I'm sorry Joe, I don't mean to be difficult. I'm really just struggling to understand. As Gorme pointed out, NDCA comps in Cali don't suffer from this (they offer 4 dances in prechamp for example). I'm not trying to change the system or inspire a huge NDCA vs. USA Dance issue. I'm just pointing out that only offering two dances in an open category seems very odd and limiting and so far there doesn't seem to be a good reason, if any reason at all other than "Well, that's the way NDCA does it". That's a horrible line of argument. So far, the only salient argument was that couples may not have the time and resources to put together 5 routines, which again I find odd, but if no where did I suggest a 5-dance event. Just multiple events spanning 4 or all 5 dances. This seems to be the model that works in most places, and I think a lot of people in the Utah valley are limited in their individual competition because of this.
Open Dancing in Utah
- Thread starter hbetx9
- Start date
JudeMorrigan
Forum Master
As far as it goes, the NDCA rulebook specifically recommends that novice events be two dance events and that pre-champ events be three or four dance events. (Sec X.B) It may be unsatisfying, but I suspect the fact that they're trying to hew closer to the rulebook really is what a lot of it boils down to. Particularly for novice.
JudeMorrigan
Forum Master
Well, the text of the relevant passage reads:
I think you could make a case for the former. Of course, it's definitely just a recommendation in the rulebook rather than a mandate. And personally, I'm don't know that I see a reason why the rulebook would have to stick with that. But I do suspect that that's the simple answer to "why does Utah do it that way". Of course, I'm a syllabus level dancer from Alabama, so I make no guarantees about my being right about that. 
hbetx9:
First, I think it would be great if the comps varied the dances required for novice. There really is no reason that it should always be W/Q for novice, I'll agree with you there.
Second, please help me understand something in your post. It seems to be contradictory. First you state that it would be good to offer three event options (including solos??) in the Novice category and then you say adding another event like pre-novice is is not "effective nor implementable." I fail to see how offering three different novice events is fundamentally different than adding in a pre-novice category - unless you combine them and dance them sequentially in the same event and just step on and off the floor. However, keep in mind that the organizers of Utah comps have trimmed down these events specifically because adding dances (a third for Novice or a fourth for PC) has become prohibitively long. They simply can't add any more days to their competitions. I find your suggestion to be just as [un]implementable.
"Many of the open competitors in Utah are also on the BYU ballroom dance company or other formation teams which require significant time outside of regular partner training, further limiting their ability to learn and master multiple dances.
Well I don't think the individual competition events should be negatively effected by this. That simply isn't fair to people not interested in formation teams."
I can understand your frustration. Hence why I stated in my post that the organizers aren't promoting certain dances as much as they are promoting certain dancers (namely, accommodating the bulk of open competitors in Utah who also happen to be formation dancers).
This is also why I suggested starting other competitions in Utah. The BYU comps are maxed out time-wise. Why not have another large, major competition that could be organized as you suggest? There is certainly demand - at least once a month during the school year Utah dancers cram into high school gyms to compete. New comp, new organizers, different set of preferences. It may not be implementable in the short run, but I think the right set of entrepreneurs could really make it take off down the road
Hi W/T/FT/VW (can I call you Smooth, are we at that level of relationship yet?). You are understandably confused as I didn't realize/think about the time constraints in that way. My argument against a different level was, in my mind, a time argument. But now I see that both your suggestion of that level and mine are equivalent in time, i.e,. either adding more events to Novice or Pre-champ or adding an additional level of 1-2 events is about the same issue time wise. I see the lack of flexibility in schedules around here and I may just be spoiled by competing in the east where at least the college comps are much more so focused on the adults and don't have junior or youth divisions. Thank you for clarifying.
