Expanding Summer Nationals and Manpower

[Schiavona]

On another thread I argued for the expansion, rather than the shrinking of Summer Nationals. I still believe that the expansion of the Nationals has resulted in the huge growth in USFA membership in recent years. I don't have any hard evidence for this, just a couple of decades of observation.

I would like to see the Summer Nationals expanded further to include a Division for every ranking, including Unranked. When I brought this up in the other thread there were several objections, the most salient of which was the lack of referees. So, here is my idea; the USFA adopt something along the lines of what the FIE does for the World Cup events, namely require the indivual divisions to make referees availible for Summer Nationals according to how many people a division sends to Nationals.

No, I don't know who will pay for this.

Yes, I know that the USFA needs to do more to help some Divisions produce more referees.

I don't see anything to keep the USFA from requiring help from it's member divisions. My division doesn't have a referee training program, we did at one time, but the division leadership let it fade away. Intertwining producing referees and competiting at Nationals gives the divisions a very strong incentive to keep producing referees. Connecting the number of entrants with the number of referees sent should help, if not cure, the shortage in referees at Nationals.

So, what do you think?

[noodle]

i think some divisions won't be able to make the requisite number of refs available no matter how much help they get, and will subsequently be forced to tell people they can't compete (directly or indirectly). i don't want to be the one to be told or find out after the fact that if we could've sent one more ref, i would've fenced at nationals. its not fair to base my qualification on the state of refs in my division and not my actual skill level.

or the opposite, divisions will be able to qualify more people on the basis that their division has a lot of refs.

maybe this is a better solution: somehow get the USFA to mandate that the division chair and vice chair must both be rated refs and must ref for at least one nac and/or nationals a year. that would at least bump up the numbers a little bit and in a reasonably fair way.

[The0ne]

Not a bad system, but expanding nationals means two other things too. . . Bigger venues and more events. Bigger venues means that the USFA will have to pay much more on that side, and more events means having the venue for longer. . . For me that's the only concern, otherwise I think it would be a good idea.

[davesaint]

The one thing that could also be done, if there was a division for every rate classification, would be to have seperate divisional championships like the USFA did with the Div1 championships this year. You could hold them on different weekends and rotate them through different cities. I think this would help expand interest even more. I do think that the cut for the Division 3 qualifiers were a little bit to low this year. I would have liked to see them set at about 50% of your division 3 qualifier tournament. I think the more people who qualify and go to national tournaments, the more they will stick with fencing. National tournaments are such a blast.

[fluidfencer]

You can't make it mandatory for a division chair to be a rated referee. This is a volunteer position. I see that position as one that develops the sport, and a better way to do that is gather people who would be willing to get certified and make arrangements with the USFA for training. I thinks it's harder to find good leaders than good referees.

Originally Posted by noodle

i think some divisions won't be able to make the requisite number of refs available no matter how much help they get, and will subsequently be forced to tell people they can't compete (directly or indirectly). i don't want to be the one to be told or find out after the fact that if we could've sent one more ref, i would've fenced at nationals. its not fair to base my qualification on the state of refs in my division and not my actual skill level.

or the opposite, divisions will be able to qualify more people on the basis that their division has a lot of refs.

maybe this is a better solution: somehow get the USFA to mandate that the division chair and vice chair must both be rated refs and must ref for at least one nac and/or nationals a year. that would at least bump up the numbers a little bit and in a reasonably fair way.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by noodle

i think some divisions won't be able to make the requisite number of refs available no matter how much help they get, and will subsequently be forced to tell people they can't compete (directly or indirectly). i don't want to be the one to be told or find out after the fact that if we could've sent one more ref, i would've fenced at nationals. its not fair to base my qualification on the state of refs in my division and not my actual skill level.

or the opposite, divisions will be able to qualify more people on the basis that their division has a lot of refs.

maybe this is a better solution: somehow get the USFA to mandate that the division chair and vice chair must both be rated refs and must ref for at least one nac and/or nationals a year. that would at least bump up the numbers a little bit and in a reasonably fair way.

It would be very bad not to be able to go to Nationals because your division didn't have enough refs, but this is an incentive for the division to keep up a referee training program. It would also have to be determined what the fencer/ref ratio would be. I was not suggesting the WC ratio of one ref for every 4 fencers.

I didn't mean to inply that because a division has more refs that it could send more fencers, but that if a division(large qualifing tournament) sent more fencers it would have to send more refs.

I also don't believe that if we're talking a 'D', 'E' and 'U' championship the refs would have to be 5s-that would be a waste of manpower(womanpower too).

Your suggestion about the division officers would restrict those positions only to people who had ref ratings, I don't think that can be legally done. Though if you required those officers to become rated refs during their terms.......

