Requested NCC Feedback

[Ron1319]

They have again requested feedback on the proposed NCC format.  Here is mine.

http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/?ncc_2015&show=entry&blogID=1468

Fundamental flaws ---

1) This new event was intended to allow for more cadets to participate, however, the amount of cadets allowed to participate in the event has decreased from previous years.  Now the limit is 12 cadets per region, which is fewer than the previous number of 14 per drill team and 5 per color guard.  This means that the total reach at NCC has decreased from a potential 152 cadets to 96. 

1b) Wing and region headquarters are being asked to host a competitions in events that have never taken place before.  These are complete with secret panels, subjective judgement of sportsmanship, a PT calculation that doesn't make sense and is impossible to judge fairly, and team leadership events that are subjectively judged.

2) The "elective" events would require such an enormous amount of preparation that they would make innovative drill look incredibly easy in comparison.

3) It's much easier to assemble six Phase IV cadets than to assemble 13 of them.  We managed to field almost all cadet officers at the last NCC.  If we could only pick six, they would have all been Phase IV.  Then, only 3-4 of them are actually working on the color guard events.  One of the most significant impacts of NCC was the assembly of 14+ of the best cadets around to work hard and develop the necessary leadership to lead an NCC team.  They took this leadership back to their home groups and squadrons.  The only team events in this competition that require practice are limited to 3-4 cadets. 

4) I wouldn't commit to practice time unless I was committed the travel money.  Travel costs to Alabama are greater than our entire previous NCC budget to field a competitive event-winning team.

5) For any team that wishes to preserve the competitive nature of NCC, no part of these changes have made it viable to bring a younger, newer cadet to NCC, only the opposite.  There is nothing to lead me to believe that a team of six 20-year old Phase IV cadets would not have an advantage.

Specific feedback

1-1, c, (1) - The metric of comparing promotion data between participating squadrons and non-participating squadrons in meaningless as it would be expected that squadrons that are active enough to participate in a national activity would already have a higher promotion rate.  There is no valid control group for this metric.

1-1, c, (2) - Show us the data from past NCC events that this new event will be compared to and you have an interesting metric.

1-1, c, (3) - How does one quantitatively measure the strength of a relationship with tens of thousands of people?

1-1, c, (4) - There is no way to measure the effect this new program will have on squadrons at a squadron and group level.   NCC previously had a very profound positive effect on groups that were using the program as a tool to build powerful cadet leaders.

1-2, a, Conflicts with statement that there are no grade requirements as cadets must have completed the first achievement.

1-2, b, This requirement decreases the total number of possible participants at NCC from 152 with the old competition to 96 under the new system. 

1-2, c, Membership transfer takes about two minutes to complete.  This condition is meaningless as written and not justifiable. 

1-5, b, I hope somebody got permission from Jeopardy Productions, Inc for the use of their trademark which they have a duty to defend the use of.

1-5, a, A 3-cadet color guard?

1-5, a, Sportsmanship modification - What steps will be taken to ensure that biased modification does not occur?  How will this be measured?

1-6, a, Why use the NCC trophy for a color guard competition?  It really dishonors the teams that worked hard to have their names on that trophy.

1-6, d, silver stars for runner ups?  Mixed colors of stars?

1-9. Why is a uniform inspection part of the determination of the event winner in a condition where there is no "blues" uniform at the event? 

1-10. It's very unclear what the "offset in travel expenses" is equivalent to for a team traveling from California.  Air travel would be approximately $8,000.

2-1. "Still, commanders should rotate interested cadets through color guard opportunities so that newer, younger cadets have a fair opportunity to participate. "  This sounds like a rule, not a guideline.  How will this be enforced?

2-3.  How does one demonstrate consideration of multiple solutions for a potential 10% of the total score for the event?  The entire judging sheet is incredibly subjective with a huge gradient in judged values.  How does a judge determine satisfactory or excellent completion of the activity?  This determination is reflected by a huge 15% of the total points.

2-5.  Who certifies that each sit up is performed correctly, and what is the process of appeal?  Cheating on PFT is extremely easy and nearly impossible to contest afterwards.  Mile run times are impossible to cheat on.

The tables have ranges from 25th percentile to 75th percentile.  There are no details for higher scores.  Therefore, no mile run time for a female less than 8:52 will have any benefit to the score.  It is also extremely possible for there to be a 16-way tie in the PFT under this system, making the entire event meaningless.  Even if only the top 6 teams tie, this event will still have no bearing on the outcome.  Each event should be set up in such a way that there is a clear rank order.

