Team UAH - ASCE Concrete Canoe Team at the University of Alabama in Huntsville

By JOHN A. GILBERT
Professor and ASCE Student Chapter Faculty Advisor
THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA-HUNTSVILLE

I paddled my first concrete canoe as a faculty member at the University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee in 1974. And that's pretty scary because that was before most of our readership was born. But I still get out on the water occasionally and really enjoy it when I do.

When I moved to UAH in 1985, I volunteered to advise our newly formed ASCE student organization and I've been a faculty advisor to Team UAH since then. For the past several years, Dr. Houssam Toutanji, one of my colleagues in Civil Engineering, has co-advised our student chapter... and this has given me time to handicap and cover the National Concrete Canoe Competition for ConcreteCanoe.org.

As far as handicapping is concerned, my goal is to select seven or eight schools in an effort to predict the top five finishers. Sometimes I end up with egg on my face when a long shot takes top honors. But, I've predicted all of the top five schools in recent years, save two fifth place finishers.

This year, I've decided to make it more challenging by narrowing down the number of my picks to six. What the heck... no one is perfect... and it's only for fun anyway.

But please remember that the opinions expressed here are my own. They do not necessarily reflect those of Team UAH, ASCE, ConcreteCanoe.org, and/or the sponsors of the 2005 NCCC.

In 2000, I predicted all of the top five schools and seven out of eight of my picks ended up in the top eight.

In 2001, my top five choices actually finished top five and nearly in the order specified.

In 2002, I targeted eight schools for the top five... and four of them actually made it. In my 2002 commentary, I explained that I underestimated the capabilities of the University of Wisconsin - Madison, who placed fifth in the competition, simply because I thought that the Badgers would be overwhelmed while hosting it.

In 2003, I had no time to make predictions, since I was busy preparing coverage for ConcreteCanoe.org (2003 coverage). But I did peg the top five during my commentary on ConcreteCanoe.org.

In 2004, I pegged four out of five of the top finishers. My hat went off to MSOE (Milwaukee School of Engineering) for placing an impressive fifth. I also covered the event for ConcreteCanoe.org and wrote down every question posed by the judges to the teams during the academic presentations (2004 coverage)... You may want to review this material with your team members if you were fortunate enough to qualify for this year's competition.

The 2005 NCCC promises to be very exciting and I look forward to learning more about the revelations in concrete technology that I know several members of the national contingent are developing. Concrete canoeing is attracting international attention and, if you search the web by entering the string "concrete canoe" on Goggle or Yahoo, you'll see as many as 300,000 hits... over three times the number archived at this time last year.

Concrete canoe fans know that the four major scoring categories in the NCCC are the same as they were last year: a design paper (25%), an oral presentation (25%), the final product (25%), and the races (25%). But even many competitors don't realize that the national champion Badgers never won any of these categories last year. Wisconsin executed a very consistent delivery while paying close attention to details.

Doug Simpson, my counterpart at Clemson, put things into perspective last July when he commented, "The upper-tier teams at nationals that make the least amount of avoidable mistakes will win future competitions... Suffice to say, the rules are now making it critical that teams pay closer attention to ASTM and ASCE standards."

We ran into technical difficulties early on at the Southeast Regional. You might say that we lost by a "dash" when the judges deducted 10 percent of our design paper score for leaving the "-" out in the pagination of our Appendices. Additional points (that may have been warranted) were deducted for inclusion of a memorandum that we received from the 2005 Committee on National Concrete Canoe Competitions (CNCCC) approving our competition strategy (Team UAH - 2005 Design Paper Deduction Score Card).

Although we won the oral and placed third in the product, the deductions for the "-" threw Team UAH into a tailspin... and my students lost their cool in the water. It really didn't matter though... because we were already too far behind to place first overall. Had we included the dash, however, we would have easily won the design report category. And, by moving from fifth to first place there, we would have been in a dead heat with Florida going to the pond... placing us in a much better position... and fame of mind... to compete for the regional title.

