I do tend to agree with some of the concerns that potential 18" JH dogs have such as still have to deal with the higher AF & wider spreads as if they were still jumping 22". For some dogs those spread lengths are too much. Yet, Performance is still considered not an option???????
Unfortunately I can't accept the arguments presented when using data from a smaller height class to justify why dogs larger than that height class cannot compete with even larger dogs for placements.
Just doesn't hold water.
i.e. you can't use data from dogs between 12 and 16" and make an assumption that that data can apply for larger dogs (those between 16-17.5") when comparing to dogs 17.5 to 21".
As flawed as all venues JH's are when using existing criteria, I do tend to accept that in general, the closer any particular dog is to the upper limit of the cut-off the greater the advantage.
Given that, it is not unreasonable to see the advantage that some owners might yield if they are successful at lumping their 16-17.5" dog(s) in with the 16" JH rather than the 22" JH where they are currently associated. Yep, such a change would simply give *their* dogs the advantage over the smaller dogs, just as much as they are calling unfair when they are in with the larger dogs.
I do see a lot of posturing & jostling for establishing an advantage, and just don't see why Performance is not considered an option. In some areas it has been said that the Performance class is just as if not more competitive than the corresponding higher Championship class with higher entry numbers. So, it may indeed be that in some areas Performance is looked down at not appealing but in other areas the love of participating in agility with their dogs running exciting courses (versus AKC) is greater than any stigma that others might attach to Performance.
In the end, I do expect USDAA to make further adjustments - the question now becomes of integrity in that to how far reaching these adjustments might be if given in to appease a small number of influential names.