2-6, b.  The team is going to bring to cadets who have specialized in preparing a uniform in 30 minutes.  They will spend months training for this.  Is that really the goal of NCC?  What is the intent for non-blues years?  Will there be no "spot inspection of two cadets?"  How are the two cadets who will be graded determined?

c. Is the goal of NCC really to judge uniforms to the minimum standard? 

2-7, c.  Even 5 rank order points is equivalent to disqualification, from a covert panel of secret judges.

[Eclipse]

Removed pending actually RTFM...

Edit: OK, actually read it.  RON1319's legitimate issues above notwithstanding, this is a whole lot better then what CAP had
before and a whole lot more relevent to cadet life.

Dare I say "Good first draft."?

[Ron1319]

OK, if you ignore every issue I have, it would have been a great first draft.  Of course, it's an almost-final review copy that they've been working on for two years.  The first public draft came out a long time ago. 

Now fewer cadets can participate than before.  And it's impossible to judge fairly.  And I took issue with almost every paragraph in the entire document. 

But sure, it would have been a great first draft two years ago.  If you resolved everything I had issue with.  But then it would look nothing like what they published.

[Eclipse]

That's pretty much what I meant - good first draft, much better then the money-wasting nonsense CAP had before,
needs a lot more committee time and comment before it's ready for piloting, let alone implementation.

[Fubar]

It even says in the draft they won't be doing more than minor tweaks based on feedback...

[Eclipse]

RFCs are supposed to come out when you're still in the planing stages, not when you're
placing your print order - by that time people are too married to the ideas to change much.

[Ron1319]

So we are clear, they are adding:

1) Undefined Team Leadership Problem
2) Impromptu Speaking
3) Model Rocketry
4) Robotics
5) Obstacle course
6) Geocaching, &
7) A service project

... to NCC.  Many of those things are not part of the total score until 2016, but they want teams to prepare for them in 2015.  And perhaps it's less expensive because they will likely expect more teams to pay for their own transportation. 

The event has fewer participants at more time expenditure to be competitive and higher total cost.  Which part is better?  That fact that you like color guard and don't like innovative drill?  A respectable innovative drill routine takes one person about 10 hours to create and a team about 3 hours to learn and 2-3 hours to scrub.  Who knows what's involved in preparing for the list of things above. 

[Ron1319]

From June 23rd.  Pay close attention to the overwhelmingly negative feedback in the comments.

http://www.capmembers.com/cadet_programs/?national_cadet_competition_2015__a_new_model&show=entry&blogID=1308

[Ron1319]

Excerpts:

"It inspires cadets to progress through the Cadet Programs (it motivated me to achieve the Spaatz Award) to be more proficient and be able to provide a greater contribution to the team."

"This does not need to be a "all things to all people" event as others have mentioned. "

"The belief that suddenly the masses will be drawn to NCC because the format, the rules, the venue, the funding, and the leadership has changed is quite frankly, naive."

"But I agree with the idea of keeping NCC (NDTC/NCGC) with as little changes as possible. They are a time proven activity that should remain."

"What would prevent a wing from transferring all cadets in a wing that are "the best for competition" into one squadron? There is no way to prevent wings from having "super teams"."

"In my experience, the NCC program was never a slice of life of "normal" cadet activities within the "average" cadet program run at local squadrons. Rather, the NCC training process - which encompassed many hundreds of hours of very hard work throughout the year - was an outlet for the hard-chargers and high-achievers. For many cadets, a few hours a week of CAP are not enough."

"This is called National Cadet Competition, not the Nation Cadet/Aerospace/Cyber Patriot/STEM/Literature Competition. I implore I understand that we are trying to make it affordable and include more cadets, but this is not it."

" It took years of experience and determination for our squadron to reach the Region and National levels. Let's not cheapen their accomplishments. Keep in mind the focus should be on drill and color guard excellence not computers or other activities."

[Ron1319]

I could deal with a change in the events that are part of the competition.  I could deal with a change in the scoring method of uniform inspection.  I would approve of a format that allowed for more cadets to participate at all levels.  But I give this a 5% chance of meeting any of their goals. 

