[QUOTE=BostonHJ;7183766]
Thanks! Likely a silly question, but do we know how many they are accepting?[/QUOTE]
25 as of now
[QUOTE=iEquitate;7183797]
25 as of now[/QUOTE]
Has been bumped up to 29.
[QUOTE=PonyPenny;7174011]
They usually take the top 1/3 from each region for a total of 150 riders. The ASPCA Maclay Medal Finals is during the Alltech National Horse Show in Lexington, KY October 29-November 3, 2013. The class is Sunday, November 3, 2013 starting at 7:00 am EST.[/QUOTE]
Anyone else think it is unfair that if a qualified rider from Region 7 declines to attend finals, instead of taking the next rider on the Region 7 waiting list, they take a rider from a completely different region? Yep. Statistically, Region 7 should have 9 representatives at Finals this year, but because the last two have declined (money or time–not sure what the problem is) Region 7 only has 7 going to finals, despite having a long waiting list. But…Regions 1 and 4 are the beneficiaries, because instead of having 29 and 35 at finals, respectively, they now get 30 and 36 respectively, or MORE representatives than they statistically are entitled to. Something smells bad here. Not fair. The region most geographically remote is Region 7(and thus the region that it costs more to get you and your horse to Kentucky from) and when people drop out, other regions which are closer benefit, and Region 7 remains chronically under-represented at finals as a result. They need to impose the “t’ain’t fair” rule and fix this!
[QUOTE=michaelwatkins;7185939]
Anyone else think it is unfair that if a qualified rider from Region 7 declines to attend finals, instead of taking the next rider on the Region 7 waiting list, they take a rider from a completely different region? Yep. Statistically, Region 7 should have 9 representatives at Finals this year, but because the last two have declined (money or time–not sure what the problem is) Region 7 only has 7 going to finals, despite having a long waiting list. But…Regions 1 and 4 are the beneficiaries, because instead of having 29 and 35 at finals, respectively, they now get 30 and 36 respectively, or MORE representatives than they statistically are entitled to. Something smells bad here. Not fair. The region most geographically remote is Region 7(and thus the region that it costs more to get you and your horse to Kentucky from) and when people drop out, other regions which are closer benefit, and Region 7 remains chronically under-represented at finals as a result. They need to impose the “t’ain’t fair” rule and fix this![/QUOTE]
East coast bias. Welcome to equitation. You are right, something stinks in here.
[QUOTE=michaelwatkins;7185939]
Anyone else think it is unfair that if a qualified rider from Region 7 declines to attend finals, instead of taking the next rider on the Region 7 waiting list, they take a rider from a completely different region? Yep. Statistically, Region 7 should have 9 representatives at Finals this year, but because the last two have declined (money or time–not sure what the problem is) Region 7 only has 7 going to finals, despite having a long waiting list. But…Regions 1 and 4 are the beneficiaries, because instead of having 29 and 35 at finals, respectively, they now get 30 and 36 respectively, or MORE representatives than they statistically are entitled to. Something smells bad here. Not fair. The region most geographically remote is Region 7(and thus the region that it costs more to get you and your horse to Kentucky from) and when people drop out, other regions which are closer benefit, and Region 7 remains chronically under-represented at finals as a result. They need to impose the “t’ain’t fair” rule and fix this![/QUOTE]
This makes no sense. If the riders from different regions were in the right proportions when they made the offers, then someone who declines from region x should be replaced by someone from region x to keep the proportions the same. I wouldn’t be surprised if politics entered into it as well. A friend’s daughter who rode with a BNT was on the waitlist one year and got in at the last minute when, ta da, someone from another zone declined. She always figured that the trainer did something. Unfortunately, the last-minute horse they leased a-wouldn’t jump without his hat and b-didn’t like to jump solid obstacles. I think the poor kid got over about three jumps, if that. Her mom paid half the lease fee, figuring that she didn’t even jump half the allotted jumps.
