I'm questioning the size and scope of this event as well, but I lack the ammunition to prove or disprove that these large SYC's makes sense, so I'm left with a vague sense of uneasiness about having that many kids locked in a concrete box for that long.

In absence of any information to the contrary, SYC's will probably keep growing.

A

I think the problem is that it's hard to keep them from growing as long as:
A1) There are more and more kids in fencing
B2) They want to go to big and "strong" tournaments.

You can
A1) Reduce the number of kids fencing
B2) Give them so many tournaments that they can't go to them all and start being selective
C3) Restrict what tournaments they can go to, through rules, qualifiers, or social pressure on coaches etc.

B2) only works if the additional tournaments are perceived as high enough quality to be worth going to.

The bulk of the (sabre) parents I know tend to be preoccupied with helping their kids earn new ratings. Getting them to big or strong tournaments is merely a means of doing that.

They are similarly preoccupied with national points and, secondarily, qualifying for competition at the next highest level, because most parents are acutely aware of the status ladders in the sport and of the need to distinguish their kids from all the other kids. The Lake Woebegone effect is intensely important to competitive parents.

And part of the problem is that parents mostly talk to other parents when they're learning about the sport, not to coaches or referees, so their skewed impressions are constantly being reinforced.

Re: B2 - There's a funny little phenomenon I've noticed with a few of the tournaments in my general area - it seems as if there's a couple of parents who pre-register their kids for every tournament in the area--I see the same people in the preregistered list for tournaments in Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania on the SAME DAY. It must cost a fair amount, though of course not all of them require prepayment.

Also, in the Mid-Atlantic area (and I can only speak for my area, but it may happen elsewhere), we have a proliferation of events that are clearly ratings-generators because they are ratings-restricted, while I have a smaller selection than I used to, because I still haven't lost the B. I think that's coaches working to increase the ratings and get kids to regional or national competition, which further increases the pressure on parents.

I'd add to C3) that you could simply have number caps on regional tournaments Which would cause AskFRED to overload at the posting date, of course, but would at least make the events possible to staff.

Originally Posted by KD5MDK

You can
A1) Reduce the number of kids fencing
B2) Give them so many tournaments that they can't go to them all and start being selective
C3) Restrict what tournaments they can go to, through rules, qualifiers, or social pressure on coaches etc.

You can also charge ridiculous amounts of money for the tournaments that are getting out of hand. The price will either make it easier to staff the event, or it will force more people to consider whether it's worth it.

It would also help if more coaches look at some of the crazier tournaments and counsel their Y14s on better developmental opportunities that make more sense (closer, cheaper, and less crazy). For example, the fencer could attend a bunch of local events that are cheaper and save the extra money for a week-long fencing camp somewhere.

Originally Posted by Peach

And part of the problem is that parents mostly talk to other parents when they're learning about the sport, not to coaches or referees, so their skewed impressions are constantly being reinforced.

At one of my clubs, the "competitive" group had a meeting once or twice per year. The first part was for the fencers and (for the kids) their parents. Get everyone in a big room and have coaches or booster club leaders go through some important points: behavior expected of students at tournaments, how coaching at tournaments works, explanation of different types of events, Q&A. Then let the parents go and talk talk about goal setting, upcoming referee clinics, etc.

We even experimented one year with giving out sample competition calendars to competitive fencers with recommendations on at least one tournament per month. Different students got different calendars, and the calendars had different goals attached. For example, the stronger kids were going to the JO Qualifiers to qualify. The novices were going to JO Qualifiers just to get some experience, support their teammates, and stay until the finals.

I'm not sure that anyone tracked the effect of that effort, but it at least gave the coaches an opportunity to talk directly to the parents and reset expectations.

Originally Posted by tbryan

You can also charge ridiculous amounts of money for the tournaments that are getting out of hand. The price will either make it easier to staff the event, or it will force more people to consider whether it's worth it.

It would also help if more coaches look at some of the crazier tournaments and counsel their Y14s on better developmental opportunities that make more sense (closer, cheaper, and less crazy). For example, the fencer could attend a bunch of local events that are cheaper and save the extra money for a week-long fencing camp somewhere.

Charging a huge amount would just accentuate the already-large gap between the haves and the have-nots. And would piss off the sensible people with money who would rightly recognize that they weren't getting their money's worth. You'd get nothing but wackos with too much money