[noodle]

Originally Posted by fluidfencer

You can't make it mandatory for a division chair to be a rated referee. This is a volunteer position. I see that position as one that develops the sport, and a better way to do that is gather people who would be willing to get certified and make arrangements with the USFA for training. I thinks it's harder to find good leaders than good referees.

no...you can. but it won't happen. the general idea is that there is no way that anyone can require referees in any way shape or form and still be fair and/or reasonable. the job of being a referee is voluntary in itself. the best way to get more people to ref is for the usfa to pay them more or give them more benefits of some sort. you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, after all.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by The0ne

Not a bad system, but expanding nationals means two other things too. . . Bigger venues and more events. Bigger venues means that the USFA will have to pay much more on that side, and more events means having the venue for longer. . . For me that's the only concern, otherwise I think it would be a good idea.

I don't see why it would mean a bigger venue, unless you tried to get it all done in the same amount of time.

Having a venue longer might mean having to pay less per day. Rental cars are an example; day rate vs. weekly rate.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by davesaint

The one thing that could also be done, if there was a division for every rate classification, would be to have seperate divisional championships like the USFA did with the Div1 championships this year. You could hold them on different weekends and rotate them through different cities. I think this would help expand interest even more. I do think that the cut for the Division 3 qualifiers were a little bit to low this year. I would have liked to see them set at about 50% of your division 3 qualifier tournament. I think the more people who qualify and go to national tournaments, the more they will stick with fencing. National tournaments are such a blast.

This is an interesting idea, but it defeates supposed savings of having everything at one venue(shipping strips all over) and penalizes those fencers who qualify in more than one division. National tournaments ARE a blast and part of that fun is watching higher ranked fencers fence.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by noodle

the general idea is that there is no way that anyone can require referees in any way shape or form and still be fair and/or reasonable. the job of being a referee is voluntary in itself. the best way to get more people to ref is for the usfa to pay them more or give them more benefits of some sort. you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, after all.

The general model I used is one that already exsits, the WCs. Of course sending refs to a WC event is easier with less fencers, but also harder needing higher rated refs.

It just seems to me that fencers are always saying, "What's the USFA going to do for ME?" Well, what do the divisions do for the USFA? Just hold qualifing tournaments. I don't think it's unreasonable(of course ) that the USFA require more from the divisions.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

The general model I used is one that already exsits, the WCs. Of course sending refs to a WC event is easier with less fencers, but also harder needing higher rated refs.

It just seems to me that fencers are always saying, "What's the USFA going to do for ME?" Well, what do the divisions do for the USFA? Just hold qualifing tournaments. I don't think it's unreasonable(of course ) that the USFA require more from the divisions.

i think the usfa and the divisions have a reasonably symbiotic relationship as it stands. divisions don't "just" hold qualifying tournaments. they promote general fencing inside its borders. as stated in previous threads, some divisions help out new clubs and such, they help out with local tournaments, et al, all of which helps to maintain and increase the number of dues-paying members of the usfa.

<i>edited to add:</i> forgot to mention the wc ref stuff. yeah, we send refs with our fencers. but its a bit of a smaller scale. we, as a country, only send a few fencers and only have a few fie refs. look at france, i bet they have a bajillion fie refs that can rotate around to go to wcs (this is opinion, not based on any actual fact) whereas we don't really have all that many. those few refs, though, join with the other countries' refs and in the end, they have plenty of refs. we don't have that luxury. the vast majority of competent refs attend nacs/nationals with regularity in order to help out. the problem is that we just do not have many good and/or rated refs.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by noodle

divisions don't "just" hold qualifying tournaments.

<i>edited to add:</i> forgot to mention the wc ref stuff. yeah, we send refs with our fencers. but its a bit of a smaller scale. we, as a country, only send a few fencers and only have a few fie refs. look at france, i bet they have a bajillion fie refs that can rotate around to go to wcs (this is opinion, not based on any actual fact) whereas we don't really have all that many. those few refs, though, join with the other countries' refs and in the end, they have plenty of refs. we don't have that luxury. the vast majority of competent refs attend nacs/nationals with regularity in order to help out. the problem is that we just do not have many good and/or rated refs.

What I meant is that all the divisions are required to do as part of the USFA is hold division qualifying tournaments. Some divisions do no more than that. Requiring the divisions as being part of the USFA to produce rated refs and have them availible for the Summer Nationals is, I think, not too much to ask.

In describing the WC situation you've proven my arguement. My division is a small division, we only send a few fencers to Nationals and have only a few rated refs. Other divisions have plenty of refs(ie New England, Metro etc). So our few refs join with the other division's refs and in the end we have plenty of refs for Nationals.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

What I meant is that all the divisions are required to do as part of the USFA is hold division qualifying tournaments. Some divisions do no more than that. Requiring the divisions as being part of the USFA to produce rated refs and have them availible for the Summer Nationals is, I think, not too much to ask.

ask, no. of course not. make manditory to qualify more people, yes. for example, i bet i can count the number of rated directors in my division on one hand. maybe two. we don't have many people willing or qualified to become rated. as i said before, if the usfa makes it a sweeter deal to be a ref we might have a bit more of a crop.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

On another thread I argued for the expansion, rather than the shrinking of Summer Nationals. I still believe that the expansion of the Nationals has resulted in the huge growth in USFA membership in recent years. I don't have any hard evidence for this, just a couple of decades of observation.

