Does anyone run into a conflict if the pairs are run back-to-back
instead of the 4's. i.e. do you have enough shells to boat all your
pairs at the same time. I would propose:
Event 9: Men's JV/Lt 4
Event 6: Women's Pair
Event 7: Men's Pair
Event 8: Women's JV/Lt 4

Basically keeping the middle block of races the same just switching
the order to hot seat the 4's.

Let me know.
Doug


At 09:17 AM 3/28/2006, tmarcovy@... wrote:
>Doug: Case will need to hotseat between the womens' JV/Lt 4+ and the
>mens same (reusing a boat). the 10 minutes won't make it, I'm
>thinking. Other than that, no conflicts.
>tim
>---- dar12uk <doug@...> wrote:
>
>=============
>Preliminary Assignments posted on the site.
>http://www.rathburn.net/rowing/URA/2006/URA2006.html
>
>I tried to capture all of the entries and requests you've sent. If
>I've made a mistake let me know or if you have any other requests.
>
>My only thought (not currently captured on the schedule) was to add a
>small break between the groups of 4 races. Meaning 2 races, 10 minute
>break, 2 races, 30 minute break, repeat two more times. This would
>allow for more time to hot seat and allow the chase launches
>opportunity to get back to the start after two races. What do you all
>think?
>
>As with last year, the lane assignments aren't particularly random. I
>did follow a semi-pattern based on the results of an event the
>previous year. My little incentive to be fast from year-to-year.
>
>Doug
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>