[Flying Pig]

I attended NCC 2x.  I was pretty satisfied the way it was.  The idea of allowing more people to participate seems to defeat the purpose of having it to begin  with.  But maybe its just me and my elitist attitude.  I blame the Marines. 

[Offutteer]

Ron,

It's rather apparent that you are very passionate about NCC, however, not all of your commits are valid.

"1) This new event was intended to allow for more cadets to participate," while it is true that fewer cadets will participate at the national level, more squadrons can participate at the wing and region levels.  You don't have to worry about your color guard team losing members as someone gets their Mitchell Award, nor do you have to get 14 cadets together to make a drill team.

"1b)" Sportsmanship has always been a part of NCC and calculated by that "secretive" panel you're so worried about now.

"1b) a PT calculation that doesn't make sense and is impossible to judge fairly" Google is your friend.  While CAPP 52-18 only shows specific levels, the remaining values are available.  https://www.presidentschallenge.org/challenge/physical/benchmarks.shtml.  So, it's simply a matter of what's your age and gender?

"1-6, a, Why use the NCC trophy for a color guard competition?  It really dishonors the teams that worked hard to have their names on that trophy."  The Color Guard Teams that have won in previous years have their names on the trophy.  So NOW it's going to dishonor the teams that already won?

You do have some valid concerns, and they would be better received if you didn't include some of invalid items and didn't attack the activity.  Just a little improvement on the tone would do wonders. 

[jeders]

Honestly Ron, it sounds like you're just whining because they're changing the program.

Yes, fewer cadets will participate, which lowers the costs involved and means that national can provide more travel assistance so that it doesn't cost an arm and a leg to go from CA (or any other far flung location) to the event site. Win-Win.

Now, because each team has only 6 cadets, instead of 14+, smaller squadrons like mine are able to compete. Before, only a handful of units competed because only a handful of units had the numbers. Win-Win.

1-2, c, Membership transfer takes about two minutes to complete.  This condition is meaningless as written and not justifiable. 

Really? You're going to suggest transferring members between squadrons just to form an NCC team? 

2-3.  How does one demonstrate consideration of multiple solutions for a potential 10% of the total score for the event?

By considering multiple options possibly?

Johnny: Hey I've got an idea on how to do this.
Billy: So do I.

Multiple solutions considered.

2-5.  Who certifies that each sit up is performed correctly, and what is the process of appeal?

I would imagine the judge. Also, there's a whole section on appealing/contesting items at the beginning of the document.

2-6, b.  The team is going to bring to cadets who have specialized in preparing a uniform in 30 minutes.  They will spend months training for this.  Is that really the goal of NCC?  What is the intent for non-blues years?  Will there be no "spot inspection of two cadets?"  How are the two cadets who will be graded determined?

In years past, teams have spent hundreds of dollars to get specially tailored uniforms with pockets removed and flight caps sewn shut for the sole purpose of a graded uniform inspection. Now they don't have to waste the time and money doing all of that garbage which gives wealthy units an unfair advantage of poorer units. Instead the teams are graded on 1) how they wear there regular uniform on a regular basis and 2) there actual knowledge of uniform wear. Win-Win.

c. Is the goal of NCC really to judge uniforms to the minimum standard?

As opposed to what, judging them on some super standard that's not found anywhere in the regulations and favors those team who can waste money on specially tailored uniforms?

And it's impossible to judge fairly.  And I took issue with almost every paragraph in the entire document. 

Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Personally, I like the direction this takes NCC in.

...this is a whole lot better then what CAP had before and a whole lot more relevent to cadet life.

+1

[Майор Хаткевич]

Excerpts:
"This is called National Cadet Competition, not the Nation Cadet/Aerospace/Cyber Patriot/STEM/Literature Competition. I implore I understand that we are trying to make it affordable and include more cadets, but this is not it."

Funny. I always wondered why we called the National Tailored Uniform/Cadet Kelly competion the "Cadet Competition". Seems like they are trying to make it reflect cadet life more, not less. Otherwise, it should have just been called the National Drill Competition.

[kwe1009]

I do like the general direction that the NCC is taking but as many have pointed out there are some issues.  I definitely like the idea of randomly choosing 2 cadets and having them put a uniform together without assistance.  This beats having parents or even paid coaches and tailors put uniforms together and the cadet having little or no involvement.  All cadet team members need to know how to properly assemble a uniform (including ribbon placement) since any 2 can be picked.  That knowledge should eventually affect their entire squadron hopefully resulting in more cadets (and Seniors) wearing the uniform properly.