I would like to see the Summer Nationals expanded further to include a Division for every ranking, including Unranked. When I brought this up in the other thread there were several objections, the most salient of which was the lack of referees. So, here is my idea; the USFA adopt something along the lines of what the FIE does for the World Cup events, namely require the indivual divisions to make referees availible for Summer Nationals according to how many people a division sends to Nationals.

No, I don't know who will pay for this.

Yes, I know that the USFA needs to do more to help some Divisions produce more referees.

I don't see anything to keep the USFA from requiring help from it's member divisions. My division doesn't have a referee training program, we did at one time, but the division leadership let it fade away. Intertwining producing referees and competiting at Nationals gives the divisions a very strong incentive to keep producing referees. Connecting the number of entrants with the number of referees sent should help, if not cure, the shortage in referees at Nationals.

So, what do you think?

I see a lot of problems. Some of which have been mentioned that involve, money, time, referee shortage, and more money.

Really, I feel that what should happen is what is happening with the youth events. Regional tournaments.

Build strong regional tournaments, of varying levels. From these regional events, people qualify to the national tournaments.

It would be possible to have manageable, strong national events, but still energize the less experienced fencers through strong regional events..

[Schiavona]

I guess what I would like to see is the USFA making it manditory for the divisions to have and MAINTAIN a referee training program. As to joining how many refs you can send to how many people qualify for Nationals, I don't see it as being all that different from tieing how many people fence in the qualifying tournament to how many get to go. "Oh man! You mean if Bob had fenced, I could have gone to Nationals? *&%$@#!!!"

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by achilleus

I see a lot of problems. Some of which have been mentioned that involve, money, time, referee shortage, and more money.

Really, I feel that what should happen is what is happening with the youth events. Regional tournaments.

Build strong regional tournaments, of varying levels. From these regional events, people qualify to the national tournaments.

It would be possible to have manageable, strong national events, but still energize the less experienced fencers through strong regional events..

We had this twenty years ago and it did nothing. You had to go through your 'region'-section to get to Nationals. Div II/III comes along and you have huge growth.

I started fencing in the late 70's, AFLA/USFA membership was around 6,000-7,000. A couple of years before the advent of Div II/III membership was around 8,000+. So, in, what 6 years?, the membership jumps to 17,000. All I can really point to as an explaination is the expanded Summer Nationals. Being an empirical kind of guy, I say go with what works.

[noodle]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

I guess what I would like to see is the USFA making it manditory for the divisions to have and MAINTAIN a referee training program. As to joining how many refs you can send to how many people qualify for Nationals, I don't see it as being all that different from tieing how many people fence in the qualifying tournament to how many get to go. "Oh man! You mean if Bob had fenced, I could have gone to Nationals? *&%$@#!!!"

they can't just make it manditory that we have an FOC examiner in every division. being an examiner is a voluntary position and we don't have nearly enough of them (well, we do i suppose, but the problem is that there's like 50 billion in one area. just like the fencing population). and the reason why you shouldn't tie those numbers together is simple: one is based on the actual fencers' quality and numbers, the other is based on random people who want to be refs. you would be pissed if someone told you that you couldn't fence at nationals because we didn't have enough people volunteer to learn the rules in the area.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by Schiavona

We had this twenty years ago and it did nothing. You had to go through your 'region'-section to get to Nationals. Div II/III comes along and you have huge growth.

I started fencing in the late 70's, AFLA/USFA membership was around 6,000-7,000. A couple of years before the advent of Div II/III membership was around 8,000+. So, in, what 6 years?, the membership jumps to 17,000. All I can really point to as an explaination is the expanded Summer Nationals. Being an empirical kind of guy, I say go with what works.

I'm not saying get rid of Summer Nationals. Just not expand it they way you recommend.

Just adding regional qualifying events would make things more manageable and still allow fencing to grow.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by achilleus

I'm not saying get rid of Summer Nationals. Just not expand it they way you recommend.

Just adding regional qualifying events would make things more manageable and still allow fencing to grow.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying. In the bad old days, you qualified at the division level to go to Sectionals and if you qualified at Sectionals, you went to Nationals.

Under this system we really saw no growth. I guess I can't get over how much things have grown over the last 5 years. I went to Nationals in 1997, there were 1500 entrants and it was the biggest tournament in the USFA's history. I've been away from fencing since the