"This is also why I suggested starting other competitions in Utah. The BYU comps are maxed out time-wise. Why not have another large, major competition that could be organized as you suggest? There is certainly demand - at least once a month during the school year Utah dancers cram into high school gyms to compete. New comp, new organizers, different set of preferences. It may not be implementable in the short run, but I think the right set of entrepreneurs could really make it take off down the road"
I agree that there is demand for this, but I think the reason is that BYU has a psychological strangle hold on the area. I don't mean that in any way negative, just factual. Most other programs attempt to in total or in part model themselves off of BYU and focus themselves in that way. This I think is unfortunate, but that would be moving mountains at this point I think. In particular, the emphasis on formation teams create an artificial stratification of the community and some of the rigid rules of who can partner with who from the top down on these teams for individual competitions put individuals in difficult spots. The fact that most program leaders are either from BYU or some very similar organized programs leads to a justification of tradition. As such, comps are run the same as BYU as well. Here again, I think there are lots of things that are they way they are because that's the way they are and simply not because its in the best interest of the competitors nor dance community.
Here are some other small changes that could help that along but are really small steps, let me know what you think:
(1) At all competitions, announce affiliations for the finals when they announce placements. This will help as then there is a path to individual fame/recognition as opposed to which formation team you are a part of. It would allow other individuals to more easily identify who the winners are and where they are from; in addition offer lots of good advertisement
for programs in the area. This also equalizes as even when larger more developed programs can take multiple spots in a final, a smaller program having a representative there, and having that be announced helps the smaller programs greatly.
(2) I understand the need for NDCA as a guiding force, but with BYU being the only NDCA sanctioned comp, this doesn't allow their point structure to cleanly monitor dance fairness across the levels. For the college comps in NE, they have a sort of honor code among all the schools, where they basically use a point system (I don't recall the origin, but roughly 3 for 1st, 2 for 2nd and 1 for 4-6th in events with a semi; out at 7) that everyone adheres to. This works particularly well as the results are always posted online and competitors can and very much so will monitor each other. Objections are brought up to comp registration and the violations are handled on a case by case basis, but this has been a very effective system; one I think the valley would benefit from adopting across all the comps (high school and independent comps).
"This is also why I suggested starting other competitions in Utah. The BYU comps are maxed out time-wise. Why not have another large, major competition that could be organized as you suggest? There is certainly demand - at least once a month during the school year Utah dancers cram into high school gyms to compete. New comp, new organizers, different set of preferences. It may not be implementable in the short run, but I think the right set of entrepreneurs could really make it take off down the road"
I agree that there is demand for this, but I think the reason is that BYU has a psychological strangle hold on the area. I don't mean that in any way negative, just factual. Most other programs attempt to in total or in part model themselves off of BYU and focus themselves in that way. This I think is unfortunate, but that would be moving mountains at this point I think. In particular, the emphasis on formation teams create an artificial stratification of the community and some of the rigid rules of who can partner with who from the top down on these teams for individual competitions put individuals in difficult spots. The fact that most program leaders are either from BYU or some very similar organized programs leads to a justification of tradition. As such, comps are run the same as BYU as well. Here again, I think there are lots of things that are they way they are because that's the way they are and simply not because its in the best interest of the competitors nor dance community.
Here are some other small changes that could help that along but are really small steps, let me know what you think:
(1) At all competitions, announce affiliations for the finals when they announce placements. This will help as then there is a path to individual fame/recognition as opposed to which formation team you are a part of. It would allow other individuals to more easily identify who the winners are and where they are from; in addition offer lots of good advertisement
for programs in the area. This also equalizes as even when larger more developed programs can take multiple spots in a final, a smaller program having a representative there, and having that be announced helps the smaller programs greatly.
(2) I understand the need for NDCA as a guiding force, but with BYU being the only NDCA sanctioned comp, this doesn't allow their point structure to cleanly monitor dance fairness across the levels. For the college comps in NE, they have a sort of honor code among all the schools, where they basically use a point system (I don't recall the origin, but roughly 3 for 1st, 2 for 2nd and 1 for 4-6th in events with a semi; out at 7) that everyone adheres to. This works particularly well as the results are always posted online and competitors can and very much so will monitor each other. Objections are brought up to comp registration and the violations are handled on a case by case basis, but this has been a very effective system; one I think the valley would benefit from adopting across all the comps (high school and independent comps).
It's the YCN point system. 3/2/1 points for 1st/2nd/3rd if a semi was run, 1 point for 4th-6th if a quarter final was run. One point counts double for the next level down (and counts for 7 / points you out in the level below that, I think).
