Anyone seen an updated NAUCC schedule?

The only thing I’ve been able to find is the “preliminary” schedule on the website. Hopefully they’re not still juggling times for events?


I have received a more recent version, which I believe contains only minor changes. Though it’s rare to have a schedule stick to its original version so well, the latest version should be on the convention web site by now.

I sent an email to the organizers on Friday asking about that, and about workshops. Do they want me to do any? I can’t volunteer without knowing what’s already being covered…

The latest schedule is now on the website.

Thanks, Gilby. Very helpful. Appreciate the quick response.


An inline note on the pdf schedule says:

All track events will be run with the oldest categories (50+) first, ending with 0-6.

This is great, get the old fogies finished so they can go home and take a nap!

Note 4 says:

Racing Awards to be held concurrently with racing events.

I hope this gets continued for the 2004 events. This seems to be standard practice at track type events, but that didn’t happen at the 2002 NAUCC events.
Why are the freestyle events not done the same way? I’m also wondering about the scoring of freestyle events, and Standard Skill. Do the competators ever get any feedback on what they scored? My daughter competed at UNICON and never even found out how she scored, or how anyone scored for that matter.

I’ve seen a number of competions like gynmastics and skating where scores by all the judges are at least displayed for a few seconds between performances. I would think this would involve the audience a little more than what was done at the 2002 events. I’m pretty clueless when it comes to judging a performance, and I bet most non-unicyclists are in a similar situation.

There has been a desire to do this for years, but the main problem is usually lack of manpower (and possibly computing/printing/database sharing power). If we had enough volunteers we could do it. As it is, we barely keep enough people around to run the competition events, and those people are usually trained at the last second and not experts at the rules. This is bad, but is the reality of our competitions.

Our rules don’t contain any information on sharing judging results with riders. This means policies of that nature (unless rules change) are the domain of the Chief Artistic Judge, who has usually Connie Cotter in recent years. In a best-practice situation, riders should get as much feedback as possible, so they know where their performances can be improved. But there is a privacy issue on the part of judges; more below…

I tried to introduce such a system many years ago, but it was met with instant and adamant disapproval by the judging “community.” This is because our judges are uncertified amateurs, and many are not confident in their abilities. As in racing, we always have trouble finding enough judges. This is harder than it is for racing, because judging requires more knowledge, and to judge at the higher levels a prerequisite is having watched (and preferrably judged) lots of performances in the past.

We have trouble meeting those minimal standards. Where we should be is having training for judges (and track officials), and a certification process. This process, if we ever get it going, will not only determine that a judge knows the job, it can also rate their experience (and possibly accuracy) level. Newer, less experienced judges start out with the younger age categories, while the most experienced judges would do Jr. Expert and Expert events. Judges could also be rated for what events they know, because each of the event types, Individual, Pairs, Group, Standard Skill, and Open-X, have different required knowledge to judge them.

Again it boils down to a problem of getting volunteers. A secondary problem is lack of competitions. With one or two regionals and one nationals per year, it’s hard to get people interested in doing training and certification they will only use once or twice a year.

So as long as our judges are “amateurs,” many of them do not want to face the fallout of judging results they many not be confident about. With certified judges, on the other hand, this should be a known part of signing up.

Our current system of paperwork does not offer an easy way for riders to view their judging results without looking at actual judging sheets. What’s needed is a scoring summary, intended for viewing by riders and coaches. Done right, it could show all the judges’ scores anonymously, which would give the necessary feedback and save the judges the problem of facing disgruntled riders (or parents) for the rest of the convention. That’s the other reason judges would rather not have their work made public. Little league-ism runs rampant with some people in these competitions, and the disgraceful behavior that goes along with it.

So in today’s environment, the artistic judge is like a member of a jury in an American courtroom. Their opinions is extremely important and they do the best they can, but they are not necessarily experts and should not be criticized (by riders) for their work.

Judges are, however, criticized by the Chief Judge. When a judges’ results are consistently different from all the other judges, this is usually an indication they are doing something wrong. The judge is interviewed to see if they understand the job, and/or replaced. Unless there aren’t enough judges available.

If you see Connie setting up more than the required five judges, which she prefers to do, this means there are enough volunteers. By using more judges, it increases the odds that their varying scoring methods will average out to the true winners.