I do hope they bring back the drill team (it was part of the previous draft) as drill is used much more than color guard. 

[Ron1319]

Jeders, it is evident that you do not have the competition experience to understand the issues that you are commenting on.

1) There is no way to determine whether the consideration of other options that you suggested is "satisfactory" or "outstanding."  This difference in points has a huge difference in the outcome of the event.  And if each team is to be judged by the same set of judges, the event could take about 6 hours.  Without a standard set of rules for judging, the event is meaningless.  At least with standard and innovative drill, the same judges judged every team.

2) You don't think that a cadet would transfer units to go to NCC?  You appear to have no idea what lengths a cadet will go to in order to compete at the level of competition that NCC used to have.

3) We didn't spend very much money on uniform preparation.  Some of the cadets needed new pants and shirts.  Shirts are about $13.  We did our own tailoring.  We did well in the event.  The cadets are proud of their tailored uniforms, wear them to squadron meetings, and when they outgrow or stain a shirt, they go buy another one and someone with a sewing machine tailors them a new one.  NCC or no.  They look good.

https://scontent-b-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10527269_893518537343507_3201065821562105717_n.jpg?oh=744baf51817304c063981cfcee913411&oe=55026D92

That isn't just our Spaatzen at competition.  That's how they wear the uniform.

4) I'm unaware of any sportsmanship judgement ever effecting the outcome of NCC.  In this case, there are people who have the assign job of making that the case.

5) Have you ever filed an appeal at NCC?  It takes several man hours to complete, and usually involves the involvement of the director of the event.  One of our appeals did change the outcome of the quiz bowl competition.  It's not a matter to be taken lightly.  Now we get to try to appeal 30 sit ups and push ups across how many teams?  With what proof?  It's not viable to appeal or judge correctly.  How many judges or "counters" per team?  Has anybody ever tried to actually grade sit ups and push ups with competition-level accuracy?  What if the person counting makes a mistake and adds or subtracts 10?

I re-state my opinion.  You do not know what you are talking about.  How many times have you been?  Ever win an event? 

Hatkevich, What on Earth is a Cadet Kelly? 

[Eclipse]

I do hope they bring back the drill team (it was part of the previous draft) as drill is used much more than color guard.

Not in the way NCC did it.

[Eclipse]

3) We didn't spend very much money on uniform preparation.  Some of the cadets needed new pants and shirts.  Shirts are about $13.  We did our own tailoring.  We did well in the event.  The cadets are proud of their tailored uniforms, wear them to squadron meetings, and when they outgrow or stain a shirt, they go buy another one and someone with a sewing machine tailors them a new one.  NCC or no.  They look good.

For NCC? Seriously?  Wings spend waste literally THOUSANDS of dollars on custom-tailored uniforms, which in some cases are more jumpsuits then
CAP uniforms, not to mention hats, shoes, insignia, ribbons, etc.

4) I'm unaware of any sportsmanship judgement ever effecting the outcome of NCC.

How about the basic ability to perform math, or follow the rules as written?

Didn't the last 2-3 years of NCC end in significant controversy about the way scoring was done, timing recorded or tracked, etc., etc?

[Ron1319]

I do like the general direction that the NCC is taking but as many have pointed out there are some issues.  I definitely like the idea of randomly choosing 2 cadets and having them put a uniform together without assistance.  This beats having parents or even paid coaches and tailors put uniforms together and the cadet having little or no involvement.  All cadet team members need to know how to properly assemble a uniform (including ribbon placement) since any 2 can be picked.  That knowledge should eventually affect their entire squadron hopefully resulting in more cadets (and Seniors) wearing the uniform properly.

Show me a cadet who has been to NCC who doesn't know how to put a uniform together.  I linked mine above.  That's how they wear the uniform.  Not just the Spaatzen, but all of the ones who went.

It was against the old NCC rules for anyone but cadets on the team to assemble their uniforms.  Clearly, you could pay a tailor to do tailoring work.  Our cadets did most of their own tailoring work with some assistance.  We did have a tailor do the pants hemming because we didn't have the right sewing machine for it.

[Ron1319]

I do hope they bring back the drill team (it was part of the previous draft) as drill is used much more than color guard.

