Super Youth Circuit decisions?

[happy]

After sifting through all the information, I have one (sticky) question I'm not sure has been answered -

As far as Y14 fencers hoping to qualify for nationals through being on the points list:

Will any of the SYC results be included in the RPS by the May 1 deadline?

If they wait until the final SYC to update the points list (replacing last year's Super RYC results), then all SYC results will be irrelevant for SN qualifications, right?

If so, the April NAC and the local qualifiers will be the only way for fencers to qualify for SNs (unless they are already on the RPS with NAC or SN points).

This impacts kids on the RPS whose points are from last year's SRYCs - as well as those who aren't on the list. (I guess the most negatively impacted fencers would be those that are in the midwest who earned points last year but won't have a relevant SYC to compete at this year in their area.)

One way or another, it would behoove the USFA to get this information clear and communicate it so people don't miss out on the opportunity to compete because they miss the local qualifiers, thinking they have points from last year or hoping to get points at an SYC this year. Maybe even relax the local qualifier standards this one year to give people who only have one shot a bit of a break.

My apologies if this has been asked/answered already...

[edew]

I have talked with a lot of coaches this week. I was looking for advice on the role of RYC Coordinators, but you can imagine that we discussed other things as well (more than one talked almost without pause for nearly an hour, which is not necessarily a bad thing).

One of the comments made by many, even if not directly, was that the sport of fencing seemed poised for some serious growth. Despite our growing pains, I genuinely believe the next several years are going to be pretty darned exciting.

We are indeed poised. But without a proper (competition) structure in place to deal with a 50-75% growth in the sport in the next few years, we will easily see that growth drop back to the nice manageable levels of 18-20K USFA members with about 6-12K active fencers.

[foildad]

[QUOTE=happy]After sifting through all the information, I have one (sticky) question I'm not sure has been answered -

As far as Y14 fencers hoping to qualify for nationals through being on the points list:

Will any of the SYC results be included in the RPS by the May 1 deadline?

QUOTE]

It hasn't been answered, so I asked the USFA, and was told that the San Jose and NYC points will be added to the NRPS before May 1.

[foildad]

After sifting through all the information, I have one (sticky) question I'm not sure has been answered -

As far as Y14 fencers hoping to qualify for nationals through being on the points list:

Will any of the SYC results be included in the RPS by the May 1 deadline?

If they wait until the final SYC to update the points list (replacing last year's Super RYC results), then all SYC results will be irrelevant for SN qualifications, right?

If so, the April NAC and the local qualifiers will be the only way for fencers to qualify for SNs (unless they are already on the RPS with NAC or SN points).

This impacts kids on the RPS whose points are from last year's SRYCs - as well as those who aren't on the list. (I guess the most negatively impacted fencers would be those that are in the midwest who earned points last year but won't have a relevant SYC to compete at this year in their area.)

One way or another, it would behoove the USFA to get this information clear and communicate it so people don't miss out on the opportunity to compete because they miss the local qualifiers, thinking they have points from last year or hoping to get points at an SYC this year. Maybe even relax the local qualifier standards this one year to give people who only have one shot a bit of a break.

My apologies if this has been asked/answered already...

I asked the USFA and was told that San Jose and NYC points will be posted prior to May 1.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Let me butt in here, as I feel a little awkward contradicting my superiors in a way like this: Has anyone considered the opinions of the youth fencers that will actually be competing in these events?

[edew]

Offer one up here.

I do know that the final arbiters aren't the fencers themselves, but the coaches and the parents. If those two say jump, the kid asks how high.

[happy]

I asked the USFA and was told that San Jose and NYC points will be posted prior to May 1.

Ok, thanks, so the two SYC's are relevant for SN qualification.

This may be obvious from the rules, but does this mean last year's SRYC points will be replaced entirely by May 1?

[fluidfencer]

I have been told that there will be announcement about the May Super Youth in Kansas City with respect to qualification to Summer Nationals. I don't know what day that announcement will be made but it should be soon.

Please don't ask for additional information until it is made public through the USFA web site or by a USFA email newsletter.

David Arias
YDC
205-515-3902

[edew]

I would like to personally thank David (fluidfencer) for his up-to-the-minute correspondence on what USFA is up to. As yet, I have not received any information directly from USFA or the YDC concerning any regional stuff. And I'm a regional coordinator.

I guess I'll just go at it alone and wing it.

[fluidfencer]

Thanks Eric. I wish I had an idea of how many key people are getting this information. I have had some pretty candid discussions to address the "communication problem".

Last week I spent a lot of time talking with RYC Coordinators around the country. I did not bother you because you and I have talked quite a bit over the years. My task, at present, is developing guidelines related to the RYC Coordinators. People were genuinely glad that the YDC was taking the time to learn more.

Let me say that the RYC Coordinator ("RYCC") guidelines will likely be something like those of the RYCs themselves. It should provide guidance but be flexible enough so that the RYCC in the Southeast can run things in a way that best fits our region, which will be different from what you do in CA or Eric Rosenberg does in NY.

Most of the work involves getting the calendar ready this summer, and helping to collect results and other data as the RYCs are finished. You know the capabilities of clubs in your region better than I could.