According to the CNCCC: "This year, the rules and regulations were written in a specification-oriented manner that all engineers will be accustomed to seeing in their careers. All specifications will make reference to industry standards, especially when it deals with materials... We adopted one standard and leave it to the teams to determine the best way to achieve their goals, as long as they are compliant, while at the same time, not limiting their creativity and engineering judgment."

The bottom line is that we learned a hard lesson by being flexible with our pagination and paid a price for using our engineering judgment... when we assumed that it was acceptable to include information in our report to avoid confusion. So, if your a national qualifier and expect to place top five this year, here are a few words to the wise:

Every one of this year's national qualifiers is already a winner and this competition amounts to selecting the best of the best. But the veterans know that it takes a balanced effort and a cool head to become the national champion. And, as I've said time and time again... I believe that the key to victory lies in a team's ability to cope with human dynamics while under pressure.

It remains to be seen which school will have the correct balance of composure, skill, and luck to win this year's competition. But here's how I see it (hyperlinks point to statistics, logos to web sites):

Let's begin with the reigning national champion from the University of Wisconsin - Madison. The Badgers are one of four teams (Team UAH, the Berkeley Bears, and Clemson's 3CT are the other three) that have won this competition more than once. All four schools have won back-to-back titles; Berkeley is the only one to have accomplished this feat twice. But the big story this year is that Wisconsin will be competing for an unprecedented third consecutive win.

Host of the design report page for ConcreteCanoe.org, the Badgers are a veteran team that will be making their eleventh appearance at the national level. Although they carry momentum going into the 2005 NCCC, the team will be continuously under media scrutiny... and under pressure from schools with a vested interest in ending their winning streak.

As mentioned in the March issue of Reader's Digest by Badger's co-captain, Jamie Kurten, "No school has ever won three in a row... They're all out to get us." Jamie is correct!

Last year the Badgers placed an impressive third in the paper; second in the presentation; second in the product, and third in the races. That may have been good enough for them to win then... But, in my opinion, not now.

The competition in 2005 is so stiff that I believe that the overall winner will have to place first in at least one of the major scoring categories.... and Wisconsin needs to improve their delivery to win. But considering the team's experience and past performances, they have the ability to do exactly that.

Clemson keeps the spreadsheets for the national concrete competitions on behalf of ConcreteCanoe.org and has the highest average placement record of any school that qualified for this year's national competition. 3CT has three NCCC titles to their credit. Clemson has been the regional representative from the Carolina's Conference for the past thirteen years - the longest consecutive regional winning streak in NCCC history.

3CT has fielded the strongest paddling teams in recent years and they have the experience, teamwork, technical delivery, and faculty support that it takes to win. Clemson has the home court advantage as this year's host school and along with Berkeley, a vested interest... and responsibility... to dethrone the Badgers... keeping them out of the record books for execution of the "hat trick."

Since Clemson fell victim to point deductions last year... they won't be making many mistakes in 2005.

Oklahoma State University has never won a national title. But OSU poses a dangerous threat to the field. Make no mistake, this is a veteran team that knows how to play the game... with a strong contingent of alumni that continuously contribute and support the competition. Their Concrete Canoe Design Guide is very popular and viewed by many as the bible of concrete canoe design.

This will be OSU's thirteenth national appearance and the team has one of the best average placement records in the game. Note: Our records show that OSU participated in 1990 but we are still in the process of establishing their placement.

The team's last year's seventh place finish was deceptive. Since OSU did not qualify for the competition in 2003, I believe that they lost some momentum... and were a bit rusty in the water. But that's probably not the case now.

The University of California - Berkeley is a veteran team that has four national titles to their credit. This will be the Bears fourteenth appearance at nationals, tying Virginia Tech's record for the most appearances at the national level.

Finishing only once out of the top ten, Berkeley's four national wins (1988, 1989, 1991, 1992) and six other top three finishes (1990, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, and 2003) give them the third highest average placement record in NCCC history.

