[Cwo] 2014 CW Open Award Structure

[k6rb at baymoon.com]

Here are my thoughts on the subject. CW Open was meant to be primarily a
regional contest so that people in the three ITU regions were competing
intra-regionally. We expected a lot of JAs would play in the two sessions
that favored their low and high bands; and the same would happen for EU
and NA. Essentially, no two regions enjoy optimum low and high band
propagation during the same two sessions. Of course, that's not how things
worked out. Instead, we ended up with NA players doing all 3 sessions,
seriously, and less activity in EU and AS than we initially expected.

So...let's make the awards help to push CW Open more into the kind of
event we originally envisioned.

Here's how I see the new award structure:

Trophy for winner of each session
Trophy for winner of aggregate
Plaque for HP, LP and QRP winners of each session

These would be duplicated for each region. So, in session 1, there would
be 3 trophies (winner of region 1, region 2, region 3). Same for sessions
2 and 3. A minimum of 100 Qs would be required to win a trophy in any
region. There would be 3 trophies for aggregate winners in each region.

Plaques would be duplicated for each region. So, in session 1, there would
be 3 plaques per region for HP, LP and QRP. And so on.

In essence, the current award structure would now be applied regionally.
As in this year's case, where AA3B won trophies for all three sessions and
aggregate - the single trophy listed all winnings (combined trophy). We
would continue to use that approach, but on a regional level.

If I were a JA operator, I might be more inclined, now, to participate
because I'm not competing with US/Canada/EU - just my region. And that is
the case in all three sessions. Same for EU.

I we publicize the new award structure and emphasize it when sending
emails to individuals and clubs, worldwide, a few months before the event,
this could really help to increase the participation...or not. We won't
know until we know.

We have the budget, now, to where if ICOM wants to share the cost burden
with CWops on the new award structure, we can do it. That should not be a
show stopper. This year I think we should reserve some advertising space
in QST and have a large photo of the glass trophy. Most people have no
idea what we are awarding. These glass trophies are really classy looking.
The plaques are classy looking, too.

We should be working on a promotional campaign right now to publicize CWO
with enough time to get it into the appropriate media. We have budget to
cover some advertising, too, along with articles about the contest and its
uniquenesses. I think we can get an article in NCJ, for example,
describing CWO and the Regional award structure.

Rob K6RB







> W1RM and AD6E have circulated comments on the reflector.  Are there any
> other comments/suggestions?  Thanks!
>
> 73, Dean NW2K
> --------------------------------------------
> On Thu, 1/30/14, D Faklis <dfaklis at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>  Subject: 2014 CW Open Award Structure
>  To: cwo at kkn.net
>  Date: Thursday, January 30, 2014, 7:50 AM
>
>  Let's have a discussion on a new
>  award structure that can be designed to further enhance
>  international participation in CWO.
>
>  The current award structure is as follows:
>
>  1. Trophy for 1st place in each session.
>  2. Plaque for 1st place in each power level in each session
>  3. Trophy for overall combined score of all three sessions.
>  4. Plaque for 1st place for each power level in the combined
>  score group.
>  Note: if the same entrant wins multiple awards, they may be
>  combined.
>
>  In fact, in 2013, ICOM made the decision to combine
>  awards.  One trophy and six plaques were issued.
>
>  The CWO continues to grow both inside and outside of NA, but
>  the current award structure favors the region with the most
>  participation.  Perhaps we can come up with a
>  cost-efficient method to incentivize amateurs in all ITU
>  Regions 1, 2, and 3.
>
>  Given three regions, three power levels, and three sessions,
>  along with a budget that might be constant relative to 2013,
>  we'll likely need to form a compromise.  Please
>  circulate comments on this topic on this reflector. 
>  Thanks!
>
>  73, Dean, NW2K
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cwo mailing list
> Cwo at kkn.net
> http://www.kkn.net/mailman/listinfo/cwo
>
>