San Diego State University, San Diego, CA June 14-17, 2001

The judge's council has spoken and the ultimate "Survivor" at the 14th annual National Concrete Canoe Competition was the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH). Having established a lead in combined academics, UAH worked its survivor game plan to perfection as Clemson's win in combined paddling was not enough to overcome Team UAH for the overall national championship. The win gives UAH their fifth national title, the most of any team in the country and marks the fifth consecutive year that the winner of the combined academics won the overall title.

The "Host with the Most"
The location for the event was perfect. San Diego is a beautiful city, and the San Diego State University campus in mid-June campus is in full bloom. The host school did a great job this year managing the logistical complexities of the national competition and the volunteers were always on top of things. There were no major glitches. However, a valuable engineering lesson was learned - measure the distance between more than one set of columns before assuming the distance between any two columns is the same ;). SDSU more than made up for that insignificant snafu by providing great weather! This was the first time in the last seven years I can remember when we did not have rain at some point during the competition or scorching heat. The temperature during the day was about 75 F with negligible humidity (coming from Houston, TX, you notice this immediately!) and it got down right chilly at night (about 50 F). Also a big success was the icebreaker party held at Bonita Cove on Mission Bay where SDSU provided a Mariachi band, Mexican food, Piñatas, and a nice bonfire to stay warm on a cool, crisp night.

OK, now let's get on with the gettin' on! Just a warning - this thing is really long ;)

The Story, Part One
The buzz leading up to the event was could Clemson, who had won the two previous championships, become the first school to ever win three consecutive NCCC titles? After the Display, Presentation and Product events, they appeared to be in position for a three-peat. But 60% of the competition was still unknown - the Races and the Design Paper. The Display is the first event (which everyone has the chance to gage the competition) and after applying my "unofficial and unscientific scoring system" ("uuss") Clemson looked to be the best here. Next was the Oral Presentation (for the first time in seven years, I actually sat through EVERY school's presentation!). Using the trusty 'ol "uuss", I did not feel that Clemson had a top three performance. The pre-race highlight event is always the Finished Product. I felt that there were three sets of three - three canoes were easily top three, then another set of three were 4-6, and so on for 7-9. Clemson looked to be in the second set.
After these three events I had top three: OSU, Clemson, and UAH in that order. Honestly, this means very little since the Paper has a hefty weight factor and a poor showing in that area by these three teams combined with an excellent showing by the next tier of teams - in order based on my "uuss" - (Laval, Minnesota, Drexel, SDSMT, WKU). Now that I've laid out my top eight after Display, Presentation, and Product, lets look at the highlights for each of these events.

Display, 1-5pm, Thursday, June 14
I am solidly in favor of the dimensional standards for the displays based on those set for exhibitions at The World of Concrete. In my personal opinion (reminder, I'm not a judge) those schools that do better are the ones who are more concise and organized in the presentation of their display content. Don't ignore the aesthetics of the display, but it is not as important as effective and efficient content presentation. Judges have 8 minutes per display... set a timer for eight minutes, start reading a book turning it 90 degrees every 30 seconds and see how far you get and how much you retain - not very. The same probably holds true for judges if your display makes it difficult for the judges to locate the basics. Also, don't forget that the cross section is REQUIRED at the display and to LABEL the materials on that cross section!

As I stated earlier, I felt that Clemson's display was tops. They always seem to nail the content delivery and add the little details. This year they chose a pirate's theme of "Good Fortune" and their display was the deck of a pirate ship. The woodwork was unbelievable, looking just like the planks of an old wooden ship. The "little" details I mentioned earlier were the springs on the ground that supported the floor of the display so that when you stepped into the display it shifted slightly, simulating the experience of being on a boat in water. Pretty cool. My picks in this event (in order) were Clemson, OSU, Laval (3D glasses were also very cool), UAH, Wisconsin, WKU, and Drexel). Here's the official Display scoring.

I was close with the exception of Laval and Wisconsin. I have an excuse for Laval, but not for Wisconsin ;). Laval was penalized 20 points for being three inches too long in a dimension on their display. The judging guidelines state that the judges have the discretion to penalize up to all display points depending on the severity. The judges agreed to a 20% deduction (hey, this is engineering and we're expected accurately read specs - and more than one person double-check it), and not the full penalty. However, it was enough to drop Laval from third to a tie for fourteenth - worse, it cost Laval twelve points. Interestingly, it worked to the advantage of North Carolina State (NCSU) and Western Kentucky (WKU) allowing these two schools to place 5th and 10th respectively in the display. Had Laval not had this infraction, the standings in the overall top ten would not have changed, but 3rd and 4th place (OSU and Laval) would have only been separated by one point.
PS: This is not the first time judges have determined and unilaterally applied a penalty for an infraction. In 1998, seven teams got twenty points deducted on their paper for using a type of reinforcement specifically not permitted in the rules.