Although the Bears pose a significant threat to the field, they failed to qualify for last year's nationals... and their padding skills may be a bit rusty. So to case a top spot, the Bears need to rely on their technical expertise to get ahead of the pack... before they get to the water where they may face potentially stronger paddling teams.

If Berkeley can hold their own with the other big guns while shooting for those precious points in the water, they could win.

The long shot, and my favorite pick, for the winners circle in 2005 (see my synopsis below) is the University of Florida, the Southeast Regional representative.

The team's highest national placement was sixth in 2002... and this will be only the Gator's 4^th national appearance. But don't let this competition record fool you... because UF has always been hungry for victory. They know what they have to do to win and will have a very large contingent on site in Clemson cheering them on.

The Gators won the design report and product categories at the regional level, and they have an excellent presentation... I've seen it... so I know.

In the water, "Bull Gator" ate Team UAH and the rest of the nation's largest regional concrete canoe contingent for lunch. The team ripped through the competition and gutted the pond... ending up with one of the highest composite scores ever recoded in Southeast Regional history.

So beware... because the "Bull" will be headed North soon... looking for new game. And, Badger meat will be featured on the menu!.

The Clemson's women's team is one of the strongest in the world. But even they will be hard pressed to stay ahead of the lady Gators.

I predict that the women's sprint final will be the closest race of the day... with times comparable to those record by the best men's teams.

However... UF did not have to win in the Southeast to qualify for nationals... since Team UAH placed third at nationals last year. So, the only unknown here is whether the Gators can stand up under the pressure that it takes to dethrone Wisconsin.

Good handicappers need to hedge their bets, So I'm going to select one more school for the top five. But this is the tough part... because there are so many other good teams that could finish there...if the chips fall their way.

Western Kentucky finished thirteenth last year. But they have done better than that in the past... and I think that this team has a good chance of placing in the top tier.

This will be WKU's tenth national appearance. They scored the most design points in '02 and had the best product in '03.

Perhaps the team's biggest asset lies in their faculty support. Their major faculty advisor has been in his role for years... and one of the previous part-time faculty from UAH is now on staff at WKU.

But, to place top five, the team needs to secure all of the technical points that they can get. And, to win the national title, WKU must hold their own in the water against Florida, Clemson, and Wisconsin. Historically, they haven't been able to do that... yet. But only time will tell... and we'll all know soon.

A side by side comparison of these six schools shows that Wisconsin, Florida, and WKU have been on an upward spiral at the national level while Clemson, OSU, and Berkeley have been very consistent and pretty much at the top from the get go. The schools have made a combined total of 59 national appearances; Wisconsin, Clemson, OSU, Berkeley, and WKU have made at least nine national appearances each while Florida has made only three.

Average placement records are as follows: Clemson (3.92 based on 12 appearances); Berkeley (4.15 based on 13 appearances); Florida (7.00 based on 3 appearances); OSU (7.45 based on the 11 appearances that we know of; placement in 1990 is still in question); Wisconsin (8.70 based on 10 appearances); and, WKU (11.67 based on 9 appearances).

As far as competition statistics are concerned, Berkeley has four national titles ('88, '89, '91,'92), Clemson three ('99, '00, '02 ), and Wisconsin two ('03, '04). Berkeley placed first in the design report category six times ('89, '91, '92, '93, '02, '03) whereas OSU won this category once ('02). Wisconsin and Clemson won the oral presentation category twice (Badgers in '00,'03 and 3CT in '99,'02). The three schools to win the best product are Berkeley ('89, '89), Clemson ('00), and WKU ('03).

As far as overall design points are concerned, Berkeley placed first four times ('88, '89, '91, '92), Wisconsin and Clemson twice (Badgers in '03, '04 and 3CT in '99,'00), and WKU once ('02). In the water, Clemson scored the most race points six times ('98,'00,'01,'02,'03, '04) whereas Berkeley accomplished this feat three times ('89, '91, '92).