Not in the way NCC did it.

My team commander has gone on to use his drill skill with his ROTC unit and it has gained him a lot of respect and leadership as a result.  We did it right and I was trained by an AF Academy honor guard commander.

[Eclipse]

My team commander has gone on to use his drill skill with his ROTC unit and it has gained him a lot of respect and leadership as a result.

How nice for him.

[Ron1319]

3) We didn't spend very much money on uniform preparation.  Some of the cadets needed new pants and shirts.  Shirts are about $13.  We did our own tailoring.  We did well in the event.  The cadets are proud of their tailored uniforms, wear them to squadron meetings, and when they outgrow or stain a shirt, they go buy another one and someone with a sewing machine tailors them a new one.  NCC or no.  They look good.

For NCC? Seriously?  Wings spend waste literally THOUSANDS of dollars on custom-tailored uniforms, which in some cases are more jumpsuits then
CAP uniforms, not to mention hats, shoes, insignia, ribbons, etc.

Yes, we took 2nd place in inspection in 2013.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Air_Patrol_National_Cadet_Competition

And yes, we replaced some ribbons and some hats and they each spent $45 or whatever it was on new shoes that they wore to meetings and events afterwards.

[Ron1319]

My team commander has gone on to use his drill skill with his ROTC unit and it has gained him a lot of respect and leadership as a result.

How nice for him.

So now skills learned in CAP that are used in the military afterwards are not important?  We aren't teaching some of them leadership and skills for military service?  A lot of our cadets have received academy appointments.

[Майор Хаткевич]

Show me a cadet who has been to NCC who doesn't know how to put a uniform together.  I linked mine above.  That's how they wear the uniform.  Not just the Spaatzen, but all of the ones who went.

And that's the problem a lot of people had with NCC. All about those cadets, with little/marginal effect on the rest.

ALL cadets should know how to wear the uniform right, and it doesn't have to be tailored to look good.

[Eclipse]

We aren't teaching some of them leadership and skills for military service?  A lot of our cadets have received academy appointments.

Actually, >NO< CAP isn't, specifically.

NCC had so little to do with actual cadet life it was ridiculous, it bred so much background noise, not to mention consumed
a significant amount of resources and essentially took cadets out of the real program in order to prepare for it.

Good on 'ye and yours if you managed to avoid that and participated in a way which lived up to both the spirit and letter of the
program, but I can assure you that the animosity and pushback on the old program didn't just come from an occasional random issue.

[Майор Хаткевич]

My team commander has gone on to use his drill skill with his ROTC unit and it has gained him a lot of respect and leadership as a result.

How nice for him.

So now skills learned in CAP that are used in the military afterwards are not important?  We aren't teaching some of them leadership and skills for military service?  A lot of our cadets have received academy appointments.

I think he'll learn quite quickly that drill is a very small part of the military...

Our unit had 3/7 graduating cadets go to Service Academies. One to VMI, and the rest to great colleges. None did NCC.

[SKI304]

We all get it by now that our two esteemed ILWG members here have an axe to grind with the way their wing handled NCC over a decade ago.  That experience is not consistent with the majority of other wings, especially in GLR's other participating wings.  NCC used to be a great way to build cadets and squadrons when done right.  MIWG, OHWG, and WIWG can attest to that.  Hopefully the new program can be improved before final publishing so that it can continue to challenge and build cadets.

[Ron1319]

It does seem to be distracting from the main point that the plan as written is severely broken.

I would feel differently if their message was, "We're sorry but we can't financially support the drill portion of the competition in 2015, so we are going to hold the color guard competition and we are going to try some things to make it more accessible at the wing and region levels.  We are opening up the color guard competition to cadets of all grades."  I feel that would make Phase IV cadet super color guards, which is effectively what they have just done, but at least it would make more sense.

I would really feel better about it if they said.  "Our sponsorship department at National Headquarters has sat down in meetings with Vice Presidents from Intel, Microsoft, IBM, Proctor and Gamble, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and General Motors and they have each pledged to support the cadet program with minimum donations of $50,000 each with Intel being the head sponsor at $150,000.  As a result, we have decided to title-sponsor National Cadet Competition 2015 as "brought to you with generous support from Intel Corp" and Intel will be providing T-shirts to all participants as the official PT uniform for the event.