Oral Presentations, 8am-5pm, Friday, June 15
"Oral presentations are by far the easiest to judge." Yeah, that's what I said last year in my commentary when I had picked most the top ten within one or two spots of the official rankings. I was not as accurate this year.

The presentation technique of choice for the majority of schools this year was the same as it has been the previous three years. This is where one presenter interviews one or two other presenters in a newscast, talk show, or sportscast setting. In the past a solid performance using this method got the top spot. But this year Minnesota put three "suits" on stage and completely nailed their delivery without a cheat sheet and without even a stumble. You could tell the people on stage were involved or very knowledgeable in the details of their product. Other noticeable qualities were that these gentlemen were always in sync with their slides, yet never once looked behind them at the projector screens, and they answered every question without hesitating. Any CEO would have been impressed.

The most interesting presentation of the day was from Colorado School of Mines. To be honest, I cannot recall if they even used slides, but the team executed a great theatrical drama that sufficiently delivered the required content to the judge's satisfaction. The scene unfolded as the king sat in his throne dreaming of a concrete canoe worthy of the concrete gods and commissioned his servant to deliver this in time for the annual festival of concrete canoes - or die (good enough motivation for me!). The next five minutes showed a very animated and busy servant using all the resources (and prayers) he could until the gods delivered a perfect canoe from the heavens. The person performing the role of the servant had to have decent theatrical experience because he kept your attention. The performance took second place officially. Perhaps because of the entertainment value and being different from the others in that it was not another version of a "comedic interview" but rather a theatrical performance. At any rate, I didn't have them in my top 10. But, I don't count!

For me the most entertaining was Drexel's "Obi Wan Canoebi" "Star Wars" skit. Complete with light sabers, hooded black robes, and rope belts, there was a senior Jedi master with three Jedi's-in-training (is that similar to an EIT?). Each was being asked to espouse the virtues of being a concrete canoe Jedi warrior. The most memorable line was when a young and all-too-energetic Jedi wanna-be continued to provide wrong answers at a faster rate than the other trainees could with the correct responses. Eventually, the senior Jedi master used a mind control technique that brought the trainee back to his senses. After seeing this, one of the other trainees attempts this technique on the judges slowly waving his hand through the air repeating "judges, you will not ask any questions" - only to be informed by the senior Jedi master that this will not work on the judges as their minds are far too superior. Good stuff!

Here's the official Oral Presentation scoring. My top ten picks were (in order) OSU, Minnesota, Drexel, Wisconsin, Washington State, Clemson, Michigan Tech, UAH, Cal Poly and WKU. I managed to pick two out of the top three, but not in their official ranking. And although I picked eight teams who did finish in the official top ten, on average I was considerably off of the official rankings.

Remember my top eight picks earlier? Presentation points this year are weighted twice that of Display points. I had OSU in the top two in each, whereas I had Clemson first and sixth, and UAH fourth and eight. With Presentation weighted at twice that of Display, I had OSU with a decent lead at this point ahead of Clemson and UAH.

A slight disappointment to me was Laval. They went two minutes over, so they got deductions in this event as well as the Display. But what really hurt them in this event this year and in the past, being from a French providence in Canada, is that they struggle with the English language. This year was better than last year, but not good enough to score points in this event. You've got to get points in each academic event to be in the top five after academics (top seven seems to be the empirical measure). And you have to be in the top five in academics to be in position to win the overall title (pending a top three in paddling). My respect and admiration go out to Laval. I wonder how many teams from the US could present as well in French as Laval can in English? Regardless, Laval and any other international team have to have a command of the English language if it wants to win the NCCC.

Final Product, 5:15-7:30pm, Friday, June 15
After making those costly mistakes in the two previous events, Laval promptly ended that trend here. Laval historically has beautiful canoes each year moving closer to the top spot and finishing second place last year. This year they did even better and took the top prize and bragging rights. They can claim to not only have the best canoe in the US, but in all of North America since they also placed first in the Canadian event. Additionally, they became the only Canadian school to ever win first place in any NCCC event.

