West coats AEC: splitting divisions, other classes

[Xanthoria]

At long last, the AECs are on the West coast this year! Everyone wants to qualify, myself included. But I have heard that entries were low last time it was even vaguely in this area (well, 1200 miles away at Rebecca Farm)

I understand that in USEA eventing, divisions can be split based on rider age (Junior, Young Rider, Senior) or by horse age (Young Horse), and organizers have the right to combine or divide divisions as they see fit.

Would it not be nice of organizers on the West coast to maintain the divisions they let people sign up for on entering (eg an event coming up has Open and Rider divisions for one level) vs, right before the event, mushing them together (as happened at the last one, into one Open division) so that amateurs in both divisions might have a better chance of qualifying (via upgrade points in the case of Open)?

Is that cost prohibitive for organizers? Or am I misunderstanding the rules?

Another question is I wonder if they will offer non championship classes at AECs to help make it financially viable? At Rebecca Farm last time: "To provide opportunity for non-AEC-qualified pairs to come and compete, organizers at AEC this year have also added a handful of “Festival” classes, which are recognized divisions that will not fall under the Championship umbrella. Riders may enter Festival divisions from Beginner Novice up through Preliminary. "

[initiate1987]

@Xanthoria

understand that in USEA eventing, divisions can be split based on rider age (Junior, Young Rider, Senior) or by horse age (Young Horse), and organizers have the right to combine or divide divisions as they see fit.

Would it not be nice of organizers on the West coast to maintain the divisions they let people sign up for on entering (eg an event coming up has Open and Rider divisions for one level) vs, right before the event, mushing them together (as happened at the last one, into one Open division) so that amateurs in both divisions might have a better chance of qualifying (via upgrade points in the case of Open)?

I’m sure the championship divisions will still have Open, Amateur, Junior, and Horse at BN-P as they’ve have those 4 base division at the AECs for at least the past 10 years - that’s how they split at Rebecca Farm with the exception of M at the time. The only difference I can think of is that sometimes they have a U14 BN or N division for juniors, so that could be in or out.

[Xanthoria]

I’m talking more about qualifying? In the events preceeding the AECs it would result in more people being qualified for that event if organizers did not place all riders into one division versus keeping them split into say open,rider, etc… Is that correct?

For example, you have a modified division where people have entered, modified rider, and open modified. The total count of both of those groups is say 25 riders overall. Recently, they would usually just put them all into one open division. The amateurs would get upgrade points and the top two would effectively come first and second and be qualified for AEC.

However, if they kept those two divisions separate, then potentially two sets of amateurs would come first and second and qualify , increasing the number of horses eligible to compete at AEC.

Or is that not how it works?

[Mounted]

Yes, my understanding is that the top two amateur riders in any division qualify for the amateur division at AECs. More divisions does mean more qualifiers. But at some point, splitting divisions to enable more people to qualify undermines the purpose of having a championship event. I say this only half in jest – should we hold two person divisions to really maximize the number of people who qualify?

You used modified as an example, so I’ll stick with that. This weekend at Galway, there are two modified rider divisions – one with four riders, the other with six. There’s also an open modified division with 8 riders. Depending on the mix of professionals and amateurs in each division, you could have as many as two thirds of the modified competitors at a single show qualified for AECs. The qualifications aren’t very meaningful at that point.

(Specifically this weekend, the person who won modified rider A is not an amateur. The second place person in that division is an amateur, and would have qualified with or without the upgrade. The third place rider is also an amateur, but despite finishing in second for the upgraded placings, she does not qualify because she had a stop XC – finishing 3rd with a stop already tells you that it was not a very competitive division, in part because it was so small. The first and second place riders in modified rider B were both amateurs, so the other two riders in the division do not qualify from upgraded placings even if they are amateurs. The open division appears to have only had one amateur, who finished second of eight. So this weekend, only one third of the riders at the level qualified for AECs.)

[Xanthoria]

Wow, those are unusually small divisions in my experience. I think right now the next competition here will have about 18 riders in the modified rider division and maybe 10 in the open. But if they do the same as last time, they will just put them all together in one division

[Mounted]

Yes, especially in contrast to, say, Morven, which is also running this weekend. There, the MR division has 16 entries. Combining the two MR divisions at Galway would have still been a smaller division. Even though the AECs are in CA this year, I don’t think that organizers should make decisions (like splitting divisions) that render the standards for qualifying very different in different areas. Obviously, there will be differences in the number of entries that are not under the organizers’ control.

I don’t know about Twin Rivers, but Ram Tap a couple of weeks ago had 14 starters in OM. To me, that doesn’t seem so big it needs to be split, either.

[Xanthoria]

Agreed - don’t want to be splitting divisions and ending up with unqualified people at AECs. But my point was more “maybe don’t merge divisions that were already split in entries unless the numbers are super low?” Same difference I guess.

[enjoytheride]

I don’t see the numbers being “super low” but I would not be surprised if the numbers are lower than the central or east coast AECs.