I was an engineer for Intel for 7 years.  I once dropped a prototype (it slipped out of my hands) that was worth about $25,000.  When I took the broken board to my manager, he handed me another one and said, "That's why we have spares!"  $150,000 is negligible in the budget of a major MNC.  I offered at NCC last time to find contacts for someone at national HQ at major corporations to discuss sponsorship and nobody ever followed up with me.

We're talking about gutting an event for the sake of saving $20-30,000.  Or maybe passing that extra expense onto the teams.  Or making teams sleep in tents instead of in college dorms.

[Eclipse]

We all get it by now that our two esteemed ILWG members here have an axe to grind with the way their wing handled NCC over a decade ago.  That experience is not consistent with the majority of other wings, especially in GLR's other participating wings.  NCC used to be a great way to build cadets and squadrons when done right.  MIWG, OHWG, and WIWG can attest to that.  Hopefully the new program can be improved before final publishing so that it can continue to challenge and build cadets.

A decade ago?  No. 

NCC was an issue up to an including the last years it was still running, the problems were discussed here and on CS (before it's reboot).

NCC may well have been an excellent program in yeas past, many parts of CAP were.  The current staffing, funding, and low number of
cadets, especially those interested, no longer supports an activity of this kind, assuming it actually ever did at any level other then brute force
and "because we always did".

the total reach at NCC has decreased from a potential 152 cadets to 96. 

You've made this comment about the "potential reach" a number of times, yet tha fails to acknowledge the fact that in many (most?) wings
the interest in NCC was so low that the wing couldn't even put together enough teams to have a local comp, let alone a legitimate sampling
of the entire cadet population of the wing. 

Having the "potential of 152" is meaningless when no one is interested.

[Eclipse]

It does seem to be distracting from the main point that the plan as written is severely broken.

I would feel differently if their message was, "We're sorry but we can't financially support the drill portion of the competition in 2015, so we are going to hold the color guard competition and we are going to try some things to make it more accessible at the wing and region levels.  We are opening up the color guard competition to cadets of all grades."  I feel that would make Phase IV cadet super color guards, which is effectively what they have just done, but at least it would make more sense.

I would really feel better about it if they said.  "Our sponsorship department at National Headquarters has sat down in meetings with Vice Presidents from Intel, Microsoft, IBM, Proctor and Gamble, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and General Motors and they have each pledged to support the cadet program with minimum donations of $50,000 each with Intel being the head sponsor at $150,000.  As a result, we have decided to title-sponsor National Cadet Competition 2015 as "brought to you with generous support from Intel Corp" and Intel will be providing T-shirts to all participants as the official PT uniform for the event.

I was an engineer for Intel for 7 years.  I once dropped a prototype (it slipped out of my hands) that was worth about $25,000.  When I took the broken board to my manager, he handed me another one and said, "That's why we have spares!"  $150,000 is negligible in the budget of a major MNC.  I offered at NCC last time to find contacts for someone at national HQ at major corporations to discuss sponsorship and nobody ever followed up with me.

We're talking about gutting an event for the sake of saving $20-30,000.  Or maybe passing that extra expense onto the teams.  Or making teams sleep in tents instead of in college dorms.

It's not "$20-30k" when you factor in the time and expense of each wing - multiply that by about 10 and you might be close.

And to say that "$150K is negligible in the budget of an MNC." ignores the fact that the operational budget of most wings
is only $20-40K a year, and many are begging paperclips and paper at the end of each year just to get things done.
Milk is cheap at $3 a gallon, unless you don't have $3.

But Ron, I actually agree with you, if this is important, go find the money.  Yes, there's a professional fundraiser who apparently...isn't...
but with that said, instead of saying "MNCs should be able to give us the money..." go and get it.

Emailing a contact to someone at NHQ is not the same as knocking doors.

While there were plenty of issues with the former NCC< the high cost was certainly icing on the cake
to those who had to make the decision to support it or not.

[Майор Хаткевич]

It does seem to be distracting from the main point that the plan as written is severely broken.

I would feel differently if their message was, "We're sorry but we can't financially support the drill portion of the competition in 2015, so we are going to hold the color guard competition and we are going to try some things to make it more accessible at the wing and region levels.  We are opening up the color guard competition to cadets of all grades."  I feel that would make Phase IV cadet super color guards, which is effectively what they have just done, but at least it would make more sense.