[QUOTE=michaelwatkins;7185939]
Anyone else think it is unfair that if a qualified rider from Region 7 declines to attend finals, instead of taking the next rider on the Region 7 waiting list, they take a rider from a completely different region? Yep. Statistically, Region 7 should have 9 representatives at Finals this year, but because the last two have declined (money or time–not sure what the problem is) Region 7 only has 7 going to finals, despite having a long waiting list. But…Regions 1 and 4 are the beneficiaries, because instead of having 29 and 35 at finals, respectively, they now get 30 and 36 respectively, or MORE representatives than they statistically are entitled to. Something smells bad here. Not fair. The region most geographically remote is Region 7(and thus the region that it costs more to get you and your horse to Kentucky from) and when people drop out, other regions which are closer benefit, and Region 7 remains chronically under-represented at finals as a result. They need to impose the “t’ain’t fair” rule and fix this![/QUOTE]
I have to disagree, sorry. Your logic means the 10th place rider from region 7 would get through - 10th place/20. If you do the math, that (statistically) would place them at 32nd/64 in the Zone 1 Regionals. No one knows if the 30th place round was better than 32nd (though I will say that Zones 1 and 2 are EXTREMELY competitive) but that’s the way it goes. If you choose to compete in the regional with less riders, you go in knowing you have a chance of having a good round, getting a ribbon, and not getting through because 45% of the riders were still better.
Also, the ‘statistical entitlement’ would significantly benefit Zone 7 more if they followed your rule - 10th place out of 20 would be 50%, but moving up to 30/64 is 46.8% 
[QUOTE=iEquitate;7186019]
I have to disagree, sorry. Your logic means the 10th place rider from region 7 would get through - 10th place/20. If you do the math, that (statistically) would place them at 32nd/64 in the Zone 1 Regionals. No one knows if the 30th place round was better than 32nd (though I will say that Zones 1 and 2 are EXTREMELY competitive) but that’s the way it goes. If you choose to compete in the regional with less riders, you go in knowing you have a chance of having a good round, getting a ribbon, and not getting through because 45% of the riders were still better.
Also, the ‘statistical entitlement’ would significantly benefit Zone 7 more if they followed your rule - 10th place out of 20 would be 50%, but moving up to 30/64 is 46.8% :p[/QUOTE]
Trust me, very few, if any of the kids in zone 7 would choose to be there if they could.
[QUOTE=Angelico;7186065]
Trust me, very few, if any of the kids in zone 7 would choose to be there if they could.[/QUOTE]
Well true, but I think you could say the same for Zone 2 Regionals too. A smaller group (60 instead of 80+ as usual) of almost entirely exceptional riders meant a swap, slightest deep distance, or rail put you out - not even flatting. I’ve only seen a few videos of rounds from western regions, but from what I’ve seen, very good rounds with one small mistake do get through if they flat well. Apples to oranges I guess, but ever since last year when they reduced the number to 150 down from 200, all regionals have been quite hard to get through.
[QUOTE=Angelico;7186065]
Trust me, very few, if any of the kids in zone 7 would choose to be there if they could.[/QUOTE]
Well true, but I think you could say the same for Zone 2 Regionals too. A smaller group (60 instead of 80+ as usual) of almost entirely exceptional riders meant a swap, slightest deep distance, or rail put you out - not even flatting. I’ve only seen a few videos of rounds from western regions, but from what I’ve seen, very good rounds with one small mistake do get through if they flat well. Apples to oranges I guess, but ever since last year when they reduced the number to 150 down from 200, all regionals have been quite hard to get through.
Can anyone provide links to listings of all the entries in the regionals (whether on horseshowing.com or other sites)? Trying to gather as much info as possible toward compiling my annual Maclay field Google Drive document. I’ve got all the entries from region 1 (rider/trainer/horse/place) and 42 out of the 61 entries from region 2 (might be the best I’ll be able to amass). But the rest are bits and pieces as I’ve picked up from this thread and the Maclay website.
But what we now have is that 21 riders competed in Region 7, and only 7 are invited to finals. 33%. No more than 33% can attend from Region 7 because that is all that are considered “qualified” since the other two dropped out. (Region 7 was initially 9 invited/ qualified–same percentage as other regions). Every other region will have between 45% and some 50% that attend finals. And this is not a one- time thing. It is a chronic under-representation issue. It is simply unfair to have a region under-represented, not because there is no one there eager to go to Finals ( the opposite in fact) but because their open spots when people decline go to other regions because they are “bigger”. Really? If the sport is to maintain and the Maclay keep its mystique, it has to be fair and not biased toward regions. Just sayin’.
