Amendment 20

– 20 – Lilac Point Fanciers, Superstition Cat Fanciers

RESOLVED: Amend Show Rules, Article XXXVI – NATIONAL/REGIONAL/DIVISIONAL AWARDS PROGRAM, DETERMINATION OF SHOW POINTS section, to remove the 5% decrements from scoring in all classes, as follows:


Points are awarded in the following manner based on the wins achieved in each ring and the official show count of cats/kittens/household pets in competition.

Eligible Wins

1. Best cat/kitten/household pet – one point for each cat/kitten defeated. Each cat/kitten in each championship/premiership/kitten/household pet final – one point for each cat/kitten defeated.

2. 2nd Best cat/kitten/household pet (HHP) – 95% of the points awarded to best cat/kitten/HHP, 3rd best cat/kitten/HHP 90%, 4th best 85%, 5th best 80%, etc.

3 2. Best of breed/division – one point for each cat/kitten defeated within the breed/division.

4 3. 2nd best of breed/division – 95% of the points awarded to best of breed/division.

5 4. Points achieved in individual rings are added to determine an entry’s total points for the show. In all cases an entry will receive the points from only one award per ring – that which carries the most points.

RATIONALE: This resolution removes the decrement scoring system for all classes in finals scored for National/Regional points. This does not change the decrement for the orange ribbon (2nd Best of Breed/Division) or for champion/premier points.

In a final of 101 cats, Best Cat defeats 100 cats and gets 100 points. 10th best cat defeats 90 cats but only gets 55 points. 10th best cat gets 55% of the points after defeating 90% of the cats, 15th best cat gets 30% of the points after defeating 85% of the cats. The math penalty gets worse in a top 20 final such as we have at the International Show in the kitten class. In a class of 101 kittens, 20th best kitten would defeat 80 kittens but get only 5 points, defeating 80% of the kittens and getting just 5% of the points. The bigger the class, the worse the penalty for being low in the final even though the cat defeats many other cats.

The biggest impact of this change would be for the cats that make a few finals in a show or make them low. The value of specialty rings would improve. Does this benefit the NW-campaigned cats? The top NW campaigners are already making finals high and already getting the “math” benefit from getting higher percentages of the finals, they would likely continue to rank almost the same as with the decrement system. Strategy might change for some, and some of the races might be closer for longer, but in the end, the cat that can make high finals consistently will still get the higher placement at the end of the season. Exhibitors vying for the NWs will adjust their strategy exactly as they did when we changed from the rpa system to top 100 rings.

The regional-campaigned cats would get the most benefit from this change. Cats looking for points for regional awards will see a difference in points kept from small shows, especially specialty rings. Most cats vying for regional wins do not get to 100 rings and do not benefit from substitution. With actual points, these cats will keep more points from every ring.

When this was proposed at the 2019 annual, one of the arguments against was that this would compress the point difference between placements, or as was said “squish” the point spread of the top cats. Dick Kallmeyer ran the scoring for the 2019 season for the top cats using this method and it did not “squish” the total points at the end of the season, in fact just the opposite. For some placements, the differential between placements was increased. Some cats swapped places in the standings, but only two cats in championship in R1-9 would have fallen out of the top 25, replaced by two other cats whose owners were trying for those spots. One cat in premiership would have fallen out, but someone else would have gladly made it in. No HHPs or kittens would have fallen out.

We must be careful when looking at end-of-season results scored differently than the rules in place for the season. These statistical tests do not mean the rankings would have changed in reality. Exhibitors base their strategy on the scoring system in place at the time and the rankings from week to week. Those cats that look like they would have fallen out of the top 25 might have stayed in under any scoring system because they might have gone to different shows based on potential point gains. The point of this analysis is that changing the scoring of the top cats is not affected as was predicted in prior arguments. The actual points method does not “squish” the season-end totals.

Another argument against this in 2019 was that this would somehow hurt small shows. Most shows *are* small shows and we all have to go somewhere! We have very few big shows anymore, which is why we have twice in the past ten years lowered the requirement to have top 15 in the finals. If given a choice between a large distant show with the potential for one or two low finals and a smaller local show with a lower count on the same weekend even with a potential for more and higher finals, the argument is that the exhibitor would choose to travel or fly to the further large show because the cat would keep more points with this change to the scoring. This argument is flawed because exhibitors pick shows based on several criteria – location, location, location, lineup, and count. Most exhibitors consider only location and will pick the easiest show to get to, even when they are hunting points, because most exhibitors do not like to travel long distances or fly with a cat when they have a closer show. Traveling requires more time and a lot more expense, and to travel to a large show where every top cat will be is a huge gamble that most people will be reluctant to take when they have a closer smaller show that also fits their needs. In fact, more people would be happy to stay local when they know they can keep more points from the show, large or small. So the argument that this change would be detrimental to small shows is misplaced and ignores the reality of how exhibitors choose shows.

The scoring for the brown and orange ribbons remains the same since a class must have 20+ cats for actual points to be beneficial. Anything under 20 and the 5% decrement is more points. Very few breeds have 20+ cats in the class. Were we to make this change for the champion/premier placements, we would have to consider adjusting the 200/75-point thresholds. Points for champion/premier placements will remain the same.

CENTRAL OFFICE NOTE: the cost to implement is minimal, $1,000-$1,500 for the program change and testing.

Return to amendments index

If you are new or have not posted recently, you may be prompted to log in before you are able to view or participate in the discussion below – if so, simply enter your name and click “Log in”.

Please enter your name to access the discussion