I would really feel better about it if they said.  "Our sponsorship department at National Headquarters has sat down in meetings with Vice Presidents from Intel, Microsoft, IBM, Proctor and Gamble, Wells Fargo, Bank of America and General Motors and they have each pledged to support the cadet program with minimum donations of $50,000 each with Intel being the head sponsor at $150,000.  As a result, we have decided to title-sponsor National Cadet Competition 2015 as "brought to you with generous support from Intel Corp" and Intel will be providing T-shirts to all participants as the official PT uniform for the event.

I was an engineer for Intel for 7 years.  I once dropped a prototype (it slipped out of my hands) that was worth about $25,000.  When I took the broken board to my manager, he handed me another one and said, "That's why we have spares!"  $150,000 is negligible in the budget of a major MNC.  I offered at NCC last time to find contacts for someone at national HQ at major corporations to discuss sponsorship and nobody ever followed up with me.

We're talking about gutting an event for the sake of saving $20-30,000.  Or maybe passing that extra expense onto the teams.  Or making teams sleep in tents instead of in college dorms.

I'd rather have $450,000 to send 2,250 cadets to encampment, but to each his own.

[Storm Chaser]

Show me a cadet who has been to NCC who doesn't know how to put a uniform together.  I linked mine above.  That's how they wear the uniform.  Not just the Spaatzen, but all of the ones who went.

It was against the old NCC rules for anyone but cadets on the team to assemble their uniforms.  Clearly, you could pay a tailor to do tailoring work.  Our cadets did most of their own tailoring work with some assistance.  We did have a tailor do the pants hemming because we didn't have the right sewing machine for it.

As a former CAP cadet, drill team member, Air Force NCO and current officer, I can tell you that tailoring the shirts like that does >not< look good and it's >not< the way the uniform in worn in the real Air Force.

[SKI304]

We all get it by now that our two esteemed ILWG members here have an axe to grind with the way their wing handled NCC over a decade ago.  That experience is not consistent with the majority of other wings, especially in GLR's other participating wings.  NCC used to be a great way to build cadets and squadrons when done right.  MIWG, OHWG, and WIWG can attest to that.  Hopefully the new program can be improved before final publishing so that it can continue to challenge and build cadets.

A decade ago?  No. 

NCC was an issue up to an including the last years it was still running, the problems were discussed here and on CS (before it's reboot).

NCC may well have been an excellent program in yeas past, many parts of CAP were.  The current staffing, funding, and low number of
cadets, especially those interested, no longer supports an activity of this kind, assuming it actually ever did at any level other then brute force
and "because we always did".

I apologize for the timeframe, for some reason I had the 2003-2004 seasons in my head.  The last time we saw a wing wide ILWG team at region was in 2006.  The more recent iterations were from just a couple Chicago area squadrons I believe. 

That aside, the negatives you have repeatedly stated seem to only reflect your local experience.  I've been at numerous competitions at every level for 13 years and talked with enough participants to know that those problems you mentioned did not occur at a level near where you assert them as being a widespread systemic problem.  Were there problems with the old program?  You bet.  But those problems were far outweighed by the benefits.  I was part of the National NCC Working Group in 2010-2011 and we came up with a number of improvements to fix those problems and make NCC much more accessible to local units.  Unfortunately the work of that group didn't get implemented.

I still contend that one of the biggest deterrences to the number of participants in recent years is a lack of awareness of what NCC was and what it could do in the field.  There has been very little coverage in CAP's media releases.  The 2013 NCC got two online mentions on VolunteerNow.  Only a few years earlier there were numerous articles, videos, and significant coverage in the Volunteer magazine.  NCC was left out of the Quality Cadet Unit Award program (but CyberPatriot participation was included).  The CAP Honor Guard program was proliferated with its emphasis on not competing.  All the while a small but vocal number of members have filled the information void with their own negative experiences and prejudices.  Many units shut out interest without even looking at the program or trying.  Those units who did have experienced many benefits from their competition participation.  What could be the Super Bowl of the Cadet Program has been marginalized into obscurity by misunderstanding.

YMMV, and I know it does, but please do not malign the entire NCC program and those who pursued it based on local problems.

[Eclipse]

I still contend that one of the biggest deterrences to the number of participants in recent years is a lack of awareness of what NCC was and what it could do in the field.

What, exactly, could it "do in the field"?