Did you try horseshowtime.com? They have a lot of the shows with class entries, and then results as a different link.
michaelwatkins, how do you know that those 2 spots haven’t been invited? Did you not qualify and you think you should have?
Someone please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong, as I am not in a place where I have enough bandwidth to go check the rules and qualifications for Maclay finals, but I’m pretty sure that the percentage from zone to zone is the same (or as close to the same as it can be without halving people) - but the actual percentage ACCEPTED varies based on the number of entries. The goal, if I remember right, is to have 150 riders at the final, so if there are a record number of entries, that might mean that a smaller percentage of regional qualifiers make it through. Similarly, because some zones don’t have many people, they have fewer representatives going to the finals - hence why we see numbers in the single digits from places like Zone 7 or 8 and huge numbers from Zones 1 and 2.
If that is not correct, my apologies, I haven’t been in the equitation world for quite some time now.
Also, is there really something about the Maclay that makes it sooooo much more important than the Medal in the eyes of the kids doing it? When I was a junior, it was kind of a bigger deal to win the Medal (although it was a big deal to win either one, obviously)… then that TV show came out and I think maybe that changed the attitude toward the Maclay?
[QUOTE=Angelico;7186065]
Trust me, very few, if any of the kids in zone 7 would choose to be there if they could.[/QUOTE]
You have Zone 7 and Region 7 mixed up.
Zone 7 produced your 2011 Maclay winner, Sarah Milliren, and your 2008 USEF winner, Kels Bonham, just FYI.
Not sure that is true. Some of the richest folks in the country/ world live there and their kids ride there. Last names like Gates, Nordstrom, McCaw, Ellison, and a bunch of others.
Yes. If you go into USEf website and look at Maclay, and then look at some link like exhibitors qualified or some such, you can see the current list of " guarantees" ( those invited" ) and the top group on the wait lists. If you had been monitoring those, you would have noticed that the Region 7 list had 9 invites ( now 7) and other regions have either maintained by filling in from their wait list or have increased their invites ( by getting the 2 region 7 cancellations.) Not rocket science, just not fair.
^Well as I said before, I don’t have enough bandwidth to be doing that at the moment (I’m surprised I can even get on this site, to be honest)…
I suggest that you call and inquire to see what is going on if you think there is a problem.
These are the rules (from the National Horse Show website) for deciding who to invite if someone declines- I don’t have time to crunch the numbers to determine if they’re being followed in this case, but it seems like there is a system in place other than just politics, and the rules are designed to prevent someone placing at the bottom of the class in one region from being invited if everyone else declines.
“If a qualified rider declines to compete in the finals, the rider with the next highest placing will receive an invitation to compete and said invitation will be provided to the next highest placing riders until the invitation is accepted and the spot filled. However, after the first qualified rider declines to compete in the finals, there shall only be one invitation provided for every ten competitors from a
regional. Example: if Region Q has 38 riders competing, then the invitation to compete at the national finals shall be provided to all those determined by the percentage formula and if any one of them declines, there shall be no more than two additional invitations provided in order to fill the spot which has been declined. Subsequent to one invitation being provided for every ten riders in the region, the invitation shall then go to the next rider from the regional which has the highest percentage of competitors. The final closing for entries will be 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on the first Friday of October, at the office of the National Horse Show, under such conditions as are specified in the prize list. The standby list for accepting Maclay Finalists will close on the Sunday of the WIHS which is the Sunday
before the Finals.”
Correction. On the website go into “Exhibitors” link and their is a link for " qualified lists" or something like it. Don’t go into “Maclay” because it is just a bunch of info on rules.
Jumper221 - Thanks for posting that, I really appreciate it. That’s pretty much how I remembered it - although I didn’t know about the way in which they determine where the empty spots go if people withdraw. It does make sense to me, though.
(sorry, can’t seem to quote, won’t load properly)
