
Anyway, 1) I don't think it is possible to reduce the time taken through more effective policing. Not a lot anyway.
2) If there is a 3:30 time limit, everyone will do 3:30 routines. Who would do one in 1:45 if they could spend 3:30 doing it? Noone, because it would (in their eyes at least) reduce their chances of winning.
3) The status quo is unacceptable, because there were, in reality, severe timetabling issues at the last IVDC, resulting in rounds having too many couples on the floor at one time. With any increase in numbers (and there was a huge increase in numbers last year), the programme would be almost impossible to run. Offbeat and Rock 'n Roll, being non-core dances (I am not saying they add no value, as you quite rightly point out that offbeat helps dancesport recruit), are obvious places to cut.
Therefore, I agree with Robin that qualifying is the best route suggested thus far. But I think 10 is too many. I'd suggest maximum 6, with three from each regional association as a more appropriate number.
I like the other suggestions you make.
>Hi Robin. Thanks for the comments.
>
>>
>>1) There was a lot of opposition at the last AGM both
>>against the status quo (essentially your first
>>proposal) and against qualifying, how will you
>>convince these people to like it now?
>
>As I'm not entirely sure what the opposition was (due
>to the distinct lack of minutes!) then it's quite
>difficult for me to answer this. However, I believe
>that there wasn't a specific Offbeat rep at the last
>meeting. Hopefully, we'll be able to discuss the
>proposal and see that Offbeat is a valid and important
>part of the IVDA comp and should be treated
>accordingly.
>
>>2) 10 x 3.5 minutes does not make a 35 minute comp.
>>This year there were 14 entries of 3.5 minutes and it
>>took about 1h30m iirc. 35 minutes is the actual time
>>the music plays, so in total the off-beat will still
>>take 1 hour...
>
>It's a good point, which is why there would have to be
>a strict enforcement of time keeping, including
>getting on and off the floor. Also, though there were
>14 entries, I do believe that some teams may have gone
>over that time limit. It would also be great if some
>other time-saving measures could be found, in other
>areas, so that instead of punishing the Offbeat
>competition, a compromise can be reached.
>
>
>>I think the qualifying proposal is best. It ensures
>>that there are not suddenly 20 off-beats, which would
>>completely wreck the timetable, while still making
>>sure that anyone even remotely serious will make it
>>through.
>
>The qualification option is a back-up proposal that is
> much more preferable to halving the time (which we
>are completely against, in case you hadn't spotted
>it.) If that gets through, the question of judging
>will have to come up, as we would need to make sure
>that the top teams do get through to IVDA.
>
>
>>If there are indeed few entries, it will have no
>>effect, but acts as a safeguard against huge numbers
>>of entries. If current trends persist something
>>similar might become necessary for the beginners comps
>>in a couple of years...
>
>Surely, current trends persisting is a good thing?
>Getting people along to comps who might not otherwise
>even glance at ballroom dancing can't be bad. Last
>year's team captain of Cambridge is thinking about
>trying out for ballroom this year, something she
>wouldn't even have thought of if she hadn't joined the
>Offbeat Team...
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 