I've said repeatedly that CG has it's place because a unit-level CG can be used for any number of events and activities and
the bar to entry is essentially zero.

Not so for drill, at least the way NCC did it.

[PHall]

We all get it by now that our two esteemed ILWG members here have an axe to grind with the way their wing handled NCC over a decade ago.  That experience is not consistent with the majority of other wings, especially in GLR's other participating wings.  NCC used to be a great way to build cadets and squadrons when done right.  MIWG, OHWG, and WIWG can attest to that.  Hopefully the new program can be improved before final publishing so that it can continue to challenge and build cadets.

Yeah, I've noticed that the two and only two defenders of the NCC here are Ohio Wing people.
Curious it is...

[lordmonar]

I like the idea of a national level even where lots and lots of cadets get together and compete.

I don't think this gets us there.....yet.   But it does look better then the old NCC/NCGC.

[Майор Хаткевич]

We all get it by now that our two esteemed ILWG members here have an axe to grind with the way their wing handled NCC over a decade ago.  That experience is not consistent with the majority of other wings, especially in GLR's other participating wings.  NCC used to be a great way to build cadets and squadrons when done right.  MIWG, OHWG, and WIWG can attest to that.  Hopefully the new program can be improved before final publishing so that it can continue to challenge and build cadets.

Yeah, I've noticed that the two and only two defenders of the NCC here are Ohio Wing people.
Curious it is...

Nah, one is OH, one is CA.


Still, both seem to be tunneling it based on their attendance AT NCC.


That's great, valid opinions.


But the cost factor alone is so crazy to serve those 156 cadets...

[PHall]

We all get it by now that our two esteemed ILWG members here have an axe to grind with the way their wing handled NCC over a decade ago.  That experience is not consistent with the majority of other wings, especially in GLR's other participating wings.  NCC used to be a great way to build cadets and squadrons when done right.  MIWG, OHWG, and WIWG can attest to that.  Hopefully the new program can be improved before final publishing so that it can continue to challenge and build cadets.

Yeah, I've noticed that the two and only two defenders of the NCC here are Ohio Wing people.
Curious it is...

Nah, one is OH, one is CA.


Still, both seem to be tunneling it based on their attendance AT NCC.


That's great, valid opinions.


But the cost factor alone is so crazy to serve those 156 cadets...

The one in CA is from OH. He was a cadet in OHWG.

[Ned]

All,

Thanks for the feedback so far.  We will definately be making some changes based both the feedback here and on the Cadet Blog.

To avoid a really, really long and difficult to read post, I have responded to each of Ron's concerns in a PM.  I greatly respect his experience in this area and his service to CP.

Couple of highlights -

Please note that the plan -- as described in the draft -- is to ramp up the competition starting in 2015, when the numbers directly involved at NCC will be relatively small and some events offered only as exhibitions.  The real heavy-lifting, so to speak, will start in 2016 and beyond.  The numbers will get larger, and based on experience, events may be modified, added, or deleted.

But a look at the published metrics will reveal that we will be growing cadet participation the NCC program as a whole, measured by participation at local, wing, and region levels.  Everyone understands that only a small percentage of cadets will be able to travel to NCC and compete, but we attempting to support local units by creating a system where a substantial majority of cadets will be able to participate in the program at some level.

To reach this point, NHQ CP has gone through an extensive and inclusive process working with cadets and CP seniors to shape the current proposal.  We've had a lot of input from various CACs, the CSAG and Command Council, and especially from the dedicated volunteers on the NCC Working Group.  We've offered previous drafts publicly for feedback, and have incorporated changes based on that feedback.

We have been as open and inclusive as we know how to be in this re-boot.

And it is not over, by any means.  That is why we are encouraging feedback on the latest draft.  I promise every comment will be considered very carefully.  But at some point, we need to pull the trigger and get the final version of the program out to the field.  And we know that has to be sooner than later in order to give everyone a fair chance to prepare for the 2015 NCC.

So, please, help us make this as good as it can be.

We are also looking for wings and regions to help us beta-test some of the events and procedures.  Interested DCPs / DCS/CPs should contact Curt LaFond.

Ned Lee
National Cadet Programs Officer

[Майор Хаткевич]

Why rush it? Another year off could address a lot of Ron's concerns and iron out details, instead of doing something that may not reflect on next year at all.

I bet a lot of encampments ran into that this year with the new requirements!