The statistics and year-to-year performances of these schools may vary. But one thing is certain... they're all very, very good competitors. So, if your team didn't qualify this year, it may be a good idea to send a contingent to Clemson and check these teams out. If you can acquire their talents and combine their attributes... your team could be in the winners circle in 2006.

There are a number of other schools who could place top five, even upset the field and win, or influence the final outcome by scoring major points in one or more categories. All I can say is that the big guns better keep a watchful eye on fierce competitors such as Drexel (best display and oral presentation in '88), Michigan Tech, and North Carolina State University.

If you're a gambler and like to bet on long shots... watch Cal Poly - Pomona, Texas A&M, and New Mexico State. These teams remind me of how Team UAH began to move toward the winners circle many years ago.

The four newcomers (no national statistics yet) are the University of Evansville, Tulane University, Wentworth Tech, and the University of Wisconsin - Platteville.

Evansville with "Lembus Durus."	Tulane University with "T-Boat."
Wentworth Tech with "Cherry Pi."	Platteville with "Nemo"... photo by Ryan Staab.

The veterans have played this game before. So chances are that some of them will make strong showings. The newcomers will be under intense pressure. But if they keep their cool, they may strike some significant blows by placing high in one or all categories.

I've never gone to this length before... But my best guess for the top three finishers, in no particular order, for the four major scoring categories are as follows:

Report	Presentation	Product	Races
Berkeley Oklahoma State Florida	Clemson Wisconsin Florida	Western Kentucky Clemson Florida	Clemson Florida Wisconsin

I predict that this year's competition will be very close. If Florida can take one or more of these categories and finish high in the rest, they win by a hair... with Clemson and Wisconsin finishing either second or third... the three schools separated by very small margins. But, if 3CT and the Badgers place high in the report category, the Gators will have their hands full... and it will be a fight to the finish... with the victor claiming their spoils in the water.

Chances are that OSU and Berkeley won't be far behind and with a power play, either in the technical events or in the water, will displace one or more of the top three schools mentioned. Berkeley has the potential to come out on top in the presentation category and OSU could get there in the product category. If so, it's a free for all.

WKU will have to work very hard to win... but with some luck and skill could easily take a top five spot..

But anything can happen... and every team, except for the Gators, will want to prove me wrong - dead wrong. But if you do, rest assured that your school will be among my top picks next year!

Team UAH and I wish the Gators and all of the national qualifiers the very best of luck at this year's competition. We hope that you'll take time to say hello to us in Clemson as we report for ConcrereCanoe.org.

More importantly, if you enjoy this type of coverage and want to help support ConcreteCanoe.org, please contact us. We'll put your school to work and give you the exposure that you deserve. Congratulations are extended to Universite Laval for sweeping the Canadian Nationals with a perfect 100/100 score... and winning their eighth national title. We very much appreciate this team's continued support of ConcretCanoe.org and hope to see them back in the hunt for the U.S. title next year.

By adding a link on your site to ConcreteCanoe.org, you and your school can help promote the competition. So please see our graphics and instructions for doing so. Thanks!

In closing, remember that there's only one first place trophy. But every team that does their best with the resources that they have at their disposal is a winner... even if they don't get fully recognized for their accomplishments.

So, for those of you who didn't qualify for nationals... or those of you who did, but felt that your stint was pretty difficult... don't feel too badly because..

In addition to the point deductions mentioned above and despite finishing a close second behind the Gators... Team UAH came home empty handed from Tuscaloosa. Trophies were given for the design report category at the awards banquet. But no mention was made about our placement in the oral and product categories. Our second place trophy was given to the wrong school... while folks who knew the final outcome sat there in silence.