I felt that there were three canoes that were going to take the top three spots, and then there were another three that I felt were in the second tier. Although I liked Laval's sleek canoe, I picked SDSMT because the finish was nearly perfect, the lines were precise, it was the lightest at 74 lbs, and it the most unique shape. UAH also had a nearly flawless canoe. Being one of only two schools with a canoe over 22 feet long and very wide, UAH used this to their advantage by incorporating very simple, yet effective graphics including a nice inverted curvature along the length on the outside with the name of their region and the names of many of the school names in their regional along the inside gunwales. The combination of length, smooth lines and mirror finish, and effective use of line graphics made their canoe really stand out on land and in water.

Here's the official Final Product scoring. My picks in order were SDSMT, Laval, UAH, Minnesota, Clemson, OSU, WKU, Drexel, Cal Poly and Oklahoma. I felt somewhat vindicated here from my miserable accuracy in the Presentations.

Here's a simple and obvious suggestion for those who want to be top five in this event - design a concrete mix that is flexible and DOES NOT CRACK! If you have cracks, you're already at a disadvantage with the judges during Product judging when they observe other schools that have great looking canoes that don't have cracks. I still have my doubts whether it is the technique of applying paint, sealant, and enamel or just good concrete design that prevents cracking in these particular thin shell applications. I guess we'll never know until post-cure coatings are no longer allowed. Mmmm. Now there's a concept for the future.

Races, 8am-2:30pm, Saturday, June 16
Now, remember I had OSU in the lead after three academic events (using my "uuss"). Playing around with a few scenarios I felt that OSU had to win two races, place top three in the other races, and have a top three paper - something it was fully capable of doing based on its performance in the previous two competitions. Women Endurance - Cal Berkeley had grabbed the top spot during its run, posting a seven second lead over a surprisingly strong Laval team. With one team remaining, the current top nine could no worse than move down one spot. The women's endurance race has been dominated by Clemson in the past and 2001 was no different. Clemson's female endurance team finished a full eighteen seconds ahead of Cal Berkeley to take first place. I mentioned Laval was a surprise with a third place finish, up from twelfth in 2000. Wisconsin's lady Badgers finished ahead of traditional paddling powerhouses UAH and SDSMT and placed fourth compared with fifteenth in 1999 and seventh in 2000. This has been a steady improvement for both of these teams. Having finished in the top five the past two years, OSU dropped a few notches to seventh - losing two and five points to UAH and Clemson, respectively. Here are the final standings and times for all female endurance races.

Men Endurance - After finishing out of the top five in 2000, the first time in at least 10 years, UAH men's endurance team was back with a vengeance edging out Clemson by just over four seconds. There were also two surprises in the men's top five were Laval and North Carolina State (NCSU). Laval finished third this year after placing 21st last year while NCSU finished fifth after a 17th place in 2000. That is impressive. But most impressive outcome of the men's event was that Clemson's women actually had the second best time among the men, finishing behind UAH's men's time by 3.5 seconds and beating Clemson's male squad. Additionally, the women's first, second, third, and fourth place times were good enough for 2, 8, 9, and 10 in the men's competition. Clemson's men were not the only ones to lose to their female paddlers, Cal Poly's females edged out the male squad by two-tenths of a second while Wisconsin's women crushed the men by a mere 21 seconds. In other words, the top women's teams are competing at the level of the top men's teams in the endurance event. Here are the final standings and times for all male endurance races

Women Sprint - Actually, the petite final (6-10) was more exciting than the grand final. Less than a second separated the 6th and 7th place teams (Wisconsin and OSU) and a little over 1.5 seconds separated 8th and 9th (WKU and Cal Poly). In the grand final, Clemson and Laval teams reached their turn buoys at the same, with Cal Berkeley and UAH a half boat-length behind. But just coming out of the turn a Laval paddler seemed to lose her balance and Clemson surged ahead and held on to win. About five seconds later Cal Berkeley edged out UAH for third and SDSMT rounded out the top five. OSU dropped four places from last year to finish seventh. Here are all the standings and times for qualifying, petite final and grand final.

Men Sprint - The grand final definitely lived up to expectations. First and third place times were roughly 1.3 seconds apart, and the split between first (UAH) and second (Cal Berkeley) , and second and third (Clemson) were about the same... just over 0.6 seconds. Not to be outdone, fourth (Wisconsin) and fifth (OSU) were separated by about 0.4 seconds.

