2012 National Finals:
Summary Analysis of Results
Revised in 2015**
What follows is a brief look at the number of teams advancing from the preliminary round into the semi-final round. Up to this point we had been looking strictly at the runs from a “morning and afternoon” standpoint. It was suggested we tease out the times a little more to better reflect the possible “mood” of the sheep over the course of the day. Those divisions were: early, midday, late. Each designation included approximately 12 or 13 handlers. We found that on Tuesday at total of nine teams advanced into the semi-final round; on Wednesday 11 teams; on Thursday, 5 teams; and, on Friday, 18 teams moved on. We also compared the number of teams that qualified with the number of teams that retired or got disqualified on each of the days. On Tuesday, 8 teams RT’d or DQ’d. On Wednesday, 18 teams RT’d or DQ’d. On Thursday, 16 RT’d or DQ’d. And, on Friday, 5 teams RT’d or DQ’d.
Table 1: Overall Picture of 2012 Results
|Qualified||RT or DQ||Qualified||RT or DQ||Qualified||RT or DQ||Qualified||RT or DQ|
|#Of Teams to Post||
Table 2: Results Broken Down By Day. Includes Alternative Scenario Using Single Day System
[The following tables show two scenarios:
- How it all actually played out – advancing top 40 to semi-finals
- How it would have looked had ten each day been advanced to the semi-finals
Green indicates teams that would be added (with single day system). Red indicates teams who would not have advance (with single day system).]
Tuesday: One more team would be added to the nine who were among the 40 plus ties highest scores, if you had gone to the top ten each day.
|Michele McGuire/Moose T||133|
Wednesday: One team would be eliminated from the 11 who were among the 40 plus ties highest scores, if you had gone to the top ten each day.
Five more teams would have been added to the five who scored among the top 40 highest scores, had you gone to the top ten each day.
Friday: Using “Single-Day System,”eight teams would be eliminated from the 18 who were among the top 40 highest overall scores moving into the semi-final round.
|Don Helsley/The Wizard||128|
The day to day differences in the number of teams who qualified to move on to the semi finals are larger than we have seen in other years. We decided to look at several variables to see if the differences can be explained. The variables were: sheep, weather, and composition of the field.
We had an opportunity to speak with several handlers who worked with the sheep at the set-out and exhaust pens. They were described as Suffolk and smutty faced/white faced mix. The general consensus appeared to be that some were “jumpers” and a little on the “crazy” side. Since we did not attend the 2012 Finals, we are not in a position to confirm or deny the descriptions given to us.
We were not there, however, we have asked individuals who were there what they remember and thanks to Patrick Grannan have discovered a NOAA web site that allows us to look at weather conditions retrospectively. In examining the week of the 2012 Finals we found that the weather was consistently clear to mostly cloudy in the afternoon; wind speeds remained between zero mph and five mph (mostly zero); visibility was 10 miles; and, temperatures ran from 40 degrees Fahrenheit in the morning to 83 degrees Fahrenheit in the later afternoon. There were no storms.
Composition of the 2012 Teams
We thought that it would be interesting to look at the composition of the field each day based on how the teams ranked in the USBCHA point system coming into the Finals. We then tallied the number of teams in each rank in each day. For example, on Tuesday three teams were ranked in the 1 to 25 spots on the USBCHA point system. On Thursday, four teams were ranked in the 126 to 150 spots on the USBCHA point system.
Table 3: Teams Each Day Based on USBCHA Ranking.
|End of Year Ranking (Based on Accumulated Points)||Tues||Wed||Thur||Fri||Total|
|Teams Ranked 1 thru 25 overall||3||1||2||5||11|
|Teams Ranked 26 thru 50||2||3||4||3||12|
|Teams Ranked 51 thru 75||3||3||1||4||11|
|Teams Ranked 76 thru 100||5||2||5||5||17|
|Teams Ranked 101 thru 125||4||3||1||2||10|
|Teams Ranked 126 thru 150||2||6||4||2||14|
|Teams Ranked 151 thru 175||7||4||2||4||17|
|Teams Ranked 176 thru 335*||11||16||17||12||56|
* Lowest ranked team that qualified and entered at 2012 Finals. There were 190 teams that ranked between 170 and 355 in the 2012 UBCHA points ranking system. Fifty-six of the 190 teams were competing in the 2012 Finals.
A visual examination of the data in the table above indicates that 75 of the top 150 point teams competed in the 2012 Finals. In other words, only half of the handlers who were eligible to come to the Finals entered their dog. This means that half of the field was ranked below 150. Thirty-one percent of the field was ranked 176 and below. The number of teams competing who were ranked 176 and below varies by day from 11 to 17 teams. Wednesday and Thursday were highest with 16 and 17 teams respectively.
In an attempt to analyze why Thursday had only five teams qualify for the semi-finals while Friday had 18 teams move forward, we looked at the composition of the field based on the teams ranking in USBCHA points system coming into Finals. We established what percentage of each days’ field was in each rank. For example, on Thursday three percent of the teams were ranked 51 through 75, while on Wednesday, 7% were.
Table 4: The following is a look at the composition of the field (based on the 2012 USBCHA points ranking system) using percentages.
|End of Year Ranking (Based on Accumulated Points)||Tues||Wed||Thur||Fri|
|Teams Ranked 1 thru 25 overall||8%||3%||6%||14%|
|Teams Ranked 26 thru 50||5%||7%||11%||8%|
|Teams Ranked 51 thru 75||8%||7%||3%||10%|
|Teams Ranked 76 thru 100||14%||6%||14%||14%|
|Teams Ranked 101 thru 125||10%||7%||3%||5%|
|Teams Ranked 126 thru 150||5%||16%||11%||5%|
|Teams Ranked 151 thru 175||19%||10%||6%||10%|
|Teams Ranked 176 thru 335*||30%||42%||46%||32%|
On Thursday, when five teams qualified for the semi-finals, the draw for the day included the second lowest percentage (6%) of teams who finished the year in the top 25 point ranking. That day also included a high percentage of teams (46%) who ranked between 175 and 335. Friday, had 18 teams qualify for the semi-finals. It included the highest percentage (14%) of teams that were ranked 1 through 25 and, the second lowest percentage (32%) of teams ranked 175-335. Almost half of Friday’s competitors were ranked 1-100, while only a third of Thursday was in the 1 through 100.
We have never looked at the Finals data in this way before. Consequently, we are no sure what other years would look like. We also do not know whether USBCHA members would see “handicapping” the field based on points earned as valid. If this is a valid way of evaluating the strength of the field each day in 2012, Friday had the strongest field with the highest percentage (56%) of competitors finishing in the top 150, and the highest percentage (45%) in the top 100, and the highest percentage (14%) in the top 25.
Whether these differences are enough to account for the discrepancy between Thursday and Friday cannot be determined with just a visual examination of one years’ data. Whether the type of sheep used made a difference is unclear. The weather does not appear to have been a factor.
- Reconfigured tables to be more readable
- Addition of weather and sheep information
- Addition of USBCHA ranking system to explore the composition of the field each day.