Afterwards, it was reported that this year's Southeast Regional Concrete Canoe Competition was one of the smoothest run competitions to date. Perhaps by graciously accepting our defeat to Florida (because they earned their victory), we may have inadvertently endorsed this perspective. But, if the folks who made such remarks were members of Team UAH... I'm sure that they would have had a very different opinion.

My students could have reacted by simply giving up. But they decided, like so many of their predecessors, to stay in the game and change things for the better. That decision made me proud... and I've told them so.

I thought that the Committee on National Concrete Canoe Competitions (CNCCC) did an excellent job this year in formulating and clarifying the rules. The Committee is currently soliciting input regarding the regional competitions... and if you have suggestions on how to make things better, I encourage you to forward your comments to Michael Carnivale with "Concrete Canoe Feedback" in the subject line."

There's always next year for those of us who choose to make a difference and move forward toward victory. We've done that before at UAH and that's why "For the Record" begins with:

"Being defeated is often a temporary condition. Giving up is what makes it permanent."
-- Marlene vos Savant

May the best team win! My students and I look forward to competing again in 2006... and seeing you and your team this year in Clemson.

Well, it's over for 2005 and the top five teams have been established (UW Madison, 3CT, Michigan Tech, UC Berkeley, and West Point). As usual, there was never a dull moment at the competition and there were quite a few surprises. I'd like to start out by saying that I was very impressed by Clemson as the competition's host... and by the judges and the decisions that they made. The CNCCC also did a great job this year writing and interpreting the rules. To the credit of all concerned, the competition went very smoothly and I really didn't hear any complaints at all.

As far as the "Front Line" is concerned, I managed to peg only three out of five of the top finishers (Madison, Clemson, and Berkeley)... but said to keep a watchful eye on Michigan Tech. Tech has been steadily getting better of late and I'm glad to see them in the money this year. Berkeley's performance was reminiscent of days gone by when their teams dominated the competition and I think that it's safe to say that we'll see them at the nationals again next year. My hat goes off to West Point for placing an impressive fifth. I underestimated this team's prowess... and was very impressed with their technical delivery.

It seemed like Florida, my top pick for 2005, just couldn't get their momentum going and I thought that they were much stronger at the regional level than they were at nationals. But seventh place nationally isn't bad. And, I think that I speak for all of the schools in the Southeast by saying that we're very proud of them. Go Gators!

OSU and WKU, my other two favorites, had their share of troubles too. Oklahoma State placed 16th in the design report category... so there must have been some major glitches there. WKU had a beautiful boat with a killer design. But they only placed 13th in the product category indicating that there was something wrong with their materials or construction.

As far as the newcomers were concerned, the University of Evansville fielded a great product and their overall sixth place finish was really impressive! Fairmont State finished in 4th place in the oral presentation. Wentworth and Tulane didn't do quite as well in the competition... but the teams were determined to have fun... and it looked like they did!

I really enjoyed the presentations... although taking down all of the questions that the judges asked left little time for actually watching them. CCNY, what can I say? Your team's accents and demeanor brought back fond memories of my childhood in Staten Island and the stints that I did at Brooklyn Tech and Polytechnic Institute. Dynamite presentation... It felt like I was in a corporate board room.

The races were awesome... and it was thrilling to watch Clemson and Wisconsin fight for victory at sea. Clemson won the battle by the slightest margin, squeezing Wisconsin out by only half a point. But Wisconsin won this year's Civil War, taking home the America's cup and national title for the third year in a row! We'll definitely see Clemson in Stillwater next year... and I'd bet my bottom dollar that Madison gets there too.

Clemson squeezed Wisconsin out in the men's and women's sprints (left). But the Badgers fought back to win the co-ed (right).

In closing, I'd like to thank Andrea Barnes for helping me cover the event. She and I had a chance to speak with all of the teams at the competition and we really enjoyed meeting everyone there. I'd also like to thank my administration at the University of Alabama in Huntsville for supporting my trip.

Bye for now... Hope to see you all next year in Stillwater when Oklahoma State takes command as the competition's host school! Way to go OSU!