Co-ed Sprint - Again, the petite final had the thriller finish...not for the number six position, but for 7-10. Just over two seconds separated four teams with about half a second separating each! WKU just edged out SDSMT, NCSU and Drexel. In the grand final, Clemson continued it's dominance in the co-ed races grabbing their third win in four years by edging out UAH by roughly 3.5 seconds. Laval captured third place followed by Wisconsin with another top five finish. OSU rounded out the top five. Here are all the standings and time for qualifying, petite final and grand final.
To me, the most interesting aspect of this race is which co-ed team can post a time very close (1-2 seconds) to the men's sprint time (which is almost always faster than the same school's female sprint team). Think about it. How can two women and two men team (four people total) post a similar time with the added weight in the canoe and theoretically lowering (based on men's vs. women's individual sprint times) the average continuous thrust? I've got a rule of thumb that generally holds true - co-ed teams stand a good chance of equaling or improving their finish in the men's sprints if they can stay within 2 seconds of that time when practicing co-ed.

Overall, here are some noteworthy race bits - Laval and Wisconsin were most improved. Wisconsin got great production from its paddlers, but the Badgers are still looking for big points in academics and races in the same year. Second place regional qualifiers Oklahoma and NCSU had impressive top ten race performances. Cal Berkeley went from not even being ranked in the academics (e.g. had zero points) to finishing 9th over all - due completely to paddling points. Colorado School of Mines went the exact opposite route - they got zero race points and still finished 10th overall. Clemson women have won 10 out of their last 12 races including co-ed. Clemson has won 14 of the last 20 races. Lastly, and contrary to what some folks would like to believe, there are no "professional paddlers" on any team at the NCCC - unless you define "professional" as an undergrad or grad student and a member of ASCE who dedicates him/herself to hours of paddling practice each week for 10+ months. The CNCCC knows exactly who from each school has participated at nationals and for how many years. And, there is already a rule on this.

Design Paper Awards Banquet 7-10pm, Saturday, June 16
Since the Paper is the only thing that you can not judge for yourself, if you know a team's history over the past three years in this event, you can assume that within a three year (an average leadership cycle) span each team will be somewhat consistent. I give the schools their average placement in this category spanning the past three years - that works good enough for about 50% accuracy (or government work - just kidding, DOT and public works engineers!). If my own scoring in the three academics were in the ball park, and with the race results in I knew that OSU's only chance to win the NCCC was if it won the Paper and both Clemson and UAH finished out of the top five in the Paper (possible OSU could win, but not probable that both UAH and Clemson would be sixth or lower). As it turns out, that scenario would have given OSU the title. But returning to form after an uncharacteristically rough year in 2001, UAH assured itself its fifth national title by taking the top spot in the Design Paper. The remaining top five Design Papers are SDSMT, Clemson, OSU, and Laval. Here is the official Design Paper scoring.

The Story, Part 2
Even with Clemson failing to become the first three-peat school in the history of the NCCC, OSU faltering in the races resulting in a missed opportunity at their first title, and UAH grabbing their record setting fifth title, Laval's achievements this year really became the story of the 2001 competition. Laval traveled from Canada only a few weeks after competing in and winning the Canadian national competition (their fourth Canadian national title). After initially looking strong in the Display, they experienced setbacks by way of significant deductions here and in the Oral Presentation only to score big-time in Final Product putting them back in contention for the top five. Their one knee paddling style proved very successful in the races, placing 3, 3, 2, 6, and 3 in the five events and finishing third in total races. Compare that with only two top ten races last year (7,8) and a 12th place in total races. With an excellent 5th place in the Design Paper (an improvement of 16 places from 2001!), Laval had the most impressive one-year improvement since the Clemson's jump from 11th to 3rd between 1997 and 1998. Congratulations, Laval! Now comes the toughest part - remaining a consistent top team.

Making Strides Ready for Prime Time
The bottom line is that there were eight schools in 2001, who if they can win their region in 2002, are definite contenders for the top spot at the 2002 NCCC. Add two more schools that are proven top five in either academics or races if they can make solid improvements in the other area. It gets even more interesting if this year's top five do win their region again next year. This could bring up to five additional schools to nationals, several top five and top ten caliber. I expect the scores for 2002 to be the closest ever in each event. The 15th annual NCCC promises to definitely take it up a notch or two and be the most competitive in history. You better have your "A" game on!

Dents and Dings - relating to point deductions, not wear and tear on the canoes!