You can see where the RYCC is a very important person.

Related to that is knowing how the regions are defined so we can make sure that all the states are covered. As we have discussed, regional boundaries themselves are not really important.

We are preparing the proposal that will go to the BoD in February for their consideration, not a vote. They will have an opportunity to review the information, and ask others for advice, before putting it to a vote. There won't be a repeat of this fall. The process won't be rushed. Hopefully, it will lead to the very best decision.

I think the news blackout to the RYCCs so far has been due to the crisis management aspect of this season. The YDC doesn't want to provide information about what we expect to happen and then it not happen at all, or be something completely different. We should be able to prevent that, but patience is justified. We will probably ask the current RYCCs to start the process of planning, in general terms, next season. You have already started that process.

Question... Did I see somebody mention that the USFA calendar for NEXT season was available or posted somewhere?

I would like to personally thank David (fluidfencer) for his up-to-the-minute correspondence on what USFA is up to. As yet, I have not received any information directly from USFA or the YDC concerning any regional stuff. And I'm a regional coordinator.

I guess I'll just go at it alone and wing it.

[mlr2fence]

I ditto: Thanks fluidfencer for your considerable effort! May I suggest a survey of the Members to see what their thoughts, suggestions are? The whole organization (USFA) needs some visionary planning to handle anticipated growth in all age groups/divisions. This current fiasco proves that. I'd hate to see a repeat. This type of planning can not be done overnight or in a vacuum. Better to be proactive than reactive.

[gladius]

In the winter 2005 issue of American Fencing, page 5, Nancy Anderson, President of the USFA writes in the article, "Looking at the task ahead... A Successful 2004 Paves the Way for 2005," about the successes at the Olympics and the results at the recent Congress of the FIE.

She also states that the task at hand is to ensure that ALL the members of the USFA are winners. After going through a series of definitions of what 'winning' is, she concludes with this statement and question (excerpted)

Every one of you is as important and special to us ... How can the USFA make you a "Happy Me" in fencing? What is "winning" for you?

Now this could be a good start for many of the USFA members and participants in this forum and this thread to tell her what we want. Hoping that Ms. Anderson question is not just rhetorical in nature, but a genuine request for much needed feedback from the membership at large, I suggest that we do so, by setting up a mailbox for our requests, at least the major ones, including the lack of and break in communication between the administration and the rest of the community it is supposed to serve, as it is evident from the postings in this forum and thread.

[edew]

[...]
She also states that the task at hand is to ensure that ALL the members of the USFA are winners. After going through a series of definitions of what 'winning' is, she concludes with this statement and question (excerpted)

Every one of you is as important and special to us ... How can the USFA make you a "Happy Me" in fencing? What is "winning" for you?

[...]

Gawd...now that's two administrations I have to deal with simultaneously.

[oso97]

fluid,

I can only hope that the timetable for approval and such follows the path you've set out, with discussions in February and approval in July. However, where does this leave those of us who would like to submit a bid for a SYC event to take place in Fall 2005?

What about an RYC event in the same time?

How can we begin planning for such an event without any guidelines as to shape or status?

While I respect the desire to "get it right" and have a program in place that satisfies as many people as possible, I submit that even more important is actually having a program in place, as early as possible. As I've said over and over again, we all have our views on what the "best" program looks like, but most of those differences are indeed relatively minor. I think most of us would in fact settle for a program that we could get behind, with any plan, so long as it was coherent and thought out.

Or to put it another way, lay out the ground rules, and let us follow them, and we'll get on board.

However, since in this case, the ground rules say that we're going to have to wait until July to be able to plan for 2005-2006, we're just going to have to wait. And that's assuming that some faction of the "oppressed" doesn't coalece in July to block passage at that point - which is my biggest fear.

[fluidfencer]

I don't recall how specific I was in an earlier post. What I have been told will happen is that the YDC proposal will be given to the Board in February, but the vote will be made in the spring, well before July. This is specifically to allow time to get the calendar in place and finalized by August 1, 2005 at the latest.

You will have time to submit a bid without being unfairly rushed.

You are absolutely correct about setting rules and expectations up front. I am in the exact same position with my club and as a RYC Coordinator. Seriously... this is not rocket science.

fluid,

I can only hope that the timetable for approval and such follows the path you've set out, with discussions in February and approval in July. However, where does this leave those of us who would like to submit a bid for a SYC event to take place in Fall 2005?

What about an RYC event in the same time?

How can we begin planning for such an event without any guidelines as to shape or status?

While I respect the desire to "get it right" and have a program in place that satisfies as many people as possible, I submit that even more important is actually having a program in place, as early as possible. As I've said over and over again, we all have our views on what the "best" program looks like, but most of those differences are indeed relatively minor. I think most of us would in fact settle for a program that we could get behind, with any plan, so long as it was coherent and thought out.

Or to put it another way, lay out the ground rules, and let us follow them, and we'll get on board.

However, since in this case, the ground rules say that we're going to have to wait until July to be able to plan for 2005-2006, we're just going to have to wait. And that's assuming that some faction of the "oppressed" doesn't coalece in July to block passage at that point - which is my biggest fear.